Presentations from Officers on how the Council deals with reports of anti-social behaviour, noise nuisance and pest control issues affecting residents in their home.
Minutes:
Members received presentations from Officers from the Neighbourhood team and Environmental Health.
Anti-Social Behaviour and Nuisance
Officers explained the areas covered by the anti-social behaviour team, and how the team was structured. Members noted the statistics indicating the workload of the team and performance against key performance indicators (KPI). This included that 111 cases had been classified as being “open”, with 20 cases having been open for over 6 months, and of those 12 had been open for over 12 months. Officers explained this was partly due to the delays in the enforcement process, with court hearings being delayed significantly.
Officers outlined the legislative framework, most notably the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policy Act 2014 and Neighbourhood and Community Standard 2012. Members were informed that each case was dealt on its own merit, but the team worked towards Key Principles. These were to 1) provide a high quality and responsive service to tackle anti-social behaviour and hate crime; 2) take a harm-centred and victim first approach and consider impact as well as seriousness; and 3) work in partnership to prevent anti-social behaviour, manage cases and sustain thriving communities.
Members noted a matrix demonstrating the different case severities that existed, with example of behaviours causing complaints and potential responses. Officers also set out the Case Management Principles and the partnership working which takes place.
Officers informed Members of the challenges that the team faced. These included delays to court action; the fact that perpetrators often came from vulnerable client group and had complex needs themselves; under capacity issues with community mental health teams, as well as drug and alcohol services; an increased level of reporting with more people staying at home and working from home; and increased difficulties in managing the expectations of those reporting issues, with increased levels of abuse aimed at staff.
The following points were raised and noted:
· Members asked whether the telephone reporting service gave an indication as to how long it would take for the team to respond. Officers confirmed this was not the case and that there had been technical issues to overcome with the team working from home and the introduction of new systems
· Members enquired as to whether derelict homes could be classed as anti-social behaviour given the impact it did have on neighbouring residents. Officers advised that the legislation defined anti-social behaviour in a specific way and this would likely be classified as nuisance. In practice, the team would look at the powers at the Council’s disposal to best deal with the issue and assign it to the most appropriate officers to resolve. In this case the Council may be required to use powers under regulations covering planning, environmental health or housing.
· In response to a question, Officers confirmed that they also covered privately owned homes.
· Members enquired how anti-social behaviour issues which was not linked to a particular property were dealt with. Officers confirmed that they do receive reports and would work closely with the police force who would be the lead in such cases.
· Officers confirmed that as well as the team leader who provided overall support and direction, there were three anti-social behaviour case officers, who would each have between 25 and 40 open cases at any one time. They were supported by an anti-social behaviour co-ordinator. Neighbourhood officers would also deal with low level incidents. Officers also confirmed that the team usually worked core office hours, but did work out of hours occasionally as required, to undertake patrols or witness an event
· Members noted the possibility that some cases were the result of “tit-for-tat” with Council officers caught in the middle.
· Members also noted the impact of the work from home on residents’ and staff’s mental health
· Members asked how anti-social behaviour connected to parking issues would be dealt with. Officers agreed that this could involve the Council, the police and/or Hertfordshire County Council, as Highways Authority, depending on the particular issue. Officers agreed to provide a chart to help guide Members and Officers know which organisation to contact when dealing with this particular issue
Officers advised Members that tenants were responsible for managing infestations. However, the Council’s contractor, SDK, provided a subsidised service for those on benefits. In more complicated cases, the Housing team may request the services of Woolmer Green Pest Control. Officers from Property Services and Environmental Health would also work collaborative where the problem was caused by multiple issues (such as tenant lifestyle, overgrown gardens, etc).
Members noted that 176 complaints had been received regarding pest and property in 2021. Pests included rats, mice and cockroaches. In addition, direct calls were made to SDK to arrange treatment. Officers set out the main causes of rat infestations and the challenges Officers faced in resolve the problem.
The following points were raised and noted:
· Members noted resource issues in the team, with competing priorities caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. However, Officers advised that a modernisation programme for the Public Health and Protection team was underway and would seek to identify more efficient ways of working and the best use of the resources available given the national shortage in environmental health officers
· Members asked whether the waste food caddies, designed with a locking mechanism, had reduced problems with pests. Officers confirmed the biggest issue was with large waste bins which had not been secured or locked. In these cases, experience had shown that a concentrated focus in a short period did make a difference
· Members asked whether Officers had access to good data to locate the source of pest problems. Officers confirmed that they did track complaints to map areas of concerns, and that contractors undertook their own monitoring and reported on town centres. However, Members were advised that there was not the resources to undertake a full mapping exercise at present.
Noise Nuisance
Officers provided a presentation on the issue of noise nuisances. Members were advised that whilst much of the investigation, and any enforcement action was based on science, the experience and level of impact on an individual was subjective. Members noted that the Council’s Environmental Health team played a proactive role, through it being a statutory consultee in planning applications and a Responsible Authority in certain licencing applications. The team also took a range of actions, from mediating between opposing parties, to taking enforcement actions against individuals. This required officers in the team to have and display specific skills and personal attributes. Members were also informed that complaints had risen during the pandemic with increased time spent in and around the home. Officers also explained how they worked proactively with developers and event organisers to try and mitigate anticipated noise issues with new buildings and activities.
The following points were raised and noted:
· Members asked whether there was a limit to the number of dogs council tenants could keep in a council property. Officers confirmed that the correct process would be for a tenant to seek permission before acquiring a dog. However, Officers appreciated that this did not happen in many cases and would work with the tenant and neighbour to resolve any issues. The tenant would only be asked to give up a pet as a breach of tenancy as a last resort
· Officers confirmed the team were not afraid to take action, but that action did need to be justified and proportionate, and officers would consider the wider context in which an action would be taken. In some cases this would require working closely with colleagues in other teams and/or organisations
Members thanked Officers for the presentation and the Chair asked the Principal Governance Officer to consider the comments made by Members and circulate proposed next steps to Committee Members.
Following the Committee meeting the following next steps were agreed by Members
RESOLVED
1. The Committee noted the principles, policies and structures in place to deal with reported incidents of anti-social behaviour, noise nuisance and pest control.
2. The Committee noted the variety of situations facing officers with regards to anti-social behaviour, noise nuisance and pest control issues, and the interconnectivity of the causes to such incidents.
3. The Committee noted the complexity of dealing with individual incidents reported to officers in terms of; the overlapping legislation and powers that may be applicable to a particular case; the number of internal teams who may need to be involved; and the involvement of external partners who had a role to play, not least in resolving particular underlying issues.
4. The Committee recognised the need to have and use Council resources effectively to address those problems it was required to resolve, and those problems it may be best placed to deal with.
5. However. the open session did not provide a comprehensive picture which would allow Members to fully assess the performance of the Council in this area.
6. The Committee therefore request officers facilitate a Part II sessions where Members would be able to closely examine the two longest outstanding cases and two recently live cases to review how the principles, policies and structures the Council has in place are applied in practice. This should be done in compliance with GDPR and privacy policies in place.
7. The Committee also ask that this session take place as soon as can be arranged.