Debate on street fines turns ugly as tempers flare

Methods criticised in row over new environmental officers

Tempers ran high between Conservative and opposition councillors at a meeting to discuss the Royal Borough’s new environmental enforcement officers on Tuesday – leading to one councillor vowing to lodge a formal complaint, writes Adrian Williams.

Controversy began when opposition councillors attempted to establish whether any member had been ‘whipped’ into supporting a particular party line on the issue.

In the midst of disagreement, Councillor John Baldwin (Lib Dem, Belmont) was muted by the chair, Councillor John Bowden (Con, Eton and Castle), for being ‘disruptive’.

The meeting continued, discussing the conduct and tactics of the new officers, who have been tasked with dishing out fines for littering and other environmental offences.

Officers from the District Enforcement company have dished out 649 fines in five weeks – 476 of which were cigarette related.

Resident John Webb said he felt the officers’ modus operandi was to ‘lay in wait’ for smokers and ‘pounce on them’ rather than patrol for random acts of littering.

Councillor David Cannon, lead member for public protection and parking, said he ‘took umbrage’ at this comment.

“We have seen no evidence of this,” he said. “Anyone taking their evidence from Facebook I would suggest is unwise.”

Councillor Helen Price (TBF, Clewer & Dedworth East) voiced her concern about an ‘entrapment approach’ residents have reported, describing claims that officers hide from view and appear only when people drop litter.

“We have had councillors reporting things that bear no resemblance to the truth because they have been misled by the residents reporting,” said Cllr Cannon.

“If you want this scheme to work, the last thing we need is antagonism from councillors.”

Cllr Price had concerns that the Royal Borough was not following best advice from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which takes an ‘explain, engage, educate’ approach before enforcement.

Though many councillors voiced their support for a warning system instead, others stressed there were no means to check if someone has previously received a verbal warning.

Cllr Price and Councillor Carole Da Costa (WWRA, Clewer & Dedworth East) both flagged up examples of people who could not afford their fine – including one resident who is purportedly now being supported by a foodbank as a result of receiving a fine.

“£75 is a significant amount of money for some residents. For cigarette butts, is the punishment fitting for the crime? I don’t believe it is,” said Cllr Da Costa. She added: “If someone litters, they deserve a fine but they do not deserve to be intimidated or forced into a position where they can’t afford to buy food for their family.”

Regarding worries about the officers coming onto private land, the meeting was told that technically private car parks count as public space, thus the officers are within their rights to do so – unless asked not to by landowners.

Cllr Cannon advised landowners against this.

“If residents know they are going onto land where they can freely litter, these landowners would be creating a problem for themselves,” he said.

The meeting ended acrimoniously when Cllr Baldwin, previously muted by the chair, was refused the opportunity to raise a point of order.

“You are required to take a point of order immediately. This is unconstitutional,” said Cllr Baldwin.

However, Cllr Bowden requested that Cllr Baldwin be muted once again.

“Fantastic, silence your critics,” said Cllr Baldwin.

“This is really childish,” objected Councillor Neil Knowles to the chair. “You should deal with this now, he has a right to speak.”

When he was eventually allowed to speak, Cllr Baldwin called Cllr

Bowden’s chairmanship ‘nothing short of a disgrace’.

Cllr Baldwin promised to lodge a formal complaint, marking his second run-in with the Conservative administration in recent weeks (see p9).