Agenda item

To answer questions on the aspects of the Cabinet Member’s portfolio that fall under the Panel’s remit:

·         Waste management and Recycling

·         Fly-tipping and Waste Enforcement

·         Highways

·         Flooding

·         Parking

Further focusing on the corporate delivery plan update  for quarter 1.  This report is to follow after publication for the Cabinet meeting.

The Chair introduced the session, highlighting that the Cabinet Member’s remit was part of the Corporate Delivery Plan for quarter one, and concerned:

·         Waste management and recycling.

·         Fly tipping and waste enforcement.

·         Highways

·         Flooding

·         Parking.

Waste management and recycling.

Waste management and recycling in the borough was discussed - the main points summarised below:

• A request was made for more information on the cost benefit analysis and collections of the at-home textiles recycling trial scheme. The Head of Waste Management responded that the statistics could be sent to the Committee. ACTION. She also emphasised that the textile recycling scheme was no longer a trial but part of the service.
• Questions were also raised around the new advertising campaign on waste in the borough and whether there had been any behaviour change since then. The Cabinet Member for Tackling Inequality and Resident Services indicated that it was too early to say but the adverts were part of an education package for the public around waste.
• Discussion then turned to the clear up operation after Finsbury Park events which councillors thought unsatisfactory. The Cabinet Member asserted that they had a good set up. Complaints were dealt with as part of the Local Area Management Plan. She also clarified that rubbish collection within the parks would fall under Cllr Arkell. Questions were then asked about whether collections could increase after a major event. The Cabinet Member reiterated that this was not under her portfolio, there were demarcations as to the responsibilities. However, the overall contract will be renewed for 2027, and the team will be looking at needs-based resourcing and more flexibility in the new contract.

·         The issue of a lack of recycling facilities on streets was then raised. There was only one point of disposal for waste at Bruce Castle – and no recycling points. The Cabinet Member responded that bin park assets vary, however they are looking at standardising them across the borough to dual recycling bins. She stated that volunteers who do litter picks did not always understand the colour codes for bin liners making contamination a real issue especially in park bins.

·         It was stated that the current waste management arrangements especially after major events such as football matches were unsatisfactory. Especially around parking areas. Residents’ bins were being used for waste disposal - if waste was being disposed of at all. It was felt by councillors that the footprint for cleaning was too small around major events. The Cabinet Member responded that the council did not receive funds from the Spurs club for the clean-up operation. She explained that they were currently in talks with Spurs about this.

·         Dog – waste disposal units and their availability in residential areas were then discussed. It was brought to the Committee’s attention that residents complain when dog waste gets put in their general bins. The Cabinet Member stated that the team were running a campaign to show dog owners how to dispose of waste correctly - however it was not possible to put dog waste disposal units on every street, or have it collected as often as was needed, as resources were tight.

·         The Co-opted Member then mentioned the issue of the condition of the black bins on high roads and whether they were being audited and replaced when needed. The Cabinet Member responded that the re-purposed black high street bins had been more successful than anticipated. They were here to stay and will undergo a cleaning process.

·         Questions were then raised about the technology that street teams possessed to report dumped items. The Cabinet Member stated that the street sweeping team often used their own phones to report dumped rubbish. She highlighted that occasionally the rubbish that is seen, is left in a safe place, and is waiting for enforcement to pick up. The team will be looking at this going forward and possibly at providing the technology to the street sweeping team for this purpose.

·         The Co-opted Member then talked about numerous complaints from residents on the Haringey Ladder about speeding Veolia HGVs. The Cabinet Member stated that her team had conducted a site visit. Each Veolia HGV was fitted with a tracker. It had been outlined that they should not speed. She highlighted that there were ten separate waste companies in Haringey, and it may not have been Veolia, but another company who may be the culprit. She stated that her and her team would investigate the matter and report back to the Committee. ACTION.

·         Collection rates and the timings of waste collections in Tottenham was raised. It was felt that Green Lanes was prioritised over Tottenham High Street. It was stated by the Head of Waste that the collection times of Tottenham High Road and Green Lanes were the same - however Green Lanes is one third of the size of Tottenham High Road. The Cabinet Member indicated the team could discuss a different way of doing things - including transport hubs. The Head of Waste agreed to look at this. ACTION

·         It was asked whether street sweepers could be given weed pullers to quickly remove weeds on their routes. The Cabinet Member replied that weed removal was part of a seasonal contract with Veolia. More money would have to be spent if the council changed the spec of the street sweeper team at this stage. However, this could be modified in the redrawing of the contract between the council and Veolia in 2027. ACTION

Waste enforcement

The topic of waste enforcement was then discussed. The main points summarised below.

• The Committee asked the team to email the locations of all the street black bins in the area. ACTION.  Concerns were raised about the proper disposal of commercial waste. Although it was highlighted the council could not penalise businesses who do not manage waste properly – might relations with the contractors be looked at to make up for this. The Cabinet Member responded that there were ten waste organisations who took care of commercial waste. The legal responsibility lay with the business owner. However, she admitted some businesses have no commercial waste contract – and used residential bins. The team had some powers to enforce. She emphasised that education was the first port of call however enforcement could be used. The idea of financial incentives or schemes such as ‘considerate constructor’ for businesses was raised for those who correctly disposed of waste and kept areas clean.
• A question was then put to the Cabinet Member about the responsibility for bins left on streets. The Cabinet Member replied that the owner of the bin is responsible however Veolia should return the bin to the proper place if the entrance is up to health and safety standards.

Fly tipping

Discussion then turned to fly tipping. It was raised that there was no follow up with residents who had reported fly tipping. The Cabinet Member admitted that although it would be good to get public confidence, she lacked the staff levels for the personal touch. She is looking at developing Community Waste Champions so that they could feed back into the community.

A question was then asked how success was being measured in particularly problematic locations as residents were not seeing patrols or officers. The Cabinet Member responded that there was hotspot data for the whole community -she added that half of all reports were submitted by Veolia. She highlighted that there was not just one reason that people fly tip- there are wider issues at stake. There may be reasons such as HMO, illegal dwellings, and planning issues.

Flooding and Highways

• Discussion then turned to the consultation for all remaining roads in Haringey to become 20 mph speed limit. The Committee was concerned that no appropriate signage or physical traffic calming measures had been installed. The Cabinet Member responded that local authorities had been given the means to reduce speed, but the bottom line was that they could not enforce it. It was down to the Police to issue fines. She stated that there were twelve roads that did not have the 20mph speed limit – some of which were problematic and required additional engineering. Her team relied on police for figures on collisions – and where there was a need for structural calming measures. It was mentioned that the speed measures do not have to be structural - where cars park, can force cars to slow down. It was brought to the officer’s attention that at the junction between Great Cambridge Road and White Hart Lane there had been multiple collisions and traffic light replacements. The Cabinet Member stated that she would investigate this with TFL. ACTION
• The Committee enquired whether there was a way residents could choose when gully cleaning happened - as the whole street would have parking suspension enforced - often with only 14- or 7-days’ notice. Also, whether there was any other way that the suspension of parking bays could be communicated in the form of a map or visual format of where it was possible to park. The Cabinet Member responded that most cleaning was done by clusters of roads however it would be investigated if this was causing an issue with parking. The Assistant Director Direct Services clarified that there were many instances where suspension notices were ignored, meaning that gully cleansing could not proceed at specific locations, impacting  on the scheduling planned by the contractor. For this reason, it was not practical to provide more than 7 days advanced notice. ACTION. The Assistant Director Direct Services would investigate how feasible it was to produce a map of which parking bays were to be suspended under the notice to help provide greater clarity. ACTION.
• A pay-as-you-go commercial waste scheme for businesses was suggested. The Cabinet Member explained that there was no national best practice scheme. In many cases businesses did not have an adequate waste licence. However, she stated that the pay as you go idea would be investigated further by her team. ACTION
• Discussion then turned to the lack of authority that councils had over speed cameras and imposing fines. Questions were asked by the panel as to whether the new government would be lobbied to make it a council and not a police issue. The Assistant Director Direct Services clarified that Wandsworth Council had begun to trial speed enforcement but this was stopped by Central Government as it was inconsistent with the approach taken nationally where the police enforce on behalf of safety camera partnerships.
• A report was requested by the Committee on the street lighting issue as it was still not resolved. ACTION.  The Cabinet Member responded that she needed to know in advance about the level of detail that the Committee required. The Assistant Director Direct Servicesstated that there was an ongoing conflict between the central management system and the LED lamps. These conflicts were present in many local authorities. He also stated that at present there were only two people in the Street Lighting Team so this had proven challenging. The Assistant Director also stated that the issue had reduced significantly. He confirmed that contractors Marlborough and URBIS were working with the team to resolve the problem.