The Corporate Director of Environment and Place presented the report which was an update on the report presented at the Cleaner, Greener and Safer Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 12 July 2016.  He insisted that the Council had followed the correct sequence strategy, as it would be better only to penalise those dropping litter once the Borough had been cleaned and the anti-littering campaign had taken place.  The report outlined options available to the Council in future and Officers were seeking the views of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to steer Cabinet in their final decision.

The Chair admitted that his initial view was that to “continue as is” would not be a viable option as there was a need to take a tough stance and see improvements within the Borough.  He expressed his disappointment that the option to invest in in-house staff could not result in a revenue-neutral outcome whilst this could be achieved by dealing with an outside agency; however he saw no harm in a pilot scheme provided it was deployed sensibly.  He stressed the importance of preventing non-proportionate fines, such as toddlers who dropped something from their pram, and safeguarding against the risk of non-payment. The Chair also stated that if, in future, it might be possible for these tasks to be undertaken by in-house staff then the option should remain on the table.

Councillor Jones echoed the view that it would be preferable to be cost-neutral.  He stressed it was also crucial to be careful with any contractors and ensure there would be continued monitoring of how they worked, what work they carried out and what the cost would be.   The Corporate Director of Environment and Place agreed that it was a very important point and the Council would set up the contract in such a way that there would be an incentive for the company to issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) as they would retain a proportion of each fine as payment to remove risk to the Council, but at the same time it would outline specifications to prevent unnecessary fines.

The Chair expressed that he was eager to safeguard the Council’s ability to exit the contract and withdraw from anything which was not a positive for Thurrock.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Place agreed with this sentiment, and requested Members allow officers to share updates between meetings so as to maintain momentum with the process.

Councillor Piccolo showed his support for the flexible option but echoed the same concerns around targeting accidental littering.  He also asked whether the company could be used to enforce penalties for fly-posting which might be another form of income generation, and would target businesses rather than individual residents which might make the scheme more favourable to the public.  Members heard that this could be possible, though it would depend upon the specifications outlined by the Council.  This option also would be beneficial as it would enable in-house staff to focus on other areas of enforcement.

The Vice-Chair showed enthusiasm for the idea of allowing a company with experience that it appeared the Council currently lacked to offer back office staff a chance to clear the backlog of cases that had built up.  He expressed caution at how far the enforcement company could be briefed to allow officers to use their imagination and discretion with cases, for example there were issues with members of the public littering from their cars when stopped at junctions and if there were cameras installed this could be an additional possibility for income generation.  Similarly if CCTV cameras were installed in areas with high levels of littering it would allow for guilty parties to be identified.  The Vice-Chair also support might be offered to help officers identify individuals and ensure their safety, such as support from the Police.  The Committee was advised that the enforcement company would focus on areas with high instances of littering, and while there were problems with residents littering from their cars at junctions there was a need to be as effective as possible.  There would be a package of measures available but there was a need to ensure the chosen route was cost-effective and had the desired impact.  With regards to CCTV it was important to remember that it was not ideal to have cameras everywhere and residents would not welcome the imposition. The Interim Head of Environment returned to the Vice-Chair’s comments regarding safety and assured members that enforcement officers would wear body cameras and work in pairs to prevent abuse and ensure their security.

The Chair asked the Cabinet Member for Environment whether she would like to offer any input.  The Cabinet Member for Environment stated it was a shame to have reached this situation and there should be no need to tell people how to use bins properly.  She agreed that if the enforcement company were used to tackle littering, dog-fouling and similar offences then the in-house staff would have time to be more proactive and thorough in their work to ensure that cases that were sent to Court resulted in successful prosecution. 

Councillor Collins asked whether, as this option offered cost-neutrality, there was any possibility of income generation and if there were any projections.  The Committee was reminded that it was not an income generation plan and should not be seen as such, however if the Council could maintain a 60% payment rate and waive the early payment discount the scheme could be cost-neutral.  Figures suggested that other boroughs were comfortably able to achieve rates of 65-70%.

Councillor Piccolo asked whether there was any suggestion that fly-tipping was seasonal, with a peak in summer when residents carried out home improvements, which might lead to a chance to release officers to focus on other tasks in low-periods.  Members were advised that in general offences were fairly constant, and in the winter months the days grew darker earlier which made it easier for fly tippers.  The Interim Head of Environment echoed earlier comments that this scheme would allow in-house officers more time to work on cases sent to Court to ensure prosecution.

Councillor Jones asked whether officers had found an enforcement company and if so, if they were recommended with any feedback from other Boroughs.  Members were assured that Officers had explored feedback for a number of companies and where there had been difficulties reported it would be made very clear what Thurrock Council expected, as part of negotiations.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Place expressed confidence that the Council would be able to put an agreement in place which would achieve the desired outcomes.

The Chair said it would be helpful to be given full business cases for each option moving forward.  Councillor Piccolo continued that Members had not been made aware of the full range of options a private company could enforce.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Place noted strong endorsement for the flexible approach and asked if Members were comfortable for information to be shared with them as it arose, between meetings.

The Chair also reiterated the importance of freedom to exit any contract if requirements were not met.  Councillor Collins asked if there were a notice period required for the Council to exit any contract if the service were to prove unsatisfactory, and whether there would be any financial penalties involved.  Members were assured that any contact would be arranged in such a way that the Council would be free to exit if necessary.  Councillor Collins requested clarity on the length of the notice period, and was advised it would depend upon the outcome of negotiations, but could be instant depending on the severity of the breach on the part of the enforcement company. 

RESOLVED:

1)    The Cleaner, Greener and Safer Overview and Scrutiny Committee commented on the options set out in the paper.

2)    The Committee noted that its comments will be used to inform the ongoing review of the environment service, which will include resourcing options.

3)    The Committee commented specifically on the early introduction of a pilot scheme for the use of a private company to enforce against littering as part of the ongoing anti-littering campaign.