The Chair welcomed the Cabinet Member for Environment and thanked her for her attendance. 

The Cabinet Member for Environment introduced her presentation and reminded Members that the current Administration had inherited the impact of cuts made by the previous Administration in February 2015 with 59.3 staff posts deleted and a piece of equipment out of action for 7 months whilst awaiting a repair.  Despite this the situation was looking positive, thanks to hard work from staff.  During the presentation the Cabinet Member for Environment implored residents to ensure any domestic work was completed by reputable companies with the correct trade waste and carrier licences to reduce the rate of fly-tipping and highlighted the need to review current waste treatment.  There was a need to increase the recycling rate within the borough which would lead to reduced costs.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member for Environment for her presentation and insisted that the focus on a cleaner, greener Borough was positive and it was right that resources were dedicated to improving the appearance of the Borough.  He highlighted the importance of maintaining momentum and ensuring that the right areas were targeted.  The Chair admitted that both the £150,000 pilot and increased barrow beats had been welcome and asked whether the Cabinet Member for Environment personally saw the pilot as a success to be extended.  The Cabinet Member for Environment stressed the need to await the outcome of the pilot for a full decision; however Members heard that the initial feedback from residents had been positive.  The Chair asked whether the Cabinet Member for Environment personally saw the pilot in a positive light and she agreed that she did.

The Chair extended the figures for the pilot and reached a rough figure of £600,000 for a full year and asked whether that was a pressure officers were starting to identify within the budget process, and asked whether the Cabinet Member for Environment would be pushing for that outcome.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Place echoed the Cabinet Member for Environment’s comments that it was necessary to await the outcome of the pilot and understand the full year costs.  The “Clean it” aspect could be extrapolated however the “cut it” aspect would naturally see seasonal variation and as such figures would need to be obtained for the budget-setting process.  The Committee heard that Officers were also looking at the Environment budget as a whole to identify any possibilities for savings which would help to address the pressure. The Cabinet Member for Environment reiterated that the figures would need to be assessed, and added that she had forgotten to mention within her presentation the fact that costs had been increased by the need to hire equipment in place of the machinary that had not been repaired.

The Chair returned to comments about cost savings within the budget and asked whether there were any major themes for cost savings or income generation that had become apparent.  The Committee heard that savings were likely to come from back office as opposed to frontline services.  There had also been increased enforcement and greater efficiency of trade waste fines which would generate income.  It was outlined that there would be an opportunity for the Committee to review savings options for the budget at the next meeting. The Chair queried whether there were a full set of proposals to come to the Committee or whether Officers were still adding to the list.  Members heard that Officers were pursuing the transformation agenda throughout the Council and options would be brought to relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committees over the coming months and that the Corporate Director of Environment and Place would go into full detail at that point.

Councillor Jones noted that the overall appearance of the Borough had improved, and asked whether there was any indication of an increased number of mobile enforcement cameras.  The Cabinet Member for Environment informed the Committee that additional cameras had been requested but as yet no decision had been made.  There was evidence that many cameras were vandalised and certain sites had no power supply, however she insisted she would ask the question again and the response would be sent to Members.  Councillor Jones also asked whether it would be possible to produce a timetable for residents with details of when grassy areas would be cut.  The Cabinet Member for Environment reiterated that grass in parks and open spaces was now cut every three weeks and those areas which were not accessible by tractors were cut every four weeks, the matter of a timetable for residents’ information had been discussed earlier in the year and she would chase a response for Committee Members.

Councillor Jones directed the discussion to the matter of cost. According to the Cabinet agenda the pilot cause a £260,000 overspend within the Environment and Place budget yet another report stated a £313,000 overspend, he was concerned that the Council should be absolutely clear with regards to the budget.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Place clarified that the £260,000 figure was that of the three month “Clean it, Cut it, Fill it” pilot and that Officers were very aware of the current position but he was confident that it should be absorbed in 2016/17 within either the Environment and Place budget, or that of the Council as a whole.  The Chair asked whether it was likely there would be provision for the cost were the pilot to be extended to run for the full year.  Members were assured that the review would provide full year cost details and that it would be a budget decision for Members.

Councillor Collins touched upon the question of income generation from Fixed Penalty Notices, but agreed to ask his question in relation to the next agenda item.  Councillor Collins also asked whether there was any indication as to the cause of the fly-tipping problems in Thurrock.  The Cabinet Member for Environment reminded the Committee that at the previous meeting Members had heard that there were many members of the traveller community who resided in Thurrock so that they could apply their trades in London, and worked within the Borough as well, and though the blame was not solely theirs she stressed the importance of employing responsible businesses able to provide the appropriate licences for waste disposal.  There were many incidents of fly-tipping which involved building rubble which was not traceable. She continued that occasionally residents of Thurrock were also responsible, despite access to a Civic Amenities site, and it seemed that it was just a behavioural issue for some individuals.

The Committee was advised that there were also a large number of privately rented properties within Thurrock and their high turnover rate often led to the dumping of contents.  The Council would be monitoring the situation closely as there seemed to be a small number of dump sites which were used frequently.

Councillor Piccolo congratulated the Cabinet Member for Environment for having successfully dealt with the problems within Thurrock, and he hoped things continued to improve.  The improvement in Grays town centre was greatly appreciated as it was often the “shop window” to people from outside of the Borough.

The Chair referred to the 11 additional barrow beats mentioned within the presentation and asked the Cabinet Member for Environment to agree to review hotspots and ensure the barrow beats tackled the worst areas.  The Cabinet Member for Environment clarified that there were 20 beats in total and that the idea of the pilot was to monitor the situation and everybody wanted the Borough kept clean.  She stressed that whilst certain areas, such as her own ward, were not so heavily littered it would be unacceptable to have certain areas with no barrow beats.  The Chair agreed that there could be no areas with unacceptable levels of litter, but asked for assurance that proportionate effort would be targeted towards problem areas.  The Committee was assured if an area needed to be cleaned it would be.

The Vice-Chair stated that since effort had been made to make Thurrock Cleaner the Borough’s reputation had improved.  He questioned the will of the Borough to tackle the traveller aspect of fly-tipping head on, as historically the action taken had allowed traveller incursions to return and repeat their actions.  He continued that many of their vehicles were liveried and looked very professional, which included company names yet they were allowed to leave without facing prosecution.  Fly-tipping was happening right under the Council’s nose which was unacceptable and he believed that the money forced to be spent cleaning sites should be spent to prevent the incursions.  He asked for any commitment to action which made it more difficult for travellers to set up a base, rather than dealing with the fly-tipping once they had left, once the damage to the reputation had been done and the residents had been upset by the situation.

Members heard that areas were being assessed though public access would need to be maintained.  Dealings with the traveller community had also improved recently.  Across Essex there was the Essex County Traveller Unit which worked to film incursions as they arrived and left so that registration plates could be recorded and any waste left behind was clearly visible. 

The Corporate Director of Environment and Place outlined that with regards to Council owned land target hardening was a priority and it was hoped illegal encampments would continue to be deterred.  The Committee was advised that, over the past 2-3 months, work with Essex Police had increased considerably and the key was to maintain the pressure moving forward.  There was the issue of finding evidence of fly-tipping to ensure prosecution, but this would be covered more clearly within the next item and the Essex County Traveller Unit was looking at options to generate evidence.

The Chair asked whether the number of barrow beats would be included as part of the review to see whether it should be increased again to the original number of 25.  Members were told that any areas with problems should be monitored and reported as the desire was to ensure the Borough was kept clean.  The Chair asked if details of beats could be made available to Members.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Place agreed they would be circulated after the meeting and added that areas with high build up had the option to deep clean them so that day-to-day maintenance would be easier.

The Chair referred to the £12,000,000 spent on waste collection and asked whether there were plans to move to fortnightly collection.  Members were assured that the Conservative Administration wished to retain weekly collection and that chances were not being considered as part of the current review of environment services.  The Chair asked for a view to what areas were under consideration within the review.  The Committee heard that there was a need to ensure a clean, contained collection service and if the correct items were placed within the correct bins it would save money, however residents were either disengaged or confused by the process.  She continued that it was about education and communication though it was very hard to bring back staff to posts which had been deleted.  There was no exact figure in mind but it was essential that the recycling rate increased.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Place interjected that with regards to future savings nothing should be ruled out.

The Vice-Chair suggested a communications campaign, particularly directed towards school children, and the possibility of encouraging residents to check their immediate area on bin days and if there was any litter it could be put into their bins prior to collection.  The Cabinet Member for Environment agreed that it could be possible to encourage pride in the area and many residents already did so, however certain residents might not have the time and others would say it was the job of street sweepers.  She also expressed that sometimes parents displayed appalling behaviour and children educated their parents so it would be preferable to get back into schools.

Councillor Jones agreed that realistically it was an issue of education and should target children from primary school upwards to ensure they were engaged.  He asked whether it would be possible for police to seize vehicles if it could be proven that they were used in fly-tipping.  There had also been talk of bin collection via a “sweep system” and he asked whether it could be cost effective and better than the current system.  The Committee heard that Union representatives had stated that coming from one side of the Borough to the other had been better and that the current system was not as effective as it had been and that this was being reviewed.  With regards to vehicle seizure, the Cabinet Member for Environment admitted she would have to check to be sure though it did seem a good idea.

Councillor Piccolo recalled looking at another waste management scheme with only one bin and the waste would be separated on site.  The Committee was advised that this was a very expensive system and recyclable material would be contaminated which would lead to lower quality and a lower price as opposed to curb-side sorting.  Councillor Piccolo noted that at presented the rate of recycling within Thurrock was at 40% and asked whether there was a level at which it would become more cost effective to use the alternative system.  The issue faced was that increased contamination led to reduced recycling and so more would be sent to landfill which was an expensive route, it was much better for waste to be separated prior to collection.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member for Environment again for her attendance and added that it was not common for Cabinet Members to attend Overview and Scrutiny meetings, to present a report and be faced with previously unseen questions for 45 minutes and it was greatly appreciated.