Decision details

10.1

The report provides details for proposals on how to deliver the £500k investment agreed as a budget amendment for 22/23. This is a one-off budget lift so a mix of invest to save, and one-year improvements are proposed to ensure sustainability.

A 500k budget amendment was agreed for 22/23 with the following accompanying text: ‘Street clean environmental enforcement one-off funding directed specifically to the areas of most need, to deal with issues around litter, vermin and street cleaning.’

10.2

UNANIMOUSLY AGREED: That the Waste and Street Scene Policy Committee agrees the spending proposals in the attached report to cover a mix of clean up increased enforcement and ‘invest to save’ proposals to deliver quick wins in year and sustainable improvements in the city over years to come.

10.3

Reasons for Decision

10.3.1

Local Authorities have various duties to help maintain the local environment. This includes the activities suggested in this report. Under Part 4 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), local authorities have a statutory duty to keep relevant land free of litter and refuse. Section 33 of the EPA provides for the offence of fly tipping. The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 requires local authorities to take such steps as may be necessary to secure so far as practicable that their district is kept free from pests.

10.3.2

These proposals offer the best balance of quick wins which most residents and businesses will benefit from, alongside taking opportunities to change and improve how services work and how we work with residents and businesses to prevent problems in the future. This will ensure improvements can be sustained and at the lowest possible cost.

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

10.4.1

The main alternative option was to put more or all the funding into simply

doing one-year increased cleaning and enforcement and including more

litter clean ups in between contractual Amey cleans. However, there is

the obvious risk from that, in that there is no sustainability once the

money has gone. SCC would risk having to spend another £500k in

23/24 and potentially each year to achieve the same gains. Also having

done a huge clean, but not changed how we work and more prevention

activities, residents would perceive an improvement and then any

subsequent slide very acutely thereby increasing pressure to continue

the £500k each year.

10.4.2

Instead, the proposals assume no additional investment in year 2 or

beyond to maintain the improvements, although there may be further

policy decisions required as the project officers develop proposals. These

could be eg on the future level of waste disposal for community litter

picks off the network if volunteering does increase, although these are

not expected to be large costs compared to the benefit in kind or the

original £500k.