An update to be provided on District Enforcement Pilot.

Simon Dale gave a presentation to the Panel.

Simon Dale informed the panel that he had tried to explain in the covering report that this was an opportunity to utilise the work of Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel in informing the future going forward. The focus of the presentation was to update on the statistics as far as the pilot contract was concerned but equally focus on the future of the arrangements of the DE as this had been of particular interest to Members and residents. Simon dale commented that the scrutiny of the Panel would assist in a strategy plan emerging which was to people’s satisfaction. The presentation gave an overview of what the pilot was set up to achieve when the pilot was launched and there had been a relatively low activity compared to other councils in terms of environmental crime enforcement, which the borough wanted to increase activity in. The whole point of the pilot was to change people's behaviour and stop them from dropping litter and fly-tipping. The presentation showed the types of offences and what percentages they were. There was a split across the wards slide. The presentation also showed the time patrolled in each ward. There was also a slide showing gender and age of those that had been issued fixed penalty notices.

Simon Dale informed the Panel that the pilot would be coming to an end at the beginning of October 2021 and they wanted to bring it in line with enforcing activities that expired. The NSL contract for parking enforcement expired in November 2022. So far, 14 months between the end of October 2021 and November 2022, another 14 months, between the end of October 2021 and November 2022, taking into consideration member suggestions, It was proposed that to put out a specification that asked three companies under procurement rules to give prices for delivering the service for a 14 month interim period that would take the council to December 2022 when a full specification with member input, in areas of operation. The full specification would include parking enforcement, environmental crime enforcement, and aspects of highway enforcement in one contract. This would amalgamate three separate contracts with a lower price to provide additional revenue to the Council on top of what was already collected through parking enforcement. The presentation considered nine options and gave comments by each of them.

Mr. Webb thanked Simon Dale for the presentation, and asked what safeguards would be in place to ensure that private contractors used by RBWM for enforcement would enforce as per their priorities defined by residents, rather than the priorities with a profit nature and how would RBWM establish the priorities of residents for enforcement? Simon Dale responded to Mr. Webb's question that the borough were embarking on a process that included the members and resident priorities. The borough would take all considerations and with respect to the profit element, this would feature with a private operator but shouldn't be the major issue if a good service was offered. The journey would end with a fit for purpose service that balanced the residents needs with that of the overall council’s position.

Cllr G Jones asked if complaints and appeals were the same thing? Simon Dale confirmed they were the same. Cllr Jones commented that it was a low rate of complaints with so many tickets being issued. Cllr Jones asked the difference between parking enforcement and highway enforcement. Simon Dale explained that parking enforcement fell under the Traffic Management Act and highways enforcement fell under the Highways Act. Cllr Jones added one final point that it would be good that whoever was awarded the contract had the ability to operate covert cameras in the lanes that were repeatedly targeted by fly tippers. 

Cllr Price asked if any other local authorities had gone down the route of combining and if so, could any lessons be learnt? Also, it was said that the new contract should provide additional revenue, should that read 'must' provide additional revenue for the council would like to see evidence where this has been done. Simon Dale agreed with the change of word from should to must. With respect to the combination of services that the council recognised, there were many local authorities that had combined environmental crime and parking but Simon Dale could not think of any that had combined all three. This would be researched.

Councillor Bhangra asked Simon Dale who was it that decided where the DE Officers were placed, as in his ward, the FPN were very low. Neil Walter responded that the enforcement officers were all over the borough. The main FPN’s were given in the town centres. Neil Walter commented that ward councillors had been asked for problem areas in their ward’s, but none had been sent. Neil Walter commented that he would like to do targeted enforcement so that the problem areas were covered.

Councillor Davey commented that Simon Dale and Neil Walter had done an excellent job. They were always at hand to provide information. The project had been going for nine months and residents had commented, and officers had listened and come up with logical solutions.

Councillor Baldwin asked a couple of questions and commented on option 1 of the supplement document which read insufficient time in considering this option. It had been twelve months so how could it be insufficient? And Councillor Baldwin commented that no substantial piece of work had been done. What had happened to the discussions that had taken place twelve months ago. Councillor Baldwin commented that this had been a concessionary contract that had been awarded through the non-tender permissions and no discussions had taken place. Councillor Baldwin asked if the Panel could see all the contributions, advise and wisdom that had been received from elected members. Simon Dale responded that it had been insufficient time to have anything in place for 5 October 2021 was because the council had taken the time to learn from the pilot, there was no experience of running the service in the council and the cost of establishing that was unknown at this stage and there was only 3-4 months to do that. Staff would have to be employed and systems would have to be in place. The priority was to have an interim in place that had transparency. The elected member comments would all be on You Tube if Councillor Baldwin wanted to hear them. Officers had listened to everyone that had something to say.

Councillor Price asked that with the highways, one of the largest problems was people parking on the pavements and them not being able to be used by people walking. Was this a police matter? Was this to change? Simon Dale commented that some legislation was in place at present to make it an offence, nationally in parking on the footway. The council had responded to the consultation and both MPs were in favour of some sort of blanket ban on footpath parking.

Councillor Singh commented that St Marys wad was the most targeted area. Councillor Singh could not see any measures of any improvement in terms of littering around the borough in the report. Residents had been concerned about the reputation and customer confidence with the contract. Councillor Singh wanted to part of any consultation that took place. Simon Dale commented that councils used to measure how clean their wards were but this was not done anymore. External groups could be invited to do this. There had been very few repeat offenders, so it was a detriment.

Councillor Davey commented that the legal point was how were the borough improving littering. Neil Walter said that it could not be physically measured but the contractors were collecting high amounts of litter. This was adding cost to the borough. Campaigns could be done and community groups could assist in monitoring.