Issue - meetings

This report sets out the call-in received by 10 Councillors of the decision relating to the ‘Pilot scheme to increase enforcement activity in relation to environmental crimes’. The role of the Panel is to consider the issues raised by the call-in notice and to determine its response.

The Chairman informed the meeting that he would not allow officers to give a presentation to the Panel as it would be against the usual practice of the Call In arrangements; and because the Lead Call In Councillor (Councillor Richard Samuel) had felt that the presentation would introduce new evidence.

The Chairman invited Councillor Richard Samuel to present reasons for the Call In.

Councillor Samuel said that he and 9 other Councillors had signed the Call In of this decision for a number of reasons.  Councillor Samuel went through the each reason with the following comments:

1.  The Cabinet decision report did not demonstrate how the environmental enforcement pilot scheme can be delivered at zero cost to the Council – Councillor Samuel suggested that the Council would have to issue around 1,400 fines per year in order for the scheme to be delivered at zero cost.  Councillor Samuel expressed his concerns that the Council would do anything to increase enforcement activity in order to justify this programme.  

2.  The proposed “informal procurement process” is opaque and not in line with usual Council procurement procedures – Councillor Samuel felt that informal procurement process was not in line with the Council’s usual procurement procedures.

3.  Contract management arrangements were not set out in the Cabinet decision report – Councillor Samuel felt that contract arrangements should have more clarity in the Cabinet report.

4.  No operational details were included in the Cabinet decision report – Councillor Samuel questioned how the Cabinet made its decision without information about operational details.

5.  There is probable equalities impact, which has not been considered, as increased enforcement action is likely to disproportionately affect certain groups. The decision report does not state whether an equalities impact assessment has been carried out – Councillor Samuel pointed out that 98.3% of litter enforcement in Bristol pilot scheme was for cigarette butts.  Therefore, Councillor Samuel felt that people from disadvantaged communities would be targeted with this pilot as majority of smokers come from those communities.  Councillor Samuel also asked for the Equality Impact Assessment on this matter.

6.  There is a risk of reputational damage to the Council – Councillor Samuel felt that tourists and visitors would be affected by this decision, which would be covered by media and damage the Council’s reputation.

7.  The proposed approach is not consistent with the Council’s “Public Protection and Health Improvement Service Enforcement Policy” – Councillor Samuel felt that the there was not consistency between the Council’s Policy and legal actions against those who litter.

8.  The Cabinet decision report does not demonstrate how the pilot scheme will improve cleanliness standards – Councillor Samuel felt that the target was not set to show how cleanliness would be measured.

9.  No consultation has been carried out with Councillors, stakeholders or residents. This is not in line with the Local Code of Corporate Governance – Councillor Samuel said that there was not a proper discussion with the public.

Councillor Samuel concluded his statement by saying that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42

The Council has recently adopted the newer higher level  of £150 permitted  for a Fixed Penalty Notice (“FPN”) under the Environmental Offences (Fixed Penalties) (England) Regulations 2017 for litter dropping.

The Council has limited enforcement resource and cannot cover the whole district 7 days per week. Current enforcement activity is focussed in the city centre in partnership with the BID. The public would, however like us to take a much more proactive stance throughout the whole district with a view, to reducing environmental crime and have cleaner, greener communities.

The proposal is to enter into a pilot scheme with a private sector enforcement provider at zero cost to the Council, to increase the amount of enforcement activity that is undertaken in relation to environmental crime such as litter dropping, dog fouling, fly tipping, waste Duty of Care breaches and to ensure that an enforcement presence is available 7 days per week in the district including parks and public spaces.

This report seeks approval for officers to enter into a 12 month pilot scheme with a private sector provider in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Development & Neighbourhoods

Councillor Richard Samuel made an ad-hoc statement where he stated that he supported action against littering but that this scheme had had mixed results in other authorities and there was no business plan or details of costings. He queried if there would be a competitive tendering process and if consultation had been carried out.  He expressed his concern that vulnerable people may be targeted and asked the Cabinet to defer the item for consideration by the Communities, Transport and Environment Policy Development and Scrutiny Panel.

Councillor Tim Ball made an ad-hoc statement where he stated that he was concerned that enforcers may target the poorest communities to raise funds.

Councillor Will Sandry made an ad-hoc statement where he urged the Cabinet to put this issue to the Policy Development and Scrutiny Panel and to carry out an Equalities Impact Assessment.  He shared the concerns made above that the vulnerable communities could be penalised.

Councillor Rob Appleyard made an ad-hoc statement where he supported the intention to deal with littering but was concerned that there could be a danger of alienating communities.  He queried if the enforcers would have targets. He urged that education be the priority and that the issue to put to a Scrutiny Panel.

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones made an ad-hoc statement where he stated that feedback from his residents was supportive of the Council enforcing littering rules.  He added that outsourcing a service does involve some risk and  hoped enforcement would help the issue in Balance Street where fly tipping is cleared by Curo who then charge the tenants.

Councillor Robin Moss made an ad-hoc statement where he agreed that there was a need to reduce litter but that the issue should be considered by a Scrutiny Panel.  He raised concerns that enforcement may be used for income generation though there may be disputes and intimidation.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson made an ad-hoc statement where she stated that there should be very close scrutiny of the contract.  She commended the Cabinet Member for dealing with the fly tipping in Radstock and that the budget used for gulls should be used for an effective littering policy.

Councillor Bob Goodman introduced the item, he stated that it was a depressing motion to bring as littering should not happen and a shift in mind-set was needed so that littering is not tolerated. He explained that he would prefer that the Council could enforce this but there were financial constraints, he further explained that these proposals were cost neutral and have been through the procurement process.

Councillor Bob Goodman moved the recommendations.

Councillor Karen Warrington seconded the motion and stated that she agreed that littering, dog fouling and fly tipping were a scourge on society and have to be addressed. She also agreed that there was a need to make sure vulnerable people were not targeted and that education was important. She explained that this was a pilot scheme which would be closely monitored and which has been successful in other authorities.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27