Agenda and draft minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2020 as an accurate record.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2020 were agreed as an accurate record.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory

provisions of the Localism Act, Members and co-opted Members of the

Council are reminded that it is a requirement to register disclosable

pecuniary interests (DPIs) and gifts and hospitality to the value of which

exceeds ?50 or multiple gifts and/or instances of hospitality with a

cumulative value of ?50 or more when received from a single donor within

a rolling twelve month period. In addition, Members and co-opted Members

are reminded that unless their disclosable pecuniary interest is registered

on the register of interests or is the subject of a pending notification to the

Monitoring Officer, they are required to disclose those disclosable

pecuniary interests at the meeting. This should be done by completing the

Disclosure of Interest form and handing it to the Democratic Services

representative at the start of the meeting. The Chair will then invite

Members to make their disclosure orally at the commencement of Agenda

item 3. Completed disclosure forms will be provided to the Monitoring

Officer for inclusion on the Register of Members’ Interests.

There were no disclosures of a pecuniary interest not already registered.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion

of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a

matter of urgency.

There was none.

The joint report of the Executive Director of Place (Croydon) and Executive Director for Housing, Regeneration and Public Realm. (Lewisham) is attached.

John Algar, PFI Manager LB Croydon (LBC), introduced the report which advised the Committee of the overall performance of the service provider during the period September 2020 - August 2021.

He advised that one of the recommendations was to approve the proposed unitary charges for 2021/22 of £2.679m for Croydon and £1.517m for Lewisham based on a 64% to 36% split.

Another recommendation was to approve the forecasted contract management and monitoring costs for 2021/22 of £156,007.04 for Croydon and £87,753.96 for Lewisham based on a 64% to 36% split.

John Algar noted that the service provider changed from Skanska to Milestone Limited Services which he advised had not had an effect on performance and service delivery as all staff were TUPE over.

He stated there was an action from the previous meeting to provide an update on the Light-Emitting Diode (L.E.D) lantern conversion business case and went on to explained that Croydon were not looking to introduce this based on savings being passed by Milestone, which is the same for Lewisham. He went on to explain that this was being explored further in a meeting which was due to be held the following day to consider if they go down the L.E.D route and what savings can be made, taking into consideration the 15 years payback.

Geoff Tice (LBLC) added that the Director in Lewisham was interested if the payback period was reduced as 15 years did not help with the savings needed.

In response to Councillor Ali noting that going from a Dim position to L.E.D there seemed to be a small benefit and asked if it was possible to have a joint position with Lewisham, John Algar, confirmed that Lewisham had already agreed a policy and were therefore one step ahead. This made it difficult to justify as the lighting was only in place for 4 years.

Councillor Ali queried the position of looking at it from a financial point of view as he noted that if carbon emissions were taken into consideration there were more savings to be achieved with L.E.D. John Algar responded that finance was a consideration, however carbon emissions and light pollution were one of the major contributing factors when making a decision. Geoff Tice (LBLC) added that there was not a huge saving to be made by moving to L.E.D and that carbon emission savings could be made from light dimming.

Councillor Ali expressed that it seemed that the change to L.E.D was not the best business decision but queried the level of communication with the public which explained the decision and highlighted that despite the high cost the carbon emission savings were minimal. Councillor Codd added that it may be a better option to reinvest the savings from not moving to L.E.D into tackling Climate Control.

In response to Councillors Ali and Codd, John Algar explained that the census appeared to be 50/50 in London. In addition, if the assets hadn’t recently been replaced then the move to L.E.D may  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10/21

The following motion is to be moved and seconded as the “camera resolution” where it is proposed to move into part B of a meeting:

"That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended".

This item was not required.