Agenda item

The report was taken as read, though several points were highlighted.  Over 1,500 abandoned vehicles had been reported, resulting in 45 vehicles being removed and destroyed.  The Abandoned Vehicle Policy released in 2021 had improved understanding among officers and vehicle owners alike. 

On crime, a marked increase in fly-tipping had been seen in comparison to the previous year.  There had also been several operational difficulties owing to an increase in drug related fly-tipping, use of hired vehicles, and court no-shows.  59 waste crime FPNs had been issued, with a total of 4 prosecutions.  Dacorum Borough Council continued to be a leading authority within Hertfordshire in this domain and maintained a good working relationship with court authorities. 

Deployment targets were in place for each ward.

To clarify a point in relation to the earlier question from Cllr Timmis, it was made clear that drug-related fly tipping involved cannabis, rather than drugs requiring the use of sharps.

The report was noted, and the floor was opened to questions.

Cllr Timmis was disheartened to see the increase in fly-tipping, and particularly drug-related fly-tipping, and especially in the north part of the district which was Cllr Timmis’ ward of Wapping.  Cllr Timmis was surprised not to have been informed of this previously.  She also remarked on the number of court no-shows and wished to see greater action taken by the police given the destructive and criminal impact of fly-tipping.  In response, it was stressed that Dacorum Borough Council, police authorities and other authorities north of the Hertfordshire border were working to curb the local increase in fly-tipping. 

EWalker asked Cllr Timmis whether she had any suggestions as to specific actions she would like to see.  In response, Cllr Timmis highlighted that 2 individuals prosecuted for fly-tipping had been caught thanks to covert surveillance.  Increased police presence and advertisement of surveillance as a stronger deterrent were also recommended.  It was also added that Dacorum was working closely with Luton authorities to ensure that further action was taken.  EWalker pointed out that the number of covert cameras had been increased in recent times, along with authorisation to place these in areas identified as hotspots.  EWalker however pointed out the difficulty of catching individuals given the unpredictable nature of the crime.  Efforts were also being made to influence local police authorities to encourage police presence, though DBC could not direct police agencies, who themselves had resource issues.  EWalker also commented on the costs associated with court cases and also theft of camera equipment and the need for sufficient resources for the camera footage to be perused.  It was also highlighted that 12 fixed penalty notices had been issued last year which was a proportionate response and allowed the avoidance of court proceedings.

Cllr England commented that cigarette waste was still above 95% of all litter, and hoped to see this figure drop below 80% by September.  Cllr England said “At the last SPaE, Chair Cllr Birnie had expressed his disappointment that the report did not include information about complaints being reviewed, stating that the public should not feel persecuted and they should know how many complaints are received. It was noted that this level of detail would be provided as part of the Q4 report.” Cllr England asked if officers could be more specific, and “Will you have a picture in detail at the end of the pilot?“

Ben Steven replied that It differs greatly, urban/rural and by footfall and the would have a detailed picture at the end of the pilot.

Cllr Foster requested further information on the education package discussed in the report, and particularly which schools were involved.  In response, it was explained that one package targeted primary schools.  However, there was a more correlated littering issue with secondary schools, and so presentations were planned to be delivered to a range of schools.  Further documentation could be provided on this.  A pack was distributed to the education awareness team, who would visit schools to deliver a presentation and involve pupils in activities. 

Cllr Foster then asked whether information was available outlining when and where district enforcement had patrolled.

On the topic of abandoned vehicles, the Chair commented that 1,508 were closed without a removal necessary.  The Chair then suggested that more work could be done to educate the public about reporting such cases.  In response, it was highlighted that automated letters were being devised.

The Chair appreciated that there was collaboration with landowners to improve the service yards.  It was added that a concerted effort had been made to identify and engage with private landowners, particularly around waste accumulations and uncontained commercial waste.  Work was also being done to place the onus on the landowners to carry out any required clear-ups, along with regular inspections and visits from DBC.  It was added that a number of partnership meetings had been held on this subject, with other local organisations involved in visiting and inspecting sites.

The Chair then asked why some PSPOs appeared in brackets in the report.  This was erroneous and would be remedied.  It was also commented that one PSPO had been issued to an individual for dropping a sweet wrapper.  Investigation would be carried out to ascertain why a littering notice was not instead served to this individual.

On a further query from the Chair, it was clarified that the figure provided was a cumulative sum of the fines across all individuals, but that this was not distributed evenly between all 9 recipients of the fines.

Cllr England asked what happened to the 19% of FPNs that were not paid.  In response, it was explained that these remained in the system and, should they not be paid, further warnings and eventually prosecutions would be served.

Cllr England then asked whether there was any information on complaints reviewed by district enforcement.  In response, it was pointed out that only one such complaint had been received.

EWalker explained asked if Cllr England was referring to complaints about district enforcement or representations about fixed penalty notices.

Cllr England referred to Cllr Birnies previous point that he was disappointed that the report did not include information about complaints being reviewed.

EWalker confirmed that they had only received one to date and that had gone to the officer.

EWalker then summarised a report in relation to the upcoming expiry of the PSPO on dog control, explaining the significance of this and outlining the various options available. 

A consultation had been conducted in March 2022 on various public restrictions in relation to dog control.  An overwhelming majority of survey participants supported the proposed PSPOs. 

A significant number of requests had been received in the previous year in relation to dog behaviour, and a number of FPNs had been served. 

The report also outlined that the legal requirements for continuing the PSPO were required, and there was evidence that dog control related issues remained a public problem and there was justification for the PSPO to be continued, with some exceptions regarding particular local facilities.

Cllr England expressed disappointment with the questioning style used in the survey in relation to the above PSPO, opining that the survey had been designed to lead respondents to support the continuation of the PSPO.  It was then suggested that there was insufficient evidence that the current PSPO was proportionate to the scale of the problem, though Cllr England was in support of the continuation of a PSPO in relation to dog control.  In response, EWalker pointed out that there was likely underreporting of incidences related to dog control, and that in any case the PSPO was intended as a deterrent rather than a stick with which to strike responsible dog owners.  Cllr England then rephrased his comment to clarify that his challenge was in relation to the tone of the survey, which in his view overstated the problem related to dog control.  He also opined that some of the rules underpinning the PSPO were unreasonable and might be made less stringent.  In response, Cllr Banks pointed out that she did not recognise Cllr England’s comments.  She expressed her support of the PSPO and felt that the residents of Dacorum deserved to be protected by it.  She also outlined several testimonies from local residents.  In addition, Cllr Foster suggested that the National Trust may be approached to reconsider their previous decision to exclude certain land from the PSPO. 

EWalker replied that the National Trust were consulted as part of the latest report, and correspondence from the organisation was still being awaited.  Cllr Foster also drew attention to the issue of some dog owners walking more dogs than they were able to control, sometimes up to ten dogs at a time.  EWalker highlighted that more consultation was required on the exact figure that would be chosen as the maximum number of dogs to be walked at a time, along with other considerations.  Cllr Timmis acknowledged that many dog owners were responsible, though some weren’t, and the deterrent of the PSPO was hoped to convince the latter group to be more responsible.  Cllr Wyatt-Lowe opined that Cllr England’s insinuation that the survey was leading was an unjustified one, and urged all councillors to support this policy which was backed by considerable public support.  Cllr Hearn added that the report was very well-written and congratulated its authors. 

In response to a comment from Cllr England that the rule that people with dogs must maintain a 3-metre distance from an unfenced play area was unreasonable, Cllr Stevens pointed out that most children’s play areas in Dacorum were fenced.  Cllr Stevens added that the 3-metre rule appeared not to be well-advertised, and asked that notices be placed in unfenced areas, particularly in Mill Street. 

The Chair asked whether individual by-laws could be devised in relation to the maximum number of dogs that any one person could walk at a time.  EWalker pointed out that this was possible, though further research and consultation was required to establish the exact maximum number.  It was added that several concerns had been raised by the public in relation to the number of dogs being walked by some individuals.  Another option was to look at licensing schemes.  To summarise, the Chair pointed out the difficulty of striking a balance between ensuring responsibility among dog owners, while minimising inconvenience to businesses that provided dog-walking services.  Lastly, Cllr Hearn had asked officers to examine the option of a dedicated dog park where owners could take dogs off their lead, as a positive balance to restrictions elsewhere.

The PSPO report was noted.