Minutes:
The report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) and accompanying presentation provided the Committee with the performance indicator data collected for services that fell within its remit. It provided Quarter 4 for 2017-18, along with comparative information.
The report and presentation helped the Committee to identify which of the Council’s services had improved, not improved or remained the same in their key performance areas. It was noted that 15 Performance Indicators (PIs) were achieved and 6 narrowly missed.
PI 17 (Reduce the level of residual household waste collected per head of the population)
Some Members were disappointed at the performance and expressed the view that if there had been more recycling then there would have been less residual waste.
PI 18 (Percentage of household waste collected and sent for reuse, recycling and composting)
Members put forth that the current targets were not ambitious enough and the actual performance of 37% was disappointing. Moreover other Council’s such as Three Rivers and St Albans, had higher recycling rates. Next Members asked that officers investigate the discrepancy and provide a comparative report on the recycling services of other Councils. In addition Members asked that the real figures and percentages for the performance indicator be provided.
The Corporate Director (Planning, Protection and Governance) advised Members that local benchmarking would cost money and Officer time, and that the monitoring would be part of the 2020 procurement process for the recycling service.
Members enquired whether there was any scope to consult with local business because Waitrose and Sainsbury had the facilities to recycle plastic carrier bags.
The Head of Environment advised Members that the introduction of the tax on carrier bags had been the most effective way to reduce their environmental impact. In addition, they were a difficult product to recycle as they had no market value. He agreed to check with Hertfordshire’s leading recycling company if the situation had changed and the following answer was circulated to the Committee on 20 June 2018:
“For Council collected plastic carrier bags, WHBC still gets plastic bags in the blue lidded bins, these are taken out of the process and are bundled up. The reduced number of carrier bags still being collected by WHBC hinder the sorting of material and reduce the efficiency of the process. The carrier bags are sent for recycling at a cost to the recycling company. The tonnage involved is less than 10 tonnes per year and would have a negligible impact on the recycling rate.
Carrier bags left at retail outlets or recovered by a company like Ocado are recycled. This recycling is mainly done in the Far East, with a very small amount of one coloured carrier bags being processed in the UK. The carrier bags from these sources are relatively clean and may have a small level of market demand, but at a charge to the retailers and/or recyclers. The carrier bags may also go to locations to recover energy.
The recycling company confirmed that the recycling of carrier bags is not economically viable”.
Lastly, Members enquired as to whether there was any scope to introduce a food only collection for free. Officers explained that it was not viable under the current contract due to the capital outlay required for new vehicles and would be considered as part of the 2020 contract/procurement process.
PI 50 (The percentage of corporate emergency plan/documents that are reviewed and assessed as compliant)
Members raised concerns that the Council was not 100% compliant with emergency plans and documents, being only 71% compliant.
Officers agreed to pass on the concerns and the following information was circulated to the Committee on 20 June 2018:
“PI 50 covers 17 plans maintained by the Public Health and Protection Service. For the period in question, 4 of these are currently under review. This does not necessarily mean that a plan is unfit for purpose, or that it leaves us exposed – a review can, in practice, consist of minor changes to names for example. At particular times when this indicator is calculated, a number of plans may be under cyclical review, and that is the case in this period. Since the performance clinic, the indicator has increased to 76% and this will increase further over the next few weeks”.
PI 27 (The level of planning appeals allowed)
Members enquired as to why the Planning Inspectorate had allowed more appeals and emphasised the need for high standards of design in the Borough. The Chairman advised the Committee that it was often prudent to approve a scheme and subsequently have input into the design. Similarly where schemes had got through on appeal, the Planning team would have no input into the design.
The Chairman sought clarification as to which appeal decisions had been made by members and which had been delegated. The following answer was circulated to Members on 13 June 2018:
“The text confirms that there were 12 appeal decisions, of which 5 were allowed by the Planning Inspectorate. The breakdown is that 3 of the overturned appeals were decided by officers and 2 were decided by DMC”.
And on 18 June 2018:
“It is worth noting that Planning Officers deal with about 500 applications per quarter (versus 3 appeals allowed in Q1) and DMC considers about 15 items per quarter (versus 2 appeals allowed in Q1). Officers are here to guide Councillors and the public based on their knowledge of the Planning System.
PI 20 (The percentage of residents either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with street cleansing (e.g. litter and sweeping services)
Members observed that the targets were missed again and requested to know the exact nature of comments made by residents so that the Council could address the problems more effectively. The Chairman supported this view and the following information was circulated to the Committee on 20 June 2018.
“Concerning P1 20, below are listed the five main concerns raised when surveyed with the most commonly quoted reason at the top of the list: It has to be remembered that people can provide as many concerns as they like.
|
1) Visible/noticeable litter/ mess/ rubbish |
|
|
2) Not cleaned regularly/ should be cleaned more regularly |
|
|
3) Roads untidy e.g. not swept, dirty, untidy, leaves, weeds etc. |
|
|
4) Pavements poor e.g. potholes, dangerous, slippery (Please note that this is not a Welwyn Hatfield Council function) |
|
|
5) Problems with fly tipping” |
|
PI 16 (Satisfaction with lawn cemetery ground maintenance performance)
Members were pleased with the figures for cemetery ground maintenance.
PI 23 (Completion rate of all tree maintenance work within the planned programme)
Members recognised that targets had been exceeded. In spite of this, Members asked that Officers consider why many tree stumps remained in situ in the Borough months or years after tree work had been carried out.
The Tree Officer circulated the following via email after the meeting:
“If residents and/or Councillors have issues regarding Council maintained trees the best way to register the issue is to raise a call via the Council’s LAGAN system by calling 01707 357000”.
PI 46 (The percentage of allotment plots in use, in comparison to the overall number of plots available for use)
It was recognised that this PI was performing well at 96% but that the target needed to be revised upwards.
PI 24 (The percentage of residents “satisfied” with local open spaces (e.g. parks, trees and woodlands)
Members noted that this was less than the previous quarter and asked what residents were specifically dissatisfied with and that the data from the Serco survey be looked at by Officers.
The Serco Contracts Manager advised that the quality of response from the telephone surveys had been getting weaker due to GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) as more people had registered for the preference of no contact.
The Chairman advised the Committee that surveys would be looked at as part of the procurement process for the contract in 2020.
Then, regarding PI 18 (Percentage of household waste collected and sent for reuse, recycling and composting), Councillor M.Cowan moved and Councillor M. Birleson seconded
“This Committee requests that Officers enquire from Councils in Hertfordshire with significantly higher recycling performance than Welwyn Hatfield as to how they deliver higher performance and how these performance figures are measured as well as what lessons we can learn and potentially put into practice”.
And on being put to the meeting the motion was carried.
RESOLVED:
(1) That the performance indicator collected and reported for Quarter 4 and annual reports be noted.
(2) That Officers enquire from Councils in Hertfordshire with significantly higher recycling performance than Welwyn Hatfield as to how they deliver higher performance, how these performance figures are measured as well as what lessons the Council can learn and potentially put into practice.
(3) That the information from the local benchmarking exercise is brought back to the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee to discuss.
(4) That the information from the local benchmarking exercise be considered during the procurement process in 2020 for the recycling service contract.