To consider the report.

Christopher Wheeler, Service Improvement Manager - Commissioning and Communities, provided a verbal update. He said fly-tipping was increasing locally and nationally for the last few years and ranged from waste on recycling sites to fly tipping down country lanes. The borough had the authority to investigate and enforce against fly-tipping, particularly on the adopted highway, public rights of way and amenity lands. Fly-tipping on private land was the responsibility of thelandowner.

The number of fly tips was measured every quarter as part of the performance monitoring. There were 216 fly tips in the fourth quarter of 2019/2020 and a total of 934 in 2019/2020. This was 79% above target and an increase from 2018/2019, which were also above target. Fly-tipping was bad for the environment and costly to collect and safely dispose waste.

The UK fines for littering Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) ranged from £100 to a maximum of £50,000. There were two mobile cameras in the borough (Ham Lane, Old Windsor and Sutherland Grange, Maidenhead Road) specifically deployed to deter fly-tipping and to collect evidence for enforcement. Other locations for the cameras were trialled, including Wessex Way, Maidenhead.

There was a noticeable increase in fly-tipping during the lockdown period nationally. During the summer period, the borough carried out a campaign to communicate messages on social media and signposted fly-tipping hotspots to encourage the public to report fly-tipping. Waste that contained names and addresses were contacted with warning notices and pointed people at their duty of care forthe safe disposable of waste.

The borough was going to enter a contract with DistrictEnforcement in October 2020 with Neil Walter as the lead officer. The contractor would manage day-to-day enforcements such as littering, dog fouling and car littering. This would take up 75% of their time, with the remaining 25% would look at complex enforcement issues such as commercial duty of care. The contract was cost neutral because the contractor retained the FPN for littering and dog fouling. Cost saving would come from the enforcement, which would reduce fly-tipping and other offences, and in turn reduced costs in collection and disposal of waste.

Councillor Baldwinasked if the total of 216 fly tips was reported fly tips or an aggregation of reported and observed fly tips, and the Panel was informed it was the latter. Councillor Baldwin asked if the contractor had the authority to go to NationalTrust land and car park, and the Panel was informed they did not have the authority.

The Vice Chairman asked how many team members would be on the ground, and the Panel were informed that there would be four officers and a supervisor deployed across the borough issuing FPNs. There was a specialist team of four or five that would support with more complex cases and the duty of care of commercial waste in the back office.

Councillor Haselerasked if the contractor had their own cameras to be used in hotspot areas to detect offenders. The Panel was informed that the contractor did not have their own cameras, but they had their own system to gather intelligence, as well as on-street patrol. The borough was also reliant on residents and members of public to notify any fly-tipping by submitting details online with accompanying registration numbers or photographic evidence. which could be used for enforcement and prosecution. Councillor Haseler asked if there was budget to increase the number of cameras and the Panel was informed that this was not planned but could be suggested. The Panel was informed this was a new pilot contract therefore time was needed to allow it to be imbedded and would be a constantly reviewed service.

Councillor Bateson asked what offence would lead to a £50,000 fine, and the Panel was informed that this cost would be issued by the court for repeated fly-tipping offences and could not be assigned by officers.

The Panel noted the report.