Integrated enforcement review

Enforcement is undertaken through:

1. Planning enforcement as a mechanism to uphold the integrity of the wider planning system to protect the public, businesses and the environment from unauthorised development and its harmful impacts. Potential breaches are examined and appropriate action determined by the Planning Team.
2. Building control officers use the powers to impose fines for contraventions of the Building Regulations and to remove or alter offending building work as appropriate, subject to a successful prosecution.
3. The Highways and Transport Team manage:

• street work permit enforcement and issue penalty fines for non-compliance or over-run on road space
• overgrown vegetation notices, highway obstruction, failure to maintain ditches to recover all costs if there is a failure to comply
• Advanced Payment Code (APC) notices, securing bond against unfinished new roads (debt applied to Land Charges Register)​

Officers with enforcement powers include:

• 5 building control officers
• 3 planning enforcement officers
• 2 highway works inspectors

Enforcement duties are carried out as part of different engineering roles, requiring a range of different skillsets. Some of these roles are only part enforcement focused and so have other functions. Enforcement staffing is therefore difficult to quantify. The panel were advised that income, in terms of fines, was hard to quantify and varied. Revenue income was very low.

Bracknell Forest Council is responsible for parking enforcement on its streets and in its car parks using the civil parking enforcement powers provided by the Traffic Management Act 2004. It is also responsible for the operation and management of council owned car parks and both these functions are undertaken by contractors, NSL Ltd, working on behalf of the council. Revenue to the council from Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) is approximately £65k per year.

Features of NSL Ltd include:

• distinctive blue uniforms
• an identification number and badge
• serving of PCNs to vehicles parked illegally
• not getting incentives for issuing tickets or enforcing parking regulations
• PCNs are processed end to end by NSL Ltd

 NSL Ltd contracted staff include:

• 6 civic enforcement officers
• 3 cleaners
• 1 supervisor
• 1 senior supervisor
• 1 client account manager

It is recognised by senior officers and by the Executive portfolio holder that the contract with NSL Ltd has seen improvements in parking enforcement within the borough. The panel was also pleased to discover postal PCNs had recently been introduced as a means of allowing officers to issue tickets quicker.

Good practice

In response to COVID-19 restrictions, NSL Ltd provided the council with COVID Ambassadors to advise and support members of the public and businesses on following social distancing rules. Their success was recognised last year when Bracknell Forest Council and NSL Ltd were given a British Parking Award in the ‘a positive response to the pandemic’ category.

The PPP is a shared service delivering environmental health, licensing and trading standards on behalf of 2 authorities, Bracknell Forest Council and West Berkshire Council.

These services encompass a wide range of areas of responsibility and include:

• air quality management                                   
• animal warden
• animal welfare
• contaminated land
• communicable diseases
• community education
• community mediation
• consumer advice
• environmental nuisance protection
• fair trading
• financial investigations
• fraud and counterfeiting
• food safety
• gambling
• health and safety at work
• health promotion
• industrial pollution
• licensing
• metrology
• overloaded vehicles
• pest control
• petroleum and explosives
• primary authority
• private sector housing
• product safety
• public health
• rogue trading
• scams
• taxi licensing
• underage sales
• water supplies

The PPP’s priorities are informed by the assessment of evidence from across a wide range of sources which include assessment of resident concerns, council and national priorities as well as emerging issues. 

The priorities of the PPP are:

• community protection
• protecting and improving health
• protection of the environment
• supporting prosperity and economic growth
• effective and improving service delivery 
• partnership working

Senior officers explained that the PPP aims to make it clear how they operate and show why they do the work they do as they identify communication and transparency as key to the partnership’s success. They explained that each project undertaken should be linked back to an evidence-based approach. 

There are approximately 100 officers covering the Bracknell Forest and West Berkshire areas. Being part of the PPP provides the council with not only greater resilience when resources are stretched but also greater access to specialist officers. There is also a shared Trading Standards Service with Wokingham who also buy into the PPP case management and intelligence functions. Due to the nature of these types of enforcement services it would be difficult to further integrate them. Keeping services as they are within the PPP would be cost effective for the council. 

Recommendation

The PPP have their own case management function who have had a high level of success in pursuing criminal actions. These have resulted in publicity which in turn acts as a deterrent to those considering offending. Therefore, it is recommended that good enforcement across the council is regularly publicised for the reasons set out above. It is also recommended that the council develops the PPP’s drive for transparency, making sure regular educational campaigns on enforcement are run for residents. This will help to tackle local misinformation on enforcement while increasing awareness of rules and regulations across the borough. 

Services under the PPP were put under immense pressure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to its fluidity in structure and design, the service was able to adapt and react to the challenges that emerged. COVID-19 is just one such example of a fast-emerging issue from over the years that have required the PPP to not only be flexible but resilient and resourceful too. Other examples include the Foot and Mouth outbreaks in the 2000s. By design, the PPP must be able to adjust its plans for such eventualities. the partnership has so far proved itself to be responsive when faced with quickly changing demands.

Enforcement cases often require crossover between teams and services and the Panel discovered this is regularly the case within the borough. For example, teams across services of the Council often work together on ‘problem sites’. These are particular sites that have been identified as having multiple sets of enforcement related issues.  Officers from different services will coordinate and seek to work closely by meeting regularly to tackle ‘problem sites’.

Teams within the PPP regularly coordinate with other officers at Bracknell Forest Council. PPP officers within environmental health will work closely with the council’s Highways and the Planning Teams on issues of air quality. For instance, the PPP is working closely with civil enforcement officers to tackle car idling near schools. On issues concerning street trading, appropriate officers from the PPP’s Licensing Team will collaborate with officers from Highways and Planning. Examples of joint working between officers from the PPP and from the council are not limited to these 2 and the panel was pleased to hear there were many more.

Bracknell Forest Council has a good working relationship with the Local Fire Authority. On enforcement, the council has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Royal Berkshire Fire Authority (RBFRS), alongside other borough councils in the county. The objective of the MoU is to make sure appropriate standards of fire safety and other safety provisions are provided and maintained in high and medium rise flats common to both the local authority and RBFRS areas. It also aims to establish a joint working team to carry out joint inspections.

Due to the specialist issues the different teams cover within the 3 main areas of the PPP, they regularly coordinate with a wide range of other partners outside the council.

Partners outside the council

Trading Standards partners include:

• Thames Valley Police
• DEFRA
• Public Health
• Office of Product Safety and Standard
• Food Standards Agency
• National Training

Environmental Health partners include:

• Royal Berkshire Fire Authority
• Health and Safety Executive
• Public Health
• Food Standards Agency

Licensing:

• Thames Valley Police
• Royal Berkshire Fire Authority
• National Trading Standards
• South Central Ambulance Service

Fly tipping has increasingly become a challenging issue both nationally and locally. In the Bracknell area there are, on average, 25 reports a week of fly tipping.  In response, the PPP has recruited an enviro-crime officer as well as introduced CCTV at local hotspots. In addition to this, the PPP has worked alongside several Thames Valley teams, The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and HMRC on operations designed to tackle a variety of enforcement issues, including fly tipping. As a result of these campaigns there are now currently a significant number of enviro-crime related investigations being undertaken and several files are with the PPP case management unit for progressing through to court.

The panel quickly discovered the term integrated enforcement can be interpreted in many ways, particularly in a local authority setting. For some authorities it can mean the merging of all enforcement services together under one structure while for others it could simply mean the introduction of a single integrated enforcement policy. This is because enforcement can be highly complex and so there isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ model.

By speaking to the Assistant Director of Community Safety at the Royal Borough of Greenwich, the panel discovered Greenwich had recently adopted what was described as a ‘hybrid model’. At Greenwich integrated enforcement was reflected not only in their approach to enforcement but they also have a more integrated service design in order to reduce delays caused by silo working. Most enforcement cases will require some crossover between services, and this can cause unnecessary delays as cases are often ‘ping-ponged’ back and forth between teams. To tackle this, Greenwich has introduced a process where a team will take ownership from start to finish of a case, making sure they regularly follow up cases once they are with different teams. Responsibility for an enforcement case is decided on a case-by-case basis.

Good practice

The Royal Borough of Greenwich has received several plaudits for its joint enforcement work, including a Met Police Excellence Award 2021 for ‘Safer Neighbourhood Team of the Year’ due to its outstanding productivity, performance, and partnership working.

Other local authorities such as Spelthorne Borough Council and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council have introduced a Joint Enforcement Team (JET). The JETs see council officers working collectively with the police to combat local issues such as noise, antisocial behaviour and low-level crime. The JET team at Reigate and Banstead Borough Council is made up of 5 CSAS accredited officers. They act as a point of contact and have been described as “enforcement coordinators”. Most of their cases are related to environmental crime.

Good practice

Good enforcement practices shared by all the aforementioned borough councils include:

• regular formal meetings between all enforcement teams to reflect and review ongoing enforcement challenges as well as share relevant intelligence
• a collaborative culture exists. Officers actively seek to work closer with internal and external partners to make sure cases are solved both efficiently and quickly
• an enforcement officer usually takes responsibility of a case from start until finish to avoid delays caused by silo working

 Recommendation

It is recommended that the Council introduces an allocation process where a team or officer is assigned as the lead for the duration of an enforcement case.
It is also recommended that the Council develops enforcement strategies that encourage greater collaboration across services and with partners. Upon strengthening their knowledge of good enforcement practices at other local authorities the Panel feel these recommendations will complement and enhance existing enforcement activities within the borough. 
 

A further consideration highlighted during the Panel’s work on integrated enforcement at other councils is the importance of Executive Members’ and Officers’ buy-in to an integrated enforcement model as a means of improving local enforcement.

CSAS allows organisations and their employees to be given targeted police powers by the chief constable. There are currently over 40 powers available to an accredited person which are set out in Schedule 5 of the Police Reform Act 2002. These include issuing fixed penalty notices for various low level offences, power to control traffic and the power to require giving of name and address.

The chief inspector advised the panel that the CSAS allows for greater partnership working between the police and local organisations. The scheme creates a framework for public and private bodies to work in partnership with the police, providing additional uniformed presence in communities and capitalising on the skills and information captured by those already engaged with the community.

The benefits of CSAS include:

• allows for a closer working relationship between the council and Thames Valley Police
• raises priority of community safety
• increasing uniformed presence on the streets
• reductions in a range of local issues such as street drinking and dog fouling
• public reassurance
• enhanced intelligence sharing
• save police valuable time

Thames Valley Police have seen council schemes introduced at Cherwell District Council and Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council. Both have accredited warden schemes which are working well. Furthermore, the CSAS accredited Joint Enforcement Team officers at Spelthorne have experienced some success with the scheme. As a result of enforcement officers having CSAS powers, they have been able to secure convictions for serial fly-tippers and the seizure of fly-tippers vehicles.

 Registration CSAS costs are as below:

• there is not organisation fee for set up
• individual fee is £75 per person for Level 2 Vetting (usually valid for 3 years) 

Further to an application, the staff seeking accreditation will be required to undergo police vetting checks and complete a CSAS training course with an approved training provider, before they can be accredited.  The cost of the training will be met by the organisation seeking accreditation.  The training will cover the specific powers that are being requested together with other elements such as personal safety and conflict resolution. Costs for the training course vary depending on the provider, also the number of employees, number of power being accredited. CSAS training lasts for 5 to 7 days. 

It is a police decision which powers would be appropriate after close consultation between the organisation and the police. They will need to consider the:

• organisation applying has a satisfactory complaints procedure
• organisation applying has a fit and proper supervisory or management structure to oversee the accredited person
• organisation must be suitable to exercise the accredited powers
• organisation must be suitable to exercise the accredited powers
• employee must be capable of executing the tasks provided by the accredited powers
• the employee must have received appropriate CSAS training – this is the employer’s responsibility

Recommendation

It is recommended that the CSAS is introduced at Bracknell Forest Council. By doing so, officers will be able to further strengthen their joint working approach while reassuring residents the council aims to make sure the borough is a safer, cleaner and happier borough to live in. Any introduction of the CSAS must be accompanied by a public awareness campaign of the scheme.