1 / 16

Local Environment Quality Workshop – Summary of Outputs

Local Environment Quality Workshop – Summary of Outputs. 23 November 2012. Objectives. To seek input from a range of stakeholders (although a small group to ensure a manageable discussion) with different interests and perspectives on local environment quality, on the following areas:

alton
Download Presentation

Local Environment Quality Workshop – Summary of Outputs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Local Environment Quality Workshop – Summary of Outputs 23 November 2012

  2. Objectives To seek input from a range of stakeholders (although a small group to ensure a manageable discussion) with different interests and perspectives on local environment quality, on the following areas: • Testing the problem: what’s working, what’s broken, and what needs fixing? Helping us to test our findings about what makes up good (or poor) local environment quality, and which issues need tackling the most. • Cost and Benefits: what is the current level of spend on local environment quality at the moment, and what are the associated social, environmental and economic costs and benefits? How could changes be felt if there were improvements or worsening of local environment quality, and how much action would be needed to bring such changes about? • Who can bring about change?: Who are the people and organisations that can, and should, be involved in improving local environment quality?

  3. What’s broken – what are the issues that affect the quality of local environments? And in what ranking? • Litter, cigarette butts, discarded beer bottles and cans, chewing gum, detritus, urine and faeces, fly-tipping, empty properties, waste in gardens, graffiti, vandalism, noise pollution • Discarded bedding material, dog faeces, • Fly-posting • Light pollution, damaged street furniture, traffic signs, bollards left post works, pot-holes Most Important Poor local environment quality is a ‘self-inflicted’ problem!

  4. What’s broken? • Litter is a big (costly) problem • Need to think more holistically about what makes up a good quality environment and think strategically about producing a ‘better’ local environment • Not enough clarity from central Government about it’s policies in this area • Not enough joining up across different actors & sectors • Legislation not being used properly • Cuts are encouraging amalgamation of services at the current time, keeping basics done, but not adding value – not sustainable in the long term, disjoint between what Govt thinks and what's on ground • PFI ring-fencing is going to add pressure • People don’t feel they “own” public space so don’t feel responsible for it, but green infrastructure and access to a good quality natural environment is vital • Still matters to people – links to wider agenda like wellbeing, health & economic growth • People feel they pay already • But doesn’t matter to everyone, some people argue they’re “keeping someone in a job” If it mattered to all, we wouldn’t have poor local environment quality!

  5. The cost iceberg... • Hidden Costs • - Street management • Enforcement • Disposal • Court action • Impact on business & investment • .... Local Authority costs (£880m/year in England) are the tip of the iceberg. Who else ‘pays’ for poor local environment quality? Headline costs are only a part of the picture. Along with street cleansing costs there are a host of others for Local Authorities

  6. The benefits mountain... Through tackling poor local environment quality, there are a range of potential benefits:

  7. Who can ‘fix’ things? Everyone must step up Balanced package is vital – can’t cut one of the actors out and expect things to work Responsibility

  8. Who can ‘fix’ things? Activity Themes • Local Government Association • Local Authorities • Local Partners • Citizens • Chambers of commerce • Joint working groups with set targets which are measurable • London wide senior management groups • Scouts and Girl Guides • RSCs • Private Land Owners • TfL/statutory undertakers • Estate agents • Faith forums • Neighbourhood watch groups • Schools A lot of people can act – so needs to be something to clean up the muddle, with clarity of responsibility and coordination

  9. Who can ‘fix’ things – actors in the cost iceberg... • Hidden Costs • - Street management • Enforcement • Disposal • Court action • Impact on business & investment • .... Role may reduce with budget cuts Role may increase as budget cuts hit elsewhere

  10. Bringing about change – Key Themes Focus on behaviour change and understanding why people litter • Leadership & Vision - raising awareness via communication & education (local authorities need to tap into existing communities and networks, local shops, local pubs self regulating communities) • Solutions and Options – (clean!) bins and services, learning across sectors. Lower costs & better outcomes • Resolutions/Laws and Enforcement – with ‘teeth’ and appropriate monitoring (using citizen science?) 4. Co-ordination of all of the above Examples: Addison Lee’s work with Topps Pizza, offering health and safety guidance ‘in return’ for waste/green compliance; cigarette butt bins maintained and paid for with advertising; Local Assemblies working with citizens and Local Authorities to improve local environment quality.

  11. Ideas for Change - Prevention AND cure All of the groups that can bring about change can undertake at least one of the following actions: • Government to provide leadership on national join up and establishing a framework • Local Govt Association could help co-ordinate council efforts and share best practice • Voluntary agreements between central government and local authorities • Traffic management to do some cleansing, faster roads • IT devices and software - better ICT and trust can mean fewer bean counters • Anti-litter campaign needs to be sustainable unified and collaborative • There are definite data gaps – do we have all the information we need for action? Are fly captures stats accurate and operated properly? • We need to reach and engage with hard to reach groups • Procurement is inefficient – think differently (commercially) about contracts. The private sector may be willing to share knowledge and experience • Producers – producer responsibility, best practice in business • Service Deliverers – mainly Local Authorities at the moment • Facilitators – innovative business, local partnerships • Deliver more for less • Novel finance streams possible • Businesses can be experts in behaviour change – tap in to that • Government needs a better understanding of the inter-relationships and what works to help inform sticks and carrots • And don’t confuse localism with sovereignty – partnership is still allowed!

  12. Ideas for change – thinking differently

  13. Next steps... • React! Let us know what you think; • Follow-up! Make links, call us, call each other; • Don’t lose momentum of links made, and build new ones; • Internal review – conclusions at Christmas, then Charlotte Pocin taking over. Will feedback on next steps in the New Year... • Keep in touch! • And your actions can be found on the next slide...

  14. What I’m going to do as a result of the workshop? • “Finalise budgets for next year” • “Speak to Defra colleagues and other present stakeholders to help ensure the localism agenda continues to be reflected in the solution/progress going forward” •  “Set up work group with different agencies in Doncaster WFQ” •  “Launch FiFiLi!” •  “Consider using new methods to publicise Govt data – e.g. Open Data” •  “Send the Messages from this meeting to everyone with LSPL” •  “Get in contact with Change London to find out more about their work” •  “Scope out possibility of procurement savings” •  “Feedback information to Brockley Society (a tree group) and then liaise with Pauline and Defra!” •  “Send ACS New research to Defra- “Local Services, Happy Place”” •  “E-mail/Talk to everyone in this group” •  “Take account of wider aspects when looking at costs” •  ”Identify research gaps and help to fill them” •  “Follow up and research new points raised by the table” •  “Litter = high on agenda. Feedback to Team” •  “Talk to London Bridge Maintenance Unit about litter along the boundary at Hither Green”

  15. Attendees Group 1: Jo Withers (Defra)Simone Spray (Keep Britain Tidy)Kenny Wilks (LB of Islington)Lee Wickens( Addison Lee)David Greenfield (IESE)Anthony Russell (Bromley Tree Society)Rik van de Kerckhove (Defra) Group 2: Gary James (Defra)John Read (Clean Up Britain)Simon Baxter (LB of Tower Hamlets)Sian O’Keefe (Wrigleys)Shyam Pillai (DCLG)Bob Allan (Doncaster MBC)Motlib Abdul (Defra)Daniel Instone (Defra) Group 3: Stephen Turner (Defra)Charles Hamshaw-Thomas (CSR Solutions)Mark Benton (Doncaster MBC)Douglas White (Carnegie Trust)Edward Woodhall (Assn of Convenience Stores)David Beamont – Victoria BIDMike Franklin (Network Rail)Alan D’Arcy (Defra) Others Pauline Buchanan Black (Tree Council) Bella Murfin (Defra) Claire Herdman (Defra) Simon Qasim (Defra)

  16. Thank you Isabella.murfin@defra.gsi.gov.uk Claire.herdman@defra.gsi.gov.uk Simon.qasim@defra.gsi.gov.uk

More Related