Help us to stamp out dog fouling!

Where can dog fouling be disposed of?
A number of dog bins are located throughout parks and open spaces in Southend-on-Sea. Where necessary, litter bins can be used, or it can be taken home and disposed of in the refuse sack. So with so many options available there is no excuse when dog fouling is left behind.

Where does the requirement to scoop apply?
The requirement to clear fouling applies to all land open to the air and to which the public have access including:

• Roads
• Pavements
• Footpaths
• Verges
• Walkways
• Passageways
• Parks
• Public gardens
• Recreation grounds
• Sports grounds
• Open amenity areas
• Car parks
• Beaches and promenades

For further information contact the council at:
w: www.southend.gov.uk
t: 01702 215006

My take on last night’s public meeting regarding the Shoebury Common flood risk management scheme

It indicates just how poor the presentation and arguments made were that they could not convince residents that protecting their properties was an attractive option. You see, it should be quite simple.  Point out the science behind climate change, highlight that sea levels are expected to rise dramatically in the coming years, demonstrate just how close they live to sea level, and then show what could be done to help prevent the likely flooding that is coming their way. Add in that the cost is being borne by everyone and it should be an easy sell.

So, how did it all go wrong? I offer a few thoughts.

• The Black & Veatch duo did not come across well. This engineering consultancy may be highly professional at what they do, but this clearly does not include public presentations. There was also a hint of self-interest as well. It seemed like (and I admit to no insider knowledge) that they were beneficiaries from this scheme. If true, then this colours every word they utter, and the audience would have been right to be sceptical.

• Ensure that any slides are readable – many used small fonts and had unclear pictures.  Hand-outs and slideshows should be an asset to a presentation, not a hindrance.

• When you make a list of options include the ‘do nothing’ choice. Doing nothing might be madness, but it was obvious that that is what a sizeable chunk of the audience preferred, and it should be considered. If you have a good argument you will beat it down.

• If beach huts are going to be sacrificed come the once in a hundred years tidal surge then admit it. No hut owner will enjoy hearing it, but at least it is honest. Of course, they would also lose their huts in any case if nothing is done anyway.

• If there is development predicated on approval on improved flood defences do not try to disguise this. There is a need for housing, and this is invariably met with objections.

• The audience are not the enemy, they are concerned residents. They may voice opinions you do not like, and interrupt you, but I suggest that tetchiness is not the way to deal with it.

I went to the public meeting last night at Shoebury High School to observe. I have no axe to grind or prejudices beyond my general view that sea defences must be improved to mitigate the side effects of climate change. It was not all bad either; I thought those council officers that took part acquitted themselves pretty well. I also thought it very positive that so many members of the public, for the second week running, sought to get involved. This is how politics should be conducted – out in the open and with those who elect us.

There was no revolution last night, no lynching, and no riot. But, it was clear that those who came to listen, and question, were in the main largely opposed to the schemes proposed. There were alternative proposals made, and I would be inclined to at least consider these.

The issue of timing came up, and what has brought this scheme forward in the plans is the availability of the spoil from the Cliffs Slippage remedial work at Westcliff. There is a lot of soil that needs to be disposed of and these schemes present an opportunity to do just that.

Western Esplanade platforms

I have been just received this via email:

There are two timber decked platforms with steel frames built into the sea wall on Western Esplanade which are severely corroded, beyond economic repair and considered to be unsafe to use. It has therefore been decided to remove them. This work will be commenced tomorrow, Tuesday 30th April and will last for two weeks.

I have queried as to why I have been given such short notice. I have also asked about replacements.

Wasteful-on-Sea; the portfolio holder for paperclips awaits his windfall

I think it worthwhile reproducing some of the correspondence I have had with the council regarding the re-issued blue food-waste caddies.

My bits are in red, the council’s in blue.

Has my dodgy memory forgotten about the consultation regarding the issue of more blue food waste caddies, or am I correct in thinking that this consultation never happened?

I can advise that the Council was successful in receiving funding from the Department for Communities and Local and Government (DCLG) which allocated money specifically to support weekly collections and recycling schemes.  The delivery of new food containers and liners to residents has been fully funded by the DCLG and is expected to increase recycling whilst reducing overall waste disposal costs.  As there has been no material change to the collection service in its essence (the enhancement is one of adding value, where residents are receiving the same service but with the added advantage of receiving free compostable food waste liners) the costs and resources required for a full consultation with residents was, therefore, not deemed necessary or part of the bid requirement.

We have, however, conducted a number of surveys to understand customers behaviour and opinions related to the food waste service, and the cost of compostable liners were deemed to be a key barrier to participation in the scheme. Participation monitoring exercises have also substantiated that the food waste scheme required additional focus, and this funding provided the ideal opportunity to do so. Not only can the primary barrier to participation be addressed, the costs incurred from disposing of food waste to landfill can be reduced as the scheme is used to its full potential.

When were councillors consulted on the distribution of these caddies?

It would be right to say that we have not undertaken any specific consultation on the distribution of the new food caddies etc primarily because it is just an enhancement of our existing waste collection service and is funded from a govt grant specifically for that purpose.

However in the past we have undertaken a lot of consultation on our recycling service and on our food waste recycling – in regard to the latter the most important piece of feedback we’ve received is that residents would prefer to use the decomposable bags rather than newspaper etc. When the scheme was introduced we were not able to cover the cost of proving free bags and our residents tell us this is a disincentive to use the service.

You write: We have, however, conducted a number of surveys to understand customers behaviour and opinions related to the food waste service, and the cost of compostable liners were deemed to be a key barrier to participation in the scheme.

Can you provide details of these surveys?.

Please find a list of past consultation undertaken relevant to the food waste collection service.

Main Survey’s

• Southchurch High Performance Area Door stepping report low performing areas January 2010

• Southend’s food waste collection Service – exploring residents’ attitudes & behaviours Briefing Paper, July 2010

• Southend Waste & Recycling Residents’ Survey, 2010 Briefing Paper, October 2010

• Southchurch High Performance Area Door-stepping Report March 2011

• Southend Borough Council – food Waste Trial Report December 2007

**********************************************************

Two things stand out in this conversation as far as I am concerned.

Firstly, your elected representatives are not consulted if it is an “enhancement … of our existing … service”. You could scrap the council chamber if you describe everything as an enhancement.

Secondly, the most recent ‘main survey’ was two years ago. One could ask about the delay (weren’t recycling targets important in 2011?) I would also wonder just how representative a two-year old survey is (especially one restricted to Southchurch).

I think a pot of money was grabbed just because it was available, regardless of whether it really was worth having. I think someone wants to explain to the council and its ruling administration that wherever the money has come from it is ultimately derived from tax-payers wallets.

If funding for paperclips ever becomes available I expect every household will be given a supply. Meanwhile, we tax-payers wonder why we have less police on our streets.

Four blue boxes

I now have four blue bins; two being delivered recently to add to those issued a few years back. These are issued by Cory Environmental and are to be used for food waste.

When I inquired what to do with the old ones (which are still perfectly useable) I was told to retain them as spares.

This is daft. Whilst I am sure that there are those who would welcome newer and replacement bins, this could have been managed by request. Am I to see an ever growing mountain of blue bins as and when I am issued with new ones? Since we are supposed to be cutting down on waste this does seem counterproductive. How do we recycle the recycle bins?

I also do not want the liners, and I am not convinced that many do. I put the caddy out on collection day and it is emptied just fine – no liner required. It is all so wasteful.

I could not recall being consulted as a councillor about this, and so I asked if my memory was playing me up.  Whilst initially avoiding answering that simple question, I was told that the Council was successful in receiving funding from the Department for Communities and Local and Government (DCLG) which allocated money specifically to support weekly collections and recycling scheme.

Arguments over which pot of money pay for what may be valid, but these accountancy tricks do not wash with the overwhelming majority of the public. They will see their black sacks stopped, yet will be given boxes they never asked for and do not want.

After an exchange of emails it was conceded that councillors were not consulted.  (My portfolio in the Labour Group is for Transport, Public Protection and Waste – which given my ignorance on receiving these blue bins would be funny if it were not so alarming.)

I was told that the council had conducted a number of surveys to understand customers behaviour and opinions related to the food waste service, and the cost of compostable liners were deemed to be a key barrier to participation in the scheme.

 So, whilst arguing that black sacks are perfectly affordable for Southend’s residents, the reverse argument is employed for food waste bin liners.

To say I am less than impressed is an understatement.

The climate, change and denial

My usual response to the question “what is the biggest issue facing Southend-on-Sea at the moment?” is “the cuts”. However, as important as that is it is overshadowed by the danger facing not just my corner of Essex, but the whole planet. This peril goes by the name of climate change.

For a seaside community the potential for rises in sea levels are cause for some anxiety. Sea defences will be tested in the years ahead if any of the predictions come true. This does throw some rather large question marks in the direction of those who would have sea-level development.

Anyway, I have been made aware of the Campaign against Climate Change. Their hall of shame shows that quite often it is vested interest that governs the debate. Since this is an area where science should have primacy then you would think that the pros and cons over whether climate change is upon us and whether we can do anything about it would be the preserve of climate scientists. It is almost as if science is only trusted if its conclusions do not impinge upon anyone’s personal fiefdom.

Once we can agree that the world is facing its biggest crisis then that is when politicians can step in. It will be politicians who will enable green industries to flourish, who will push for more recycling, who will ensure sea defences are improved, and who will write the international treaties that will have to be made.

At a local level I will continue my fight to protect green spaces, will push for more tree planting, and look to help residents with their recycling.

England’s Great Litter Count

http://www.keepbritaintidy.org/KeyIssues/Litter/England%27sGreatLitterCount/Default.aspx

Pick it up!

I would hope that all dog owners would also love their neighbours and their community as well. Alas, some are somewhat neglectful – allowing their beloved pets to foul the pavements.

Good dogs owners clear up after their doggies have done their business. It is unsightly and unhealthy to not do so.

I am getting quite a number of complaints about dog’s mess. It is no exaggeration to describe this as a most vexatious issue for many Milton residents.

Dog ownership comes with a number of responsibilities. Looking after their health with good food and regular exercise comes with a by-product. Food in must inevitably result in excrement out. Owners must pick up after their pets, and dispose of responsibly. This does not mean throwing the bag of excrement into someone’s garden or onto railway embankments, etc. This means putting in dog bins or a dustbin.

When dog owners do not behave as society expects then all of us bear the cost. Council tax bills include an element of clear-up costs. Dog owners who want to see ever rising bills will doubtless feel vindicated in allowing doggie to do his do-do on our pavements; those who wish for lower bills may take this as an incentive to be more civic minded. Whatever, it is against the law, and I am encouraging our police to prosecute the irresponsible, the stupid, and the lazy.

Please be a good neighbour – pick up after your dog.

This week’s food waste collection

The blue bin (food waste) collection in Southend-on-Sea has been affected by the weather this week. After my inquiry I was sent the following response:

Our advice at present is to continue to present food waste daily and it will be collected as quickly as possible. We are making best endeavour with our contractor to catch up on any roads uncollected by the end of the working week.

A dirtier and less safe Southend-on-Sea after the cuts?

Quite often it is the small things. I have had many conversations that have begun along the lines of “I know this is quite trivial, but …” Quite often it is the small things that really make a difference.

The draft proposals for this year’s cuts to Southend-on-Sea Borough council’s budget include a number of large and eye-catching items. It has to, with something like £10 million that has to be saved. Amongst these are some smaller items, and four of these give me a cause for concern.

The decision to save £47,000 by no longer providing black refuse sacks is one that could easily be a false economy. Litter and fly-tipping feature large in many councillors’ casework inboxes, and this cut has the potential to make this an even bigger feature. Whilst most households will grudgingly purchase their own supply of black sacks, there will be those who choose either to dump everything in the pink sacks, to use carrier bags and the like, or to just throw their general trash wherever they can get away with it. All these options will increase the workload for street cleaners and will add more woes for the neighbours.

Like the decision the scrap the pest control service (saving £37,000), this has the potential to make Southend a less healthy borough – an irony when you consider that much of the PCT’s duties transfer to borough control within the next few months and the borough takes responsibility for public health. I am perturbed that this transfer of responsibility could coincided with worsening health outcomes.

I have used the pest control services on more than one occasion. I am concerned that some will choose the option to grin and bear it when faced with paying a private supplier of control services. This cannot be good for any of us.

For similar reasons (the threat to public health) I have worries about the cut to toilet maintenance (£10,000). Our toilets may have won awards last year, but is this likely to repeated after this cut? I am already concerned that we have too few in the town, and my wish for an increase in provision is likely to go unheeded. The £37,000 to be saved by outsourcing the stray dogs service is something else that I hope will not give us cause for regret. I have read many stories about dog bites and the like and I sense that there is real disquiet in some quarters about dogs in our town.

I accept that savings have to be made, but I cannot help but be anxious that some of the savings will prove to be expensive in the long run. We could be spoiling the ship for a ha’p’orth of tar. If these savings can be made without making the town a worse place, with poorer public health and dirtier and less safe streets then I may be able to support them. If there is some doubt over this then I feel we should take another look at the budget.