Calls for more prosecutions of fly-tippers in Peterborough as dozens of covert cameras set to be installed

The news was warmly welcomed by members of the city council’s Growth, Environment and Resources Scrutiny Committee at their meeting this week.

Richard Pearn, head of waste, resources and energy presented a report from the Fly-Tipping Task and Finish Group and said: “The new cameras will be placed at secret locations around the city in places known to be used by fly-tippers and also at locations where we feel they might move their criminal activities as the pressure on them by us is mounted.

“It has taken some time to find the money to pay for these cameras; but we believe that they will pay for themselves in two ways: one, the fly-tippers that we catch will be fined through the courts and two, the money the council saves in having to clear up the mess these people create.

“The tonnage of fly-tipping has reduced in recent months, whereas the numbers of actual fly-tipping incidents being reported has gone up dramatically.

“However, this is most probably due to people becoming more aware of the criminal activities of the fly-tippers as we crack down on them and they search harder and harder for areas to drop their loads, coupled with a direct result of people taking advantage of the new home recycling centre opened last year.

“We’ve also concentrated a lot of our resources on educating people to understand that fly-tipping is a very serious crime that affects all of us and that those who carry it out are criminals making a small fortune at the expense of our misery – not just some people who are providing a necessary service taking your household waste problems away and getting rid of them, as some people still seem to think.

“We will – and we do – track and trace fly-tipped items back to the original owners and they are made to pay for our time and the clear up process – very often paying to get rid of that rubbish for a second time. But it is their mistake not checking exactly who it is that they are dealing with when it comes to waste removal services.

“Only last week a lady in Orton paid £80 to a waste removal service who purported to have a waste removal license; but it was fake, she didn’t check it with the council website and that load was fly-tipped on farmland just outside the city.”

Cllr Kim Aitken said: “What about electronic waste removal licenses – why do we not have those instead of the paper ones that can be simply and easily forged?”

James Collingridge, head of environmental partnerships, replied: “Actually, the paper ones we issue are not that easy to fake and it seems the fake licenses that are being used are nothing more than poorly created examples that shouldn’t fool members of the public, but sadly they often are not checked carefully enough.

“As far as electronic licences are concerned, we are moving towards those in the very near future and people will be able to confirm the validity of these and those using them on the city council website.”

Cllr Chris Wiggin asked: “How many people have we actually convicted of fly-tipping and how much has been recovered in fines from the conviction of those criminals?”

Mr Collingridge said he didn’t have the exact figures with him but would find out and report back to the members as soon as possible.

Cllr Chris Burbage was also concerned and said: “I understand at present that most of the people we have caught and fined have been given something in the region of £300 penalties. The problem with that is that these people who are doing the fly-tipping are making tens of thousands of pounds each month and paltry fines like £300 are nothing but an irritation to them because they lose a day’s work fly-tipping when they go to court.

“Why are we not pursuing the really big fines – the maximum penalty for fly-tipping is up to £50,000 or 12 months imprisonment if convicted in a magistrates’ court and can attract an unlimited fine and up to five years imprisonment if convicted in a crown court.

“Why is it that we never hear of these really big fines that would hurt the fly-tippers in their pockets or, better still, lock them up for a few years so they can sit and brood on their ill-gotten gains?

“If we prosecute a few more of these criminals and get the bigger fines we can afford to buy you all the covert cameras you want then, can’t we?”

Mr Pearn said: “I don’t know the exact reasons, but I will try to find out why and report back to the members.

“I suspect the level of criminal investigation and legal costs may have something to do with it, however. But you are right, these criminals are making thousands of pounds a week, so a small fine of £300 here and there is probably considered by them an acceptable risk of the trade.

“That said, the sheer amount of cash involved means these criminals have nasty reputations and I suspect people who know who they are probably have concerns for their safety, or are in on the act itself – i.e. being kept quiet.”

The members welcomed the report and the introduction of the new cameras, but wanted more information on the level of convictions and why more were not being made.

Robert Alexander, Local Democracy Reporting Service