Decision details
PH-002-21 Littering and PSPO Enforcement
PDF 114 KBDecision Maker: Portfolio Holder for Communities
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: Yes
Purpose:
To formally approve the decision to use a private contractor to strengthen the Council’s enforcement of Littering and various Public Space Protection Orders (Town Centre and Dog Control, Alcohol DPPO’s) across the borough.
Decision:
To formally approve the decision to use a private contractor to strengthen the Council’s enforcement of Littering and various Public Space Protection Orders (Town Centre and Dog Control, Alcohol DPPO’s) across the borough.
Reasons for the decision:
Increasingly local authorities nationwide are turning to this model of enforcement to manage their PSPO’s. For example, Bedford Council has been operating this model for several years, and over that period has seen the number of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) issued increase from 450 to 4,000 pa, split 70:30 between littering and PSPO breaches.
The Bedford contractor provides four officers and one team leader exclusively for their PSPO and littering enforcement. Their financial model is based on income share rather than a contractual payment from the Council. The financial risk sits with the contractor who, as a result of their due diligence, must be confident that there is sufficient income share to be gained from FPNs to cover their requirements before submitting a bid.
Currently the Council assigns four high profile enforcement events per year for the enforcement of PSPOs’ in the town centre. The other areas are targeted in response to complaints. The proposed model is a more proactive approach to enforcement, intended to bring about sustainable behavioural change across the borough.
The overarching aim is to deliver a service to the council, become a partner to DBC, educate the community to deter environmental crime with daily intelligence led patrols and show a reduction in PSPO, littering, dog fouling and other related complaints.
Initial discussions between officers and potential service providers suggests that the service could generate an annual revenue of £216,330.00 and cost a contractor £187,202.41 to deliver the service, which is a significant investment. The contractor will collect all FPN income using internet, automated telephone, cash (Post Office and PayZone) and manual payment via their operational support team.
The contractor would retain 95% of the generated income and guarantee DBC a service which will be a zero cost to the council and a predicted annual revenue to DBC of £10,816.00. The contractor anticipates a total of 3,848 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) will be issued over the course of the year.
The contract would also offer/facilitate a number of value-added extra benefits, which could compliment the work carried out by the Environmental Enforcement Team.
In summary DBC will be provided with the following;
1. Environmental Awareness in Schools and Colleges
2. Poster Competitions
3. School Litter Champions
4. Supporting Community Projects
5. Litter picking days in the community (NES Team)
6. Educational Leaflets
7. Bin it to win it Campaign
8. Stubbi Pouches and Bio-Degradable Dog Bags
9. Participation in neighbourhood action and parish council meetings
Next steps
The next step would be to put together a tender for the contract initially for the period of one year. We can then use the data from the first year to review the Public Space Protection Orders in July 2022.
Publication date: 11/01/2021
Date of decision: 11/01/2021
Effective from: 19/01/2021
This decision has been called in by:
- Councillor Adrian England who writes I want to call-in this decision, on the basis of Article 12 “Principles of decision making”, d) and h). PRINCIPLES OF DECISION MAKING (a) The decision must be reasonable within the common meaning of the word, i.e. it must be a rational decision based on sound judgement; (d) The decision must be proportionate (i.e. the action should be proportionate to the desired outcome); (h) When making decisions a presumption in favour of openness must be applied and a clarity of aims and desired outcomes must be displayed; "
- Councillor Rick Freedman who writes I feel incentivising a private contractor to generate revenue from residents is unreasonable and disproportionate, as well as committing the council far beyond what our stated objectives are. (If a problem is so irregular that we need to bring in a private contractor to locate it, then we should always have the option to cease the contract once we feel the problem doesn’t affect us anymore.) Privatising enforcement, especially when we incentivise the enforcers, will undoubtedly lead to corruptions and falsified allegations of infringement against our residents. Per the constitution, and in particular the principals of decision making, this action directly contravenes part a) (reasonableness) , d) (proportionate), and h) (the goals and objectives of this decision are unclear and contentious). "
- Councillor Stephen Claughton who writes I should like to request call-in of the Portfolio Holder decision: Littering PSPO Enforcement Final Version FH 30.12.20. In my view, incentivising a private contractor to generate revenue from residents is unreasonable and disproportionate, as well as committing the Council far beyond its stated objectives. Privatising enforcement, especially when we incentivise the enforcers, will undoubtedly risk the danger of false allegations of infringement being made against our residents. This action directly contravenes the following parts of Article 12, “Principles of Decision Making”: (a) reasonableness, (d) proportionality and (h) the goals and objectives of this decision being unclear and contentious. "
- Councillor William Allen who writes I would like to call in this decision because I feel it is unacceptable to incentivise private profit through enforcement. As such, the proposal is in breach of the constitution’s principles of decision-making part a) (reasonableness) , d) (proportionate), and h) (the goals and objectives of this decision are unclear and contentious). Moreover, there is a history of Dacorum PSPO’s being ineffective because of difficulty of enforcement (incentivised or otherwise). "
- Councillor Liz Uttley who writes I want to call-in this decision, on the basis of Article 12 “Principles of decision making”, d) and h). It seems that incentivising a private contractor to generate revenue from residents is unreasonable and disproportionate, as well as committing the council far beyond what our stated objectives are. (If a problem is so irregular that we need to bring in a private contractor to locate it, then we should always have the option to cease the contract once we feel the problem doesn’t affect us anymore.) Privatising enforcement, especially when we incentivise the enforcers, risks leading to corruptions and falsified allegations of infringement against our residents. Per the constitution, and in particular the principals of decision making, this action directly contravenes part a) (reasonableness) , d) (proportionate), and h) (the goals and objectives of this decision are unclear and contentious). "
- Councillor Sammy Barry-Mears who writes on the basis of Article 12 “Principles of decision making”, d) and h).I am calling this in due to the fact that it is entirely unreasonable and therefore disproportionate to incentivise a private contractor to generate revenue from residents"
Accompanying Documents: