Agenda item

To consider progress in delivering the Environment Corporate Priority.

Members considered the Progress of Corporate Priority – Environment, welcoming Councillors Boden, Mrs French and Tierney together with Carol Pilson and Garry Edwards to the meeting.

Members made comments, asked questions, and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked how are the priorities decided generally and what impact will Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) have on overseeing and managing the priorities or what the predicted impact will be? Councillor Tierney responded that the priorities are decided through the Council’s procedures, councillors and officers feed into the process then it is shared with all the committees it needs to be shared with including O&S, and then the priorities are finalised and pushed forward. He continued how this will be affected by the LGR he could not comment on as there was not enough detail out yet and stated that the priorities will be decided on a year-by-year basis using any new information to adjust as and when necessary.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked considering the changes about to take place, the Corporate Priorities model of a one-year plan with three-year aspirations, i.e. a medium-term strategy, is no longer the most effective suitable model and how will the changes taking place affect the viewing process? Councillor Tierney stated that he thinks the model is right, the medium-term plan is a four-year plan which is reviewed every year allowing the team to feed in and adjust accordingly.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked for an update on the Fenland Inspire projects. Councillor Boden responded that at the last Cabinet meeting which took place on the 16 June a report was given on Fenland Inspire and where the Council is with the projects divided into two tranches. He stated that the first tranche will be going ahead this year within the capacity available and the second tranche will be going ahead, when the Council has reasonable confirmation that the LGR is going to go ahead, which is going to take place from the 1 April 2028. Councillor Boden continued the Council is expecting legislation to be laid before both Houses of Parliament as statutory instruments in the spring of 2026 and as and when this happens will unlock the remaining part of Fenland Inspire because without that certainty of termination of FDC there could be difficulty in financing what it is that is being suggested. He continued having said that, at the meeting of Cabinet last month, it was announced that one of the projects will not be going ahead and that is the Wisbech Chapel project, with the reason being on the preliminary examination of the project it was evident that it would not be sustainable so hence it was removed from the list.

·         Councillor Foice-Beard asked why there are 40 plus street light units still awaiting inspection and is the inspection in relation to the low-level lighting bulbs or the columns, and what is the risk if these are structurally unsafe? Councillor Mrs French responded that the outstanding street light testing works related to both electrical and structural integrity testing with the assets themselves being a combination of columns, poles, brackets and ground mounted up lighters and the delays are associated with factors such as contractors unable to access due to excessive tree vegetation overgrow, the contractor unable to find the assets on site or access the assets which are restricted by locked gates, parked cars etc. She continued that a handful of assets also require traffic management by Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) to obtain road space to access due to the asset’s location with the highest structural risk being associated with columns that are cast iron or concrete, but ongoing work continues with the contractors. Garry Edwards added, in terms of street lighting, unfortunately there are some that are waiting to be structurally and electrically tested and it is hoped that they will be completed this week, but as stated earlier, parked cars and access to some of the streetlights can be difficult. He continued, in terms of the risk, any of the streetlights that the contractor comes across where there is immediate danger, they will remove the streetlights to make it safe for the public and so far, the total is 16 streetlights that are of the highest category.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked how many complaints have been received due to the new splay of lights from the new heads? Garry Edwards responded that complaints have been very low, but FDC only has responsibility for around 1,800 streetlights, and FDC do share the same road space as Cambridgeshire County Council’s (CCC) assets who have more than 53,000 streetlights. He continued that CCC’s luminaire specification is different to FDC’s as in they seem dimmer, which is where the complaints have derived from and FDC have had a few complaints that the light is projected too far forward or too far rearwards, which is a quick fix by adding a small shield to prevent that light splay.

·         Councillor Booth stated that there was a new contract in place for street lighting, and in Parson Drove there are some outstanding replacements, he is aware that UK Power Networks are to undertake the connections, but would like to know how the handover with the new contractors is going and what is the plan to get up to speed with all the outstanding pieces of work? Garry Edwards confirmed that the handover with the new contractors has gone well but is slower than anticipated because of the different management systems of streetlights in place which has made the transition slow. He continued, in terms of the legacy schemes, every effort has been made to complete as much work as possible with the former contractor but unfortunately this has caused a three-way triangle between FDC, CCC and UK Power Network because of road space permits etc but what is sometimes undertaken is that FDC can fit a temporary supply so the streetlights are working.

·         Councillor Mrs French referred to the TTRO’s and the traffic management which has to be carried out through CCC, which has got to be booked for a minimum of 12 weeks.

·         Councillor Roy stated he would like to raise the issue of bulky waste collection as since the increase in cost there has been evidence of constant fly tipping and wanted to know if this can be revisited or the possibility investigated of a discretionary scheme or even a bulky waste amnesty for the low-income community? Councillor Tierney responded that he did not feel there was any evidence that shows the small increase in bulky waste collection has increased the amount of fly tipping. He continued he felt the service is great value for money and is the cheapest other than Peterborough out of other local authorities and he was pleased to report that the service has been growing year on year. Councillor Tierney continued in regard to the amnesty he was aware that this has been tried in other authorities where people are given the opportunity to get rid of loads of waste but then as soon as this is over the rubbish starts to accumulate again so this encourages ongoing amnesties which costs a lot of money and he feels that most people accept that there is a cost to removing bulky waste and FDC is cheaper than most private companies and is doing it legally.

·         Councillor Hay stated should there be clarification that LGR is definitely going ahead and FDC will be abolished, how will that affect the Council’s ambition to introduce civil parking enforcement in the area? Councillor Boden responded that it should make no difference because civil parking enforcement is one of those projects that is going ahead anyway regardless of whether or not there is LGR, but in the likelihood of LGR taking place this will make it easier to overcome some of the obstacles that there has been up to now.

·         Councillor Booth wished to come back to the point made by Councillor Tierney regarding bulky waste and that the Director has got the ability to provide an exemption, but there is not an option for this through the online form so practically there are no means to enact that service. He continued that Peterborough City Council tried an amnesty, but they did drop this idea due to the cost and suggested speaking to colleagues at Peterborough to research the results from this exercise. Councillor Booth also added that his biggest concern was the rogue traders that undercut the Council to collect bulky waste and then fly tip in the countryside and feels enforcement needs to be considered. Councillor Tierney agreed with this statement and questioned if the cost of an amnesty is going to be worth it from any environmental benefits that are gained but is happy to explore the options available.

·         Councillor Barber stated in light of how much money the Council generates from the blue recycling, and how much is now not used because it is not recycled properly, it was noted from the report that FDC will continue to support customers to maximize their recycling efforts and she was curious on how this will be put in place? Councillor Tierney responded that FDC support customers all the time by providing a good service, alongside this FDC constantly promote recycling constantly on all the available channels, like Council communications, the website, libraries and community groups. He continued there are also the group called ‘Getting it Sorted’ which is a volunteer service which is being worked on presently and will be relaunched very soon. Councillor Tierney added that alongside this there is an encouragement to ask local councillors to keep spreading the word when out and about and reminding customers that by recycling they can save money at the same time. Councillor Barber commented that she did not feel that residents realise that they are generating savings within their Council Tax by recycling and feels this should be promoted more. She added that local WI groups and other coffee morning groups would also be a good place to promote recycling. Councillor Tierney took on board the feedback and added that this is more an area for councillors to spread the word in the local communities through their daily duties rather than officers visiting local coffee mornings, etc.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated that from April there is an Extender Producer Responsibility payment and asked would this be worth looking into as the more tonnage the more money Fenland can make. Councillor Tierney responded that the Extender Producer Responsibility acts as a tax, for example manufacturers who use packaging now have to pay for the packaging that they use and the more environmentally difficult it is to get rid of the more expensive that charge is which encourages manufacturers to use less packaging or to use different packaging that is more environmentally friendly, and conveying this to the public more is a good idea.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis stated from the report there has only been 9 penalties issued from 790 fly tips, she asked is there a gap in the evidence and what makes it so difficult for these people to be caught? Councillor Tierney responded the reason it is so hard to prosecute these offenders is because people know if they fly tip they could get caught and these people know not to dump literature with address detail on it into the rubbish pile. He continued that officers do go out and visit sites and check for evidence as part of their job, and occasionally there will be some evidence found that can lead to a conviction but often the evidence is not found that is needed to prosecute. Councillor Mrs Davis asked if there were any plans to carry out the project that was trialled in New Road? Councillor Tierney commented that this was being looked at for the hotspot areas in Fenland but despite it being effective it was also expensive and there must be a balance between the cost to the Council versus the benefit.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked how will the Council measure carbon savings from the net zero village funding? Councillor Tierney stated that when the proposals were presented the carbon benefit and the saving had to be built into the planning which generally meant that less power was going to be used from sustainable power that benefited the net zero situation, this has been checked, the work has already been done and the benefits should already be there.

·         Councillor Barber asked what the progress was concerning the food waste collection? Councillor Tierney stated that the reason this has not been spoken about is because it is a bit too early. He continued the Government has imposed new regulations regarding food waste and each Council has been given a little bit of leeway on how they will introduce that, FDC’s plans are in place, the caddies have been ordered for inside and outside the house, it has been through Cabinet to order the vehicles and later on in the year the Council will be looking at the staffing ready for next year. Councillor Tierney added that around Autunm time the publicity will start to roll out so that everyone knows everything that is going on and answer all the questions. Councillor Barber asked if there were going to be bags to put inside the containers and will street vendors be included? Councillor Tierney responded in regard to the bags the answer is yes but some of this is still being worked on and in regard to traders, trade waste has to be arranged by the traders and can be provided through the Council. Carol Pilson added that all traders will need to familiarise themselves with the trade rules to find out whether they are covered or not at this stage.

·         Councillor Booth stated that last year it was suggested that when the new regulations come in that officers take a look and see what opportunities there were to improve recycling, the food waste has been mandated by the Government, but what other opportunities are there to improve the recycling in this area? Councillor Tierney responded there is a report going through RECAP in the Autumn which will provide some more answers and a better understanding. Councillor Booth asked if the tax on the brown bins would be removed as a result of the new regulations or will there still be a charge? Councillor Tierney responded that at this present time there are no plans to remove the brown bin tax.

Members noted the information reported.