Agenda item

Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement, Daniel Ferrer, Licensing Team Manager, and Dave Holmes, ASB Team Leader, were in attendance to respond to Members’ queries and requests for clarification in relation to the report included in the agenda pack. Councillor Wayne Bridges, Cabinet Member for Community & Environment was also in attendance.

Members commented that the Council’s website did not provide an option for reporting littering from a vehicle, noting that they had personally witnessed such an incident and had been unable to report it online. The Chair responded that this feedback would be noted and advised that the relevant Cabinet Member was present and would have heard the comment, particularly in relation to improvements to the Members’ enquiries process and the “Clean Up My Streets” application.

Councillors asked how the Council’s use of fixed penalty notices (FPNs) compared with neighbouring boroughs. Officers replied that Hillingdon was broadly comparable, explaining that FPNs were a mechanism to avoid prosecution and that the Council focused on maintaining high standards and working with available evidence. It was noted that while some boroughs issued higher numbers of tickets, officers could not comment on comparative success rates.

The Committee asked what steps had been taken to improve signage, clarity of restrictions and public awareness in areas with high volumes of enforcement activity, particularly in relation to engine idling and footway obstructions. Councillors cited cases where residents felt signage was inadequate or absent when entering enforcement zones. Officers responded that signage was an ongoing challenge; efforts were made to install signage where required, though signs could be removed or deteriorate and were replaced when possible. Officers added that information was also available on the Council’s website and that enforcement measures were subject to consultation processes with relevant organisations.

Members raised concerns about FPNs issued to businesses for waste documentation, questioning whether internal checks were undertaken where businesses used the Council’s own waste services. It was suggested that issuing FPNs without first checking internal records was a potential waste of officer time and resources. Officers clarified that FPNs were not issued immediately; instead, a notice was served allowing seven days for documentation to be produced, with an FPN issued only if this was not provided. Officers acknowledged past issues with inter-departmental communication and confirmed that closer working arrangements were now in place with waste services, including the sharing of lists of businesses with Council waste contracts. It was explained that, following a review of processes, regular inter-team meetings had been established across enforcement, anti-social behaviour (ASB) and licensing functions to share information, identify problematic premises and ensure proportionate and coordinated enforcement.

The Cabinet Member added that waste services and enforcement teams were now working proactively together, with a programme being rolled out to visit all premises, maintain a register of visits and actions taken, and ensure businesses held appropriate licences and waste contracts. It was explained that intelligence was continually updated due to the high turnover of businesses, and enforcement activity was targeted accordingly.

Members enquired how many FPNs issued were paid, cancelled or unpaid, and whether proportional data was available. Officers referred to figures in the report, correcting an error in published data relating to June figures and explaining that total FPNs issued were higher than initially stated. Officers explained the payment process, including 14- and 28-day payment periods, and noted a lag between issue and payment.

Councillors raised a separate question regarding Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs), expressing concern that enforcement appeared concentrated repeatedly in the same locations and questioning whether this indicated a lack of behavioural change. Officers responded that a significant proportion of FPNs issued related to the relatively new PSPO introduced in February of the previous year, and that targeted enforcement was expected during its early implementation. It was stated that behavioural change had been observed, particularly in relation to the Heathrow taxi and private hire vehicle PSPO, noting that repeat offences were low and that drivers had altered behaviour by using appropriate waiting locations rather than residential streets.

Councillors sought clarification as to how much enforcement income was reinvested into community safety or enforcement resources. It was confirmed that income from fines broadly covered the cost of the contracted environmental enforcement service, with no significant surplus or deficit, although a modest surplus had arisen due to Heathrow PSPO volumes. It was noted that income was largely reinvested into service delivery.

The Committee asked whether ASB data was available to assess the impact of service closures and changes such as leaving green space gates unlocked. Officers stated that such data had not yet been drawn together and that there was an inherent lag in data collection, though this would be available in time. Councillors suggested starting with reported incidents as an initial dataset, and officers confirmed that borough-wide data would be considered.

Members requested further details of how enforcement was approached for more niche or seasonal PSPO issues, such as amplified music at Ruislip Lido, and how enforcement activity was communicated to residents. It was explained that intelligence was gathered to identify patterns and allocate resources accordingly. Examples were cited such as motorbike activity in green spaces, where joint working with the Metropolitan Police had resulted in enforcement action and the issuing of explanatory notices.

With regards to dog control requirements, Members described an incident in a green space where dogs off leads had attacked people, and queried reporting routes where PSPO provisions appeared unclear. It was clarified that such incidents fell outside PSPO enforcement and constituted offences of dogs being dangerously out of control, which were matters for the police.

The Committee sought clarity as to why no FPNs had been issued for begging despite significant enforcement action for verbal abuse. It was explained that begging fell under the Vagrancy Act, an outdated and weak piece of legislation that was no longer routinely applied and was subject to legislative reform. It was clarified that some elements of begging could be enforced where associated with intimidation or distress. Members expressed concern that begging was widespread across the Borough and suggested that the issue be reviewed as a priority and brought to the attention of Cabinet Members.

The Cabinet Member for Community & Environment stated that this would be taken on board. He acknowledged that begging had become an increasingly significant issue across the Borough, particularly in town centres and high streets, and noted that the problem had worsened in recent years. He referred to ongoing issues within his own ward, including persistent begging around locations such as schools, and confirmed that the matter would be discussed with officers in due course.

Officers confirmed that the issue would be reviewed. They clarified that the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) restriction applied specifically to begging for food or money where such behaviour caused harassment, alarm or distress to another person. Members were informed that, in order to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN), the witnessing officer would need to be satisfied that these additional elements were present. It was noted that this created challenges for officers on the street, as simply observing begging was not sufficient to justify enforcement action. Officers advised that the current approach aligned with government guidance, which expected a supportive approach to be taken initially, particularly where individuals were begging due to their circumstances rather than by choice, before moving towards punitive measures.

In response to further questions from the Committee, officers confirmed that flyposting was included in the reported numbers of business-related FPNs and advertising offences. They explained that advertising offences covered a wide range of activities, including estate agents’ boards, sports advertising, advertisements on street furniture, and flyposting of various types.

Councillors asked whether anything could be done under the PSPO to address noise from out-of-hours building work. While acknowledging that building work was generally covered by building control and planning enforcement, they highlighted frequent complaints from residents about noise on Saturdays and Sundays, such as scaffolding work using impact drivers early in the morning.  In response, officers confirmed that a PSPO was not required, as existing legislation was already in place to deal with noise from out-of-hours building work.

Members enquired whether any third-party support could be used to assist with the enforcement of PSPOs, or whether there were examples from other boroughs where enforcement had been successful. Reference was made to previous evidence from APCOA, which had demonstrated successes beyond the issuing of parking tickets. They asked whether individuals or organisations with relevant experience, including those associated with community safety or enforcement, could support enforcement activity across PSPOs, illegal street trading and related matters.

Officers responded that the issuing of FPNs could only be undertaken by authorised persons, namely council officers, police officers or police community support officers. They confirmed that the Council worked with the police to enforce PSPOs. It was explained that, following the move from paper ticket books to electronic ticketing, police officers were encouraged to provide a simple statement, after which the Council could take responsibility for progressing the case, including prosecution if necessary. This approach reduced the burden on the police and was reported to be working effectively. It was further emphasised that PSPO FPNs were only one of several enforcement tools available to the Council; other teams, including licensing and out-of-hours services, operated under separate legislative powers. In relation to street trading, Members were infromed that enforcement did not always need to begin with an FPN and could include verbal warnings or initial engagement. Where necessary, prosecution could be pursued, and licensing matters could be addressed through variation, review or consideration by a licensing sub-committee at renewal.

The importance of cross-team working within the Council was noted. It was explained that officers across services, including waste services, were encouraged to act as the “eyes and ears” of the Council when operating on the streets, supporting enforcement teams by identifying issues and helping to build evidence. Officers highlighted the value of proactive approaches, such as early engagement with businesses that incorrectly left commercial waste bins on the public highway. It was noted that informal conversations could often resolve issues quickly, with enforcement action reserved for persistent non-compliance.

The Cabinet Member emphasised that enforcement relating to FPNs, particularly for flyposting, was not solely about issuing penalties but also about adopting different and more creative approaches. He welcomed confirmation that FPNs had been successfully issued for flyposting in Charville, including a case involving a business flyposting on park land. He further referred to the Committee’s previous discussions on flyposting associated with funfairs, where a deposit scheme had been suggested, noting this as a positive example of innovative and collaborative problem-solving. The Cabinet Member highlighted the importance of cross-party working and engagement across multiple services and departments and assured the Committee that such discussions were ongoing both within the Committee and across the Council, provided that all parties continued to work together constructively.

RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the content of the report.