Agenda item

Councillor Bob Bushell, Portfolio Holder for Remarkable Place:

 

a)    presented a report to give an update on the Council’s current progress towards the Vision 2025 strategic plan, together with updates on each service area under the Portfolio of Remarkable Place

 

b)    presented his report regarding activity and achievements within his portfolio, covering the following main areas:

 

·       Introduction

·       Parks and Open Spaces – General

·       The Arboretum

·       Boultham Park

·       Hartsholme Country Park/Swanholme Lakes and the Camp Site

·       Commons

·       Hope Wood

·       Allotments

·       Equipped Play Areas

·       John Dawber Gardens

·       Events and Activities

·       Education

·       Volunteering

·       Arboriculture

·       Travellers

·       Local Landscapes, Hidden Histories

·       Street Scene

·       Infrastructure

·       Waste/ Recycling

·       Street Cleansing

·       Graffiti

·       Compactor Bins

·       Shopping Trolleys

·       Public Toilets

·       Food, Health and Safety

·       Licensing

·       Community Centre and Recreation Grounds

·       Sport and Leisure

·       Lincoln 10K

·       Local Air Quality Management

·       Bereavement Services

 

c)    welcomed comments and questions from Members of the Committee.

 

The Chair offered his thanks to Bob Bushell, Portfolio Holder for Remarkable Place, for his extensive and thorough report. As a result of discussions, the following points were made: -

 

Bob Bushell, Portfolio Holder for Remarkable Place: Offered his thanks to officers, particularly Steve Bird (Assistant Director, Communities & Street Scene) and Simon Colburn (Assistant Director Health & Environmental Services), for the remarkable work carried out and took the opportunity to champion the work of such an extensive portfolio.

 

Comment: Performance Scrutiny Committee had previously requested that the Portfolio Holder for Remarkable Place report be presented later in the year and as such, this was the reason why the first quarter data only, was available.

 

Bob Bushell, Portfolio Holder for Remarkable Place: Wished the Chair of the Arboretum Advisory Group well in advance of his departure from his post His hard work and commitment had been very important and was recognised with gratitude.

 

Thanks were also offered to two recently resigned members of Boultham Park Advisory Group. Thanks were offered to them both for their work and dedication. Successors to the post were wished well.

 

Comment: Thanks were offered for an excellent report and congratulations given for the green flag awards for Arboretum, Boultham Park, Hartsholme Country Park and Hope Wood.

 

Question: How many ordinary burials apart from cremations had there been, in particular green burials?

Response: The city did not have the facilities for green burials and as such, there had not been any. Individuals could be referred to green burial areas.

 

Question: Was the Portfolio Holder for Remarkable Place responsible for taxi drivers and hackney carriages?

Response: Yes.

 

Question: Was it possible to remove UBER drivers from operating in the city?

Response: UBER drivers were legal operators, and although more prevalent within the city were within regulations. It was noted that a lot of UBER drivers were licensed from Birmingham or Wolverhampton and the City of Lincoln Council (CoLC) did not have close oversight although there was communication between Birmingham, Hull and Lincoln.

 

Question: The presence of UBER drivers within the city affected local operators who had struggled. Could something be done nationally? The system was nor a fair system as Lincoln taxi drivers underwent a knowledge test within the city.

Response: Discussions nationally had been ongoing regarding the regulation of UBER. UBER drivers operated within the free market and local operators may be required to reconsider their pricing if UBER drivers had undercut them. Reference was made to the local knowledge test in Lincoln and it was confirmed that the element would form part of the national debate.

 

Question: Reference was made to food take away deliveries carried out in cars and on motorbikes. How was it ensured that food remained hot and safe when it was delivered?

Response: Food was regulated up to point of sale however when food was placed into transport containers, there was no control over that. As a professional body, the City of Lincoln Council (CoLC) pushed for regulations with regard to deliveries to be considered. The preparation of the food fell under the regulations, not the delivery.

 

Comment: The report was fantastic, very detailed and thanks were given to officers. Members commented that the work within the parks had been very positive and the support offered to volunteers of the John Dawber Gardens was wonderful.

Response: The success evidenced was owed to staff and volunteers. Individuals worked with enthusiasm and were proud of their job/vocation.

 

Question: Thanks were given to officers for the speed in which reports of abandoned trolleys had been dealt with. They were clearly not belonging to a specific individual given the branding. What action could be taken to tackle the issue?

Response: The company that owned the trolley was responsible for it. It was not possible for officers to enter a garden to remove a trolley. The preference was for supermarkets to take responsibility and for their trolleys not to be removed from site in the first instance. Anecdotally, it was not in the supermarkets interests to recover trolleys. The Council retained powers within private dwellings. If a trolley was within the public domain, it could be removed and a number of different notices could be served.

 

Question: Reference was made to compactor bins on page 50 of the report. Was there a commitment to roll additional compactor bins out in the city? If so, where would they likely be situated and what was the basis of any commitment in terms of data and statistics?

Response: The compactor bins had been a very successful trial. The future of additional bins was dependent on the outcome of the trial and would likely be located in areas of high litter levels. The city had a total of ten compactor bins that ran through the main strip of the city. The bins were very expensive; it was not cost effective to go right across the city.

Supplementary Question: Was there a guarantee on the bins? How long were they expected to last?

Supplementary Response: The bins were on a 5-year rental programme and were intended to be insitu long term. They had proved extremely popular and worked well.

 

Question: Reference was made to the new offer of a separate food waste service planning for all households in the city by April 2026. There was no mention of paper waste. Were there plans to roll out paper waste collections within the city? Other districts had already implemented paper and card waste collections.

Response: Discussions had taken place regarding a future paper and card collection offer. A report would be presented to the Executive by the end of the year.

Supplementary Comment: A date for the report had not been confirmed which appeared vague.

Supplementary Response: It was a part of the decision-making process and was a matter of timing with multiple factors. It was important that the scheme was a success once implemented. Lincoln and South Holland had not implemented the scheme, and it was widely understood that implementation was different for Lincoln due to tight urban areas. There were many areas to consider which would be drawn out in the report which would be ready later in the year.

 

Comment: Lincoln was one of the last tranche of Council’s to implement the scheme which presented an opportunity to consider situations in other areas, things that had worked well and things that could be improved.

Response: Lincoln had an opportunity to ensure that the scheme was introduced in the correct way for its success to ensured.

 

Comment: It was noted that there was a policy review underway in regard to Long Leys for memorials. A large number of memorials made maintenance difficult.

Response: A report in relation to Long Ley’s memorials would follow later in the year. Consideration would be given to how some facilities had been extended and how that impacted the maintenance of the site. The site was built on a hill with clay grounds.

 

Comment: Members were pleased the County Council appeared to be taking responsibility for bus shelters. It was hoped that facilities would improve.

 

Question: Members welcomed the review carried out further to the sad issues experienced at Lincoln Crematorium earlier in the year. Was a time frame known for when the report would be available for members to view? People were anxious that the issues did not occur again. A tour of the crematorium whereby implemented changes could be viewed and reassurance offered, would be positive.

Response: There was currently both an internal and external investigation. Until both investigations had been completed, the report would be awaited. An action plan had been written up and was implemented.

 

Question: Did supermarkets pay for the recovery of abandoned trolleys?

Response: Yes.

 

Question: Was an estimated timeframe known for the County Council agreement in regard to bus shelters?

Response: Proposals had been submitted to the County Council and were with their legal department for consideration and agreement.

 

Question: Was there anything specific that could be done to see an improved rate of recycling?

Response: Education was important to ensure that contamination was prevented which was better for the environment and cost the CoLC less. Enforcement was important as well as one contaminated refuse lorry contaminated the entire lorry load. There were certain areas more likely to put out contaminated bins and those areas needed to be targeted to ensure that residents acted responsibly.

 

Comment: Fly tipping seemed to occur in the same places. Reference was made to the BIFFA contract on page 29 of the report. It would be positive for members to assess what would be included in the contract in 2026. It was a good idea for a meeting of all members to be arranged whereby members could be informed what would be included within the new contract.

Response: Workshops had been prepared and members input sought. There were three monthly meetings with contractors where issues could be raised and reported. The contact documentation was weighty, and plans had been made for the preparation of a summary report which could be circulated to members to include pertinent day-to-day issues.

 

Comment: Reference was made to the percentage waste recycled and composted on page 44 of the report. Recycling rates had deteriorated over the years. It was not always easy to ensure that people placed the correct waste in the correct bins however it was a poor reflection on the contract.

Response: The contractor had not changed. The issue resulted from what individuals placed into their bins. The Council did not have a recycling officer anymore, but recycling encouragement continued. Strict enforcement would be necessary for an improved rate.

 

Comment: Reference was made to rewilding of the city on page 30 of the report. Wild flowering at Maxwell Avenue was a concern. There were substantial green areas that backed up from Maxwell Avenue to Tritton Road, areas used for exercising dogs etc. Consultation with local residents should take place prior to any works being carried out. The green areas were vital within the city.

Response: Consultation had taken place previously and the responses were positive; individuals wanted to see rewilding. Areas and paths would be cut for them to be used in the widest possible sense. Feedback received would be reported.

 

Comment: Tree maintenance had previously been a difficulty, but trees appeared to have prospered well this year. We had a duty of care to maintain trees and it was hoped that maintenance had improved from the first quarter of the year.

Response: The contractor had been challenged. There had been staffing difficulties which continued to be improved at regular management meetings.

 

Question: Reference was made to the play equipment within the Yarborough area. It was hoped that the equipment would result in improved lifestyle and health. Would any money be received by CoLC from the contractor at Yarborough?

Response: The equipment was purchased upfront and Active Nation planned to pay it back over the next 5-year period. The contractor would not receive full ownership until the last payment was made.

 

Comment: There had been a great deal of fantastic work. The portfolio was a difficult portfolio to measure performance. The report was fantastic.

 

RESOLVED that the annual report be noted with thanks.