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 (Environment) outlining the issues affecting the Environment Programme area and highlighting some of the specific challenges for 2006/07.

In presenting his report the Cabinet Member highlighted in particular:

• The central theme of his report endorsed the Council’s corporate approach to management via Annual Operating Plans and Services Delivery Plans.
• Encouraging collective comment had resulted from the Comprehensive Performance Assessment Team during their visit.  He had demonstrated best practice to them by reference to the scrutiny review of the polytunnel Code of practice.
• Best Value performance indicator outcomes for April 2005 to March 2006 indicate steady progress which now needed to be consolidated and continued with.
• In addition to the successes on agenda pages 13 and 14 the directorate had made progress with land acquisition and detail proposals for the new Hereford Crematorium and the extension to the Hereford Cemetery.  Work was continuing concerning public safety relating to unstable memorial stones.
• Contractors were progressing works to the Grafton Travellers Site.
• Responsibility under the Licensing Act 2003 had been successfully assumed with very few appeals emerging during the year.

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:

• Questioned on the use of grant income to support kerb side collection the Cabinet Member reported that 2 additional collection vehicles had been acquired using grant income enabling the collection area to be extended. While 60% of the County was covered, he emphasised that a balance had to be struck between the cost of collection and the resultant benefits.  Various waste disposal methods in the joint counties, for example via the Estech plant, were not part of the PFI Contract. 
• If the PFI Waste Contract failed then the contract contained provisions to send waste to landfill, however, alternative methods of disposal would need to be looked at.  He was unable to comment in detail on the proposed disposal plant for Madley as this was subject to a planning application, possibly in July 2006. 
• The Director reported that the PFI Waste Contract was still subject to complex and sensitive negotiations.  A report would be presented to Cabinet and Members would be kept briefed.  The PFI contract was being monitored by central government.
• Questioned on the power to enforce cleanliness issues (dog fouling, litter) the Cabinet Member commented that, rather than devolve the issue to the Parish Councils, he wished to see closer partnership working with the police possibly via Community Support Officers, who would be better placed to undertake enforcement in a consistent manner   In a rural county the cost had to be balanced against the effectiveness of the services provided.  He also commented that Environmental Health officers were receiving training to enforce these new powers.
• While the Lifescapes project had ended in September 2005 the Council’s Conservation – Management & Support section were working closely with English Nature, Herefordshire Nature Trust etc, to further develop the work through the Mapping Opportunities for Habitat and Landscape (MOHL) resources.
• While the number of Trading Standards prosecutions seemed low, when compared to consumer and business complaints, it was noted that prosecutions were dealt with under a statutory process with the service having a good track record of successful prosecutions.
• The Cabinet Member reported that while the Public Conveniences Best Value Review Improvement Plan set out a programme of renewal, resiting or disposal, the programme had been varied according to circumstances e.g. facilities had been renewed as part of the Leominster bus station refurbishment scheme.  While the directorate budget had been reduced he was keen to see the programme progress.

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