Agenda item

For a period of up to thirty minutes, a Member of the Council who has given prior notice in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15, may ask (a) the Mayor, (b) the Leader of the Council or (c) a Member of the Cabinet a question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affects the Borough.

 

The questions received for this meeting are attached.  A Member asking a question may ask, without giving notice, one supplementary question of the Member to whom the first question was asked.  The supplementary question must arise directly out of the reply.

1.    Question by Councillor Kingsbury to the Executive Member Environment

“The new contract for environmental enforcement with District Enforcement has raised significant concerns among local businesses. I am sure we all agree on the need for enforcement against fly-tipping and genuine environmental damage. However, in Welwyn, several businesses have been threatened with fines for minor, technical issues related to waste disposal—without warning or time to correct the situation—despite their efforts to act responsibly and in an environmentally friendly manner. Given that District Enforcement is paid based on the fines they issue, with the council also receiving a portion of the revenue, there appears to be an incentive to pursue minor infractions rather than focus on serious environmental offenders. Does the portfolio holder agree that enforcement should prioritise genuine environmental risks rather than penalising minor non-compliance, which risks harming the local economy and discouraging responsible businesses?"

 

Answer

“It's fun that we have two similar questions so things might be not included but I'm saving them later.

 

So in the government's 2023 Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan it describes the plague of littering and fly tipping and actively encourages councils to use a full range of powers to deal with these issues. Indeed, it is a priority of this Administration that we tackle the scourge of dump rubbish and waste offenses and feedback tells us that residents and businesses are also supportive of this.

 

The contract with district enforcement is part of our approach to preventing and tackling waste crime through inspections and enforcement of littering, fly tipping, and making sure that businesses have proper arrangements in place

for the disposal of their waste, known as duty of care inspections.

 

The launch of this contract was supported with communications to councillors, residents, and businesses and this will continue. Much of the incorrectly disposed refuse ends up in the wrong waste stream, or in some cases, as littering or fly tipping.

 

The legislation surrounding duty of care has been in since 1990, some 34 years. And just as a reminder to the Council, I was born nine years after that. Businesses are given the opportunity to demonstrate that they have had proper waste disparagements in place, i.e. contracts. If they are unable to demonstrate this, then a fixed bounty notice is issued. The council has been pleased to note that today, some 84 % of businesses have been found to be in compliance with this duty of care legislation.

 

We do not consider failure to have suitable arrangements in place to dispose of waste to be a minor or technical non -compliance. It is not fair to those businesses that have their suitable waste disposal in place. Fixed penalty notices are not issued by DL unless there is evidence of a waste defence.

 

If businesses and residents comply with their duties regarding the proper disposal waste, then they will not be issued with fixed penalty notices. If businesses believe that they have not committed an offence, they are able to make a representation on this to District Enforcement Limited and this will be considered.

 

Alternatively, should they feel like they have a suitable case and have not paid a fixed penalty notice, their case will be taken to prosecution and their case heard in court. Although it is important to note that the court can increase the fine should they find the defendant guilty, but the defendant will have the opportunity to put forward mitigation.

 

The Council has put together a comms plan as well as FAQs to members to advise people and the business of the changing approach.”

 

Supplementary question

“Obviously, we agree with clamping down on fly tip and always have done, but thanks for the explanation and the excuses for the heavy-handed behaviour to the businesses. The businesses weren't even given a chance

to resolve the issue. I understand there were several examples of such behaviour, such as three male officers attended a small woman's clothing shop, making them all feel uncomfortable when one was changing. There have also been issues with the website and they don't adhere to the council's process of three levels of enforcement. We all know why they are choosing those easy to find as that's how district enforcement make their money.

 

Given the heavy handedness and issues with the process, will the portfolio holder waive these early fines? I am happy with a single answer of yes.”

 

Answer

“I realised that some residents may be uncomfortable with that situation and  that was never the intention of this council.

 

I remind them that all our officers do wear body cams so if they feel like there were some serious grievances, we can verify that and we can act on that.

 

We have received your queries and we are investigating every single one of them. But at the end of the day, the law is the law. If they do not have proper duty of care, then they should be fined. This isn't something we're doing. This is the law. We are asking our residents to follow law as well as we're asking ours, but we will still take every issue seriously.

 

This is a 12 -month pilot and we're less than two months into it but there I think the good outweighs the bad in this situation. But we will but I can't promise we're going to be waving any fines if they've broken the law”

 

2.    Question by Councillor Thusu to the Leader of the Council

“Following the recent release of an independent report, it is my understanding that this Borough council has had to yet again had to bear extensive costs on dealing with complaints involving a Labour councillor at Hatfield Town Council. Given that thousands were spent in 2020 on dealing with bullying allegations by the former Labour leader of Hatfield town council, can we get confirmation how much public money has already been spent on a recent review into Hatfield Town Council and the behaviour of rogue councillors and an explanation why WHBC is having to foot the bill for misbehaving labour town councillors?”

 

Answer

“Firstly, the Monitoring Officer of the borough Council is also the monitoring officer for any town and parish council that falls within the boundaries of the borough. This is clearly outlines in the Localism Act of 2011, something implemented a fair few governments ago. The borough has no control over whether or not complaints of there being a breach in the Councillor Code of Conduct are made against town or parish councillors, or even councillors in this room.

 

However, as and when complaints like these are made, the responsibility falls upon the Borough’s Monitoring Officer and Standards Committee to deal with complaints in accordance with the Council’s own arrangements for dealing with complaints about the code of conduct for councillors.

 

Unfortunately, the Act does not make a provision for the Council to recover the costs associated with the complaints from a town or parish council. Also, complaints are not dealt with along party-political lines. They are dealt with solely in accordance with the previously mentioned arrangements.

 

Within the last 18 months, there have been five separate complaints against Hatfield Town Councillors breaching the Councillor Code of Conduct. Of those complaints, one was made by a person external to the town council after a review had started.

 

When we look at how to deal with these complaints, the Deputy Monitoring Officer, in the absence of the Monitoring Officer, took into account, amongst other things: 

(i)            the 2020 complaint which you referred to in your question;

(ii)           the number of existing complaints;

(iii)          the fact that not all of these complaints were made against one councillor; and

(iv)          the wide-ranging nature of the complaints.

 

Following consultation with the Executive Director (Finance and Transformation) and with the Council’s Independent Person, the Deputy Monitoring Officer reached the view that it was appropriate for there to be a review of the Town Council to assist the Deputy Monitoring Officer to better understand whether there were any underlying causes or systemic issues that could be relevant to the complaints. In turn, this could also assist in trying to stem the flow of complaints and, thereby, reduce the costs to the Borough Council in the longer term.

 

The review cost approximately £10,000 plus staff time and was carried out by Hoey Ainscough Associates Ltd, a consultancy which was set up in April 2012 to offer specialist support local authorities in managing their arrangements for handling councillor conduct issues.  They bring with them a wealth of experience in handling these matters. While I do agree it would have been desirable to avoid expenditure, it was appropriate for the review to be independent of the Deputy Monitoring Officer and members to ensure that complaints were progressed and concluded objectively.

 

The review was thorough and the resulting report comprehensive. In addition to identifying strengths and weaknesses in the way that the town council operates. The report makes relevant recommendations for the town council to adopt. It should now assist the Monitoring Officer with progressing and completing any outstanding complaints.

 

Ultimately, when issues are raised, they need to be investigated properly and its absolutely right that officers decide the best route forward and not members and its important in this chamber that we all respect those decisions and processes.

 

Supplementary question

“I believe that that was quite a comprehensive answer. Not quite sure I've answered and everything, but I guess you've mentioned the report and what it recommends. Now, one of the things it highlights is a lack of leadership, lack of control in meetings by the Labour chai and, bullying of workers by some Labour councillors.

 

Now, you're saying it's not political, but they seem to all come from one party.

So the question is, do you think there's a systemic problem within the town council, or just a few rotten apples that should perhaps consider their position.”

 

Answer

“My understanding is that the report doesn't single out councillors by any group or political party and that members of this Chamber will be aware that sort of the complaints aren't targeted at single parties.

 

I would have to have to interrogate that that report in order to answer that question but my understanding is that that report doesn't single out councillors of any party”

 

3.    Question by Councillor Bardett to the Executive Member Housing

“Wilshere Road is one of a number of roads in Welwyn West that have service roads to access the rear of the properties and their garages, these service roads are in a poor state of repair. Maintenance of these roads is the responsibility of this council, and in 2023 works appeared to start with the marking of potholes to be repaired. Recent attempts through member casework to get an update on progress of the works elicited the response “… the maintenance of the road is within the remit of responsibility of Herts County Council” and the case was closed. When it was pointed out that this was incorrect the case was reopened the subsequent response was “that there is a quote in place do works to service roads across the borough”, …” At the moment this isn’t part of any planned works.” 

 

Can the portfolio holder confirm when the quoted works to the service roads will be added to the planned works with a scheduled start and finish month and year. Further can they advise where Wilshere Road lies on the priority list for the quoted works so that the residents can be advised accordingly.”

 

Answer

“In 2023, we carried out some work on the service road between Wilshire Road and Horse Rush or Bush Rise, unfortunately, the standard repair or filling the potholes did not last as long as we had hoped. The cost for a more substantial repair, which includes resurfacing the service road, is estimated to be around £100,000. It is important to note that there are 44 properties that access the road, of which 28 are privately owned and 16, or 36%, are owned by the council. It would be prudent for the council to explore options to share a proportion of these costs with the private owners. This is not only fair but necessary as our resources should be used to invest in our housing stock and to build more affordable homes.

We are in the process of reviewing the legal documents of the private households to see how we could find a way to recoup their proportion of the cost for these works. Once this is completed we'll seek an updated estimate prior to starting the work”

 

Supplementary question

“If these roads are actually owned by the, or effectively adopted, by this council. Why should any residents be paying any more for these roads?”

 

Answer

“I think the service charge with  service roads do pose a particular challenge

as I say the adoption of the private households over time has meant that we need to review the current legal status of that.

 

Obviously, we want to make sure we are fulfilling our duty where it is necessary. We also need to be responsible where we're allocating that finance.

 

We went down to view the Service Road with officers to have a look at, to understand the situation better. And when you look at it, I think service roads are challenging because a) the use of them has changed over the years a lot. When you look down that particular road, garages have been adopted for home offices and you see where people have built up to different boundaries to that property the road itself is sloped so if you were to do a full repair, you'll need to add in things like drainage to that. There's more than there's quite a bit to look at behind that and how we approach this issue going forward is something that me to review and we want to make sure that we set up a new process that we can follow that is fair going forward”

 

4.    Question by Councillor Walsh to the Executive Member Environment

“For too long, our streets and greenways have been stained due to the actions of some who have used these public spaces as their own private dumping ground. A disgusting act which, despite the best efforts of our local volunteer community who go picking this up, continued to harm the proud image we should have of our towns and environs.

 

With this in mind, it has been very reassuring to see and hear of the actions of the litter enforcement team appointed by this council at no cost to this council in identifying culprits and issuing penalties.

 

 Can I ask for an update on the performance of this new initiative?”

 

Answer

“Fly tipping is unacceptable and costs local authorities across England some £8.9 million per year in clean up.

 

We appreciate all the hard work and time that our volunteers keep in our community to help pick up litter and help us to keep the borough clean.

 

But we also need to tackle those that commit these waste crime offenses.

As it has been mentioned earlier, tackling littering, fly tipping and other waste offenses is one of the key priorities for this administration. As part of our approach, the Council tendered a contract which was won by District Enforcement Limited to deal with fly tipping, duty of care offences and littering. District Enforcement can only issue FPNs if there is evidence of an offence and the fines from FPNs paid for the service. They provide at no cost to the Council. This approach, alongside activities from our Council teams, is the approach to tackling robust enforcement action. The contract is a 12 -month pilot to help us assess if this approach is successful in reducing flight tipping and littering within the borough. To date, 132 waste offenses have been identified and fixed. And fixed penalty notices have been issues. These comprise 81 FPNs for littering, 47 FPNs for failure of business comply with duty of care, two FPNs for household fly tipping, and two FPNs for business fly tipping. It is still in early days of the pilot, but these initiatives have made a strong, successful start the fight against waste crime. We continue to monitor the performance over the weeks and months ahead, and the difference will make for our borough.”