Questions from the Public for Written Response:

1) Bromley Council’s webpage on air quality monitoring states that the decision to ‘operate a continuous monitoring site…and supplement this with a significant number of inexpensive diffusion tubes’ was taken by the Council because ‘air quality monitoring is very expensive’. Can the Portfolio Holder share information on the costs of different options considered?

The option appraisal was historic and details on the options considered and associated costs are no longer available. The cost build-up would have included land costs, calibration, quality control, electricity, staff time, licence fees and mobile data charges. Notwithstanding this, the annual running costs currently associated with the monitoring station is approximately £4,500k, whereas the current recurring costs for the diffusion tubes is approximately £1,704 pa for 10 locations.

2) Bromley Borough is one of the only London Boroughs that is not part of the London Air Quality Network. Why is this?

Bromley Council joined the LAQN in 2020.

3) What specific plans are place to deal with potential flooding from the River Ravensbourne in the Shortland’s / Bromley Gardens/Crescent area?

The River Ravensbourne at this point is designated as ‘Main River’ and as such comes under the enforcement control of the Environment Agency. As a Lead Local Flood Authority, Bromley Council works with Flood Risk responders such as the Environment Agency. The LBB web pages direct residents in vulnerable areas to the information and warnings provided by the Environment Agency.

4) What plans are in place to deal with the large amount of litter in the River Ravensbourne (in particular golf balls flowing downstream)?

The River Ravensbourne at this point is designated as ‘Main River’ and as such comes under the enforcement control of the Environment Agency. If the agency chooses to do so they can undertake enforcement action to require Riparian owners to clean sections of river adjacent to their land.

5) Last November a traffic speed survey was conducted on Yester Road in Chislehurst. Can the Committee provide details of the results of this survey and what, if anything, they intend to do as a result of carrying out the survey?

The results of the survey, carried out in Yester Road in the week commencing 11/11/2019 for a period of two weeks showed that the mean speed varied between 18mph and 30mph. These speeds are considered fairly normal, if undesirable when above the speed limit, and would not in themselves trigger an intervention. However, the traffic engineers have recommended some new signs, including at least one vehicle activated sign, for installation in Yester Road.

6) RECOUP state that 10% of all Local Authorities already say ‘yes’ to non-black plant pots in their kerbside collections. These pots are made of polypropylene and have been tested by RECOUP as detectable, WRAP state that plant pots should be collected by authorities. When can Veolia start please?

Less than 1% of our non-recyclable refuse is made up of plastic plant pots and other dense plastic materials. The re-use of plant pots is the best way of minimising the environmental impact. Currently, plant pots cannot be accepted within the green box for recycling because it is not possible to effectively separate and locate markets for all plant pots taken to the material recycling facility and communicating to crews and residents that some plant
pots are acceptable and other are not is confusing. However, all plant pots can be taken to Waldo Road Household Reuse and Recycling Centre and placed in the hard plastics container. The pots wold then be transported to Ipswich where they are transformed into plastic pellets and then sold to make new plastic products.

7) The AQAP uses modelled data and whilst appreciating this is all that’s available, it’s not up to date or measured, and reflects the whole borough, not specific areas and different impacts e.g. existing health issues/ children’s lungs. How will the borough ensure we have accurate, live, measured data going forward?

The Council is now a member of the LQAN and live data will be available supplemented with sensors that measure data over a period; modelled data is considered very accurate as it predicts the measured data well.

8) How specifically will you encourage people to own and use less cars, given PM impacts and reduce non-vehicle emissions. How will it educate residents who have no idea of the impact on PM from stoves, bonfires etc? How will it support residents to afford and access alternative heating?

To answer the various parts of your questions
1. The Portfolio Plan includes details of our activities supporting active travel modes.
2. Our Environment Matters and website include items related to Bonfires and environmental education.
3. Rental properties are required to have energy efficiency ratings, property owners have personal responsibilities relating to the environment, where national schemes are available we will highlight them to residents.

9) When you state “We will be minimising emissions from contractors by smart procurement measures” – what exactly are the councils plans to build targets for environmental impact into all contracting relationships, existing and new, in all areas of council business from stationery to gritters and beyond?

These aspects will be considered as part of achieving our Carbon Neutral for Council Activities by 2029. Bespoke issues will be considered as contracts are retendered and in between times if appropriate.

10) I am concerned that the Minutes of the meeting in November do not actually reflect what happened. As a Hayes resident—very disappointed with the mangling of what was a very good scheme with a more expensive and almost useless ‘scheme’ that enjoys NO community support, I would like to ask: ‘Does the Portfolio Holder agree that the minutes for the Environment and Community Services PDS meeting on 29th January need to be amended to reflect the fact that at its meeting on 13th November 2019, the Committee did not scrutinise a proposal to introduce a low cost version of a Liveable Neighbourhood Scheme?

If I’ve understood your question correctly. No.

11) In January, Chislehurst residents received a letter from Ward Councillors asking for views on a bus route to serve Ashfield Lane. The vast majority of replies from households in our group were negative. Will Bromley be pursuing the addition of this bus route now or at some point in the future?

The feedback from residents was informative and will be taken into consideration before any bus route changes in the area are considered by the Council. That does not mean that the bus route will not change in the future, but given the comments, the Council would need a strong reason to promote a change to bus routes along Ashfield Lane. TfL set bus routes and may take a different view in the future, but at present have informed Bromley that they will not be taking this suggested new route forward at this time. TfL does have a desire that all residents are within 400m of a bus stop to promote active lifestyle options, but any future changes to bus routes would be consulted upon by TfL before implementation.

12) Proposal connects Green Lane Bridleway to the path to All Saints Church and Priory Gardens, encouraging children and local residents to walk/cycle to schools, shops and local amenities. Does PH consider 40mph speed limit appropriate at crossing point for children and seniors given heightened risk of serious injury.

The crossing facilities will enable residents to cross the Orpington Bypass one lane at a time. The accident history did not indicate a need to review the speed limit.

13) When assessing the scheme, did officers consider improving other cycle routes in the vicinity that connects with Priory Gardens; for example from Carlton Parade to Gilroy Way, and the missing 300m of shared path from Carlton Parade along Cray Avenue.

This project was investigated following observations of pedestrian severance and qualified on the basis of the standard Council pedestrian/traffic criterion. As the location coincided with 2 bridleways reaching Court Road, cycle facilities were included.

14) It is noted in the Plan, that there are 6 priorities identified with the 6th being carbon emissions (page 46). As carbon emissions impact all other priorities and additionally the health of people, planet, ecosphere and future generations, where is the plan beyond the 2% direct council emissions?

The Council is leading by example and tackling its own emissions. In January the PDS supported a review by the Carbon Management Team of Bromley’s borough-wide emissions and the identification of further opportunities to influence their reduction through Environment Matters and our website, we will provide information to residents to help them make decisions to reduce their impact on the Environment.

15) Why does the Forward Plan, which runs to March 2021 not include an annual report to the PDS on the Council’s 2029 Net Zero Carbon Strategy as indicated in the report to this Committee on 29th January 2020?

This is the Environmental Services PDS. The Council’s Carbon Policy, specified reports to the ECS PDS on progress towards our 2029 target, that will be captured as part of the performance overview. Updates to the strategy will come for decision when they are required in order to meet our 2029 target. Carbon emissions is a cross-council policy and other departments and their own PDS Committees will consider carbon emissions when they make their decisions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *