To receive a presentation by the Cabinet Member (Environment) informing the Committee of policy issues affecting this programme area and the main priorities.

The Committee received a presentation by the Cabinet Member (Environment)

A report had been prepared by the Cabinet Member outlining the issues affecting the Environment programme area and highlighting the main priorities for 2005/06.

In presenting the report the Cabinet Member (Environment) highlighted in particular:

• The Environment Directorate was now seen as a high performing part of the Council.  The last CPA score indicated an improvement from 1 to 3 out of a possible 4.  The target now was to improve or maintain this position.

• Recent staff re-location had contributed to closer working relationships and reduced accommodation costs.  This would be continued in accordance with the Council’s property strategy.

• There was now a sharper focus on the management of the whole street environment through the “Streetscene” scheme.  The scheme had also benefited from a higher profile through the local press; lay-by “Safari” signs and officer visits to schools.  Further aspects of the scheme will be added as more parts of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 were enacted.

• Waste Management - Compared with Worcestershire, Herefordshire benefited from being a Unitary Authority.  The County now had a number of excellent waste bring sites.  While various means were used to promote recycling, further efforts were needed to reduce the overall waste tonnage.  In particular he wished to see a reduction in green waste sent to landfill.

• The restructure of the Environmental Health and Trading Standards Section had been successful with positive feedback being received through the Quality Audit in February 2005.

• Implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 had been slow due to the lack of information or guidance from Government.  However, the newly formed Licensing Section had developed a licensing policy for Herefordshire.

• Excellent work was being carried out relating to the Good Environmental Management system (GEM) and the ISO 9001 international standard for environmental management.

• Planning – while ICT improvements may not have happened as quickly as some would have liked, many improvements had been made.  While increased staff turnover had affected performance in Development Control this had been rectified and performance against statutory performance indicators now exceeded targets.  The Unitary Development Plan inquiry had concluded and was due to report at the end of 2005.

The Committee noted the report by the Cabinet Member.  The following is an outline of the questions and responses or comments made during the ensuing questioning of the Cabinet Member:

• In response to questions regarding the application response rate under the new Licensing Act, and the likely treatment of those who had not responded, the Committee was informed that despite national and local press coverage and letters to licensees, a high proportion had failed to respond as of the Saturday 6th August deadline.  Those who hadn’t responded would be dealt with appropriately.  Unfortunately the Government had not provided IT software programmes to support the change and therefore each Authority had had to commission its own.  The Licensing Section was intended to be cost-neutral.

• While the Council still had area depots, benefits had been derived from centrally locating highway staff at Rotherwas.

• The Council had not joined the national protest concerning the environmental problem of discarded chewing gum on pavements.  However, in view of the cost of cleaning it from pavements, particularly in High Town, he expressed a strong view that Government should do more to address the problem.

• Statutorily the Council did not have to provide public conveniences.  Following the outcome of the review of public conveniences, their sale or improvement was progressing as funding permitted.

• Under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 the Council would impose a £100 fine for litter (reduced by 50% if paid within 14 days) and press releases had been issued to warn the public accordingly.

• The Council’s priority of “reducing death from heart disease ….”, set out in the Corporate Plan, was an example of the importance of cross-partnership working to tackle major issues.

• In response to a question on how CO2 emissions would be reduced across the County, the Cabinet Member highlighted that Cabinet had agreed the Carbon Management Plan.  He also highlighted the proposal to harness methane gas from the former waste tip at Stretton Sugwas; that the Council had signed up to using “green electricity”; that more schools were signing up for Eco-school status, and the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) contained policies designed to encourage developers to be more environmentally conscious.  In relation to Bio-fuels the Council was co-ordinating efforts in the County, particularly through partnership working and the Marches Agency, towards greater awareness and use.

• Arising from a debate concerning waste management, recycling and the quality of bin bag delivery, the Committee was informed that an 18 month experiment had been carried out whereby a number of householders had been issued with a stock of bin bags.  Indications were that there had been a 5 – 6 % increase in recycling by those taking part.  However, this method of bag delivery was more expensive and the general issue of bin bag delivery was under review.  A view was expressed that the provision of wheelie bins in rural areas was not feasible.  It was suggested that if kerbside collection was not implemented in rural areas then there should be a greater provision of recycling facilities in villages.

• It was noted that following the review and introduction of the Code of Practice for the Temporary Agricultural use of Polytunnels, an update was scheduled to be reported to Committee in September 2005.  However, the Cabinet Member reported that unfortunately no further government or planning guidance had been received.

• Questioned on the delivery of e-planning (the electronic access and delivery of planning applications and forms) the Committee was informed that major progress had been made in ICT access in the County.  However, extending the provision was closely related to the office accommodation issue and the wisdom of installing IT hardware in buildings leased by the Council.

• The Edgar Street Grid redevelopment was a 25 year strategic plan.  The relocation of the cattle market would free up a major location in the site.  In partnership with other agencies, and with European funding, the acquisition of the Station Road Industrial Estate, Hereford, gave the Council a major foothold in this area of the grid.

• The Government and Council policy on Genetically Modified (GM) crops had not changed, however, the situation would be kept under review.  Currently Council smallholders were not permitted to grow GM crops under the terms of their lease.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member (Environment) for his report and responding to the Committee’s questioning.

RESOLVED: That the report by the Cabinet Member (Environment) be noted.