Verbal Update.
Minutes:
The Committee undertook a verbal question and answer session with the Cabinet Member for Transformation and Public Realm Investment. The Cabinet Member gave a short verbal update on her portfolio:
a. The Committee was advised that following the Scrutiny Review on Disabled Parking Services, most of the recommendations were accepted by Cabinet and a further Disabled Parking Action Plan was due to be agreed by Cabinet next week. Part of this involved £200k capital funding to expand the size of disabled bays and the introduction of a grace period for Blue Badge users who live in an area with a CPZ and had their badge stolen.
b. Cabinet had agreed a £9m investment in Highways for the following financial year. Also, as part of the new contract, a Direct Labour Organisation was being developed to bring specific elements of the contract back in-house.
c. A £6m drainage bid had been submitted to DEFRA in partnership with some local groups.
d. There continued to be significant investment in street lighting.
e. The walking element of the Cycling & Walking Action Plan was continuing to be developed and a number of new pedestrian crossings were being put in place.
f. The waste service had been realigned to bring the waste management and waste enforcement functions together, and managed by one Assistant Director. A new waste enforcement team had been established and had issued nearly 1500 fixed penalty notices in the last 12 months.
g. Further rollout of the black box scheme would continue this year, following a successful trial orientated to better management of waste from flats above shops.
h. The Council was undertaking a piece of research in conjunction with Birbeck University on HMO’s and how levels of recycling from these premises could be improved.
i. The Cleaner Haringey Strategy was going to Cabinet the following week.
j. The Council had agreed with Veolia for them to undertake additional waste collection services for Passover.
k. The Cabinet Member outlined the Access First project which was aimed at improving the relevant sections of the website in order to make it easier for people to access information, report a problem and so that they received feedback on problems reported. This project was halfway through the improvement process and work was ongoing.
The following matters arose from the discussion of this item:
a. The Committee noted that the recycling rate had decreased slightly for the fourth year in a row and queried whether large-scale changes were needed or smaller more incremental reforms, in order to meet the Mayor’s target of 38%. In response, the Cabinet Member acknowledged the scale of the challenge to meet that target and cautioned that none of the seven boroughs in North London had met the target. Haringey ranked 4th out of seven. The Cabinet Member advised that part of the problem with falling recycling rates were much more exacting rules around what could and couldn’t be recycled and very strict tolerances around contamination of waste. Another issue identified was that companies were increasingly investing in lighter and lighter packaging, which affected recycling rates as they were based on tonnages. The Cabinet Member also set out that there was a challenge around needing to adapt to emerging trends including the impact of lockdown and increased home deliveries. It was hoped that the work with Birbeck would provide a basis for making improvements.
b. In response to a query around different possible strategies for dealing with waste, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that there was a lot of investment into looking at how to tackle waste and recycling nationally and that the best way forward was to perhaps set up a meeting with Cllr Bull to look at funding options for different groups in the borough.
c. The Panel raised concerns about plans to invest in a new incinerator for waste and commented that this seemed to be contrary to the Council’s carbon reduction strategy. In response the Cabinet Member advised that the current incinerator was very old and inefficient and that a new one would be far more efficient and would also be able to generate power to heat people’s homes. The plans also included the setting up of an eco-park which was welcomed by the Cabinet Member. The Panel were advised that a financial analysis of whether this was still the right decision was undertaken in 2018.
d. The Panel raised concerns about the Council’s website and it not being user friendly. The Panel questioned whether electronic visitor permits could be introduced like in Islington, which were instantaneous.
e. In regards to a question as to the Cabinet Member’s assessment of Veolia’s performance and whether the Council were getting value for money, the Cabinet Member contended that Veolia provided a huge array of services for the Council and that on the whole she thought they did a good job. The Cabinet Member acknowledged that the authority had got street sweeping wrong and that a more targeted approach was the right outcome. The Panel were advised that Veolia collected waste from 90k households and the vast majority of the time they got this right but that there would always be areas in which performance could be approved.
f. A member of the Panel raised concerns about a local business that had been issued with an FPN due to waste caused by people rifling through their bin. The Cabinet Member declined to comment on a particular case where the Council had taken enforcement action, but advised that there was an appeal process available for people to use. It was suggested that security measures would need to be arranged with the private waste contractor involved.
g. In response to a question about the wall of shame campaign and whether this was continuing, the Cabinet Member advised that it was felt that this scheme had been hugely successful and had even resulted in one case were an individual turned themselves in for flytipping. From the following week, the campaign would be being rolled out with added impetus.
h. In response to a question around the Direct Labour Organisation, the Cabinet Member advised that Marlborough Highways had been awarded a contract in 2019 for street lighting and highways but that part of that contract included provision for the Council to bring some of those services back in-house as and when it was feasible. After carrying out an assessment it had been determined that it would not be cost effective to bring street lighting back in-house, however reactive footway maintenance would be brought back in-house. It was hoped that having a dedicated in-house resource would help the Council improve the very poor condition of footways in the borough and that a £9 million investment had been made to support this.
RESOLVED
That the update and responses to questions were noted.