AGENDA ITEM
2
BOROUGH OF POOLE
ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
6 SEPTEMBER 2012
The Meeting commenced at 7pm and concluded at 10.05pm
Present:
Councillor Trent (Chairman)
Councillors Clements, Mrs Le Poidevin, Mrs Moore, Mrs Rampton, Mrs Stribley and
Wilkins
Also In Attendance
Councillors Brooke, Howell and Mrs Parkinson
Kate Rixom, Democratic Support Officer, Legal and Democratic Service
Andrew Flockhart – Strategy Director
Shaun Robson – Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection Services (ECPS)
Kate Langdown – Waste and Fleet team Manager, ECPS
Peter Haikin – Regulatory Service Manager, ECPS
Jeff Morley – Team Manager, ECPS
Public: 6
EOS24.12
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chandler (Councillor
Mrs Rampton substituted), Mrs Clements (Councillor Mrs Moore substituted), Eades
(Councillor Clements substituted) and Mrs Haines (Councillor Mrs Stribley
substituted).
The Chairman advised the Committee that following the Agenda’s dispatch
Councillor Rollo-Smith had resigned as local Councillor and as such there was a
Committee Membership vacancy. It was noted that Councillor Rollo-Smith would be
missed and the Committee thanked him for his contributions during his time as a
Member of this Committee.
EOS25.12
MINUTES
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meetings of the Environment
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Meeting held on 12 July 2012, having
been previously circulated, be taken as read and confirmed and signed
by the Chairman, as a correct record.
EOS26.12
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations of any disclosable precurinary interests were received.
1
Councillor Mrs Moore declared a personal interest in Items MEOS27.12 –
Petition, having presented the Petition to Council on behalf of Residents within her
Ward and MEO29.12 - Unauthorised Encampments as this issue had been brought
to the attention of MP Annette Brooke’s Office, where she was employed.
EOS27.12
PETITION
Officers from the Environmental and Consumer Protection Services gave the
Committee an overview of the Petition presented to Council, on behalf of local
residents, on 26 June 2012; requesting reduced noise levels from the Reliance
Scrap Yard. The key points raised by the Officers were noted as follows:
 Only 3 of the Petitioners had made complaints to Environmental and
Consumer Protection Services (ECPS).
 The Reliance Scrap Yard had no planning conditions restricting its usage.
 ECPS had conducted noise level tests during 2011, having received
complaints from neighbouring residents. At the time of the investigations the
noise levels had not exceeded a level that constituted a Statutory Nuisance
 ECPS would continue to investigate any complaints of noise nuisance and
would serve an enforcement notice if levels of noise constituted a statutory
nuisance.
The Lead Petitioner, Mrs Cook, advised the Committee why residents felt the
need to petition. The key points raised were noted as follows:
 More residents would have complained to ECPS, but they did not know how
or where to complain.
 The Scrap Yard had extended its operational hours, resulting in noise being
heard by residents from 6.30am on week days and Saturday mornings and
afternoons.
 The levels of noise heard were unacceptable to residents and impacting on
their day to day lives.
 Concern was expressed that the equipment used by ECPS picked up general
noise and as such was not able to pick up the particular noise emitted by the
Scrap Yard.
Ward Member Councillor Mrs Moore advised the Committee that residents
had experienced noise from the Scrap Yard for many years, but over the years the
Scrap Yard Business had expanded, noise levels being emitted had increased and
its operational hours had been extended beyond those advertised. Many residents
would have complained to ECPS had they known how to complain. Local residents
had accepted that they would hear some noise, but not to the extent that it now
impacts on their day to day lives. The residents were having to reliant on the good
will of the Scrap Yard. It was suggested that the Yard’s operating hours and noise
levels should continue to be monitored by ECPS and that a ‘round the table’ meeting
be arranged with all parties concerned.
In response to the Petition’s comments and Members’ questions ECPS
Officers advised the Committee that the Scrap Yard had been contacted on receipt
of complaints, to encourage the Company to improve its operational practices. On
these occasions noise levels had been reduced through the prevention of dropping
scrap metal from great heights. It was not possible to stipulate that the skips be lined
2
to dampen noise, as the skips were not owned by the Scrap Yard. ECPS was not
aware of the Council having a vested interest in the Scrap Yard, as suggested by
some residents, having seen the Scrap Yard’s signature, which had advertised its
partnership with the Borough of Poole. ECPS would investigate the Scrap Yard’s
signage and if required would take necessary action. ECPS staff had worked
weekends, late at night and early mornings and all noise complaints received were
followed up. In this particular case staff would be undertaking regular monitoring of
the noise levels emitted from the Scrap Yard, including at 6.30am checks.
A Member sympathised with the local Residents and whilst it was not possible
to turn the clock back regarding the lack of planning conditions on the Yard’s usage,
through negotiations and operational training it was hoped that the noise levels could
be reduced. The implementation of hedging and/or acoustic fencing could also be
investigated to help dampen noise with potential funding from Schemes, such as
Planning Obligations Funds.
A proposal was MOVED and SECONDED, and on being put to the Vote was
CARRIED.
RECOMMENDED that Council approve that:
i. Dialogue be undertaken with all concerned parties (Petitioners,
the Reliance Scrap Yard Management and Environmental and
Consumer Protection Service).
ii. Environmental and Consumer Protection Service (ECPS)
continues to monitor the Reliance Scrap Yard’s hours of operation
and noise levels with immediate effect.
iii. The implementation of acoustic fencing and or hedges, including
funding options be investigated by Environmental and Consumer
Protection Service.
iv.
Environmental and Consumer Protection Service (ECPS)
investigates the Reliance Scrap Yard’s signage and if necessary
take appropriate action, regarding the advertisement of its
partnership with the Borough of Poole.
VOTE:
EOS28.12
FOR - UNANIMOUS
LITTER EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN POOLE
An Officer from the Environmental and Consumer Protection Services gave
the Committee an overview of the balance required between education and
enforcement, in order to achieve a cleaner Poole. There was anecdotal evidence
that suggested residents would like to see more enforcement activities; however, the
Council currently had no specific enforcement officers. This particular role was an
add-on duty and as a result only 42 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) had been issued
since July 2010.
It was suggested that effective prevention of littering could result in a
reduction in street cleaning costs, which were currently costing the Council around
£2m per annum. It was suggested that whilst there were some small voluntary litter
collections carried out by residents, the majority of residents had previously not
participated in volunteering to collect litter. To engage in public relation activities to
3
educate and stimulate more voluntary collections would incur costs and its
effectiveness had not been proven in the past.
There were private litter enforcement companies that were willing to
undertaken enforcement activities on behalf of the Council. It was suggested that
such a company could be employed to conduct litter patrols in the key areas of the
Borough i.e. the Beaches, Parks and Open Spaces. One such company was XFOR
Local Authority Support, which covered its costs through the income received from
issuing Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) to those who either dropped litter, responsible
for dog fouling or for smoking in enclosed spaces.
It was anticipated that through the engagement of a private company
approximately 400 FPNs a month could be issued with no direct cost to the Council.
The Council would however, be responsible for collecting such fines and prosecuting
those who refused to pay. It was suggested that around 25% of those who received
a FPN would not pay and therefore an increase in Legal and Democratic Services
was to be expected. There was also the possibility of adverse publicity, as some
people had not considered the discarding of cigarette butts as littering and
consequentially there was a reputational risk.
Some Members raised concerns that whilst private enforcement companies
may be able to offer a professional service they may be seen as unpopular as traffic
wardens. There was a risk of FPN challenges if there were no bins within the area or
the bins were full. At a time of budget constraints there was also concern regarding
the cost implications of implementing enforcement activities. It was felt the main
problem was the amount of litter from food outlets and following the smoking ban the
amount of cigarette butts on the streets. It was suggested that there was a need to
continue to educate the Community i.e. in the Schools and work needed to be
undertaken with the local take-away food outlets, to reduce the amount of waste and
litter produced.
In response to Members’ questions the Committee was advised that private
companies would not conduct litter enforcement duties at night without Police
support, as this was when they were most likely to incur unacceptable behaviour
from the perpetrators. Borough of Poole employees were paid a set wage and
entitled to a pension, were as private companies paid their employees an incentive
based wage. It was for this reason that a like for like comparison was not possible.
The exact costs and associated risks of employing a private company as opposed to
the Council employing its own dedicated Enforcement Officers would require further
investigation. The waste bins throughout the Borough were emptied as and when
required, in the High Street this was usually twice a day and in the evening. A
proactive approach had been taken with local businesses to address issues relating
their responsibility for reducing packaging, waste and litter. There was an
Environment Award for Schools, the Pride of Poole Campaign and advertising on
black bins to help with litter and waste education in the Borough.
Some Members suggested that a private company could be used on a short
term/trial period and the number of FPNs issued publicised, as a short, sharp shock
treatment. The Head of Environmental and Consumer Protection Service (ECPS)
advised the Committee that if the Council were to consider using a private company
4
there would need to be clear protocols, to ensure when they should issue a Fixed
Penalty Notice (FPN) or give a warning. The contract would need to be for a
minimum of 6 months.
The Chairman felt there needed to be more investigation work undertaken to
be undertaken on the use of private litter enforcement companies. In response the
Officer felt that Members could engage with the public to ascertain their views. Some
Members suggested a survey be undertaken, which could be distributed by Ward
Councillors and advertised through the Poole News and on the Council’s Website,
whilst ensuring minimal costs and officer time.
RECOMMENDED that:
i.
Following public consultation detailed options be presented at a
future Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee Meeting.
ii.
The Consultation Process to be agreed by the Chairman of
Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the relevant
Portfolio Holder(s) and Environmental and Consumer Protection
Service.
VOTE:
EOS29.12
FOR – UNANIMOUS
UNAUTHORISED ENCAMPMENTS
The Committee was advised of the legislation and national policy framework
that had influenced Poole’s current practice when addressing unauthorised
encampments and the Council’s obligations towards Gypsies and Travellers, as a
recognised minority group. It was noted that the Joint Protocol for responding to
Unauthorised Encampments (between Dorset Police, Dorset County Council,
Bournemouth Borough Council, Poole Borough Council, Christchurch Borough
Council, Weymouth and Portland Borough Council, North Dorset District Council,
Purbeck District Council, East Dorset Council and West Dorset Council) was agreed
in July 2008 and was now out of date.
Members were in agreement that the New Protocol needed to be based on
the local conurbation as opposed to a Dorset wide Protocol. It was suggested that
negotiations with the Dorset Police, Bournemouth Borough Council, and the National
Gypsy Council should be undertaken, to develop the New Protocol for unauthorised
encampments. It was also suggested that there needed to be investigations
undertaken to identify potential temporary sites for transit Travellers and Gypsies, to
help protect the Council’s formal recreational spaces.
RECOMMENDED that Council approve that:
i. A New Protocol for unauthorised encampments be established,
based on the local conurbation.
ii. Negotiations with Dorset Police and Bournemouth Borough
Council be undertaken, to develop the New Protocol for
unauthorised encampments, having undertaken consultation with
the National Gypsy Council.
5
iii.
Potential temporary sites for transit Travellers and Gypsies be
investigated.
VOTE:
EOS30.12
FOR - UNANIMOUS
WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE
The Committee was advised of the existing Operational and Communication
Plans for Christmas Period Waste Collection arrangements and the proposed
options for 2012/13 onwards. The Committee discussed in detail the ‘pros and cons’
of the existing Operational and Communication Plans for the 2012/13 Christmas
Period Waste Collection Service and an alternative option. It was noted that the
existing Operational Plan (Option 1 of the Report) would result in one missed refuse
collection for all householders and 50% of properties missing one recycling collection
(a one off 4 week gap between non perishable collections).
(Note: Councillor Mrs Stribley declared a personal interest, as she resided in
an area where her Blue Bin Collection Service would not be affected. Councillor Mrs
Moore declared a personal interest, as she resided in an area where her Blue Bin
Collection Service would not be affected until 2014.)
Members and Officers were in agreement that there needed to be improved
communications using the existing methods available, such as those identified in
point 7.1 of the Report and ensure residents understood why only trade waste and
certain communal properties would continue to have its waste collected during the
close down week. A Member suggested that all Councillors be provided details via
email of the Collection Service within their Wards, with a question and answer type
of crib sheet.
Whilst all Members were in agreement with all households missing one refuse
collection some Members felt the recycling collections should be moved to 3 weeks
post Christmas. This would result in all households going an extra week before a
collection, as opposed to 50% of residents waiting a one off 4 weeks (Option 2 of the
Report).
The following PROPOSAL was MOVED and SECONDED:
“Council approve that the existing Operational Plans for the Christmas Period
Waste Collection Service remain unchanged for 2012/13, whilst ensuring
communication methods are maximised within existing available resources.”
An AMENDMENT to the Proposal was MOVED and SECONDED, and on
being put to the Vote was CARRIED.
RECOMMENDED that Council approve that:
i.
The existing Operational Plans for the Christmas Period Waste
Collection Service remain unchanged for 2012, whilst ensuring
communication methods are maximised within existing available
resources.
6
ii.
The Operational Plans for the 2013 Christmas Period Waste
Collection Service be reviewed by Environment Overview and
Scrutiny in 6 months time.
VOTE:
EOS31.12
FOR – 4
AGAINST – 3
ABSTAINED – 0
URGENT BUSINESS
None
EOS32.12
FORWARD PLAN
The Committee considered the updated Forward Plan.
RESOLVED that the litter education and enforcement activities in Poole
be added to the Forward Plan for consideration either at the end of this
year or early next year.
Chairman
7