Back to top arrow icon Back to top
  1. Home
  2. Agenda item
 Menu

Agenda item

Submission from the Public Realm Division

Minutes:

6.1.  The Chair introduced this item by explaining that the paper focused on the Public Realm Division of the Council and not other services outside of this which performed waste collection and cleaning functions for Hackney Homes. She advised that the Any Other Business Item of the agenda would focus on questions that Members may have had around cross cutting review work which encompassed all areas of Public Realm functions.

 

6.2  Tom McCourt, Assistant Director of the Public Realm Division, presented a paper, which was available in the agenda packs.

 

6.2.  The substantive points made at this stage were that:

·  The Division currently had a budget of around £47 million.

 

·  It brought an income to the Council of just over £27 million, predominantly from parking operations but also from other growth areas including commercial waste.

 

·  There were pressures on waste costs; every tonne of waste generated whether residual or for recycling brought a cost within the North London Waste Authority arrangements. Costs were expected to reach £7 million next year and would continue to rise.

 

·  There was also a challenge of recycling levels plateauing after some years of growth. This was an issue being repeated in other London boroughs, and the Council continued to explore how recycling by block properties could be increased to nearer the levels by street level properties.

 

·  Markets had been a major cost area for the Council; 4 or 5 years ago costs stood at £1.2 million. Changes since this point meant that at the end of 2015/16 would see the service break even.

 

·  Work in this area and others had meant that on an overall level since 2010, savings of 39% had been achieved within the Division.

 

·  With an assumed need for the Division to contribute to the estimated £60 million savings needed in forthcoming years, further options for savings were being explored for consideration by Members. Examples included the possibility of advertising on operations vehicles and revising fees and charges.

 

·  On a more fundamental level, the street cleansing model would be looked at. On this point however, it was evidenced that the operation worked well in Hackney and at relatively low cost. Considerations around scaling it back would need to include any detrimental impact that this could have in wider areas including inward investment, resident satisfaction and regeneration.

 

6.3.  Moving onto questions, the Chair noted that the paper showed that 40% of the staff in Streetscene were revenue based and 60% non-revenue based. She asked what the split was in terms of duties.

 

6.4  Andrew Cunningham, Head of Streetscene advised that revenue based work included routine inspections and maintenance of roads, streets, bridges and road safety work. Fee earning work included capital works, TFL funded work, and work outside new developments funded by Section 106 money.

 

6.5  In response to a question around the extent to which the Council was making full use of technological advances in its environmental operations, the Assistant Director of Public Realm advised that his services did keep these under review. In terms of cleansing, the intelligent use of technology had meant that mechanical sweepers were generally used where it was practical, with hand sweepers deployed in areas where mechanical sweepers were not suitable or where hand sweepers were shown to deliver wider benefits. Software enabled coverage be ensured, with mechanical sweepers covering 4.5 km each day (on both sides of the road). Other examples of technology included in Parking, where a system measured all elements of performance. It where resources could be allocated according to a dual consideration of the areas where parking issues were and which areas residents were concerned about.

 

 6.6  In response to a question from the Chair as to whether the service did or could work with companies in Tech City to deliver innovative new products, the Assistant Director advised that in general new IT products that the Council required met value thresholds where the EU wide tendering process were triggered. They would therefore need to consider any interested providers.

 

6.7  In response to a question whether street lights were using LED bulbs the Head of Streetscene advised that at the point of the last capital renewal of streetlights, that this technology was not viable. Further advancements had meant that it now was, although the savings that using these could achieve would not outweigh the costs associated with replacing all bulbs. Usage of LED bulbs was increasing however, with street furniture in the borough using these.

 

6.8  In response to a question on recycling and around whether other Councils with similar characteristics had also seen a plateauing in levels, Mark Griffin, Head of Waste Strategy, advised that some had fluctuations, including drops. As inner London developed further and the share of street properties continued to fall, reporting stable levels as Hackney had done in recent years was positive (although increases were continually sought). The Borough had a target to reach 34.1% as a minimum by 2020, up from a current rate of around 23 or 24%. There were a number of measures being considered around how to achieve this which could be reported back to this group via the Cabinet Member.

 

6.9  In response to a question on bulky waste, and the Council’s currently policy of free collections, the Assistant Director of Public Realm said that Members might want to consider different models. Options could include limiting the number of free collections or charging according to weight. However, consideration might also be given to any detrimental impact on levels of fly tipping that changes could bring a risk of.

 

6.10  Cllr Demirci, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods said that the Council was committed to further improve levels of recycling. She reiterated that the greatest challenge was around block properties and estates, and significant work had gone into piloting new approaches on 13 of these. What worked would be rolled out across the borough. These changes on estates would be coupled with measures already taken, including moving from a kerb side sorting arrangement to a comingled one. Further decisions would be needed on whether there was more to be done to drive up recycling levels among street properties further. This could potentially involve introducing allowance levels for residual waste.

 

6.11  Philip Glanville, Cabinet Member for Housing, added that he and the Cabinet Member or Neighbourhoods wanted Hackney to be the best in London for recycling on estates. £5 million had been allocated to the pilot that had been mentioned and a Project Manager put in place. He said that he would be pleased to report back further to the Task Group on this.

 

6.12  The Chair asked if there was a figure in mind as to what savings would be required for 2016/17 from the Division.

 

6.13  The Assistant Director advised that his services was trying to identify whether a further 10 or 11% could be added to the 39% already saved since 2010, without having a substantial effect on service levels. Plans would go through the corporate process and he would look forward to feeding back to the Task Group further.

 

6.14  Elaborating on this point and further to a question from a Member as to why there was not a specific target for 2015/16 savings in the paper, Kim Wright, Director of Health and Community Services said that it had been the case in the past that targets had been set according to budget size, and had been proportionately the same for each area. However, this was now thought to be a rather crude approach, and one which did not in the most effective way tackle that vast challenge on savings that there was likely to be. Services were being asked to think as creatively as possible to produce a range options for consideration. Wider thought was also being given as to whether some shares of Revenue Contributions to Capital Outlay and Community Infrastructure Levy money could feed into the £60 million requirement.

 

6.16  A Member noted that there would be discussions under the Any Other Business item around any movement towards bringing together waste and cleansing functions which currently sat separately in the Council and Hackney Homes. However, he wished to state at this point that he saw integration as vital, and that it should happen as soon as possible. Once the full Public Realm elements of the Council were fully integrated he felt that the services could be marketed as being available to housing providers and others, and that there was a duty to getting this completed quickly.

 

6.15  In response to a question around the options that would be considered to deliver saving, it was confirmed that these would include looking at the scope for, and impact of, caps on residual waste allowances and reducing street cleansing activity.

 

6.16  Responding to a question around whether there were campaigns that aimed to achieve greater citizen responsibility, the Cabinet Member for Housing said that there were, and that behaviour change was being actively promoted. She said that a key challenge was around continuing to meet a high standard of cleansing and waste collection which had come to be expected by residents.

 

6.17  Bringing discussions on this item to a close, the Chair thanked the officers for the information. She said that discussions at later meetings should be focused on a range of options for savings for 2016/17 in the Public Realm Division (as is) with details of the impact that each would be predicated to have.

Supporting documents: