A long post, but I thought it worth publishing the Tories considered response to myself and Peter Campbell's concerns about the cleanliness of the streets in Central Ramsgate. THis is the text of the paper going to next weeks Council meeting.
To consider the notice of motion submitted by Cllr David Green in
relation to street cleanliness in the Eastcliff and Central Harbour
Wards, and potential action arising from this.
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 A notice of motion was submitted by Cllr David Green, and seconded by Councillor
Campbell, at Council on 9 October 2008 as follows:
“This Council instructs officers to bring forward a comprehensive set of measures to combat the lack of cleanliness of streets in Eastcliff and Central Harbour Wards.
These measures to include:
• A regular schedule of pavement cleaning (as opposed to litter picking).
• A scheme for the separate collection of household and recyclable waste in all
streets unsuitable for domestic wheelie bins to avoid the contamination of
pavements through ‘split bags’.
• Regular removal of weeds and chewing gum from pavements.
• Published targets for street cleanliness with regular inspections of streets by
officers and Ward Councillors.
• Rating of cleanliness on a suitable scale, and publication of the ratings
scored”.
1.2 In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 16.3 the notice was referred by Council
for consideration by a subsequent meeting of Cabinet.
1.3 Cabinet considered the Notice of Motion at it’s meeting held on 12 March 2009.
1.4 The Cabinet recommendation to Council was;
That the discussion section of the report at Appendix 1 is noted in relation to the five
areas set out in the Notice of Motion but that no specific action is recommended.
2.0 Background
2.1 The two wards referred to in the notice of motion contain a relatively diverse mix of
land use and housing so street cleansing is organised to reflect both the nature of the
areas and the pressure under which they operate.
2.2 The Council complies with the requirements of the national indicators in undertaking
surveying of the cleanliness of the area. On this basis under NI195 sample surveys
are undertaken on an annual basis across Thanet which measures the level of
littering and detritus on different categories of road on a random basis in every ward
in Thanet across a year. These results are collated on a national database, are
included within the Kent Agreement 2 updates, and are included in the quarterly
performance packs.
3.0 Discussion
3.1 The notice of motion as set out above proposes five areas for action and these are
addressed in turn below:
Pavement Cleaning
The current arrangements for street cleaning in the area were set out in the previous
section. The 2 wards receive a significant share of the available street cleansing
resources. Given the nature of the areas the level of resourcing is relatively high in
comparison to the average for Thanet, and with the overall limitation on this resource
it is difficult to see how this could be increased significantly without causing detriment
to another area. Because of the nature of much of the area most of the cleaning is
done by manual sweepers who combine both litter picking and the sweeping of
detritus. Some use is made of machine sweeping, but this is fairly limited.
In terms of results, setting aside the specific surveys undertaken as indicated below,
we also get feedback from PACT meetings. The feedback from local people at the
most recent event to which cleansing and waste officers were invited was that the
cleaning standards were good in the area, and the main concern was about the more
general condition of the streets, which is more a function of the condition of the
highway (being KCC’s role) and the condition of adjacent buildings.
There were issues about chewing gum which is addressed below, and the difficult
problem of cigarette ends that get caught between the joints of concrete blocks.
However, it was recognised that the Council is trying hard to keep on top of this issue,
and the local sweepers were praised for the exceptionally hard work they put in.
The management of both domestic and commercial waste remains a problem in this
area, and as indicated below it is the longer term aim to put in methods to improve
waste containment for domestic properties. Except for litter dropping by visitors to
town centres, the poor containment of waste presents one of the main sources of
littering in these areas, and adds to the workload of staff.
Waste and Recycling Collections
Following the recent roll-out of wheeled bins to a further 8,200 properties across
Thanet this has allowed the redirection of the paper collection service into new areas.
This has included adding streets within these two wards that were not covered
previously.
Paper products make up around one third of domestic refuse and contribute over
80% of the material that we collect in mixed recycling bins and bags across Thanet.
Clearly this does not include the collection of cans and plastics as in the wheeled bin
collections, although recycling bring banks are available at Staffordshire Street and
Queens Street in these two wards for paper, card, cans, glass, textiles and shoes. In
the longer term the Council would wish to find a containment system for the type of
housing in these wards that is not suitable for wheeled bins, but the current priority for
the Council is to complete the roll-out of the wheeled bin service to suitable remaining
properties, and this is affected by the overall budget position. On this basis roll-out of
alternate containment systems is problematical until the wider wheeled bin roll-out is
complete, which is in itself dependant on additional funding being available.
The containment of waste placed out for collection remains the responsibility of the
producer of the waste until the time that it is collected and loaded. Many people in
areas of these wards and other similar areas have provided their own containment,
and this remains an option for any resident concerned by this issue to manage their
own waste. Technically the Council would have the power to force residents to
provide suitable containment at their own expense, but as with other areas have
recognised the difficulty in taking this stance, especially as it has funded the
introduction of wheeled bins elsewhere.
Weeds and Chewing Gum
Although this Council undertakes a large amount of weed removal at times the work
lies within the responsibility of KCC as highway authority. KCC are responsible for
organising the annual weed spraying programmes in both urban and rural areas of
Thanet. Concern has been raised on many occasions with KCC about the efficacy of
the programme overall and the standard of work that is undertaken. This is not
assisted by the wet weather across recent summers as this is linked with significant
limitations on the type of weedkiller that can be used on the highway. Both these
issues have led to more areas of weed being unaffected by the spraying programme.
This Council removes weeds when they are dead as part of normal sweeping
operations, and on many occasions undertakes mechanical removal of weeds when
we feel it necessary to take action due to the extent of weed growth. The Council
does not as a matter of course have the resources to undertake weed removal, and
this has been exacerbated by recent reductions and pressures on the street cleansing
budget.
Despite continual use of the Schmidt Hot Wash machine across many areas of
Thanet this has had little impact on chewing gum. The hot washing cleans the
pavement effectively of staining but it has not proved effective against chewing gum
except to clean the surface of the gum and make it more obvious. A number of other
scrubbing and heating methods have been used (mainly in Margate High Street as
the test site), but progress is very slow and the results indifferent despite the claims of
the machinery manufacturers. The machines can also have an impact on the stability
of the paving especially in areas with flags or concrete blocks. Although the Council
regularly tries out different methods it has not located a system that it could afford to
operate in a way that would have any sort of impact on gum across the area, or even
just keep track of the rate at which this appears on our pavements. Due to the
widespread nature of this problem, it would not be possible or even fair merely to
concentrate activity in these 2 ward areas, as the problem is no worse here than the
other town centre areas of Thanet.
Street Cleaning Targets
The Council has signed up to enhanced cleaning targets as part of the Kent
Agreement 2 in association with all the other Kent districts and KCC in the Kent
Waste Partnership. This is measured using national indicator (NI195), and this target
is incorporated in the Council’s annual performance plan, which is monitored in the
monthly and quarterly performance packs.
Cleanliness Measurement
As indicated in section 2 the Council already complies with a national scheme of
measurement of street cleanliness as part of NI195 and these are published annually
by the Audit Commission. In addition, these are included in the quarterly performance
packs produced by the Council which are accessible by all members and residents.
4.0 Corporate Implications
4.1 Financial
4.1.1 As the discussion section contains no specific proposals to increase cleansing
resources in these wards, and the monitoring activity and results are already
in place there are no financial implications.
4.2 Legal
4.2.1 The Council has a statutory responsibility as laid out in the Code of Practice
for Litter and Refuse to undertake cleaning in public areas. The Code of
Practice defines different categories of area depending on usage and visibility,
and the standards at which these should be kept, together with the speed at
which the areas should be returned to acceptable standards. The Council
works to the Code in organising its cleaning rotas, and has hit squads who
can respond quickly to specific littering and dumping issues.
4.3 Corporate
4.3.1 Street cleansing is one of the Council’s key corporate priorities, laying both in
Theme 3 of the Corporate Plan, but also in relation to the level of funding
within the overall budget.
4.3.2 The need to set a balanced budget in the Medium Term Financial Strategy in
the context of very low RSG settlements means that even the street cleaning
budget has had to be reduced. This has necessitated changing the way of
working to improve the effective use of cleaning resources across Thanet, and
to ensure these are directed to areas of greatest need and pressure, rather
than cleaning some streets too frequently. However, this has meant that the
areas indicated in the notice of motion have in the main benefited from the
dedication of additional resources due to their nature in comparison to more
suburban locations in Thanet.
4.4 Equity and Equalities
4.4.1 Although the report contains no proposals that would have a specific
equalities impact the street cleansing system described primarily provides
extra cleaning resources into areas of greater deprivation.
5.0 Recommendation(s)
5.1 None – for information.
6.0 Decision Making Process
6.1 Notices of Motion referred by Council for consideration by Cabinet are required to be
reported back to Council under Council Procedure Rule 16 at the next available
meeting.
