Decision details

Provision of Environmental Enforcement Services

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: Yes

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Purpose:

To consider the report of the Cabinet Member for Place and Transport seeking approval to enter into a inter authority agency agreement between Southampton City Council and East Hampshire District Council under S.101 of the Local Government Act 1972 for the purposes of enforcing littering across the City.

Decision:

(i)  To approve the delegation of functions under s.101 Local Government Act 1972 to East Hants District Council to authorise the provision of an Environmental Enforcement Service to tackle littering within the SCC boundary for a twelve month initial period, renewable annually by agreement;

(ii)  To delegate authority to the Head of Consumer Protection and Environmental Services following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Place and Transport and the Head of Legal Partnerships to conclude and enter into a s.101 Deed of Delegation with East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) to deliver the service for an initial 1 year period and to determine annually whether the service should be renewed on the terms set out in the Deed; and

(iii)  To note that any proposal for early termination of the arrangement or any changes to the terms of the Deed of Delegation will be reported to Cabinet for further decision.

Reasons for the decision:

To promote a clean and tidy city and demonstrate that SCC have a zero tolerance regarding littering.

To help create cleaner place, improve residents feelings of safety and satisfaction relating to where they live and work and protect the environment within SCC’s administration.

To assist to change the public perception that the Council is not using the powers available to them to deal with littering.

Alternative options considered:

Not to deliver the enforcement function (current position) unless existing in-house resources allow within existing priorities. This has been rejected because it would not deliver the environmental improvements required to improve residents satisfaction.

To deliver the function entirely in house using new resources – this has been rejected because it would require an increase to the existing establishment along with training, equipment and other associated costs that would require additional funding over and above the proposed option.

Report author: Rosie Zambra

Publication date: 11/02/2020

Date of decision: 11/02/2020

Decided at meeting: 11/02/2020 - Cabinet

Effective from: 20/02/2020

Accompanying Documents: