Issue - meetings

The old authorities in Buckinghamshire did not issue fixed penalty notices against flytipping offences. This was mainly due to the two tier system, the Waste Collection

Authorities (District) had the legal power whilst the Waste Disposal Authority

(County) conducted the investigations into Fly-Tipping but didn’t have the power.

The new Buckinghamshire Council now has full powers and therefore it is proposed

that the new Council should utilise these and make arrangements to issue FPNs for

fly-tipping offences at the earliest opportunity. This policy would enable that to

happen and would also generate between £10,000 and £20,000 of additional income

annually. Also enforcement officers would be enabled to deal with more investigations in a more streamlined manner.

RESOLVED:

Members of the Cabinet AGREED the revised wording to recommendation number three.  The following recommendations were AGREED for the Fly-Tipping Enforcement Policy.

1. To sign-off agreed Enforcement Policy regarding enforcement against fly-tipping attached as per Appendix A.

2. To utilise powers to serve fixed penalty notices in response to low level dumping offences and failures in duty of care by householders.

3. To finalise agreed level of FPN issued for fly-tipping offences to be £400 with an early payment discount rate of £100 resulting in a fine of £300.

Bill Chapple, OBE, Cabinet Member for the Environment, introduced the updated fly tipping enforcement policy report which detailed what the residents and businesses of Buckinghamshire could expect from Buckinghamshire Council when carrying out its regulatory and enforcement functions.  The Council was committed to the principles of good enforcement as set out in legislation of the Regulatory Reform Act 2006.  The Council believed the majority of businesses and residents wished to comply with the law and the aim of the policy was to protect individuals and target areas causing concern and detriment to the county.  There was a wide range of advice, guidance and enforcement actions available to the Council which ranged from those intended to inform and support those it regulated through to formal legal proceedings depending on the severity of the case.

The proposed use of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) against fly-tipping offences was intended to both compliment and replace (where appropriate) the issuing of simple cautions against first-time or low grade fly tipping offenders.  It was not intended to replace cases where prosecutions were considered an appropriate response.    Failure to pay the FPN would result in formal prosecution against the individual concerned.  Prosecutions for more serious offences would result in a criminal record with a fine, or in more serious cases, a prison sentence.  [Clarification was provided after the meeting that the policy document would be updated to reflect that the only method of appeal was to a Magistrate’s court hearing and that it was incorrectly stated during the meeting that “Businesses/people in receipt of a FPN would be given a period to appeal”].  The Council would always seek to prosecute offenders with a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach.  The maximum FPN fine would be £400 with an early payment discounted rate of £300 (25% discount).

The following points were raised by members of the Cabinet:

• Gary Slee, Enforcement Team Leader, confirmed that the council would deal with fly-tipping on public and private land and would always prosecute where possible in order to accrue costs back to the landowner.  The FPN would only be used if proportionate to do so.  Landowners would cover the cost of removing waste from private land; but the council would look to prosecute offenders for fly-tipping on private land to recover their costs back.
• A member of the Cabinet highlighted that the information in the policy under paragraph 3, Guiding Principles of Legislative and Regulatory Enforcement (page 45 of the complete pack) did not contain as much detail under the ‘Accountable’ section as the overarching enforcement policy for the Council.  It did not explain that there was an appeals process, although the fact that there was a period of appeal was mentioned under Formal Enforcement Actions.  G Slee advised that the policies had been aligned as much as possible and been kept concise; the operational detail of each service was slightly different but the approach had to be consistent.  M Tett stressed the importance of the public being aware it was possible to appeal against  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8