Agenda item

Nicola Herbert, Head of Waste Services, was in attendance to answer Members’ questions in relation to the Graffiti Removal report in the agenda pack.

Members noted that, as set out on page 26 of the agenda pack, in March 2023 27% of graffiti removal works had been completed in response to an online report. Members sought further information in relation to this and enquired whether this was an improvement or a reduction on previous years. It was agreed that the Head of Waste Services would attempt to source the relevant data for comparison purposes.

Members enquired how effectively the graffiti service liaised with TfL regarding graffiti on bus shelters. It was confirmed that such reports went directly to TfL in the first instance but on occasion they were escalated to the Council as they had taken too long to process. Members suggested that, in such cases, the Council should look to recover the cost of removal from TfL.

The Committee sought further clarification regarding the monitoring of success noting that, in some cases, graffiti was removed but fly posting was not. It was confirmed that contractors were expected to complete such works proactively. In future, examples could be forwarded to the Head of Waste Services.

Members welcomed the fact that graffiti was generally removed very quickly and suggested that other departments could learn from this approach. Noting that graffiti on shop shutters was sometimes missed as they were open during the day, it was suggested that the team could consider completing these works during the evening. The Head of Waste Services advised Members that some businesses were reluctant to close their shutters during business hours and opted to remove the graffiti themselves. Out of hours working would be considered for the future.

In response to further questions from Councillors, it was confirmed that the Council did not issue fines for the removal of flyposting. Graffiti removal was prioritised over flyposting. The issuing of fines for flyposting offences was challenging as the person responsible for putting the poster up was liable rather than the business the poster related to. At the request of Members, it was agreed than an information item relating to flyposting would be added to the Select Committee Work Programme.  

Members were informed that the main focus was on cleaning up the graffiti which had been reported, rather than scoping. In known hotspots such as Ruislip and Hayes, graffiti was often removed proactively before it had been reported.

Members sought further clarification regarding the benefits of contracting out the service. They were informed that the contractors had specialist vehicles and were trained in the use of appropriate chemicals to remove different types of graffiti. If the service were to be brought in house, specially trained staff would be needed. Moreover, if contractors were to damage private property, the Council would be risk free.

In respect of the contract, which was due to expire in November, the Select Committee was advised that market research would be carried out and the Council would meet with other suppliers prior to renewing the contract.

Members referred to the table on page 26 of the agenda pack and sought further clarification regarding the saving of over £50,000 between 2022/23 and 2023/24. It was confirmed that this could be attributed to the reduction from two teams to one team.

In response to further questions from Members, it was confirmed that it had not been possible to identify the perpetrators of graffiti therefore no fines had been issued. Councillors suggested that the Council could work with the Police on this or liaise with teachers who could provide further information. It was agreed that the Director of Community Safety and Enforcement would follow up on this after the meeting.

Members noted that the ‘Wet Paint’ signs were not always removed after graffiti removal. The Head of Waste Services agreed to follow this up.

Members were informed that land registry searches were rarely necessary to get permission. Larger businesses tended to remove graffiti themselves.

RESOLVED That the Select Committee:

1)    Noted the arrangements under the current graffiti removal contract; and

2)    Supported the continued works under the existing contract arrangements.