Agenda item

Following a referral from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Members considered a report on the use of Community Protection Notices (CPNs) by Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) and the impact of recent adoption of £100 fixed penalty notice for breaches of CPN, on influencing repeat and and potential offenders’ behaviours and on reduction of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) in Redditch.

The Technical Services Manager, WRS, introduced the item by stating that the meeting provided an opportunity to promote the work of WRS in Redditch. Clarification was provided in that since June 2024 the remit of WRS within Redditch Borough was to undertake enforcement of Planning and Environmental matters such as fly tipping, littering, duty of care of waste offences and dog fouling and the report focused on the issuing of CPNs and fixed penalty notices in relation to these matters. It was highlighted that CPNs were also being used for a wider range of anti-social behaviours by the Police and other Council departments.

Community Protection Notices (CPNs) were intended to stop a person or business continuing with conduct which unacceptably affected victims and the community. CPNs could only be served where there were reasonable grounds to believe the offender’s conduct had a detrimental impact on the quality of life of those in the locality. Before a CPN could be served, the offender must be given a formal written warning, the Community Protection Warning (CPW), stating that a CPN would be issued unless the offender’s conduct ceases to have a detrimental impact.

It was noted that failure to comply with a CPN was a summary offence under Section 48 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 that was punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale (£2,500) for an individual or an unlimited fine in the case of a body/business. In September 2025, Redditch Borough Council adopted the maximum permitted £100 charge for any Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) which, as per Section 52 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, might be served by an authorised person as an alternative to prosecution for breach of a CPN.

The Technical Services Manager, WRS, explained that WRS utilised an informal approach to change offenders’ behaviours prior to issuing Community Protection Warnings (CPWs). A recent example was cited of low-level fly tipping issues in Winyates East, Redditch, where WRS enforcement officers undertook letter drops to remind residents that items of waste, such as white goods left outside properties were a form of fly-tipping. This approach usually had led to resolution of issues as often the breach is inadvertent and/or the prospect of potential criminal sanction deters the continuation of a breach.

It was highlighted that service of a CPN was not widely publicised and there was little information that could be proactively published relating to specific cases, due to data protection implications. The only exception was that the law encouraged sharing of information with victims that a notice had been served so that they had knowledge of action taken, compliance periods and any restrictions or requirements put in place by the notice.

Data for the numbers of Community Protection Warnings (CPWs) and Community Protection Notices (CPNs) served in the last years was provided. It was noted that since June 2024 when WRS took responsibility for enforcement of Planning and Environment matters, the Service had not issued any CPWs or CPNs in Redditch Borough, although WRS had served 12 CPWs and 11 CPNs in the neighbouring district of Bromsgrove which demonstrated that WRS could utilise these when necessary.

It was explained that in Redditch Borough the need for issuing CPNs had been avoided for low-level environmental offences, whilst Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) had been served in Redditch Borough within the last year with 3 FPNs issued for littering and 4 for fly-tipping. There were further cases currently ongoing which involved witnesses being interviewed under caution. In response to a question, it was clarified that when WRS possessed clear evidence of an offence, such as video footage of the offence taking place, the FPN could be served immediately. In more complex cases, for example where a householder might unknowingly passed waste to an unregistered waste carrier who committed a fly-tip, then there might be a significant period between the committal of an offence and the eventual issuing of fine.

During the discussion of the report, Members expressed concern with the level of resources allocated to enforcement of environment-related issues and the lack of visible enforcement action in some areas of the Borough. The Technical Services Manager, WRS, explained that WRS had 3 dedicated enviro-crime officers working across Bromsgrove and Redditch Councils areas, and which were deployed to cases in these areas as and when they arise. It was highlighted that levels of fly tipping / littering in Redditch were high but in order to enforce the WRS had to collate evidence that led to the ability to enforce against an individual or a body/business. The time taken to obtain sufficient evidence to proceed with formal enforcement often resulted in a time lag between the offence and the actual enforcement action being taken. It was highlighted that informal approaches were often successful in preventing issues from escalating and this was the approach taken by WRS where possible.

Members expressed the need for enforcement in relation to low-level environmental issues to be increased within residential areas as in relation to environmental matters Redditch suffered mainly from issues such as household fly-tipping or littering rather than larger scale, ‘industrial’ fly tipping.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.