Agenda item

To consider any questions submitted by Members of the Council, in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11 (b).

Members submitted questions on the following:

(A)        Homelessness

(B)        Commercialisation

(C)        Charges for collection of garden waste

(A)        Homelessness

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11(b), the following question had been submitted by Councillor Clare Billing to Councillor Bernard Lovewell (Cabinet Member for Housing and Environmental Health):

“Could the Executive Member for  Housing and Environmental Health update the Council on the number of homeless people recorded in North Hertfordshire, including Street Homeless, people ‘sofa surfing’ and those ‘rural homeless’ who might be living in cars, tents and farm buildings, and what measures are being taken to manage the increasing number of rough sleepers we see in the towns of North Hertfordshire, especially Hitchin and Letchworth, which are causing so much concern to residents and business owners?”

Councillor Lovewell replied that reliable statistics concerning different levels of homelessness were not always available.  For example, those that sofa surfed were often referred to as the “hidden homeless” because of their concealed nature.  In terms of rural homelessness in cars, tents and farm buildings the numbers were not known, but officer experience suggested that it was very limited and transitory.

Councillor Lovewell explained that the Council had current data concerning local housing stress.  Following a recent exercise carried out in urban areas by Stevenage Haven (who also managed the North Herts Sanctuary) they, together with the Police and NHDC officers, had identified 22 individuals, some of whom could be termed Rough Sleepers, but there was an element who were street drinkers and/or beggars who may not be actually homeless.  It was considered that of these 22, 13 may be homeless, but that number was subject to fluctuation due to the transient nature of the situation.

Councillor Lovewell stated that the current number of households in temporary accommodation was 79, which equated to 207 people.  The Council had a legal duty to accommodate these people.  Of the 79 households, 4 were in Bed and Breakfast accommodation.

Councillor Lovewell turned to the measures the Council was taking to support those people seen on the streets of the District’s towns and the action being taken to control those who would not engage and displayed criminal and anti-social behaviour.  As the question correctly stated, they were causing a lot of concern to residents and business owners, especially in Hitchin and Letchworth Garden City.  The Council had embarked on the three pronged strategy.

Firstly, the Council was commissioning an outreach service to be run by a highly reputable local charity which was experienced in dealing with homelessness.  They would do this in partnership with another dedicated local charity who were experts in this field.  The aim of the service was to assist rough sleepers off the street into settled independent accommodation.  The service provider would work with specialist agencies to ensure that appropriate support was provided for rough sleepers although, of course, engagement by the individual was crucial to providing them with the support they needed.

Secondly, the Police and Council were working together to tackle those people who would not engage and who displayed evidence of criminal or anti-social behaviour.  Community Protection Notice warnings (which were available under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) had been issued to some individuals on 24 August 2017.  Unfortunately, some had not heeded the warning and Community protection Notices (CPNs) had been issued to those people on 30 August 2017.  Should a CPN be breached then appropriate enforcement action would be taken via a Magistrates Court.  In appropriate cases, the Council would apply for a Criminal Behaviour Order which, on failure to comply, could result in a prison sentence.

Thirdly, the Council was urging members of the public who wished to help homeless people, or those they believed to be homeless, to refrain from donating money to those on streets and to support local homelessness charities instead, such as the North Herts Sanctuary or Stevenage Haven.  That was their money would be used to productively support services for homeless people, rather than finding its way directly into the pockets of drug dealers or off licence tills which so often happened.

Councillor Lovewell concluded by emphasising how important it was for people who were threatened with homelessness, or who were actually homeless, to contact the Council’s Homelessness and Advice Team for assistance at the very earliest stage.  Ashe hoped his answer confirmed, the Council would give every help possible to those who wanted to engage, but would also take action against those whose behaviour caused stress for the District’s residents and business owners.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Billing asked what support was available for the homeless with drug and alcohol problems, bearing in mind that the Sanctuary had a policy of not accommodating such people?

Councillor Lovewell replied that the people to be used to do the outreach work were extremely experienced in this field, and would work in tandem with other appropriate agencies.  There were plans in the county to introduce some form of hostel accommodation for those with drug and alcohol problems, but this was a very specialist service.  He was unable to provide any further information on this matter at the current time.

Councillor Lovewell stated that the Council did have some successes in this area.  In the last week, one of the people on the streets who had not previously engaged with the Council was now so doing and as a result was now living in his own private accommodation.  Similarly, there was another case in Hitchin where an individual’s addiction was being treated, and it was hoped that he could be found suitable accommodation in the near future.

(B)        Commercialisation

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11(b), the following question had been submitted by Councillor Steve Jarvis to Councillor Lynda Needham (Leader of the Council):

“When is it expected that the Commercialisation Project Board will make further recommendations to Cabinet or Council?”

Councillor Needham replied that she was not expecting any more reports from the Commercialisation Project Board to either Cabinet or Council.  She reminded Members that the project Board’s remit was to consider the outcome of the Commercialisation Task and Finish Group report and to recommend a way forward, which the Project Board duly did to the Cabinet in March 2017.

Councillor Needham further reminded Members that, at the Annual Council meeting on 18 May 2017, the Cabinet Sub-Committee (Local Authority Trading Companies Shareholder) had been established to carry forward all of the commercialisation work areas supported by the Cabinet.  When commercialisation reports were ready they would come to the new Sub-Committee and Cabinet and Council as required.  Members would also be updated through the Members’ Information Service.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Jarvis asked if the Leader of the Council was satisfied that the suggestions made by the Commercialisation Project Board would be sufficient to deliver the sort of commercially raised income that the Council was going to need in order to fund its activities at anywhere near current levels?

Councillor Needham replied that the vehicle to take matters forward would be the new Shareholder Sub-Committee.  The commercialisation work areas approved by Cabinet would be supported, one of these being the establishment of a housing company.  Also being progressed were a number of the work areas highlighted by the Task and Finish Group.  When decisions were required, Members would be fully updated.

(C)        Charges for collection of garden waste

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11(b), the following question had been submitted by Councillor Paul Clark to Councillor Michael Weeks (Cabinet Member for Waste Management, Recycling and Environment):

“What effect would the introduction of charges for the collection of garden waste have on the Council’s recycling rates?”

Councillor Weeks replied that nothing had yet been decided on this matter, however, it would be a consideration as part of the new Waste Contract that a charge for the collection of garden waste may be applied.  It was unknown at the present time how this would affect recycling rates.  However, members should be aware that there were a number of other factors that could impact on recycling rates.

Councillor Weeks stated that the views of the appointed contractor would also need to be taken into account.  However, it was felt that there would be little change on recycling rates, with a possible slight downturn.  However, as NHDC’s recycling rate was currently at 60%, this was 10% higher than was expected of the Council, and was a further consideration to be taken into account.

As a supplementary question, Councillor Clark asked what measures were in place to prevent residents from placing garden waste in the purple general waste bins?

Councillor Weeks replied that, in addition to the issue raised by Councillor Clark, there was also the issue of residents adding waste/recycling to other residents’ bins.  He had no specific answer to the question, other than to state that most of the purple bins put out for collection were full, and so there would be limited or no room to add to them.  He felt that the take up on the garden waste charging scheme would be good, similar to current levels, although it was too early to give a precise indication.