Agenda item

Agenda item

Questions from Councillors

To receive members’ questions under procedure rule no.11.  The procedure rule provides that any member may ask the chairman of a board or group any question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the District, provided that three clear days’ notice in writing has been given to the Head of Legal and Support Services.

Minutes:

Councillor D Everitt put the following question to Councillor R D Bayliss:

 

A cleaning service for the shared enclosed access to flats has been introduced to tenants of flats in NWLDC including Woodside estate Thringstone. They were sent a letter and a form asking for them to state if they would like to receive the cleaning service at a charge of £5.98 a week.  It was stated correctly and made clear that housing benefit will cover the charge for those in receipt of housing benefit.  The letter also stated that if tenants chose not to reply that would count as agreeing to accept the cleaning service. There are however many reasons why a tenant might not reply but still not want the service. This resulted in tenants who are working and not receiving housing benefit who have always kept the area of their front doors clean and tidy and chose not to receive the service being forced with a threat of eviction to accept it.  They are being made to pay for a service when other tenants who did not want the service have received a letter stating they would not be required to receive it. On the other hand disabled and other residents who may benefit from this service may find it is denied to them. It is in fact a rent increase as stated in the second letter, for some and not others. This is both undemocratic and unfair for this council to presume to know the views of those tenants who did not care or were unable to reply and use them to influence the result.

Does the Portfolio holder agree with me?

 

  1. That it is unacceptable that tenants are being forced to accept a service the neither need or want following a consultation decided by misappropriating the views of non-participating neighbours?
  2. There are 10 blocks of 3 flats on the Woodside estate. How many of these tenants returned the form?
  3. How many tenants replied yes?
  4. How many replied no?
  5.  How many did not reply?
  6.  Do you accept that this council’s desire to provide a service for old and disabled tenants who cannot clean the communal area themselves is to be applauded, however the way it has been implemented in Woodside has left some old and disabled without the service but provided it where it is neither needed nor wanted?
  7. Is this a service charge as described in the letter offering the service, or is it a rent increase as described in the letter demanding payment for some and not others, damaging tenant cohesion and bringing this council into disrepute?

 

Councillor R D Bayliss gave the following response:

 

“In May 2017, we wrote to 255 tenants who live in flats at 52 blocks across the District advising them that we were considering introducing a communal area cleaning service to help improve the general upkeep and appearance of the estates.  The cost of the service would be recovered through the introduction of a new service charge payable by the tenants who benefited.  For those in receipt of Housing Benefit the charge would be included as an eligible housing cost and depending on their level of income they could receive help to pay it, if introduced.  Tenants were asked to return an attached form if they did not want to receive the new cleaning service.  It was determined that if more than 50% of residents in each black did not want the service, it would not be introduced.   In total, 103 (40%) responses were received, 102 completed the form stating they did not want the service and one letter from a resident who supported the idea of the Council introducing the service.  Following analysis of these results on a block by block basis, the service was subsequently introduced.

 

The response to the specific questions about the Thringstone blocks are as follows:

 

1.   57% of the tenants at the Thringstone blocks responded to the survey and the responses were then considered on a block by block basis.  This resulted in 5 of the 10 blocks on the estate being removed from the proposed service.  Of the remaining 5 blocks, no responses were received from the residents in 3 blocks and 1 response from a resident in each of the remaining two blocks.  The approach taken shows that feedback received from tenants was used to inform where the service was introduced.

2.   17 tenants returned the form.

3.   Tenants were asked to return the form if they did not want the service.  No responses were received saying they wanted the service, as none were requested.

4.   17 tenants replied saying they did not want the service.

5.   13 tenants did not respond.

6.   The decision to include the blocks of flats in the communal cleaning contact was to introduce a new service available for tenants to help improve the general upkeep and appearance of the estates.  The views of tenants were used to inform where the service was introduced.

7.   Where the service has been introduced, a new service charge has been applied.  As with all other service charges, for the purpose of collection, it is included with the weekly rent.  Any variation of the rent and/or service charge is subject to four weeks prior notification and for legal reasons by the tenants remaining in the property at the end of the four weeks notification, they become liable to pay the new charges. 

 

The approach we have taken shows we have listened to the feedback from our tenants and the new charge has been applied to only those tenants who are benefitting from the service.

 

In addition to introducing the new cleaning service to enhance the environment of the estate, we have recently completed Phase 1 of an estate improvement programme.  This has seen the communal stairwells for all 10 of the blocks of flats completely refurbished and upgraded, with new windows and redecoration.  Phase 2 is currently being commissioned and will see the external fabric of tenants homes redecorated across the estate, with Phase 3 to follow by upgrading the communal parking areas and exploring the opportunities for new build on in-fill sites.

 

This represents a significant investment by the Council in upgrading the Woodside estate, and the communal cleaning service forms an important part of protecting that investment”.

 

Councillor D Everitt commented that the reply made his case and demonstrated how unpopular implementing the services charges had been.  He referred to various examples of tenants who did not want the service and added that the service was absolutely unnecessary and had been unfairly implemented. 

 

The Chairman asked Councillor D Everitt to put his supplementary question rather than make a speech.

 

As a supplementary question, Councillor D Everitt asked if Councillor R D Bayliss agreed with his feelings that it was stupid to suggest that by not responding, the tenants were in agreement, and that it was not moral to have used this to decide whether or not the tenants needed to pay the service charge.  He concluded that it was out of order to treat people like that. 

 

Councillor R D Bayliss responded that the fact of the matter was that the tenants had been asked, and a non-response either had to be taken as an objection, or as no objection.  He concluded that the entire process was above board.

 

Councillor R Adams put the following question to Councillor A V Smith on behalf of Councillor J Legrys:

 

I have been asked on a number of occasions recently why NWLDC do not use the Council’s bylaws to control unauthorised incursions and overnight camping within its car parks. Many people feel that the use of the bylaws would provide a cheaper and a speedier solution to long-term incursion on council owned land. Bylaws are available for immediate action by NWLDC enforcement staff.  Instead recent incursions have shown that a considerable amount of time is required to move unauthorised overnight camping by using more drawn out processes. People are angry that they have been fined if they overstay or park inappropriately within the car parks, but others appear to get away with no fine or retribution. It may be that UK law requires a specific statutory process to remove long-term incursion from council owned land”.

 

Councillor A V Smith gave the following response:

 

“The Council’s car parks are governed by the Car Parking Orders under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. There are no Bylaws in place. 

 

Whilst the Car Parking order contains provisions in relation to the removal of vehicles, those provisions only relate to vehicles as defined in the order, namely mechanically propelled vehicles up to a maximum weight of 3500kg. A caravan that is unhitched from the towing vehicle is not deemed to be a vehicle and a PCN cannot be issued to it for any contraventions of the Car Park Order.

 

As a public authority the Council has statutory duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 and when a number of vehicles with Caravans arrive and are occupied this is deemed an illegal encampment. Before an eviction can be considered the Council has a statutory duty to assess the health, welfare and social needs of the occupants. 

 

In order to successfully manage illegal encampments within the District the Council is a party to the Multi Agency Traveller Unit (MATU), which is a specialist unit comprising travellers liaison officers, health workers and the police   who conduct the appropriate enquiries on behalf of the Council and are authorised to use their powers to evict those residing in illegal encampments”.

 

Councillor A V Smith advised that a meeting was taking place at the beginning of December to ascertain what measures could be taken to try and resolve some of these problems. 

 

Councillor J Geary put the following question to Councillor A V Smith:

 

Since the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order came into force in 2008, could you please inform me of the number of people that to date have been fined for not cleaning up after their dogs. Could you also please supply figures for people that have been fined or prosecuted for fly tipping or dropping litter in our streets and public places since April 2016”.

 

Councillor A V Smith gave the following response:

 

“The Fouling of Land by Dogs legislation has now been replaced by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. (ASB Act).

 

The existing Dog Control Orders expired on 17th October 2017 and automatically convert to Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) under the ASB Act. However, the Council’s Environmental Protection Team has undertaken a public consultation exercise to review the previous orders and this was concluded on 25th October 2017.

 

The Lead Enforcement Officer is now compiling a report based on the responses received which will lead to the formal adoption of a new set of PSPOs by 31 March 2018. These remain in place for a maximum of 3 years when the Council will have to review and if required re new. There is no requirement for further consultation unless they require changing. The review continues every 3 years.

 

If members require further information on the orders please contact Clare Proudfoot – Environmental Protection Team Manager.

 

Electronic records begin in 2010 for the number of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) issued for littering, fly tipping and dog fouling combined as follows:- 

 

2010/11 – 113

2011/12 – 91

2012/13 – 96

2013/14 – 104

2014/15 – 46

2015/16 – 15

 

Since April 2016 the Team now records the FPNs separately by offence. April 2016 to date, dog fouling – 5

Littering and Fly tipping FPN’s since April 2016 to date – 96 plus 1 prosecution (Fly tipping)

 

Since apprehending offenders for dog fouling is notoriously difficult the Team have introduced the following  proactive measures to catch offenders and educate the Public regarding dog fouling:-

 

·         school education (assemblies and workshops)

·          improved larger signage

·          stencilling on pavements at hot spot areas

·          letter drops to residents near to hotspot areas

·         meet and greet parents at schools

·         flag and tag (spraying) the fouling on grassed areas

·         campaigns including Dog Watch winners 2016 Keep Britain Tidy innovation award and MJ award for innovation

·         Dog Watch Schools premises officers provided with stencil kit and signs for school

·         Dog Watch Stop Foul Play for marked pitches in the district

·         Dog Watch Rural combating and preventing dog fouling on Private land in particular raising awareness of neospora parasite in dog faeces that causes abortion in livestock.

·         talking signs

·         “Report It” cards

·         Patrols

·         visiting suspected offenders

·         Overt observations including CCTV (commenced in February 2017)

·          Providing Parish Councils (at their request) with their own Dog Watch stencilling kit

 

Councillor J Geary thanked Councillor A V Smith for a full and comprehensive reply.  As a supplementary question, he referred to the increase in the number of prosecutions and penalty notices issued since 2015/16, and asked whether Councillor A V Smith could guarantee this increase would continue. 

 

Councillor A V Smith responded that this could not be guaranteed, as if everyone picked up after their dog and did not fly tip, there would be no prosecutions and fixed penalty notices.  She added however that the team would continue to do its best and were doing a wonderful job. 

Supporting documents: