APPENDIX 21
Memorandum from the Spen Valley Civic
Society
CREDENTIALS
This Society dates back to 1973. Its membership
is drawn from a wide range of professional blue collar manual
trades and retired persons. We are an environmental organisation
dedicated to the direct delivery of projects and the influencing
of others in steps to protect and enhance the quality of the environment.
This evidence is prepared by myself based on
my knowledge of the Spen Valley area, the evidence seen or related
by others and at Society meetings and my own professional experience
as a planning enforcement officer with Leeds City Council. I am
the chairman of the Society.
We have been asked to submit our evidence by
the Civic Trust
Noise is not a matter within the remit of the
Society except at environmental noise rather than as anti-social
noise.
1. What is the scale and of these crimes?
Fly-tipping is the tipping of a substantial
amount of waste up to a lorry load whereas littering is individual
pieces of litter down to chewing gum.
FLY-TIPPING
This has worsened in recent times. Suspected
causes are :
— the introduction of twin wheelie
bins by the local authority (Kirklees) to assist recycling with
the grey non-recyclables bin not being big enough on occasions;
— tighter controls at civic amenity
sites to prevent the deposit of trade waste by sole traders. They
dump the waste elsewhere instead;
— the introduction of residents passes
to regulate use of civic amenity sites and prevent residents of
neighbouring authorities using such sites even if they are the
nearest, thus prompting the waste to be dumped. Most authorities
in West and South Yorkshire operate such a system;
— lack of a tyre deposit scheme meaning
small garages turn a blind eye to what tyre waste recycling firms
do with the waste tyres they collect; and
— the introduction by Kirklees Council
of a charge for the collection of garden waste and large household
items. The stuff it dumped instead.
As can be seen the increase is largely attributable
to the action of the local authority.
LITTERING
This too has worsened. Particular grot spots
are where cars pull up at junctions such as traffic lights and
the litter is thrown out of the window. Litter is mainly drinks
bottles, take away packaging and confectionary wrappers. Cigarette
smoking waste is declining.
There is also a lot of litter near cash machines.
GRAFFITI
Not a great problem in our area.
FLY-POSTING
There is a tremendous increase in unauthorised
signs, which is a more professional form of fly-posting.
Fly-posting of signs is of three types:
— signs that traders erect each day
on the footway;
— signs that traders screw onto their
or others' buildings advertising their wares or services; and
— billboards that are erected without
advertising consent by advertising agencies.
Footway signs obstruct the footway and hinder
the mobility of people with disabilities. They are not only unsightly
but also dangerous.
Fixed signs are multiplying at a tremendous
rate. May shops and other service providers don't appear to be
content until they have not only covered their own property in
signs but added signs throughout the neighbourhood giving directions
are otherwise promoting themselves. Many if not most of these
signs are outside the limits allowed by the advertising regulations.
The net effect of all these signs—some
of which are also illuminated (without consent)—is to reduce
environmental quality, thereby helping to foster a climate in
which environmental abuse become less unacceptable.
Billboards are in a different league. Advertising
consent is always needed except around development sites and yet
is rarely obtained. Companies such as Maiden, Allen and the rest
cynically erect their billboards without consent knowing it will
take the local authority at least two years (assuming it even
tries) to serve a discontinuance notice and get the billboard
removed. By which time the company will have found another unauthorised
location.
Our own local authority (Kirklees) is better
than many at getting rid of these signs but it usually takes several
years. [Refer to annex for example]
The presence of numerous free standing billboards
and large hoardings on gable ends of buildings has a depressing
and degrading effect on the townscape and on both the built and
rural environment.
2. Has there been a cultural change in attitude
and are they treated as seriously?
The cultural change appears to be that although
everybody complains, no one does anything about it. No one will
reprimand someone who is fly-tipping or littering for fear of
being stabbed.
The local authority is the main driver of increased
fly-tipping and thus may be reluctant to accept it has increased.
Budgets are not increased for cleaning up, so the waste remains
longer. Thus fly-tipping is seen as perhaps not so unacceptable,
so others will add to the pile.
All this gives the impression that fly tipping
is something that can be tolerated.
In truth fly tipping and littering are bellwethers
not only for the mentality of the local populace but of the environmental
legitimacy of the local authority. The cleanliness of the environment
(or lack of) encourages an acceptance of other poor standards
such as poor property maintenance; fly posting and unauthorised
building works.
There is little apparent systematic action by
the Council in tackling many or indeed any of these problems.
When it does the council promotes this as a campaign or an initiative
whereas in truth it should be part of the fundamental day-to-day
service to the community, which it administers.
As for magistrates special mention should be
made. They are hopeless. They consistently fail to take environmental
crime seriously. I am aware the Lord Chancellor's office has issued
guidance but a recent survey showed that 70% of magistrates had
not seen the guidance. In January I prosecuted a company at Leeds
Magistrates Court for unsocial hours working (waking residents
up day after day). In fining the multi million £££
business £400 the chair to the bench said the crime
". . . not serious in the great scheme of things".
3. Do the responsible bodies (enforcers)
have sufficient powers and resources?
From my knowledge of Leeds City Council and
of years of dealing with Kirklees MC I would say that yes, there
are sufficient powers to deal with many of the problems.
What is conspicuously lacking is the will and
the wherewithal to deal with the sheer scale of the problem. This
has passed from a mere local problem to an epidemic in some regards.
In parts of Leeds pandemic would be a more appropriate scale—certainly
in relation to littering.
Take the Control of Pollution Act 1990 for example.
There is a semi statutory Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse.
(ISBN 0-11-752363-1). This requires a local authority to grade
all its roads for a suitable standard of litter cleanliness and
then achieve that standard. I have seen the ones for Leeds and
Kirklees. The standards set in the Code are hardly ever met anywhere
and yet nothing happens.
This Act empowers aggrieved individuals to bring
a civil action against the local or public authority if it fails
to meet the code. When a motorway junction (J26 on the M62) became
almost buried in litter this Civic Society threatened to take
the Highways Agency to court. After about 6 weeks the HA said
the cleaning contract was with Calderdale MC so we threatened
Calderdale. A month later that council said the contract was actually
Kirklees. So we threatened Kirklees. The litter was then picked
up. It was soon as bad as ever and non-compliant with the code.
This continues.
With regard to unauthorised signs this plague
is largely the Government's fault. Permitted development rights
for signs should be drastically reduced. "Ah" you will
say, "But people who ignore the existing limits will ignore
the new one, especially if they are more restrictive".
The answer is to remove the right of appeal
on retrospective applications. This would mean that in refusing
an application for a retrospective approval a local authority
could IN THE SAME NOTICE issue notice of an intent to prosecute.
This would sort out all the billboard companies too. No application
would involve direct summons.
4. Is there sufficient dialogue across Government
to deal with problems?
Is there any dialogue? And why say "local
level" as though the question of whether there is any dialogue
at the national action is too rude to ask. Government has a lot
to answer for when it comes to all these environmental problems.
It should not try and pass the buck to the local level. Can my
council put a tax on chewing gum to help pay for cleaning up the
consequences? Of course not.
5. What are the alternatives outside the
criminal justice system?
This is the wrong question. It shirks responsibility
and is defeatist. The question should
be "When we have designed out the crimes by
better and changed working and revised the legislation, what should
we do about the perpetrators of the small amounts of fly-tipping
and graffiti that remain?"
I will leave that for others to comment upon.
6. Does environmental crime have disproportionate
effects on different parts of society?
This is a devilish question.
Fly-tipping and graffiti tends to be more acute
in areas of neglect, lower property values and with waste ground.
But this is not the full picture. Fly tipping can occur in lay
byes anywhere. Littering is almost universal and its association
with highways spreads the blame to everyone.
Unauthorised sign posting and billboard erection
is also fairly indiscriminate wherever there are locations by
a road or a prominent gable end with a grasping owner.
I would tend to say that the presence of fly-tipping,
littering and fly-posting tends to make a disadvantaged area appear
even worse without necessarily being any worse of itself. Graffiti
might be the exception, though in Leeds the worst effects of graffiti
are noticeable at the edge of the City Centre toward the university
in a non-residential area. Environmental crime in the form of
torched stolen cars is undoubtedly worse in disadvantaged areas.
SUMMARY
The environmental harm caused by all these environmental
crimes is clearly the main fault of those who do it. However the
context for the crime is set by central and local government and
is something they have signally failed to get to grips with. This
Inquiry is to be welcomed providing it leads to some useful actions.
I am willing to attend the Inquiry to give evidence.
| 
