Agenda item

To consider the options available to the Council in terms of the use of mobile surveillance equipment for fly-tipping investigations and to note that option 2, as set out at Paragraph 3 of the report, will be trialled for a six month period with the results of the trial being reported back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to inform a final recommendation to the Executive Committee on the way forward.

53.1          Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 53-58, which set out the options available to the Council in terms of the use of mobile surveillance equipment for fly-tipping investigations.  Members were asked to consider the options and to note that option 2, as set out at Paragraph 3 of the report, would be trialled for a six month period with the results of the trial being reported back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to inform a final recommendation to the Executive Committee on the way forward.

53.2          By way of background, the Principal Environmental Health Officer explained that several communities within the borough had experienced unacceptable levels of fly-tipping over the last few years, despite an increased level of enforcement and prosecution of offenders.  There seemed to be two main issues: the vast majority of fly-tips reported to the Council did not contain evidence indicating the provenance of the waste and fines in court tended to be very low and often less than would be incurred from a Fixed Penalty Notice.  One option available to the Council was to use mobile surveillance equipment in order to obtain evidence and he advised that some Councils had achieved custodial sentences off the back of CCTV footage due to the brazen nature of the offences captured on camera.  There were a number of different choices in terms of the type of surveillance the Council could undertake.  The first option was to use completely covert cameras; these were trail cameras which would be totally hidden in bushes or trees at the site.  The main disadvantage was that this was fully covert surveillance which was a highly specialised activity, so Officers would need a lot of training, and it required an application to court under the Regulatory Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).  Members were advised that there was potential to capture footage of innocent third parties so there would be a significant reputational risk to the Council if covert surveillance was not undertaken properly and in accordance with the relevant legislation.  The second option was to use covert cameras with their presence advertised by signage; this did not require a RIPA application and would still allow good evidence to be captured.  The third option was to use overt cameras which were not concealed.  This method had been used in hotspots across the borough and had been effective as the overt nature of the cameras did act as a deterrent; however, this reduced the ability of the Council to obtain sufficient evidence to achieve successful prosecutions.  In addition, this was a more expensive option as the cameras needed to be installed by the supplier each time they were relocated.  On balance, Officers considered that option 2 was the most appropriate in terms of the opportunity to obtain quality evidence without the risks associated with a fully covert scheme.  It was therefore intended to undertake a trial for a six month period which would be funded from the reserves held by the Head of Community Services.

53.3           In response to a query regarding potential theft of the cameras, the Principal Environmental Health Officer advised that the cameras would be concealed so it was unlikely anyone would find them; however, he could not guarantee they would be theft-proof so there would be a reliance upon the advice of the specialist camera suppliers in terms of correct installation etc.  A Member raised concern about vandalism and asked if the cameras were damage-proof.  In response, the Principal Environmental Health Officer recognised this was a potential issue and pointed out that overt cameras had been vandalised in the past.  Vandalism was always a risk as the cameras could attract anti-social behaviour but this was less of a risk with covert cameras.  All of the cameras had secure enclosures so they were quite robust.  A Member queried whether trackers would be used and the Principal Environmental Health Officer confirmed that it should not be too expensive to install trackers and the cameras would have wireless capacity so they should be able to be traced.

53.4           A Member questioned what the regulations were around the signage that would need to be displayed – he assumed it would be better if it was not erected in the precise location where fly-tipping was occurring.  The Principal Environmental Health Officer confirmed there were no hard and fast rules about this in the regulations if the surveillance did not require a RIPA application.  He advised that a lot of fly-tipping took place in a lay-by in Sandhurst so signage had previously been erected at the entrance to the village as opposed to in the lay-by itself.  A Member raised concern that using cameras and signage may mean that the fly-tipping was displaced to another area which could potentially cause more problems. The Principal Environmental Health Officer acknowledged that was a risk but he explained that the perpetrators of fly-tipping in the borough were often so arrogant that they were unconcerned about signage so, whilst it may displace some new fly-tippers, it was hoped the repeat offenders could be caught using one of these techniques.

53.5           A Member noted that option 1 was more likely to achieve successful prosecutions and this was only £50 more expensive than option 2 so he queried whether that would be the better choice for the trial.  The Principal Environmental Health Officer clarified there was greater risk of reputational damage with option 1 and it would require a dedicated Officer working full-time to review the footage that was captured to ensure the camera had not picked up any “collateral intrusion” - the risk of obtaining private information about persons who were not subjects of the surveillance activity.  As such, there were more indirect costs associated with option 1.  A Member indicated that, when cameras had been used by Brockworth Parish Council, residents had been informed that the footage would only be viewed when an incident had taken place and the Principal Environmental Health Officer confirmed that a similar approach would be taken.  The cameras only recorded when they detected movement and the wireless capacity would enable photographs to be sent to the relevant Officer when footage had been captured.  A Member noted that all three options mentioned Officer training and specialist installation by camera suppliers and he questioned whether the training should be covering installation of equipment.  Confirmation was provided that installation would be part of the training but Officers would still initially need support from the suppliers to install the cameras, for example, Officers did not currently have knowledge about where to install the cameras to get the best coverage etc.

53.6           A Member indicated that, in his experience, it was ineffective to put cameras in hotspot areas – in Sandhurst, fly-tippers expected there to be cameras so it would be better to install them in surrounding villages.  He also pointed out that three Police cameras had been burnt with tyres and another one in the Gloucester City area which bordered Tewkesbury Borough had disappeared.  The Principal Environmental Health Officer took the point that consideration could be given to other areas for the cameras to cover and he acknowledged that cameras were being stolen but reiterated that he hoped the specialist installation of the covert cameras would help to minimise that risk.  The Member raised concern that the fines issued by the courts for fly-tipping were so minimal that it did not act as a deterrent but the government did nothing to address that.  The Principal Environmental Health Officer advised that the maximum fine was £50,000 and a custodial sentence was also available but the biggest fine the Council had secured for fly-tipping was £1,500.  He reiterated that some local authorities had achieved custodial sentences and some had used cameras successfully to obtain evidence required for larger fines.  A Member questioned whether footage captured by CCTV cameras on people’s houses could be used as evidence and the Principal Environmental Health Officer confirmed that, whilst the Environmental Health team would be happy to receive individuals’ own footage if they had seen fly-tipping taking place and had captured that on camera, individuals were not able to monitor fly-tipping on behalf of the Council due to the RIPA implications around direct surveillance.

53.7           Having considered the information provided it was

RESOLVED          1. That the options available to the Council in terms of the use of mobile surveillance equipment for fly-tipping investigations be NOTED.

2. That the results of the six month trial of option 2, as set out at Paragraph 3 of the report, be reported back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to inform a final recommendation to the Executive Committee on the way forward.