Agenda item

To review the first eight months of the contract working with Peterborough City Council and a private environmental enforcement partner, Kingdom / LA Support.

Members considered the Environmental Enforcement Contract – progress update report, presented by Carol Pilson and Annabel Tighe.

Carol Pilson informed members that unfortunately Councillor Murphy was unable to attend today’s meeting due to personal circumstances.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows;

1.    Councillor Wicks asked what the implications are to the Council following the action of Peterborough City Council (PCC) and their cancellation of the contract with Kingdom (LA Support) from February 2020. Carol Pilson confirmed that PCC would be ending their contract with Kingdom (LA Support) in February 2020. She explained that whilst the Council have a separate contract with Kingdom (LA Support), they have been clear in that the contract was only viable if the Council were in partnership with another local authority. She confirmed that officers had been proactively exploring the options available to the Council including; finding another local authority partner, identifying existing resource within the Council to deliver this service in-house and the possibility of working with PCC by utilising their in-house service. She stated that discussions have taken place with other local authorities within and outside of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to assess their plans. Officers are also working alongside Portfolio Holders, Councillor Murphy and Councillor Tierney.

2.    Councillor Cornwell asked for the results of the Council’s discussions with Kingdom (LA Support). Carol Pilson explained that the Council’s partnership with Kingdom (LA Support) will likely end at the same time as the PCC contract ends.

3.    Councillor Cornwell highlighted that the Council only have a short period of time to make alternative arrangements and asked for assurance that the Council are working hard to mitigate the risks of this service ending. Carol Pilson reiterated that the Council are being very proactive in their approach and are liaising with Kingdom (LA Support) on a daily basis. She confirmed that the Council are discussing alternative options with Kingdom (LA Support) as well as other local authorities and added that the Council do have their own resource available too however this would be dependent on member’s future plans for this service area.

4.    Councillor Booth stated that Full Council had recently considered a motion in relation to the decriminalisation of parking and asked whether officers had explored combining the enforcement of this with the current enforcement service. Carol Pilson confirmed that officers continue to monitor how the two projects could run in parallel with one another. She explained that Kingdom (LA Support) offer a wide range of enforcement services however combining these projects would be dependent on member’s priorities at the time. She added that there would be a significant capital start-up cost in relation to parking enforcement which may not make the project financially viable.

5.    Councillor Miscandlon asked if there was a risk of the current contract ending with Kingdom (LA Support) and the Council having no replacement service in place. Carol Pilson confirmed that there could be a small break in service whilst the Council assess their options however dependent on member’s priorities, there may be flexibility within the Council’s in-house resource to continue delivery of this service. The Street Scene team carry out valuable work across the district including issuing parking fines in March on the Market Place, investigating cases of fly tipping and issuing their own fixed penalty notices (FPN) for littering and dog fouling and whilst she cannot promise continual service post February 2020, the Council will not be in a position of having no resource available to them.

6.    Councillor Hay asked why businesses receive a lower level of fines compared to residents in relation to fly tipping FPNs. Carol Pilson explained that these fines are covered by two separate pieces of legislation with business fines being issued under the offence of having no licensed waste collection provision whilst resident’s fines relate to waste being removed by a non-registered waste carrier. Both fines are set at the maximum levy as per the legislation.

7.    Councillor Hay disagreed with this approach and asked if the Council have approached Central Government to reconsider these differing levels of fines. Carol Pilson stated that she does not believe the Council have and reiterated that these are two different issues with both fines covered by different legislation.

8.    Councillor Booth asked how the Council will assess and determine member’s priorities for this service. Carol Pilson explained that she believes the options will be considered by Cabinet but in the absence of Councillor Murphy, she would need to pass comments on to him.

9.    Councillor Cornwell expressed concerns in relation to the contract ending in February 2020 and suggested engagement with members needs to begin at the earliest opportunity to inform them of the options available to the Council.

10.Councillor Yeulett highlighted the viability issues in relation to the contract and endorsed Councillor Booth’s suggestion that other enforcement services are considered as part of the new arrangement. He highlighted the high number of FPNs issued in Wisbech compared to the other towns in the district and asked if higher tariffs in these areas, would act as a deterrent. Carol Pilson agreed that options would be considered as part of the new contract and explained that the tender exercise for the current contract produced a cost neutral service. She explained that the service is a difficult marketplace to find a delivery partner and Kingdom (LA Support) had been the most viable partner to the Council as part of the tender. In relation to additional services, she informed members that Boston Borough Council has recently started enforcement of ‘bin placement’ and there are a suite of enforcement operations available. Regarding the option of higher tariffs in high FPN areas; this would be something that would need further consideration however she does not believe a higher fine can be levied based on the location of an offence.

11.Councillor Miscandlon proposed that the Overview and Scrutiny Panel express their concerns in relation to the short timescale until the contract ends with Kingdom (LA Support) and asked that officers bring forward any options available to members in relation to the replacement service.

12.Councillor Cornwell asked if there has been any increase in fly tipping following Cambridgeshire County Council’s (CCC) decision to introduce a licensing requirement for users of their household recycling centres. He asked that members are provided with the number of fly tipping incidents since licensing was introduced. Carol Pilson agreed that this will be monitored.

13.Councillor Cornwell highlighted that once the contract with Kingdom (LA Support) comes to an end this could have an impact on service provisions as the current Street Scene officers have little resource outside of their current duties to carry out environmental enforcement work.

14.Councillor Booth stated that the report fails to mention whether any time is spent patrolling villages across the district and the contract stated that 10% of Kingdom (LA Support) time would be spent carrying out extra duties. He highlighted that as most incidents of fly tipping are in rural wards, a presence of enforcement officers in these areas could act as a deterrent and subsequently reduce the pressure on Street Scene officers. Carol Pilson explained that as the contract has to be commercially viable; Kingdom (LA Support) officers base themselves in locations with the highest likelihood of issuing FPNs. She confirmed that the Council had engaged with Town and Parish Council’s during the tender process but unfortunately had not received many responses from more rural wards.

15.Annabel Tighe highlighted that the presence of Kingdom (LA Support) officers in the district’s towns has allowed the Street Scene team to spend more time in the rural wards. She stated that whilst the environmental enforcement in rural wards was a priority for Street Scene officers the majority of offences are committed in the towns and the Kingdom (LA Support) officers are more productive there. Fly Tipping enforcement required detailed investigation and does not fit the current LA Support business model based around the service of littering FPNs. She informed members that one example of Kingdom (LA Support) non-income venerated time is carrying out dog fouling patrols in Chatteris. She reminded members that Street Scene officer are a known and trusted brand in the community and regularly engage with rural areas and whilst they still have the power to issue FPNs, they also respond to community priorities.

16.Councillor Booth asked how the Council can allocate resource to rural areas when the cleanliness of rural streets is not even monitored. He said more consideration needs to be given to rural areas as fly tipping is a big issue and an increased presence is required.

17.Councillor Humphrey disagreed with this approach, as whilst there is an issue in rural wards, patrols do not act as a deterrent and make little difference as very few offenders are caught fly tipping and the majority of committed the offence.

18.Councillor Booth said the Council should use the powers available to them under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) more.

19.Councillor Miscandlon agreed that fly tipping is a retrospective offence in that the majority of individuals are only identified after they have committed the offence as part of the investigation. He said it was paramount that the Council continue to investigate cases of fly tipping.

The Overview and Scrutiny Panel noted the outcomes of the enforcement contract to date, expressed concern about the current contract ending in February 2020 and requested that members are kept fully updated in relation to the options of a replacement service.