Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Monday 7 October 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Monday, 7th October 2024 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Good evening, Councillors and those watching tonight's committee. Welcome to the meeting
of the Transport Committee. I'm just going to pause because I can hear myself and that's
slightly off -putting, so yeah, thank you. This meeting is being webcast because I just
heard myself through something else and some offices may be accessing virtually, which
certainly case for one of our papers this evening. So please do bear with us
if you experience any technical difficulties. My name is Councillor
Fraser, I'm chair of the Transport Committee. Welcome this evening and
especially welcome to Councillor Austin who's joining us for the first
committee meeting of the Transport Committee this evening. Members of the
committee, I'm going to move to my left in a minute so that you can introduce
yourself. Please turn on your microphone and confirm your attendance. Once you've
confirmed your attendance please remember to switch off your microphone.
So I'll go to my left now.
Councillor Milke.
Hello, Councillor Milke, it's Trinity Ward.
Tony Bilton, Battersea Park Ward in Battersea.
Anna Marie Critchard, Tooty Beck Ward.
Councillor Nick Alston, West Putney Ward.
Councillor John Locker, Thamesfield Ward, Putney.
Thank you.
and also in terms of this evening is Councilor Yates, the cabinet member for transport.
Apologies for absence this evening have been received from Councilor Apps, Councilor Hamilton,
Councilor de la Sejour and Councilor Tiller.
Members are reminded to ensure that your microphone is turned off unless you're speaking.
When you're called to speak, please do state your name.
And please bear in mind this committee must remain core at all times.
We also have a number of officers present this evening who will introduce themselves when we arrive at their papers.
So owing to various elections, it's been a little while since we last met, but the

1 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

minutes of the last meeting for those that are around and can remember back that far
were held of the meeting held on Monday 19 February have been circulated.
Please can I accept those as accurate?
Agreed.
Thank you, councillors.
Agenda item two is do we have any declarations of interest this evening?

2 Declarations of Interests

Thank you. So that's our preamble done. So now I'm going to move on to the substantive
business. This evening is Agenda Item 3. We have the Budget Monitoring Report for 2024

3 Budget Monitoring 2024/25: Quarter One (Paper No. 24-271)

and 2025. I'm now going to move to Mr Moylan for that.
Thank you very much, Councillor. Good evening. My name is Alex Moylan. I'm the Head of Finance
and Performance for the Environment and Community Services Directorate. This report sets out
the revenue budget monitoring for the quarter one for the current financial year, so that's
2024 -25.
The summary of the position is set out just under paragraph two, so we're in a fortunate
position to be on budget, or expected to be on budget for the current financial year.
The breakdown is further set out within appendix A as to the individual services, and then
and set out within the body of the report
is information explaining the movements
and variances between budgets for different service areas.
So I wanted to highlight a couple of things
within the parking service,
so that sits within traffic and engineering
within the table on page two.
This is a reasonably large area of volatility
for the council, so whilst we're at the moment
expecting to see a non -budget position,
this is a large area and so can vary quite a lot,
particularly as we've seen in recent days, the oil price has significantly increased
and therefore that will lead, or is likely to lead to an impact on pump prices
and therefore decisions that people make as to the mode of transport they choose.
Within the place division, I also wanted to highlight that there's a sort
of a common theme throughout some of the pressures within the services within place
and it's a common recruitment pressure
and that's a national issue, being able to recruit specialist planning officers has proved
difficult and therefore when you are unable to recruit conventionally you are sometimes
forced to go through an agency route to proceed with bringing members of staff in.
The service has undertaken a considerable amount of work, working with our HR and recruitment
team to develop a bespoke approach to bringing people in.
So we've established quite recently a sort of specialist website where covering all of
planning related services, offering recruitment information within that website to try and
drive engagement.
And amongst other things, there's obviously an intention to recruit the next generation
of planners, and they have brought in a pathway to planning platform, bringing in graduates
and apprentices to try and alleviate that pressure.
But I will be very happy to answer any questions that people may have.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Belton, I saw you first.
Thank you.
Thanks for that introduction.
I'm the chair of the planning applications subcommittee, so I guess I'm the politician
with the most responsibility for the areas covered in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, I think it
is.
Maybe 11 as well, 8, 9, 10, 11.
We have a slight problem there.
I was particularly interested in this last cycle of planning application meetings, that
we lost an appeal and the costs were awarded against us.
It was actually quite a low level of costs.
It was in five figures, I think.
Low five figures.
I imagine that comes out of this budget.
and tell me if we would lose a very large one and there's several very large ones that
would have been possible. Since it's happened, I suppose I can quote this one, supposing
the All England Lawn Tennis Club had gone for costs and won it, the costs would have
been horrendous, I mean seven figures or eight figures or whatever it is. Where does that
come from? The budget's not obviously big enough, it would have to be transferred from
somewhere else, I guess.
Thank you for that question.
I think at that point, in an accounting perspective,
we would intend to record the cost
and report it against the department and service
that it is in relation to.
I mean, I think there will be areas
where the council set aside funding
for unexpected events, certain provisions.
In that instance, if it was a known issue,
It might have featured as part of a legal provision that the Council would set aside
as part of the year -end process.
I'm not sure that it did, but I can go back and check.
But if there isn't a specified budget and there's no available provision, then that
would just be an area where the Council has to incur the cost within the certification.
I suspect it would come out of one of the reserves.
There's always a contingency reserve for things like that, isn't there?
Yes, thank you.
Councillor Critchard.
Thank you.
Picking up on the planning theme, quite interested in appendix B, we have got a table showing
the differences in planning applications, so we have got the two previous years plus
quarter one, so 25 % of this year.
Firstly, could you give us and any viewers an indication of what constitutes a major
application and what constitutes a minor application?
And I've noticed it looks like we're on track to be having more major applications this
year, which I think are the ones that generate more community infrastructure levy that the
Council can then use for other projects.
There is indeed a threshold.
Off the top of my head, I believe it might refer to,
I would probably say I would need to go back to you
to check the threshold.
I think there ought to be a classification
on number of dwellings, so more than 10
would probably sit within median,
but I would need to go back and ask someone.
There may be someone around the table who knows the answer.
Don't know whether Paul might know the answer.
Apologies, Mr. Chadwick.
It's OK. I think you're right with the 10.
But we can get back via Christine Cook.
Councilor Locker.
Sorry, I have a few questions so I'll try and group them.
If I try to follow on with the planning ones, it struck me in paragraph 7
because it's sort of labeled the chief executive group.
But it's quite a big overspend, isn't it?
almost 400 ,000 pounds.
So I was sort of looking at the reasons for that,
and I can see that there is comment
about the number of applications.
So I went to Appendix B,
has been picked up by Councilor Critchard.
But I didn't understand the table
because there is this category called other
in paragraph three of Appendix B,
which is by far and away the biggest category,
and it's not defined anywhere in the appendix.
So could you begin by telling me what that is?
Thank you, Councillor.
Yes, apologies for the not particularly helpful table.
Other will include primarily residential applications and also change of minor change of use.
Thank you.
That helps.
And I think in future if we could just define that, that would be helpful.
It also struck me looking at appendix B that there wasn't any revenue income information
anywhere.
So I can't tell the price of a minor application,
an other application or anything else.
And I can't see what the levels of income are
for any of those categories.
I think it would be helpful in future to see that.
Thank you, absolutely.
And can I clarify when I said residential
at the previous question, I meant a householder application rather
than a major residential approach.
You are correct.
The fees that people will be charged for a planning application will vary significantly depending on the type of planning application.
We have a fees and charges schedule that is brought to this committee every cycle,
but we won't include the statutory planning fees as those are set nationally.
I can make up the table for the following committee cycle to include a little bit more
information about the breakdown of that income by type.
For a major application, it's more likely that the council will have engaged in a pre -app
agreement with a developer, and therefore the developer will pay a contribution to cover
the cost of the officer time for that work.
So they will generally have a larger fee structure.
For the householder applications, we typically run at a loss for the cost that we have to
incur going through the planning application from start to finish.
Whereas for major applications, they will typically cover the cost of time involved.
So this is one of the pressures that we have where we get a change in the volumes of the
respective types of applications.
If we have a high volume of householder applications,
that leads to a greater burden on the service
without a corresponding level of fee income to compensate.
Thank you.
And these are, I suppose, some of my thoughts
in terms of suggestions for sort of future
to just make it easier to read.
Because I was sort of scratching my head
because in paragraph two, the final sentence says
that the fees were increased by 25 % for minor
and household applications and 35 percent for major applications.
Yet, I think in the narrative, and I can't remember which paragraph it talks about, that
this area has not made the income that was expected, it talks about a reduction in the
overall number of applications.
But when I added them up, the number of applications have only dropped total applications in that
table between 2022 -23 to 23 to 24 by 5 percent.
Thank you for that.
So the increase in planning fees was a change that was put through to the statutory planning
fees and it took effect in December 2023 -24.
So previously they had not changed since I think it was in 2016.
So quite a long lead time where we were stuck with fees that did not meet the cost of the
application.
And as part of the consultation, the council made clear that it was the residential and
other areas that or other the householder application which received a lower increase
was part of the budget pressure.
In the earlier part of the committee paper where I refer to the assumptions made as part
of budget setting, so we were moving out of a period of very significant inflation and
And at that point the applications were quite depressed and then we assumed a level of increase
in those applications.
Whilst we have seen some increase, and that is positive, it's not at the level that we
had assumed as part of the budget setting.
But that will happen with almost any service where there is a degree of volatility and
the level of demand for that process.
Council Critchard, you want to come back?
Yes, thank you. Moving on to another aspect of the budget setting, I noticed in paragraph 16,
we've actually, the fact that the TFL's fares have been frozen has actually given us a benefit with
not having to pay as much for the freedom passes and we've actually had a rebate and I was just
that seems like very good news.
It is good news, yes, absolutely. Thank you, Councillor.
So as it sets out in the report, typically you would have a rolling balance that would roll over to next year.
I think because of the scale of this it was agreed it's sensible to rebate to the boroughs.
Councillor Locker.
Sorry to just go back. Thank you very much for the verbal update you gave me.
that makes a lot more sense than it did
when I was reading the paper.
If I could sort of turn to a positive,
or what I think might be an opportunity now,
the paper talks about the new software
that's being implemented,
and the opportunity for efficiency.
So I'd just like to ask,
because presumably there is a business case
that was signed off to invest in this new software,
what are the efficiencies that we are expecting from it,
and will we be tracking that so in next year's paper,
or version of this paper,
that we can see the savings that we've made.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
You mentioned the original business case for this.
I think the original was established
probably about six or seven years ago,
So it is a very long -standing intention
to develop the combined planning system.
So obviously, we're very positive
that we're reaching the end of this.
I think it's a good practice as part of all major software
implementations or major projects
to have that ongoing review process.
And I'm sure that will be the case as part of this,
that there will be a review of what the software was intended
to achieve both in terms of the capacity for the planners to offer a better service, but
also in terms of the capacity for the team to either make efficiencies or to free up
officer time to focus on other areas.
So I'm sure that will be something that will be considered internally by the officer group.
Thank you.
Councillor Belton.
I can assure Councillor Locker, I'm not sure this has been on the planning applications
committee at least for a long, never, right?
I think the Planning Applications Committee, from my experience, and I suspect Councillor
Cridgeard's experience, the actual members use the software much more in their day -to -day
work because we're always looking at the plans and the diagrams on the system.
And I can assure him that members of both sides have been desperate for upgrade for
years.
So your side was certainly with us on this years before the last election.
Councillor Locker.
I thank Councillor Belton for that reassurance.
Can I move on to my next theme?
Yeah, go on.
So I think this is probably one for the cabinet member actually, or the next couple for the cabinet member.
Paragraph five talks about the fact that we're seeing changes in motorist behavior.
And I think this is sort of code for people are giving up cars or reducing the number of cars that they've got.
They're driving less and parking less.
And that's having an impact on the amount of parking income levels.
So I think this is a really big strategic question actually for the council in terms of
What are we going to do to fill?
That funding gap in future years people are behaving in the way that we want them to in the way that we've encouraged them to
So how are we going to fill that funding gap?
Is it the council's policy to just continue to increase the parking charges by above inflation in future years?
years. Thank you, Councillor Locker. First of all,
I think we should go to Mr Tiddley for some information on car usage and ownership trends
in Wandsworth. I think that would be helpful. Thank you, Chair. David Tiddley, the Head
of Transport Strategy. It's certainly the case, Councillor, that the traffic volumes
in Wandsworth have been pretty flat for some years. There is however still substantial
demand for parking and that will remain for the foreseeable future. A lot of the traffic
that comes into the borough is through traffic and some of that's reducing. Other movements
of reducing as well but primarily it will still be a significant demand for parking in the borough.
The first and foremost requirement of the council is to ensure it covers its costs of enforcing and
delivering a parking service and so that will be the thing that will drive us going forward.
There will be other forms of income that come on stream as parking from car parking reduces.
So for example, we have revenue sharing agreements with electric vehicle charge point providers,
the e -bike operators will be providing services and things like that.
There will be some other forms of income that will come in and take place of some of that
parking income.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Belton.
Just to help Councillor Locker's equation.
I think one thing he left out was the population increase in one's worth has been about
10 percent in over the last 20 odd years.
So whilst usage on a one person by person basis has gone down,
it's not gone down as much as it might appear because the number of people have gone up quite substantially.
Ruth, and I thank Mr. Tiddley and Councillor Belton for those points.
But my point is this.
Paragraph five begins, the largest area of risk and volatility within the traffic and
engineering is for parking income.
It then talks about an additional budget provision of two million pounds was added in February
24 -25.
Is that, what are we going to do year after year when that income goes down by two million
pounds or more because that's going to come out of the transport budget for the
council this is an area I think the council needs to be planning ahead for
and thinking about now
thank you just just to clarify I think it is worth pointing out that we
wouldn't expect there to be a two million pounds decline in in parking
income year on year, I think that would be vastly in excess of anything we would assume.
I think we have seen trends over the last 10 years in terms of volume of cars, but nothing
is as significantly excessive as you've mentioned.
I think you've mentioned 5 % in relation to planning.
Over the last nine years, I think vehicle miles have dropped by 5 % within the borough,
So nothing of that scale.
Thank you.
Just seeing a final check around to see if there are any other questions on this paper.
You got a separate theme, Councillor Loughlin, I will allow you because you know your numbers
are down.
Yeah.
I have just one more which is to page 8, appendix A, to ask the cabinet member, because I assume
that the cabinet member has obviously very familiar with the budgets and this paper and
signed it off. Could she just explained to the committee why engineering three
of that table road safety? We are spending less money on road safety this
year than the prior year. Thank you.
Thank you, Council Locker. I think we'll need to turn to officers for specifics
on that budget line.
Regarding road safety, we're doing a whole number of things
to improve road safety, which we have previously discussed
in this committee.
For example, the CLIF Committee unanimously agreed
to move to the detailed design and implementation
of the Queenstown Road scheme between Queen's Circus
and Chelsea Bridge, which will include the provision
of two high quality cycle lanes,
which should reduce accidents on that stretch of road where we do have accident levels that
are of concern.
We're going to be coming later in this agenda to the highways paper where the significant
investment in resurfacing our roads and pavements, again, should help to improve safety for all
road users.
But on the specifics of your question, I think we need to turn to Mr. Moylan.
Thank you, Councillor.
It's probably worth pointing out that the budget from last year has increased to this year
So I don't think it's appropriate to say we we are going to have
spent less
last year within within the service we will have
allocations from
Different different areas and we will probably have had a small overspend on
Previous year. I'm afraid I don't recall the last year but in budgetary terms
we've increased it from last year to this year and this only covers the
revenue by budgets there's significant areas of capital as well thank you
Councillor creature did you want to come in there yeah thank you and I think I
would like to sort of check though that obviously we that's the budget but
presumably if something came up even a big scheme that came up that we really
felt needed to be done in order to improve road safety, one that's new we hadn't planned
for. Presumably that's the sort of thing we would do as an administration. We would do
our best to try and make sure that those schemes were put forward. Is that a reasonable question?
Aiming that at Councillor Yates. Yes, of course, Councillor Critchard. Alex
made it really important, sorry Mr Molyneux made a very important point there. We're looking
at the revenue budget and the point that I was making previously is that there are many
things we're doing through the capital budget with our capital schemes that will improve
road safety. And it is a priority and if there are important measures that we need to take
that we're not taking, then of course we would look at those.
Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Locker.
Thank you, everybody, for their answers. I think what I'd find helpful is perhaps if
someone just offline dropped me a detail of what's included in that spend.
So what was included in the 469 ,000 last year and what's in the 423 ,000 this year.
I appreciate that obviously capital programs and schemes, a big important part of them when we're assessing them should be that they improve safety.
But I also just want to check that we're not cutting back on things like cycle training, the junior citizens programs and
of those sorts of things which are normally funded by the revenue side of the budget.
Thank you.
Thanks, Councillor Locker.
And yeah, we've got some officer movement down the table, so Mr Chung's going to come
back on that point.
Henry Chung, Assistant Director of Engineering.
Just regarding the Engineering Free Road Safety budget, it is a revenue budget.
It's operating covering staff costs and general minor works relating to road safety.
The reason the forecast is coming less is because we've had a member of staff down and that has meant that
We're not forecasting as much spend as we would have done previous years
Thank you and Mr.
Did you want to add anything on cycle training?
So now we are doing we are continuing that as well
I just make a couple of points first of all the cycle training budget is protected and funded
As it has been for previous years and I'd also probably just point out that there are other lines in this in the budget
Which also support road safety so for my own team in the transport strategy budget for example quite a significant amount of
The work that the transport strategy team deals with is is related to particularly school travel school streets and things like that
So that doesn't actually come out of that the road safety line
It comes out of this transport strategy line
Thank you councillors and officers for those explanations.
That paper is for information only can I accept it has been agreed or accepted.
Thank you councillors.
On the subject of continuing with bikes we will now move back to Mr. Teddie for an update
on bike hangers, please.
Thank you chair.

4 Bikehanger Update (Paper No. 24-272)

Hopefully the report is self -explanatory.
The council has a very active program of the delivery of secure bike storage
particularly on on cycle hangers
They were currently
229 on the streets plus plus a number on council estates
The report updates committee to just advise you that there are currently
120 additional hangers that are subject to current consultation
That consultation is currently running live and expires at the end of September.
Subject to that, those 120 bays will be installed.
And then soon after that, we plan another consultation on another 100 bays, another
100 hangars.
And also the report also highlights that we plan 100 hangars in Councillor Haynes in the
States as well.
And I think I'm unaware of any London borough with such an extensive program at the moment.
I might be wrong, but I'm certainly that certainly don't think I am. Thank you
Thank you, mr. Tiddly
We all think bike hang is a great
Is that you think it counts are us then she'll fit quickly on you
Thank you. I thought I'd jump in first before my questions get answered or asked and I've actually got a point reading take off line
There's been
and four thousand six hundred and thirty four bike hangar requests can I have a breakdown of that by Ward
Thank you
First question answered swiftly there we go cancer cancer Critchard
Thank you very much
page 14 paragraph
20
Just gonna say really welcome the reducing in the costs for bike hangars for lower income residents
and I just wanted to check whether the ask for a bit more about the 50 % discount
it wasn't 100 % clear is it at the third and subsequent one surface mum yeah
parents plus children then they'll get start to get them we think it would work
on the every member of the household would get the 50 % discount not just the
extra one. Gosh that's even better than I anticipated. I read it like that and
then I thought no that can't be the case. Oh that sounds really great thank you
and I mean that must be really I would have thought that's a great incentive to
encourage families to all cycle together especially if they... we did once have eight
bicycles in our house only four on the ground floor but it's a lot to have
Lying all over a house with a family. Thank you
Thank You council Beltram
So I'm just intrigued by how this works in financial terms
As I understand it and I wasn't on the committee when these were initiated so I could be wrong
The the contract for providing this was won by tender and we don't get any income directly for it. So
So, the income, I imagine, goes to the provider for providing the facility and the management
thereof.
Why should they?
Did we negotiate with them about the discount?
Or did they volunteer it?
Could we negotiate more?
Could we negotiate less?
Just how did it work?
Yes, we simply negotiated it.
I mean, we don't expect there to be huge numbers of four or five person families seeking large numbers of the discount.
But yes, we've spoken to the operators about it and they're happy to help us deliver it.
In, sorry if I just continue, in my ward and nowadays I don't think it's particularly exceptional,
but in all the big flats which I'm sure you know, all around Battersea Park,
There are many households with shared renting where I could take you to two straight away
this evening if you wanted, was like Councillor Kirchard mentioned, lots of bikes in the place
because they're all young 20 year old hire and there's cycle to work.
They don't all get coveted by this, do they?
No.
Councilman Yorkis.
Just wanna, I guess, welcome the particular focus
on housing estates as well, and just ask officers
if they see that having any positive impact
on improving accessibility and safety
in stairways and corridors where bikes are often locked up?
I think clearly yes is the short answer to that, Councillor.
Obviously, what we don't want to see are people carrying their bikes up stairways
and having them on balconies and all the rest of it.
If we can provide good quality, secure cycle parking at ground floor level
That's easy to get get get into and get out of then that's fine. That's what we're aiming to do
Thank you very much, I'm just carrying on from that point actually I was doing my rounds around West Putney at 630 this morning and
The hang is that there were two on courses road, which are empty
There are two on Tilsie Road, which only have two bikes in them
There was one on here with the others. It's empty and the the question is
We're seeing even when the hangers are in place,
like there are five on the Ashburton South estate
currently that are not half full,
that then the uptake is not being taken for them.
What would you put that down to?
I'll take a punt with the 25 pound or 50 pound
per key charge potentially,
as these are lower income areas in general
with household income.
And what more can we do?
Maybe putting more codes in instead of the keys
in order to try and increase this uptake.
I absolutely agree with the point with regards to fire safety
and it's something that we need to very seriously look at.
But in my ward, the hangars are in place,
but they're not being taken up as an offered.
I think there are a couple of things there worth highlighting.
The hangars which are put in on street,
despite having what I would call a relatively expensive charge,
are basically full, and you can't find a space in them.
The hangars that get put on in the estates, despite generally being managed by the estate
office without a charge, some of those are less used and we'll be working with the
estates to find out exactly why that is the case, trying to make the barrier of entry
lower again by doing away with keys or charges for keys.
And also of course lots of those residents would be likely to be eligible for the access
for all schemes coming forward, and that's likely to include further discounts and benefits
being available for the residents of the estates at lower charges and lower costs.
Thanks.
And I would just, yeah, echo that.
On the ones that go in on streets, I think one went in by me and it was full.
The next day, soon as it all gets around, and WhatsApp groups and different things.
So, yeah, I think they're full as soon as we can get them in.
but I don't know, Consul Larky, you've got a question.
Thank you.
I welcome this paper.
I welcomed the paper a year ago.
And people might remember a year ago,
I was worried it wasn't ambitious enough.
So I looked at what we've delivered.
In paragraph four, page 12,
2023, 24, we delivered 71.
we were supposed to deliver 100,
so we've missed that target by 30%,
or that aspiration by 30%.
I remembered this, and I thought I'd go and look
at the minutes, because I actually tried to pass
an amendment, and I was beaten down by some of my colleagues
obviously who may remember that,
because I suggested that in order to deliver 100,
we should be targeting 120, because we should always expect
that there would be attrition.
So I'd just like to understand,
Why did we only implement 71 in 23, 24 rather than the 100?
Mr Tiddley?
Yes, just to pick up on that table, that's effectively the 43 that were delivered in 2024,
25 were delivered in the first few weeks of the financial year, and they just effectively
appears in that table rather than added to the 71.
Okay so I accept that but that wasn't what was in the paper in 23 or at the minutes.
They were supposed to be implemented in the spring of 2024 it said in the actual paper.
But I think what you're saying is there was some slippage into the first quarter.
Yes they were.
I would argue they were introduced in spring 2024.
But there you go.
Fine, I'll take your pedantry on that.
However, I would just like to raise another point.
I looked at the press release on this.
It says 130, this was on the 25th of September,
so I think it was that two days
before these papers were published,
130 proposed new bike hangars
are to be implemented to cross Wandsworth
and be consulted on.
I've gone through this paper. I cannot find any reference to 130 I can find reference to 120
So do we need to amend this paper?
Back to 130 or do we have to go back and change the press article?
I would rather work with 130 than 120 if it has to be one of them, Councillor, particularly
as we have got plenty of demand for more hangars and as I said 100 have planned to go on to
housing estates as well.
I would like to propose an amendment then to, I think it's 2B.
I have written it out somewhere so I can give it to the secretary.
Are there ones that other members of the committee can read?
I can read out.
Sorry, I think I only did, actually no there's one there.
So if I just read out, so I propose an amendment, if someone will second me, to change 2B to read,
Note the start of a consultation for a fourth phase of, and then insert, 130 bike hanger
installations.
I'll second that.
So just because I'm clear, because the paper we've got here is just an email to Democratic
Services, not the amendment in itself.
So the amendment is changing to be to note the start of the consultation for a fourth
phase of the key changes you're suggesting putting 130 in there.
Is that substantive point?
Yes, sorry.
And I appreciate this is pedantic to many, but actually there is a principle behind it.
I really want to make sure that we're delivering what we commit to.
I think that's really important.
And like I said last time a year ago, I flagged that I was concerned that we weren't being ambitious enough.
I want to make sure this time we are going to deliver what we say.
we promise and what we put out in our press communications. It's as simple as
that. Thank you.
Okay and so just before we move to the vote I've got Councillor Critchard and
Councillor Belton.
Okay, thanks. Yeah, yeah, I understand Councilor Lockers
keenness to make sure we meet our
Obligations the only thing is I don't quite see why to be needs to be changed because it actually doesn't say anything
and therefore presumably we could
what
We could be produce
It's 140 or something, so we could go more.
And I would be worried if we put in 130.
We might be boxing ourselves into a corner where we say, well, we've done 130, that's
it.
We're actually, I think, probably where we might be in agreement is we both would like
as many as possible.
But Councillor Beltin was next.
I don't think it's quite right to say it doesn't say anything.
It doesn't say how many, which is the important bit.
And I was going to make the same point, actually.
I want it to be 240.
I'm surprised at the lack of ambition shown by Councillor
Locher.
And I want it to be 240.
And we can have a Dutch auction.
Jack, he is going to tell me it's 360.
So why be specific?
I think we leave it as it is.
OK, and then I'm going to move to a vote.
This council a few weeks ago faced the embarrassment of having to restate general election results
because it got its numbers wrong.
The only authority in the country to do so.
How have we put out a press release very specifically which quotes the cabinet member saying we're
consulting on 130 when the paper says that phase 4 is to consult on 120.
I'm willing to accept comments on the amendment.
That is not in the scope of what we're discussing.
That is justifying what it's important to get our numbers right at least be consistent if we don't want to amend this paper
We should go back and amend the press article that we've put out there
Thank you. Okay, so you're taking comments on that. So we received notice of the amendment
Seconded so can I say all those in favor of the amendment, please do raise your hands. Thank you all those against
Okay, so the amendment falls. Thank you, Councillor Locker, for tabling that. I'm assuming we're
now at the end of the discussion on the bike hanger point, so returning to what we're being
asked to agree to.
I just wanted to make my last comment.
Okay, yeah, that's why I did want to do a final check around. Go on, Councillor Belton,
for the final word, then we'll move to the vote.
These, by implication, they're either on estates or streets.
Again, I'm thinking about my ward and being very selfish about my ward, but there's a
mile long, as I'm sure you know incredibly well, Prince of Wales Drive, and all along
the back of Prince of Wales Drive for a mile is underused or unused, a few bins, nothing
much.
Anything wrong with putting the bike hangers all along this unused back row
and other not not not necessarily street land in principle now.
Thank you. Is that okay if you can't see the person? Okay great. Okay so coming to the end of the
discussion on that paper.
The committee are being asked to approve the recommendations
in paragraph, in item two.
So A, notes the progress that has been made
on introducing bike hangars.
B, notes the start of a consultation for a fourth phase
of bike hangar installations.
And C, approves the installation of the fourth
and fifth phase of on -street bike hangars
subject to analysis of consultation results.
D, delegates the interim director of place agreement.
and E notes the proposed strategy for increasing the number of secure cycle
parking spaces on estates. All those in favor please raise your hands.
Thank you councillors.

5 Battersea B9 CPZ: Operational Review (Paper No. 24-273)

Okay, Agenda Item 5 on the agenda is on the BATCP B9 CPZ, so I believe I'm moving to Mr.
Chung for an introduction on this.
This paper provides a live consultation result of a CPZ trial in the Falcon Brook and St.
Mary's Ward, this is the second ETO,
experimental traffic order, where we delivered
parking restrictions, so they cover on -street parking
for permit holders only, it covers for pay -by -phone parking,
disabled bay, parking bay, car club bay,
and electrical charging bay.
Over a six month period, we've had very little
representations regarding the scheme,
because we believe that during the first round of ETO,
that we've delivered all the concerns regarding road safety
and the lack of parking facilities
for residents in the area.
Therefore, we're recommending this paper be supported
for the scheme, the trial, to be made permanent.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, and I believe we also have an officer online
as well to answer any specific comments.
So it may well be during the course of,
if there are specific questions,
it may well be that we jump online,
so just to make councillors aware of that point.
So I've seen Councillor Locker, then Councillor Belton.
Thank you.
Councillor de la Sejour asked me to pass on her thanks to officers and for meeting with
her on site so that you could walk through and discuss amendments to the scheme, which
her feedback is have been broadly helpful.
So just wanted to pass that on.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Locker.
Councillor Belton.
Until the boundary changes a couple of years ago, I represented this area shown in the
map and anyone who knows it at all will know that I think I'm right in saying, just looking
around it quickly, apart from the old Livingston Estate, which is now called whatever it's
what's it called, the Falkens.
It's all council estate land.
The whole thing is council estate land
with one or two notable exceptions.
They always are, of course, the 19th century pubs.
And there's a pub on one of those corners, that one there,
which has been converted into flats.
Now it so happens that I had a constituent there
who was disabled and had a disability car.
And there's nothing there at all except council estates.
And after a long time, I succeeded in persuading
the housing department to allow one disabled space
allocated on one of the council estate parking areas.
Which is a long intro to saying,
can we have a bit more flexibility on this, Mr. Tullia?
I don't know whether that happens ever at all,
but can we actually talk to the housing department?
Lots of this stuff, as you will know,
particularly in Engraves Street,
I could go to one estate car park
where it's less than half full all the time.
And there are people with disabilities
like can we get a little bit more flexibility for them
for disability cases?
That's one point.
And my other point, Saturday is referred to,
and again, when I represented it,
I'm sure it's still the case,
the main problem that I recall about Saturdays
was when Chelsea were playing at home.
And it was very specific that on Saturday afternoons,
every other Saturday afternoon, you couldn't park there.
And was that brought up at all?
Thank you, and I think I'm right in saying
this one's Mr. Chung, not Mr. Tiddly.
So yeah, I'm gonna pass to this end of the table.
Residents can request a disabled parking bay
outside their house.
There's a process and application form to fill in
and through the parking team.
And also we can make representations to the housing team
to ensure that provisions are provided
where there is a case for one.
Thank you, Mr. Chung.
Okay, and Saturdays?
So if a dedicated disabled bay is provided,
then it is available seven days a week.
Sorry, no.
It was commented when I...
Councillor Belton, can you put... Sorry, yeah, speak into that,
just for those who are viewing online, just so that they can hear properly.
When I represented this area, which was for a long, long time,
until quite recently,
the main problem about Saturdays in the winter
was when Chelsea were playing at home,
and lots of people were asking for specific
alternatives, like you had to have a permit between three and four in the Saturday afternoons
or something to prevent this happening.
I just wondered whether that was still raised at all.
Councillor Burton, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to go back to you on this because it
looks like Mr. Lane's not online.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Were there any other points or queries on that paper?
Sorry, we may have Mr. Lane online.
We're just checking to come back to Councillor Belton on that one.
Good evening councillors.
I hope you can hear me.
I am here.
We can hear you.
Following avidly.
So just on Councillor Belton's point, the question about whether parking difficulties on a Saturday
as a result of fans attending Chelsea matches had been raised in this area. The answer is that it
hasn't but the area, the controlled parking zone immediately to the, we get this right, to the west
which is our Wandsworth town w4 sub -zone. he is correct there was a problem in that area
and we did indeed change the operational days of that sub -zone closer to Wandsworth bridge
to include a short -ish period of permit holder only parking that operated on a Saturday. so the
in W4 operates all day as shared use parking Monday to Friday and on a Saturday it has
a couple of hours of permit holder only parking designed to prevent the specifically designed to
prevent fans that are attending Chelsea home games from parking in that area but there hasn't been
any expressions of concern from residents about Chelsea fans parking in
the B9 zone. I hope that answers it. Thanks. Thank you Mr. Lane. So I'm just
seeing one final check around. We have nothing further on that paper. So the
committee is recommended to note the outcome of the operational review,
note that the comments and feedback received during the initial six month
operational period which was introduced on an experimental TMO have been
resolved and see instruct the executive director of environment and community
services to make the experimental TMO permanent and update the Northwest
Battersea area parking consultation website and all those in favor please
Please raise your hand.
And the paper passes unanimously.
Thank you very much.
Okay, the next item we have on the agenda
is the annual petitions review.
I think we're gonna have a short introduction
from Mr. Chung on this one.
Yep, this is information only paper.
It provides an annual update

6 Annual Petitions Review (Paper No. 24-274)

on the traffic engineering petition
from June 23 to May this year.
A total of 17 valid petitions were submitted
for further investigation
and this has resulted in a number of crossing to support local schools and
active travel. Thank you Mr. Chung. Do we have Councillor Critchard you're very
fast off the mic. Yes thank you. Something that's occurred to me is is it possible to have a
breakdown of how many of those petitions were sort of paper type of petitions
and presented at council and how many of them were just on our website online
because I think residents can ask for a petition online, they can ask themselves
to have a petition put up on the council website and I'd be interested to know
which of which of these petitions were on the website only, partly also because
that may indicate on how successful or otherwise they might be.
Thank you Mr. Chiang. Sorry Councillor Critchon, I don't have that information to hand but I can
share that with the clerk so that is included in the minutes.
Sorry, yeah.
Okay, yeah.
Sorry, for anyone listening online, there was just some deliberation about what the
cause of that might be in case they heard that.
Were there any more comments or queries?
Councillor Austin.
Thank you very much.
Also, it is incredibly rude of me not to say at the start, and I should have done it, but
Thank you for your warm welcome to this committee
and my first meeting, so thank you very much
for that, Councilor Fraser.
This is a question for, probably for the cabinet member,
actually, as anybody might or might not know,
I live on Putney High Street, and the roadworks
that started recently have been a matter of extreme concern.
There was a bit, matter of debate earlier on
about paragraph four.
So the council's standing orders number 12 states
that a petition may be presented by any member
of the council at any meeting of the council.
However, if you look at the standing orders,
it says that any petition can be submitted
by any member at any ordinary meeting of the council.
So I've decided to dive in both feet first
and my excuse here is it's my first day.
I have a petition which I would like
the cabinet member to consider with a matter of extreme urgency with over a thousand signatures
on it from local residents in in the Putney area with regards to the roadworks that are currently
ongoing on Putney High Street and the extreme traffic disruption that has happened as a result.
I understand that these plans have been put forward since 2019 but the management of the
traffic situation is obviously not abating in any way shape or form and we need to take a much
closer look at this. So my question is I would beg the cabinet member to consider this petition
this evening because another nine days before council is another nine days wait.
Thank you Councillor Austin and again welcome to the committee this evening appreciate you
bringing that but under the standing orders and the way that the committee is formed this
evening we don't have the statute or the capability to take that petition this evening it doesn't
mean that your views aren't valid or considered indeed it doesn't take a
petition to have them under consideration but in under the standing
orders of the council that petition does have to be submitted to full council
next week yeah thank you thank you a member of the public can submit a
petition online at any time but I as a council have to wait for standing orders
it's another nine days wait so the answer is no. So I'd say under the
standing orders of the council there isn't the proviso for me to be able to
accept that this evening there is a in the way that the petitions are formed
and appreciate you say it's your first committee the way that commit the
petitions are submitted are to the full counts are to the full council that's
where democratic services take them it doesn't mean that that just because it's
not accepted here tonight because we can't it doesn't mean that it's not
under consideration it doesn't take a petition to do highlight an issue indeed
we you know we see reports of what goes on across our borough without the need
for a petition so you might say it's no but there aren't there are no formal
standing orders for me to allow that to be able to be taken this evening and so
I've kindly asked you to hold on to that and then submit it at the full council
next week thank you Councillor Critchard you had a hand up I hope this is also
helpful yet is difficult because when you start is normally the petition route
is for something not quite as immediate and for example we've had a lot of
problems recently in the aid with the Thames water work on the a24 but the
route to handle that has it is very different working with officers and with
Thames water and with TFL to see what we can come up with and I think I would say
that our officer team, and in this case it was, I think I'll name check, Mr Olga Nieme
and his team, really helpful about coming out to talk through what was happening and
the teams about what we could do differently. And maybe that, you know, obviously it's your
first SES Council, there are other routes. And the one thing I would say with a petition
route is by its nature a petition is more of a long -term because the officers have to
go away and think about it and deliberate and come back. Whereas if you are talking
to them and they are able to come out and help, actually it can be much quicker in getting
some sort of anything resolved and also understanding if there is, it's just very difficult. So
yeah, that's what I would recommend and our teams have been, are very helpful in that
respect I have had. Thank you Councillor Critchard and yeah other and you noted
the way that kind of other people submit petitions some people submit directly to
the chief executive and that is possible as all but just rest assured you know
that that we have a team of officers and councillors across the borough who who
are alive to the issues I monitor them and keep them under consideration and it
doesn't mean that you know it doesn't necessarily as Councillor Critchard said
that there are processes that have to be followed in order for the petition and
There are a number of petitions that are evidence with their dates this evening that we're looking at.
So I don't know if anyone had any comments on the paper itself.
No, thank you.
Okay, so in that case, I'm just going to look.
So the committee asked whether they agreed to, I'm just going to double check them on the right paper now.
So ask the committee whether they agree to support the recommendations of the Executive
in paragraph 3, noting the list of petitions and instructing the Executive Director to
prepare another annual report in 12 months time.
All those who agree, please raise your hands.
Unanimous.
Thank you, councillors.
So the next item on the agenda, item 7, is the Highway Maintenance Programme 2024 -2025.

7 Highway Maintenance Programme 2024/25 (Paper No. 24-275)

and I believe the cabinet member wanted to say a few words just to start us off on this
one.
Yeah, thank you very much, Councillor Fraser.
So I just wanted to say that we're very pleased to bring forward this paper this evening.
We think it's a very important paper.
When I became the cabinet member, I was appointed in May of last year in discussion with our
officers about our highway maintenance program.
I was quite shocked to discover that year on year the condition of our
Roads and pavements was deteriorating year on year due to lack of sufficient
investment
and that really
You know, it doesn't make sense to allow the network to deteriorate and it's very bad for all road users
and and it was very interesting to
Here on the today program this morning that the AA has just released their
Pothole Index highlighting the UK's worsening
pothole crisis across the country
due to lack of sufficient investment.
And they reported that almost half a million cars
have broken down in the first nine months of this year.
That's 10 ,000 more than the same period last year.
And that cyclists obviously are particularly vulnerable
to injury when they go over a pothole.
And 118 have been killed over the past four years
due to potholes according to that report.
So I think that just underlines how important it is
that we do increase our investment in our highways program.
I'm very pleased that we have also now
covering our housing estates with a proper technical survey
of the condition of the roads and pavements
on the housing estates.
I was also shocked to discover that there had never been
a proper technical assessment as is done for our highways
that the borough is responsible for on the housing land.
So at my request, that was carried out.
So there was a detailed visual inspection,
as there is for the roads and pavements
that are the borough's responsibility,
but not on our housing land.
And that has led to, therefore, a prioritized list
of roads and pavements that will be resurfaced
on our housing land in this financial year,
and we do expect that that program will continue.
And I do really want to thank our officer team
leading this work because it is a big challenge
to scale up this type of investment.
We've gone from 4 .75 million last year
to eight million this year,
and then we'll be going to 10 .25 million next year.
And that is a big scale up in spend of capital resource
on resurfacing our roads and pavements
that do badly need that.
So, I really want to thank them.
They've been working incredibly hard to achieve the program, and I'm pleased to say they are
fully on track to deliver the program this financial year.
But I'll turn with the permission of the Chair, where I suggest we go to Mr. Chung, who can
give a bit more information about this paper.
Thank you.
This is an update paper on the highway maintenance program that was presented in February this
year.
We've added additional 19 -footway schemes and 30 carriageway resurfacing schemes as
a result of the additional funding that we've been granted.
Currently, we've completed over 80 % of the carriageway resurfacing works, and we've done
over 30 % of the footway works.
And we are on schedule to complete the current financial program by the end of the financial
year.
Thank you, Mr. Cheung.
and I just echo the cabinet members' comments about the work of our officers in delivering that work.
So thank you.
Questions?
Okay, Councillor Locker.
I have quite a few.
I mean, I don't know if we want to start with the cabinet members' discussion
or I can come back to that and just go through the technical points on the paper first to you.
Do you want to, I mean, you did them in themes before, is that what, maybe group them together around a similar theme.
Let's do the political bit out of the way first.
Okay.
As the outgoing cabinet member last time, I just wanted to check, because I went through
the last four years' worth of these papers to try and work out what's been done and
what hasn't.
And this is perhaps a question for Mr. Chadwick, because you'll remember that in 22 -23 – so
I went back to February the 24th of 22, that financial, sorry, 21, 22, so February the
24th of 2022.
We updated the program and added a number of roads to it.
So I found this appendix, Appendix B, and I just wanted to check that all the ones that
were green were obviously done.
The ones that were amber, it said, were due to be done.
Were they all done by the end of that financial year?
So the financial year that ended, March 1st.
That's a cracking test in my memory.
In 2021, 2022.
Yes, so we invested the extra money, which he will remember.
Did that programme complete?
I'm fairly confident it did, yes, but obviously it is a very difficult test in my memory.
Well, the reason is, so the investment started under the last administration, it started
whilst I was cabinet member.
In that year, we actually did more footways and carriageways than is proposed in this
paper.
So I completely agree that this investment is needed.
I started it, so I'm glad that you're continuing with the policies that I began.
But in those years, we did 78 pavements and 64 carriageways.
In this paper, we're only doing 48 pavements.
Can we do more?
Well, put that data there.
I think, if that's the case, put that data there.
That's the sort of information we should be having
if we're able to scrutinize how well the council is doing.
I think Mr. Chadwick wants to come back on that one.
Yeah, I mean, like I said, I will come back to you.
My memory is it was a five million pound
overall investment in a range of matters,
including roadway and footpath maintenance yet.
It was a one -off fund, you'll recall.
I think that's the difference here
that Councillor Yates has described an ongoing programme.
So if I could make a suggestion,
what we get each year is a paper
sort of outlining the work to be done.
We never get the report or an inclusion
of what was complete and what has to be carried forward.
So I think a useful addition would be in these papers to say of the
48 -foot ways that we're doing this year when we get the paper next year
It said we did all 48 or we did 46 to have been carried forward so that we have that information
At least then we can keep track on the progress that the council is making
Thank you
Council Belton I
I semi -jokingly quipped just now when Councillor Locker was talking about this, about the number
of pavements.
Can I just suggest that comparing a pavement in Battersea Bar Road is not exactly the same
as comparing a pavement in my road.
I mean, Battersea Bar Road is about six times as long as my road.
It's got a lot more people on it, a lot more, all sorts of things wrong with it.
Comparing the number of pavements does not sound to me the correct place to start.
Presumably if money is being spent, unless the costs have doubled, and I know under the
Tories we had really bad inflation, and you can't control inflation, all that sort of
stuff, as opposed to us getting under control.
So you can't make any direct comparisons.
But surely the money is the more relevant thing.
Unless of course the workers have stopped working.
And according to the money, as far as I can see, we're doing about twice as much here.
Is that not right? It's 10 million as opposed to 5 million.
So twice as much. I think that speaks for itself.
Councillor Lucky you want to come back to the Councillor's question?
There may be many metrics that you can use, right? I accept that.
There may be many metrics that you can use, but my whole point is, and it's been a theme
this evening, because we're not tracking the details, we're slipping on delivery, right?
We didn't have enough information on the planning side, which I think you accepted earlier in
the debate.
And similarly here, I don't think it is as easy as saying the amount spent is equal to
the amount out.
We want to be measuring the outcomes, not the inputs, to make sure that we are being
efficient, that we are delivering more.
That is what our residents expect.
Now I know that I've tested the patience of my colleagues opposite tonight, but please may I gently remind you, my job in opposition is to scrutinise and to hold this council to account.
And that's all I'm doing this evening. I'm sorry if it irks you, but I just want to keep track of exactly how many pavements, whether it's square metres, whatever metric you can come up with,
There will be methodologies that the engineers can use so that we know that when we're signing
things off, that we come back to a year, things have been delivered.
Because I've cited a number of examples this evening where we haven't delivered what we
set out and what we committed ourselves to.
Thank you, Councillor Locker.
I think we can take away that we can look at a method of reporting back.
I think it's an unfair statement to say that delivery is slipping because actually there
officers tonight who have corrected those points or have suggested other interpretations
and I appreciate you've got a hard job this evening because you are a few numbers down
and I don't think it's fair to say you've irked my colleagues. I've seen them irked
and they're not irked tonight. I've seen them far more irked so you should have to try,
you could try harder but they're definitely still in good spirits so my colleagues definitely
aren't irked. Councillor Austin, go on, see if you can irk my colleagues.
I'll give it a very good go, Councillor.
I mean, I'm going to have to get up even earlier in the morning to be able to beat Councillor
Belton and Councillor Locker to the punch.
I think Councillor Belton does need to realise that since his party came to power, inflation's
actually ticked up by 0 .3 of a percent.
It'll be all those suits that have been bought recently.
The point I'm – the question I've got is on the last page, Appendix 2, Proposed Carriageway
and footway servicing is actually more to satisfy my curiosity than anything else.
It's got planned Heywood's garden, Heywood Gardens, Ashburton and Walgrave House, Ashburton,
Chartfield, pothole repair only by entrance of only by entrance 43 to 52 and then complete
resurfacing access road and car park.
Considering that Councillor Dickerton is planning on putting a block of flats on top of that
car park, isn't this rather throwing good money after bad?
What, so you're suggesting that your residents don't need safe carriageways and footways
in the interim?
Is that what you're arguing?
No, I think my residents would rather have the car park than have the building on top
of it.
So by all means do the car park, but then don't put the building on top of it straight
afterwards.
So I take your political point, and this is the list, and I think representing a ward
where I had an estate that was full of potholes that didn't get touched previously.
I welcome the fact that we're prioritizing our estates and actually giving investment
to our estates to make it safer for people to walk around.
Councillor Locker.
Sorry, going back to the value for money point, isn't that a waste of the money if it's going
to be then dug up and built on in a year's time?
If it were to happen that way, it would.
Mr. Chappell, then Councillor Critchour.
Mr. Critchour, blimey.
So yeah, clearly there's a close liaison between our highway engineers and Henry's team and Nicole Donnell's team and the housing team.
And I can't really foresee...
I can foresee that they've had that conversation
and have ensured that the works that are proposed are valued for money.
Nevertheless.
Thank you, Mr Chadwick.
And the reason I got you mixed up is because Councillor Critchard was signaling to me.
So, yes, Councillor Critchard, you're next.
Thank you.
I would perhaps like to draw my colleague, Councillor Austyn's attention
to, putting aside the one you're particularly interested in, how much on the council side
it's all complete resurface, complete resurface, complete resurface, complete resurface.
Now we've come in, we've looked at it, the cabinet member has said that she has asked
this survey.
It obviously looks like that was a missed opportunity for your administration when it
was in for the previous very long time.
And it's not really fair on our council,
particularly on our residents in our states,
which include councilors, leaseholders, and homeowners,
that they should have a lower service
to other residents on the main highways.
Thank you.
I see Councilor Austin, then Councilor Belton.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for pointing that out.
You have been in power for two years now.
So, first question would be, why didn't it happen sooner
if we were indeed at fault.
And on that, I would have to defer to my esteemed colleague,
as he was the cabinet member at the time.
I think probably on that point, there's now far more
close between the transport and housing teams on that.
But I saw Councillor Belton and then Councillor Mallor,
because were you signaling to me?
No.
Councillor Belton.
Thank you.
But Councilor Locker's having fun enjoying himself.
But he does have a point here.
And I'm sure Mr. Chadwick's right when he says it won't work out like that, it'll be sorted.
Because when I look at this in light of what he said, that's Councilor Locker.
I see, for instance, in the complete resurfacing, Holcroft House and
Chesterton House car parks happen to be one of the empty ones that I was talking about.
could take disabled, but also the whole of the Winstanley estate is meant to be being rebuilt,
bipartisan policy for ages, so both those car parks, I guess in the housing regeneration plan,
are due to disappear in the next decade, it's taking so long, it might be a long time,
it might well be worth resurfacing in the meantime, but there's quite a few here where
I happen to know enough about the housing program to know that the housing people have plans about it.
So I think this needs to be checked out a little bit.
Yeah, and it's fair point in echoing that point down here, so thank you.
Were there any other points that council has wanted to raise on this paper?
Councilor Locker.
Paragraph 34, so it talks about drainage cleansing.
So a question for Mr. Chadwick.
I recall at the end, in my period,
that we hired an additional gully cleaning unit.
Is that still going on?
Because I'm still seeing a lot of drain gullies
which are blocked, and I just think it would be helpful
if we could try and unblock those.
Mr. Chung may be able to help more I'd say, but what I do know is that we've got a, since
2021 -22, we have up to our game I'd say on gully cleansing and on our liaison with Thames
Water where we have gullies that are blocked for, or seem blocked for not to do with cleansing,
and mainly because of their capacity.
So we've had a really good program of work through
both Natasha Epstein's team and Henry's team on that.
But as to the detail of whether we've kept
two gully cleanses rather than one, I'm not sure.
We do have two gully machines that are working.
So one does strategic cleaning
and the other does the reactive cleaning.
So we've kept it at two, that's good.
Councilor Lecce?
And just, obviously as well, if we can encourage TFL,
because a lot of them that I've been reporting
have been on red routes.
So for instance, West Hill, you can cycle all the way
up and down West Hill, and 50 % of the gully drains are blocked.
I'll pass that on.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah, and I just echo my, before I come out,
I just echo my thanks that I've reported a couple recently.
We've had some quite short, sharp showers, which
Which kind of have put pressure on our drains and I think that will exacerbate under climate, with climate change.
But I do thank kind of Mr. Chung and his team for acting on the ones that I've reported near me.
So, Council Locker.
And then another point on paragraph 10.
I think the first bullet point, paragraph 10 has a mistake.
Which perhaps could be corrected before the paper goes to full council.
I don't think, so it's got 56, which is 36 plus 20.
I think what it's meant to be is an average between the two, not the addition of the two.
Unless I'm misreading it.
Sorry, I've just found the, repeat that for me, because I've just got to the bit.
Paragraph 10, bullet point, the first one, A and B roads.
So it's talking about what the average is on A and B roads.
it then breaks down what it is on A and B roads 36 and 20 but it adds them
together I think you mean the average across the two sets I can take it up
with your flying yeah we'll note it down and come back to you on that one thank
you okay with any others council Kritchard
Thank you chair. Two small contributions anecdotally, really happy with some gully cleaning which
was actually done in councilor, reported by me in councilor Mayorkas' ward, the team were
fantastic and dealt with a huge water feature very very quickly. And also to say something
on the pavements team who I think are, we have a large number of them are our own staff
who I think are very good and have done an excellent job. I have discovered this new
disease called pavement envy locally. People all want new pavements. But picking up on
this as well is we've got the investment put down for the housing estates. Is this going
to carry on? Is this just a one offer or is this going to carry on in the future?
I can quite readily say it's going to carry on in the future. Much closer working between
the directorates and much more attention to housing estates is clearly one of the Administration's
priorities and that's what we officers will match.
Thank you very much. I'm just going to do a final scan around for questions.
Various points. Okay, I'm not seeing anything further. So the committee
asked whether they agreed to support the recommendations in paragraph two of
the report, noting the annual highways maintenance program, noting an
additional list of reserve schemes to be brought forward if further
additional funding becomes available and see delegating any subsequent
changes to the program to the assistant director of environment and community services. Can I ask
all those in favor please to raise their hands and that paper is agreed unanimously. Thank you
councillors that brings us to the end of tonight's business. Thank you all for this evening and I'll
see you at the next committee.