Agenda item

Cabinet Member Angela Sandles, David Jones, Alun Thomas and Huw Owen introduced the report and answered the members’ questions. 

Key points made by members: 

• Regarding a court case for noise, asking whether the warrant to seize equipment was executed. Asking, in doing that, how the safety of officers is ensured. 

• Noting that he PSPO dog exclusion zones came into force on 1^st June but signs aren’t in place yet. Seeking reassurance that we will take enforcement seriously but also that common sense will be applied. Asking if prosecutions will take place before signs are up. 

• Members were concerned that there is a huge breadth of issues for the team to deal with, but there are only 8 officers. Wondering how the team would deal with a hypothetical case of a member of the public contacting the team about the illegal use of weedkiller in a public place. Asking if the expertise is in-house or would someone be brought in from outside. 

• Clarifying if it is a matter of liaising with other agencies rather than calling in outside contractors. 

• Asking if there has been a difference in food standards in businesses before and after the pandemic. Looking for more detail about how involved the team gets when things are unsatisfactory, and what measures are taken. 

• Regarding landlords, asking how unsatisfactory standards are flagged up for those renting, and if there is a structure in place to try to stop these problems. 

• Asking if there is a correlation between fly tipping and now having to have an appointment at waste depots. 

• Clarifying what proportion of animal health visits are farm or residential. 

• Noting that there is a typo on p1, 3.1: Performance & ‘Oversight’, should be ‘Overview’. 

• P7, financial generic costs: further explanation was sought about the difference from what was predicted. 

• P9-15, regarding areas where improvement is needed, asking what best practice is compared to equivalent counties, and how we are rating beyond the numbers, related to other groups. 

• Asking the reason for closures not being so good on Environmental Protection orders. Members noted that percentages are given but not the targets. 

• Asking what constitutes a closure, and if there is a sign off or agreement from the customer. 

• In terms of resources, members wanted to know if we have the capacity for enforcement and wanted further detail about resource vs risk and budget? 

• Seeking further explanation about additional complaints mentioned on p18, regarding noise. 

• Clarifying the feed issue in 5.4.1. 

• Regarding the Toilet Strategy, reminding the team that Councillor Pavia brought up Stoma-supporting facilities last year, and asking if that is part of the review. 

• As this item originally came to committee every 6 months, checking that the officers are content with bringing an annual report. 

• Seeking further explanation of the overspend for management and generic costs. 

• Asking for an explanation of the different way of reporting fly tipping, and whether numbers are down because of the way we’re reporting it. 

• Given that cost resources are a problem, members sought reassurance that the team has the capacity to deliver its duties. 

• Regarding animal health and welfare and the high-profile case last year with the Lost Souls sanctuary, asking if we have undertaken a ‘lessons learned’ exercise to understand if we effectively discharged our functions at each stage of the process, especially regarding public communication. Noting that that particular case might mean it can’t be discussed today. 

• Asking what actions we are taking against businesses that sell non-compliant or illegal vapour or tobacco products, particularly if they are doing so to underage children. 

• There seems to be a link between organised crime and illegal vaping. Given the team’s resource challenges, asking if we are confident that we can keep on the issue of illegal vaping products moving forward. 

Officers present responded to all of the questions raised and the Committee was satisfied with the responses given.

Chair’s Summary: 

The report was moved, seconded by Councillor Strong. We note in relation to the final question that Public Services Scrutiny Committee will be advising Environmental Health that they would like to look into vaping. 

Members wish to thank the officers for their excellent work and improvements made, particularly concerning the recovery since Covid, and for the work that has gone into the Safety Advisory group events and dog control PSPOs.