Agenda item

Report ES14027

Report ES14027 recommended an extension to the enforcement service provided by Ward Security for serving fixed penalty notices (FPNs) for littering and dog fouling offences.

The original contract with XFOR Local Authority Support Ltd (XFOR), and subsequently Kingdom Security Ltd  (KSL), was expected to be cost neutral, but sufficient costs had not been recovered due to non-payment of FPNs and additional resource pressures on the Council’s Legal, Finance and Streetscene teams supporting the pilot. Since transferring service delivery to Ward Security, the number of tickets issued per month had fallen and this, along with the latest average recovery rate, indicated additional costs until

31^st May 2014.

In view of the delay on a new agreement it was not possible to assess the effectiveness of the fixed fee arrangement to inform options for the procurement strategy. As such extending the arrangement with Ward Security to 31 August 2014 would allow a review/analysis to enable a robust procurement strategy to be developed, including consideration of other related enforcement functions and possible joint working with neighbouring authorities.

Members made a number of comments including concern for the rate of recovery i.e. payment of FPN fines. Councillor Ellis felt the contract was not meeting expectations. Councillor Adams shared the disappointment, being particularly concerned about dog fouling. Councillor Getgood suggested the contract had raised expectations too highly. Councillor Rideout suggested a “clean it up” stencil is etched on to pavements.

Benefits of online reporting via “Fix my Street” were highlighted. Ward Security personnel were tasked with patrolling “hot spot” streets. The presence and awareness of enforcement staff could provide a significant deterrent. More fines might be paid with an early payment discount and officers could look into this. Offenders had also given false names and addresses or had refused to provide details. In such cases an enforcement officer can radio for police or PCSO assistance. Such offenders are also captured on video footage through a body camera worn by the enforcement officer. The Vice-Chairman suggested that images are shared with local police and safer neighbourhood teams to help identify offenders. If identified the offenders should be prosecuted to increase deterrence. In cases of dog fouling Councillor Rideout suggested identification by means of a chip on the dog identifying the animal’s owner. Councillor Grainger suggested that it might be possible to stand down some enforcement officers in the middle of the day should enforcement against dog fouling be focused during early mornings and evenings. He also recommended no action against those subsequently picking up litter they had dropped. Officers would also look into whether the feeding of pigeons could be regarded as a litter offence.

Suggesting there were probably more litter offences outside of town centres, Councillor Grainger felt it might be possible to reduce the level of enforcement if there were more litter bins. He asked for more detail on the costs of emptying bins, and the provision of new bins. The Chairman suggested that if bins overflow, blown litter could become more of an issue to the street scene - there would also be increased costs to provide and empty more bins. Councillor Ellis supported peer pressure to help reduce littering, advocating an end to the existing arrangement and a drive with Friends Groups to remove litter. She felt it was time to look at other ideas. The Chairman saw the proposed contract extension as the final opportunity to assess whether the current approach could be effective - some actions and changes were being made. Councillor Grainger supported an extension agreeing that more ideas might be worthwhile to consider.

The extension period would enable further consideration of options for more closely linking on street enforcement with environmental enforcement (e.g. fly tipping) and street cleaning. It would progress from an independent to an integrated service. A thorough review and analysis would be undertaken looking at more than punitive aspects and considering other approaches. There were a number of good models. Councillor Ellis suggested the emphasis be on residents reporting concerns to the Council. Members were reassured that all aspects would be considered in the review. Before establishing an appropriate service model from 1^st September 2014, a further report with recommendations would be provided to Members. 

In view of comments made it was agreed that Recommendation 2.3 of Report ES14027 should be removed as it appeared to pre-empt review outcomes.

RESOLVED that the Environment Portfolio Holder be recommended to:

(1)  approve the extension to 31st August 2014 of the negotiated variation to an existing contract arrangement with Ward Security under CPR 27.1/13.1.; and

(2)  approve a review of the previous and current service models for Enforcement Services.