Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Tuesday 26 November 2024, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Tuesday, 26th November 2024 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Hello and good evening everyone.
Welcome to today's meeting of the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 26 November
2024.
My name is Councillor Jamie Coakley.
I'm Councillor for St Mary's Ward and chair of this committee.
I'm joined by Councillor Judy Gasser, the cabinet member for the environment, and Paul
Chadwick, our Executive Director for Environments and Community Services.
Before we start, I'll ask that members of the committee introduce themselves when they
first participate in any discussions.
Similarly, with officers, introduce themselves when they are called to present their reports.
Starting, are there any apologies for absence?
Great.
100 percent.
Turn it up.
So, starting with item one on the agenda is the minutes.

1 Minutes - 17th September 2024

So firstly, Mr. Chadwick, would you like to come in and make a correction on the minutes
of the previous meeting?
Am I on?
Yes, thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
And I am sorry about this, but I think many of you will know.
I think if not all Councillors, most of you will know that I have been in a lengthy exchange
with Councillor Graham about the Swarthfield Park report and have had some useful clarification
discussions through those exchanges and I think it is fair to say that I need to apologise
to the Committee for the fact of our report last time on Swarthfield and our answers to
questions at that committee were inadvertently ones that would have misled the committee
as to the facts.
Particularly in respect to the point of start of feasibility work, were at two parts, I
think it was at least two parts of the committee report, and in what was said, we suggested
that the feasibility work started in response to the petition, whereas in fact there was
earlier concept design work which you could count as feasibility undertaken before ECS
took the prior role on the project, handled then within property services.
So I think it's further I should apologize to the committee for that.
Thankfully it was to note only report, no substantive decisions taken, but nevertheless
I think it's very fair that I apologize to the committee and therefore I have.
Thank you, Mr. Chadwick.
Again, on the substantive point of the minutes, are there any objections apart from the clarification
that Mr. Travis already made to confirming the meeting on the 17th as a correct record?
Okay, that's agreed.
On to item number two, we have declarations of interest.

2 Declarations of Interest

So do any members have any declarations of either pecuniary non -registerable or
registerable or non -registerable interests
Councillor white oh
I guess I mentioned that I'm a member of community renewable energy Wandsworth
And they do have business with the council by jaw no
financial interest from that
concern
Thank you, Councillor White.
Any more declarations?
So, firstly, as we've received a request for a deputation in relation to Agenda Item Number 4, the Enable Paper,
I propose that we reorder the agenda and consider this item first as the first

4 Proposed New Contract Arrangements with Enable Leisure and Culture (Paper No. 24-359)

Substantive item of business on the agenda, so it's disagreed
Sure, may I yeah, of course, but let's introduce yourself I
Did check out sorry?
Tony Belton Battersea Park Ward Battersea, I did check out the standing orders to confirm my
recollection that it is up to the committee to decide, as you were quite correctly, whether we should take this
interpretation or not. Now, in many ways, I'm the last person to suggest that we don't.
I always believe in listening. But I've got one or two problems with this.
There's no item on the agenda about this at all. Certainly in the committee I chair,
if there was only evidence from the objectors,
I'd be ruled out of order because the decisions taken were not valid.
And I find it surprising that we've got a deputation asking,
asking for a deputation about one particular case,
and just one particular case as far as I can see.
It's a bit like me putting forward a petition to the housing committee saying, I can't get
someone rehoused in my ward.
I want a petition to discuss this and I don't want the officers to know in advance.
So I'm pointing out all sorts of issues of this, unless Mr. Chadwick may be able to prove
me wrong, but unless the officer just happens to be here by chance, the officer who made
the decision or was responsible for the decision being made that this tree was dangerous, is
not here to defend the position as far as I know.
And although I suspect we're going to listen because we're nice people and we're going
to listen, I think it's an extremely bad precedent that we should not be in the business of having
deputations about every case that goes wrong in the council.
You can imagine, I mean, the opposition would have a field day.
We'd be having petitions all day, every day for 24 hours seven.
So I just think it's a very odd position for
us to accept this deputation as certainly as a precedent.
Now, if the committee decide to go, fine.
But I make the point because I don't think we should do that as a precedent.
Thank you for that, Councillor Burton.
I believe that some points of the deputation were more general in terms of the relationship
with ENABLE and their policies with cutting down trees.
So since the request to speak was given at the Council, we felt that the most appropriate
time to do would be in the paper in which we're discussing our future relationship with
a neighbour, and there are points in that related to biodiversity offices.
So I still think it's worth having.
Councillor Osborne?
Oh, yes, good.
Councillor Osborne, who represents Tooting Broadway Ward.
Can I propose that we do take the deputation this evening, but that we minute that this
is an unusual case.
We accept very clearly that it is not setting any kind of precedent, but we hear it all
the same.
I think that's very appropriate, especially considering the resident is here today with
the expectation of delivering a deputation.
Nothing could be very unfair to then turn them away right now a counselor Kirk
Thank You counselor cook I find myself in agreement with counselors Bolton and Osborn
Yeah, I mean just just to make the point
They probably take it now because the residents are here and out of courtesy
But it is a bit peculiar if we started talking about every tree that gets chopped down and we we understand
How upset people get about that of course they do
But it happens a lot
It's a bit it's a bit micro and a bit specific and I do take the point there are broader issues
But I still think it's a it's a slightly peculiar thing to be doing
Okay, I think we're quite similar on the sentiment councilor Sartre's
Yes, I think this is less about the tree and more about process
And I think process is something we should discuss here
and I think that the residents have been concerned about process and that affects all sorts.
I mean, there's another tree that's just come down in Roehampton, same thing, process, not the tree itself, just the process.
And Councillor Boughton.
I accept what Councillor Cook is saying.
Can I say that I don't actually accept what Councillor Sutters is saying about another tree.
That makes the case even more that we should have the officers here who are able to say what the position is and there should
Be a paper about it, so I don't accept that reason, but I do accept good intention
Residents are here, but I thank counselors Osborne for and counselor cook for supporting the fact
It's limited that we don't accept it as a precedent. Thank you
Yeah, I think that's the sentiment sure sure by everyone. We don't want to make this we don't want to make this a precedent
But I think now we can take a vote.
So is the committee, yeah, has the committee agreed to receive the deputation?
Agreed.
Great.
So Ms. Garvey, would you like to come to the table?
Hello.
Yeah, sure.
Good evening.
Thank you very much for your time.
And I will stick to the five minutes.
I'm joined by Mr. Reynolds, who's also a resident.
I've heard what's been said about this being a micro issue.
I think we're here because two reasons.
One, I think it's really important
that this committee recognizes the deep upset
that what's happened in Pentliffe Street
has caused all residents.
And also, I think a lot of concern
about how the complaints that were then raised
have been handled by a neighbor and others.
But secondly, we're raising this
because there are these procedural issues
and it's quite extraordinary.
If you walk around West Putney, there are so many trees.
I've lived in Putney for 23 years.
You walk around Putney now, there are so many trees felt.
I have never seen this.
Other residents share my concerns
that something has gone awry.
And there's a third aspect here.
It's the financial one.
Because in the course of corresponding
about what happened, it's become clear that the council is paying an extra fee to Glendale,
a third -party contractor, for emergency works or works that are classified as emergency.
We are paying an additional fee because something is classified as an emergency.
And I do think we're here to say, is someone looking at this and whether it really is an
and that expenditure could be avoided
because that's, I can tell you the figures
that I've been given.
In 2023, the council spent over 83 ,000 pounds
on emergency fee work.
In 2024 to September, as I understand it,
we've been told the council spent over 103 ,000 pounds
on emergency work.
Now, it could take different forms,
but this is the trees in our street,
the three that were felled one afternoon
as a result of the certification of emergency,
a serious risk.
One individual certified this.
They then called Glendale,
and then the council incurs this fee, this emergency fee.
This is something that is presumably happening
on a really wide scale.
We don't know how much the fee is per tree,
but it's a fee and I think the council should look at it.
Just stepping back, on the 30th of March,
three trees were felled in our street.
Residents came out onto the street, asked to stop,
asked, was there a consultation, why hadn't we been told?
The contractors said there had been a consultation
that wasn't correct.
They were felled following an examination by a tree officer,
I think employed by Enable.
I'm not here to debate the rights and wrongs
of that assessment.
I would just say, as a matter of common sense,
it doesn't seem right that three trees should be felled
in an afternoon and was posed such a risk
that residents couldn't be given even 24 hours notice.
It just doesn't make sense.
And therefore, that's the point I want to raise
really with the committee,
because this is really important.
White residents should be given an opportunity
to question, there may be a tree officer
that may have a background in looking at trees,
but it doesn't necessarily mean
that their assessment is correct.
And somebody, there should be a second opinion.
And so to the procedural point, is it right
that one individual can unilaterally fell a whole,
three trees in one afternoon without anybody saying,
well, hold on a moment, could we ask the residents,
could we tell the councilors, the relevant councilors?
None of this is taking place,
because there is no procedure.
The only procedure is, as we've been told by a Naval,
that if it's certified as a risk by their tree officer,
they are able to phone up a third -party contractor,
incur a fee for the council,
and that tree is then felled the same day.
Now, just on the rights and wrongs
of whether these trees should have been felled
and caused such a danger,
my own personal view as a non -expert is,
I think that's an extraordinary claim.
But I would also add this.
There was a fourth tree they tried to fell.
And one of our residents stood in front of the tree
and said, it's me or the tree.
And they moved on.
That tree is totally fine and hasn't caused a hazard.
So I just think there needs to be a bit of reality here.
So anyway, the pavements were left in a terrible state.
When we complained about that, finally there
was tarmac thrown, put on,
so the pavements are still a mess.
But I do think somebody needs to look at them,
what's happening with our money.
And also, it's not right that our environment
is being decimated because everybody agrees
trees are great and good for the environment,
and the council has promoted your planting
a thousand trees a year.
But if you are, as I understand it, felling,
in 2024 to September, an astonishing 546 trees.
That makes the claim of a thousand trees
a bit shallow in my view.
And so this is not a micro issue,
this is a much wider issue.
And so that is why we are here raising it.
And I don't know, David, whether you want to say anything
about the upset caused in the street.
We've already gone over the fact that,
That's okay.
If you want to really quickly summarize, then that's okay.
Can I address the objection that Mr. Belton made?
I think no, that's in the deputations.
We're talking about the whole borough, not just our street.
Okay.
Yeah.
Well, okay.
I think the point is that the entire borough, it's happening in West Putney.
It may be happening in other boroughs that you mentioned, Tooting, it may be happening
there.
but somebody needs to look at the,
whether it's an overzealous officer
or just further management,
but it needs to be at least two people examining
and it, to fellow tree, and it needs to have,
you should have the opportunity to object,
and that doesn't seem to be built into the procedure.
Thank you ever so much.
Thank you, Ms. Garvey.
Mr. Eadie, would you like to introduce yourself
and respond to some of the points
based on that deputation?
Yes, good evening.
Matthew Eddie, I'm a director of culture and leisure. Thank you for your deputation and very clear passion for our green spaces
and our trees in the borough
What I suppose
There is not a wavering at all in the council's commitment to want to support and not bell trees and deliver trees
A thousand tree commitment in a year is significant. Would we want to see less trees being failed? Absolutely
But we have to also rely on the specialist qualified assessments of officers that determine
whether or not a tree is safe, that can either cause harm to a member of public or to damage
to a property.
While I do accept there is potential for better communication and better coordination, I accept
but we do need to rely on the specialist nature
of qualified people to make that judgment.
And they wouldn't make this judgment as a snap decision.
You know, they are as passionate about trees
and the tree scape as anybody,
that is their vocation, it's their job.
I apologize for any upset it's caused the community,
but health and safety needs to be paramount importance
of our residents.
But having a critical mind as to whether
these assessments are correct.
Sorry Miss Garvey, could we wait for Mr. Eder to finish and then we'll be having questions
to you in which maybe you could raise further points.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Eder, did you have anything else left to say?
I'm finished, Chair, thank you.
Okay, I was a bit too pressed.
Do members of the committee have any questions to ask Miss Garvey?
Councillor Brooks?
Thank you, Chair.
Hello, Ms. Garvey.
I just have a question in part to Ms. Garvey,
but perhaps Mr. Eady can also confirm some details.
When the tree officer would see a tree
and deem it a danger, would it just be,
and they say one of the three trees was deemed a danger,
is there a risk then that the contractor will come
and cut down more than one tree?
Or is there a sense that we might be,
once a commitment, once a decision's been made
to cut down one tree, that there's a sense of,
while we're here, we might as well do more?
And that ends up with an incident like on Pentlow Street
where you end up losing all the trees on the roads.
Is that a risk?
Would hope it isn't a risk
But I can confirm those three trees were surveyed and all three showing signs of decay and disease
When they were re -inspected it was the view of the officer at the time that that had deteriorated
deteriorated further and therefore
On the grounds of safety they were needed to be removed
It's not unusual that trees are the same species in the same location were suffer from the same issues
So hopefully that gives you some assurance that we're working off information of qualified
people that make that judgment.
Councillor Osborn.
Yes, can I first of all thank Ms. Garvey for bringing some issues to this committee, which
think are useful for us to hear actually about the need for either our officers
or our outsourced officers to be more circumspect in their communications with
the public and their community relations and so on. All of these things are
important and perhaps we fell short on some of this, either us or our
contractors or an outsourced organization fell short on that and it's
important to note that somebody has raised that with the committee and we ought to be
clear about getting that right in future.
Can I reinforce the council's support for trees?
I personally always argue for more trees every opportunity I get around the borough, but
correct something that Ms. Garvey said when she said everybody supports trees and wants
more trees.
I'm afraid my experience, my experience of dealing with residents and the public
is that that is categorically not the case. I would say that the public splits
based on an impressionistic sense of dealing with residents, the public
splits about 50 -50 on trees actually and quite a lot of people are often opposed
to trees in the borough and want them cleared away. They don't like them near
their houses, they don't want the leaves falling in their front gardens, they're
frightened the roots are going to destabilize their property and so on and
so on. So actually it is a mixed picture out there when you come to try and argue
for trees in the borough and we need to take that into account sometimes a bit
as a council. Personally I don't care I always argue for trees but I know
that I'm sometimes facing opposition when I argue for them. But anyway
Thank you for the points you've raised this evening.
Thank you.
I think I was perhaps talking to my audience
as in that trees are a good thing.
And I just also wanted to underline
that in terms of Pentliffe Street,
it was certainly, we had good support.
This wasn't, there weren't mixed views
that people supported this and were upset.
The trees were actually, according to,
inspected in 2020, so that's quite a big gap.
You've mentioned an earlier inspection.
So I'm just saying, it was that day,
so three, four years later they came in,
and if you look at the reports,
it doesn't say a danger to life and limb,
it talks about some disease being detected in three trees.
So that's the evidence.
Thank you.
Are there any other questions from SCAVI?
Councillor Kirk. Thank you yeah this is everyone can sympathize with the other
the sadness it causes nobody likes to lose trees trees in their Street I have
a question is probably more for Mr. Edie given what you've just described Miss
Garvey but if there were no if there was no letter attached I thought the
The standard procedure was there's a letter attached to a tree saying this tree is diseased
and it's going to be removed.
I see them the whole time.
So I can appreciate this will have come as an enormous shock.
And what you just said about it being three years later, that does suggest it wasn't urgent.
So what it does seem to me that there is a broader point here.
I do accept that.
that it does look to me like there's been a failure
of communication and the very fact you're here
and upset about it is telling us something.
So was, I guess my question for Mr. Ealy is,
was there some sort of a slip up here
and a letter which should have been attached
to the trees wasn't?
Thanks, Councillor Cook.
Just to clarify, I've got a condition survey report
in front of me now dated 30th of March, 2024,
and then offices – That's the day they were felled.
Okay. I think.
Certainly at the end of March. Yeah.
And it's listing all the issues.
Yeah, but that's the day they were felled.
So the previous one, because I asked a question, I had to go back and forth and say,
well, look, this came out of the blue, and I can check my phone afterwards,
but it was, I think, 2020, so it was three years before or probably more.
So this is my point. It's like instead of actually looking into this
of working out what's gone wrong,
we have been faced, the residents, with,
you know, you've got to listen to the experts,
we know what we're doing, and actually,
that's not, if you dig further, that's not right,
it's not fair, because something's gone wrong,
and we're paying more money as a council
for this sort of emergency work,
and that's, you know, pretty gawly.
Yeah, can we try and keep the question
and ask it through the chair?
Sorry.
Just to make sure that it doesn't just become a conversation and it's more formal mystery. Did you want to finish your point? So
Since I've been involved in
This deputation and had the opportunity to look at it in more detail. I do feel there is a
Weakness in our communication and we can definitely improve that but my understanding is that when a tree is deemed dangerous
it is
So it is instructed to be resolved as soon as possible.
And looking at the issues with these trees,
I suspect that was the reason why it was done so quickly.
But I accept and we will go away
and look at the communication.
Thank you, Mr. Eddy.
I think we are in agreement that hopefully
there can be some improvements to be made
our communication so it becomes less of a surprise to residents when this happens.
Unless there are any more questions. Oh sorry Councillor White.
Thank you. I didn't mention my name earlier on Councillor White to invert water.
Councillor sorry Mr Edie.
I'm really gay, you know.
Could you tell me about the fourth tree?
Was there a fourth tree on your list?
I can't give you the details of that.
I was only advised of that in the pre -meet,
but I will look into that because if it's been noted
as a condition of concern, then we need to resolve that.
That doesn't mean we're going to have a number of trees
another tree felled in our street.
But my point is that that was, they tried to fell it,
and someone had to stand in front.
Again, can we try and keep the questions through the chair?
Are there any more questions for Ms. Garvey
or for Mr. Reedy on this point?
Okay, so thank you very much for your deputation.
We will be taking your comments into account.
Feel free to stay if you want to watch
the rest of the meeting.
but we also wouldn't blame you if you want to go home
and have a cup of tea.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your time.
Council President.
Are we going to discuss the issue now?
The substantive paper or?
Well I meant this particular issue
seems to be in the right of sight.
Because I want to ask Mr. Eadney,
I also want to say something myself
given the context of it.
I didn't want to do it in the answer to the question.
Okay yeah, now it's us and the officer.
So yeah, you can ask a question directly to Mr. Eadie
if you'd wish.
Could you also turn your microphone on?
Thank you, Bob.
First of all, I don't want to give second place to anyone
on their love of trees.
Just come and have a look at my photograph album.
I've got millions of them all over the place.
And I had one cut down in my road outside my door
not long ago.
I'm still not satisfied with the answer I've got to that.
So absolutely.
It's purely procedurally that I was actually talking about it,
and I think we had evidence about that
because Mr. Eady himself said he didn't know anything
about it until the preemie.
So he had no chance.
I take it the result of this, we will get a paper,
not a very long complicated paper, on the process for trees
and getting rid of ones that are damaged or dangerous
because I can understand all sorts of reasons
If trees are not perfect, given costs nowadays,
given all sorts of implications that you cut down
whilst you're in the tree, others that might need
cutting down a year or two later.
So I can see the sense of this.
But should we not have a paper not for tonight
because we don't know the facts,
but a paper forthcoming meeting?
Yeah, I think, also some of that opinion,
I think it will be useful, especially for residents,
if there is at least a few days of advance worn
and maybe a letter attached to the tree stump.
This is something I've raised before.
Mr. Eadie, would you like to come back in
about a potential paper in the future?
I'm happy to bring a paper to Environment Committee.
All right.
Okay.
All right, so are there any more questions
on this substantial point?
Councillor Sattis?
It's not a question so much as just to say I think we could sess out on the website for
residents our process for trees because in a normal case if a tree has got to come down
and there is time we put a note on the tree don't we?
Now obviously in this case we didn't have that time.
It would have really helped some of us who were dragged into this much earlier and took
it up as casework if we could have pointed at something, not just a paper that comes
to this committee, but something on the website says,
you know, we love trees, but sometimes things go wrong.
And we know they go wrong, because we had a tree fall
in Wesley Avenue recently, and there was no sign
on the outside that there was anything wrong with the trees.
So I perfectly accept there are times when trees fall,
there are times when trees are dangerous,
but I would like the public to understand a bit more
without us all getting involved.
I think we are great.
Ms. Garvey, I know you have raised your hands but your deputation has finished.
If you have more points you want to raise, we have started an email dialogue with you.
If you want to continue that.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you, Ms. Carley.
Okay.
So, with that deputation, although I think we can now turn to the substantive paper itself.
So, that is paper number four, which we're taking next, which is the proposed new contract
arrangements with enable leisure and culture, paper number 24 -359.
I believe, Councillor Gasser, you'd like to say a few words on this, and then we'd turn
to Mr. Eady for a bit more context on the paper.
Yeah, thank you very much.
Good evening, everybody.
Just to say I'm very happy to be recommending that we extend the contract with Enable.
We've worked very well together in the past, but we do have slightly different ambitions now.
This administration is Labour administration, and so the slight tweaks to the contract recognize that changed ambition.
But very keen to be working with our partner again.
And just to say it's been a difficult process, the negotiation, I'm going to be honest.
And I am very grateful to all the officers in ENABLE and in our council.
It's been a difficult time and everybody's been very professional.
I do understand how hard it's been for everybody.
I'm very, very glad that we've reached this agreement.
I'm looking forward to us all working together very constructively in the future.
I'm looking forward to welcoming some new staff into our council team.
You're going to be very, very welcome.
We're going to be listening to your views, not just imposing our views on you.
We're going to be working together and working with the friends in ENABLE.
So I'm looking forward to a really productive partnership going forward.
We've got a really exciting year ahead, borough of culture happening.
We've got a wonderful ENABLE events team.
We're really glad we've still got all that going on and welcoming this paper and I hope
that the committee will agree to extend the contract.
Thank you, Councillor Gasser.
Mr. Eadie, would you like to come in and say a few words on the paper?
Thank you, Chair.
And not not too much to think council cutters covered most of it so in September
We said that we've come back to committee after
agreeing to work with enable to
Look to extend the contract in the September paper. We set out some of the
Parameters in which we wanted the contract to move forward with the discussions with enable have been constructive
We feel that
the resources that are coming back into the council
will strengthen the council's resources and resilience
to be able to deliver some of our ambitions
around biodiversity, around trees management,
around delivering our Wandsworth moves together strategy.
So I'm pleased to recommend this paper
to extend the contracts to the committee
and happy to take any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Eadie. Opening the floor now to Councillors if they have any questions.
Councillor Cook. Thank you, Chair. Well, I must say I'm disappointed,
as I was in September. I have the September paper here with me. It was, in terms of substantive
of content, barely four or five pages.
Very poor for such an important subject.
And let's not forget we had four deputations
all expressing, I thought, very valid concerns
and I don't feel we really got much by way of answer.
And this paper isn't much better, it's barely any longer.
It doesn't really answer any of the questions.
I still don't get a sense of why you're doing this.
I don't get a sense of what the structure is,
what the new organization will look like.
There should be a diagram at the very least here.
What are the lines of command?
Particularly the separation between day -to -day things
and strategic things, which we talked about a lot
in the September paper, but not in any way elaborated.
One thing which has emerged, but is very, very confusing
in this paper is a little bit more of the sort of financial side of things.
And I've looked at it several times and others I've shown it to.
And we can't make an awful lot of sense of it, so I'd be very grateful for any help.
So on page 8, paragraph 19, there's a reference to the revised concession fee offered by enable
is 3 .7 million per annum.
And then, paragraph 26, the director of finance comments very clearly say that the forecast
income will remain in the region of $2 .1 million.
So there's an enormous gap there.
And what makes anyone think that $3 .7 million is remotely realistic, given the challenges
which we know that Enable have faced, many of those very understandable, you know, the
last few years have brought.
And so I can't see how that adds up.
And all of the other cost things which are described,
insofar as they are described,
about moving people around,
changes to the energy contract,
seem to me that they are just moving people around.
Nothing more than that.
So I can't see how this figure of,
I think it's 426 ,000,
there's supposed to be a saving there.
So my question is, how is that saving going to be achieved?
I just can't see it.
And why is it this massive discrepancy between the statement in paragraph 19 about the income
and then the director of finance comments, which are directly contradictory to that?
And there's no elaboration.
So there's two questions, please.
I'll be very – perhaps a cabinet member can explain it.
I'll be very grateful.
Thank you, Councillor Coat.
Firstly, on your points about the size of the papers, I wanted to quickly turn to Councillor
Charles Bond, who is chair of the General Purposes Committee, to give a bit of insight
onto the length of the papers and the reasoning behind that.
Yeah, just, of course, just to say that we are engaged in a process with outside consultants,
the CFGS, about the need for the council to be more agile and for the council to be better
at taking decisions and engaging the public more with the decisions we take.
Long papers are not the solution to that.
In fact, the longer the paper is, the more difficult that process can become.
Daunting tomes from the Council are not a step towards better decision -making and greater
engagement of the public.
Clarity is the point and the need for clarity in the paper is what is called for.
And what you have here is a paper with a degree more clarity than the paper that we had before.
And it's that that we should be looking for, not longer papers but clearer papers.
Thank you, Councillor Osbourn.
I think it's also worth raising that.
Even with the papers themselves, we also do have the options as committee members to get
briefings from the officers to go into more substantive items of detail ahead of this.
So thank you for that clarification, Councillor Osborne.
Mr. Eady, would you like to come back about the financials?
Is it a possibility to raise them in response to Council?
What point would you like to raise?
Well, is it a question to Council or the spawn?
Are you changing the fact or is it a question?
Sorry.
It's not fair.
No, I know, Steffi, I apologize.
Sorry.
Thank you.
Sorry.
It just it seems like what you've gone into length explaining is what an executive summary
is and sort of misunderstanding what representative democracy is.
I mean, we're elected to scrutinize decisions on behalf of people so they don't have to
spend as much time as all of us do in reading them and understanding them.
If you're writing papers in order to try and make them as simple for the public to understand,
you're not giving elected representatives the ability to do their jobs properly and therefore serve the people you're trying to simplify things for.
Councillor Osanic.
First of all, a concession to your point.
And we are, I think as I said at the last meeting, we are taking a bit of a leap into
the dark when we're entering into this relationship with outside consultants.
And I don't think anybody is promising to get it absolutely right all the way through
right at the very beginning.
But nevertheless, there is a need for council documents to be easier for the public to assimilate.
And greater length is not part of that process.
Shorter documents are going to be better for that.
And so far in discussion from professionals
and others alike, there is no questioning of that.
If you're saying that greater clarity needs greater length,
I'm not sure that I accept that.
I think there are other ways of conveying clarity
in a document, infographics and other techniques which are being experimented with around the
Council, can be introduced over time and might well help with the presentation of shorter
documents.
This is a document which is longer than the one that we had at the last meeting.
It's a document that goes into greater detail and it's a document which talks about other
exploration of relationships with some of the other,
which we call them amenity societies and so on,
who are forming the deputations here.
My only point here this evening is that
short does not mean better, sorry,
longer does not mean better, short,
short does not, also does not necessarily mean better,
but greater clarity, which in a document
is the desirable objective.
It's a simple point and I think one which most people
would agree with, including the public,
who we were trying to draw into this process.
That's all.
Councillor Delpaz.
Just a quick point to support Councillor Osborne.
I think you can make a point about clarity,
but having a long paper doesn't always mean clarity,
and I've seen some very long papers
that have absolutely no clarity.
So I don't think we should just argue for the papers to be longer for the sake of it.
If there's a particular point that you want in the paper, say exactly what that is rather
than just saying, oh, it's a short paper.
And if you look at, like, we all have worked in companies and things like that, you go
to board reports and they can be a nice, simple, short paper.
It sets out everything really clearly.
So let's just kind of not make it about the length.
That was my only quick point.
Thank you.
And yeah, I also tend to agree with that point,
having sat on the committee and feeling a certain
sense of doom when I'm particularly busy at my work,
because being a counselor is a part -time job,
and seeing a 350 -plus long paper,
it makes it harder to get the really key points
that are the points of the decision worth scrutinizing.
Counselor White.
I'd like to speak to support Councillor Osborne and Councillor Dolores as well, but
to add to another point as well.
I'm on three committees and in the four -week period a couple of years ago I had a thousand
pages to read and that is only half of what the Executive would have to read as well.
So, I think my point is that too much, too many papers will end up with bad policy because
it's not being scrutinized properly by anyone.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor Southers.
Yes.
I've got nothing against short papers, actually, Councillor.
Some years ago, we also tried to shorten papers and we managed for a while and then suddenly
they eased out again.
And I think that's something, if you do have this ambition,
you're going to have to watch that.
I don't know how it happens, but they just do.
Where I got lost in this paper, and I'll
admit it's probably because I haven't been around
very much in the last year, is with the staff that
are coming into the council or the new staff
that you're taking on, when we talk about Wandsworth moves
together, and I really am only concentrating
on the Lot 1 and Lot 2 and mostly Lot 2,
will that person be in charge of Wandsworth Moves Together
and therefore be looking at sport in the round?
And how does Access for All work?
Because I've spoken to some groups around Wandsworth
and they don't seem to be aware of how,
what the process is for Access for All.
I mean, I think it was 4 .85 million you put aside for that.
Good sum.
And I can I can trace the criteria
But what I can't trace is how say the Roehampton playing fields would get compensated if they were to give
50 % places to a number of people always that a
Limit on the number of people who can have those places. So that's where I lost myself in this paper if that makes any sense
Mr. Edie, would you like to come back on that?
so
So, Chair, if it's okay, I've noted those two down, but the original question from Councillor
Cook was around the finance.
So I'm going to come back to that, but I'll pass it to Catherine, who is much more expert
than I.
But I just wanted to re -emphasize, if I may, Chair, that in the September report we set
a framework in which we would make a judgment on an extension proposal.
This report pulls the bits, the framework which we decided was make that judgment on
in the report and provides a position on that.
and we're happy with that position.
So for me, yes it's a short report,
but it's delivering what we said we would do in September,
which is using the framework to make that judgment,
and that's what our officers are recommending
to the committee and the executive based on that,
because that's what we agreed in September.
Catherine, if it's okay, help me with the finance.
Thank you.
Catherine Burson, Director of Financial Management.
Thanks for the question.
If I can, hopefully the table,
point you to the table at the top of page 10.
So the figures that you quoted of the 2 .1 million
as being the current concession fee,
that's the 2024 -25, and that's consistent
throughout the paper.
The concession fee being offered from 25 -26
is the 3 .7 million that you mentioned,
and that's at the top of the table at the top of page 10.
And what's happened is because of those services
that are coming back to the council
and the change in the utility charges basis,
some of those costs are then being incurred
directly by the council rather than by ENABLE
through the concession contract.
Bringing you to that figure at the bottom of that table,
the 2 .5 million.
So in a way, we're comparing 2 .5 million
to the current cost of 2 .1 to get the savings
that's mentioned in the paper.
So ENABLE have put forward a bid
that is a better position than the current year.
and that's a better position for the council overall.
Hopefully that helps.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Councillor White.
Councillor Boughton, sir?
Okay, Councillor Boughton.
When was it that the whole of the enabled outfit
was part of an ordinary in -house part of the council?
When did the staff mutual first get established?
19, sorry, 20?
15, wasn't that?
Is that when it became staff mutual?
And then when did it become enabled, not a staff mutual?
Well, but it's completely independent now, isn't it?
Well, I mean, well, yeah, but I mean, because I can remember that these things happened
largely for tax reasons.
The council, I can't remember the actual details, but anyway, they're all to do with finance.
They weren't particularly to do with the quality of the service.
It was all about how can we get things operating more cheaply.
And probably, almost certainly, the manual staff and particularly the lower skilled clerical
staff took the biggest hits.
Almost certainly they lost superannuation rights and holiday rights, also things like
because that's what happened in nearly all the privatizations throughout the years of Tory privatizing.
You now have a council with a different view.
If we can bring it back in -house again, reasonably effectively, and none of the staff are paying any personal costs,
then I think that's quite a good thing, and I'm not afraid to say that.
I am however interested to know, to have it confirmed,
that there's no worsening of staff conditions
because there certainly were the other way around.
There's no worsening of staff conditions
and no losses of employment.
Mr. Eadie, would you like to come up?
Councillor Cook laughs at the old Labour nature
of my comments and I'm proud of them.
Go on, carry on.
Mr. Eadie.
I've just been named.
I should have the opportunity.
You'd like to make a point of personal explanation on what?
No, that's why we've been said.
I would say I'm not laughing at you, Councillor Belton, no, I don't.
Respect your view, we just see things differently.
You better not refer to me too often.
As I recall, this was about 2013.
I think Mr. Chadwick can probably – and it was Staff Mutual, one of the first in the
country.
And I don't recall there being any diminution of employment or employment rights for those
who were part of it.
Far from it.
I think there was, I seem to remember, enormous enthusiasm for the greater independence.
So all of those who were asked within ENABLE, do you want to do this?
I seem to remember it was 99 percent yes, it would be great.
We can operate a little bit more independently, but still serving the council.
And one of the key things was the fact that ENABLE would still have access to the local
government pension arrangements.
And so that didn't change.
and it probably wouldn't have happened
if that hadn't been the case.
So I think that needs to be very clearly understood.
It was certainly not a privatization, as you said.
But what Councilor Belton has just said,
I think is actually very revealing
because we're beginning to get a sense
of why you're doing this.
And at the last meeting, I asked the cabinet member directly
and typically got no response whatsoever,
why are you doing this?
And I think we just had a pretty big clue
because you don't like things being outside of the council,
you'd rather they were pulled back in again.
And that I think is what we're seeing on a piecemeal basis.
And if I may just roll on to the length of the paper,
I think it's crucially important that these things
are articulated and the key test,
however long the paper is, however long it is,
the key test is can people understand it?
And the vast majority of people say
they cannot understand this paper.
They can't see what you're doing.
They can't see how you're doing it.
And I think that's what you need to worry about.
Sure, you can get it into the executive summary.
You should be able to do that in one page.
But this does neither.
It doesn't make any sense as an executive summary.
It doesn't make any sense as a fuller explanation
of what you're doing.
Okay, I think we've gone into quite agonizing detail
about the length of the paper.
Councilor Gasser, would you like to come into
a cast of good points?
Yes, since I've now been named.
The reason I wasn't giving you an answer last time
was not because I'm not generally committed
to bringing things in house.
It was because we were in the middle of very, very sensitive negotiations, and there were
things I did not want to say in public.
I did offer you a private briefing.
Councillor Mr Chadwick is also always available for a private briefing.
There are things I did not want to say in public.
When we are talking about any new contract or going out to tender, a consideration is
in sourcing, and we take the decision that is best for the residents.
and in this case a small amount of bringing in -house,
but it's not a doctrinaire decision.
It's the best to achieve our ambitions for our residents.
Thank you.
Mr. E, did you want to come in?
Just wanted to answer Councillor Belton's question,
which I think was from memory that the staff
that are transferring won't lose any benefits.
They will not be any worse off.
Hopefully they will adopt some of our terms and conditions
and pension if they're not already members
to the local government pension scheme already,
because some of the staff did transfer on that.
So I can assure you that they won't be.
Thank you, Mr. Mifflin.
Yeah, Councilor Sartos, you had some questions for Mr. Eadie?
I've just realized that I haven't answered
with your questions, I apologize.
I got confused by all the discussions
around length of the paper.
But I do apologize.
So the first question I believe,
thank you for the reminder, Catherine,
was that would the transferring sports staff
be responsible for delivering
the ones who have moved together strategy?
Absolutely, we want that to be fully resourced,
we're very ambitious about it.
And I believe having dedicated staff that help us deliver that ambition that will work
with ENABLE and all other partners to help us deliver that will be really helpful in
meeting that ambition.
In terms of access for all, I don't want to steal the thunder of the fees and charges
paper because access for all will start to explain a little bit about how people will
be able to access it for different fees and charges within the borough.
But the principle is broadly that if you are eligible for access for all as a resident,
you will either get three, or 50 % off services that the council deliver or partners deliver
on its council behalf.
And that is evolving and growing, and we have done a survey where we're trying to understand
more what residents think are important.
But if you don't mind, I would love my colleagues to be able to tell you a little bit more in
the fees and charges paper.
Thank you, Mr. Eadie.
Any other questions?
Councillor White.
Hi.
So, staff transferring wouldn't have lost their rights as far as that was concerned,
but new staff coming on would not get the same council -style pensions, for instance.
So that would be one way obviously that the contract could be made cheaper and
demotivate the people who are working for you and
see a lot of people moving off and losing a lot of staff in that way.
But anyway, I suppose the option of bringing everything in house was
disgust going on from Councilor Belton's comment.
and I presume after this three -year contract is out
and things haven't worked out the way we might have expected
then that's a possibility as well.
So first of all, we're very happy that we've got
an extension with Enable, Councillor,
but as the Council offers a group,
we will always be evaluating the success of services
and always evaluating the options that gives the best
and most value for money for our residents.
And I have no doubt that that will include
different options of delivery models in the future.
But we're very happy that we've got an extension
of the contract with Enable and good continuity of services
and we've got a good chance to work and deliver
some really good, exciting things for our residents.
Any other questions?
Councilor Jeffries.
Thank you, Chair.
and Councillor James Jeffries for Thamesfield Ward.
Just to say that, I know Councillor Osborne's point
around the paperwork here and the detail,
we've gone over that.
Just to say though, the point around the leap in the dark,
I think was the phrase you used,
we are talking about scrutinizing a contract
with an annual income of two to three million pounds
to the council.
If I were to be at a company board looking at a similar contract renewal, I would expect to see a bit more detail in those papers than what we've got here.
I think one of the points that is missing and that has come through the points raised by Councilor Belton and Councilor White
is around the strategy and the long -term vision
that this contract renewal sits in
with the administration's plans
for the medium to longer term.
Specifically, it would be helpful to know,
given that we've had 10 staff transfers in the last paper,
we've got four transferred in this paper,
Is that where things now stand or is it possible for there to be further changes before the end of this extended contract term?
Councillor Gasser, I believe you wanted to comment.
I'm just going to comment on the fact that you're saying you're not able to scrutinise well enough.
You have the opportunity for a briefing with officers. You haven't taken that up.
When I was in opposition, I always took that up, and I would harass poor Mr. Chavwick for
hours to get to the bottom of what was really going on, because I know you can't get into
every single detail in a committee meeting like this.
I suggest you guys take up your opportunity for a briefing, and then you'll know what's
in our minds, because we can't carry it all on here.
So just on the specific point that is our strategy to bring in more and more staff,
no, not at the moment.
There is an option somewhere buried deep in the contract that we can, if we bring in other
services, we don't intend to.
This is where we hope it lands.
We think this will work very well,
because we will have a more direct line of sight
and more control over these specific areas that
are very, very important to me and the administrations.
So it's trees, it's biodiversity,
and it's sport and leisure.
But everything else, we're very happy with ENABLE.
They put on the most amazing events.
They do very good briefings.
So there's all of those things.
We don't need to bring anything else in at this moment.
It's not about sort of, whatever you want to call it,
in -housing by itself.
this is where I hope it lands.
Thank you.
Councilor Jeffers, did you want to come back on that?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Just a very quick follow -up question.
Ms. Reedy mentioned that there will be an analysis
of the potential alternative delivery models
at the end of this extended contract.
Was that analysis carried out for this contract extension,
and would it be possible to see the options
that were considered before it was determined
that the council would continue with ENABLE?
So the priority was to secure some continuity with ENABLE.
In the September report, we set out the framework
of which we would, as officers, make a judgment
on whether that's value for money
and it meets our council objectives.
And the report today, I'm pleased to say,
says that between an able and a council we have agreed to meet that framework
that we set out in a September report which means that this is our preferred
option the council will always do you know options appraisals and things like
that but the primary objective here was to secure a great service have some
continuity but strengthen the council's position
You see I think counselor Kirk had a question and then council was born council and on
Question and a reaction to councillor gases comments, which is good good to hear. Thank you. I did think carefully about
Take taking up the offer of a private briefing
But you know
I thought it was it would be in the wrong thing to do because I
Felt at the last meeting that you were using that as a as an alternative to the public scrutiny
and not answering questions that I was asking,
saying, we'll talk to you privately about it.
And I don't think that's right.
I think it's incredibly important
that things are aired in this public meeting.
It is the whole point.
Another example of that, I have to say, I'm sorry.
I think it's exactly what it is.
I've got a note here.
It's been, it's sort of fun enough
from one of the people who came as a deputation
last time around.
It's been sent to all sorts of people.
I know you've seen it, because it's addressed to you.
and it's asking the note, they clearly don't particularly understand the paper,
they're saying have we understood this correctly,
which is precisely the point I was making earlier,
and they're saying would you share this note here with the committee,
and it was sent yesterday and it hasn't been.
I just think it's this openness, it's really, really important
that you're able to articulate what you're doing and that you can do it here.
That's what this is all about.
The mechanism for sharing it with the committee, Mr Wernham agreed with the man that was sending
it that he would share it with all of you.
That was the class.
Well, I mean, that doesn't seem to have happened.
It has.
Yeah, we're doing like that.
Okay, well, I haven't.
I only got it indirectly.
I only got it from John.
Well, he didn't seem to get it.
Well, we'd have to look into it.
Okay, well, okay.
It's supposed to go over to the union.
It's the union.
I checked.
That was the agreement.
That was the agreement.
with the resident that he would circulate the whole committee and we understood that he had,
because our side certainly got it, so we can look into that.
That was Mr. Wernham arranged that.
Just on the fact of private briefings or not, I mean, you must understand,
we were in very, very difficult negotiations.
There were things I didn't want to say.
Well, if you could have met me and I could have reassured you.
And just to add, looking at the email now, it was sent yesterday at 4 .53 and
it was to everyone you're included in that.
It's probably directly from the resident.
Maybe your internet was down.
Councilor Osborne.
Yes, just by way of introduction,
I thank Councilor Jeffries for his point about our leap in the dark.
Well, it was a general point I was making and I think you understood that.
But Councillor Jeffries makes a good point that a contract with one of our outsourced operations
must have proper scrutiny and must have detail and clarity and its discussions.
Absolutely right. But that detail and clarity can be enhanced if the opposition choose to take direct
private briefings from the officer team. I was the opposition speaker on this
committee for five years and I took those private briefings at every single
opportunity and the reason I did it was not to have a discussion which the
public did not see but rather to have information which would improve and
enhance the questioning that I brought to this committee when scrutiny
was taking place and I strongly urge the opposition in future to take those
those briefings get those briefings because it means this kind of discussion
will get to the heart of the matter more quickly more efficiently than it is
doing at the moment you're suggesting all the way through this discussion that
you're you're not quite getting enough and and all the rest of it well you
would be if you were to take those private briefings and you'd be able to
you ask a different sort of question in the meeting and you'd be drawing much more on what was going on.
It enhances the scrutiny, it doesn't impair it if you have those briefings.
Was that the point that you wanted to write?
Yeah, for your next one.
Okay, so Councillor Anan.
Hello, my name is Councillor Anan from Battersea Park Road.
I wanted to say something to Councillor Jeffrey.
In my first year of being a counselor, I was on about five committees and
I was having all those big, big papers and I couldn't read and English is my fourth language.
I've got this lesson, I don't understand.
It takes me a long time to read to understand, so shortening the papers for us now, I think is the best.
At least, you get straight forward to the point you're able to, everything has been summarized for us.
So please bear with some of us, it's good for us.
And also to the officers, Mr. Marty, I don't know your setting, forgive me for that.
One question I want to ask you regarding the officers that are going to be brought back in -house.
I know most of their families are watching now.
Are they going to be permanent or is it going to be on contract basis?
Because we don't want anybody losing their job along the way,
they're saying, oh, you're not doing well, da -da -da. Yeah. Thank you.
Mr. Eady, you want to come right in on that?
Yes, I can confirm that they will transfer on the same terms and conditions
and as permanent members of staff,
unless they're already fixed term already,
but we are very ambitious around delivering
our biodiversity, trees, and sport, leisure,
physical activity plans and strategies.
So I want more people that are permanent
to be able to deliver that.
And this is bringing really good, real lived experience
of Wandsworth into the council
So we can work more collaboratively with other services internally and deliver on those ambitions
I don't know chair if you wanted me to answer the immediate a question
Councillor cook raised or
But they didn't understand and the process of how it's going to work. Yeah. Yeah
so we've met with the with the immunity groups a couple of times since the last committee and
From my perspective often with a very valuable and helpful conversations
The reason we haven't landed how it's necessarily
going to work at this stage is we were in a period
of standstill with the grounds maintenance contractor,
so we couldn't engage them and involve them
in conversations of how the new ways of working will happen.
We need to wait for this committee and the executive
to understand what, if officers will transfer,
and resetting the relationship with enable.
And I'm a huge believer in co -production
and involving people in the decision making
and making the system and a process that works.
So once we've settled all these decisions
and we have a full understanding
of what the resources that we can pull at,
we will work together with the immunity groups,
with all the different organizations
that share our ambition to develop a ways of working
that is co -produced, that we will continuously
want to improve and evaluate to make sure
it delivers the best for our residents.
So there is a little bit of vagueness at the moment,
but until everything falls into place,
It's difficult to you know really have those engaging conversations
Thank you, and I'm sure that's been the case in previous contract negotiations as well Councillor Sussers
You haven't spoken to the very Hampton playing fields trust
They contacted me about this paper yesterday
A little bit upset that they haven't been brought in at all given that they're trying extremely hard with those fields to
get usage up, that's one thing.
I would like to think that you'd take the time to do so.
I can only apologize if they feel
that they've been excluded,
that's certainly not the intention.
My understanding is we have a borough -wide
green spaces forum, and if they're not part of that,
then they should be.
But I will happily engage with them in the future,
planning for what our ways of working will look like in the future?
They're a bit of an anomaly.
They don't attend the Greenspaces Forum, which I do know quite a lot about, because I started it.
But they're out on a limb, and they were just a little bit pushed out that they hadn't heard anything.
I can put you in touch.
Please connect me because Roehampton is a priority area for us as well.
So yes, please connect me and I'll move that forward.
Councillor Burks.
Thank you, Chair.
So I think a big issue in the paper is the difficulty that Enable have of meeting their contracted concession fee.
That they tell us they're going to pay and then they fall short.
Why do they find it so difficult?
And are there ways that the council inadvertently sometimes makes it harder for them to make
the income that they need to make, say by having them cancel events in parks or, I don't
know, but do we know why they fall short?
And is it the council's fault at all why they might fall short?
That's a difficult one to answer on behalf of a neighbor.
You'd have to ask them that themselves.
But there's a commitment for us to work with them.
It's in our interest that they do well
and they give great services.
They've assured us and we've had very scrutinized
their accounts to make sure,
they've been very open and transparent.
They are confident they can deliver this.
We have tried to take barriers out of their way.
So the risk on energy tariff,
we're transferring that to the council.
That's a big reason why they've been unable
to hit their concession fee, but also the market's changing a little bit now.
It's a bit better.
So yes, we still have a cost of living crisis, but also now we've got access for all, which
will help supplement and it will encourage people.
We've had over 50 ,000 visits to our facilities of people that probably wouldn't have visited
in the past, and Enable will get income from that now, which they wouldn't have done because
they wouldn't have visited.
So I think it's going to be a combination and a partnership with Enable and everyone
else to try and, you know, make sure that we do have the participation that translates
into income.
And as I said, we have tried to take barriers out of the way by things like the utility
service, and that's why that's in here.
That's our way of trying to help.
A follow -up, if I may.
It seems like an odd way of working to agree a 3 .7 million pound concession fee in the
contract negotiation, and then to immediately say, well, we're not going to get that.
Why would it be the practice to say, which is what's in the Director of Finances' comments,
why wouldn't we question the proposed concession fee being too high in advance rather than
accept it in a contract than immediately allow them to pay a lower fee?
If I can help clarify.
That's not what we're saying.
we are saying that enable pay is 3 .7 million. That's what they have bid under the contract
and that is what the contract will say. Those other elements are parts of the contract that
instead of being part of the concession free in terms of what enable pay, instead the council
is going to pay those utilities directly. So in order to have a comparable figure against
the 2 .1 million, that's why that table is set out in that way to get to the bottom figure
of 2 .5.
Enable will give us, that is what the contractual payment is, 3 .7 million.
Any other questions for officers?
Do you mind, I've been trying to make a point about, a further point about Councillor
Landon's question, if that's okay, which is that, thank you for the question, Mr.
Mr. Eady answered it about the specifics of the actual terms, conditions of transfer.
I recognize your point that these people's lives are affected, their families around
them.
Myself and Mr. Eady made points of meeting those affected staff, those incoming staff,
some of whom of course have never worked for council before.
And we made some very much wider points about the commitment of the council as a great employer
to staff development, to training, to ensuring that their careers are productive.
And I think it's fair to say there was good response to that.
They recognized that.
And we intend to follow through those promises.
Thank you, Mr. Chadwick.
Any other question?
Councillor Kirk.
Thank you.
I don't accept that being able to understand the paper should depend on receiving private
briefings.
I think a paper should stand on its own merits and anyone should be able to read it and get
it.
And that clearly hasn't happened.
Can I ask a specific question?
Page 7, there's a table, Council's requirements on the left -hand side, current position.
So on the second line down, the Council wishes to exercise greater control and visibility
on activity delivered through the contract through the use of its assets.
Can I have a specific example where the Council feels it needs greater control and visibility?
Mr. Eady, would you like to come in on that?
I am very exercised, obviously, about environmental matters and I would like our biodiversity
strategy to be a lot stronger and to cover not just the Commons and the parks and every
area of green space and blue space across the borough, and to include things like monitoring
eDNA and things like the planning conditions and how planning can affect biodiversity.
I want a much, much wider, more encompassing biodiversity strategy and a biodiversity action
plan year on year.
So it's that line of sight that I want to have close to me so that I can see what's
going on and officers to deliver on that.
and I think we could say something similar like that
with sports development as well with our new strategy.
We want to have that absolutely close to us.
Mr. Eadie, would you also like to say something?
So Councilor Casse gave two examples there,
but I suppose there's an ambition here
to work more closely and make sure that
things aren't falling through the gaps
or there's no duplication in areas and things like that,
and at the moment, I think it's fair to say
that the communication and the transfer of information
could be improved.
We've got commitment on both sides of council
and enabled to do that.
Being able to see what's coming in the pipeline
and opportunity, for example, where we might be bidding
for the same funding or other,
it's just having much more greater transparency
of the plans and the ambitions
and make sure they are aligned to ours as well.
So this is helpful.
I think both parties welcome it.
And it also, the board won't just be about this contract,
it's about are there other opportunities
that enable as a partner, we can realize
through other commissioned areas
or working with the VCS and things like that.
So it will expand the horizons,
it will strengthen the relationship
and the opportunities as well.
Thank you Mr. Eadie.
Are there any other questions?
Okay, so this paper is for decision
by the Executive, does the Committee agree to support the recommendations in paragraph
two of the report?
You're allowed to take a vote on it.
Okay.
So, yeah, that's four against.
That was four.
So what's the actual four and against?
Six, four, and four against.
Six, four, and four against.
All right.
Thank you.
Okay, that is paper four done.
So now we go on to the revised order, which is paper three.

3 The Feasibility Study and Petition for a Pocket Park in Swaffield Road

So that is the, this has been touched on previously in the minutes.
It's about the feasibility study in the petition for a pocket park in Spoffield Road.
Councilor Brooks wanted to introduce this item and speak on it.
So Councilor Brooks.
Thank you, Chair.
First, I want to start by thanking Mr. Chadwick for the clarifications at the start of the
meeting.
We appreciate that.
I would say that I know there's been some back and forth
between yourself and Councillor Graham, which I have not
been on all of the emails.
I know you were speaking up until last night,
or yesterday afternoon.
If possible, could you update me on what the latest?
Or I can just speak to, yeah.
Sorry if you haven't seen all the exchanges.
I think you will have seen Councillor Graham's email just ahead of publication deadline.
The last exchange was from I to he, essentially I think clearing off his last point, which
was about a precise question about who was involved prior to ECS's involvement in the
feasibility to work, what role had Councillors had in the period of informal discussions,
I guess I call it in the property services period, and I went back to him and clarified
that yes, he asked a specific question about Cabinet members or War Councillors or both,
I went back and made it very clear that there were no War Councillors involvement but there
were Cabinet members involvement in that.
I named the Councillors of Bink, Councillor Gasser,
and Councillor Hogg, who's the lead for property.
Thank you very much.
I think that probably then starts the question
which I think holds the bulk of the discussion is,
when the feasibility studies were completed
prior to February 2024, when,
this is a question to Councillor Gasser,
When did you tell, or did you tell, the ward councillors or the member of parliament for
Tooting that the feasibility studies had been complete and the project was going ahead?
It wasn't actually me because it wasn't in my portfolio at that time, but there would
have been discussions I guess in that period.
I can't tell you exactly when there would have been discussions.
Of course, politicians talk to each other, don't they?
You talk to your guys.
Of course, I can't tell you exactly when.
He asked the question because given the discussions did happen, it would then make the fact that
the paper would then go to the committee, which misled Ms. Shearer and led her to make
the inadvertently false statement.
People then, people signing off the paper must have known if those discussions had happened
that the paper wasn't right.
That's more a question of me. I absolutely would assure you as a committee, and I cleaned
up for you, Councillor, that it was an inadvertent mistake. I explained the rationale for that
to Councillor Graham. I'm happy to repeat that rationale now if you wish. But it absolutely
was an inadvertent mistake, both in terms of how the report was written and in terms
of how the officer of the committee talked about the feasibility. This was a matter of
oversight of what had gone on before ECS's, sorry, Environment Committee Service's,
officer's involvement, full involvement, and what happened afterwards. It was a lack
of communication. I've probably explained it clumsily, a little clumsily along the way,
but that's what it was.
I don't think we're gonna get much else out of the conversation.
I don't think we're gonna get much else out of the conversation
if people don't want to discuss what conversations happened
that would lead to a petition being launched
after the feasibility studies have been completed.
But that's plainly what happens, right?
I'm not quite sure I see the point of this discussion at all actually we've agreed you didn't
I mean you didn't agree bit we have agreed to create a beautiful new park for residents in that area where they didn't have one
I'm what's what's not to like about that. It's a really good project. I think you're just causing trouble for no reason
No, I don't think that that's true. I
The issue isn't whether the park happens, which we all support happening. The issue is whether
information was shared from
cabinet members
to campaigning councillors and members of parliament,
which they were then able to exploit,
knowing the project was already going to go ahead,
acting as though the petition would then be the reason
for the project to go ahead.
But aren't your councillors in Putney
doing something similar, campaigning for improvements
to Putney Leisure Centre,
when that money's already been agreed?
I don't know if that money's been agreed already.
Yes, in finance.
The plan would be, that plan would be contingent on us being successful in the 2026 election, as far as I'm concerned.
No, we have agreed money for Putney Leisure Centre already and yet your colleagues are campaigning for improvements to Putney Leisure Centre.
So it's a bit disingenuous, isn't it?
Well I think it must be just a different planned project, ultimately.
I don't think so.
It wouldn't be the same project.
No, I don't think so.
I feel like I was going to get into semantics of how politicians in the area try and do
petitions, try and collect data, political campaigning.
This doesn't seem relevant to the work of the committee.
Councillor Wright, do you want to come in?
Just quickly, how many people signed the petition?
Surely that's the main thing here.
I mean, it seems to be an extraordinarily popular local park, I think, and a great use of that space.
That seems to be the general feeling of local people, and it builds on success in other parts of the borough.
For instance, in Councillor Osborne's ward as well, where we've got a very popular park there.
I don't see where this is going, really.
Does anyone have any more points on this?
Yeah, okay.
The District Committee agrees to note this item.
Okay.
The item is noted.
Thank you.
So then we come on to agenda item number five.

5 Revision of Charges - Environment OSC (Paper No. 24-360)

That is the revision of charges for the environment overview and scrutiny committee.
that paper number 24 -360.
I think Mr. Moylan wants to comment on that.
Sorry, Councillor Gasser, you want to come first?
I'm going to start just to introduce this paper because we're very proud of our charging structure at the moment,
so we've had to put up basic charges by 2 .2 % in line with inflation for people that can afford to pay,
but this is an opportunity for us to really roll out the access for all offer
So people that are in our access for all university, if you want to call it that,
people on means to benefit children on free school meals, they will get a very much reduced offer.
Free and off peak times or half price in peak times to all of the services that we have to offer.
And we're starting at looking at how we can also roll that out in other areas as well.
In, let's say, bereavement services, registration services, bulky waste collections, all that sort of thing.
We're looking into how we can really make sure that all our residents can access everything that One's Worth has got to offer.
And just on top, just the only place where you might find that charges have gone up a little bit more than inflation is where we think businesses can afford to pay just a little bit more to help with the costs for everybody else.
Thank you, Councillor Gasser.
Mr. Morgan, did you want to add any further points before we open up to questions?
I think actually Councillor Gasser has done a very very good point in and outlining the report and so I'd be very happy to answer questions
Ms. O 'Connor as well
Thank you. Yeah open the floor to questions
Move the papers agreed Oh Councillor Kirk
I do have a question.
Very grateful to Councillor Gasser for the elaboration of your thinking behind this.
The Chancellor would be proud of you.
Basically a club of businesses if you think you can get away with it.
It's in paragraph nine and then quite astonishingly, I mean I know you sometimes get some funny
anomalies in these papers, but this one doesn't seem to be one of those.
where the build and debuild costs at the British Genius site,
this is paragraph 18, page 19, in Battersea Park,
are going up by an astonishing 185%.
So that's doubling and doubling again,
and from memory, they're pretty chunky already.
So, I mean, what work has been done
to understand that businesses can cope with this?
That's an absolutely eye -popping increase,
and it's surely gonna cause problems.
So that's gonna damage the events and program,
the events income and all that sort of,
has this been thought through?
Sorry, could you clarify where you got 185 % from?
Yeah, page 50, I'll write it up, it's 184 .6.
It's on page 53, appendix C,
and it's also referenced in page 19, paragraph 18,
where it coily refers to the charge for build and down days
is proposed to increase significantly,
we can say that again,
due to the need to cover additional expenses
that occur from supplies, constructions, and utilities.
I mean, how are they gonna cope with that?
Any business that I'm aware of, 185%, that's crippling.
Well, first of all, these are the maximum possible,
doesn't mean they have to charge that much.
And I would assume that each business comes in and negotiates, but I'd defer to financial
colleagues.
Mr. Morgan, do you want to come in on that?
So, thank you.
I suppose by way of a context as to how we present charges.
So, we will work with, in this instance, Enable, to discuss with them their cost pressures
and also their specific needs for charges.
So this has been developed in conjunction with ENABLE, and it's in response to a very
specific area, as has been mentioned, where there is a significant element of financial
pressure involved in the delivery of this service.
I think people who are more familiar with the nature of this will know that it is an
incredibly popular site with high demand for businesses to operate this sort of substantial
event.
So I don't believe we would expect to see a particular impact on the overall cost of
the, or rather an overall decline in the overall demand for the services as a result of this.
Thank you for that.
Any other questions?
No, I'll just come back.
I mean, I'm not reassured by that at all.
I mean, what we've just seen on a national scale, if you can push things too far.
And look what's happened with employers national insurance
is completely backfired.
And I would have thought this is obviously
a different thing, but it's absolutely astonishing
the potential level of increase there.
And there will come a point where businesses
will just say, well, sorry, we can't do that.
Or they pass it on, so people will end up paying more
in other ways.
Yeah, great.
I think, I'm not convinced.
I think that looks alarming.
I believe, Mr. Morin, you said that this was done
in partnership with Enable to propose increase?
Yes, that's correct.
So they manage and run the site, and they're therefore
very familiar with their client base.
And so they have proposed this on the expectation
that this is a deliverable cost increase.
Councillor Belton.
Well, I was at an event on Friday.
I possibly might not be the only one, on Friday.
And the people who were at that event, including the business concerned,
they didn't seem to know, most of us, what austerity was.
If you compare their standard of living, their style of living, their expenditure,
you can include me in this.
I happily include myself with most of the residents
living on one or two of the council estates
within a half mile.
Well, there's just no comparison at all.
And I'm just a little bored with this argument
about hitting business.
Business has been doing a great campaign job
in the last week or two to absolutely make us all terrified.
I can see the biggest problem in this country is inequality.
Oh, I don't know whether that's the biggest.
People making sweeping demands.
It must be one of the biggest problems in this country.
And most business people I know in this area are doing all right.
There are a few that are not.
I accept that.
But compared with the generality
and compared with the vast majority of people
with lower than average incomes, they're doing reasonably OK.
And I think we should stop fussing about them.
I don't think they are really fussing about themselves,
judging by the amount of money they're prepared
to spend at these events, the kind of flash events
they're prepared to go to all over the world,
and the increased pay that all the senior executives have.
And I know that's not every business,
and there's little businesses, et cetera, et cetera.
But don't cry too much for the people
to hire genius sight of a Friday evening and go there and go to the Battersea Police Ball,
which I'm happily admitting that I did, and lots of people there with lots of money.
Thank you, Councillor Babs.
Mr. Chair, if I could just make a comment, which is I'm sure we can double check that
enable feel they can sustain this.
So what I would however do is compare the cost of the 184 .6 % increase, that line, which
is the cost of build -up and take -down days for corporate retail and public events, for
structure -based events.
Compare that with lower down the cost of build -up and take -down days for corporate retail and
public events that are in the open air.
And you'll see that the current charge for that is 8 ,080.
So very much higher than the current charge
for the former, which is 2 ,040.
So I kind of more see this as enabled with my colleagues
attempting to draw the two closer together,
and kind of more pointing out that there's
a strange kind of difference there
which needs to be corrected.
Yeah, it does seem like more of like a realignment
than an intentional increase.
Councillor Osborne.
The way to see this is a set of priorities.
I think every year, regularly, we have to revise the charges and the top priority for
this administration, when we're revising charges, are the people who are struggling to afford
it.
And we have a concessionary access for all policy.
Priority number one. Priority number two is the bulk of our residents who come to
pay charges and we are making sure that those residents are faced with charges
which are less than inflation. Priority number two. And profit -making
organizations come after those. Those are the three categories. We have no shame
whatsoever in arguing for that ranking in order of priority as an
administration.
Thank you, Councillor Osborne.
Any other questions or points?
All right.
So this paper is also for decision by the Executive.
Does the Committee support the recommendations in paragraph three of the reports?
Three.
Is it?
Okay.
Yeah, that's against.
Six, four against.
So it is carried.

6 Revenue Budget Monitoring: Quarter 2 of 2024/25 (Paper No. 24-361)

Next, we go to Paper Number 6, Revenue Budget Monitoring, Quotes 2, 2024 -25, Paper Number
24 -361.
I believe Mr. Molyneux would like to introduce this also.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
I didn't introduce myself on the previous items.
Alex Molyneux, Head of Finance and Performance within Environment and Community Services.
So this is the second iteration of our quarterly updates to this committee.
So we previously took the paper in the last cycle for Quarter 1, so this represents the
revenue forecast as at Quarter 2 for the current financial year.
There is not much in the way of significant deviation.
We are maintaining a similar level of overspend that we expected in Quarter 1.
We have a slight improvement in overall income
associated with the leisure sector,
and then a slight improvement in our overall waste
cost of disposal in particular associated
with the ongoing food disposal.
There is also a reduction in the overachievement of income
associated with the sort of penalties and ongoing licenses
for digging up the roads, in particular utilities
such as Thames water have reduced the overall volume of work, so we've curtailed the income
that we expected from that source down.
But again, very happy to answer any questions anyone may have.
Thank you, Mr. Marlowe.
Are there any questions?
Councillor Cook.
Thank you.
Yeah, on paragraph 11, page 103, could you just tell a little bit more about what's caused
that underspend $342 ,000 for WRWA?
Chair, is that okay if I answer that?
Sure, yeah, could you introduce that?
Natasha Epstein, Director of Waste and Street Cleansing.
So the new services that we've rolled out,
the food waste service and the new trucks
have seen huge increases, not just in food waste capture
but actually recycling capture.
And so the disposal savings that we built into the paper where we agreed the extension have already been taken
But these are savings on top of that in terms of disposal
We've also had some energy rebate that's contributed to that saving
Thank you for that are there any other questions
Counselor wise is that a hand?
It wasn't.
Ah, okay.
Since I got my hand up anyway, I might as well ask a question.
I was just wondering about, I know this is a finance debate really, but the waste and
recycling, have we been reported since the splitting of the food waste and the general
household waste?
Have we had reports of cleaner street scene because foxes aren't really getting at our
general waste anymore and they can't get into the caddies now.
I suspect that one's for me as well.
So obviously if people are using the caddies then yes, I know some people have had caddies
knocked over.
I personally have to keep a brick on mine to stop the foxes from getting to it.
So it does help but at the moment we're doing some participation survey to see how many
people are using it.
We are currently doing a door knocking campaign to all people that have received the caddies
to check that everything is okay, encourage more people to use the service.
So yes, where people are using it, other places, not necessarily as much as we would like,
but still a work in progress.
Thank you for that.
Councillor Brooks.
Thank you very much.
In the last two quarters we've had an overspend on street cleaning of over 300 ,000 pounds.
Why is that happening and what's going wrong to cause the need for extra street cleaning?
It's me again. So obviously our town centres are generally busier than they were before
but actually it's the rapid response,
so fly tipping bags out on streets.
So we've been working with the contractor
to make sure that things that are genuinely
rapid responses are being charged as rapid response.
So we're increasing contract management with them.
So we have reduced that cost in the current quarter,
so we're expecting that to come back in line.
If I may, could it not be due to the fivefold increase in missed collections that we're
told about in the KPIs?
That might be a question for the next paper on the KPIs, but did you want to?
Can I just suggest that this has been a reasonably longstanding issue with the contract in that
we would have a higher volume of rapid response elements.
So I think going back to the inception of the contract, it has largely been kind of
an ongoing issue.
So it's very good actually that this has been addressed by the work that Ms. Epstein and
her team are undertaking.
Are there any other questions to officers?
Okay.
So does the committee note the report of information?
So, our last paper is paper number seven.

7 Mid-Year 2024-25 Performance Report - Environment OSC (Paper No. 24-362)

This is the mid -year 2024 to 2025 performance reports, paper number 24 -362.
Ms. O 'Connor, do you want to introduce the paper?
Happy to.
This is the standard report that this committee receives twice a year.
So you're receiving it at this point to give you an update against the key performance
indicators at the end of quarter two.
So those are the indicators within the remit of this committee that you agreed in June.
You also receive a six -month update against the actions in the corporate plan, which again
fall within the remit of this committee and which are actions which you agreed back in
I'm happy to take any questions on the format of the report and with colleagues on any areas
of performance and action updates.
Thank you, Mr O 'Connor.
Are there any questions to officers?
Councillor Brooks.
Thank you very much.
I've just got a question about the circuit contract update on page 114, about the food
waste program that we've been rolling out.
In the paper, it says that 894 tons of food
have been diverted from the old stream into the new stream
after 72 ,000 low -rise households have
had their calleys delivered.
Now, it seems fair to me that the low -rise households
would be the sort of lowest hanging fruit for the people
most likely to take up participation in the food waste scheme.
But given the low participation rates in the scheme so far, and
that figure of 894 not looking like it's on track at all to ever reach the 7 ,800 tons
that the paper in September said would produce the 725 ,000 pounds cost benefit to the council.
Surely we're looking at a black hole of hundreds of thousands of pounds from that 725 ,000 projected benefit if the participation rates never turn around.
Is that right or have I got that wrong?
So it's not a black hole.
Yes, we would like to have more food waste and that is why we're doing the door knocking campaign.
I think we struggled a little bit because we rolled out a service change in a pre -election period.
Obviously there was a general election, so we didn't go as hard on comms as we would have liked to have done.
But because everything was in progress, we couldn't change that start date.
So we're sort of chasing our tails a little bit around that.
Generally, it is a new service and some people fully embrace it and some people don't.
So it does take a bit of coaxing to get people on board.
I think the the seven thousand eight hundred was based on our capture rate in Richmond and
Obviously household size in Wandsworth is different
You know and we are in and if people are still struggling to buy food that is expensive
So we probably won't get to seven thousand eight hundred. I think we're aiming to get to five and
But also the added benefit that we hadn't forecast was the extra recycling and actually the extra recycling we've captured is in
Similar and equal to the amount of volume or food waste we've captured
Thank You miss Epstein are there any other questions
Counselor cook
So, another reason why the Prime Minister should have waited till November to call the
election.
It wouldn't have messed up our food waste collection.
On page 113, about halfway down, conduct a tender exercise to procure a new leisure management
contractor end of October.
So they've been received.
Any update that we could?
I can't find I'm scrolling through I've got page 113 and my guys page 5 page 6 of 15 so
7 of 15 but in terms I could give you an update on the next procurement for sure we've had the
Bidders have submitted their initial bids. They're being evaluated by the team and they've been moderated
The next step is to move to short listing,
and then we will enter into a period
of competitive negotiation that will hopefully
conclude around that from memory
about the beginning of February,
and then we will allow them to make
their best and final offer at that stage.
And then in about Easter time,
we will do the evaluation again,
and then we were bringing a report to committee in June
for approval and then the executive subsequent to that
as the new contract would start on the 1st of October,
2025, giving us just over three months to mobilize,
which is industry, what they would request.
But we are very happy with the competitive nature
of the bids that we have received.
Thank you.
Councillor Cope.
Thank you.
So, another question.
Directly underneath that, review and adopt a new events policy.
How does that relate to what we've been talking about with ENABLE and, indeed, the
charges paper?
So my understanding is the events policy hasn't been reviewed for a significant period of
time.
enable us our events provider,
have a obligation to undertake a review of that,
and based on industry trends and analysis of,
and aligning to our ambition around borough culture
and things like that, it's timely that we review that.
It will provide opportunities for more hopefully
sensible community events,
people to enjoy our parks and open spaces,
but also there's an opportunity to generate an income
as part of that as well.
Any other questions?
Oh, Councilor Jeffries.
Sorry, thank you, Chair.
Just looking at page 118,
the KPI at the bottom of the page
reports about non -collection of domestic waste
per 100 ,000 bins collected.
The value there is really way off the target.
And it does say, noting a number of caveats
and explanations, that the council
and the contractor recognize this is well
in excess of target.
Could I ask the cabinet member whether, therefore,
she still holds the view that she expressed
at the July 4th council meeting that it's not smelling
of a big problem for me.
it's going really well so far.
I think I've said several times since
that I'm not remotely complacent,
and I know that for each person
that gets their collection missed,
it is incredibly annoying, and of course it is.
But just looking at the,
and I'm not at all happy with that figure,
and there's been some very robust conversations
with CERCO, as you can imagine.
But just in the scheme of things, it's 0 .29%,
which I know for each and every person that that covers,
it's really, really annoying, and we've got to put it right.
but in the scheme of things it's not a huge amount.
Councillor Osbourne.
Yeah, can I home in on the same item that Councillor Jeffries raised
about missed collections?
Can I ask, if we've got this problem with missed collections,
what are we doing about this?
Are we homing in on repeated cases of missed collections and so on?
I'll answer that one.
So just for a bit of context, yes, this is high,
but this is not unusual for a big service change
as we've completed.
So not only, as we said, the food waste,
but new vehicles, new in -cab technology,
that in itself was a huge change from very paper -based
where we didn't have a lot of detail
about collection points to digitalizing that.
So yes, this is high.
We also, as standard in the waste industry,
provide a 12 week grace period for KPIs to reflect that.
And so that is high, as we said.
So the work that we've been doing is we regularly meet
with CERCO and throughout that service change we were
meeting daily, weekly, to discuss the problems that were
going on to put in solutions.
Some of those solutions that we've put in was an additional
recycling round because the volumes we were collecting
was so high, that had an immediate improvement
on reducing missed collections
because the vehicle was struggling to complete
because there was so much material there.
So as we've gone through the process,
we've continued to improve things.
As you touched on, we're focused on repeat missed collections
because people are sort of tolerable
if it's repeat missed once,
but when it's twice in a row
or three times in a four week period,
then people start to get very cross.
So focused on that work to make sure that crews are learning
where those often bespoke collection points are,
and that's part of the challenge,
and that data is then saved in white space
for that continuity.
So if that regular loader isn't on that round,
that information is shared with whoever's working on it.
So that sort of detailed work has been needed
to get missed collections down.
And we're still focused on,
we've now got specific supervisors
focused on specific services.
So that helps them target particular crews.
And we know that some crews are not as good as others.
So the focus is on those difficult crews
that are not delivering.
Just as that context, we took on about 35 new staff
to deliver the new services.
A number of them came from a removal company
that had gone out of business.
And with what we've found over time,
is they're definitely not quite got the right mindset
of being a waste collector, it's not quite the same.
So some of those are no longer with us.
So that sort of challenge of taking on new staff
has come through as well.
Thank you, Ms. Epstein.
Councillor Kirk.
Thank you, we are, we're now five months in,
by my reckoning, which is a very long time
for a new service to bed down.
The last time we had a massive change,
2012 I think it was,
it certainly did not take five months to settle down.
I personally have had loads of missed collections
in the last few weeks, I'm beginning to wonder
if I'm being picked on, but I know that I'm not,
because I can see these statistics.
What has occurred to me is, are the crews,
are they settled in the same round, week in, week out,
or are they themselves changing?
Because things seem to go at different times,
insofar as I can tell.
So from sort of mid -october the crews have been much more settled and they've got their own rounds last couple of weeks
We've had some problems with high levels of sickness
And so that's probably contributed to the last couple of weeks so the data in here is up to the end of quarter two
So only until September so obviously lots of holiday over the summer didn't help as well
So now it is a much more settled service aside of this sickness little peak
So October and November have seen a decrease, so you'll expect to see Quarter 3 considerably lower.
Councillor Brooks.
Thank you. Just a simple question about the figures in the missed collections number.
Is it possible to get a raw number in that?
Because that measure isn't too digestible.
Agree. So we track exactly how many missed collections by service.
On the food waste, that is down to about 30 per day.
But that's still 30 people that have had to report a missed collection.
But that's where we focus our attention, yeah.
Are there any other... Councilor Osborne?
So is it fair to say that with missed collections,
All systems from time to time things go a bit wrong.
We've identified this as something that's going wrong.
We've focused on it.
We're dealing with it.
And you can't really ask much more of people than that.
It's not really a question.
It's not really a question.
It's a point of view.
I guess we continually work on it.
So putting in solutions, getting down to the detail.
why was that collection missed,
and making sure it doesn't get missed again.
But there will always be some missed collections.
Sometimes they're genuine, sometimes they're not.
Sometimes people forgot to put their things out
and they report it as a missed collection.
So there are always missed collections.
We will never get away from that.
But yeah, we will get it down to the target.
Thank you, Mr. Lefsud.
And it'll be interesting to see how this number changes
in the next round.
Councilor Jai -Koups?
Thank you, Chair.
It's just a quick question about the KPI around percentage of reportable monitoring locations
on the quality objectives, page 120.
You will have to forgive me, it's only my second appearance at this committee, so I
don't know if there is a regular quality report that comes to the committee, but it would
helpful just to understand when that might be because we've obviously had some really
significant traffic problems in Putney, Putney High Street in particular, as well as Putney
Bridge Road where I understand that a new monitor has been put in place.
So it would be really helpful to have sort of like a progress report on that if that's
not already in the pipeline.
I think, yeah, Mr. Morone, you want to come in?
Thank you.
So the air quality services managed through the regulatory services partnership, as part
of setting the targets, we would set them to be very ambitious.
So these are representing 100 percent achieving of those targets, even though, as you said,
it's very difficult for a borrower with our sort of constituent transport to achieve that.
I would say that the articulate or particulate matter
in the KPI above has been achieved.
And we have increased the target,
or rather decreased the target,
as part of the latest air quality monitoring service
for nitrogen dioxide represents a more challenging target.
In terms of the regular updates,
the air quality, the council's air quality
and performance and statistics is all incorporated.
Excuse me, as part of a status report,
we're required to submit every calendar year.
So we will be in the position where we will have,
excuse me, generated a new report
based on the 2024 information.
And I'm sure that that can either be brought
or circulated to Committee for Information
upon its publication.
Unfortunately, I don't know when,
kind of the lead time after the completion
of the year that that is produced.
Thank you Mr. O 'Hara.
I second your point that it's important to be ambition,
ambition on this, it wouldn't be very ambitious
at the council to say we're happy with only a few areas,
having dangerous levels of air quality.
We want it to be eliminated all across the borough,
so I think that is a very good point to make.
Any other questions?
Councillor Belton.
Just to remark, I mean, I have the benefits of being around
for quite a long time.
The air quality in London is absolutely incomparably better
than it was when I was a kid.
I mean, the foggy day in London town kind of stories,
it just doesn't happen.
The batacy smell of way back just doesn't exist anymore.
And not too long ago, I was in a small town, Winchester I think,
and I thought the air was terrible compared to London.
And that of course is partly to do with EULEZ,
and we know who was opposing EULEZ,
so I'm glad to see that they're converted
and believe that air quality is really important.
Thank you, Councillor Burdon.
Councillor Burks.
Thank you.
The question about the e -bike comment
in the corporate plan and actions.
It says that the council removed 65 e -bikes this year.
Fine.
But the problem's so big that the council can't be expected
to solve this problem on its own, right?
So, and I understand that there is an MOU in place
with some or all of the companies in question.
I was hoping someone could tell me what levers
that those MOUs give the council, if any,
to try and have the e -bike companies solve the problem
of pavement blocking, et cetera, for us.
Thank you.
And I think it'd also be useful for the benefit
of the audience to clarify what an MOU is as well.
Member Allen.
Yeah, I'm afraid we haven't got the right office for that.
This is more aimed at obstruction of the pavement
and e -bike issues themselves pertain
to the Transport Committee where we always have Mr. David Tiddley, I'm sure you know,
attending to answer those kinds of questions.
I'm very happy to relay that question to him, though I'm sure we can answer it.
Councillor Kirk.
Thank you.
I've got an acronym to beat that one.
I've just noticed actually it's directly underneath Continue to Improve Christmas Tree Collection.
It shouldn't be too difficult.
Underneath that is work with WRWA to prepare JMWMS and even with my involvement with WRWA,
I haven't a clue what that is.
Can somebody enlighten me please?
Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy.
Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy.
Do you want us to elaborate on what that is?
And WRWA is a question of a sad waste authority as well.
Just for the benefit of the audience.
Are there any more questions for officers?
Okay, so does the committee agree to note the report?
Agreed?
Well, that concludes the business for tonight's committee.
So thank you everyone for your attendance, thank you officers for your reports, and we
will see you in a few months' time.