To approve the recommended fixed penalty fine levels for environmental offences along with the Fixed Penalty Policy for Environmental Offences

That, subject to there being no discount offered for the payment of fines for fly-tipping, the fixed penalty fine levels for environmental offences and the Fixed Penalty Policy be APPROVED as set out within the report.

53.1           The report of the Principal Environmental Health Officer, circulated at Pages No. 85-99, attached the Fixed Penalty Policy and proposed fine levels for environmental offences which Members were asked to approve.

53.2           The Head of Community Services explained that Fixed Penalty Notices were available as a tool for the Council to use in connection with a variety of environmental offences including fly-tipping, dog fouling and abandoned vehicles. The use of such a Notice provided the Council with an efficient and proportionate means for the disposal of low level environmental offences without recourse to court action. The statutes governing environmental offences prescribed a maximum fine level, minimum fine level and minimum discounted level. For some offences the Council had discretion to set the fine levels within a statutory minimum and maximum level; as well as having discretion over several operational and procedural elements relating to Fixed Penalty Notices such as the minimum age of persons on whom Notices would be served, payment options and the offering of a non-statutory appeals process.

53.3           Page No. 87 of the report set out the statutory default fine level, together with the minimum, maximum and discount fine levels which were prescribed for the range of environmental offences. The Head of Community Services felt that the proposed policy, and fine levels, offered Officers a better way to tackle enviro-crimes and would also be useful in reducing Officer time. The burden of proof was the same as that needed to take an offender to Court but, if the offender admitted the crime, there was no need to go through the lengthy and more costly Court process.

53.4           A Member noted that the Policy recommended a fine of £400 for fly-tipping but a discount for early payment which would bring that down to £200. She was of the view that the Council should be aiming to maximise the fine and, accordingly, its impact on people that committed the offence. The Head of Community Services indicated that he was happy to be guided by Members in that regard; Officers had felt the discount to be fair but if Members did not share that view he welcomed their comments. The maximum fine level for fly-tipping was £400 - so the Council could not go above that limit – but the suggested early payment discount was discretionary so Members could reduce/remove that as they wished. Members agreed that the early payment discount for fly-tipping offences was not appropriate and that it should therefore be removed. The Deputy Chief Executive explained that the Council needed a robust process for following up on the Notices which were issued and this was included in the Policy. In terms of early payment, there was government guidance which suggested discounts for early payment of fines was a model that local authorities should offer as there was some evidence to show that it got people to pay fines; however, this was entirely within the gift of individual local authorities.

53.5           In response to a query regarding the transfer of waste, Members were advised that if someone was not a registered carrier they could not transfer waste. It was possible to fine one person twice, e.g. if they failed to produce a waste transfer note and were caught fly-tipping, but it was not possible to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice to someone that was suspected of fly-tipping if there was no evidence. The Council had the power to seize vehicles if appropriate and Officers were currently looking into how that worked. In terms of fly-posting, a Member questioned whose responsibility it was to remove planning site notices as she was concerned the Council could be seen to be fly-posting itself. In response, the Member was advised that the people putting up notices had to seek the landowner’s permission. Where people posted in public areas, such as telephone boxes etc., a Fixed Penalty Notice could be issued. In terms of planning site notices, the Head of Development Services explained that generally the practice was that the applicant would take the notices down as it would otherwise be quite resource intensive for the Council. However, if planning officers saw any when they were out around the Borough they would obviously remove them as appropriate. Members felt that this should be made clear to applicants as they often did not seem to realise it was their responsibility. In terms of enforcement action against enviro-crimes, the Deputy Chief Executive explained that the Council did not have a dedicated team but the Head of Community Services was looking to implement a multi-skilled approach to enviro-crimes so that Officers across the Council could assist as appropriate with serving Fixed Penalty Notices etc. A Member questioned whether the Council had adopted the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act. In response, the Head of Community Services advised that he understood it was an Act that the Council could use rather than having to adopt the provisions but he undertook to look into the issue.

53.6           A Member thanked the Community Services Team for the report; he expressed the view that dog fouling and fly-tipping were a blight on the Borough and the more tools the Council had to combat it the better. Accordingly, it was