Agenda item

External Enforcement - Litter

This matter is the responsibility of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services, Cllr Andrew Sully.


Report Author: Vicky Lowman – Specialist (Parking and Enforcement)





The Assistant Director for Commercial Services introduced the report and raised the following points: 

·        The report detailed a one-year trial with East Hampshire Council who already provide this service for 10 other councils. The aim would be to have a service with a net zero cost.  

·        The planned trial would employ two full time Environmental Enforcement Officers. It was proposed that £100 fixed penalty notices be issued, reduced to £80 if paid within 14 days. Estimated payment rate was 72-80%. If six fixed penalty notices were issued per officer per day the service would break even. 

·        Provision had been made in the 2022/23 budget to cover the risk of the trial.  

·        The trial was based on monthly payments of fixed penalty notices with a three-month notice period if it was not working.  


During the debate the following points were raised: 

·        It was raised that the report noted that enforcement officers may attend safeguarding training, but it was suggested that this be changed to say that enforcement officers must attend safeguarding training.  

·        It was asked how many challenges East Hampshire District Council had and the court cases this had led to. Concerns were raised about the costs of challenges to the Council. Officers responded that one of the reasons the decision had been made to work with East Hampshire was because they did not conduct litter enforcement to make money. Fixed penalty notices would not be served to children under 18. Officers from East Hampshire responded that they ensured that enforcement officers were ethical in their actions and body cameras were also used for monitoring. There had not been a single stage two complaint against officers because if a mistake was made the fixed penalty notice would be cancelled. They had had more than a 99% success rate in the single justice procedure. East Hampshire officers responded that they had the same concerns initially about enforcement before they started their scheme. Through implementation of the scheme a 60% reduction in littering was anticipated. 

·        It was suggested that only two officers for the whole district seemed a very small number. It was responded that the more officers employed the less chance there was of meeting targets. Officers would be deployed in high footfall areas.  

·        It was questioned how payments worked. It was responded that there was now a more streamlined process and payments would be made directly 

·        It was asked about coverage of more rural areas and whether they would be patrolled. Officers responded that this was something which would have to be reviewed constantly and a balance would need to be struck to ensure the scheme remained cost neutral.  

·        It was asked about litter being seen alongside waste bins outside people’s homes and whether this counted as fly tipping or litter or what could be done in these instances and whether litter officers could intervene to speak to those responsible. Officers responded that this was something which SWP intended to address with as part of their business plan post Local Government Reform.  


The committee resolved to note the recommendations in the report 


Supporting documents: