Agenda item

To receive an update on the Council’s work on the Mayor’s priority for delivering ‘Cleaner Croydon’. The Sub-Committee will also receive feedback on its recommendations concerning the Waste & Recycling Contract.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 57 to 82 of the agenda, which provided an update on the Council’s work on the Mayor’s priority for delivering ‘Cleaner Croydon’ and feedback on its recommendations concerning the Waste & Recycling Contract. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment and Interim Director of Streets and Environment introduced the item and went through the presentation at Appendix A.

The Sub-Committee asked about the Council’s implementation of the ‘Love Clean Streets’ app and asked what other methods the Council was using to ensure that reporting was taking place and ensure issues were not missed. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that the ‘Love Clean Streets’ app was fully integrated into Council and contractor back-office systems, but that the learning from the Norbury and Pollards Hill ‘blitz’ was that the value of in-person engagement with stakeholders and residents could not be understated. Members heard that engagement had already begun with residents, stakeholders and Ward Councillors for Thornton Heath (the next ‘blitz’ area) to gain local intelligence in advance of the clean; an initial site inspection had taken place with a small group of stakeholders to gauge their concerns and priorities.

The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment explained that the Council had employed new Client Officers who would gain local intelligence to fill in the gaps where there was underreporting through the ‘Love Clean Streets’ app.  Members heard that the ‘blitz’ approach helped officers gather detail on how well reporting through the app was working, and that work on improving and streamlining the Council’s implementation of the app to make it more intuitive was ongoing. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment stated that it was being investigated if a ‘Friends and Champions’ section of the app could be added to give a better indication of who was reporting what, and where.

The Chair queried whether the additional data gathered by the new Client Officers and through engagement would be used to change the areas prioritised for the ‘blitz’ cleans. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment responded that, whilst data from the app was a good starting point and had been used to choose the priority for the initial list, it was acknowledged that some areas were underreported. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that anecdotal data from the Client Officers and contractors would be combined with app data to gain a fuller picture on which areas would most benefit from a ‘blitz’ approach; it was highlighted that these cleans were in addition to normal core services. It was envisaged that the ‘blitz’ cleans be a rolling programme that serviced all 17 of Croydon’s district centres, and did not require one clean to finish before the next one started.

The Chair commented on the ‘Love Clean Streets’ app, and asked what lessons were being learned from the simpler implementations in other boroughs. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that in some cases the app was not integrated with back-office systems, as it was in Croydon, and required manual processing. The Chair acknowledged this but stated that the intuitiveness for residents using the app did need to be improved.

Members asked if completed jobs reported on the app were being monitored to ensure the jobs were actually being done, and what options for reporting the Council was considering for those who were impacted by ‘digital exclusion’. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that the contact centre could take reports by phone, and that reports could be made directly on the Council’s website for those unable to use the app. On monitoring of completed jobs, the Council was aware of some incorrect closing of tickets and it was explained that there were opportunities in the app for residents to feedback where this was the case, and that this was monitored and picked up in contract monitoring meetings. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment explained that there was ongoing work on the quality of responses to residents where jobs where closed down but had not been completed, and that this was also being looked at by the Deputy Cabinet Member for Contract Management. The Sub-Committee welcomed offers to engage outside of the meeting, but highlighted the importance of building robust systems so that this could be avoided and learning implemented. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods suggested that the new Client officers could be engaged in ‘sampling exercises’ by taking a number of reports and spot-checking for issues.

The Sub-Committee queried how enduring the effects of the ‘blitz’ clean in Norbury and Pollard Hill had been, and were informed that the effects so far had been lasting, and that graffiti had not so far returned. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment explained that other preventative measures for graffiti, such as murals, were also being considered. The Sub-Committee asked if the 1,314 reports of graffiti were unique and if the Council had data on the number of these that had been successfully dealt with. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods responded that these were unique reports and that this data was being recorded; it was noted that graffiti was only removed from public buildings and spaces outside of the ‘blitz’ clean programme.

Members asked whether there was data on the length of time reports remained open before being dealt with. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods responded that this data was available but highlighted that where fly-tips were reported on private land that these cases would remain open, as the Council did not have the jurisdiction or resource to deal with them. Members asked if there was a timetable for ‘walkabouts’ with ward councillors to look at qualitative data and gain local insights, and the Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that currently there was not. The Sub-Committee heard that four Client Officers had been recruited and completed training; these officers would now be working in four geographical areas, getting to know ward councillors, residents and friends groups. It was expected that each officer would be in each ward they were responsible for at least once per week.

The Sub-Committee commented on the prevalence of fly tipping on private land, and asked if the Council had any plans to address this. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that ways to address this would be investigated, but a co-ordinated internal strategy would need to be developed in collaboration with other departments to make sure interventions worked long term. The Chair asked what engagement was taking place with those identified as culprits of commercial or domestic fly tipping, or with those whose land was being fly tipped on. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that it was difficult to catch commercial fly tippers for a number of reasons, and that this was an ongoing issue. Members commented on fly tipping reports on public land being closed down as being on private land, and heard that often these were in areas, such as housing estates, where the contractor could not clear it; the new Client officer team would have a roll in intervening in these cases and resolving them in a satisfactory way for residents.

The Chair commented on the length of the ‘blitz’ cleans, highlighting that the Norbury and Pollards Hill clean had taken four weeks. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that these cleans were in addition to normal street cleansing, with the intention being to create a big step change and restore pride in an area, whilst generating a sustained improvement. It was highlighted that the cleans were being delivered within existing resource, which meant it could take some time to complete each area. It was expected that the full programme of ‘blitz’ cleans would take around 18 months to complete.

Members asked how many enforcement notices had been served as part of the Norbury and Pollard Hill clean. The Sub-Committee heard that the ‘blitz’ cleans had a focus on education and engagement, and there had been a conscious decision not to submit enforcement notices, but to instead to give warning notices. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that there had been lessons learned on identifying pro-active businesses who could act as conduits to promote reporting and local pride in each area, as well as around early engagement with stakeholders before the cleans and development of a tailored communications programme. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment stated that the Council would be using its relationships with Resident Associations and community groups to make the ‘blitz’ cleans as effective as possible and to build trust with communities.

The Sub-Committee asked if the Council had developed a strategy for incentivising businesses to keep the areas around them clean, or to implement vertical planting, and to leverage existing community and litter picking groups by providing them with resources. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that there was not a written strategy, but that the Council recognised Street Champions and community groups as valuable assets and were working with these individuals to see how best to recognise their contributions to the borough and support their work.

Members asked if the ‘blitz’ clean had set any expectations that the Council would be undertaking tasks on private land, and the Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that business owners had been written to twice explaining what was happening and why to manage expectations and explain that businesses would be responsible for maintaining their properties following the clean. The Sub-Committee queried whether the Council would be producing any resources to support private landowners on maintaining their properties, such as a leaflet, and heard that this suggestion would be considered and that leaflets could be provided to Street Champions in future.

In response to questions about weeding, Members heard that pesticides were only used on hard standings and highways and that it was Council policy not to pesticides for green spaces, and not during the ‘blitz’ programme. The Chair asked if the Council was considering the use of signage to encourage recycling and discourage fly tipping. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods responded that this was being looked into with the Comms team, and highlighted the importance of providing as much advice and education to residents (particularly those living in flats above shops) before pursuing enforcement measures. The Chair asked what was being done to assist residents living in flats above shops with waste collection, and heard that there had been significant learning around this from the Norbury and Pollards Hill ‘blitz’ on providing consistent advice to these residents, and ensuring that the contractor was collecting on the correct days.

The Sub-Committee asked if the Council had made any preparations for collecting seven streams of waste, and heard that it had not as Croydon was already compliant with proposed waste legislation, and that this would be carried into the new Waste and Street Cleansing Contract.

Members asked what key improvements were expected with the commencement of the new Waste and Street Cleansing Contract. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that there would more robust enforcement of the new contract, supported by a contract monitoring team and Client officers, and that this would be implemented over the next 18 months to ensure that this was in place when the new contract started. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment stated that they were seeking a more proactive approach, with contractors reporting fly tipping amongst other measures. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods stated that the procurement strategy had used competitive dialogue to try to get maximum financial leverage through the value of the tender; it was stated that the contract would be of a higher value, but would have a significant weighting on social value.

The Sub-Committee asked how often contract management meetings with the South London Waste Partnership (SLWP) took place, including with the Cabinet Member. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that they met with SLWP colleagues on a bi-monthly basis, in addition to a monthly transformational board and a senior management group (attended by directors) quarterly. The SLWP Joint Committee met quarterly and was attended by, and currently chaired by, the Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment explained that they had regular meetings with members of the SLWP and the contract monitoring officers based in Stubbs Mead.

Conclusions

The Sub-Committee concluded that they would like to add the ‘blitz clean’ programme to its work programme for 2024/25, to monitor whether the programme was successful and having a sustained impact on district centres, alongside data on the number of businesses and residents engaged during the cleans.

Request for Information

1. The Sub-Committee requested that information be provided on how the 17 areas identified for ‘blitz cleans’ would be prioritised, as well the timeline for when these cleans would take place.

2. The Sub-Committee requested information on the total number of reports made via the ‘Love Clean Streets’ app, as well as data on how long reports were taking to be actioned and completed.

3. The Sub-Committee requested further information on the enforcement powers at the disposal of the Council and an update on what consideration has been given to other forms of deterrent such as ‘name and shame’ campaigns and engaging with private landowners where fly-tips persist.

Recommendations

1. The Sub-Committee recommended that Members were engaged for their views on how well the ‘Love Clean Streets’ app was working, as well as for their input as to how the implementation of the app in Croydon could be made more accessible for residents.

2. The Sub-Committee recommended that regular walkabouts for Ward Councillors were scheduled with the new Client Officer team to identify issues and feedback local knowledge concerning street cleaning, fly tipping, weeding and graffiti.