Environment Scrutiny Panel17 September 2010

ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY PANEL

A meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel was held on 17 September 2010

PRESENT: Councillor Kerr (Chair), Councillors Carter, Clark, C Hobson, Hubbard and McPartland

OFFICERS:A Crawford, G Field and V Flynn

** APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were submitted on behalf of Councillors Davison and Lancaster

** DECLARATIONS OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS

Councillor Clark declared a Personal Interest in the first item on the grounds that he was an allotment tenant.

** MINUTES

The Minutes of the Environment Scrutiny Panel meeting held on 23 August 2010 were taken as read and approved as a correct record.

ALLOTMENTS STRATEGY

The Scrutiny Support Officer presented a report, the purpose of which was to provide the Panel with an update on revising the Council’s Allotment Strategy following the panel’s review of Countryside Matters in 2008/2009. One of the recommendations of that review was that the Panel were kept updated on the allotments position. An extract from that report was attached as Appendix 1. An updated version of the Allotment Strategy, dated September 2010, was attached as Appendix 2 of the report.

At the meeting, the Panel was presented with an Allotment Strategy Action Plan 2010, which detailed 25 Actions and indicated the current status of each Action.

Geoff Field (title??) was present and advised the panel on the work that had been undertaken since the Allotment Strategy was first introduced and the following points were identified.

  • There was much more demand for allotments than there was 20 years ago.
  • The management structure looking after the allotment service had changed in the last year and was now lead by Simon Blenkinsop, who was previously with Tees Forest.
  • A lot of improvements had taken place on the allotments, challenging improper use and lack of use of allotments and in collecting income.
  • The demand for allotments was there, and it was essential that all available land was turned into allotments and made available for rent.
  • A foreseeable problem was the uncertain future budget situation, as there were to be significant cuts in the budgets of both Streetscene and Environment Services, which would impact on all services.
  • At present, the allotment service cost more than was recovered in rents.
  • Self-management of allotment sites was a future possibility and this would held reduce the cost of the Council’s input. Properly run self- managed sites could apply for outside funding that was not available to Middlesbrough Council., such as lottery or community grants.
  • There were 25 actions on the list, and it was proposed that Panel members undertook another site visit to various allotment sites, to see the improvements made to date.
  • The aim was to keep the waiting list as low as possible and that any free land on the allotment site be cleared, to be made available as allotments.
  • There was now a designated team whose responsibility was to look after allotments, including a process to remove tenants from allotments where no fees had been paid or the plot was discarded and unkempt. Tenants were advised in a much clearer way of what was expected of them.
  • Whilst the provision of allotments was not mandatory, however, if residents requested allotments, then a provision had to be made. Allotments had been provided in Middlesbrough for many years and allotments had recently been the subject of a surge in interest in this activity.
  • Self management allotment sites were very viable, a good example being the STEM site at Cargo Fleet which was an excellent and worthwhile community initiative. Plots were smaller and of a more workable size. Members were advised that a lot of credit for this was the hard work undertaken by Martin Harvey, who was part of the STEM team.
  • The size of allotments was important and it was agreed that smaller plots were more likely to succeed and also this would allow more tenants to participate. A plot which was 1/16th of an acre was very large and could be daunting for a new tenant. Smaller plots were more manageable, although even 1/32 of an acre was also a reasonable size to manage.
  • It was proposed that new applicants should be offered a variety of sizes of plots.
  • One of the major problems on allotments sites was fly tipping and rubbish left by tenants, which then had to be cleared by the Council. Self managed sites would have to remove their own rubbish. Compost heaps were an answer for garden refuse but when fly tippers left building rubble or asbestos, this became much more of a problem.
  • Hedges also needed to be cut back by the Council, as often these were too high for tenants to be able to tackle by themselves, especially if there was no power on site. Even on self-managed sites, there would still be a degree of involvement from the Council.
  • Community allotments were good in that the tenants could help each other to clear rubbish and reduce the height of hedges.

It was agreed that the Action Sheet be noted and re-examined at a future meeting, to ascertain progress. This would be in six months’ time, in March 2011, then annually after that.

Agreed that the Allotment Strategy 2009 be endorsed and that the Action Plan be referred back to the Panel in March 2011.

REVIEW OF PEST CONTROL SERVICE – DRAFT FINAL REPORT

The Scrutiny Support Officer presented the draft final report of the Panel on the topic of Middlesbrough Council’s pest control service.

Members were also presented with a list of possible Conclusions and Recommendations as follows:

DRAFT CONCLUSIONS

  1. Pest control was an important Council service in terms of environmental and public protection, although much work was unseen and unrecognised by the public. Investigations and pest treatments could be very labour intensive and time consuming, for example in the case of rat infestations. The public should continue to be made aware of the benefits that the service provides, especially in the context of current public expenditure constraints and increased public scrutiny of Council tax spending.
  2. With the number of reported rat problems increasing each year, there was a need to consider how the public could be best informed of measures that they could take to minimise the risk of encouraging rat problems or infestation.
  3. Pest control charges were standardised and were applicable to all, irrespective of means or income. Consideration should be given to how best charges can be collected, both to facilitate convenient payment methods for householders and to minimise debt collection problems for the authority.
  4. Numbers of rodent bait treatments in sewers had decreased since Northumbrian Water took on responsibility for this function. Although regular meetings were scheduled with Northumbrian Water, feedback/updated information has not always been obtainable. The scrutiny panel had some concerns regarding this issue.

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. That the work of the pest control service continued to be highlighted and publicised - for example by writing to all relevant households and businesses to inform them of a successful rat infestation treatment in their area. Such letters could also be used to provide advice on how similar problems can be avoided in the future.
  2. That, publicity was issued to inform the public of the trend of increasing rat numbers and informing them of steps that they could take to minimise rat problems. Reference should be made to the fact that advice from the pest control service was provided free of charge.
  3. That arrangements be made to facilitate easier payment of pest control charges - for example accepting immediate payment following treatment, utilising electronic payments, or introducing flexible payment arrangements, such as payment in instalments in cases of hardship.
  4. That Northumbrian Water be informed of the scrutiny panel’s concerns regarding the reduced frequency of sewer baiting, particularly given the trend of increasing rat numbers in general; and requested to provide regular written updates to the Council on the frequencies and results of the baiting.

Discussion took place on the Conclusions and Recommendations.

Agreed as follows:

(a)that the above Conclusions and Recommendations be added to the draft Final Report,

(b)that the Final Report, as detailed above be submitted to a future meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD UPDATE

The Chair requested that the Panel note the contents of the submitted report which provided an update on business conducted at the Overview and Scrutiny Board meeting held on 24 August 2010, including the action or commentary undertaken for each agenda item.

  • Attendance of Executive Members at the Overview and Scrutiny Board
  • Executive Member for Children Families and Learning to address the OSB
  • Executive Feedback
  • Executive Forward Work Programme
  • Outcome of call in – Environment Crèche Review and Site 44, (Longridge)
  • Scrutiny Panel Progress Reports
  • Improving the level of employment for people with disabilities – final update report of the Social Care and Adult Services Scrutiny Panel.

Agreed that the above information be noted.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel was scheduled for Monday 11 October 2010 at 1.30 p.m. in the Spencer Room.

It was agreed that the following topics be presented to the next meeting.

(1)Nature’s World – Several members of the Board were to be invited to address the panel on the recently produced Consultant’s Report on Nature’s World.

(2)Building Management – A introduction of this to be presented to the panel, to decide how to

proceed with the investigation of this topic.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Joint Working Party – Vehicle Emissions

The Chair made reference to this Informal group and reminded the Panel that the first meeting was scheduled for Monday 20 September 2010.

1