Agenda item

To receive a report providing an update on shared management arrangements with Doncaster Council.

Consideration was given to a report which provided an updated position in respect of service delivery and performance in respect of the ‘Time for Action’ Initiative, which provided for a mechanism to deliver enhanced enforcement around enviro-crime, particularly littering offences, and parking offences.

It was reported that joint arrangements with Doncaster Council had been operational since mobilisation in September 2018 and had delivered enhanced enforcement across a range of locations in Rotherham. Members noted that the Council had achieved its annual target relating to FPNs for 2019/20, which had been set at 2,000. The current number of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) issued was 2,513 (as of the end of January 2020). The report indicated that performance had improved by 18% since the commencement of the partnership.

Despite the improving picture, it was reported that the target within the SLA (5,000) would not be achieved and the number at the end of the year was expected to be closer to 3,500 FPNs issued. In order to achieve the target within the SLA the quarterly number needed to be around 1,250, which would represent a further increase in excess of 50% on the previous and best performing quarter, where 859 FPNs were issued.

The report acknowledged that improvements had yet to be made in relation to the sharing of information with ward Councillors, both in relation to patrols and fines issued. A review was underway of partnership data that supported processes, such as tasking and the Community Action Partnerships (CAPs), which were Ward-based meetings between officers and Ward Councillors. The service would aim to provide regular updates through the CAPs process to capture such information. These would also provide a forum to ensure that councillors could raise areas of concern in order to target enforcement patrols.

In discussion, Members requested more precise information, as has been available in the past, for example, a map displaying the location of every citation issued within the ward. Members recommended that information be made available to people at regular CAP meetings, so that they might be as useful as possible.

In response, the Cabinet Member noted that the complaints around CAPs meetings have been passed on to the police, happy to take that as a recommendation to provide the information at the CAP meetings. Officers elaborated that there are some data limitations because of the service-level agreement with Doncaster. Time limitations also come into play in translating the monthly data officers receive into something that would be useable at a ward level—even though officers recognise the importance of doing so. Officers are aware of the CAP process and the challenges involved, although some are working really well. A report is due back to the Safer Rotherham Partnership which will include a light-touch review of CAP processes. Officers further stated the data would be refreshed and made available to Members.

Members sought further information as to availability of individual officers or patrols in various areas of the Borough.

The response averred that shift information can be shared with Members as well as information about where patrols have taken place.

Members also showed interest in leveraging how Parish Councils might help inform our targeted patrols. The response noted that information to target patrols, councillors and citizens are in regular contact with services and officers so that patrols can be targeted. Parish Councils might handle as to ward-level information differently but officers would be pleased to accept intelligence from any source and would take direction.

Members also requested clarification around when and how Members would be informed of the outcomes of the scheduled improvement plan effort.

Officers provided assurance that they will be working with Members to keep them informed of the forthcoming improvements. Although a set date has not been scheduled, officers are looking into the next financial year, working towards April to finalise the plan.

Members also wished to know more about strategies for reporting witnessed events so that, as we foster public awareness, we might explain more clearly the system we have in place.

The officer response asserted that, with regards to parishes, information has been distributed and to Parish Councillors as well. Discussions have been held around reporting hotspots to the point person, because with the local information, under the enforcement contracts, the local authority could deploy the enforcement resource that is already there. It is the choice of Parish Councils, but we have had these conversations.

Members wished to establish more clearly how outcomes desired by residents may not always involve repressive enforcement actions that produce fines.

IN response, the officer affirmed the priority of raising a variety of interventions that work together to prevent the undesirable behaviours. Whilst the enforcement numbers are very low, what those numbers represent are a higher number of patrols in those areas. Generally, when people are in sight of other individuals, they are less likely to do those behaviours, but when they perceive that no one is watching, they are more likely.

The Cabinet Member expounded on the point that in regard to the issue of dog fouling, officers have considered a number of solutions, but none offer a more sophisticated solution than the current practice, which requires enforcers personally to witness a dog owner not clean up after their dog. And, unfortunately, enforcement officers’ presence in the area is only a deterrent while the officers are physically there.

A point of clarification was also requested around a chart depicting an apparent spikes and dips in the number of issued tickets. Members were informed that the spike reflects the availability of staff during those times.

Resolved:-

1.    That the report be noted.

2.    That statistics be brought to the CAP meetings on a regular basis and delineated by ward if possible.

3.    That a clear improvement plan be submitted to the Improving Places Select Commission for pre-decision scrutiny.