Agenda item

Bill Hickson, Anti-social Behaviour and Environment (ASBET) Manager, introduced a report updating the Committee on Fly Tipping within the Borough.

The report was summarised and it was confirmed that fly tipping was a criminal offense that, upon conviction, carried the potential for a fine, imprisonment, or both.

The investigation process was detailed, and the Committee was informed that the number of reports received for investigation had been seen to have declined over the past 5 years. However, the issue of fly tipping remained a problem, often due to residents putting out refuse for collection too early, or leaving refuse in the wrong location with the expectation that it would be collected.

Heat maps showing the frequency of reports received by ASBET by ward, set out in the meeting papers, showed that the issue was more common in the south of the Borough, but certain wards in the North also had high instances of fly tipping. The number of successful prosecutions was accepted as being too low, and a number of current and proposed actions to address this were detailed. These included:

·         Over recent years, ASBET had focussed on issuing fixed penalty notices for littering and other anti-social behaviour covered under the Community Protection Notices.

·         ASBET has introduced targeted waste carrier operations, conducted with the assistance of the local Police. These operations included stopping vehicles that were carrying waste, to check that the drivers or companies held the appropriate licences and permits. Failure to hold the appropriate licences and permits could result in a fixed penalty notice.

·         Inspection of businesses or premises were carried out to ensure traders were storing and disposing of waste correctly.

·         Since November 2017, officers had been working with colleagues from Waste Services to inspect regular fly tipping hot spot areas. Deposited waste was searched for evidence of perpetrators. The inspections were showing a reduction of repeat perpetrators and that personal information, such as names addresses, were being removed from domestic waste (likely to be due to anti-fraud awareness.)

It was considered that the proactive work detailed was a contributing factor to the reduction in the number of reports received.

Ongoing developments included:

·         The potential introduction of a new fixed penalty notice for lower level fly tipping offences;

·         Working with the Corporate Communication team to develop a publicity campaign aimed at residents and businesses, to highlight the issue of fly tipping;

·         Continue and increase current ‘waste carrier’ operations being undertaken in partnership with local Police services;

·         Extend the number of ‘waste management’ inspections of business premises.

·         Reinforce a zero tolerance approach to all offenses relating to the management of waste;

·         Build closer working relationships with the Environment Agency in terms of the larger scale of fly tipping that they have a duty to enforce; and

·         Continue and increase the current ‘cage van’ operations being undertaken in partnership with Waste Services during which evidence is sought from small to medium scale fly tipping  that occurs mainly on the public highway.

It was confirmed that there were no staffing or cost implications to the above.

The Committee asked a number of questions, including:

Would the team consider labelling bins to better spread awareness of how domestic waste was to be managed?

Yes, this could be considered.

Residents often complained that the Borough’s two waste management sites cause unpleasant smells, especially during the recent hot summer. What was being done about this?

The sites were permitted under the remit of the Environment Agency. Council officers were required to ensure the sites held the correct permits, and would report to the Environment Agency should there be breaches in licence conditions or if there were problems such as smells.

Was CCTV effective in combating fly tipping?

CCTV was a useful tool, however, although cameras had a wide angle, they were fixed in place. It was therefore often difficult to obtain a clear image of the offender actually perpetrating the offense. It was also difficult to identify where the waste had originated. Although the cameras were felt to be an effective deterrent , they also led to a long process which included officers going door to door asking residents whether they knew the identify of the individual captured in the recording.

Were the figures included within the table on page 11 of the report a reflection of all instances of fly tipping?

The figures within the table were all instances of fly tipping reported to ASBET. Other instances of fly tipping that had not been witnessed or reported were not included.  Often such issues were seen and acted upon directly, by Refuse Services. Waste Services could be asked to provide further detail on the number of fly tipping instances committed versus reported.

With reference to the potential new fixed penalties for lower level offenses, what sort of offenses would be considered low level?

Low level offenses include littering, dog fouling, and other forms of antisocial behaviour. Community Protection notices covered a wide range of activities, and covered the street scene as well as parks and green spaces. Over three bags of refuse would constitute low level fly tipping, for which a  £400 fine could be issued.

It was requested that details of fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour, by ward, be forwarded to the Committee.

Councillor Sweeting stated that the experience of Ward Councillors, particularly in the south of the Borough, was that instances of fly tipping were increasing, not decreasing. The cost of fly tipping in 2013/14, was stated to be circa £73k, while the cost in 2017/18 was £856k. The number of Member Enquires relating to fly tipping was also extensive. It was agreed that Councillor Sweeting would request further detail on the specific sites of frequent fly tipping hot spots, within each Ward, on behalf of the Committee.

Dagenham had introduced a computer system which ‘named and shamed’ fly tipping offenders who had been caught on CCTV. Had such a system been considered within Hillingdon?

Such a system had been considered, though concerns over its introduction had been raised by the Council’s Legal team. However, the matter could be re-considered, though the success of the system would rely on obtaining good quality images from CCTV cameras of both the offender and the crime/deposit.

Why was the number of convictions for fly tipping so low?

Instances of fly tipping were often on private land, for which legal notices were issued. In addition, residents were often unwilling to give evidence against offenders. Convictions could be increased if residents were empowered to give evidence confidentially, or the number of CCTV cameras at fly tipping hotspots was increased.

It was agreed that Councillor Sweeting would submit a request for the Committee to be provided with the details by ward, location and type, of the locations of the permanent and mobile CCTV cameras provided by the Council around the Borough.

How was the publicity campaign, referred to within the report, progressing?

The campaign was currently in its formative stages. The campaign would make use of the Hillingdon People newsletter, the Council website, and libraries, as well as messaging on litter bins and refuse vehicles. In addition, noticeboards in Council flats and estates could be used, as well as social media and potentially local radio.

It was suggested that a report on the campaign could be considered at a future meeting of the Committee.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the report be noted;

2.    That the ‘ongoing developments’ proposed within the report be endorsed;

3.    That further detail on the number of fly tipping instances being committed versus being reported be forwarded to the Committee; and

4.    That the details of fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour, by ward, to be forwarded to the Committee.