Agenda item

(Director of Neighbourhoods) To consider the attached report.

There were twelve indicators that fell with this SC’s areas of responsibility. Of these, 10 (84%) had achieved target, 1 (8%) had not achieved target and 1 (8%) had performed within the agreed tolerance for the indicator. It was noted that 75% of indicators were anticipated to achieve year-end target.

NE1013 (What percentage of all household waste was sent to be recycled or reuse?)

K Durrani, explained that the Council had not hit the mark on the first or second quarters. It was difficult to assess what more could be done as the trend had been going upwards for a while, and was it because there was more waste or not enough waste being recycled.

Councillor J Jennings asked how the targets were set. D Macnab, replied that members would set the targets on the recommendation of officers. It was an internal process reviewed by the Management Board with a view to stretching the targets every year. The waste targets were split into two. This Council was in the top ten nationally and the top two in Essex.

Councillor J Lea asked about the recycling of glass bottles and why these were not collected separately from commercial establishments. K Durrani said that the Council did offer a commercial service, but that businesses chose their own contractor. Domestic glass was collected separately. However, there were incentive schemes for businesses to separate out glass.

Councillor W Breare-Hall, Environment Portfolio Holder, acknowledged that it was a problem to get residents to reduce their residual waste. On the positive side the Council had introduced a ‘recycling rewards’ scheme for blocks of flats, which a hundred were participating in, and were rewarded with vouchers to spend in local businesses or could choose to raise money for a nominated charity. A list of these blocks was available from Waste Management. However, the scheme was not available for individual households.

Councillor H Brady asked if a slogan with a financial incentive could be put on recycling sacks, such as ‘recycling more keeps housing tax down’ and publicise this.

NE1005 (What percentage of the issues and complaints received by the Environment & Neighbourhoods Team received an initial response within 3 days?);

NE1006 (What percentage of the recorded incidences of fly-tipping were  investigated within 3 working days of being recorded?); and

NE1007 (What percentage of recorded incidences of fly-tipping (contract cleared) were removed within 5 working days of being recorded?).

Congratulations were offered by members to the officers on the high targets achieved.

Councillor R Morgan stated that as the Council did not remove fly-tipping from private land, how many prosecutions had been carried out and how could this be stopped. D Macnab said that the Council had used both covert and non-covert methods in hotspots in certain areas. Incidences were on the increase but this trend could not be linked back to Essex and the revised policy in use at its recycling centres. However, the Council could and did publicise prosecutions, but suffered from people that travelled from other areas, such as London into the District. The Environment and Neighbourhoods Manager, R Gardiner, and his team worked hard to keep fly-tipping under control. Environmental Enforcement Activity (Work Programme item 7) would go to the Neighbourhoods SC meeting in March 2018. It was a complex situation but ECC would not pay for disposal from private land. S Neville asked if neighbourhood police could be involved, to which Councillor Morgan said there was a rural policing team and suggested the SC could invite the rural policing unit to a meeting. It was noted that the Communities Director, A Hall, had regular meetings with the Essex Community Team. Councillor W Breare-Hall remarked that over the last year there had been between 10 – 13 prosecutions of fly-tippers and householders, who had given their waste to rogue traders. Therefore the ‘duty of care’ was not hugely popular, but the Council would be diligent in pursuing viable prosecutions.

            RESOLVED:

            That the Select Committee reviewed and noted the KPIs for 2017/18 Quarter 2 Performance in relation to the key performance indicators within its area of responsibility.