Agenda item

To receive questions from Members under Rules 4a.8(b) – 4a.13

Three questions had been received.

(a)   Councillor Clive Trott asked Tricia Youtan, Cabinet Member for Housing & Public Protection, the following question:

“According to my postbag, Horsham town residents are increasingly concerned with the problems caused by the growing populations of urban wildlife. This includes urban foxes, roosting feral pigeons and the mess and noise associated with the increasing seagull population. Can the Council assure residents that this issue is being looked at, and measures are in hand, either through education or direct action, to mitigate the nuisance?”

The Cabinet Member replied:

‘In line with other local authorities across the country, we as a Council do not generally control birds or other wild animals and this is because animals in the wild, animals and birds, including their nests and eggs, are protected by law in the UK under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.  Any offences against this legislation can lead to an unlimited fine and prosecution of the parties involved. Accordingly professional pest control methods that deter the animals but do not harm them should be used wherever possible.  Only animals listed in the relevant general licence can be removed by the authorised qualified person….. The best way to get rid of nuisance animals including pigeons from an area is to remove their food source and nest/den building opportunities and most importantly don’t feed them.’ 

She outlined the advice from the Council’s Environmental Health Team for landowners to make premises less attractive to nuisance animals, which included:   

·         Limiting food sources and access to anything they can use to build nests/dens;

·         Removal of old and redundant nests/dens and building material from previous seasons (after checking it is not currently used);

·         Wherever practical, entry points should be proofed to deny animals and birds access. Where doors must remain open for extended periods they should have strip curtains or similar fittings.

The Cabinet Member concluded by saying:

‘As a Council we can and we will do what we’ve done in the past … we are yet again going to produce an ‘educational’ for residents to put on our website and we will probably write to our local papers.’  

In reply, Councillor Trott responded by thanking the Cabinet Member for her reply and emphasised the importance of discouraging people from feeding nuisance animals, in particular urban foxes, which should not be encouraged.

(b)   Councillor Mike Croker asked Councillor Lambert, Cabinet Member for Planning & Development, the following question:

‘It is now close to one year since Natural England issued their position statement regarding the effect that abstraction within the Sussex North Water Supply Zone is having on the environmentally sensitive Arun Valley sites.  Whilst I welcome the extensive guidance available on our website for potential developers, would the Cabinet Member please update Council on the current state of agreement, or not, between Natural England, Southern Water and this Council on what constitutes a Water Neutral development?’

The Cabinet Member replied:

‘There is now a common understanding of what a water neutral development is.  It is one that does not result in an increase in water-use at the site compared to existing demand.  Legally, it is a matter for Horsham District Council as the competent authority, in consultation with Natural England, to conclude whether or not a development is water neutral. As a result, applicants for development for new homes or employment units must prove to our satisfaction that this can be achieved.  This is a very high bar, given that new development will inevitably use water.  In general terms this can be achieved by ensuring that the development is as water efficient as possible, then offsetting remaining water demand.  Offsetting can be achieved in different ways but could include retrofitting to make existing developments more water efficient.’

Councillor Croker asked a supplementary question:

‘I am pleased you mentioned efficiency in use of water, I think that one of the things we will see is rainwater harvesting being used more often.  I note that in our current draft Regulation 19 Policy 38, regarding sustainable design and construction, it is required that new residential development achieves water efficiency of 100 litres per person per day, but any development above 200 homes is expected to achieve 80 litres per person per day.  Given the environmental stress caused by increasing global temperatures is there not an argument for requiring the lower limit to apply to all new development?’

The Cabinet Member replied:

‘We would like all new developments, large or small, to be 85 litres per person per day.  Larger developments have the ability to pay. It’s a lot more expensive to bring it down to 85 than it is to leave it at 100.  Therefore the smaller developments cannot afford it, bearing in mind we want biodiversity net gain, we want affordable homes.  They cannot afford to put the money in to bring it down to 85 whereas the larger developments can...’ 

Councillor Croker responded by saying that ‘in the end it’s the environment that pays.’ 

(c)   Councillor Andrew Baldwin asked Councillor Toni Bradnum, Cabinet Member for Recycling & Waste, the following question:

‘I hope that the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has the courage and conviction to take real effective action, not just tough talking, to dealing with the growing problem in this country of litter, fly tipping and allowing water companies to pump vast amounts of raw sewage into Britain’s seas and rivers. Compared to most other European countries we are a national disgrace when it comes to these issues.  

Whenever you ask residents what local issues are important to them I guarantee litter and clean streets and grass verges always comes out near the top of the priorities. Despite the hard work of our dedicated officers in clearing up other people’s litter, it is never ending and is made worse because the fine is too small to act as a real deterrent.

Campaigners at Clean Britain said the level of littering was “shameful” and that enforcement of fines by councils should be made compulsory. They also said that the maximum on-the-spot fine of £150 was “derisory” and should be increased to £1,000 which I totally agree with.

Since last November this council has only issued 28 Fixed Penalty Notices for littering and the fine is only £75 which is reduced to £50 if paid quickly. Some councils, like for example Brighton & Hove, charge the maximum on the spot fine of £150 which can be reduced to £110 if paid quickly. 

I am asking the Cabinet member for Recycling and Waste whether or not Horsham District Council has any plans to increase the fine we charge to £150 and if not why not?’

The Cabinet Member thanked Councillor Baldwin for highlighting the problem and his engagement with this matter.  She stated that officers worked hard to clear fly tipping, and also investigated its source. She stated that the number of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) issued had greatly improved with a new Environmental Enforcement Officer in post. 

The Cabinet Member stated that the Neighbourhood Wardens prefer to engage with an offender and educate rather than issue fines.  She also confirmed that charges levied by neighbouring local authorities were not dissimilar to those issued by HDC. 

She highlighted the difficulties in identifying those littering from vehicles, and itemised the actions taken regarding enforcement along the A264 and the issue of large vehicles carrying waste, and that the Head of Waste had arranged to meet some companies to find a solution, for instance providing improved netting for large vehicles.

She also stated that:

‘We can certainly explore increasing our charge which is currently £75 reduced to £50 if paid in 14 days. We will be discussing the pricing of fines at the next Recycling & Waste Policy Development Advisory Group, and you are welcome to attend and join the discussion.   If our fines were uplifted from the statutory minimum this would have to come back to Council…. In summary we can certainly explore increasing the FPN charges and also look at other ways to educate including meeting with these companies to tackle the problem.’

She also thanked the Cleansing Team and officers, and in particular thanked those residents who participate in the Adopt the Street scheme, which makes a huge difference to the overall cleanliness and appearance of the district.

Councillor Baldwin asked a supplementary question:

‘Recently five FPNs were issued to the same firm and they are not a skip hire company where there are problems with netting and sheeting….   Something is wrong if five are issued in a short period of time.  How many FPNs do we have to issue before firms like this are prosecuted?’

The Cabinet Member thanked Councillor Baldwin of informing her of this particular case, which she was not aware of, and said that she would look into this matter.