Consultation outcome

Summary of responses

Updated 6 November 2018

Introduction

This document contains the UK Government’s summary of the responses received to the consultation on “Modifications to the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse: Guidance on effective enforcement”.

This consultation was held between 10 April and 8 June 2018.

The consultation sought views on proposals to modify the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse to incorporate guidance on the proportionate and effective use of fixed penalties (civil and criminal) against littering and related offences.

Overview of responses

A total of 94 separate submissions were recorded by the online consultation platform, of which 86 contained substantive responses.

Of these, 20 were from individual councils (2 councils submitted more than one response). We also received a response from a resource partnership representing the views of 13 councils (three of which had also submitted individual responses). In total, 30 separate councils were represented.

We received a further 55 responses from members of the public, with the majority raising general issues including enforcement, local authority responsibilities and the impact of littering and fly tipping on their local environment. Twenty of these responses raised specific concerns about the activities of a particular private enforcement company.

Eight further responses were received from campaigning organisations, industry bodies and other stakeholders. The consultation document asked for the views of respondents on whether the draft modifications to the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse was sufficiently clear. All local authority respondents answered this question, with a majority of them welcoming the guidance. 10 responses, including that from the resource partnership representing 13 councils, provided more detailed comments.

One third of local council respondents stated that they would need to make some changes to existing practices and processes to comply with the modifications once they were published. However, most of these amounted only to minor changes in the documentation issued alongside fixed penalty notices, and to the internal processes related to enforcement.

We also asked councils to estimate the costs, if any, of making changes to comply with the Code of Practice following the modifications being introduced. 23 of 30 councils specified that these changes would have negligible or no cost, 5 did not know or could not provide an estimate at this time. Two councils provided an estimated cost of establishing a new function of enforcing against littering from vehicles, but none said that the changes to the guidance itself would incur a cost.

Finally, councils were asked to estimate whether any savings would be attributable to compliance with the guidance. 9 councils stated that there would not be any savings in complying with the enforcement guidance, with 6 estimating that it would produce savings, both fiscally and in staff resources, and 15 unable to provide an estimate.

Modifications to the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse

Appropriate and proportionate enforcement

93 responses were received to the question on whether the modifications to the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse were adequately clear. Of these 30 were from local authorities, with 23 (including the 13 represented by the resource partnership) providing detailed responses.

Councils made the following points:

• 14 councils said that the adoption of any approach other than zero tolerance towards enforcement against littering offences, specifically a policy of not enforcing against petty and insignificant breaches, would potentially invite inconsistencies into the process and allow disparities to develop between local authorities

• Similarly, 17 councils commented that to maintain a consistent and robust local enforcement policy against littering offences, a policy of not enforcing against accidental littering would present a considerable challenge to their current enforcement regimes

• 13 councils sought further clarification on the implications of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in respect of enforcement data, particularly in relation to the retention of records and enforcement against young people

• 13 councils said that further clarification was required on the subject of issuing fixed penalty notices on private land, to make clear whether the consent of the land owner is required to take enforcement action, and whether it is a primary consideration in all cases

• 2 councils noted that enforcement officers are often issued with hand held electronic recordings device to capture an alleged offender’s details, and that the guidance should reflect this

• 2 councils asked for further guidance on the potential for paying fixed penalty notices in installments, as it was not clear what the process would be if the payment period expired before full payment

Other comments made by councils that provided detailed responses to the consultation included:

• councils have valuable contacts within schools and can notify them of upcoming patrols in the area, and schools can then utilise their channels of communication with both children and parents to raise awareness

• that enforcing authorities should consider the appropriate sanction, as in cases of more serious offences prosecution may be more suitable

• refresher training for enforcement officers would be valuable to ensure they are familiarised with the modifications to the Code of Practice once published

• that issuing fixed penalty notices on the spot carries a risk of confrontation to enforcement officers, and there are benefits for the enforcing authority of recording details of the incident on the spot, but subsequently carrying out identification checks at a later time before a penalty notice is issued

• that a fixed penalty notice in lieu of prosecution (as opposed to a civil penalty charge notice) should not have to include instructions on how to challenge it

• that the recommendation to publish information about the usage and payment rates/income from fixed penalties should be removed from the guidance as this specific information was only of limited public interest. However, this recommendation was specifically welcomed and endorsed by another respondent. None of these points were made by more than one council

Changes to existing practices

We asked whether councils would have to make any changes to existing practices to comply with the proposed modifications to the Code of Practice.

All 86 consultation respondents provided an answer to this question. Of the 30 council respondents, 10 said that changes would be necessary and provided further comments to outline these expected adjustments. However in all cases, the changes described would result from the council’s decision to implement changes to existing fixed penalty levels as permitted under the Environmental Offences (Fixed Penalties) (England) Regulations 2017, or to begin using new penalties for littering from vehicles, rather than specifically in order to comply with this guidance.

Of the 10 local authorities who confirmed changes would be required, 7 indicated that these would only be minor and insignificant such as updating the relevant fixed penalty notice template to reflect the increased penalty levels. Other comments included:

• 3 councils stated that they would need to review existing practices and procedures or establish new appeals procedures to process representations from a vehicles registered keeper who has received a fixed penalty notice under the new Littering from Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018

• one council and the resource partnership highlighted that access to DVLA’s Web Enabled Enquiry (WEE) System would be required, noting that other councils have previously experienced problems accessing the service

• one council outlined that they would adopt a pro-active approach to enforcement, setting out a number of initiatives they will be implementing over the next 12 months including increasing the number of enforcement officers to tackle roadside litter

Costs and savings

The consultation document asked for councils to estimate the costs of making changes to comply with the modifications to the Code of Practice.

In response to this question, 23 of the 30 councils said that there would be negligible or no cost associated in complying with the modifications to the Code, while 5 could not provide an estimate at this time.

Although not directly a compliance cost, the response from the resource partnership suggested that, if compliance with the guidance were to introduce ambiguity or inconsistency into enforcement activity, this could result in increased enforcement costs at a later date. Another council suggested that costs could be incurred if their existing enforcement contract would need to be re-tendered in order to bring it into compliance with the guidance.

Amongst councils who said that the costs of compliance would be negligible, the overwhelming majority shared the same view that any costs would be primarily in time spent by staff to review existing policies and procedures, and to update existing forms and paperwork.

Councils were also asked whether any savings would be attributable to compliance with the guidance. Sixteen councils suggested that compliance may lead to savings over time, citing potentially reduced street cleansing costs or a reduction in the number of challenges as a result of improved service standards, although none provided specific estimates. Twelve councils said that no savings would result from compliance.

One council highlighted ‘the cost of doing nothing’, citing the damage caused by litter to the environment and visual amenity and indirect costs resulting from road-closures to enable roadside cleaning.

Of the councils that said that no savings would be attributable to compliance with the guidance, only one gave a reason, explaining that the income it received from fixed penalties does not currently cover the salary costs of the enforcement officers employed by the council.

Next steps

We are considering amendments to the draft guidance in the light of the comments received, and will publish the updated guidance as a modification to the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse in due course.

Local councils are responsible for keeping their “relevant land” clear of litter and refuse. For any local litter issue, we recommend contacting the council to make sure it is aware of the problem. It is up to councils to decide how best to meet their statutory duty to keep their relevant land clear of litter and refuse.

All councils have a complaints procedure and if you are frustrated by lack of action or cleaning by a local council, you should first complain formally to the council itself.

Annex A: List of consultation questions

1. Are any aspects of the guidance unclear? (Please identify relevant paragraph numbers, and suggest how it could be clarified.)
2. What changes, if any, will you need to make to existing practices in order to comply with the new guidance?
3. What do you estimate would be the costs of making any changes in order to comply with the guidance?
4. Do you foresee any savings attributable to compliance with the guidance?

Annex B: List of respondents

Councils

Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

Broxbourne Borough Council

Epping Forest District Council

Kent Resource Partnership on behalf of:

• Ashford Borough Council
• Canterbury City Council
• Dartford Borough Council
• Dover District Council
• Folkestone & Hythe District Council
• Gravesham Borough Council
• Kent County Council
• Maidstone Borough Council
• Sevenoaks District Council
• Swale Borough Council
• Thanet District Council
• Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council
• Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

London Borough of Ealing

Manchester City Council

Metropolitan Borough of Doncaster

Newcastle City Council

North Yorkshire County Council

Runnymede Borough Council

Salford City Council

South Oxfordshire Borough Council

South Somerset District Council

Stevenage Borough Council

Stratford-on-Avon District Council

Swale Borough Council

Vale of White Horse District Council

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

Westminster City Council

Other organisations

Chartered Institution of Wastes Management

Cromwell Parish Meeting

Food Packaging Association

Keep Britain Tidy

NSL Ltd

Office of Police and Crime Commissioner - Devon, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

PATROL (Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London) Joint Committee

Road Haulage Association

We also received 55 responses from private individuals.