Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Dori Schmetterling and Tim Verboven.

Any member of the Council who has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting is reminded to disclose the interest to the meeting and to leave the Chamber while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

Members are also reminded that if they have any other significant interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting, which they feel should be declared in the public interest, such interests should be declared to the meeting. In such circumstances Members should consider whether their continued participation, in the matter relating to the interest, would be reasonable in the circumstances, particularly if the interest may give rise to a perception of a conflict of interests, or whether they should leave the Chamber while any discussion or vote on the matter takes place.

Councillor Sam Mackover declared a non-pecuniary interest that he would be joining the Western Riverside Waste Authority.

The minutes of the meetings held on 19 March 2024 and 22 May 2024 are submitted for confirmation.

Cllr Aarien Areti noted that he was in attendance at the meeting on 22 May 2024.

The minutes were agreed and signed as a correct record.

Beau Stanford-Francis, Executive Director for Environment and Neighbourhoods, introduced the report supported by Moncia Castelino, Parks Manager and raised the following points:

1.  The report outlined the key achievements which had been made within the current Parks Strategy (2016 – 2025) and the aspirations for the next version, which would incorporate the Council Plan and the Charter for Public Participation.

2.  Appendix 2 outlined the capital investment which had gone into parks but there had also been a huge amount of work in addition to this, including a volunteer programme of over 7,500 hours in 2023, improving accessibility of parks and playgrounds, and significant investment in horticulture to support biodiversity and be resistant to climate change.

Councillor Toby Benton arrived at 18:35.

The Chair invited the Committee to ask questions of the officers and they:

1.  Queried the number of Council staff involved in the day-to-day management of the contracts. The officers confirmed there was the Leisure Services Manager and two Park Officers. There were also three Parks Project Managers, with one currently on maternity leave, who focused on the capital improvement of parks.

2.  Asked whether the equipment for maintaining the parks was electric or petrol/diesel powered. The officers confirmed that 100% of the handheld equipment was electric, with most of the larger fleet being electric. The exception was some of the fleet at cemeteries where the electric versions were less reliable and therefore, more reliable options were required.

3.  Enquired how the bee superhighway fitted within the parks in the borough. The officers explained that the majority of parks were included as part of the bee superhighway, with most also having insect hotels. 50% of the new planters were also pollinator friendly.

4.  Noted that the choice of species of trees was as important as plants and asked about the selection process. The officers explained that the arboriculture team led on this work and tried to balance choosing a tree suitable for the space and considering climate change and biodiversity.

5.  Asked if pesticides were used. It was confirmed that not many were used and it was seen as a last resort. Some herbicides were used but hand weeding was the preferred option.

6.  Questioned if there was anything different which could be done regarding trees which were close to the borders of residents’ properties. The officers explained that it was a fine balance as people expected trees which were able to grow to their potential. A tree slightly going into a property’s garden was not a good reason to affect the health of a tree. It was approached on a case-by-case basis in relation to the property. This would be picked up as part of the new Parks Strategy and residents’ views would be taken. A revised tree strategy was also being developed and officers would integrate it with the new Parks Strategy.

Councillor Dori Schmetterling arrived at 18:38.

7.  Noted that residents complained about the lack of flowers at the peninsula of Pembridge Square on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Lead Member for Planning and the Public Realm, Councillor Cem Kemahli, introduced the report supported by Beau Stanford-Francis, Executive Director for Environment and Neighbourhoods, and Andrew Burton, Director of Transport and Regulatory Services and raised the following points:

1.  Noted that the street enforcement team had started this year (2024) and it had been successful but there was still work to be done. A key part of their role is to issue fixed penalty notices (FPNs), which was an alternative to prosecution for environmental crimes. Last year, the Environment Act increased some maximum permitted fine levels, but the Council had not made any decision as to whether to increase those fixed penalties in the borough. There had been some increases in neighbouring boroughs.

2.  Asked for the Committee’s views on whether FPNs should be increased to higher levels and whether the Council should adopt Section 34 of the Waste Management Act on household duty of care regarding waste disposal.

The Committee discussed the report and the discussion included the following:

1.  Raised the issue of people building things and then seeking retrospective planning permission rather than being punished and asked where this sat in relation to this. The Lead Member explained that retrospective planning permission was effectively making amends but if an application was refused then action should be taken. In terms of applicable time periods, officers explained that majority of the environmental crime offences had a statute limit of six months, with most being on the spot offences.

2.  In reference to the household waste duty of care, asked whether this was just in relation to tenants or landlords as well. The officers responded that regarding the businesses, it was a criminal offence. There was a section in the Act which related to businesses, whereby they needed to be able to evidence the waste transfer and if they cannot, they could be given an FPN. There were rules for large residential buildings not owned by the Council, however, the duty of care being discussed at this meeting was specifically related to residents, not landlords. The Committee asked how landlords could be involved. Officers explained that they could talk to anyone involved and could serve a notice to clear land. The street enforcement team was relatively new and had been implemented to try and address recurring issues but their effectiveness was enhanced with information provided by residents and ward councillors.

3.  Noted that residents had suggested installing CCTV cameras to catch dog fouling offences and asked how people were caught. The Committee also noted that zero fines were issued for dog fouling offences last year, whilst it was a significant issue to residents, and none for graffiti either. The officers explained that these offences were very challenging to prove and prosecute as they had to be witnessed actually occurring. The better approach was through engagement and education and ensuring an area is well maintained and clean. If someone’s CCTV did capture an offence, the person  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Committee discussed the allocation of items to committee meetings and agreed to the plan for the work programme in 2024/25.