Interactive webcast player

Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Wednesday, 23rd September 2026 at 7:30pm

 
An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

I am not Councillor Leonie Cooper.
I'm Councillor Charlie Fisher and the deputy chair of this scrutiny committee
Before we begin is everyone happy for me for myself to chair tonight. Councillor keeper is not here
Thank you
So welcome also to our new environment OSC members
Joining here tonight is Councillor Brooks the cabinet member for the environment and Paul Chadwick
the executive director for resident services.
Members of the committee, I will now call your names in alphabetical order.
Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance and then switch it off again
once you're done, say.
So if we start with Councillor Bottin.
Present.
Councillor Craig.
Good evening, Deputy Chair.
Councillor Giorgiani.
Present.
Councillor Pridham.
Good evening.
And Councillor White.
Present.
And I'd also like to acknowledge Councillor Gasser's attendance under the temporary committee
procedure rules, rule 9.
And we also have a number of officers present who will introduce themselves when they address
the committee.
So are there any apologies for absence apart from Councillor Cooper?
I don't think so.
Thank you.
So the first item on the agenda is the minutes from the last meeting, which was on the 12th
of February, 2026.
I'm not sure how many people here were at that meeting, but are there any objections
to confirming those minutes as a correct record?
No objections.
Okay.
Thank you.
The next item is declarations of interest.
Are there any declarations of either pecuniary other registered or non -registered for interests? I
Am a director of the wood field
project
Thank you very much
And we have received
an additional report in relation to the outcomes of the spending review and I propose that we
Reorder the agenda and consider this item before the work programme item is that agreed?
Moving on to item number 3 on the agenda which is questions to the cabinet member.
This is to take members questions under section 10 3 of the overview and scrutiny committee
procedure rules, standing orders.
If I could ask Councillors to put their questions directly to the cabinet member and Councillor
bricks will then respond and there'll be alternation between the
groups and we have about 12 to 15 minutes for this item on the agenda. So
if we start with Councillor White.
Can I still do that as chair?
I think I know what Councillor White's going to ask.
There was inconsistency with how the various oversight and scrutiny committees were going
to run this particular section between them. Democratic services circulated a briefing
note yesterday in which I think contained guidance saying that we can keep this 12 to
15 minutes. I'm happy to run on if the chair thinks there's a fruitful discussion happening.
But with that in mind, I will try and keep my answers to each question brief.
And if there is a follow -up that wants to be made in writing, I'm happy to reply.
There's been questions.
You'd better be very brief.
I'll be honest real quick.
Okay, well, let's – why don't we see how we get on and then try and get through as
many of these as we can.
I will start with my question which is what can be done to make the Smugglers Way waste
transfer station a better neighbour?
In particular this summer we have had quite a few issues particularly in my ward in St.
Mary's with residents complaining about odour and noise issues from the waste transfer station.
Thank you very much, chair.
It is a really good question.
And,
St. Mary's very kindly plays host to
the Smuggler's Way Waste Transfer Station,
and it's a neighbourhood that's changed a great deal
since that site opened.
And that means that
the Western Riverside Waste Authority and the borough
depends a great deal on local people's patience
in terms of managing that service.
There are things that we can do, both in the immediate term that we've done already this
summer because of the hot weather and the longer term future about the nature of the
site.
So the main source of odour at around Smuggler's Way has been the barges, which contain foetid
bilge water, having taken 500 tonnes of rubbish down river and then unfortunately coming back
with the juice from that 500 tonnes. What we started doing was hosing them out and using
a new bacteriological agent to clean, to the extent it can be, that putrefied bilge water.
Hopefully those measures are improving how the site is experienced by local people.
I know that Corrie and the Western Riverside Waste Authority are keen to do some more resident engagement in the near future.
What can happen in the longer term is ultimately reshaping an investment in the site itself.
The Western Riverside Waste Authority is entering a new contract procurement phase for 2032.
And that process begins this autumn.
We will be making sure that the needs of the residents around both Smugglers Way and
Pringle Dock over in Nine Elms are front of minds for Corrie and Western Riverside Waste
Authority and to make sure that we end up with the gold standards in a fully enclosed
site with all of the odour control that we need.
Councillor White.
Yeah, I think I've got two.
So the first one is could you appraise it of plans from your 2026 manifesto to return to single back vehicles?
for waste collection
What will happen to the twin back trucks that were purchased?
Thank you very much councillor whites
Yes
That's something that we're looking into doing obviously any decision
We take needs to bear in mind the lifecycle of those vehicles
So it's not something we're going to be in an enormous hurry to do.
What I wrote in that section of the manifesto was that we would look to do something about
that as soon as sensible, in effect.
So that's not going to be something we jump into.
But I think it's worth reflecting on the reason why we wanted to make serious changes in the
waste collection system.
And that's that in 2024 we saw a 500 % increase in missed collections that whilst it was brought
under control over the following years has given us a real sort of systemic behavioural
change in how residents put out their rubbish.
I think it knocked people's confidence in the collections and has meant that people
are more likely to leave their rubbish on the curbside,
even though we have a sort of search and find service
where they don't really need to do that.
So lots and lots of thinking needs to go into
how we, for what we go out to the market for
when the current contract with CERCO is up in 2028.
And yes, the vehicles will be kept in mind.
because I've always had an intuition that having different crews coming at different
times to collect recycling and black bag waste has contributed to a higher than previous
level of missed collections.
But there's no immediate decision that's been made about the fate of those vehicles.
Can I ask a follow -up?
Yes, but bearing in mind that I'll try and be speedy.
Yeah, no indeed. I think for the last six months of the previous administration, I think
every single month all of the collections were below a target of 70. So, I mean, that's
an excellent service that we've handed over to you, and I agree, we did have problems
at the start, but that's not how we panned out in the end. So, is it such a massive problem
that you would want to change the service at this point?
Well we need to go back out to market because the contract is up in 2028 and can't be extended.
It's a long running contract as you'll know.
So I don't think our rationale for going back out to the market is because of a sense that
how things are right now with Serco are not acceptable.
Lots and lots of work is being done by the council in terms of investing in additional contract monitoring officers and waste enforcement officers to make sure that we stay on top of that.
But the decision to go back out to market is not being driven by the quality of service alone at all.
It's about needing to go out and do the right thing with public money and get the market to sharpen its pencils.
Sorry, but I meant that the change of vehicles why wouldn't do that?
Next question councillor botting
It's two questions relating to Putney swimming pool
Can you tell me how the proposed shortening on in length of Putney swimming pool from 33 metres to 25 metres came about?
Residents didn't feel that they were consulted and it was presented as a fait complete
what can be done to prevent similar incidents happening like that again?
Thank you very much, Councillor Botting.
Yes, that's absolutely right.
When I came into the job, I found out that there was a plan agreed with Places Leisure
as part of the capital investment going into our leisure facilities, that the swimming
pool at Putney Leisure Centre would be shortened from 33 metres to 25 metres. That was something
that was agreed as part of the contract negotiations. The rationale for doing it is that it's a
revenue raiser, but I think the more pertinent part of this issue is it took residents by
surprise. In terms of Putney, officers and myself have worked very closely with
places to rerun an engagement process around the pool itself and the results
of that engagement process are that places will not proceed with that change.
I think how we avoid this happening again is a more fruitful, is a fruitful
question in the sense that there's circa 30 million pounds of capital investment
to go into our leisure centres and it doesn't seem like a great deal of user
engagement happens along that road by the operator. I think it's really
important that user engagement is detailed so that people know that
that what's coming isn't just generic good new things.
If those good new things come with something
being taken away as well, you need to tell them
both what extra things you're getting
and what might be taken away.
So as moving forwards, Places for Leisure
will be doing a much more full and fulsome user engagement
around changes that might be made to ones
with leisure centres.
Of course.
Can I just ask a question?
will they be paying for that user engagement?
Thank you.
Our next question is a joint question from Councillor White and Councillor Giorgiani.
Councillor Giorgiani will take this question.
Thank you, Deputy Chair.
So, Councillor Brooks, could you let us know if the Wandsworth Conservters Manifesto pledge
to buy back Springfield Park will be enacted and if so is it costed in your spending review?
What I've been told is that this question is rightly to be taken at the Finance Committee
by Councillor Graham. I haven't been close to this process, it's been run by Councillor
Graham from a sort of procurement angle so I'm sure he'll be, I apologise, I assure
for not answering now, but he'll be able and willing to answer that question at the next
finance committee if yourself or a colleague wants to put that to him.
Sorry, I do have a follow -up. Just a few and simple sort of why. As you said earlier just
at the start of this is your spending review paper,
spending review paper, final report.
It crosses across all areas and all committees,
so why are we taking, why is that decision, for example,
being taken back to finance where actually so many
of the ones in front of us actually, you could argue,
all of them might need to go back there.
It's not something that's held in my portfolio, ultimately.
It's not something I've been working on or doing.
It's been something that Councillor Graham's
looking after as part of his portfolio.
And in discussion with officers, we
thought it was more prescient for that
to be taken at Finance Committee.
OK.
The next question is Councillor Pridham.
Thank you very much.
A number of residents in my ward have
raised the issue of street cleanliness
around Clapham Junction.
And I'm encouraged to see the administration shifting
a bit of resource towards jet washing.
I just wonder whether you'd be able to comment on areas
such as the area around Clapham Junction
and other sort of similarly not just high footfall areas,
but really concentrated town centres,
whether they'll get particular attention
from this initiative.
Thank you very much, Councillor Pridham.
Yes, you're absolutely right.
Our high footfall and town centre areas
have been in need of greater investment
in street cleansing and jet washing,
especially with this extremely hot summer where we've not been able to rely on rainfall to do the cleaning for us and
Yes, your residents will be gratified to know that the clapham Junction area will be getting special extra attention
Okay, Councillor white
Yeah, similar theme so what's the new administration plans around events on the
Given your manifesto pledge to curtail commercial events, it would be interesting also to know
what you mean by commercial events and what are the changes you are planning for the Council's
events policy.
I don't expect to change the events policy.
It's a very onerous process that receives a lot of engagement during the last administration
and a lot of changes from what was originally presented.
In terms of preventing the sorts of events
for which we saw licencing applications go in
to all our parks from our events contractor
back in January 2025,
it's a case of making sure that there's
a close working relationship between council
and that contractor to make sure that events are not planned or scheduled or events of
the scale that those licencing applications were being put in for aren't brought forward
without strong discussion with officers and myself first.
And that always front of mind, we have a view that our parks are not there primarily to
generate income for our contractors or for the council there for residents to enjoy.
Yeah, we changed the events policy to reflect that to ensure that there was a cap on the
amount of people.
So what we've seen in other boroughs was not going to happen in Wandsworth.
But I know that you had another on Wandsworth Park, there was another application came through
for bright lights and these things do happen.
I mean, what are you doing to socialise the fact
to your contractors that they've got to consult us first
before they put in these applications?
Yeah, you're completely right.
I spoke to the chief executive of the contractor
and said that this can't happen.
And within, I think within the week that I've been withdrawn
I think I would also say that the application that went in was, according to the contractor,
a genuine mistake.
What ended up in the documents on the planning portal wasn't what they even intended to do.
So again, that's a message to take to the contractor and say, look, you need to be a
engagement with the council and on your own internal sign off processes.
But they know that.
If we just do one more question from either side.
So next is Councillor Craig.
Thank you, Deputy Chair.
And thank you, Councillor Brooks and advance.
I'm very fortunate to represent Northcote.
There's a lot of lovely tree lined streets and the trees on the streets and on the commons
are obviously very, very helpful in the hot summers.
But given the hot weather we've experienced this year in particular, a lot of residents
have brought it up with me that some of the newly planted ones might not have actually
survived that period of drought.
So I'm just wondering really if there's anything that's gone wrong with the watering contract
and what action, if so, the administration will be taking.
So quick answer is that possibly something's gone wrong with the watering contract.
It's too soon to exactly know but towards the end of the month I'm told we should have a much clearer view over how many trees, newly planted trees did not survive.
And that will be really, really, really, really telling about how that new tree watering contract is going.
That was, it began in April so it's, we're still within the first year of that contract.
but I am worried about it simply because it's clear that we know we've lost a lot of trees
and if it wasn't for our tree warden volunteers who tirelessly go around our parks lugging
water out there to water trees and up and down roads with the street trees we'd have
lost a lot more.
So what can we do in the future?
I think as part of that very urgent review we need to make,
once we know how many trees we've lost,
we need to get engaged closely with the contractor
and assess whether the mechanisms in place
that make them responsible for trees that die,
because that's how that contract is set up,
are working properly, but ultimately,
it's no real comfort to residents
who care about our trees enormously
if who's responsible for a tree,
who's responsible for that tree dying
or who's responsible for placing it.
Ultimately, a tree's died, and that is really disappointing
and frustrating and upsetting for everyone involved
in our arboricultural service at the council.
But yeah, we will be looking at it
As soon as we know how many trees were lost
So just a quick follow -up actually from that one is there sort of a timeline on removal of those dead trees at all
It's a really good question and I will have to get back to you about that
And final question council George journey
Thank You
I'm afraid I'm going off the questions I've submitted, but I've got good reason for that.
I've been sent an email just last night by a concerned resident who lives in my ward
in relation to the leisure centre in Mapleson Road, which is obviously a council leisure
centre, Wandlewreck.
and concerns of the sports clubs who use that venue,
a absolute variety of sports clubs who use that,
potentially being told that as of Monday, just gone,
that they can no longer use the grass pitches there.
I don't want to bring up a question that may fetter the planning decisions
that have been put through, or the planning application,
but I just wanted to ask you in this forum, please, what are the plans for that? What's happening?
This is the first I've heard of that communication going out to the clubs, but it's not,
it's not,
what's the phrase I'm looking for? It's not alone in how some of these conversations have happened with places, leisure to stakeholders. Similar things happened at Putney
at the start of the summer with Putney Taekwondo group being told, right, that's it.
You are going to have to find somewhere else to be to teach the children self -defence.
So let me take that away and we'll get back to you ASAP.
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you.
And we are now going to consider item number four on the agenda which is a report by the
executive director of resident services.
The report relates to a key decision that will be considered at cabinet on the 12th
of October.
So I would like to ask Natasha Epstein, the director of waste to introduce the report
and answer any questions.
Thank you, Chair, and apologies for my very croaky voice, so I'm going to keep it very
brief.
Hopefully you've all read the paper.
So the paper is Investment in Waste and Street Cleansing Services.
Obviously, as you all know, they are priority services used by all residents in the borough,
and they always have scope to go wrong quite easily
or it's what everyone feels very strongly about.
So the proposal is to further invest in enforcement
and improve street cleansing to particularly jet washing
to try and clean up the high streets further.
Do you want me to go into each element of it?
I think that's probably fine. I think we've all read the report before the meeting, hopefully.
So perhaps we can move on to questions
from our OSC members.
Councillor White.
Thank you for the paper and
what I wanted to ask was about 80 % of the
the sweeping cleaning offer in the paper was included in our cleaner,
or a free plan for 26, 27 with additional money for this in our waste reserve.
So we don't feel that we need to scrap our free bulky waste collections to pay for this.
Free bulky waste collections have only been in operation for 18 months and
flights have been declined alongside this policy.
We might get better, we might better target bulky waste collections, I would agree, but are we really going to gamble away this popular policy and risk more flight -tipping?
Ms. Epstein, I can take this because it's not a sort of operational detail question, it's a political decision.
You're asking about a couple of things there, the finance, the financial context in which
we're making decisions, the investment which links into the investment we're making in
extra street cleaning and the free bulky waste.
On the first point, I feel quite incredulous about the sort of endless claims of a totally
funded plan and budgets when we know there is a budget gap that emerges
progressively for the council as the government steadily withdraws grant
funding throughout this term. So the idea that everything is financially rosy is
clearly nonsense. If it was the case we'd be seeing enormous surpluses
planned from the increase in council tax and the savings that are being made.
And because those enormous surpluses are not there, this narrative that we're hearing from
the opposition plainly doesn't hold water.
And I think the fact we haven't heard it in the wilds either as this announcement was
made last week sort of confirms that we can feel quite confident that the residents are
not listening to the sorts of very bold gaslighting we were hearing from Councillor Hogg last
week.
As for the sort of narrower claim that we're gambling away advances in reducing fly tipping,
again I don't think the evidence bears that out and we put some discussion of this in
the paper, I think at section 3 .7.
In 2025, when the free bulky waste collection service was introduced, the total tonnage
of fly -tipped wastes collected increased from between 35 to 65 tonnes.
So, as much as the reported number of fly tips decreased, we know that what was happening
was that our collection services were getting to these fly tips before they were reported.
But that tonnage was still showing up in the statistics as fly tips waste.
So I don't think there's a strong link between a free bulky waste provision and fly tipping.
I think as well the sorts of people who are booking a council bulky waste collection,
whether they're paying £31 for it or it's free, are not the sorts of people who are fly tipping.
I think they're two quite separate behaviours.
My final point on that would be, and this is the thing I think where Councillor Cooper
here in looking in terms of future agendas for the committee, is worth exploring and
sort of changing how the statistics and reporting works on fly tipping.
Because if a resident mispresents their waste, puts out their recycling or black bag of waste
too early in the day, say where I represent it would be after six o 'clock on a Monday
evening would be when you could do it, but it would be a fly tip if a enforcement officer
saw them putting it out at four.
That was captured in the same statistic as a mattress being dumped out of the back of
a van on an estate, right?
So that's those, but those are clear, those are obviously very different behaviours.
One which we might have a lot more sympathy for than Tutha.
So I do think it would be of interest to the committee to look at whether we capture the
sort of criminal element of fly tipping in the right proper way.
And then that could give us more leeway to look at how we tackle it.
Yeah, and that's to be supported.
I think that further analysis and data needs to be applied to this.
But there was a waste reserve for the clean bar of three, so that money was available.
But I was speaking to a resident actually to come back on your point about this, and
said to me if the free bulky waste collections are to go and there will be less instances
of mega skips with the doubling of the council tax with 50 % of our residents not owning cars
will that not increase the flight at risk and just add to the congestion around the
smugglers way site?
I guess those are separate questions just to knock the smugglers way one on the head
quickly I don't think the the congestion around some uglies way is linked to
demands necessarily I think we've been experiencing some serious problems with
traffic flow from the ones with Ridge Roundabout from those plans that we
inherited right at the start of the council term we and we put in a yellow
box junction yellow box at the junction by McDonald's to help that traffic flow
better and that appears to be working. But as for the waste reserve, I don't know how
much was in the waste reserve, but I doubt it could have even covered free bulky waste
for very long. It was a project with a budget of I think of, an official budget of about
600 ,000 but was costing a million pounds a year. I don't think the scale of the reserves
that are sort of thrown around are commensurate with the financial challenges of the council.
And if doing this change around free bulky waste allows us to confidently invest in a much expanded set of street cleaning and jet washing,
then I think that would be absolutely the right decision because far more people benefit from cleaner streets in town centres and high footfall areas.
The waste reserve was worth £6 .7 million and it was to cover all of this.
So the narrow process point is that the waste reserve is there, yes.
The Cleanup Borough Plan Phase 3 was not a publicly committee -agreed set of proposals
and that waste reserve was not allocated for that, nor was it allocated forever for bulky waste.
So the reality is that that waste reserve is there, yes,
but it's there to fund an awful lot of issues going forward,
not least given the wider pressures we're under.
I've got this commitment to work with councils
to find the savings that were mentioned in a later report.
That the thinking around that will
include better use of the waste reserve, for example.
Well, it is reported in the February committee paper 26 -63
at the bottom of page 72.
So if you want to consult that,
that's all the information there.
Just to add as well, the ones with Bridge Works
are finishing this weekend,
and already the temporary light's gone
and the traffic's moving very well, I thought,
on the way to the meeting tonight.
If I may, I have a question about stencils,
paragraph 3 .2 of the report.
Could you provide a bit of clarity over that proposal
as to exactly what these stencils will be?
Are they zones on the floor
where you can dump waste or are they extensors saying please do not dump here?
Yeah so the latter but it's a really good question and your pre committee
questioning shed greater light on what this budget line was so yes that it's a
plan to identify areas where there's been a lot of fly tipping and say do not
do this here someone has been fined for flight tipping at this spot there was a
30 ,000 pounds price tag attached to this in the paper upon checking that is not
the costs of this you were absolutely right to suggest that this was inflated
the cost is five five thousand pounds for this trial of using the stencil to
try and discourage flight tipping
Thank you.
Can I follow up on the stencil?
Can we have some evidence from councils who have used this stencilling, for example Southampton
County Council, use it on how effective it is?
Is that possible?
That evidence can be sought and sent to you.
Thank you.
Councillor Pridham.
Thank you very much.
I think just going back to the bulky waste collection
to correct a misconception from earlier, firstly, it's not free.
It's taxpayer funded.
And also, if it were so popular, surely the percentage
of households using it would be higher.
I think that the wards here with the highest percentage
of households who have used it is tooting back 7%.
But as I say, if it was so popular,
surely we would have expected more people to be using it.
And with regards to fly tipping, surely
is there any way of actually sort of increasing
the heft of the deterrent to increase fines for fly tipping and has that been explored
by the administration?
Thank you very much for the question.
I think that there's two parts to the answer.
One is that distinction I alluded to earlier around fly tipping and fly tipping.
I don't think I have much appetite for massively increasing fines for people who are prosecuted
for misrepresenting their weekly bids.
But if we can disentangle those two things, so dumping of furniture or appliances and
and its misrepresentation of waste, I'd be open to looking at how we could increase fines.
But I might just quickly lean on the executive director to shed some light on what govern
– what rules govern how we set those fines, because I don't know myself.
Fines are – I'm pretty confident – Mr. Epstein may help me, but fines are set by
I think it's a process that involves both the Secretary of State and in London, the
mayor of London, so it's a process you need to follow to rearrange fines at that time.
We did in fact follow that process.
If I remember rightly, Natasha relatively recently, to increase the fines, so about
a year -plus ago with the support of the previous Administration.
It's not easy to, we can't, we're not in, not entirely in control of the level of the
set, that's for sure.
Thank you.
Councillor Giorgione.
Thank you, thank you, Dr. Shear.
Councillor Brooks, you made a few assertions that you think that the bulky waste, the free
18 months, I think, hasn't contributed to a reduction in fly tipping.
Even though actually the report does say there has been a reduction in the number of fly tips.
That the households that have used it were households that would have paid for it anyway.
But there's no evidence in this report to suggest any of that.
So I was just wondering whether and if that evidence would be presented.
Thank you, Councillor Giorgiani.
There is evidence about the,
whether or not it contributed to real reductions
in fly tipping.
That's what I was referring to when I was talking
about the increase in total tonnage of fly tipped waste
that was still being collected.
So even if the number of fly tips reported
had decreased slightly, we were seeing this 35
to 65 tonne increase in the volume of fly -tipped waste that was still being
collected by the services. So that waste was still being fly -tipped but just not
being captured by the council's fly -tipping statistics. I apologise if
that wasn't clear in the document but that's what that increase in tonnage
refers to.
Can I just, but how does that conclude
that free bulky waste collection doesn't work?
That's why I'm just trying to map those two conclusions
with each other.
I think it shows that it doesn't provide
a real increase in fly -tipped waste.
Obviously, if we had unlimited funds,
we wouldn't be charging for any services,
But that's not the world we live in.
We need to make savings.
And where we have evidence that there is a taxpayer provided service, as Councillor Pridham
kindly corrected me, where we have a taxpayer provided service that we have statistics that
show has not decreased fly tipping, because all that tonnage is still being dumped on
the streets and being collected by services.
I think we have a responsibility to look hard at any service and any route for revenue that
we can bring in.
Thank you.
Thanks, Chair.
I'd like to perhaps move the conversation onto this section on Fox -Proof Food Caddies,
paragraph 3 .4.
First of all, I'd like to say I'm really pleased that we're looking at something like this,
because to push back on Councillor White's assertion earlier that the service now works.
From speaking to quite literally thousands of residents earlier this year, repeatedly, every single week,
people coming back to me saying there's been missed collections, not all our bags have been taken, foxes have been breaking into the rubbish, etc.
So I'm really quite pleased to see the administration looking at creative solutions.
Look at the figures and they were reduced.
Can Craig finish his question?
Thank you, Chair.
I just have some questions about really the details of the trial.
So it says obviously it's got the budget attached to it.
I'm wondering sort of what streets are sort of in scope, how long that trial might be
and how really we're going to collect the data to sort of see if it's working.
So I'm not sure if that's a question for the cabinet member or for officers really,
but Diesel would be really welcome.
Cepstein?
Yes, so where we have an idea about where they use it
is generally where we get the noise from the residents
about it.
So it tends to be around the commons, where there's
higher proportion of fox populations.
So the trial is, we've got, I think,
three or four properties so far that have just tested it,
just to make sure that Serco know how to push the button and open the caddy.
It's not operative proof as well as fox proof.
But that is up for proposal.
So if you have people that have their caddies knocked over, so I live in Ealing.
My personal caddy has been knocked over about six or
seven times by a fox that lives opposite my house.
Even though I have a cat who is clearly useless against such fox.
So I have to keep a brick on top of my foot at Caddy
as a solution, but obviously that's not ideal.
So yeah, these Caddies are used in other boroughs,
so obviously it's not gonna stop the attacks
on black bin liners where people aren't using the trial,
but what we want to do is the people that are committed
to not get switched off.
Obviously I'm never gonna get switched off food waste,
but if your Caddy's got an elk tover
and you have to clear it all up,
you could, and most people that don't work in waste
would be quite easily switched off.
So once we've got them in, we want to keep them.
But obviously, there's also work to make sure we get more people using the service as well.
So just general food waste comes alongside that as well.
Thank you. Can we just move to final comments on the report, if that's okay?
I think, Councillor White, you have some comments or recommendations.