Agenda item

Officers from Environment Services and Community Protection will be in attendance to provide the Panel with information in relation to:-

 

·        Current education programmes on recycling, litter and fly-tipping.

·        Environmental enforcement, including the activity undertaken by the Council and the legal framework it must operate within; penalties and interventions available particularly linked to recycling, littering and fly-tipping.

 

Recommendation: That the information provided be noted.

S Garside, Environmental Sustainability Manager, and C Coverdale, Environment Services Manager, were in attendance to provide Members with further information in relation to current environmental education programmes, particularly in relation to recycling.

 

In previous meetings reference had been made to behavioural change with a view to implementing fresh ideas and discussions were ongoing with experts in this field to develop a plan to be rolled out throughout 2024 to engage with residents to increase recycling and minimise waste.

 

The Panel was informed that the Environmental Sustainability Manager worked with a range of services, groups and individuals in order to encourage as many people as possible to target areas with low recycling rates and/or high levels of contaminated recycling, including:-

 

·        Cumbria Waste Recycling Plant – weekly sampling was undertaken to see the recycling materials being deposited and establishing which areas or wards within Middlesbrough needed to be targeted by letter drops providing advice on recycling. 

 

·        Marketing and Communications Team - posting on social media to promote recycling and providing advice on the materials that should not be recycled.  This had gathered momentum more recently.

 

·        Refuse Crews – checking bins, etc, engaging with residents and explaining why bins were being checked and providing advice on recycling.

 

·        Eco groups and Schools – attending assemblies to engage children in how to help recycle and around not dropping litter.

 

·        ‘Wash and squash’ roadshows delivered in community hubs, bus station, local shopping centres.

 

It was essential to engage with as many people as possible to have conversations and answer questions around what could and could not be recycled to encourage recycling and cut down on contamination rates.

 

Part of the conversation that had been taking place with Nudge was around how best to communicate with residents and how to ensure everyone was clear as to what could be placed in each bin at home for kerbside collection.  In the near future the Environmental Services Manager would be going out in a van to spread the message.  This would enable greater flexibility to speak to more people in multiple locations on a regular basis and would also target areas with low recycling rates.  The overall aim was to make recycling the ‘social norm’.

 

A Panel Member queried whether recycling rates were available for each ward in order to know which wards needed to improve.  It was highlighted that some wards did not have the ability to achieve high recycling rates as some did not have gardens and some had back alleys which operated on a different system.  In addition, some wards with low recycling rates could have particular areas/streets with good recycling rates.  For example, there had been an issue recently with high contamination rates in one particular area but refuse crews had worked with environmental enforcement and the Environmental Sustainability Manager who had gone out into the community to resolve the issue and this had been achieved through collaborative working.

 

In response to a query the Environmental Sustainability Manager stated that she would welcome additional support on the ground through volunteers.  Additional resources had been offered through volunteers at Climate Action Middlesbrough who were assisting with some of the more time-consuming tasks such as checking bins with the refuse crews, placing bin stickers on those that were contaminated, liaising with the driver to record the bin number etc.  Once a sticker had been placed on a bin to notify the resident it would not be emptied due to contamination, the bin would not be emptied and the resident would be issued with a letter and leaflet explaining why and what they needed to do.  They could request a visit from the Environmental Sustainability Manager if they wished.

 

It was acknowledged that there would always be a small minority of people who would just not recycle but many were genuinely unsure of what they needed to do and required a little bit of guidance.  It might be a simple as turning the message round to say what could not be recycled.

 

Reference was made to food waste collections and it was highlighted that this was likely to be introduced in 2026 in Middlesbrough due to awaiting funding from central government to introduce the system.  For the Council to implement collections earlier than 2026, it would need to fund the system itself and this would be at a significant cost to the Council.  The Environmental Sustainability Manager added that part of her role was also to help reduce food waste by providing advice on meal planning and how to plan food shopping accordingly to reduce food being wasted.

 

Environmental Enforcement

 

D Metcalfe, Operational Community Safety Manager, was in attendance at the meeting to provide the Panel with further information in relation to environmental enforcement activity and the interventions and penalties available within the legal framework.

 

The Panel was advised that a few years ago, environmental enforcement activity had been minimal until environment staff were co-located with Community Safety staff under the management of the Operational Community Safety Manager.  Investment in the service had resulted in the creation of a ‘flying squad’ (to ensure fly tipping could be investigated quickly); increased enforcement activity and consequences, including an increase in prosecutions for serious cases and major improvements in tackling fly tipping. 

 

Between 2017-2020 there had been three prosecutions made in Middlesbrough for environmental offences.  In 2021-2022 this had increased to 63 fixed penalties notices or Court proceedings in relation to environmental offences.  This year, to date, there had been 52 Fixed Penalty Notices/Court proceedings.  It was highlighted that fly tipping was a criminal offence, not a civil matter and in more serious or persistent cases it was not appropriate to issue a fixed penalty notice.

 

As part of the Government’s Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan, there had been recent changes in legislation to increase Fixed Penalty fines.  This included:-

 

·        The maximum amount those who were caught fly-tipping could be fined would increase from £400 to £1,000.

·        The maximum amount those who were caught littering or graffitiing could be fined would increase from £150 to £500.

·        The maximum amount those who breached their household waste duty of care could be fined would increase from £400 to £600.

 

It was believed that an increase in the fixed penalty amounts would play a role in the decrease of prosecutions, however, fines needed to be proportionate to the offence.

 

The Panel was informed that waste presentation, eg bins being left out for collection on the wrong day, leaving out side waste, etc, had been decriminalised but was the biggest issue reported to the environmental enforcement team.  This year, to date, 400 Section 46 warning notices, 160 second (follow up) letters and five fixed penalty notices had been issued in respect of this matter. This was purely in relation to how the bin(s) were presented and not about the contents.  Prior to 2018, fines could be issued in respect of this, however, it was no longer an option.

 

During discussion, the following issues were raised:-

 

·        In response to a question regarding payment of FPNs, the Panel heard that there was a collection rate of approximately 70%, meaning that the majority of fines were paid.  Middlesbrough was the leading local authority in the Tees Valley for enforcement action taken in relation to environmental offences.

 

·        Reference was made to the cost of prosecutions.  It was stated that there was a cost of approximately £225 per matter plus officers’ time.  Even if the Council was successful in prosecuting, it did not always recoup the cost of taking the person to court and the sanctions imposed were out of the Council’s control and imposed by the Court.  It was confirmed that the monies received via a fixed penalty were retained by the Council.  For serious offences (for example, dumping of asbestos), criminal proceedings would be the most appropriate course of action.

 

·        In serious cases where vehicles had been used in relation to environmental offences, such as fly-tipping, there was sometimes an opportunity to seize the vehicle through a Forfeiture Order.  A more recent example of this was provided whereby, in accordance with legislation, a vehicle used for serious fly tipping offences had been seized and valued at around £14,000.  The vehicle was repurposed and was now used by the flying squad.

 

·        In response to a query, it was highlighted that investigation for criminal proceedings was time intensive and it could take up to 18 months for cases to reach Court.

 

·        It was queried whether the enforcement team was aware of individuals travelling from other areas of the town, or from outside of Middlesbrough, to fly-tip in particular areas.  It was noted that, through the correct procedures, some cameras had been installed in alleyways where fly tipping had been identified.  Some of those who had been caught were from outside of that ward area.  However, one of the biggest problems was unlicensed waste carriers.  These were generally individuals with a van who charged people to take away their rubbish, but then dumped it illegally.  In such cases where illegal dumping was identified and traced back to the resident, the resident - as well as the illegal waste carrier - could be prosecuted.  Residents could be fined up to £600 for using illegal waste carriers.

 

·        It was queried what policies were in place in respect of alleyways.  The Panel was informed that alleys were cleansed on a five-day cycle with one regime for all alleys, however, the Council was looking to implement a revised system as rubbish collection and cleansing were currently fragmented.  It was acknowledged that there were complexities around alleyways in terms of ownership as some were owned by the Council and others were owned by the adjacent properties.

 

·        It was queried whether there were any policies or procedures in place that were hindering waste management, such as booking places at the household waste recycling facility.  Members were advised that there had been some restrictions during covid, however, same day bookings could be made and whilst only one time slot could be booked at a time, further slots could be booked one the same day once you had completed your previous visit.  Multiple bookings had been ceased due to some people booking out several hours which they did not need and preventing others from using the facility.

 

The Panel thanked the officers for attending and the information provided.

 

AGREED that the information provided be noted and considered in the context of the Scrutiny Panel’s current review topic.