Agenda item

Mark Nelson, Enforcement Manager

Mark Nelson, Enforcement Manager, introduced the update as circulated with the agenda, as well as Duncan Turner, the Pest Control Manager.  He explained that he had taken the recommendations made by the task group and provided an update on the implemented measures, and had also outlined plans for the coming year. 

The Enforcement Manager and Pest Control Manager gave the following responses to member questions:

·         The use of drones had been discounted not only the basis of the restrictions of use imposed within 5km of any UK airport runways, but also because of the complications associated with privacy.  The Enforcement Manager would investigate further whether it would be possible to use drones within the GDPR framework.

·         Falconry had been discounted on the basis of the costs associated with it, given the need to undertake it continually throughout the breeding season.  It was also proven that it simply chased the gulls from one area to another. 

·         Bins ranged from £600 to £4.5k and this vast price difference depended on the kind of condensing system within the bins.  More information on this issue would be sought from Karen Watson, the Client Manager for Environment Services. 

·         Egg oiling was the most effective method for controlling the urban gull population as it prevented eggs from hatching and any surviving chicks usually return to breed in the locations where the hatched.  Statistically, commercial premises had the greatest number of nesting gulls and targeting these properties would therefore reduce the overall population in Cheltenham. 

·         It had not been possible to access some streets because of parked vehicles and insufficient room for the 18 and 30 tonne vehicles.  Cones had been delivered by officers but only residents in Montpellier Grove had put them out, meaning access could not be gained to Montpellier Villas.

·         The feeding of birds constituted littering, but the litter generated by the night time economy in Cheltenham was also a factor.  Officers took the point that issuing fines to people who fed gulls and press coverage of any such policy may help change attitudes.

·         Officers were aware of some commercial premises, particularly in the Kingsditch area, which were experiencing real issues with urban gulls this year.  These businesses had chosen not to pay for the service in light of the focus of council resources on residential properties, as generally there was an attitude that the council should be covering the cost and therefore there had been little appetite to carry out any works.  In targeting residential properties, a smaller number of eggs could be treated within the budget available. 

Members welcomed the focus on residential areas this year, which had proved successful in reducing the number of noise complaints from residents, but noted their disappointment that many commercial premises had opted not to pay for work to be carried out.  The suggestion was that if they were experiencing increased issues this year as a result, that they may be more inclined to pay for the service in the future.

A member commented that the term ‘animal proof bins’ should be used, rather than ‘gull proof bins’.

The committee agreed that the four original task group members, Councillors Barrell, Harman, Seacome and Subury, should meet with the Enforcement Manager and Cabinet Member Development and Safety, to discuss outcomes from this year compared to previous years and possible strategies going forward.  A further update would also be scheduled for January 2020.  

The Chairman thanked the Enforcement Manager and Pest Control Manager for their time and looked forward to further updates on this issue.