Agenda item

To receive the latest information regarding performance in respect of street cleansing, waste and recycling.

Tom Hemming, the Waste Strategy Manager, reported on the latest statistics for street cleansing, waste and recycling.  Performance was measured using national indicator 195, which measured the percentage of streets that fell beneath an acceptable level of cleanliness. 

In respect of street cleansing, current levels were within contractual targets.  However, service changes had led to a negative impact on performance when they had been introduced earlier in the year and this had been particularly pronounced in some wards.  However, the most recent data had shown levels had returned what they had been in 2015/16.  Performance in respect of detritus had performed similarly.

Steve McDonnell, Assistant Director of Commercial and Operations, reported that the temporary drop in performance was probably due to the need to re-design the beats of street sweepers.  This impacted on the service as it took time for staff to get used to their new beat and familiarise themselves with any problems. 

Mr Hemming stated that there had not been a marked change in the number of complaints but it was still important that they were carefully monitored.  Panel Members drew attention to the higher percentage of complaints that were either not completed or rejected.  Mr McDonnell stated that this was probably due to the service changes.  As there was a reduced level of sweeping in many areas, complaints were less likely to be the responsibility of the contractor. 

Mr Hemming reported that resident satisfaction figures were the highest that they had been.  However, survey data from the period after the service changes had been made would need to be closely scrutinised to see if there was any impact.  The survey was of 1100 residents and cross borough in nature and required to be representative of the local population.  The Panel noted that there were pockets of difference between wards including some between the east, west and centre of the borough.  However, respondents were not necessarily evenly spread between wards.

The Panel expressed their appreciation of the efficient response to graffiti and thanked officers for this.

In respect of fly posting, Mr Hemming reported that performance for this had improved markedly after shop replacement window stickers were removed from the figures. In respect of posters advertising raves, it was noted that it was possible to prosecute.  This could be done either through telephoning the number on the poster or attending the event in question.  Prosecutions in respect of these events had gone down.  Information on any hotspots within the borough would be welcome. 

The figures for fly tipping highlighted that this was a continuing issue.  There were around 3,000 incidents every calendar month.  Work was currently taking place on a number of measures to address the issue.  This was likely to include the use of Kingdom to levy £400 fixed penalty notices on offenders.  The Council’s anti social behaviour and enforcement teams were in the process of being restructured and it was hoped that this would give them a clearer focus on fly tipping.  The aim was to increase the perception of risk. 

In answer to a question, it was noted that there was an awareness of hotspots for fly tipping.  In some areas, CCTV was used and it could be a useful means of obtaining intelligence but was less effective in assisting directly with prosecutions.  It was acknowledged that further consideration needed to be given to the issue.

Mr McDonnell commented that there was a difference between covert and overt use of CCTV.  Covert use needed to be agreed by a magistrate whilst overt use needed to be advertised by a notice.  He felt that, whilst there was a role for CCTV when vehicles were being used, it needed to be borne in mind that the vast majority of fly tipping was done by local people.

In answer to a question, Mr Hemming acknowledged that the current target, which related to the number of fly tips reported by residents, was not the most appropriate and that a better measure needed to be developed. It was important that residents were encouraged to report fly tips. He reported that the largest categories of fly tips were black bags, furniture and white goods.    

It was noted that there was a downwards trend for missed collections.  However, there was a noticeable seasonal effect when staff were on annual leave and their shifts were covered by other staff.  Mr McDonnell commented that there was a need for Veolia to train staff covering for annual leave appropriately to ensure that collections were not missed. The majority of the refuse fleet was tracked by GPS but, although this was a useful management tool, it was unable to tell if collections had been missed.

In respect of recycling, Mr Hemming reported that the target was just above 40%.  Last year was the first that the target had not been reached.  There had been a change in the law regarding standards and sorting of recycled items was now a lot stricter.  More was being rejected than ever before and this had reduced recycling levels by approximately 1.5 – 2%.  A number of actions were being taken to address the issue.  Communication and engagement with residents was being used to address this.  In particular, stickers were being placed on bins to encourage residents to put refuse in the right bin to reduce the amount of contamination.  However, these had not proven to be very effective.  A staged enforcement approach was now being trialled, with engagement, education and visits used.  Community Protection Notices could now be used address the issue.  Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) tended to be the worst offenders and letter could be served on residents and landlords.

In answer to a question, Mr Hemming stated that the service aimed to keep messages simple regarding what could be recycled.  Containers could normally be recycled but the many different types of plastic available was a challenge.  The biggest challenge was communicating the fact that garden and food waste need to be recycled separately from packaging.  Mr McDonnell commented that residents often felt that they were doing the right thing and this had been taken into account in addressing the issue.  However, there was now an element of enforcement. 

Mr Hemming reported that action had been focussed on the 100 properties which were the worst offenders.  Action had proved to be quite effective and the threat of enforcement had helped reduce those that could potentially face action to single figures. 

The Panel noted that there were different systems for recycling and there had been considerable debate about the respective merits of source separation and co-mingling.  Although source separation provided had previously provided better quality, new technology had led to improvements in co-mingling. The decision on which system to use was down to local circumstances and collection costs.  Mr McDonnell commented that when the recycling contract had been tendered, the quote given for source separation had been prohibitively high. In addition, it also required special vehicles.  It was also wished to ensure that recycling was as easy as possible.  The Cabinet Member stated that Haringey nevertheless had one of the highest rates of recycling in London. 

Mr Hemming stated that whole loads could be rejected.  In such circumstances, the Council incurred additional disposal costs. 

AGREED:

That the report be noted.