Issue - meetings

That the Panel consider this report which provides a review of the implementation of the Partnership Litter and Fly-Tipping Engagement and Enforcement Strategy which was approved in February 2023  (report of the Assistant Director – Regulatory enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Regulatory  which asked the Panel to consider a review of the implementation of the Partnership Litter and Fly-Tipping Engagement and Enforcement Strategy which was approved in February 2023.

The Group Manager – Public Protection and the Portfolio Holder for Public Protection were in attendance for the item.

The Group Manager – Public Protection introduced the report which detailed:

·       The impact and performance monitoring of the enviro-crime contract awarded to Kingdom;

·       The Litter and Fly-Tipping Engagement and Enforcement Strategy 2023 at Appendix A; and

·       The Litter and Fly-Tipping Engagement and Enforcement Strategy Action Plan 2023 at Appendix B

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members noted that SHDC had obtained one prosecution for fly-tipping and queried how this compared with Boston Borough Council (BBC) and East Lindsey District Council (ELDC).
  • The Group Manager – Public Protection responded that:
    • Prosecutions fell into two categories:
      • Direct prosecutions, which required evidence and a court process; and
      • Through the issue of fixed penalty notices, after which the matter was considered settled unless they remained unpaid in which case prosecution may follow.
    • Regarding comparisons with BBC and ELDC in 2022/23:
      • BBC reported 10 prosecutions which reflected targeted enforcement by the use of surveillance cameras at known fly-tipping ‘hot spots’ at recycling points; and
      • ELDC had not recorded any prosecutions for that period.
  • The Portfolio Holder for Public Protection stated that the enviro-crime contract with Kingdom had led to an increase in fixed penalty notices and was working well.

• Members asked whether the act of urinating was considered a littering offence.
  • The Group Manager – Public Protection responded that the act of urinating and spitting was legally classified as a littering offence. A pragmatic approach to prosecutions would be taken which would be dependent on the circumstances.

• Members queried the penalties that applied for the dropping of chewing gum and any prevention measures that could be taken.
  • The Group Manager – Public Protection responded that:
    • A fine of £150 for littering could be imposed where such offence had been witnessed;
    • Involvement in national campaigns could be sought, such as through Keep Britain Tidy;
    • Public Protection worked closely with Environmental Services to focus on identified key issues; and
    • SHDC communication campaigns could also focus on the issue.

• Members noted the Dog Fouling Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) included in the Action Plan for 2024/2025, and queried when and where the public consultation would take place; in addition, there appeared to be a lack of public knowledge that dog waste could be placed in general rubbish bins, and therefore could relevant information be placed on the bins.
  • The Group Manager – Public Protection responded that:
    • Discussions would be made with Environmental Services regarding information stickers for bins;
    • The Dog Fouling PSPO would be district-wide and patrols would concentrate on high footfall areas, and where intelligence was received by ward members or members of the public;
    • The PSPO needed to follow a statutory process including a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54