Agenda item
CCTV Update - Environmental Services
Minutes:
The Head of Environmental Services and the Environmental Services Manager presented the CCTV Update – Environmental Services. It was explained to the Board that in addition to the briefing that had been provided as part of the agenda, Members would receive a presentation in order to highlight the work currently being undertaken by officers.
As part of the presentation the following was highlighted for Members’ attention:
· Bromsgrove District Council was the Litter Authority and as result they looked after the collection of the littler. Members were informed that with the exception of hazardous litter, such as asbestos, which was removed by specialist contractors, litter was removed by the Environmental Services team at the Council. It was confirmed that Worcestershire County Council were responsible for the disposal of litter.
· There had been an increase of incidents of fly-tipping in recent years. During this time there had been an increase in advertising on social media and by word of mouth of ‘man with a van’ services. These services often resulted in the irresponsible disposal of items collected from the customer by the ‘man with the van’ who sometimes did not hold the correct licenses to dispose of waste.
· There were key areas within the District where fly-tipping occurred regularly. It was explained that the geography of Bromsgrove inevitably played a part in the instances of fly-tipping. Close links to the M5 and A38 meant that there was good access from areas outside of the District, including Birmingham. This had seemingly been exacerbated by the change in rules for the disposal of waste by Birmingham City Council.
· Clear signage had been placed various sites within the District as a deterrent to those who fly-tipped. In addition to this, mobile surveillance cameras, both real and dummy, were placed in areas where fly-tipping regularly occurred. Although this had proved to be a useful tool in deterring fly-tippers, due to the number of sites that regularly experienced fly-tipping the cameras could inevitably not always be in the right place at the right time. It was explained to Members that there was legislation in place Regulatory Investigation Powers Act (RIPA) that covered the use of surveillance cameras. Although the use of surveillance cameras was useful it was important to note that there were strict rules around the enforcement of fly-tipping. It was not enough to just see a van looking like it was going to fly-tip. The tipping needed to be caught on the camera, unless the load of the fly-tipping vehicle was so unusual officers were able to ascertain that the load had been fly-tipped by that specific van.
· There was a backlog of enforcement cases that were still to be heard by the courts. Members were informed that the fixed penalty notice was usually between £300-£400 however there was a review of fly-tipping penalty charges underway.
Councillor M. Sherrey, who was in attendance in her role as Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services was welcomed to the meeting and commented that there had been issues with staffing due to the large number of fly-tipping incidents. However, she clarified that the number of fly-tips were significantly down compared to previous years.
Members were positive about the report and the information included contained in it however they had some questions in respect of the presentation. These were as follows:
· Were the fixed penalty charges comparable to others in District and wider area? – Officers explained that currently the fixed penalty charges were in the middle of the charges. Some councils within the County had chosen to price at the top of the scale and that this could be something that Bromsgrove District Council could look to make amendments to next year.
· How successful were the Council in recovering the fixed penalty charges? – It was confirmed that there had been successes in this area and that the risk of being taken to court had encouraged payments in good time from those who had received fixed penalty charges.
· Were the successes in the deterrent of fly-tipping promoted to the District through communications – Members were informed that this was the case, and it was hoped that this would highlight the increase in enforcement around fly-tipping in the District.
During a detailed discussion Members stated that they were encouraged by the speed in which reported fly-tips had been cleared over the past year but were keen to better understand why there had been a significant increase. Officers concluded that due to the Covid-19 many residents had undertaken DIY projects at home however when faced with the disposal of the rubbish had increasingly sought to use a ‘man with a van’.
It was discussed whether work was carried out with Parish Councils as often the locations where regular fly-tips took place were in Parishes. It was confirmed that work was already carried out however, officers undertook to continue this practice for the future.
Some Members were keen to share the effectiveness of technology that existed regarding the clearing of fly-tipping and Members were made aware of nationwide app technology that was already available and was effective in the reporting of fly-tips across the country. Officers confirmed that Environmental Services were looking into launching an app where residents could report fly-tipping, garden waste and street cleansing queries.
Finally, it was queried as to how the surveillance tools could be used and keep within the RIPA legislation, as it had been reported to the Audit, Standards and Governance Committee in July 2021 that there had been no powers used under this legislation. The Environmental Services Manager confirmed that as there was clear signage used in fly-tipping hot spots this meant that although covert surveillance was used fly-tippers had been informed that this was the case and therefore it was compliant under RIPA.
RESOLVED that the CCTV Update - Environmental Services be noted.
Supporting documents:
PDF 505 KB