Agenda and minutes

There were no Declarations of Interest made by Members at this point in the meeting.

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel held on 5 February 2024 were submitted and approved as a correct record.

The Head of Stronger Communities, Community Safety Manager and Community Safety Partnership Officer will be in attendance to provide the Panel with statutory annual updates on:-

·        Community Safety Partnership

·        Prevent and Chanel

M Walker, Head of Stronger Communities; J Hill, Community Safety Manager and A Shippey, Community Safety Partnership Officer, were in attendance at the meeting to provide the Panel with statutory annual updates in relation to the Community Safety Partnership and the Prevent and Chanel programmes.

The Community Safety Manager commenced with an update in relation to the Community Safety Partnership.

Background information was provided explaining that the Community Safety Partnership was a statutory body made up of key ‘Responsible Authorities’ – including Police, Local Authority, Fire and Rescue Authority, Health, Probation and Youth Justice Service (YJS) – who each had equal responsibility for reducing crime and antisocial behaviour under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.  (As amended by the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2014 and the Policing and Crime Act 2017).

The Partnership worked in collaboration with other statutory and voluntary services and local people to reduce crime and make people feel safer by dealing with issues such as anti-social behaviour, drug and alcohol misuse, re-offending and serious violence.

The Partnership was required to delivery a number of statutory outcomes, including:-

·        Production of a Strategic Intelligence Assessment, informing a Community Safety Plan.  In turn, this Plan should set out the priorities and how they will be addressed (reviewed every 2 years).

·        Consultation and engagement with the community.

·        Formulation and implementation of a strategy to reduce re-offending by both adult and young offenders (Section 108 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009).

·        Preparation of an information-sharing protocol which must be signed by all responsible authorities to disclose certain sets of depersonalised data at least quarterly.

·        Ensure that it had a Committee with power to review or scrutinise decisions made; or other action taken and to make reports or recommendations (Section 19 - 21 of the Police and Justice Act 2006).

·        Establish Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHR), as appropriate, (Section 9 of the Domestic Violence and Crimes Act 2004).

·        Prevent violent extremism (Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015).

·        Prevent and reduce serious violence (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022).

It was highlighted that there had been seven Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) in Middlesbrough alone in the last year and an independent team was brought in to undertake these.

The business of the Community Safety Partnership was open to scrutiny by all agencies, particularly the Overview and Scrutiny function of the Council.  The working practices of the Partnership should enable Overview and Scrutiny to make early, constructive, contributions to policy as well as supporting scrutiny of decisions made, monitor outcomes and targets achieved and review practice and progress.

The Active Intelligence Mapping (AIM) group monitored patterns and trends in multi-agency data looking at issues such as crime and anti-social behaviour which were plotted on a map on a monthly basis showing where partnership resources needed to be deployed to address emerging issues.  The Head of Stronger Communities chaired the AIM Group and reported to the Community Safety Partnership.

It was highlighted that, in relation to the Panel’s current scrutiny topic, environmental issues were also considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23/46

The Vice Chair will provide a verbal update in relation to the Crustacean Deaths Collaborative Working Group.

The Vice Chair provided the Panel with an update in relation to the work of the Crustacean Deaths Collaborative Working Group.  The Vice Chair had produced a summary report which was circulated to Panel Members prior to the meeting.

The report outlined that the Working Group had produced its draft report on the mass die-offs of crustaceans in November 2023 but there were several issues that required clarification including peer reviews of some of the scientific evidence.

The report cast doubt on the official position of the Government and Defra (Department of Environment Foor and Rural Affairs).  Their position was that the mass die-offs could not be linked to the dredging operations carried out at Teesport around the time of the event and the Government believed that pyridine contaminant was not the reason for the deaths.

The report of the Working Group raised a number of key issues, including:-

·        Limited data on the level of catches over the period of the die-offs.

·        Lack of testing of sediment samples in the River Tees at the time of the die-offs and failure to test for Pyridine, or to allow independent bodies such as the University of Newcastle, to carry out such tests.

·        Testing was carried out by PD Ports as the Statutory Harbour Master, despite the fact they have a commercial interest in the development of Teesport.

·        The likelihood that so called ‘capital dredging’ had led to contaminants from the subsoil at the bottom of the estuary entering the River Tees. Capital dredging being those dredges which remove the subsoil at the bottom of the river and not just sediment washed into the estuary.

·        Dredging carried out by UK Dredger ‘Orca’ in September 2021 involved a large amount of sediment and subsoil being dumped out at sea including highly contaminated soil, and that such quantities would not normally have been permitted to be disposed of in this way. The mass die-off occurred shortly after this dumping had taken place.

Furthermore, it was the belief of two key witnesses, Dr Caldwell of Newcastle University and Dr Gibbon of Manchester University, that the need to quickly complete the new dock at Teesport, at a lower cost, had taken priority over the use of safe dredging and disposal methods to limit exposure of toxic chemicals and that it was possible that pyridine in the sediment was the key element leading to the catastrophic die-off of lobsters and crabs.  There was concern that future dredging on the same scale would lead to more die-off which could seriously damage fishing in the north east coastal waters.

Local Councils would be asked to consider the findings of the report and determine what course of action should be taken to ensure a full and fair investigation into the cause of the die-off events.

The Vice Chair highlighted that the Final Report of the Working Group was anticipated in June and proposed that it should be subsequently submitted to Full Council for determination.

AGREED that the information provided be noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23/47

An update will be provided in relation to the Panel’s current review.

At the previous meeting, the Panel had requested recycling and waste data in relation to Middlesbrough’s Cipfa neighbours.  This information had been emailed to the Panel with relevant links to the information requested.  As a result, a questionnaire had been devised and the Panel requested that this be circulated to the local authorities within the Cipfa neighbours group for response and/or teams meeting if appropriate.

The Director of Environment and Community Services also highlighted that there would be changes to current waste management arrangements should the Council budget and associated proposed measures be approved by Full Council at its meeting on 8 March.  The Director stated that he would be happy to come back to the Panel to advise how all of the proposed measures within Environment and Community Services, particularly in relation to waste management, would impact service delivery.

A Panel Member raised the issue of the current charging arrangements for vans/trailers to dispose of household waste at the Haverton Hill Waste and Recycling Centre and a discussion took place.  It was highlighted that this was a joint facility with Stockton Council and was not open to commercial vehicles or traders and would, therefore, be very difficult to monitor useage of non-commercial vans and trailers depositing household waste as opposed to commercial waste.  Under the current arrangements, householders could apply for a permit to take household waste to the site in a van or trailer which would allow up to 12 free visits per year.  Should householders wish to deposit non-household waste such as rubble/bricks, kitchen units etc, separate arrangements needed to be made for a site permit and this was chargeable at £23 per permit.

AGREED as follows :-

1.      That the questionnaire in relation to waste management arrangements and data be forwarded to the local authorities within Middlesbrough’s Cipfa family for response.

2.      That the Director of Environment and Community Services be invited to a future meeting to advise of the changes to service delivery within the Service should the proposals within the Council Budget be approved.

Any other urgent items which in the opinion of the Chair, may be considered.

There were no urgent items to be considered.

The next meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel was scheduled to take place on Monday, 2 April 2024 at 10.00am.