APPENDIX 8
Memorandum from the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
This memorandum sets out the response of the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the questions
posed by the Sub-committee concerning local environmental crime.
Local environment crime is taken here to be "in particular,
fly tipping, fly-posting, litter, graffiti, noise and abandoned
cars."
GENERAL
Ministers place great importance on dealing
effectively with local environmental crime and Defra is working
in a number of areas to tackle it within the Department, with
colleagues from other departments with local authorities, and
with NGOs such as ENCAMS. We consider the issues to be important
because they matter to everybody, impact on our communities and
lead to more serious consequences when the problems are left untreated.
Ministers see a poor local environment as part of a continuum
with anti-social behaviour, vandalism and crime which needs a
constructive approach at the local level and are working across
Government to support such an approach.
The impact of this positive approach is demonstrated
by Defra's work over many years in partnership with ENCAMS. A
Voluntary Code of Practice for the Fast Food Industry was developed
by ENCAMS on behalf of the department in response to the growing
problem of fast food litter. This sets out measures, based on
research and pilot experience, to allow all parties to work together
in a mutually supportive partnership, to find local solutions
to local problems. The campaigns that ENCAMS run have also delivered
successful outcomes to reduce local environmental problems—a
recent dog-fouling campaign helped to deliver a 27% reduction
in the problem compared with the previous year. By working closely
with local authorities, ENCAMS has shown that many improvements
can be delivered at a local level without the need for additional
resources by providing more effective, targeted and coordinated
responses to local environmental crime.
Positive steps have also been taken to improve
legislation—following extensive consultation, Defra included
measures to support the work of local authorities in the Anti-social
behaviour Act 2003 and the Local Government Act 2003. Access to
legislation is also now easier following the launch of a website
guide in December 2003.
The work Defra is undertaking on improving the
quality of the local environment, including dealing with local
environmental crime, is part of the wider work Government is undertaking
to improve public space branded under the term "liveability"
and which is coordinated for Government by the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister. It also has close links with the work on environmental
crime carried out by the Anti-social Behaviour Unit of the Home
Office. A number of the issues which are considered in this memorandum
are not within Defra's policy responsibility. These include fly-posting,
which is the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister, and graffiti which is a Home Office responsibility.
This memorandum has therefore been prepared by Defra but in consultation
with other Government Departments. This co-operation characterises
the work Government is doing on "liveability" issues.
QUESTIONS FOR
CONSIDERATION
(i) What is the scale of the impact of these
crimes on the local environment?
The latest survey (2002-03) carried out by ENCAMS
on behalf of Defra[3]
shows that 54% of sites inspected were unsatisfactory and 6% poor.
This means that the majority of our public spaces fail to reach
the standard of local environmental quality that we should expect.
Furthermore, there are few communities where these problems do
not have an impact. The British Crime Survey for 2002-03 found
that a third of people perceived vandalism (35%), and litter (33%),
to be a very or fairly big problem in their area.
On 10 September 2003, The Home Office's Anti-social
Behaviour Unit held a one-day count of anti-social behaviour.
72,080 reports of anti-social behaviour were reported to participating
agencies. This is more than one report every two seconds. Of the
13 categories of anti-social behaviour used for the purposes of
the count, litter/rubbish received the greatest number of reports
(11,785), followed by criminal damage/vandalism (9,017). This
large number of complaints should be interpreted alongside evidence
that reporting rates for vandalism are low (31%). Abandoned vehicles
and noise also received more than 5,000 reports each.
The scale of the impact of local environmental
crimes is significant, since their effect reaches beyond the physical
environment. They impact on the quality of life of those living,
working, socialising, visiting or travelling through an area.
Crimes such as fly-posting or graffiti impact by making an area
feel unwelcoming and increasing the fear of crime. The British
Crime Survey has shown a direct link between perceptions of visible
disorder and fear of crime.
There are also impacts on the economic vibrancy
of a community—investment and tourism are discouraged by
poor environments and people will move to better areas leading
to abandonment and dereliction. Public health is also affected
through pollution and the disincentive to use public space for
walking, cycling and recreation.
Whilst one may consider that local environmental
crimes such as littering are quite minor in isolation, it should
be noted that the cumulative impact is significant. Areas with
litter and weeds and graffiti and fly-posting are intimidating,
unattractive and undermine the sense of community. The "Broken
Windows" theory suggests that a spiral of decline can begin
with one apparently insignificant incident of environmental crime.
A broken window left unmended sends out the message that it is
acceptable to degrade the environment, leading to further environmental
crime, increasing disorder, more serious crime and communities
that are poor in every sense. Zimbardo (1973) observed this process
in New York City where a vehicle deliberately abandoned on the
street was a shell within three days following 23 "incidents
of destructive contact".
Environmental crime such as fly-tipping and
abandoned vehicles can also lead to serious pollution of the environment
and harm to human health, as well as undermining legitimate waste
management businesses activities.
All of the local environmental crimes under
consideration lead to significant costs for those bodies charged
with removing the problem—in most cases this is the local
authority. For each crime in turn:
— Litter—the cost to local authorities
of street cleansing in 2002-03 was £469 million and is estimated
to rise to £492 million for 2003-04.
— Fly-tipping—no national data
on the scale of fly-tipping currently exists. However, the Environment
Agency estimates that there are 50,000 incidents costing up to
£150 million to clear up each year. In 2002, the London Borough
of Lewisham spent over £500,000 cleaning up over 13,000 incidents
(a 50% increase on the previous year). Defra have funded the Environment
Agency to develop a web-based database, to get the first national
picture of the true extent and impact of fly-tipping. This database
is due to go live from April 2004 and will allow local and Central
government to assess the effectiveness of policies and ensure
resource is allocated to the relevant areas.
— Fly-posting—No nationally available
costs for fly posting exist. However, the 2002-03 ENCAMS survey
shows that it occurs overall at 13% of sites surveyed, the most
affected areas being retail and commercial land use. As well as
highly visible posters on buildings, recent years have shown a
marked increase in stickers illegally placed on street furniture.
These can be costly to remove without damaging the furniture and
further difficulties exist when they are sited on furniture that
is not owned by the local authority.
— Noise—the Chartered Institute
of Environmental Health (CIEH) in 2003-04 recorded in England
and Wales 224,502 reported complaints on domestic noise, which
is equivalent to 5,573 per million population. Of this figure,
25,791 were confirmed by Environmental Health Officers as statutory
nuisance. There were 6,469 notices served, 549 prosecutions and
392 convictions. 17,685 complaints were resolved without notices
being served. A MORI study found that 63% of people experience
neighbour noise, and nearly 1 in 3 of the population as a whole
experience annoyance.
On the basis of the anti-social behaviour day
count; the Home Office estimate the cost to responding agencies
of dealing with reports of criminal damage/vandalism and litter/rubbish
on a typical day as more than £5 million.
All of this diverts valuable resources away
from other areas of service delivery. However, these are only
the direct costs—they do not include the indirect cost through
loss of business, vacant housing, additional police time etc.
It is estimated that 3.5% of calls to the Police concern abandoned
vehicles and the police spend an equivalent of 40 police officers
across England and Wales addressing abandoned vehicles.
(ii) Has there been a cultural change in
attitudes to these kinds of crimes and are they being treated
more or less seriously than in the past?
It is not easy to give a definitive answer to
this question. On the one hand, the increase in crimes such as
littering would suggest that people care less about it, or at
least that they are unconcerned as to the consequences. There
is now so much "serious crime" reported in the media
and occupying public attention, that environmental crime, as a
"crime issue", is likely to be trivialised as a result.
This is particularly the case in respect of the irresponsible
disposal of chewing gum, which is an act of littering. Some newspapers
have seized on this issue and sought to trivialise it, not recognising
the significant cost to local authorities in clearing up the problem.
Others in the media have seen gum as a key local issue and their
view appears to have considerable public support Anecdotal evidence
suggests that the cost of removing the staining caused by gum
is over £100 million per year. The matter is therefore anything
but trivial for the majority of local authorities faced with the
problem. Increased travel by car may also de-sensitise people
to the effects of these crimes, although there are increasing
incidents of littering from cars suggesting that some people are
prepared to litter someone else's area rather than their own.
On the other hand, we know that when asked about
those issues that are most in need of improvement in their area,
the public put local environmental quality issues high up the
agenda. A recent MORI report showed that litter and dog-fouling
were frequently cited in the top two or three things that residents
considered important to improve their quality of life. This was
accompanied by a marked fall in the satisfaction with street cleaning
during the past four years. British Crime Survey data also shows
that public perceptions of litter and vandalism as a problem have
increased since the early 1990s.
The continued popularity of "clean-up"
events (such as those facilitated by ENCAMS every year) demonstrates
that many people are unwilling to accept poor quality local environments.
These events are important because the community itself will take
the lead in cleaning up its own area. Taking ownership in this
way can lead to sustained improvements in neighbourhoods because
the residents themselves will not tolerate degradation.
The increasing number of people travelling abroad
has also raised public expectation as holidaymakers experience
higher standards of local environmental quality in many (but not
all) European, North American and Far East destinations.
The Government certainly treats local environmental
quality as a serious issue. An important milestone was the speech
given by the Prime Minister in April 2001, which set the vision
for improvements in the quality of our public space. This led
to the Living Places vision launched at the Urban Summit in October
2002. Recent environmental measures in the Anti-social Behaviour
Act 2003, which commence on 31 March 2004, strengthen and improve
the powers available to local authorities to tackle problems.
At local government level, local environmental
quality is also being taken seriously and there is an appetite
to do more. However, for many authorities progress is currently
hindered by:
— Existing powers that are not straightforward
to use
— Lack of knowledge of powers and/or
experience in using them
— Lack of training in carrying out
effective enforcement
— Lack of political will to take tough
measures to punish, prevent and deter environmental crime
— Poor co-ordination across departments
— Lack of good quality management information
to inform service delivery
On the other hand, it appears that these crimes
are not always taken as seriously as they might be in the Courts,
with inconsistency in sentencing and levels of fines well below
the maximum permitted. This is something that Defra, with support
from the Home Office and ENCAMS, is seeking to address. We are
holding roadshows in each of the nine English regions where we
are bringing together local authorities and local magistrates
in an attempt to improve enforcement action against environmental
crime. We hope that local authorities will be able to demonstrate
to magistrates the difficulties they face if the fines imposed
against environmental crime are not sufficient to provide a useful
deterrent. On the other hand we hope that magistrates will be
able to demonstrate to local authorities what is required to produce
a case which stands the chance of success in the courts. Independent
speakers with experience of prosecutions will also lend their
expertise to the proceedings.
Some of the issues are also increasing in prominence.
Although abandoned vehicles have been around since the 1960s there
have been dramatic increase over the last five years. There was
a tenfold increase in the number of abandoned vehicles reported
to the Driver and Vehicles Licensing Agency as destroyed by local
authorities between 1998 and 2002. [4]
(iii) Do responsible bodies who deal with
the problem and its consequences have sufficient resources and
powers to do so?
Given the escalation of local environmental
crime, responsible bodies are having to spend more on dealing
with the consequences. However, the ENCAMS survey concludes that
more could be done without an increase in cost. Resources could
be better deployed; for example, through a shift from reactive
work clearing up the problems to proactive work aimed at preventing
them. Resources used for enforcement, campaigns and education
should see cost savings as the scale of the problems diminish.
ODPM recently published research Living Places: Caring for Quality
which highlights eight steps to better practice across local environmental
quality and management issues. And the Liveability Fund will support
27 local authorities to pilot a new approach to liveability services
to improve service delivery. The lessons learnt during the development
of the pilots will be widely disseminated through the action learning
programme including an interactive website, conferences and seminars.
There is also evidence to suggest that publicising
success of enforcement where it has been used can have the effect
of deterring would-be offenders. Less offences mean less cost
in clearing up.
There is currently a wide range of powers available
for tackling these environmental crimes, strengthened by measures
in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. However, bodies dealing
with the problems could be making better use of the existing powers.
For example, returns from local authorities to Defra show that
only 18% of local authorities in 2002-03 issued fixed penalty
notices for littering. However, we acknowledge that the effective
use of powers can be limited by the fact they can be hard to find,
poorly suited to the needs of local agencies or difficult to use.
Defra has addressed this through a website guide to public space
legislation (hosted by the Improvement and Development Agency),
and a review of current legislation. Defra has always maintained
that where new or amended legislation is necessary or desirable
we would seek to find the first legislative opportunity. That
remains our position.
For fly-tipping, Defra has now developed a further
package to increase the powers available. The Fly-Tipping Strategy,
a consultation document launched on 23 February, outlines these
proposals. Comments will be taken into account and the proposals
will be taken forward at the next legislative opportunity.
Similarly, Defra is committed to developing
a Neighbour Noise Strategy. Project and programme management techniques
will be applied to support the delivery of the Strategy, which
will be the subject of a public consultation.
Despite all this, there is no doubt that local
authorities would welcome more support from central government
on how to make best use of the powers available. This could be
delivered through best practice networks such as the ENCAMS People
& Places programme, perhaps supported by enforcement champions
with experience of environmental crime. During March, the Home
Office's Anti-Social Behaviour Unit is running a series of "Together
Academies" around the country, to train up practitioners
in effective responses to anti-social behaviour—including
environmental crime. They are also launching a Together Actionline
and website providing advice to practitioners on specific issues.
As well as resources and powers, local agencies
also need to demonstrate the will to make local environmental
quality a priority and take those steps that are necessary to
deal with the problems. The increased funding available to the
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) has
enabled them to establish a new unit CABE Space which the Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister have asked to champion the need for
better public and green spaces nationally and locally.
(iv) Is there sufficient dialogue and co-operation
across Government and amongst the various bodies responsible for
dealing with the problem at local level?
Ministers have increasingly forced the pace
towards a joined up approach across government. At Central Government
level, an Inter Departmental Ministerial Group on Public Space
leads the work on liveability, consisting of ministers from Defra,
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Home Office, Department of
Transport, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department
for Education and Skills, Department of Health, Department for
Trade and Industry and Treasury. This is underpinned by a group
of officials that meet regularly and also communicate frequently
on policy issues. The Departments involved work closely with a
range of sponsored bodies, agencies, NGOs and other bodies to
help deliver specific policy at a local level.
EXAMPLES OF
THIS INCLUDE:
— Recently a working group has been
set up with the involvement of Defra, Department of Trade and
Industry, Environment Agency and industry representatives to look
into the issues around construction, demolition and excavation
waste.
— The UK Noise Forum, comprising around
25 organisations, meets twice yearly and is the main vehicle by
which Defra ensures stakeholders views are considered when setting,
implementing and monitoring policy on noise control.
— Defra works closely with the National
Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection (NSCA). Defra
annually bids for funds for the NSCA's annual Noise Action Day
(currently in its sixth year) and collaborates on themes and materials.
At the local level, many local authorities and
others are already joining up their service delivery with examples
of good practice which we want to disseminate more widely. Through
the Central-Local Partnership Shared Priorities programme on transforming
the local environment we are working with local authorities to
test service improvements.
Although we are seeing increasing examples of
individual Departments within an authority getting together and
devising policies for service delivery which are more efficient
and effective which lead to a better all round service, there
is some way to go before this becomes the norm in all local authorities.
In many areas there is still a lack of "joining up".
This may be within a local authority, where departmental boundaries
inhibit moves towards more holistic service delivery. For example,
we have heard of cases where environmental service staff will
not clear litter from a roadside, even though they are in the
locality, because it is the responsibility of the authority's
Highways Department.
As well as within local authorities, there is
also more to be done in building local partnerships between agencies
to tackle local environmental crime. A number of existing frameworks
exist that could be better utilised, such as Local Strategic Partnerships
(LSPs) and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs).
The Deputy Prime Minister wrote to all LSPs last September highlighting
examples of what they can do to tackle local environmental issues.
However, local bodies are already wary of partnership overload
and may lack awareness of the best route for tackling the issues.
There are some organisations, such as ENCAMS, that seek to facilitate
local partnership working, but not all local authorities benefit
from such assistance.
(v) What alternatives exist for dealing with
these types of crimes outside the criminal justice system?
Alternatives can take a variety of forms and
the Department encourages the use of non-legislative approaches
alongside enforcement. There are a range of measures that can
be used to prevent these crimes, including:
— Negotiation and mediation (eg for
neighbour noise)
— Monitoring of hot-spots
— Information sharing among agencies
— Design and alternative materials
(eg special coatings to prevent graffiti and fly-posting)
Other work, such as the Department's current
review of the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse, consultation
on a Voluntary Code of Practice for the Fast Food Industry and
development of a Neighbour Noise strategy, all help to set standards
and encourage a holistic response to these crimes.
For dealing with the perpetrators once caught,
it appears that there is currently limited use of community work
compared with fines and imprisonment. Whilst we do not have figures,
we believe there is some appetite for offenders to be involved
in reparation work and that models that do exist should be used
more widely where appropriate.
That said, the new system of fine payment work
being led by the Department for Constitutional Affairs offers
good potential for those unable to pay fines to repay their debt
by working on environmental regeneration projects. Agencies such
as Groundwork have indicated a willingness to provide opportunities
for this type of work.
The work of Thames 21 provides a good example
of the wider benefits of using Community Service Orders. Working
with the London Probation Area, Thames 21 has used nearly 200,000
hours of labour by offenders to make positive improvements along
canals and rivers in the city, removing litter, graffiti and fly-tipping.
One offender was so impressed by the work of Thames 21 that he
started his own Adopt-a-River group with his son's school and
fellow anglers.
The use of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for
local environmental crime has recently been extended through the
Anti-social Behaviour Act (2003). Further development of FPNs
is being considered, since they offer a more flexible alternative
to prosecution and free resources in the court system. For example,
one of the proposals in the Fly-Tipping Strategy raises the possibility
of introducing FPNs for waste duty of care offences.
(vi) Does environmental crime have a disproportionate
impact on poorer and less advantaged sections of society?
Yes. In statistical terms this is shown to be
the case by the latest ENCAMS survey. [5]Whilst
48% of sites are below satisfactory levels for low-density private
housing, this rises to 68% for low-density social housing and
71% for high-density housing. According to MORI research, noise
nuisance is most common in risk areas of high-density housing,
rented accommodation, areas of deprivation, and urbanity. In contrast,
the profile of neighbour noise is not high in areas of detached
housing, high home ownership, and where there is the least rural
and suburban deprivation.
It is also the case that environmental crime
is more likely to occur in those areas that have already suffered
environmental degradation. For deprived areas that have lower
standards of local environmental quality, a spiral of decline
can set in, compounding the effects of the inequity.
However, the situation is further exacerbated
by the fact that those in deprived neighbourhoods are less able
to hold to account those delivering services. Broadly speaking,
those with more wealth and education are more likely both to complain
and to be able to access the services they need. This is borne
out by evidence that those in richer areas are more likely to
highlight issues of local environmental quality, although the
ENCAMS evidence shows these areas are not the worst affected.
British Crime Survey data suggests people in affluent areas were
most likely to perceive rubbish (19%) and vandalism (19%) as the
"biggest problem", while those in council estates were
more likely to mention teenagers hanging around (28%) and drug
use of dealing (21%).
But for some issues such as environmental crime
the link may not be so direct. While 18 of the top 40 authorities
with a problem are in the 88 most deprived authorities 14 of these
are in London. Abandoned vehicles are a more intense problem in
London and the regions surrounding it and this link appears stronger
than that to deprivation.
Defra is currently undertaking research into
the issue of environmental equity and this will include consideration
of local environmental quality and its links to deprivation. The
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has already completed a study
on environmental exclusion in deprived areas, following the recommendation
of living places.
March 2004
3 The 2nd Annual Local Environmental Quality Survey
of England-see www.encams.org Back
4
Measuring the impact of MVRIB initiatives on Abandoned Vehicles,
Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, University of London, 2003 Back
5
Op cit. Back
| 
