Agenda item

Report of the Head of Community and Customer Services

The report provides an overview into the role of the environmental crime team, the functions that the environmental crime officers regulate and enforce and how compliance is achieved. It focuses in detail on the response and regulation of fly tipping, the challenges and common issues faced and the performance in relation to numbers of fly tips and enforcement.

The Scrutiny Committee received a report of the Head of Community and Customer Services which provided an overview of the role of the environmental crime team and the functions they regulated and enforced.  It focussed on fly tipping.

The officers provided a presentation on ‘Fly Tipping, Trends and Service Provision’.  They explained the structure of the team, which was based at Wiggenhall Depot.  This enabled the Council’s officers to work with Veolia on issues as they arose.  They were able to refer work to each other and identify hotspots from the information received.  They outlined the areas they regulated and provided two examples of casework; one where formal action had been taken and the second where informal action had been carried out.  This showed how officers considered each case and took the most appropriate course of action.  In addition to fly tipping on public land the Environmental Crime Officer explained how officers dealt with fly tipping on private land, alleyways and service roads.  All fly tipping incidents were risk assessed and where hazardous waste may be involved immediate removal would be considered.  Whereby the Council was able to recharge the costs to the owner.  Officers showed examples of ‘before’ and ‘after’ cases where land owners had been helped to protect their land from future problems.  This had included moving fencing to the owners boundary or installing fencing where it had previously not existed.  The officers concluded by stating that information and education were an important part of their work.

Having considered the statistics at paragraphs 3.25 and 3.32 of the report, Councillor Taylor asked whether there was an incentive to under report fly tipping in order to ensure a good effectiveness grading.  He asked how the figures were verified.

The Environmental Health and Licensing Section Head explained that the service had spoken to the Environment Agency and other local authorities to review the incidents that should be reported as fly tipping.  Officers had also reviewed related guidance.  It had transpired that Watford’s officers had been over reporting incidents.  She highlighted some of the examples that should not be classed as fly tipping, including road kill and black bags next to residential waste bins.  Officers ensured they recorded the same information as other authorities.

Councillor Dhindsa congratulated officers on the way they had handled the second casework example.  He commented that in Vicarage Ward he was of the opinion that fly tipping had not decreased.  Previously he had been informed that the Council was unable to take any action if waste had been fly tipped in alley ways unless there were environmental issues, such as vermin.  He asked that if there were any fly tipping in alleyways who would the Council prosecute.

The Environmental Crime Officer responded that alleyways were very complicated matters.  They were often under shared ownership or unregistered.  Officers relied on any witnesses who had observed the waste being dumped.  If the Council became aware of the person who had dumped the rubbish and the witness was willing to provide a witness statement, then the officers would take necessary action, however clearance of the land would remain with the land owner(s). If it harboured vermin, then the Council would serve a notice and if it was not complied with then enforcement would take place.  However, residents would usually work together to ensure the waste was cleared and alleyways maintained.

Councillor Dhindsa mentioned that Japanese Knotweed had been reported as growing in a location within his ward.  Residents had been contacted by another party seeking contributions towards the overall costs of removal.  Most of the houses were rented and the tenants were not interested in contributing towards the costs.  He asked whether there was any legal action the Council was able to take.

The Environmental Health and Licensing Section Head advised that the removal of Japanese Knotweed was not enforced by the Council.  The situation should be referred to the Environment Agency, who would probably not be able to provide any assistance but could carry out enforcement. 

Councillor Dhindsa then referred to a new scrap metal business in Vicarage Ward.  He asked whether the business had a licence.  In addition he enquired whether the Ward Councillors should have been informed about the application.

The Environmental Health and Licensing Section Head advised that the Councillor may be referring to a planning issue.  The licence was related to the operation of the premises and not if it was in the appropriate location.  She suggested that the Councillor could contact planning to ask whether planning permission had been granted.  The Senior Environmental Crime Officer added that the scrap metal licence was in place, the operator was fully compliant. 

Councillor Dhindsa referred to the Red Lion Pub in Vicarage Road, which was located opposite Watford Football ground.  He said that the hedges were unsightly and overgrown.

The Senior Environmental Crime Officer explained that officers were in contact with the liquidator responsible for the property.  Some issues had been resolved, mainly within the premises; he was waiting to hear how the remaining matters would be resolved.  If the hedges were overhanging the public footpath this could be referred to the County Council’s highways team.

Councillor Taylor asked about partnership working, particularly with the Police.  He questioned whether Councillors and residents should contact the Police on 101 about fly tipping or the Council. 

The Environmental Crime Officer responded that the Council did work closely with the Police, who often referred cases to the Council.  The Council provided them with feedback on cases they had reported.  Officers met Police representatives at the Anti-Social Behaviour Action Group and regularly discussed cases.

The Environmental Health and Licensing Section Head suggested that if the issue was anti social behaviour or if the witness could see an offender in the act of committing the offence they should call the Police but for other issues it was best to contact the Council.  She asked Councillors to ensure that they contacted the service via the Customer Service Centre and not directly to the individual officers.  If Members emailed officers direct and officers were unavailable due to leave there could be a delay on any action being taken.

The Chair suggested that this information should be conveyed to all Councillors through the Members’ Bulletin.

Councillor Taylor asked whether Watford Community Housing Trust worked effectively with the team.  The Environmental Health and Licensing Section Head advised that there was a mixed response; the performance varied.  The Senior Environmental Crime Officer added that generally there was a good working relationship with Estates Officers and some of them reacted straight away.

In response to a question from Councillor Taylor about response times, particularly at Christmas, the Environmental Health and Licensing Section Head advised that the team consisted of two officers, in addition the Town Hall was closed over the Christmas period.  If the waste was located on public land the case was referred to Veolia.  She acknowledged that there were occasions when some cases were not responded to within 24 hours.  She stated that as long as the matter was logged on to the system the waste would get picked up. 

Following a question from Councillor Bell, the Senior Environmental Crime Officer advised the Scrutiny Committee that in the first instance the call should be logged through the Customer Service Centre.  Officers would investigate the matter and then refer it on to the Housing Trust. 

The Environmental Crime Officer explained that officers met representatives from the various local housing associations at the Anti-Social Behaviour Action Group once a month. 

The Chair noted that when officers were having to deal with fly tipped material on private land it took them away from problems on public land.  She asked whether there was any action officers could take.

The Environmental Health and Licensing Section Head responded that the issue was enforcement.  The Housing Trust did not have the enforcement powers granted to the local authority.  There was also the matter of ‘chain of evidence’.  At one stage officers had had support from street cleaners, who would look through the waste material for evidence.  The Council had to prove the liability of the person ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’.  Issues arose if the waste was not inspected by the Environmental Crime Officers.  The service worked with individuals and land owners to stop repeat fly tipping incidents, for example through the introduction of CCTV and signage.

The Chair thanked the officers for their informative presentation.

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.