To consider the latest position in respect of enviro-crimes. 

27.1           Attention was drawn to the report of the Interim Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 28-53, which provided Members with the latest information on the extent of enviro-crime within the Borough and how the Council was tackling it, with particular focus on fly-tipping.  Members were asked to consider the information provided.

27.2           The Environmental Health Manager explained that, at its meeting in April, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had received an annual report on Ubico and Members had requested additional information in relation to enviro-crimes.  Page No. 30, Paragraph 2.1 of the report, summarised the enviro-crimes reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in the past two financial years.  A review of the way in which the Council investigated enviro-crimes had previously been undertaken by an Overview and Scrutiny Committee Working Group and the report, attached at Appendix 1, had subsequently been adopted by the Executive Committee on 16 July 2014.  Closure of the monitoring of the review recommendations had been approved by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in January 2016.  Since that time, the transfer of waste services to Ubico in April 2015 had resulted in enforcement activities around enviro-crimes being taken on by the Council’s Environmental Health department.  The report before Members focused on the three main enviro-crimes: dog fouling, abandoned vehicles and fly-tipping.

27.3           Members were advised that dog fouling was a perennial issue for all local authorities and Officers were working hard to raise its profile.  The Executive Committee was due to consider a report regarding the recruitment of an Environmental Warden at its meeting on 12 October 2016 and dog fouling was likely to feature highly in the proposed work plan for that role as it had been especially requested by the Parish and Town Councils.  The report would include details of how the position(s) would be resourced, as well as reporting and accountability issues.  Parish and Town Councils were aware of the proposal and consultation had commenced on whether they would like to partner in the arrangement.  Depending upon the response, this role could be in place by April 2017.  Abandoned vehicles were an increasing problem within Tewkesbury Borough and a growing issue nationally.  A County group, which included representatives from the local authorities, Parish Councils and Gloucestershire Fire Service, had been investigating how to bring resources together to ensure that there was an efficient process in place for dealing with this problem.  Gloucestershire County Council was the local waste disposal authority which was responsible for the cost of disposing of vehicles; an agreement within the County meant that Tewkesbury Borough Council managed the process locally and was recompensed by the County Council for the cost of disposal.  Fly-tipping was another problem area, particularly in certain parts of the Borough which were ‘hotspots’ for that specific enviro-crime.  Officers within the Environmental Health section were currently working on a project that aimed to achieve a significant reduction of fly-tipping incidents and subsequent clean-up costs.  The project was at quite an advanced stage and it would be difficult to divulge information to the Committee without compromising the effectiveness of the operation but Officers had included as much detail as possible within the report.

27.4           A Member noted that there had been 1,314 incidents of noise, dog fouling, fly-tipping and abandoned vehicles in the period 1 April 2015 – 31 March 2016 and he questioned how many of those had resulted in prosecution.  The Environmental Health Manager confirmed that, although there had been no prosecutions, four fixed penalty notices had been issued and it was hoped that there would be a successful result in terms of fly-tipping in the near future.  The Member questioned what was preventing the Council from making prosecutions and was advised that it was different for each type of enviro-crime.  Environmental Health had a duty to enforce against noise complaints, which tended to peak in the summer, and he provided assurance that action was taken where appropriate.  With regard to dog fouling, the figures had increased partly because the Council had sought wider reporting on the number of incidents.  In terms of going forward, it was hoped that the numbers would be reduced through the introduction of the Environmental Warden and community ‘days of action’ to raise the profile; whilst this would not necessarily result in prosecutions, it would send a message that this was something which the Council was looking to do.  It was noted that there was often inadequate evidence to issue fixed penalty notices as witnesses were needed in order to be able to take action.  In relation to fly-tipping, when an incident was reported it would be looked at very quickly by Ubico to establish what type of vehicle was needed to clean-up the fly-tip and, ideally, they would also see whether there was any evidence which could be used to take action, e.g. receipts, letters etc.  Only a handful of cases produced any information and this usually pointed to a dead-end.  It was noted that Officers also tried to be proactive by carrying out work in hotspot areas to prevent fly-tipping.  With regard to abandoned vehicles, it was often discovered that the vehicle was not abandoned and was actually just parked.  Officers worked with the Police to try to establish who the vehicle belonged to but cars could end up being scrapped without knowing who the owner was.  There was a lot of action which could be taken, including issuing fixed penalty notices, and the Council would look to do whatever it could.

27.5           With regard to abandoned vehicles, a Member questioned whether there would be any merit in setting up an amnesty centre so that people had a place to take their old cars.  The Environmental Health Manager indicated that car companies often had this type of scheme in place and he would be happy to take this suggestion to the County group.  A Member could not understand why people would abandon their cars rather than taking them to a scrapyard and he suggested that a list of scrapyards could be included in the Tewkesbury Borough News.  Members were advised that the price of metal had decreased dramatically and, although there was no definite link, this could be why people were not using scrapyards.  It was noted that an article on abandoned vehicles was being included in the Tewkesbury Borough News to encourage people to report incidents to the Council as quickly as possible.  An article had previously been included on fly-tipping which had highlighted the importance of not disturbing any potential evidence.

27.6           In terms of dog fouling, a Member suggested that Paws on Patrol volunteers could be provided with high-visibility jackets, similar to those worn by the volunteer litter pickers, to raise their profile in the area and send a message that this was being monitored.  The Environmental Health Manager undertook to raise this with the Paws on Patrol organisers.  A Member questioned how dog fouling was monitored and was advised that, if an incident was reported and Officers did not believe there was enough evidence to serve a fixed penalty notice or to prosecute, they would write to the person who had been witnessed allowing their dog to foul.  Whilst they were not accused of committing the enviro-crime, it was made clear that someone had reported them.  If evidence had been obtained, for instance from CCTV cameras, then action would be taken immediately.  It was to be borne in mind that it was very difficult to obtain evidence as dog walking times tended to be early morning and late evening so it would be beneficial to have an Environmental Warden with enforcement experience who could issue on-the-spot fines. 

27.7           A Member indicated that his Ward had historically been a hotspot for fly-tipping but this had recently not been an issue; he believed that, rather than eliminating the problem, it had simply moved to another area.  A Member indicated that signs had previously been erected in his Ward and had successfully acted as a deterrent; however, they had subsequently become overgrown and he felt that routine maintenance was needed to ensure they remained visible.  The Environmental Health Manager agreed that signs could be a good deterrent; however, it was important to ensure that the problem was not being moved to another area.  The Deputy Chief Executive explained that the approach to enforcement had changed over the last two years and Officers now played a more proactive role.  They were not scared to take action and, whilst it was a long process, gathering evidence was necessary to secure prosecutions.  A Member indicated that a lot of fly-tips were as a result of house clearances, as they often included boards from estate agents, and he suggested that estate agents be contacted to ensure that they used licensed operators.  He also felt that companies should display their waste transfer licences on the side of their vehicles so that people could be confident that their waste was being disposed of lawfully.  The Environmental Health Manager indicated that, whilst it was a great idea, this was not something which could be enforced by the Borough Council; waste transfer licences were enforced by the Environment Agency and it was mandatory for businesses to use an operator with a licence. 

27.8           With regard to the Environmental Warden, a Member sought further clarification as to how that person’s time would be apportioned if Parish and Town Councils contributed different amounts to the role.  The Environmental Health Manager explained that his initial conversations had suggested that there was a general recognition that not all Parish Councils had the precepts to make it viable to contribute significant amounts to the role and the larger Parish Councils had indicated that they would be happy for the Warden to spend some time in other parts of the Borough.  Some Parish Councils found that dog fouling was a problem in a particular area, for instance, Shurdington Parish Council had indicated that this was an issue on the playing fields, and they would be happy for the Warden to focus on that area.  Assurance was provided that, prior to the report being taken to the Executive Committee, consideration would be given to the consultation to see what Parish Councils felt would be best.  Once a decision had been made, a formal recruitment process would be put in place and an agreement drawn up with the Parish Councils.  A Member sought clarification as to which Parish Councils had been approached to date and the Environmental Health Officer indicated that he had spoken to Brockworth, Churchdown, Sandhurst and Shurdington Parish Councils and Hawling Parish Meeting.  An email had been sent out to all Town and Parish Councils the previous week so they were all aware of the proposal, and a more detailed questionnaire would shortly be sent out to those who expressed an interest regarding their preferences.

27.9           A Member sought clarification as to whether the Borough Council had any statutory duties in relation to dog fouling and was advised that, whilst there were no duties, there were several powers available, some of which were transferable to Parish Councils.  The Environmental Warden post would be jointly funded but would be managed by the Borough Council.  A Member raised concern that it was a big job for one person and the Environmental Health Manager explained that the post could be shared by more than one person, or it might be possible to have more than one post; this was dependent on the amount of money provided by Parish and Town Councils.  It may be more effective for the role to be undertaken outside of normal office hours and a full job description would be put together based on what the Parishes wanted.  In response to a Member query regarding the budget the Borough Council had set aside for the position, the Deputy Chief Executive advised that it was not intended to provide any funding.  Whilst this would be covered in more detail in the report to the Executive Committee, she explained that the principle of the role was to provide additional capacity to deal with enviro-crimes, and to support Parish Councils to do this in a more proactive way with professional leadership from the Borough Council which had an understanding of the legislation and could offer relevant training and supervision. 

27.10         A Member noted that it had been stated that all of the recommendations arising from the Enviro-Crime Review had been implemented and he questioned whether that was actually the case as he could see very few tangible outcomes.  The Environmental Health Manager confirmed that all of the actions had been completed and significant progress had been made since the report had been published, for instance, the dog fouling poster campaign to make people aware that children could be at risk had been very successful in raising awareness.  It was noted that the Review Report was attached at Appendix 1 to the report and, within that, Appendix B contained a summary of the recommendations together with timescales and whether they had been implemented.  With regard to recommendation 14, carry out educational campaigns at local schools to make them aware of the dangers of dog fouling, a Member sought clarification as to which schools this applied to.  In response, the Environmental Health Manager explained that no schools had been visited but information had been posted on the Headmasters extranet, via Gloucestershire County Council, regarding the resources available and how they could obtain copies of the literature which had been produced by the Borough Council.  The Member drew attention to recommendation 15, procure portable signs warning that dog fouling will not be tolerated and enforcement action will be taken, and questioned whether the signs were available throughout the Borough, whether Parish Councils were aware that they existed and whether, in relation to fly-tipping, signs were automatically erected upon notification of a fly-tip.  The Environmental Health Manager confirmed that signs were available and this had been brought to the attention of Town and Parish Councils, although it may be useful to remind them of this.  In terms of fly-tipping, he reiterated that hotspot areas were identified and monitored to establish whether action could be taken to bring about a prosecution.  As previously mentioned, signage did tend to displace the problem from one area to another and they were used at the discretion of Officers.  There were two sets of signs in respect of dog fouling; signs which could be downloaded and used in problem areas, and signs which informed the public that the area was being actively monitored.  In respect of recommendation 12, launch a Paws on Patrol type initiative to encourage witnesses to report dog fouling, a Member questioned how successful this had been and what the Borough Council was doing to ensure that this work was ongoing.  Members were reminded that ‘Paws on Patrol’ was run by the Community Team and representatives had attended a number of community events with leaflets handed out in an attempt to recruit new volunteers; he undertook to find out how many volunteers there were currently and to report back to Members.  The Member expressed the view that there was a very small minority of offenders and nothing was likely to change unless they were made an example.  She felt that fixed penalty notices and prosecutions were the only way to make those people take notice.

27.11         The Chair recognised that enviro-crimes continued to be a serious concern for Members, and several issues had been raised for Officers to address.  Rather than reconvening the Working Group, he proposed that a report be brought back to the Committee in six months’ time to consider the progress which had been made and it was subsequently

RESOLVED          That the Enviro-Crimes Update Report be NOTED and that a further report be brought to the Committee in six months’ time to consider the progress which had been made.