Agenda item

4.1  The Chair introduced this item by saying that this meeting was designed to hear further information around savings proposals for 2016/17 for the services falling within the Public Realm Division, and for the Leisure and Green Spaces Service, following the meeting on the 16^th September.

 

4.2  She advised the Group that, as per emails sent to them, an additional meeting had been arranged for the 19^th November, in which Members would hear further information around the Public Realm cross-cutting review, and any movement towards the integration of the waste and cleansing services currently operated separately by the Council and Hackney Homes.

 

4.3  She asked that Tom McCourt, Assistant Director Public Realm, gave a very brief overview of the three papers from his area, which were available within the agenda packs.

 

4.4  The Assistant Director Public Realm advised Members that the first paper explored the potential of changing the Bulky Waste Service from a free to a chargeable service, with different models for consideration. Introducing charging would bring the Council into line with the majority of other London Boroughs.

 

4.5  A further paper within the agenda packs explored the likely impact of implementing reductions in street cleansing activity and in the number of crews within the graffiti and fly posting removal team.

 

4.6  The third item was a paper exploring the scope for greater income generation from greater advertising activity within the public realm.

 

4.7  The Chair at this point invited questions from Members on the proposals around the Bulky Waste function.

 

Discussion on Bulky Waste

4.8  A Member noted that the paper stated that there were ICT requirements for a charging model to be introduced. She asked what the cost of the new system would be, and whether there would be a risk of costs escalating from those estimated.

 

4.9  Mark Griffin, Head of Environment and Waste Strategy said that ICT were aware of a potential change in the service model and of the likely new requirements for the current system. While there was not a dedicated resource in place to deliver the changes at this stage, it was envisaged that there could be for the start of 2016/17. The analyst responsible for these changes would be made responsible for the delivery of other ICT requirements within the Division also; experience had shown that ICT changes had been delivered most successfully where the time of the resource was focused within one single area of the Council.

 

4.10  The Head of Environment and Waste Strategy thought that it was reasonable to not foresee an escalation in ICT costs and the time for implementation as becoming an issue; there was not a need for a full new system to be developed, and the requirements had been successfully installed in a number of other systems used by the Council. The new facility would be linked with the new Hackney One Account, where residents would be able to request and pay for bulky waste collections online in addition to interacting with other services.

 

4.11  There was a discussion among Members as to whether it was reasonable to introduce charging for items of bulky waste, on the proviso that residents on low incomes were offered some continued free provision.

 

4.11  A Member felt that a move to a charging model for bulky waste collections was reasonable, as long as the charges made were fair. Introducing a charging service sent a message that there were costs involved with waste collection.

 

4.12  Another Member said that with the scale of savings which were likely to be required, that it was fair for the Council to give consideration towards which services it could and should continue to deliver for free.

 

6.13  The Head of Environment and Waste Strategy said that the moving to a charging model would put the Council in line with the majority of other boroughs.

 

4.14  A Member said that his experience when working to install a charging service elsewhere, was that there was a resulting increase in flytipping. He said that this would need to be carefully managed.

 

4.15  At this point, Feryal Demirci, the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods said that she did feel that there needed to be a review of the approach to Bulky Waste, and that the paper submitted included a number of models for Members to consider. However, with the Council currently carrying out a large review of Enforcement functions across the organisation, it was important that the approach to this was partly informed by any predicted need for greater enforcement activity post the ending of a free Bulky Waste service.

 

4.16  The Head of Environment and Waste Strategy said that the service had established a good record of enforcing effectively against flytipping. It would need to ensure that it was ready to tackle any escalation. However, evidence available suggested that the impact on flytipping volumes of moving to a charging service would not be significant.

 

4.17  The great majority of residents acted lawfully around their waste disposal (especially around the disposal of larger items) and evidence very much suggested that changes to the Bulky Waste Service would not effect this. When the Council had removed communal skips residents had not chosen to continue dumping in the location illegally. In Enfield, the closure of a household recycling centre had not resulted in a higher escalation of flytipping. These examples had helped form the view that a move to a charging service would not result in the Council still needing to collect large volumes of bulky waste for free, but via flytipping clear ups.

 

4.18  In addition, he was only aware of one case where a borough had moved to a charging model only to return back to universally free one. This had recently occurred at Tower Hamlets although he understood that this change was due to a political decision rather than one based on the results of the charging model.

 

4.19  In response to a Member asking what the rationale was around proposals for bulky waste collections to allow for five items per time, the Head of Environment and Waste Strategy advised that this allowed for some consistency with the previous arrangement.

 

4.20  John Wheatley, Head of Environmental Operations elaborated on this, saying that the collection of a number of items in one visit was more efficient than collecting 1 or two items on a number of visits. He felt that the introduction of a charging service would result in less multiple visits where the service collected one item, towards a pattern of residents rationing their collection orders so that they made the full use of the five item limit in most cases. This, aside from any benefit from income generation, would help make the service more cost effective and efficient.

 

4.21  The Head of Environmental Operations also said that he felt that residents, while very much expecting streets to be clean and refuse to be collected in return for the Council Tax that they paid, would generally expect to pay for larger items of rubbish to be collected. He pointed out that suppliers of new white goods or furniture in most cases charged customers to collect and dispose of their old goods. In addition, the proposed charges - £15 per booking with an allowance of up to five items on each one – were below those which the private sector would offer. He therefore agreed with the view of the Head of Environment and Waste Strategy that there would not be a large impact on levels of flytipping.

 

4.22  A Member asked how a recommended charge of £15 per booking had been reached. Also, whilst not necessarily wishing to replicate their approach, he noted that Barnet had been found to have charged far higher amounts.

 

4.23  The Head of Environment and Waste Strategy said that a charge of £15 had been suggested based on what neighbouring boroughs were charging. He felt that models where significantly higher amounts that this were charged could sometimes be a reflection of an aim to drive out the service from the Council to other providers.

 

4.24  A Member said that he agreed with the view that residents in general saw the collection of general waste as a key function which their Council Tax paid for, but that bulky waste collection was seen a separate entity and one which it might be reasonable to charge for. In principle, and in a setting where the Council needed to make significant savings, he felt that a move to a charging service was fair.

 

4.25  He also said that it had been a big achievement for the Council to have delivered and maintained high standards of cleanliness across all areas of the borough. Some other local authorities had focused their resources on particular areas. He said that if moving to a charging model on the Bulky Waste service helped to preserve these high standards then he would be supportive.

 

4.26  This said, he did feel that a move to a charging model should be made only if any resulting increase in flytipping did not largely cancel out the financial benefits of the new scheme.

 

4.27  He said that he would be interested to see factual data from similar boroughs – Tower Hamlets in particular – on the income and expenditure from a charging model compared to a non-charging one. This would factor in the costs of flytipping clear ups under the two different arrangements.

 

4.28  There was a conversation around the great importance of street cleansing standards to residents. The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods said that this formed a key part of the way that residents and businesses perceived the Council.

 

4.29  A Member said that in his view it was absolutely crucial that there was a single standard of cleansing and waste service for all residents across the borough. He said that the transition of services currently delivered by Hackney Homes into the Council and the integration of these separate functions with one another, would help to achieve this. He reiterated the view he expressed in the last meeting that this needed to be delivered quickly. He hoped that bringing the services together would help to achieve the efficiencies required while also achieving and maintaining a very good cleansing and waste service across the borough, including on estates.

 

4.31  He did not

 

4.30  He looked forward to the meeting in November in which he hoped detailed proposals and options were given to Members to consider around integration of cleansing and waste services in the Council and Hackney Homes.

 

4

 

 

4.31  The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods said that she was a strong advocate for the fast joining up of services currently delivered separately by the Council and Hackney Homes. She said that estate properties made up 52% of the overall housing stock in the borough and yet there were separate policies being followed around parking, recycling and other areas.

 

4.32  Bringing a close to this item, the Chair said that she took from the discussions a view that there was an openness towards moving to a charging model for bulky waste collection. Option B appeared to be the most feasible, and included measures to offer those on lower incomes access to some free collections.

 

4.33  She said that there was a political sensitivity in moving to a charging model; the introduction of a free service some years previously had sent a strong message about the turnaround of the Council. This said, she agreed with other Members that introducing a reasonable set of charges for bulky waste was a fair approach, and in line with many other boroughs.

 

Discussion on proposals around street cleansing and Graffiti/Flyposting Removal services

4.34  Discussions on the paper on street cleaning and graffiti and flyposting removal, were held in tandem with those on the one around media activities.

 

4.35  They have been separated here for clarity.

 

4.36  There was concern around the level of impact that taking savings in this area was predicted to have. One Member said that the priority at this time should be integrating the cleansing and waste services of the Council and Hackney Homes. Potential savings should be explored as part of this work, and from an integrated set of services thereafter.

 

4.37  A Member said that the night time economy generated significant amounts of cleansing requirements.

 

4.38  There was broad agreement by all Members that clean streets was one of the absolute basic commitments that the Council needed to deliver on. One said that this would remain the case during a period in which vast savings needed to be found.

 

4.39  Another Member noted that Westminster delivered a model where street cleaning was put at the centre of its policies. While not wishing to replicate this authority in all areas, he saw room for the Council to follow a similar policy. He said that clean streets was a factor of public service which was universally important for all. He again celebrated the approach of Hackney in achieving a high grade across the borough.

 

4.40  Another Member sounded a note of caution; while he shared the view that clean streets were vital, he also suggested that this should not mean that expenditure within the Public Realm Division was not considered as part of an exploration on room for savings. For example, he would welcome an option for consideration around reducing expenditure on pavements to pay to sustain some other services.

 

Discussion on media activities on the public realm

4.41  The Chair noted that the emerging options around advertising were at an early stage. They were not due to deliver savings for 2016/17, which was the period that this meeting was set to be focused on. However, she invited questions from Members on the paper and for them to give a view on the exploration of further opportunities from advertising.

 

4.42  A Member said that he felt any move towards greater levels of advertising needed be made very cautiously, and delivered on a step by step basis. Badly handled or delivered to excess, new schemes could result in areas losing their aesthetic appeal. He said that a key consideration would be around the areas (if any) to limit advertising to. This might be within Town Centres and other commercial locations.

 

4.43  Another two Members said that they would be sceptical and had misgivings around proposals to increase advertising activity. One said that from his viewpoint as a Ward Councillor, that he would be very challenging towards any proposal for greater advertising in this area, and that it would be up to Officers to prove that its benefits warranted it. Residents would expect nothing less.

 

 4.44  The Assistant Director, Public Realm said that the work underway was around identifying if there were any changes which could be made which would not interfere with keeping the distinctive character of the borough. The Head of Planning was closely involved and was advising on what might and might not be possible and or suitable.

 

4.45  The Head of Environment and Waste Strategy said that the challenge was to design in room for advertising without a great impact on the character of the borough, and to ensure that it was also used to deliver information and advice to residents.

 

4.46  The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods said that she appreciated the concerns of Members that the unique character of the borough was preserved. She fully supported this. She noted that the Council had always been very cautious about the extent to which it allowed advertising; including through the resistance of any advertising on moving assets (cleansing and waste vehicles for example). She said that there would always be a very cautious approach.

 

4.47  A Member noted that the paper acknowledged that consideration needed to be given as to how the Council could ensure that expertise was in place to ensure that it gained the best possible deal in advertising contracts. He said that he would support a view that an expert be recruited to ensure that residents benefitted to the maximum possible amount from advertising activities. He suggested that the current contracts in place which were mentioned in the paper, appeared to be very questionable as to the value that they delivered. One provider had 60 sites for a sum of £21,000, and the net gain by the Council after it used the sites itself was only around £6,000.

 

4.48  Another Member agreed with this point. Elaborating further, he said that he would suggest for consideration to be given to any risk that increasing available advertising space could have a downward impact on the income that was generated from each site.

 

4.49  Bringing the item to a close, the Chair said that the discussions had been useful to give Members an insight into the information gathering work underway. The Officers from the Public Realm Division were thanked and excused.