APPENDIX 17
Memorandum from North East Lincolnshire
Council
Comments relating to the questions posed in
the New Inquiry have been collated and reported as received by
more than one officer dealing with concerns relating to Environmental
Crime.
1. What is the scale of the impact of these
crimes on the local environment?
Scale of environmental crime in the area is
unknown—tendency to be reactive to complaints received.
The emphasis needs to be on our ability to improve proactive activities
rather than always reacting.
Undoubtedly environmental crime has a detrimental
impact on the local area, however without an in-depth survey to
find out where it happens, how often and why, and who the perpetrators
are—together with the resources to undertake such a study,
this authority does not currently have the ability or the resources
to take a more proactive approach.
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?
There would appear to be a difference of opinion
with regard to this question—possibly rather subjective!
I. There has been a cultural change in attitude
to environmental crime in that there is more of it than in the
past. This would indicate that in some parts of society this type
of behaviour is acceptable. For example, children appear to just
drop litter now whereas a few years ago this kind of behaviour
was not tolerated.
II. No worse that it has ever been, although
the content of graffiti has become more objectionable. In some
cases Park User Groups have formed to proactively address vandalism
issues. A tendency for less acceptance and more vocal objections
to issues regarding environmental crime.
3. Do responsible bodies who deal with the
problem and its consequences have sufficient resources and powers
to do so?
The removal of these types of crimes require
not inconsiderable amounts of resources—where legal action
is required this is frequently time-consuming and expensive, the
level of fines administered inadequate and to no benefit of the
local authority to recoup costs.
Considerable difficulties in tracing/dealing
with private landowners/property owners in respect of derelict/untidy
land and buildings.
Insufficient powers/authority—eg park
wardens do not have the authority to take further action. Wardens
may have the authority to issue fixed penalty tickets but have
no recourse should the perpetrator fail to provide/give false
information.
Lack of co-operation from the Police Authority
to address environmental crime. RSPCA have more powers than LA
with regard to wildlife offences.
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, in general—requires a cohesive approach
by all agencies involved. Although locally some success at partnership
working with the Police and the Fire Authorities when dealing
with abandoned vehicles.
Possible that a national agenda is required
to depict environmental crime as a crime, in a similar way to
the anti-smoking and drink-drive lobby?
5. What alternatives exist for dealing with
these types of crimes outside the criminal justice system?
Unsure what exists outside the criminal justice
system for dealing with environmental crime other than the powers
Local Authorities has. Better education in schools about the impact
of environmental crime, tougher penalties for the more serious
types of crime and more initiatives to target run down areas which
may be hotspots for this type of crime would be beneficial, but
this would cost more in resources. This would solve two problems;
it would improve the quality of life to those disadvantaged in
our society and reduce the amount of environmental crime. It would
appear that you are less likely to carry out environmental crime
in your own community if it is a pleasant place to live.
Require greater input from all aspects of the
community, including educational establishments and the LSP.
6. Does environmental crime have a disproportionate
impact on poorer and less advantaged sections of society?
Environmental crime affects the poorer parts
of society because places like council estates and run down parts
of towns and cities tend to have poorer housing, low standards
of education, high levels of social problems such as drug abuse
and high unemployment rates which could lead to wilful environmental
crime.
FURTHER DETAIL
PERTAINING TO
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME
IN ONLY
ONE SPECIFIC
AREA OF
NORTH EAST
LINCOLNSHIRE (BRIDGE
WORKS)
— Cost of bridge works associated with
anti-social behaviour/environmental crimes in 2002-03 approximately
£13K and in 2003-04 (to date) about £7K. These figures
don't reflect a downturn in trend but rather that 2002-03 was
a particularly bad year. While this level of expenditure is small
it is a significant drain on the bridges annual revenue budget.
The nature of the problem for bridges can be
categorised as follows:
I. Fly-tipping—occasional need to unblock
culverts
II. Graffiti—mainly a problem in the
subways and to a much lesser extent on bridges. Racist or obscene
graffiti is removed as soon as possible after it has been reported.
Graffiti problems in subways have involved us in consultations
with groups such as Artlandish, Neat Street Team, etc (anyone
with a budget).
III. Vandalism—bridges are targeted fairly
regularly and it can be anything from a coping stone being dislodged
to major demolition of timber PROW footbridge. Footbridges in
isolated rural locations are very vulnerable.
IV. Abandoned vehicles—not uncommon for
stolen vehicles to be torched in subways (Patrick Street subway
being popular). In 2002-03 a stolen car was driven onto a timber
footbridge over the Freshney and set alight resulting in the need
to completely replace the bridge.
V. Diving—a potential risk to the Authority
is the problem of youths diving into Alexandra dock off A180 bridge.
There are "diving prohibited"' signs but this may not
be enough if there is a serious accident.
All reported incidents are investigated without
delay and where necessary temporary works are carried out to ensure
public safety.
March 2004
| 
