Agenda item

To receive a written report from the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services and to question the Executive Member thereon, provided any such questions are registered in accordance with the timescales and procedures set out in Standing Order 8.21.

A written report was received from Cllr Reid, the Executive Member for Neighbourhood Services.

 

Notice had been received of ten questions on the report, submitted by Members in accordance with Standing Orders.  The questions were put and answered as follows:

 

(i)         From Cllr King:

“Would the Executive Member agree that air quality monitoring is of little value unless the Council takes action to improve air quality. In doing so will she confirm to Council what action has been taken to improve air quality in the AQMA against a trend of worsening air quality, given this wasn’t deemed important enough to feature in her report?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

I would agree that monitoring on it own has little value but I can assure Cllr King that the monitoring has informed a great deal of action.

The review and assessment of air quality is a legal requirement under sections 82-84 of the Environment Act 1995 Part IV.

We have an extensive range of air quality monitoring, comparable to larger cities in the country that  includes 11 real time air quality monitoring stations monitoring air pollution continuously. We have 325 diffusion tubes that monitor air pollution on radial routes and other busy roads.

Once we declared an Air Quality Management Area in 2002 it became a legal requirement to monitor air pollution in the AQMA. The air quality monitoring stations also monitor pollution from major developments in certain areas of York.

This network enables the council to determine where air pollution is impacting on the health of local residents and to monitor the effects of transport policy on air quality.

The Environment Act 1995 Part IV also imposed a legal duty to produce an air quality action plan (AQAP) to improve air quality in York and to meet the health based air quality objectives.

Many of the measures in the Plan have already been delivered. These include:

·        New planning guidance on sustainability

·        A successful car club

·        Cleaner, lower emission taxis

·        Graduated parking charges based on vehicle age, fuel type and engine size

And we are progressing.

·        3 New Park & Rides

·        A low emission zone feasibility study

Other measures to improve air quality will be progressed via the Local Development Framework, the City Centre Area Action Plan, the third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) and the emerging Low Emission Strategy. These include:

·        Extension of the foot streets and their hours of operation

·        A freight transhipment centre to remove heavily polluting diesel lorries from the city centre and AQMA

·        Promotion of electric vehicles and the infrastructure to support them.

·        A low emission strategy will build on the existing air quality action plan, LTP3 and the Climate Change Strategy and look holistically at emissions of CO2, nitrogen dioxides and particulates from all sources and not just transport or development.

A word of caution is needed as not all the measures that seem attractive have the desired effect.  For example, the government is encouraging vehicle manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions, but by adjusting their engines, emissions of nitrogen dioxides have increased.”

 

In response to supplementary questions put by Cllrs King, Simpson-Laing and D’Agorne, the Executive Member confirmed that the issue of air quality on Water End, Clifton Green and Westminster Road as a result of traffic works carried out in that area had not been raised as a matter of concern, but Officers had raised concerns about air quality in the Fulford Road and Leeman Road areas.  She had no details to hand of the Council’s response to government on Air Quality Action Areas but could supply this information to Cllr D’Agorne.

 

In response to a further supplementary question from Cllr R Watson on financial support received from government, which was allowed by the Lord Mayor on the grounds that Cllr Watson’s early request to put the question had been ignored due to technical problems, the Executive Member replied:

“The grants from DEFRA in the past have enabled us to build a proactive air quality programme and it had been hoped to money would be available to continue that approach and progress some of these measures, especially the feasibility study for a low emission zone, at a fast rate.   Unfortunately,  this has been delayed by disappointing grants from DEFRA in the last 2 years.

In 2008/09 CYC submitted a bid for £222k. We initially received only £15k; initially, but a further request that year did give us a further £27k.

In 2009/10 we asked for £195,025. We received £16,500, but have again requested that they reconsider.

Both these grants are well below what we need to progress our plans and reflects that the overall grant available across the country have not be increased to reflect the legal obligations on Local Authorities and the increased work that is now taking place nationally.”

 

(ii)        From Cllr King:

“Would the Executive Member agree with me that the Government should be congratulated for awarding the City of York a grant to run a publicity campaign on under age tobacco sales?”

 

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“It was welcome extra income in order for us to enact Government legislation.”

 

In response to a supplementary question put by Cllr Holvey, the Executive Member replied:

“In 2008/09 we received £8,162.04 of funding from the Department of Health to assist in education and enforcement work in relation to tobacco.  We ran a promotional campaign (on bus shelters near to secondary schools and at the cinema) We also undertook a series of test purchases including targeting vending machines. The targeting of vending machines where there is less supervision and the raise in the legal age for buying tobacco  does show a  sharp rise in the level of illegal sales compared to previous years.

            From 2004 -08 - test purchasing produced no illegal sales of tobacco.

During the period that  the funding was used in 2008/09 there were 10 test purchases of vending machines with 6 illegal sales and 60  test purchases at retailers with 3 illegal sales all in October when the law had only just changed.”

 

(iii)       From Cllr King:

“It is pleasing to see working days lost to sickness are down to 11.25 days on average per full time employee from 19.2.  Can the Executive Member inform us when the Council is likely to reach the lower agreed target that has been set?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“The directorate is continuing to implement the absence management policy robustly, sickness does remain a priority within the directorate plan, and that we are continuing to seek proactive ways to improve the level of staff absence.  We will continue to hold initiatives such as health fairs, which look at a lifestyle as well as health issues and don't just concentrate on work related issues.  Involving staff in the Excellence in Everything programme is also improving attendance levels and attitudes to work.  We will also continue to look at using machinery and new technology that helps reduce injuries at work.  The recently acquired machine to lift kerb and paving stones is one example of this and expanding the use of wheeled bins and therefore reducing the amount of lifting that our waste operatives have to do is another.

The 08/09 outturn was 11.25 days with a target this year of 11 days. Up to end August 09/10 we had lost 4.71 days compared to 6.37 days in the equivalent period in 08/09.  I am therefore hopeful that we will hit the 11 day target.”

 

In response to supplementary questions put by Cllrs Taylor and King, the Executive Member indicated that any examples of abuse of the absence management policy should be brought to the attention of the appropriate director and that she was as confident as she could be at this stage that any changes to working practices arising from the More for York review would not lead to an increase in the number of working days lost to sickness.

 

[Answers to the following questions were supplied in writing after the meeting, the ten minute deadline for questions on the Executive Member’s written report having expired at this point.]

 

(iv)       From Cllr Looker:

“I agree with the Executive Member that the Groves recycling pilot has been successful, but could she comment on the significant resistance to the proposal that wheelie bins be stored to the fronts of properties, as well as the more general requirement that refuse be presented to the fronts of properties, rather than at the rear as residents have been used to?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“There has been some reaction to wheeled bins in a few streets and officers are working with residents in these areas.  This work is ongoing and compromise has been reached to the satisfaction of many residents.

Further consultation is being undertaken by officers  and a report on the work being carried out as a result of the petitions received from just 3 streets in the Groves area will come to my Executive Member Decision Session in November.  The lead petitioner was happy with that timescale.

Because of  the way recycling is collected, all residents are asked to put their recycling at the front of their property.  It therefore makes sense to also ask for residual waste to be put at the front of properties.   Presenting waste in rear lanes does have an impact on the efficiency of our hardworking crews and adds to manual handling problems. Guidance from the Health & Safety Executive states such work should be kept to a minimum and avoided where possible.  I am sure that Cllr Looker would agree with me that the health and welfare of our staff is an important factor when we make decisions about waste collection.   We also now have many streets that are part of the wider alley gating scheme and our agreed policy is we will not go into gated alleys to collect waste. 

If we did want to continue collecting from back lanes we would either have to invest in smaller vehicles in order to empty wheeled bins from the rear of houses, clearly considerably less efficient as the vehicles would need to be emptied more often.   The alternative would be to impose central collection points.   We are exploring this option in some very specific locations but Labour found to their cost that residents were not happy to have this solution imposed on them wholesale. 

I would remind Council that of the nearly £15.5 million we have paid in landfill tax to the Government they have returned to us only just over £2.5million in grants.  If we had received more back we might have more collection options available to us.”

 

 

(v)        From Cllr Firth:

“Can the Executive Member outline how City of York Council compares to “family group” of Local Authorities (as defined by Government) and Unitary Council delivering a similar service in terms of recycling rates, value of money and residents’ satisfaction?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“Of the 15 Unitary Authorities in our family group we have the best recycling rates.  In 2007/08, the last year for which we have comprehensive figures, we recycled 43.37% of our waste.   The next closest was Bath with 42.94% and the lowest Calderdale with just 25% of waste recycled.

What is most interesting to note, however, is the collection costs.   We also have the 2^nd cheapest collection and disposal costs of the 15 at £78.53 per ton.  The cheapest, Stockton pay £76.20 per ton but only recycle 26.22% of their waste.  Ironically, the worst recycle, Calderdale, have the highest collection costs at £112.10 a ton.

Comparing our customers opinions with that of 27 Unitary Authorities delivering similar service the Place Survey showed that York is 10^th in a league table of satisfaction with refuse collection at 79%, 10^th in a league table of satisfaction with kerbside recycling and 10^th overall in the combined measure.  However, in terms of Value for Money York is third in the league table, behind two authorities with much lower levels of satisfaction.

East Riding, our closest Unitary Authority, still operates a weekly residual waste collection alongside a doorstep recycling.  Our overall satisfaction rate with refuse and doorstep recycling collections is 77% while theirs is only 2 points higher at 79%.   But, as I said, our collection costs are £78.53 per ton whilst theirs is over 22% higher at £100.92.

By all the measures, we offer our residents a value for money service which has a high satisfaction level but our Waste Strategy is designed to improve on those results.”

 

(vi)       From Cllr King:

“I am glad to see security changes have now been implemented at the Eco depot.  Could the Executive Member tell me how much money has been wasted by putting the reception at the rear of the building and not providing proper security when the building was first built?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“The plans approved in 1999 were not really fit for purpose by the time the Council was in a position to progress a new depot in 2003.   The new Lib Dem Council was very creative in progressing the Eco depot but constructing the largest straw building in Europe with its many sustainable features had slightly higher build costs.  The contract was design and build and as the project progressed it was felt that a stand alone gatehouse was not necessary at the time for a number of reasons.  

·        There were absolutely no security measures at the old site.  Members of the public were able to walk around at will and there was open access at night.

·        The location was in the same area and therefore not subject to significant higher levels of burglary, theft, anti social behaviour etc.

·        The security office was to be situated overlooking the entrance gates.

·        CCTV was installed.

·        There were no Member objections either at the design stage or at Planning Committee.

·        There is no public access to the Eco depot site

·        The new sites would have gates that have always been closed at night and weekends.

As with all new developments there are often changes to be made once operations are up and running.  As already reported to Council the Road Haulage Association carried out a risk assessment and recommended some changes but the major catalyst for the security barriers was the high profile given to the sole incident of theft by a member of this Council.  

The cost of purchasing the barriers themselves are the same as they would have been.  Retrospective fitting would have cost a few thousand.  There was never a plan to site reception at the gate but this is felt to be desirable now that the Eco depot has been in operation for some time.”

 

(vii)      From Cllr Hyman:

“Can the Executive Member tell Council more about the waste minimisation work?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“Waste minimisation work is a very important strand in our efforts to decrease the amount of waste we send to landfill.  We are members of the York and North Yorkshire Waste Partnership which allows us to take a county wide coordinated approach to waste campaigns.

Our Waste Minimisation Strategy is designed to limit waste growth to only the additional number of properties being built, i.e. ‘zero’ growth from existing households, and includes several targeted campaigns and supports the business and community sectors in reducing waste.  By linking in with regional and national campaigns, as well as targeted specific local campaigns, the success of this strategy has far outweighed expectations, with York showing an overall fall in waste arising by over 4%.  It is pleasing that this trend has continued into the current financial year with a further 5% reduction so far. 

All campaigns include radio adverts and are backed up with press releases and information on our web site. 

Real Nappy Week is  a regular event and includes Nappochino mornings when parents can come along and see the alternatives that are on offer.

Compost Awareness Week was held in May along with an Autumn Tidy Upto promote reuse & composting.  York Rotters play an integral part in promoting composting and have helped to divert 220 tonnes of rubbish from landfill. This year they have held 3 training events, attended 10 summer roadshows, attended talks and meetings, work in 6 schools and given about 3,000 tonnes of soil improver to residents at 5 giveaway events

18 schools have set up composting schemes and advice has been given to 18000 residents on home composting.

The Love Food Hate Waste campaign ran a competition linked to the recent Food Festival asking people for their favourite recipes using left over food.  A 4 day stall at the Festival attracted more than 1,000 people with practical cooking demonstrations in Parliament St showing quick and easy ways to use food rather than throwing it away.

A competition in Primary schools encouraged children to design posters illustrating ways to reuse and recycle waste generated at home. Winning schools received a wormery composter, with the individual winner receiving a ‘worm world’ for observing worms at home.

The Choose2Resuse campaign encourages residents to buy and donate reusable items at charity shops and we support the Furniture Warehouse.  A roadshow is planned for the city centre after Christmas for people to donate unwanted Christmas presents and items from the traditional post Christmas clear out.

Waste Strategy staff regularly attend a variety of events including ward committee meetings, roadshows, festivals etc. where help and information is freely available to residents.”

 

(viii)     From Cllr Sunderland:

“Can the Executive Member enlarge on the results of the Place Survey as they relate to Neighbourhood Services?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“9 of the questions in the Place survey related to Neighbourhood Services and the results are very encouraging.  5 are in the top quartile of Unitary Authorities with 2 each in the 2^nd and 3rd quartile.

67.4% of residents said that they were very or fairly satisfied with keeping public land clear of litter and refuse and 75% of people agreed that local public services are working to make the area cleaner and greener.  These are not only top quartile but puts us at number 1 of all 55 Unitary Authorities.  Other top quartile results are that 87.4% of residents are satisfied with their local area as a place to live with 91.9% of those over 65 agreeing.  31.7% agreed that they can influence  decisions in their local area.  Although that might seem a low percentage it still put us 7^th out of 55 Unitary Authorities.  Some other authorities must be very low.

74% of residents are satisfied with both recycling collections and household waste sites and 78.8% with waste collections.  In all but one of the 9 measures we are above the Unitary Average.”

Only 12.7% of residents said that they have been involved in decisions that affect their area in the last 12 months.  This is the one score that was perhaps slightly disappointing particularly given the number of people who are involved in Ward Committees and vote for schemes.   We shall be investigating ways of encouraging participation and ensuring people realise that their views really can make a difference.”

 

(ix)       From Cllr King:

“I welcome the refurbishment of the toilets at the crematorium, however, could the Executive Member inform council when we will see a report on security and recommendations on disabled people’s toilets for the city?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“Officers have sourced an alarm system which when triggered would still show a flashing light outside the facility but also alert a service provider who when then implement an agreed call out procedure.  The problem is identifying a service provider who could respond.

Officers are talking to partners to identify a provider who could ensure that the alarm is responded too.

An update on the Community Toilet scheme is due to come to my EMDS in the New Year and an update on this issue will be included.”

 

(x)        From Cllr King:

“Whilst welcoming the intention to provide a better service to bereaved families, can the Executive Member square this objective with the recent unsympathetic removal of families’ personal mementoes from the Garden of Remembrance without any consultation whatsoever with the bereaved families concerned?”

 

            The Executive Member replied:

“The placing of personal mementoes at cemeteries and in the grounds of crematoria around the country is a  problematic and sensitive issue.

Mementoes that are meaningful to some are seen as inappropriate by others. All facilities, including York, receive complaints when the numbers of such mementoes around the grounds increase or are placed near to another loved ones memorial . Members will realise it is a difficult situation to manage.

At the crematorium we do explain to the bereaved that only authorised memorabilia is permitted in the grounds. We display a large sign which advises visitors of that fact, and asks them not place memorabilia on the lawns, flower beds and in trees. The sign also advises that we reserve the right to remove such items.

This is an action we do take from time to time. Prior to this action we advise all visitors we do see that this will take place. We do not however have the resources to track down each person responsible for the placing of the item and advise them personally of this action. We do what we can.

We do regret any distress caused to any one because of this action but it is a process we do need to repeat from time to time and is accepted most with good grace and understanding.”