Croydon Council Meeting: Monday 30 January 2012 Public Question Time Written Questions from Members of the Public

CROYDON COUNCIL MEETING: MONDAY 30 JANUARY 2012 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

Welcome to a meeting of Croydon Council. Attached are the questions from the public and the replies which will be taken at this meeting.

IF YOU HAVE ASKED A QUESTION, PLEASE MAKE YOURSELF KNOWN TO THE MEMBER OF STAFF WHO IS PRESENT IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY, THEN READ THE REPLY TO YOUR QUESTION AND INDICATE WHETHER YOU INTEND TO ASK A SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION - a roving microphone will be available for that purpose.

Public Question time is usually towards the beginning on the meeting and the process for this item is as follows:

The questions will be taken in the order in which they were received by the Council,;

The question and the reply will be taken as read;

The person who asked the question, if present, will then be invited to ask a supplementary question, (if they wish) to clarify a point related to the reply they have been given in the written answer. The length and detail of such a question should be brief and at the discretion of the Mayor, allowing for the time available and the number of other questions which need to be dealt with;

Public question time is limited strictly to 15 minutes - if all the questions and answers have not been reached at the end of that time, the other replies will be taken as read and there will be no further opportunity for asking supplementary questions at that meeting; and

Questions will not be carried over to the following meeting, but it is of course in order for questioners to ask another question on the same or another topic before the next meeting. After the public question time you are very welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting.

Question Question to Cabinet Question From Subject Number Member

P001 Councillor Bashford Mr Alan Crawley Interpretation costs

P002 Councillor Fisher Mrs Caroline Rendle Town Hall mosaic tiles

P003 Councillor O'Connell Mr Andrew Rendle London Living Wage South London Waste Plan P004 Councillor Thomas Ms Muriel Passmore Waste Management P005 Councillor Thomas Mr James Clugston Facility South London Waste Plan P006 Councillor Thomas Mr Shasha Khan Waste Management P007 Councillor Thomas Ms Bernice Golberg Facility Croydon Community P008 Councillor D Mead Mr Andrew Pelling Against Trafficking Waste Management P009 Councillor Thomas Mr Dave Pettener Facility Waste Management P010 Councillor Thomas Ms Eileen Gale Facility Waste Management P011 Councillor Thomas Ms Heather Redshaw Facility Dr Marzia P012 Councillor D Mead Nicodemi-Ehikioya Council Tax collections Waste Management P013 Councillor Thomas Mr Brendan Walsh Facility Waste Management P014 Councillor Thomas Ms Grace Onions Facility Waste Management P015 Councillor D Mead Ms Lynsey Henderson Facility South London Waste Plan P016 Councillor Thomas Mrs Liz Marsden Contract

P017 Councillor Mohan Mr John Cartwright Communication Waste Management P018 Councillor Thomas Mr Gordon Ross Facility Waste Management P019 Councillor Thomas Mr Cassie Nell Facility Waste Management P020 Councillor Thomas Ms Anne Keeley Facility Waste Management P021 Councillor Thomas Mr Paul Pickering Facility South London Waste Plan P022 Councillor Thomas Mr Chris Sciberras Waste Management P023 Councillor Thomas Mr Mark Petts Facility

P024 Councillor Pollard Mrs Lindsey Macfarlane Youth provisions Upper Norwood Joint P025 Councillor Bashford Mr Joseph Figueira Library Upper Norwood Joint P026 Councillor Bashford Dr Rachel Ward Library Alleged Councillor P027 Councillor Fisher Ms Debbie Russell behavior

P028 Councillor Bashford Ms Rona Hunnisett David Lean Cinema

P029 Councillor Fisher Mr Mark Samuel Mace bearer

P030 Councillor D Mead Ms Debby Edmonds Directly Elected Mayor

P031 Councillor Pollard Mr Stefan Merbitz Public Conveniences

P032 Councillor Bashford Mr Alan Corline Croydon Central Library

P033 Councillor D Mead Mrs Holly King Infestations Safer Croydon Radio P034 Councillor Hoar Mr Samuel Edmonds Scheme

P035 Councillor O'Connell Mr Colin Weaving Cabinet Member role

P036 Councillor Perry Mr Michael Rowlanes Not in Service Buses

P037 Councillor Thomas Mr Ken Lippett Penalty Charge Notices Upper Norwood Joint P038 Councillor Fisher Mr Mark Richardson Library Upper Norwood Joint P039 Councillor Bashford Dr Christina Richardson Library

The attached replies are subject to oral amendment by the Cabinet Member or Committee Chair.

From Alan Crawley

Councillor Sara Bashford

Cabinet Member for Customer Services, Culture & Sports

Question No.

PQ001- 12

What is the total cost of full and part time staff, individuals and companies that the Council employs in the verbal, written and printed interpretation of the community languages spoken by people in the borough and does the Council receive any Central Government money to assist in that cost?

The cost incurred by Croydon in relation to verbal, written and printed interpretation of the community languages spoken by people in the borough was £216,641 for the year April 2010 to march 2011 and £134,578 for the period April 2011 to December 2011.

Croydon does not directly employ any staff who provide interpreting and translation services. We do hold a register of qualified community interpreters who work on a self-employed basis and engage their services based on need only i.e. we only pay for the time that we actually use.

Croydon does not receive any central government funding for translation services, however, the UASC (unaccompanied asylum seekers) grant does contain an element for translation services.

From Mrs Caroline Rendle

Councillor Mike Fisher

Leader of the Council

Question No.

PQ002- 12

Can Cllr Fisher let me know if the beautiful mosaic tiles in the Grand Entrance Hall were properly removed and by whom, and then retained before the hideous unnecessary security gate was installed? Also does he think it would be a better solution to simply lock his door?

The Mosaic tiles – removed by the specialist contractors as part of the installation works – are being stored for safe keeping by a specialist Mosaic Archaeologist.

The specialist turnstiles, which where installed following listed building consent, are designed to ensure that the Town Hall Officers can securely and safely manage the busy Town Hall lobby in addition to aiding security in the building as a whole. Installing a lock on the Leaders office would not have achieved this result and in any case there is already one there.

From Mr Andrew Rendle

Councillor Steve O’Connell

Cabinet Member for Performance & Transformation

Question No.

PQ003- 12

Does Cllr O’Connell agree with me that all Croydon’s public sector workers, and those moved from the public to private sector be paid at least the London living wage? And what is he doing to make sure those currently under this threshold are paid the proper LLW?

The Council does not have a policy to adopt the London Living Wage (LLW). Excluding schools and apprentices there is one employee, who is not paid the current LLW and this position is to be adjusted for the new financial year. All employees are paid above the national minimum wage.

Although the Council is ultimately the employer for community and voluntary controlled schools, head teachers and governing bodies are responsible for managing school budgets. The increase in the pay bill from adopting the LLW is likely to carry significant operational implications for schools which have not been assessed.

Requiring contractors delivering Council contracts to adopt the LLW, has the potential to create equal pay issues for the contractors. Should the same contractor deliver the a service for Croydon and another London borough who does not implement the LLW, the contractor may be forced to pay its own employees different rates of pay for undertaking the same work or increase the rates of pay for its employees working on the non-Croydon contract. The first option may expose the contractor to equal pay claims and the second option will drive up market rates for delivering the contracts.

There are a number of far-reaching consequences from adoption the LLW which need to be properly considered before the Council makes a decision over whether or not to adopt the LWW.

From Ms Muriel Passmore

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ004- 12

People in Croydon feel that they have been excluded from the South London Waste Plan consultation process. When will the Council begin to genuinely consult with the residents of this borough to see whether or not they wish to have an incinerator?

As part of the planning application to be submitted by Viridor to the London Borough of Sutton, residents will have the opportunity to send their comments to Sutton Council for their consideration.

From Mr James Clugston

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ005- 12

Incineration breaks down objects into dust size particles that may be more difficult to contain by filtration processes. Has the Council taken the creation of these nano particles in the incineration process into consideration in agreeing to build an incinerator? Could you explain the basis for this decision?

Viridor will be required to submit as part of their planning application an Environmental Impactment Assessment which will be considered by the London Borough of Sutton.

In addition the Environment Agency will be consulted on the proposed facility.

From Mr Shasha Khan

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ006- 12

In 2009 the Cllr Thomas said, "What we have agreed is that the South London Waste Plan (SLWP) will not have any of the things we call incinerators." Local authority web site Lets Recycle describes the planned plant as an incinerator. Was he misadvised or did he mislead Croydon’s residents?

The proposed facility by Viridor is defined by the Waste Industry as an Energy Recovery Facility.

From Bernice Golberg

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ007- 12

I am concerned to what extent the health effects of an incinerator built on the Sutton Croydon border have been investigated. In particular I would like to know which academic literature on the health effects of incineration has been examined by the Croydon Council officers and Councillors.

Viridor will be required to submit as part of their planning application an Environmental Impartment Assessment which will be considered by the London Borough of Sutton as part of the planning process.

In addition the Environment Agency will be consulted on the proposed facility.

From Mr Andrew Pelling

Councillor Dudley Mead

Cabinet Member for Housing, Finance & Asset Management

Question No.

PQ008- 12

Further to the oral answer given at the last Council Meeting is the Statutory Deputy Leader aware that Sutton Council working with Croydon Community Against Trafficking have agreed a statement of principle against the use of newspapers carrying sex industry adverts and what action is he now able to take?

Whilst agreeing that the Croydon Advertiser should NOT accept this type of advertising in the short term it is not possible to boycott the paper as the Council has a statutory obligation to place certain notices in the paper. In the future it would be better and cheaper if such notices were wherever possible in Your Croydon.

From Mr Dave Pettener

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ009- 12

Why does the Council persist in referring to the incinerator as an Energy Recovery Facility when the overriding aim of the £200 million plan is clearly to reduce the amount of waste by burning it? The Council should be open about its intentions, and not hide behind words.

The waste treatment facility proposed by Viridor will be an energy recovery facility with opportunity for export of electricity generated through the treatment process on to the National Grid.

Modern energy from waste facilities such as the facility proposed by Viridor, use tried and tested technology and are subject to stringent European and UK legislation.

The ERF would have an extensive air pollution control system to clean the combustion gases to comply with regulatory emission limits before they are released through a chimney. The plant would only operate under an Environmental Permit issued and regulated by the Environment Agency. Permit conditions would ensure that local air quality was not compromised.

From Ms Eileen D Gale

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ010- 12

As a resident of West Thornton Ward, Thornton Heath, I have concerns regarding the proposal for an Incinerator on the Croydon/Sutton border.

Will the Croydon residents most likely to be affected by the incineration actually be able to have a direct say in whether an incinerator is built?

As part of the planning application to be submitted by Viridor to the London Borough of Sutton, residents will have the opportunity to send their comments to Sutton Council for their consideration. They will be starting a series of public consultation from February 2012.

From Ms Heather Redshaw

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ011- 12

I understand that in 2009 the city of San Francisco managed to divert 72% of all recyclable material from Landfill. Their goal was 75% by 2010 and zero waste by 2020. Is Croydon Council not wasting money on an unnecessary and expensive incinerator instead of boosting recycling/composting rates?

Croydon has invested significantly during the past three years specifically to improve the recycling facilities throughout the borough.

As a result the Council now recycles or composts over 33% of all of its household waste.

With the recent changes to the kerbside recycling and landfill bin collection services, the Council are hopeful that subject to continued support from its residents, to achieve around 46% recycling rate by 2013.

Despite all this investment there will still be over 54% of the borough’s waste that will be sent to landfill.

The proposed energy recovery facility will significantly reduce the amount of household waste which needs to be landfilled.

From Dr Marzia Nicodemi-Ehikioya

Councillor Dudley Mead

Cabinet Member for Housing, Finance & Asset Management

Question No.

PQ012- 12

Please detail a) the amount of uncollected Council Tax outstanding from each financial year since 1994/1995 b) the amount of uncollected Council Tax written off previously due in each financial year since 1994/1995.

Due to the migration of the council tax systems detailed records can only be provided back to 2000/01. However, we can confirm that there no balances outstanding balances from 1994/95 to 2000/01.

Council Tax Debt Analysis Total Bills Total written –off Write-offs Outstanding Outstanding £ £ % £ %

2000-01 (2000) 99,712,376.61 - 2,388,823.18 2.4% 121,973.37 0.1%

2001-02 (2001) 101,960,589.04 - 2,374,018.28 2.3% 172,469.79 0.2%

2002-03 (2002) 106,196,342.87 - 2,326,467.67 2.2% 227,359.21 0.2%

2003-04 (2003) 137,185,887.09 - 2,395,624.44 1.7% 641,980.24 0.5%

2004-05 (2004) 147,363,337.56 - 2,802,057.23 1.9% 861,185.81 0.6%

2005-06 (2005) 156,033,219.08 0.0% 4,205,124.08 2.7%

2006-07 (2006) 166,597,151.46 0.0% 4,727,697.24 2.8%

2007-08 (2007) 175,064,740.73 0.0% 5,377,718.74 3.1%

2008-09 (2008) 182,856,876.85 0.0% 6,174,801.96 3.4%

2009-10 (2009) 190,582,047.29 0.0% 6,746,454.15 3.5%

2010-11 (2010) 194,689,387.99 0.0% 8,693,875.94 4.5%

Total 1,658,241,956.57 -12,286,990.80 0.7% 37,950,640.53 2.3%

The Council take a robust approach to pursuing customers who do not pay their council tax, ensuring all cases go through the appropriate stages of recovery action leading up to liability order. All relevant action is taken, making arrangements and taking deductions directly from benefits or earnings, or proceeding to bailiff action. In April 2011 we expanded our recovery options to include charging orders or bankruptcies.

Since April 2010 up to the end of December 2011 we have issued 41,406 summonses, passed 58,977 cases to bailiffs and from April 2011 referred 9,633 cases to be considered for charging orders or bankruptcy proceedings.

As we take a vigorous approach to recovery each debt and recovery avenue is exhausted prior to write off. Due to this we have seen an improvement of 1.2% in our in year collection rate from 2005.06 to 2010.11, in cash terms an increase of just under £2million. Our arrears collection has also increased by over 50% for the same period, which in cash terms delivers a further £2.3million a year.

At the same time we ensure we support those who are unable or are struggling to pay – by maximising payment methods and providing one of the best benefit services in the country.

In 2010/11 we achieved the highest in-year collection rate ever seen in Croydon. In the current economic climate and as we have one of the largest council tax debits in England we are very proud of the performance level we are now achieving but continue to strive to improve even further.

It is vital to understand that the Council sets its budget for Council Tax by multiplying the tax base, which is the number of band D equivalent properties, by the band D Council Tax charge. The estimated collection rate is now estimated, for Croydon this is 97%. Therefore we assume that our final collection rate will be at that level. Only a variance to the 97% will impact on our future budget.

From Mr Brendan Walsh

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ013- 12

Would the Council acknowledge that the Croydon electorate were misled by the leaflet entitled ‘Our promise. There will be no incinerator in Croydon?

No you were not misled; there will be no incinerator in Croydon. The proposed location of the Energy Recovery Facility is Beddington Lane which is in the London Borough of Sutton.

From Ms Grace Onions

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ014- 12

What studies have been carried out on the environmental impact on Croydon residents of the extra lorry movements in transporting waste to the incinerator in Beddington?

Viridor as part of their Planning Application will be required to submit their Environmental Impact Assessment which will include a review of transport movements for the new facility as a comparison to the existing traffic movements for the landfill site.

From Ms Lynsey Henderson

Councillor Dudley Mead

Cabinet Member for Housing, Finance & Asset Management

Question No.

PQ015- 12

Does the Council have any plans to reduce the Council Tax in wards nearest to the incinerator?

Thank you for this question. Viridor proposals are subject to review through the London Borough of Sutton’s planning process and the scrutiny of the Environment Agency.

If the Viridor proposals were agreed through these process the Executive Director of Corporate Resources and Customer Services confirms that the impact of the changes proposed would not allow the Council to reduce council tax. The Council’s discretion to reduce council tax is clearly set out in the Council Tax Regulations.

From Mrs Liz Marsden

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ016- 12

Please could the Council make public a detailed breakdown of the £990 million SLWP contract showing the costs associated with landfill charges, incinerator construction, incinerator operation, waste collection and recycling?

The South London Waste Partnership are bound by strict commercial and legal obligations preventing us from releasing any further details about either of the bidders’ solutions. The strict procurement rules and the procurement process have placed restrictions on what information the Partnership can share with residents regarding the proposed solution from Viridor.

The need to address the cost of disposing of waste to landfill is an urgent one. This cost has and will continue to increase with Landfill Tax which is due to increase to £80 per tonne by April 2014 and in addition the landfill gate fee will also continue to increase year on year.

From Mr John Cartwright

Councillor Vidhi Mohan

Cabinet Member for Communities & the Big Society

Question No.

PQ017- 12

What provision does the Council make to ensure effective communication with residents of minority language groups?

The Council provides an interpretation and translation service for residents of minority language group based on their needs.

From Mr Gordon Ross

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ018- 12

According to the 4th Report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine the ‘foetus, infant and child are most at risk from incinerator emissions’. Why is Croydon Council ignoring the rights of Croydon children by agreeing to build an incinerator?

Modern energy from waste facilities such as the facility proposed by Viridor, use tried and tested technology and are subject to stringent European and UK legislation.

From Mr Cassie Nell

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ019- 12

Has the Council taken into consideration that an incinerator built on the Croydon Sutton border will have a disproportionate affect on lower income parts of Croydon?

I am unaware of any studies that support your perception.

The new facility whilst being constructed will offer employment opportunities, and once the Energy Recovery Facility is built there will be over 40 people employed to operate the facility.

From Ms Anne Keeley

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ020- 12

If the Council were to become persuaded that the release of toxic nano particles, during the incineration process, presented serious health risks, would the Council still be contractually bound to continue with incineration?

Modern energy from waste facilities such as the facility proposed by Viridor, use tried and tested technology and are subject to stringent European and UK legislation.

From Mr Paul Pickering

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ021- 12

Is the SLWP able to affect the final decision on the type of incinerator chosen by Viridor? Will the final design be based purely on commercial criteria or will it consider the latest, more expensive technologies such as the safer Anaerobic Digestion systems currently being developed and used in Belgium?

Viridor is an experienced waste management company who have experience of building Energy Recovery Facilities.

The final design will meet with the requirements of the South London Waste Partnership whereby modern energy from waste facilities such as the facility proposed by Viridor, will use tried and tested technology and will be subject to stringent European and UK legislation.

From Mr Chris Sciberras

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ022- 12

Following the news that Croydon University Hospital has had to make a payment to Burger King to terminate their contract, what compensation is due to Viridor if the contract for the £200 million incinerator is terminated?

The South London Waste Partnership are bound by strict commercial and legal obligations preventing us from releasing any further details about either of the bidders’ solutions.

From Mr Mark Petts

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ023- 12

Have Croydon residents living nearest to the incinerator site been advised by the Council that property prices are likely to be lowered by the proximity to an incineration plant? If they have not been informed of this consequence of building an incinerator, when will the Council inform them?

Viridor as part of their Planning Application will be consulting with residents regarding the energy recovery facility proposed for Beddington Lane, Sutton.

The evidence regarding consultation with residents will be considered by the London Borough of Sutton as part of their planning process.

From Mrs Lindsey Macfarlane

Councillor Tim Pollard

Cabinet Member for Children, Families & Learners

Question No.

PQ024- 12

Please explain why the Localities Fund for youth provision was delayed in notification of successful bids, and has not become effective as advertised from January 1st, along with the staffing levels and costs for IYSS management and, separately, IYSS youth workers in the Borough in 2010-2011 and then 2011-12?

The Youth Service Localities Commissioning was delayed in 2011/12 due to pressure on management capacity due to the Service Manager being on long term sickness due to serious illness, and the Head of service moving to another Job within the council. However the commissioning process, whilst late starting, was delivered in a rigorous and sound manner. All successful projects have received their payment and are currently delivering or setting up the delivery of their projects.

The table below outlines the costs (including oncosts) of the IYSS Workers and the IYSS Managers (costs provided are based on budgeted figures).

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 IYSS Workers FTE 61.7 48.1 52.9 IYSS Workers Cost £1,846,590 £1,636,743 £2,036,255 Management FTE 7 7 5 Management Cost £431,962 £465,155 £310,642

The decrease in IYSS Workers between 2010/11 to 2011/12 is in part picked up through the new commissioning funds that are being put in place. There is also a shift in funding from management to service provision going forward into 2012/13.

From Mr Joseph Figueira

Councillor Sara Bashford

Cabinet Member for Customer Services, Culture & Sports

Question No.

PQ025- 12

Mary Portas, 'Queen of Shops', has said that local authorities have to play their part in protecting districts. Libraries encourage people to an area; they then go on to use the shops and businesses. Why is Croydon Council terminating the UNJL and so threatening the economic viability of Crystal Palace?

Croydon Council terminated the Upper Norwood Joint Library Agreement due to the fundamental breach of the agreement by Lambeth councillors. Without a functioning committee there was no proper governance over the library and the expenditure of public monies.

There is no link between this and the economic viability of Crystal Palace.

From Dr Rachel Ward

Councillor Sara Bashford

Cabinet Member for Customer Services, Culture & Sports

Question No.

PQ026- 12

I bring my children to Waggle and Hum and other activities at UNJL. This gives me respite and lets me form mutually supportive bonds with other parents. Attending the library is giving my children a great start in life. Why is Croydon shutting the 111-year- old UNJL and destroying their birthright?

Croydon libraries run an extensive programme of baby bounce and rhyme times, Wiggle and Jiggle sessions, and story times for early years at all branches. They also support early year’s nurseries and centres in running these sessions through the Bookstart scheme.

These library events are often themed around information sharing for parents e.g. Healthy Eating, when partner organisations will provide information and talk to parents. Parents get valuable information, mutual support and make friends at these events which are held at every library.

All parents and carers of young children, including those living in Upper Norwood are welcome to attend.

From Ms Debbie Russell

Councillor Mike Fisher

Leader of the Council

Question No.

PQ027- 12

Does the Leader of the Council consider that the alleged behaviours of Cllr Pearson are worthy of a Croydon Councillor and, given, I believe, ongoing enquiries, can he state why Cllr Pearson has not been suspended from the Conservative Group, pending full investigation?

I am grateful to Ms Russell I for asking this question. The “alleged behaviour” is alleged to have taken place on private grounds under the supervision of a private organisation namely the Crystal Palace Football Club (CPFC). Mr Pearson was attending the event in a private capacity as a steward and not in his capacity as a councillor nor as a member of the Conservative group.

CPFC have carried there own investigation and decided that Mr Pearson can continue his role as a steward. This clearly indicates that when presented with all the facts they believe that Mr Pearson did not act inappropriately.

Since his election in May 2010 Councillor Pearson has worked hard on behalf of his constituents in New Addington. I have received a great deal of positive feedback from residents in New Addington ward, who comment upon his enthusiasm, professionalism, and how nice it is to have an effective Councillor who lives in the ward.

From Ms Rona Hunnisett

Councillor Sara Bashford

Cabinet member for Customer service, Culture & Sports

Question No.

PQ028- 12

How on earth can you justify closing the David Lean Cinema, the one oasis of culture in a sea of mediocrity and pikey* behaviour in the London Borough of Croydon? David Lean, a former resident of Croydon, would be appalled - as am I.

Croydon council, like all local authorities is facing significant reductions funding over 4 years, in the region of 27%. As a consequence some hard decisions have had to be made. This included closing the David Lean cinema at the Clocktower. The cinema was not self-funding and required subsidy from the Council, which at this time is not sustainable. Alternative film provision is now being provided at Fairfield Halls under the banner “David Lean at Fairfield”.

* word deleted as considered may cause offence.

From Mr Mark Samuel

Councillor Mike Fisher

Leader of the Council

Question No.

PQ029- 12

Will the Leader please state exactly where in the constitution there is any legal and democratic power for an un-elected “mace-bearer” to order a member of the public present for question time, who may not be able to stand, so to do?

I thank Mr Samuel for his question.

I believe Mr Samuel is making reference to the long accepted protocol at full Council of the macebearer making a request of all those present to stand as the Mayor of Croydon enters the Council Chamber. He will not find reference to this procedure in the constitution as this ceremonial part of the proceedings takes place before the start of official business and before the meeting is called to order.

However, I will clarify that the macebearer does not order any member of the public present to stand up. It is a request made to allow all those in attendance, and who are capable of doing, to stand as a mark of respect to the Mayor as first citizen of the Borough. I would hope that we all continue to uphold this tradition.

From Ms Debby Edmonds

Councillor Dudley Mead

Cabinet Member for Housing, Finance & Asset Management

Question No.

PQ030- 12

Congratulations to the statutory deputy leader on being gonged for, “thirty years service to civic society”. Does he still agree with residents that his sentiments from thirteen years ago, regarding benefits of a directly elected Mayor for Croydon, are as important now as when he was Leader of the Opposition?

Thank you for the salutations. As far as I remember, I have not advocated a directly elected Mayor. In 1998, I was leading the Conservative Group with the view to running the Council in the conventional way with committees.

From Mr Stefan Merbitz

Councillor Tim Pollard

Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Economic Development

Question No.

PQ031- 12

Will the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economic Development, finally confirm plans to demolish the dangerous structure of a “Public convenience” at Gravel Hill? How much has been spent on maintaining this closed facility, including the amount of N.D.R. paid by both administrations to H.M.R.C., for this “business” since 2005?

The old toilet block located at Gravel Hill has been mothballed since 2005. While this is in a poor state it is not considered a dangerous structure or a health and safety risk to members of the public. Minor security works have been carried out to prevent access by boarding up doors and cover the roof since it has been mothballed.

It is the intention of the Council to remove this block within the next financial year however officers will need to liaise with Transport for London to determine when the removal can take place without affecting the running of the trams and arrange for temporary bus stops to be created. Due to the close proximity of the track work has to be scheduled at a convenient time to coincide with Transport for London maintenance thus avoiding expensive closures and additional cost. Quotes for the removal have already been obtained.

From Mr Alan Corline

Councillor Sara Bashford

Cabinet Member for Customer Services, Culture & sports

Question No.

PQ032- 12

How is it that since February 2011, this council still hasn’t managed to fix the fault(s) with the doors and associated mechanisms properly, at Croydon’s central library? Why has the cabinet member for customer services, culture and sport, clearly wasted so much time in doing anything about this?

I thank Mr Corline for bringing this to my attention and have asked officers to urgently investigate this issue.

There are two separate problems with these doors requiring replacement parts and our facilities management company are obtaining quotes for this work to be undertaken.

From Mrs Holly King

Councillor Dudley Mead

Cabinet Member for Housing, Finance and Asset Management

Question No.

PQ033- 12

Will either Cabinet Member whose portfolios apparently overlap, agree that a constituent, who may only have a postal address available and be unsure of how best to report infestations potentially affecting both their adult and young children’s health, should refuse the help of a friend in alerting elected ward councillors?

The Council has experts available to identify and give advice on various household pests. We also have a pest control contract with an external contractor, Southwark Council, who may be engaged to treat a variety of pests including rodents and crawling insects such as cockroaches or bed bugs. A list of charges payable can be found on our website under ‘pest control’.

An infestation of pests would not usually need to be reported to an elected Member. The householder may contact the council direct to report an infestation and book a pest control treatment, they may engage the services of an alternative pest control company of their choice or they may contact the council for advice on whether or not the pest may be treated themselves.

If the householder is unable to contact anyone themselves the referral may be made on their behalf, with the proviso that as a call out charge payment for any treatment booked is taken at the first point of contact, the person making the call should have the means to pay for this at the time.

From Mr Samuel Edmonds

Councillor Simon Hoar

Cabinet Member for Community Safety

Question No.

PQ034- 12

Can the Cabinet Member for Community Safety state how many educational establishments currently subscribe to the Safer Croydon Radio scheme?

There are two educational establishments which subscribe to the Safer Croydon Radio scheme. These are Croydon College and Norbury Manor Business & Enterprise College; however we welcome the opportunity for others to join.

From Mr Colin Weaving

Councillor Steve O’Connell

Cabinet Member for Performance & Transformation

Question No.

PQ035- 12

Can the Cabinet Member give Croydon’s taxpayers any real example(s) of what and when he has actually “performed and transformed” to their benefit, since assuming that office? If not has he been too busy eyeing up another job as a police commissioner?

I thank Mr Weaving for his question. As Cabinet Member for Performance and Transformation I have been proud of the significant improvements in the Council’s performance and substantial financial achievements through Step Change programme.

Croydon's performance framework has undergone a significant overhaul in the last 18 months in response to sweeping changes brought in by the Coalition Government, nationally. I have worked with cabinet and officer colleagues so that our performance targets and outcomes focus on priorities that really matter to our residents - fixing the roads, refuse and recycling, tackling crime and improving education to name but a few.

9 Excellent improvements in education attainment with a 10% increase in pupils getting 5 A*-C grade GCSE’s this August compared with the previous year.

9 Continual schools improvement with 62% of our primary schools and 73% of our secondary schools have been judged good or outstanding by Ofsted; an increase of around 5% in both cases from the position at the end of last year.

9 Our streets are getting continually cleaner – just 7.5% of the streets that were surveyed in July had unacceptable levels of litter and detritus and only 2% had significant problems with graffiti. 98% of reported offensive graffiti was removed within 24 hours

9 Recycling continued to improve with a 4% increase on 2009/10 figures. For the first time we recycled over a third of the rubbish our households produce. The new food waste service will help us improve even further throughout 2011/12;

9 The serious violent crime rate decreased by 7% at year end 2010/11 compared to the previous year.

9 we expect to deliver 96% of commitments in the 2011-13 corporate plan.

We have generated Step Change savings for 2011/12 of £9.356m.

Some examples of how we are doing this:

9 Our New Ways of Working, and Customer Access Strategy are fundamentally changing what it means to work for and deal with the Council. These programmes continue at pace but already we are seeing tangible results and savings.

9 We have driven major savings through better commissioning and procurement.

9 We reshaped our management structure to further reduce the number of departments and drive efficiency.

9 We unified and centralised a range of core strategic support areas including commissioning, procurement, strategy and performance and will shortly do the same with communications and business support.

From Mr Michael Rowlanes

Councillor Jason Perry

Cabinet Member for Planning, Transport & Sustainability

Question No.

PQ036- 12

What has the Cabinet Member for planning, transport and sustainability done to relieve Croydon’s residents and businesses, of the increased running of buses running “NOT IN SERVICE”, without any practical purpose to them?

We have raised the issue of buses running ‘not in service’ with Transport for London and bus operating companies at the Public Transport Liaison Panel. However, the bus operators are private companies needing to run their businesses as efficiently and effectively as they can, and the Council cannot control when or where out of service buses travel. I understand why the questioner would want to see less buses running ‘not in service’. Thus I have asked that this issue be on the agenda for the next meeting of the Public Transport Liaison Panel and that both TfL (which tenders the bus services) and the operating companies be pressed to ensure that empty running is minimised.

From Mr Ken Lippett

Councillor Phil Thomas

Cabinet Member for Environment & Highways

Question No.

PQ037- 12

Since my PCN on South End was successfully appealed; will the cabinet member answer?

(1) When will any revenue raised here, actually be used to correct the signs and markings? And (2) Why hasn’t the council cancelled any similarly issued PCNs and repaid any such fines here, up till October 2011?

I thank Mr Lippett for his question, the anomaly with the signage was only recently brought to our attention and once known enforcement action was stopped. The issues with the signage are being rectified and once that exercise has been completed enforcement action will recommence.

All Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) are individual cases in law and therefore all recipients of PCNs can challenge their validity using the statutory framework.

Every PCN challenge is considered on its own merits and the cancellation or rejection of a PCN does not necessarily have a bearing on the outcome of any other challenges whether successful or not. However, in the light of the incorrect signage any PCN’s that remain unpaid or were challenged after the date that the signage problem became known will be cancelled.

From Mr Mark Richardson

Councillor Mike Fisher

Leader of the Council

Question No.

PQ038- 12

Would the Council Leader please run through the rationale for and justify the Council's approach to the question of continued funding for Upper Norwood Joint Library?

The rationale for the Council’s approach to the Upper Norwood Joint Library is based on the fundamental breach of the agreement by Lambeth Councillors. The Council is not able to continue to participate in and fund an arrangement which, as a result of this breach of a formal agreement, does not have appropriate governance.

From Dr Christina Richardson

Councillor Sara Bashford

Cabinet Member for Customer Services, Culture & Sports

Question No.

PQ039- 12

Given the well established link between access to books and children's level of literacy, would the Council agree that the continued funding of the Upper Norwood Joint Library is essential for the education of our local students.

Access to books and reading opportunities through libraries does contribute to children’s literacy. Croydon’s library service supports this in many ways, by providing extensive access to books, by participating in initiatives such as Bookstart, Summer Reading challenges and reading clubs for children. These are just a few examples of how Croydon libraries support children’s literacy. Croydon residents of the Upper Norwood area have full access to these services through the network of branch libraries and the Central Library.