Decision details

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Community,  which set out the approach taken on enforcement by the Licensing and Enforcement team during the last 12 months.  The report outlined the scope of the service, current issues facing the team and how it was working in order to continually improve the service to local residents and businesses.

The Portfolio Holder for Community Cohesion, Crime and Enforcement informed the Committee that, together with officers, she had met with the Scrutiny Lead Members and the report addressed their concerns, such as:

·                 enforcement action taken

·                 partnership working

·                 capacity of the team and any recruitment issues

·                 enforcement strategy, changes required and how the strategy could be altered for the benefit of the borough.

An officer introduced the report and made a presentation to the Committee which is attached at appendix 1 to the minutes.  She explained the scope and the demands on the service, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic, which covered the following areas:

·                 commercial and residential licensing

·                 environmental protection

·                 food, health, and safety

·                 overseeing the delivery of the trading standards service for Harrow by Brent Council

·                 overseeing the enforcement work by a company, Kingdom LA Services, in relation to the non-compliance of the Council’s Public Spaces Protection Orders.

The presentation slides set out the Council’s approach to enforcement as follows:

·                 east, west, and central area-based teams had been formed.  These set out which Wards were covered by which areas

·                 priority enforcement teams (PETs) - the service was looking to recruit six additional officers by the end of January 2022.  The PETs would operate as a task force and be intelligence led.  Various initiatives were being used to make residents aware of the team’s work.  For example, yellow markings/stickers were being used on dumped rubbish in order to make residents aware that the Council was aware of the problem. Monitoring was taking place on a weekly basis and would be shown by Wards in due course.

·                 the fly tipping strategy had shown that there was a direct link between HMOs (houses in multiple occupation) and fly tipping.  An action plan was in place to deal with the issue

·                 it was recognised that customer journey needed to be improved.  This was being managed by the introduction of user-friendly web pages and e-forms, improved communication, and performance.  A cross-departmental working group had been set up to take this initiative forward.

Members welcomed the report and were pleased with the progress made by the Licensing and Enforcement team.  Members noted the good work done in some parks and that the consultation on the introduction of an Order to address concerns and complaints in the use of the parks would be repeated to include other issues that had arisen with the overall management of the parks.  The consultation would be broken down into two phases:

·                 phase 1 would consult on the PSPO (public service protection orders) to address particular issues of anti-social behaviour

·                 phase 2 would encapsulate the requirement or the need for additional powers across other green spaces in the Borough.

Members asked additional questions and suggested that a strategy to address the various issues with the operation and use of the parks would help tackle issues.  An officer stated that it was envisaged that the situation would improve once the recruitment process was complete.  Members would be kept up to date in this regard.

Members were also concerned about the inability of some sections of the population to use or access the Council’s services online.  A Member asked how this matter would be resolved so that residents could telephone or use other methods to report on environmental issues.  In response, an officer stated that various methods were being explored such as street briefings and briefings at community halls.  Leaflets would be sent to residents to make them aware of such briefings.  Improved and effective communication was key, and Councillors would be kept informed of what was being done to allow them to share that information with their constituents.  Another Member commented that improvements to the website and web forms would help reduce the frustrations amongst residents when reporting issues.

A Member asked if, aside from the poor website, the Council had any quality controls in place.  He also asked if any benchmarks were applied and if there were any service level agreements in place.  He added that one of the challenges faced by residents was the lack of action by the Council when issues were reported. In response, the officer stated that some of the issues with online reporting were not going to be resolved immediately and options were being discussed.  The use of My Harrow Account as a reporting tool was one possibility.  Officers were focusing on telling residents which Wards they would be working in and when, including the type of services that would be provided.  In addition, officers were working on performance reports, including monitoring their own work across all Wards.  Staff would be held to account and key performance indicators measured.

The issue of fly tipping was raised by a Member and he questioned if the lack of powers made this an ongoing problem.  It was acknowledged that this issue was particularly acute on private land and owners were being threatened with fines.  There was concern that public funds were being used to clear private land.  Officers were exploring the use of FPNs (fixed penalty notices) for this purpose.

Members were informed that, in relation to fly tipping, officers were focusing on 20 areas which varied in size.  Heat maps were being used to identify sites and the most problematic sites were being targeted.  Members were interested to know which areas had been identified as problematic and how they had been compiled.

It was recognised by officers that there was a significant backlog of complaints and the enforcement team was exploring options.

Members also expressed concerns about problems associated with houses in multiple occupation and ‘beds in sheds and a Member asked if a cross-party working group could be convened to work on environmental issues.

Members also highlighted the following additional issues which were responded to by an officer:

·                 commercial waste where agreements were not being honoured.  An officer undertook to investigate with a view to helping businesses resolve the problems

·                 partnership working with neighbouring Councils.  Members were informed that officers were in close contact with adjoining Councils.  An example of joint working on enforcement was targeting the border areas of Edgware and Burnt Oak with Barnet Council

·                 use of mobile CCTV in areas where fly tipping was a constant issue and the levels of prosecutions undertaken.  Apart of the problems on private land discussed earlier, similar issues existed on unregistered land.  In response, an officer stated that the Council was looking to purchase more CCTV and examining how these could be utilised, including existing CCTV.  Other technological options would also be explored.  Another Member suggested that CCTV attached to lamp posts was a helpful for surveillance, but it was recognised that not all cameras were monitored.  Issues on land that was not registered had also been captured.

A Member asked how environmental complaints were logged as these would be received from various communication channels.  An officer assured Members that all complaints would be logged into a central system.  Another Member raised the issue of private enforcement teams claiming to be from the Council.  The officer asked for details to be sent to her so that she could investigate.

The Chair commended officers on their work but expressed concern that all the good work might be lost if there were cuts to the budget.  He asked if the Portfolio Holder had had any conversations in safeguarding this budget area with the relevant officers and lead Councillors.  An officer stated that short term funding was being used to currently finance this area of enforcement and other funding methods, such as the use of money from FPNs, were being explored.  Additionally, other funding avenues would also be explored.

In response, the Portfolio Holder for Community Cohesion, Crime and Enforcement stated that investments had already been made and it was important to ensure that the recruitment of additional staff would result in improvements to the service and make it sustainable.  The current administration was focusing on priority areas such as enforcement.  The Director of Strategy and Partnerships informed Members that the draft budget had an element of reserves which would be drawn upon if required.  However, the financial settlement from the government was awaited and it was hoped that it would be a positive one.

In conclusion, the Chair was pleased that the service was moving forward in a positive way and he asked that a further report be submitted to the Committee in six months’ time.

RESOLVED:  That

(1)            the work being undertaken by the Licensing and Enforcement team, as set out in the officer report, be noted;

(2)            a report be submitted to the June 2022 meeting of the Committee setting out the progress made.