Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise

Members received a report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise which set out a general overview of the Public Realm Services and the changes planned for the service area.

The Divisional Director of Environment outlined the content of the report and explained that the Public Realm Service was currently part of a wider transformation project taking place in his division – the PRISM project.  He reported on the new technology in the refuse service, the proposal to reduce the number of refuse vehicles, the ability to provide information more directly to residents, and changes to the street cleansing and grounds maintenance services.  He stated that the changes made had meant that there was a greater ability to focus on those issues that residents reported.

A Member stated that the report did not address the issues that he wished to consider in that over the years there had been a number of cuts and had wanted to see where the Council was in terms of service standards.  He wanted to get a sense of what was going on on the ground, for example, in relation to trees. Residents were complaining about trees in terms of pruning and officers were reporting that they could not carry out works unless it was an emergency due to budget cuts.  He also requested clarification on the meaning of paragraph 4 on page 12 of the report.

The Divisional Director responded that the department’s restricted capacity was acknowledged and that there were some activities that could no longer be performed due to savings.  The front line services had, however, been maintained.  The proposal was to separate some functions and staff in order to particularly focus on commissioning.

The Member expressed the view that the removal of some of the Access Harrow contact channels would make the current situation worse and residents would instead contact Councillors with their public realm issues/complaints.  He questioned how it was envisaged that Members resolve issues raised as they too would have reduced contact channels.  The Divisional Director responded that it was important to recognise that many residents now contacted the Council by emailing or texting photographs of problems in the public realm such as graffiti and fly tipping.

A Member stated that in the budget papers there was a line stating that there would be £600,000 savings from a reduction in the public realm service and requested clarification on the implications of this line.  The Divisional Director stated that whilst this was not included in the papers before Members, work was being done on efficiency savings.  He reported that calls about graffiti and fly tipping were being responded to more quickly but that there would, amongst other things, be a reduction in the level of street cleansing and grass cutting.  Decisions were on these aspects would be included in the final budget and whilst officers would not choose to make these cuts the Council had to make significant savings.  In response to the Member’s request for further detail on the number of roads and parks that would not be maintained to the existing level, the Divisional Director stated that work was currently underway but related mainly to the number of posts that would be lost and the reduction in vehicle numbers.  The savings would have to be delivered quickly due to the Council’s financial position.

A Member questioned whether the work with the Communications team involved looking in to the psychology of behaviour.  The Divisional Director advised that the Communications team had some interesting ideas and that education was key.  Enforcement activity was undertaken and the Council would not hesitate in prosecuting fly tippers.  With their existing powers, the police were able to fine for littering/flytipping and there were ongoing discussions with them in terms of which pieces of legislation the Council would like to use.  A report was being prepared for the Portfolio Holder on this issue.

In response to a Member’s question on street criteria, the Divisional Director stated that, in his view, some sites may have been assessed incorrectly.  Harrow’s figures were not that bad it was just that other authorities had improved.  Some of these figures may be a little optimistic.  He acknowledged the Member’s comment that the figures would get worse as the number of street cleanses was reduced.

A Member requested an update on the Drain London project.  The Divisional Director undertook to provide the Member with a written update.

In response to a Member’s question about engagement with schools in relation to litter, the Divisional Director advised that there was engagement with schools on various projects and also if a particular issue was raised via Access Harrow.  The Member expressed the view that she was in agreement with the suggestion that PSOs be able to issue fines for litter offences.

Members questioned the commissioning approach and the view was expressed that there was still a considerable way to go before there was meaningful commissioning.  Concern was expressed that officers appeared to be unable to advise Members of the outcomes that were sought or could be afforded as a result of commissioning.  The Committee would need to monitor the impact.  The new Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise was to be invited to attend the meeting of the Committee in February 2013 and a Member requested that she be asked to set out her vision for the service and the impacts on street cleansing and parks maintenance.

The Chair thanked the Divisional Director for his attendance and responses.

RESOLVED:  That the changes impacting on Public Realm Services be noted.