APPENDIX 26
Memorandum from the Woodland Trust
The Woodland Trust welcomes the opportunity
to submit evidence to this inquiry. The Trust is the UK's leading
woodland conservation charity. We have four main aims: no further
loss of ancient woodland, restoring and improving woodland biodiversity,
increasing new native woodland and increasing people's awareness
and enjoyment of woodland. We own over 1,000 sites across the
country, covering around 20,000 hectares (50,000 acres) and we
have over 300,000 members and supporters.
We have focused our response on the questions
posed in the in the inquiry announcement and due to the nature
of our work will focus on fly-tipping and litter.
What is the scale of the impact of these crimes
on the local environment?
In our experience the impact of fly-tipping
upon the local environment can be immense. It reduces the quality
of life of those people living with it, it can be a hazard to
health and can undermine sincere efforts to regenerate areas.
Commercial dumping of toxic materials such as asbestos, used tyres,
fridges, computer hardware, dead animals etc is costly to remove
and is a direct threat to health and the environment. Often those
involved are aggressive and potentially violent and, as a result,
few witnesses are willing to come forward. Material often leaks
into watercourses and can be spread by wildlife and so can have
impacts beyond where it is originally dumped.
Dumping and burning of vehicles is damaging
to the environment (due to leaking oils, heavy metals, broken
glass, fire damage to adjacent trees, destruction of woodland
flora etc) but also a significant danger to health and to children
in particular who tend to play around or in them.
The scale of the impact is great. One of the
major problems with fly-tipping is it undermines genuine efforts
to raise standards in an area. It is demoralising to spend hours
cleaning up local open spaces only to be back to in the same situation
again the next week. It lowers expectations, undermines relationships
between residents and their local councils and it also frequently
kills wildlife.
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?
Having had to deal with the impact of fly tipping,
dumped cars on our woods in some of the most socially deprived
areas of the country we fear that it will take a significant culture
change to overcome this problem. The attitudes that lead to fly
tipping appear to have been passed down generations and seems
to be part of a cycle of decline and low expectations. To break
this chain is extremely difficult but must start with changing
hearts and minds whilst at the same time dealing with the symptoms
at an early stage through enforcement and community empowerment.
Do responsible bodies who deal with the problem
and its consequences have sufficient resources and powers to do
so?
Currently local authorities appear powerless
to deal effectively with this growing problem. Housing associations
also are ineffective at dealing with this behaviour and are often
unwilling to put significant pressure on their tenants. This leaves
private landowners and landowning NGOs offering free public access
such as the Woodland Trust to pick up most of the mess without
any financial support. The current powers appear to be limited
and difficult to enforce and we wait to see whether the new powers
under the Anti-social Behaviour Act will have the desired effect.
It is also politically difficult for certain local authorities
to clamp down on people already faced with social exclusion and
deprivation. Many people are concerned about the issue but feel
powerless themselves due to lack of support and intimidation.
Local authorities and housing associations often appear unwilling
to try imaginative solutions to dealing with these problems either
through lack of resources or political support.
Is there sufficient dialogue and co-operation
across government and amongst the various bodies responsible for
dealing with the problem at a local level?
Some forums exist where these issues are discussed,
however there is often a great deal of tension between residents
groups, local authorities, housing associations and other landowners.
There appears to be a lack of trust and a feeling of hopelessness
at times. Many opportunities for consensus building are missed
because forums are drawn into detailed arguments instead of addressing
the wider strategic issues.
What alternatives exist for dealing with these
types of crimes outside the criminal justice system?
Fly-tipping prosecutions are extremely rare.
Other alternatives such as community recycling schemes, community
service orders focussing on clearing fly-tipped rubbish, education
programmes, community skips/dust wagons, closer supervision by
the landscape maintenance teams working in an area have been discussed
but never fully implemented due to political or cost constraints.
Does environmental crime have a disproportionate
impact on poorer and less advantaged sections of society?
Environmental crime certainly has a disproportionate
impact on poorer and less advantaged sections of society as it
affects those already faced with social exclusion. The social
reasons for its prevalence are many and varied.
Fly-tipping in particular acts as a magnet for
further dumping, for example domestic waste may be dumped at first
(perhaps because the bin men have been missed that week), this
leads on to more serious commercial dumping as areas become blighted
causing a spiral of decline. Another area of particular concern
relates to travellers disposing of commercial waste on public
or private land.
March 2004
| 
