Agenda item

The Board considered a report which detailed the Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) Annual Report 2024/2025.

 

The Director of WRS drew Members’ attention to the Recommendation, as detailed on page 35 of the main agenda pack.

 

Members were informed that under the Shared Services Partnership Service Level Agreement (SLA) the Board was required to receive the annual report at its annual meeting.

 

The Director of WRS highlighted that the report covered the performance of the service from 1^st April 2024 to 31^st March 2025. The report covered the performance of the service for this period, both in terms of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and that a short summary activity report was included at Appendix 5 to the report.

 

Last year saw the continuation of what we might call the “post-covid normal,” levels of activity post pandemic. Previous years had seen the establishment of what might be regarded by many as the new patterns of behaviour and activity that the service would face for the foreseeable future.

 

The service continued to utilise some of the staff recruited during the pandemic to support work under contract to discharge the Homes 4 Ukraine support for Redditch and Bromsgrove Councils, with support from experienced WRS managers, while several other former covid staff also featured in the planning enforcement and enviro-crime enforcement team.

 

Despite these additional commitments, performance had remained good in most areas. Food business compliance rates remained high. Taxi license renewals had been dealt with in a reasonable time in the main. The taxi fleet appeared to be generally in good order, although the number of vehicles failing either when submitted to a garage for an interim test or, to a lesser extent, whilst in-service remained higher than general rates pre-pandemic. This was almost certainly as a result of the financial pressure on members of the trade due to the current cost of living pressures.

 

As with previous years, complaints against the service were significantly exceeded by compliments. Complaints arose across a number of service areas this year, rather than being focused in one or two areas.

 

Non-business customer satisfaction was down on the last 2-year’s figures at 56.7% compared to 59.2% and 60.4%. Further detail on this had been provided in both the Annual Report and the Activity and Performance Data, Quarters 1 to 4, 2024/25.

 

The range of areas for complaint was greater this year, with licensing featuring quite strongly, particularly with animal related businesses where inspection visits revealed significant failings with requirements. Whilst numbers of nuisance complaints were lower last summer, other pressures in the Community Environmental Health team meant that resources were still spread very thin.

 

Managers would continue to work to address this performance measure. The nature of the service was such that officers would never be able to make everyone happy because a significant proportion of nuisance complaints would not amount to a statutory nuisance, but we could improve our performance in this area.

 

Business satisfaction returned to usual levels at 97.1% compared with 94.6% last year, so unless we see otherwise, we are treating this as a blip.

 

The indicators for licensed premises and noise complaints had been in place long enough now to establish good baselines. This year all figures were at average or below, so significantly better than last year.

 

There had not been an increase in any kind of formal action, and the figures still showed that most premises across the County were well run and controlled by their operators, with issues limited to a small minority.

 

The rate of noise complaint against population for all districts this year were reporting their lowest figures since the indicator was introduced. We know that last year saw poor weather for a significant part of the year, which undoubtedly contributed to this. Overall, it still suggested that the environment for Worcestershire residents was good.

 

The Annual Report also provided a summary of the financial position, the key achievements and covered issues relating to human resources. There were also sections on risk management and equalities.

 

As in previous years, the WRS Annual Report would be published on the WRS website and would be shared with other partners e.g. Worcestershire LEP. With putting the report into the public domain, this met the requirement in the Regulators Code, made under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, which required local authorities to publish summary information about their regulatory activities each year.

 

In response to questions from Board Members, with a question raised on a  recent bee issue in part of Worcester City, and business satisfaction returning to usual levels; the Director of WRS explained that:-

 

·       The recent bee issue was a very difficult legal situation, and that Officers had now resolved the issue following the receipt of legal advice and guidance given.

 

·       WRS had sent out over 700 requests for feedback on the service to non-business customers, with a mix of digital and paper questionnaires being sent out.  Only 104 responses were received.

 

·       Over 3,000 requests for feedback had been sent to business customers, again with a low return being received.

 

The Director of WRS stated that it was possible that people were fed up of being asked to respond to a variety of questionnaires from businesses. WRS were struggling to get a good response rate. Officers would however continue to look at different / better ways to address this and to get people to respond.

 

Members further stated that the low quantity of people responding would affect the figures.  Where people’s expectations higher than what was being met?

 

The Director of WRS explained that post pandemic expectations were often higher and Officers could not always address some issues.  A lot of customer dissatisfaction related to noise nuisance, some of which were not always a statutory nuisance under legislation.  The law did not always meet public expectations, so not everyone was happy with the outcome of noise nuisance complaints. This was part of the reason for negative perceptions of the service.

 

The Director of WRS also explained that a programme of interim animal licensing inspections had identified that some 5-star-rated businesses were not managing to maintain the high standards. So, Officers had to act on this and WRS had received negative responses to this, particularly when licenses had to be temporarily suspended for work to be done to address non-compliance.

 

With regards to food hygiene inspections, any business that felt it needed to improve its rating was informed of the system for getting a re-rating visit booked.

 

It was queried whether any of the steps to be taken to improve the service had been detailed in the Annual Report.

 

In response the Director of WRS informed Board Members that the suite of Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s), as agreed by the Board, were included in the Annual Report and most of the KPI’s were positive for the service. The KPI’s showed that WRS was delivering what the law required of local authorities and in many cases delivering the service well. As a regulatory service and a local authority regulator, WRS were protecting honest businesses to continue to trade while tackling those who failed to maintain standards.

 

In response to further questions from Councillor J. Spilsbury, Redditch Borough Council with regards to:-

 

·       Finding the public not satisfied and managing their expectations.

·       Public information of WRS services.

·       Where WRS could not help a member of the public and they were not happy with an outcome, was there an escalation process?

·       Partner working.

 

The Director of WRS stated that Officers were asked to always be mindful of the limits of what the service could deliver and to explain this to complainants to help limit their expectations.  The Director explained that most nuisance complaints related to domestic neighbour situations and that the partners had all agreed some time ago to require people to try to resolve these situations themselves with the service’s support via information on the website. Self-help was not required of vulnerable customers or in situations where the alleged perpetrator had a history of poor behaviour or failure to engage. The Director further explained that having an Environmental Health Officer arriving at a property was like having a Police Officer arrive and this was not always well received. Hence, encouraging people to resolve things amicably with their neighbours offered a better long-term solution. 

 

Officers did try and manage nuisance / noise complaints and having monitoring devices installed in people’s properties also meant that Officers relied on their co-operation.  Sometimes a noise problem was just not a statutory nuisance.

 

The Director of WRS agreed that WRS could improve on information made available to the public, and that with regards to noise nuisance, Officers could look at promoting ‘Be a Good Neighbour’ message during the summer months, when noise complaint numbers increased during the good weather.

 

The Technical Manager, WRS further informed the Board that there were currently three really proactive projects on the go in his priority area relating to dogs, reminding the Board that the 3 priorities were:-

 

·       Supporting a safe and vibrant night-time economy.

·       Promoting the responsible breeding, sale and ownership of dogs.

·       Supporting safe, clean and healthy communities.

 

These mini projects would proactively push things like dog microchipping through special events to help address the lack of identification of dogs when they strayed, hopefully in the longer term increasing the Council’s ability to return dogs and reducing kennelling costs.  Officers always worked proactively when priority areas were identified.

 

The Director of WRS reassured Members that Officers worked with a number of teams within the partner authorities, as well as with colleagues in the County Council. Also, WRS were part of the Multi Agency Targeted Enforcement (MATE) network in all parts of the County. These multi-agency meetings addressed common problem issues and involved Officers from the Police, Fire and Rescue service and a range of other partners including national ones like the Immigration Service.  

 

The Director of WRS responded to further questions on the Staff Survey and in doing so, explained that they had not as yet reviewed all of the feedback received.  Senior Officers were pleased that there had been a higher response rate, 63 of the 86 staff had responded this year. Senior Officers would carry out a full review of the feedback received and would endeavour to report back to the staff on what they would do next.

 

With the agreement of the Chairman, Councillor H. Jones, Bromsgrove District Council, took the opportunity to give sincere thanks to the dog wardens and kennel staff. They did amazing work.  The Director of WRS stated that he would happily feedback the positive comments and sincere thanks.

 

RESOLVED that the Worcestershire Regulatory Services Annual Report 2024/2025, be noted; and that a copy of the Worcestershire Regulatory Services Annual Report 2024/2025 be forwarded to the Chief Executives /  Managing Directors of the six partner authorities; and to the wider Elected Member base in their areas.