APPENDIX 13
Memorandum from Leeds City Council
Leeds City Council welcomes the opportunity
to submit evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee on Fly-tipping,
Fly-posting, Litter, Graffiti and Noise as the quality of the
local environment is of increasing concern to both the Council
and the people of Leeds.
The Council is currently undertaking a review
of its primary environmental enforcement activities and has identified
a number of concerns. Wherever possible, I have sought to direct
our response to the questions specified by you but there are a
number of general points that I would like to make first.
THE MAIN
ISSUES FROM
THE COUNCIL'S
PERSPECTIVE
Leeds City Council regards environmental crime
as a very serious issue with high environmental, social and economic
costs to the city, its residents and businesses.
Local residents consider that nuisances such
as fly-posting, fly-tipping, litter and graffiti seriously impair
their quality of life and feeling of safety. The Council has yet
to assess the direct costs to the Council of dealing with, and
trying to prevent, environmental crime but believes them to be
substantial. It would be very difficult to assess all the hidden
costs to the city.
With respect to the specific question posed
we would comment as follows:
1. What is the scale of the impact of these
crimes on the local environment?
In a district the size of Leeds the impact on
the local environment varies enormously between different areas.
In some areas, the impact is considerable—almost blighting
places. Where levels of graffiti, litter and fly-posting are high
there is a very significant negative impact on the quality of
life of people living in, working in or even travelling through,
those places. People find these places depressing and feel less
safe in them, avoiding them if possible.
2. Has there been a cultural change in attitudes
to these kind of crimes and are they being treated more or less
seriously than in the past?
Leeds City Council, in common with other large
Metropolitan authorities, has experienced increasing challenges
in maintaining and developing a quality urban environment. There
has been a marked decline in public satisfaction with the quality
of the local environment in almost all Local Authorities in Britain
over the last five years. This may be the result of a combination
of rising expectations as well as increased dumping and fly-tipping
associated with landfill tax, fridge legislation, the impact of
the end of life vehicle directive and falling vehicle recycling
values. A further significant factor is increased consumerism,
including the proliferation of fast food outlets leading to more
debris being discarded on the street and in open spaces.
People are apparently becoming more polarised
between those who are growing very intolerant of environmental
crime and those who feel it is perfectly acceptable to drop litter—including
half eaten takeaways, on the street. The Government and the Council
is now taking these issues more seriously.
3. Do responsible bodies who deal with the
problem and its consequences have sufficient resources and powers
to do so?
The Council is currently reviewing the operation
of its environmental enforcement services and could undoubtedly
make better use of both the resources and powers currently available
to it. However most of our environmental enforcement services
are funded through short term funding rather than main stream
budgets, which makes planning and cost effective staffing difficult
to achieve.
Services always feel that more resources are
required but one small example illustrates the increasing pressure
on resources—in 1998-99 the Council allocated £10,000
to remove graffiti and illegal fly-posting from the city centre,
which was more than adequate. In the current financial year, more
than twice that amount has already been spent and not all graffiti
is being removed.
At present there are just 13 dedicated environmental
enforcement field officers to cover a city of over 562 square
kilometres with a population of 717,000 people plus an estimated
61,000 net in-commuters. With additional resources the Council
could:
— work more effectively with organisations
like Encams to raise greater public awareness of the real costs
of littering and other environmental crime;
— improve training for staff—enabling
a greater proportion of staff who work on the streets to tackle
a wider range of environmental crime;
— enable better use of technology to
collect and share information both within the Council and with
our partners;
— employ additional staff;
— undertake surveillance operations
to tackle graffiti and fly-tipping hot spots; and
— provide small grants to community
groups for organised community "clean-ups". This can
have a major impact on a local environment as they help to tackle
the causes of the problem as well the symptoms.
Regarding additional powers, the Council is
considering how it can use the powers available to it more effectively,
however, we have found that the legislative and regulatory framework
has not been conducive to implementing effective enforcement.
The Council would therefore welcome both the strengthening and
streamlining of powers.
SPECIFICALLY
— It would be helpful if the Council
could set the levels of fines locally to reflect to the extent
and seriousness of the problem.
— Town and Country Planning Act powers
to control advertisement displays are not well suited to tackling
the problems of fly-posting. The current statutory defences against
prosecutions for the illegal display of advertisements makes it
too easy for those who benefit from the fly-posted advertisements
to deny any responsibility for its display. Separate legislation
to tackle the problem, including a specific duty of care on advertisers
to prevent fly-posting would be beneficial. If the Town and Country
Planning Act is to remain the main statutory power then it needs
amending as has been proposed in the ODPM consultation paper on
the Control of Fly-posting.
— In respect of indiscriminate leafleting
and use of advertising placards, the penalty can currently only
be imposed on the distributor of the literature: it would be more
appropriate to penalise the person or organisation whose goods
and services are advertised in the literature. The possibility
of director disqualification for persistent offenders should be
considered. In certain situations, it may also be appropriate
to penalise the employer of the distributor.
— The current descriptions of land
in the Street Litter Control Notices Order 1991 need to be extended
to cover "areas affected by litter generated by the activity
of the premises"; in cities like Leeds they would need to
cover the plethora of private yards and landscaped areas we have
in the City Centre, to which the public have "access"
and which are subject to general litter, used needles, take away
rubbish and other food waste.
— Leeds City Council does work closely
with the Environment Agency to tackle fly-tipping but it would
welcome the extension of its investigation powers to further strengthen
this joint working. In addition the Council would welcome the
introduction of additional powers for clearing fly-tipped waste
from private land as an alternative to use of T & CP Act Section
215 powers.
4. Is there sufficient dialogue and co-operation
across Government and amongst the various bodies responsible for
dealing with the problem at a local level?
No and although the Council is taking steps
to remedy this situation locally, a combination of more "joined
up" thinking across Government together with assistance from
central Government in facilitating dialogue would be very helpful.
5. What alternatives exist for dealing with
these types of crimes outside the criminal justice system?
Greater education of the general public by the
Council, the Government (probably through Encams, chewing gum
manufactures, major fast food outlets etc), community watch schemes
(ie extending neighbourhood watch to cover environmental crime).
6. Does environmental crime have a disproportionate
impact on poorer and less advantaged sections of society?
Yes. The reasons appear to be that a greater
density of population almost inevitably leads to greater levels
of environmental crime, a more built up urban environment presents
more potential surfaces for graffiti and fly-posting, and there
are more likely to be boarded up buildings and pieces of derelict
land that attract litter, flyposters, fly tipping, graffiti. It
is very easy for a "vicious circle" to develop as litter,
fly-posters, fly-tipping and graffiti attracts more of the same.
March 2004
| 
