The Community Protection Manager presented the report and Members were reminded that it would be presented to Cabinet the following evening so their comments would be welcomed.  The Committee heard that it may be necessary for Officers to work at further business cases and bring the report back to Cleaner, Greener and Safer Overview and Scrutiny Committee in October 2016.

The Chair thanked the Community Protection Manager for his presentation and referred to page 16 and the Fixed Penalty Notice to be set at £400 with no reduction for prompt payment.  The Chair enquired as to how usual this was and whether it would cause problems in obtaining repayments.  The Committee heard that the thinking behind the highest possible fee was to support the Council’s zero-tolerance policy.  Residents were very angry about the state of the borough and any Council action was view positively, fining at the highest possible level would send a message to residents.  Not offering a reduced rate for prompt payment was to follow the same line although the Community Protection Manager admitted that there may be issues whereby, since there would be no incentive to take a reduced fine, perpetrators may be of the opinion that they might as well dispute the penalty.  However, there was such outrage in the community that the most robust opposition was required.

The Chair agreed that, personally, he supported a tough line against fly-tipping and that presumably officers could review payments and amend the policy in future if necessary.  Members were assured that payments would be monitored as part of the process.

The Chair observed that a large range of offences was covered by the term “low-level fly-tipping” and asked if Officers could provide a simplistic explanation for residents.  The Committee heard that the specification was generally smaller scale offences such as house clearances.  These were difficult to detect and find evidence from, usually curb-side dumping.  Enforcement Officers visited every report of fly-tipping and often would find suitable evidence.  The actions taken were deemed to be highly appropriate as these were criminal matters.

Councillor Jones referred to pages 17-18 of the report and asked whether it would be possible to obtain feedback from those currently working within the department as to which options would be preferable to them.  Members heard that “continue as is” would generate further challenges for the department and that “Instruct a private enforcement company” could include significant issues despite some attractions.  As such he believed the Enforcement Officers would favour “Fund an increase in enforcement officers either temporarily or permanently” or “Increase the back office resource to investigate service reports”.  The Corporate Director for Environment and Place interjected that a “chair day” had been held with the current Enforcement Officers, they had raised the point that more resources or frontline staff would enhance their performance.  Members were assured that whichever recommendation was taken staff would be consulted.

The Vice-Chair asked whether there was any other view to run alongside straightforward enforcement as the Court process was expensive.  He also suggested provisions for less affluent areas such as large skips for residents who couldn’t drive to take their waste to the Civic Amenity Site as a means of stopping the need to use fly-tippers, but continue to run enforcement for individuals who still did not comply.  The Committee was advised that the Council currently ran a collection service at a cost of £27 per 3 items; however the suggestion of a collection point had not been raised before and was interesting.  The Corporate Director for Environment and Place added that running an in-borough service was a good idea however a large part of fly-tipping was coming in from outside of the local area.

The Chair supported the suggestion of a more holistic approach and offering options to lessen fly-tipping rather than relying solely on enforcement.

Councillor Jones focussed the discussion on abandoned cars and asked whether, if the owners were identified, the Council was still covering the cost of disposal.  Members heard that if the owners can be identified the car would no longer be considered abandoned.  Owners would be contacted and proceedings carried out however he would get the full details for Members after the meeting.

Councillor Collins supported The Vice-Chair’s suggestion of a communal collection point so that residents who could not access the Civic Amenity Site could still dispose of larger items responsibly.  He also questioned whether there were any options for non-payment such as impounding cars until costs were recovered.  The Committee heard that the response to non-payment was Court proceedings and costs would be recovered that way, the power to impound vehicles sat with Police not the Council.  When asked whether it was possible to work with the police Members heard that it was possible however Police resources were currently limited.

Councillor Piccolo asked whether officers believed, as the Courts required significant evidence as opposed to “reasonable certainty” required for a Fixed Penalty Notice, the proposed changes may lead to more people paying the fines as they would believe they had been caught already.  Members were assured that payments were not the issue, people were paying and when the Courts convicted individuals there were fines and costs recovered.

Councillor Collins referred to paragraph 3.11 regarding private land and asked if sites which are not owned by anyone would become the responsibility of the Council.

The Head of Housing and Environment outlined that, currently, waste public land tended to build and build until the Council had to clear the site as a public nuisance.  The plans would be to contact the land registry to discover the owner, and then contact them to remind them of their obligations and offer a price to clear the site.  With regards to unregistered land the procedure was not yet clear as the policy was still in development and there was a risk of being liable for trespassing if Council staff cleared a site with unknown ownership.

The Chair asked, with regards to dealing with private landlords, whether it would be a request from them or an order from the Council.  Members heard that dealings would be at the request of the landlord.  At present the process was still fairly new and although there needed to be a “carrot and stick” approach it was still unclear what the “stick” might be.

The Chair expressed the importance of knowing the Council’s legal powers when dealing with private landlords and suggested using a holistic approach to make management clear their own sites.

Councillor Collins referred to a section of wasteland in his ward which had become a dumping site and was overgrown.  He had contacted the land registry to identify the owner but children played there and it was becoming a problem.  He had had no luck and requested he could work with officers to resolve the issue. Officers agreed.

The Vice-Chair requested a register of private landlords so that the Council could monitor the situation as there was often an issue of private landlords renting out properties which changed hands often resulting in dumping of furniture and other household goods.  He outlined how UKIP had taken charge of the environment around their office and cleared the back alley of waste, showing photos of the alley behind their office and the space behind a local shop.  He proposed that the Council work with business owners so that they might adopt the space around their business and take some responsibility.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Place noted the clear contrast between the two environments shown in the photographs and agreed that alleyways were a persistent problem, particularly around privately rented properties.

Councillor Jones referred to Community Protection Notices and asked what they entailed and what they had achieved.  The Community Protection Manager explained that the Local Authority could designate against any Antisocial Behaviour and bring its own penalties.  Failure to comply would result in a Fixed Penalty Notice and failure to pay would result in Court proceedings.

Councillor Jones asked whether these were regularly used and if so, what the result had been.  Members heard they had been effective in controlling the cruisers around Lakeside and they were easy to follow up.  There were plans to introduce a Community Protection Notice to combat drinking in Grays high street.

The Chair referred to P18 of the report and the figures of £300,000 and £20,000 in a year asking what £20,000 might obtain.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Place outlined that that amount might cover more enforcement against littering or strengthening back office support, but that the £300,000 figure was indicative and there were still costings to be resolved.  The final details would be presented to the Committee in October and then to Cabinet.

The Chair turned the subject of debate to private enforcement agencies and the financial liabilities highlighted in the report as well as concerns surrounding overzealous companies.  He highlighted the desire to avoid a situation where parents might be fined for a toddler dropping litter on the high street, rather than being asked to pick it up.

Councillor Piccolo raised concern on the impact this might have on small businesses regarding fines for lack of waste transfer notices.  He continued to explain that many small businesses did not have adequate space for the receptacles recognised waste companies provided and that fining businesses retrospectively for naivety, even if they had not been causing any problems, could catch them unawares.

The Chair queried whether it would be possible to have a phased implementation of the 2 year look-back, whilst obviously still penalising those businesses clearly abusing waste disposal. The Head of Housing and Environment explained that the problem the Council faced was this was set out in law and was not Council policy, any business that could not provide waste transfer notices for the past 2 years (or the length of time they had been in business) would be liable for a Fixed Penalty Notice and the Local Authority was not in a position to put scales of right or wrong in place.  The Council was therefore limited on discretion. 

Councillor Piccolo expressed that he had not been aware of the need for Waste Transfer Notices outlined in law, but continued that now that he had been informed he would be happy if businesses were given the opportunity.  As the Council had not been prosecuting until now was there some mechanism to handle the progress?  The Head of Housing and Environment explained that it was difficult because the requirement was 2 years of evidence so even a 6 month amnesty would not give businesses enough time to accrue the evidence necessary making any discretion on the part of the Council very difficult.

Councillor Piccolo highlighted instances whereby businesses facing lengthy Trading Standards appeals would change hands very last minute to avoid the outcome and raised concerns that this may be the case with businesses facing Fixed Penalty Notices for lack of Waste Transfer evidence.  Officers agreed that the Committee’s comments would be reflected at Cabinet.  It was also noted that those affected most would probably be small to medium sized businesses, but it was right that the Council did check and penalise people dumping waste inappropriately or businesses that could not provide a record of waste transfer notices for 2 years.

Councillor Jones asked what engagement with small shops and businesses was possible to ensure they knew where they stood.  Members were reminded that this was not Council policy, but law and as such there was not much room for negotiation with small businesses.  The fine is not for disposing of waste inappropriately but for not having proof of Waste Transfer Notices for 2 years.  The Corporate Director of Environment and Place agreed that looking forward the Council would remind businesses that this was enforceable.

Councillor Cherry asked when officers planned to begin prosecuting businesses without sufficient Waste Transfer Notices and was advised that the initial step was a Fixed Penalty Notice and businesses would not be prosecuted unless they failed to pay.

The Chair summarised the Committee’s comments to be relayed to the Portfolio Holder and Cabinet:

·         The Committee welcomed the move to add enforcement, subject to more detail at the meeting in October.

·         The Committee supported a Fixed Penalty Notice of £400, subject to review of early payment possibilities.

·         The Committee proposed a more holistic approach to waste, not solely enforcement, with options for residents and local businesses so that ideally instances do not reach the enforcement stage.

·         The Committee echoed concerns of overzealous enforcement and the importance of proportionality.

·         The Committee raised concerns surrounding the impact on small businesses and requested officers considered mitigation where possible.

·         Members proposed provision for less affluent areas, such as communal waste collection points. Officers outlined the immense cost of disposal would make this a significant challenge for the Council and Members accepted the advice

RESOLVED:

1)    That the Cleaner, Greener and Safer Overview and Scrutiny Committee comment on any aspects of the report the Committee wish Cabinet to consider.

2)    That the Committee note that Cabinet will be asking the Committee to consider costed business cases for environmental enforcement at its October meeting to report back to Cabinet.