Agenda item

To consider a report of the Assistant Director of Neighbourhoods. 

The report provides detail on the balanced approach of prevention and enforcement in relation to addressing enviro-crime issues in supporting Stockport's neighbourhoods as 'thriving places'. 

The Scrutiny Committee is requested to note the report. 

Officer contact: Emma Stubbs | emma.stubbs@stockport.gov.uk

The Assistant Director of Neighbourhoods submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing detail on the balanced approach of prevention and enforcement in relation to addressing enviro-crime issues in supporting Stockport's neighbourhoods as 'thriving places'.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         Members asked about the use of CCTV in preventing and resolving environmental crime. In response it was reported that the council operated four types of CCTV: those located at buildings owned by the council, public realm cameras located mainly in the town centre, those located in carparks and finally temporary mobile cameras which were used in fly-tipping hotspots.

·         Covert cameras used for fly tipping were reported to be difficult to use and had only limited success. It was reported that a review of the use of CCTV for fly-tipping was ongoing in order to explore the efficacy and appropriateness of their use and to ensure they were used to their best effect.

·         Members expressed concern about the council’s record for the enforcement of fly tipping. It was noted that there had been 905 incidents of fly tipping reported across the borough in the first two quarters of the reporting year, but only one prosecution and five fixed penalty notices issued.

·         In response it was stated that the council needed to take a balanced approach. If prosecution was attempted, rubbish could sit for days or weeks while evidence was gathered. The council had to decide between clearing waste and time-consuming enforcement.

·         Members suggested that a review of the approach to enforcement of fly-tipping was needed. Residents had reported repeated cycles of rubbish being dumped and, with a lack of consequences, it was felt that the situation was less likely to change.

·         Members referred to online advertisements for ‘man and van’ services which were potential culprits of fly-tipping and queried whether council officers checked social medial for such advertisements. It was also suggested that residents could be warned that they could be liable for handing over goods for disposal to an unlicensed practitioner.

·         The Spring Clean programme and social media, along with a coordinated regional approach, such as a GM campaign, were being used to raise awareness of the impact of using unlicensed companies to remove garden and other waste which inevitably ended up being fly-tipped.

·         Members offered to assist in monitoring social media sites for ‘man and van’ advertisements.

·         Further enforcement practises related to fly tipping included a recent stop and search exercise which was carried out in conjunction with the police to root out unlicenced carriers. That was reported to have been successful and plans were in place to repeat that exercise in the coming months.

·         Members commented that public spaces which were kept tidy and free from litter were less likely to experience littering offences.

·         Members referred to asset management and ownership related to grass verges, some of which were owned by the council and others by Stockport Homes and queried whether it might be possible for the council to maintain all grass verges and charge back for those which were not under its ownership.

·         In response it was agreed that council officers should act as custodians of public realm spaces and where clearing or tidying was required in a public realm space, council officers should act. Members were requested to provide specific examples of any incidents where only partial maintenance work had been carried out due to ownership issues.

·         The enforcement for littering required a witness and the offender being given an opportunity to rectify their actions. In recent cases offenders had been issued with on the spot fines. The council was in the process of creating a regular programme of enforcement days for littering.

·         Members requested information on TLC’s approach to street cleaning in different areas of the borough with differing needs.

·         Members commented that the use of Community Protection Warnings could be labour-intensive and slow to rectify environmental and anti-social issues. Members queried whether fixed-penalty notices would be more effective than Community Protection Warnings.

·         In response it was stated that a Community Protection Warning was not used as a first line of defence. Rather, officers made initial attempts to engage with residents and businesses in order to resolve issues. It was further reported that Community Protection Warnings were issued in very specific circumstances and that officers had relevant training and experience to deliver a balanced approach between community education, support and enforcement. Enforcement action was taken against repeat offenders.

·         Members requested information on enforcement action being taken by the council in relation to dog fouling. In response it was stated that the council’s actions on that subject would be included in a future report.

·         Members noted that 58 warnings had been issued in the past year for car cruising Public Space Protection Orders. It was reported that all 58 warnings came from a single incident.

RESOLVED -  That the report be noted.