Agenda item

Joanne Howells, Street Scene Enforcement Manager, Stephanie Waterford, Head of Public Protection and Enforcement and Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement, were in attendance to respond to Members’ questions and requests for clarification regarding the matters set out in the report.

Councillors enquired about the prohibitory measures, partial closure, and closure orders for tower blocks, mentioning feedback from residents about the effectiveness of these measures in addressing antisocial behaviour. It was explained, that while evidence may be clear, CCTV evidence and resident reports were relied upon, and other enforcement actions could be considered.

Members asked about the presence of uniformed environmental enforcement officers, expressing concerns about their visibility and the worsening issue of women being hassled and receiving racist comments. Officers explained that ten uniformed officers covered the entire Borough, working seven days a week, and collaborated with other teams to address antisocial behaviour, including threats and discrimination.

The Committee raised concerns about the operation hours of the CCTV room and the need for more staff and cameras in hotspots. In response, the importance of CCTV for visual reassurance was acknowledged and it was explained that staffing was a funding decision, with gaps emerging due to leave or sickness.

Councillors sought further clarification regarding the high percentage of misdirected and actionable reports and the process of redirecting them to the appropriate teams. Officers explained that misdirected reports were redirected to the relevant teams within the Council, and efforts were being made to refine the portal and triaging processes to limit misdirected service requests.

In response to Members’ concerns regarding the safety of officers and the number of instances of obstruction and assaults on officers, the procedure for dealing with engine idling and obstruction was explained and it was noted that assaults on officers were very low.

In response to their request for a breakdown of fines by ward for various offences, Members heard that the systems used by the teams did not currently support collecting enforcement data by ward, but that they were exploring how datasets could be collated and provided by ward in the future.

Councillors enquired about the targeting of hotspots for enforcement actions and the outcomes of action days. Officers explained that hotspots were identified from reports and intelligence, and it was noted that action days had achieved good results.

With regard to the criminal element of fly posting and the difficulty in identifying offenders, it was confirmed that officers made attempts to engage with organisers and took enforcement action when possible. It was acknowledged that it was often difficult to establish who was responsible for fly posting – the service was intelligence and complaint led. Officers were happy to attend ward panel meetings to discuss specific concerns if invited to do so.

Members noted that fly tipping was a serious issue and a blight on the Borough, yet, as detailed on page 87 of the agenda pack, only 52 FPNs had been issued in 2024. In response, officers highlighted the challenges of prosecuting fly-tipping offenders due to the need for criminal burden of proof and identifying the offenders, often seen on CCTV without vehicle registrations. Members heard that action days had been initiated to address improper disposal of rubbish, which could be prosecuted under different legislation. Successful prosecutions had occurred, resulting in suspended custodial sentences. It was confirmed that fly-tipping fines had been increased to £1000, making them the most substantial fixed penalty notices (FPNs) available. This method had proved to be a quicker and more effective enforcement tool compared to lengthy court prosecutions.

Members raised concerns about the presence of beggars and their aggressive behaviour. Officers outlined the reliance on the police for dispersing beggars and identifying them, and the consideration of including powers in the PSPO to deal with them.

Councillors asked about the response time for Members’ Enquiries and the definition of a meaningful response. It was explained that a meaningful response including details of the investigation and enforcement actions available would be provided within 10 working days of receipt of the enquiry.

In response to Members’ questions regarding the impact on antisocial behaviour of not locking parks and car parks overnight, Members were advised that the decision was being monitored, and data would be reviewed to determine if locking the spaces again was necessary.

In respect of fines for delivery drivers and the enforcement process, officers explained the difficulties in identifying offenders and the collaboration with proprietors to address aggressive behaviour.

Councillors raised concerns about the fines for spitting and suggested reviewing the legislation used by other councils. It was noted that the fines for spitting were set under the PSPO and were at the maximum permitted level.

Members suggested reviewing the fines for littering and other offences to ensure they were set at the maximum permitted level. Officers explained the considerations for setting fines and the balance between the likelihood of payment and the impact on people's pockets.

RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the contents of the report and asked questions in order to clarify matters of concern or interest in the Borough.