Agenda item

To receive the Task Group’s report and recommendations following scrutiny of the Partnership Enviro Crime Enforcement Contract (report of the Partnership Scrutiny Task Group enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Partnership Scrutiny Task Group which asked the Performance Monitoring Panel to receive the Task Group’s report and recommendations following scrutiny of the Partnership Enviro Crime Enforcement Contract.

The Chairman of the Partnership Task Group, Councillor E Mossop (East Lindsey District Council), and the Scrutiny and Policy Officer attended virtually to present the report. The item was also supported by attendance at the meeting from the Assistant Director – Regulatory and the SHDC Portfolio Holder for Public Protection.

Councillor Mossop introduced the report and highlighted the following main points:

• Members of the task group had been drawn from across the partnership area with the majority of appointed members attending every session;
• Appointed members were thanked for their input and major contributions had been received from SHDC Performance Monitoring Panel members Cllr Barnes and Cllr Woolf;
• The report of the Task and Finish was at Appendix A which outlined the following:
  • Participants: including Task Group membership, officers, the contractor (Kingdom) and other guest witnesses;
  • Background and context: notably that the partnership contract agreed in 2022 had grown from an existing Enviro Crime contract set up by Boston Borough Council and to this effect,  members acknowledged that Boston Borough Council had taken a lead and key role;
  • Key facts and information of the contract;
  • Research and evidence gathering;
  • Task Group review and analysis; and
  • Recommendations: including police support, community engagement, publicity, consistency of advice and working methods, level of Fixed Penalty Notices, improved use of covert CCTV and contract sustainability; and
• The agreed Project Scoping document was at Appendix B.

Cllr Mossop summarised the task group’s findings by stating that the contract had provided results however it was recognised that future improvements in performance could be achieved.

Task Group member Councillor Barnes stated that:

• The task group discussions had been in depth;
• Boston was leading the way with a dedicated officer to publicise the contract and an alignment of working practices would be beneficial to SHDC and ELDC;
• The Fixed Penalty Notices needed to align across districts; and
• The pairing up of contract workers limited the areas that could be patrolled and impacted negatively on rural areas. Nonetheless, Kingdom had confirmed that dual staffing was in place for safety reasons in South Holland as the police were not able to provide support should a problem be encountered.

Task Group member Councillor Andrew Woolf stated that:

• The aspect of whether councils were receiving ‘best value’ had been questioned;
• The high turnover of contract staff was identified and the challenges relating to the required tasks were acknowledged;
• Members had suggested that Kingdom provided job specific training for new employees rather than induction training being carried out by council staff;
• There was a requirement for the contract staff to be active and visible in the wider reaches of the district;
• The main findings were that:
  • Community education and engagement would lead to prevention;
  • That Boston had benefitted significantly from a dedicated individual. Could a resource be in place/shared with South Holland and East Lindsey?; and
  • Alignment of practices and charges needed to be in place for conformity across the partnership; and
• Gratitude was also expressed for Cllr Mossop for his excellent Chairing of the task group.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Some members expressed agreement that the Fixed Penalty Notice charges for South Holland be aligned with Boston. It was anticipated that the impact of a maximum £1000 fine would serve as a deterrent for perpetrators and provide an incentive to Kingdom in respect of resources due to the financial arrangements of the contract.

• Members queried whether the task group were satisfied that fly tipping had been given prominence. Fly tipping had become a persistent problem and often resulted from perpetrators travelling to the district from outside of local authority boundaries. Were plans afoot to utilise covert surveillance and would this have any GDPR implications.
  • Councillor Mossop responded that:
    • The subject of fly tipping had been a strong investigation area for the task group;
    • Both Kingdom and council officers had reported that significant resources were required to deal with prevention and the identification of perpetrators; and
    • The task group had therefore stressed the need for community education and engagement, easy reporting systems and effective teams and had recommended a negotiation with Kingdom for increased support.
  • The Assistant Director – Regulatory responded that:
    • Assurance was given that fly tipping had been central to the scrutiny process and that the task group recommendations had reflected how the council could make improvements to detection and enforcement;
    • Fly tipping had reduced by 13 per cent over the course of the Kingdom contract to date however a sustained trend was sought to evidence the contract worth;
    • The recommendations from the task group were supported and would drive improvements;
    • Regarding covert surveillance, the council was required to demonstrate to the courts that the utilisation of covert surveillance was proportionate, and that prior to this, the utilisation of overt surveillance had been exhausted in the seeking of a resolution;
    • The required process to obtain magistrate approval prior to the utilisation of covert surveillance was resource intense. The task group had recommended that upon the Enviro Crime Enforcement contract renewal, additional support from Kingdom be negotiated to assist with the judicial process for the undertaking of such covert surveillance activity;
  • The Portfolio Holder for Public Protection added that:
    • The positioning of cameras in rural locations posed challenges, nonetheless two overt cameras had acted as a deterrent to fly tipping activity;
    • Fly tip fines were to be increased however the application of a single Fixed Penalty Charge for fly tipping, in his view, did not proportionately distinguish between the size and circumstances of each case;
    • He had accompanied the Kingdom staff on rural patrols and confirmed that the contractors had not confined these to Spalding; and
    • The pairing up of Kingdom staff for patrols occurred mainly during training and prosecution activities.

• Members had received feedback from a resident who had been advised that a recording of a dog fouling incident had not been admissible as evidence towards a report. The resident had been advised that contact with the perpetrator had been required and a name and address obtained to be submitted with the report. This had acted as a disincentive for the reporting of further witnessed incidents.
  • The Assistant Director – Regulatory responded that:
    • Evidence and identification were needed for action to be taken and therefore a photo of the incident and a statement from the individual making the report would be admissible;
    • Engagement with relevant partners and the press could follow to assist with the identification of the offender; and
    • On the provision of details from the relevant ward member, the specific incident mentioned would be followed up outside of the meeting.
  • Members responded that this matter had stressed the importance of the task group recommendation 2 in respect of improved communication and engagement to assist with the reporting of enviro crimes to Councils.

• Members stated that the opening hours of the Spalding Recycling Centre posed a potential issue in respect of fly tipping however there was recognition that the centre did not accept commercial waste.

• Members agreed to add a recommendation that the council ensured that sufficient resources be in place within the service to undertake the work outlined within the recommendations.

AGREED:

a)     That the report at Appendix A be noted;

b)     That the associated recommendations be agreed; and

c)     That an additional recommendation be included that the council ensured that sufficient resources were in place to undertake the recommendations.