Agenda item
Tackling Illegal Rubbish Dumping on Non-Council Land
This report outlines the challenges the Council faces when dealing with illegally dumped rubbish on private land and explores the scope and potential of tackling the issue of dumped rubbish – in particular mattresses through electronic tagging.
Minutes:
Councillor Krupa Sheth (Lead Member for Environment) introduced the report detailing the challenges faced by the council when dealing with illegal dumped rubbish non-council land. Simon Finney (Head of Neighbourhood Management) was also in attendance to address the committee’s queries. Members heard that the Council’s approach to tackling illegal rubbish dumping both on Council and non-council owned land consisted mainly of a three pronged approach: education & engagement, to address people’s behaviour; enforcement, including reactive and proactive enforcement and investigative activity; and, clearance of the land. With regard to the latter element, the council’s clean-up remit did not extend to non-council owned land and the responsibility for keeping private land clean and tidy rested with the owner. As a consequence, the council utilised powers under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act to issue Community Protection Notices (CPNs) requiring the owner to clear their land. This legislation also permitted the council to clear the land through works in default with a subsequent land charge added to the property or through a court order when owners were not responsive. In a minority of cases, it could be difficult to determine ownership of land. In such cases officers would work closely with Neighbourhood Managers and the community to try and address the issue through voluntary clean ups or by other means. For some sites, these challenges could not be resolved and the council had a small budget set aside to clear these and subsequently focus enforcement activity to prevent further rubbish dumping. Simon Finney emphasised that the investigative process which sought to establish the perpetrators of illegal rubbish dumping was the same for both council-owned and privately owned land.
The report before the committee also explored: the use of technology to underpin an intelligence led approach; developments regarding extended producer responsibility; and, the council’s use of waste tagging. Addressing the issue of illegally dumped mattresses, it was concluded that any methodology to track mattresses to ensure owner responsibility would need to be supported by legislated processes to be effective. However, it was anticipated that strides made towards extended producer responsibly would have an impact on the overall volume of illegally dumped mattresses in Brent.
The Chair thanked the Lead Member and Officers for the introduction to the report and subsequently invited questions from the committee.
Members queried whether the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) had been explored to address those small pockets of land where persistent illegal rubbish dumping occurred. It was queried how the council addressed issues with domestic properties, whether the council encouraged a zero tolerance approach, and how the council engaged with communities on this matter. Members sought further details of the work regarding Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and landlord licensing with respect to the issue of illegal rubbish dumping. It was queried how members of the public could identify who owned land. The committee highlighted the importance of clear pictorial guides illustrating the council’s policy to assist the public in understanding when the council could intervene. Questions were raised regarding the support available to private landowners to prevent illegal rubbish dumping on their land, and to shop keepers regarding illegal rubbish dumping in alleyways behind the commercial premises. It was further queried whether the council monitored whether advice and guidance provided to private landowners was acted upon. Members queried whether land where ownership could not be identified could be gifted to residents to develop communal spaces where appropriate. An update was sought on the communal skips pilot programme. Further information was requested on how closely the council was working with the National Bed Federation. In concluding their questions, Members asked whether the council had responded to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation on reforming the UK packaging producer responsibility system and if this response had been made publically available.
Responding to the issues raised, Simon Finney advised that the use of CPOs to obtain private-owned land where illegal rubbish dumping was a persistent problem had not specifically been explored. However, the council in the past had purchased areas of land where for instance the state of the land represented a health hazard and alternative means to rectify the problem had been unsuccessful. The council relied on Land Registry records to identify ownership and this was available to members of the public via the government’s Land Registry webpages. The council had explored re-securing land where ownership was unclear or sat with the Crown to support residents in bringing these areas back into community use again. In such cases, consideration would be given to development options, current condition and likelihood of deterioration.
Simon Finney further explained that there was set criteria to determine whether a garden constituted an ‘untidy garden’ for the purposes of enforcement action. Where the criteria were met rigorous action could be taken by the council’s enforcement team, which would inspect the premises and issue a CPN or pursue further action through a court process if the owners remained uncooperative. It was understood that this information was made publically available to residents via the council’s website, but subsequent confirmation of this would be provided to the committee. Members reiterated that it was important that this was provided in a clear way and where possible, was supported by examples to illustrate the thresholds for enforcement action.
Members were further informed that the Environment Enforcement Team worked closely with the Housing and Landlord Licensing Teams and there was considerable engagement with landlords, directly and via Veolia’s (the council’s public realm contractor) education and engagement team. Chris Whyte (Operational Director, Environment) confirmed that issues could be more prevalent in HMO properties where residents were required to share bins and there could be high turn-over of tenants. Councillor Krupa Sheth advised that the Neighbourhood Managers and Town Centre Managers worked with shop owners to tackle issues affecting alleyways. Simon Finney added that the Environment Enforcement Team also undertook a lot of work on alleyways which could be hotspots for illegal rubbish dumping. Whilst CCTV was a strong tool, considerable effort was still required to identify the perpetrators. The council actively encouraged alley gating schemes where appropriate and did also have cameras that could be easily installed for surveillance to aid enforcement. Councillor Tatler emphasised that due to the disparate nature of ownership of alleyways, the support provided to residents in addressing illegal rubbish dumping in these alleyways was very much shaped by the circumstances of each case. Chris Whyte added that the advice provided to private landowners often related to securing the area of land with a fence or other barrier to make access difficult and installing cameras. Simon Finney explained that where the council had issued a CPN to a landowner, one of the requirements was for that land to be kept clear and that appropriate protective measures were needed to achieve that. The environmental enforcement team worked closely with landowners in such circumstances and could demonstrate successful outcomes.
Discussing the community skips pilot, Simon Finney confirmed that this had not yet been completed and confirmed that in line with the committee’s request, a full assessment could be provided once completed. Initial findings had shown that enthusiasm had waned a little as the pilot proceeded and there was a risk of undermining both the council’s bulky waste programme and the promotion of the message to re-use items. The programme would be expanded to other areas to further explore its reception and use by residents.
Simon Finney explained that the Environmental Enforcement Team had liaised with the National Bed Federation when undertaking research to support the report before the committee. This was a very useful association to have built links with and their approach to the challenges around recycling beds also focused on producer responsibility. Amar Dave (the Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment) confirmed that the council would respond to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation on reforming the UK packaging producer responsibility system and would make the response publically available.
During the discussion, Members requested that the following information, not available to be shared at the meeting, be circulated to the committee subsequently:
· a review of the community skips pilot, to be provided to the committee when available.
RESOLVED:
The Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee recommended:
i) That the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment, together with the Lead Member for Environment, ensures that the council actively promotes the enforcement action that can be taken by the council with respect to private land, promotes a zero tolerance approach in such circumstances and provides clear information to the public, illustrated with pictorial examples, regarding thresholds for enforcement action.
ii) That the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment ensure that officers identify disused areas of crown land in Brent, vulnerable to illegal rubbish dumping, as a first step to exploring potential improvements to the areas.
iii) That the Environmental Enforcement Team formally monitor the uptake of advice provided to private landowners.
iv) That the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment ensure a response is made to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation on reforming the UK packaging producer responsibility system, to highlight the particular problem of illegal dumping of mattresses, and that response be made public to ensure residents are made aware of the council’s position.
v) That the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment, ensure that a meeting is arranged with the National Bed Foundation to discuss being part of their proposed pilot.
Supporting documents: