| | | |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
 |
Home | Topics | About | News | Publications | Consultations | Search | Links | Contacts | Help |  |
| Consultations > People, Communities & Living |
|
< Previous | Contents | Next > Putting our communities first: A Strategy for tackling Anti-social Behavioursection threeSafe, Secure and Attractive Communities: Too many of Scotland's villages, towns and communities are scarred by the visible evidence of anti-social behaviour. Parks, playgrounds, back-greens, shopping centres and residential areas are too often ruined by rubbish, graffiti, vandalism and other destructive behaviour. We have to get better at cleaning up our act. This applies to individuals who degrade the environment in which their fellow citizens live. However, it also applies to businesses and other bodies who shirk their responsibilities to the communities of which they are part. We also need to ensure that anti-social behaviour is tackled in housing, irrespective of the tenure or ownership of the housing affected. Litter, Fly-tipping and Abandoned Vehicles Thoughtless, illegal disposal of waste, whether confectionery papers and fast food wrappers, large quantities of industrial waste, or broken-down vehicles, is a serious blight in modern Scotland. Communities whose homes are surrounded with the debris of our consumer society, or farmers whose land is blighted by illegally-tipped waste, are obvious victims of anti-social behaviour. Strategies to deal with litter and fly-tipping must not only consist of giving the bodies who deal with it appropriate powers to do so, but must educate the people who drop litter and tip waste out of doing so. In this process of education, both provision of information and enforcement of the law will have a place. The Scottish Executive provides annual funding to Keep Scotland Beautiful (KSB), an environmental body with expertise in working alongside councils and other stakeholders in tackling litter and fly-tipping, to run educational campaigns across the country. This Executive has already taken steps to double the Fixed Penalty Fine for littering, which can be awarded on the spot by a person authorised by the local authority, to £50. We promised to do so in A Partnership for a Better Scotland, and laid the necessary order1 before the Scottish Parliament on 5 June. Subject to Parliament's approval, this order will become law on 1 July. This consultation paper considers other possible increases in penalties, to provide a more serious deterrent. Litter The usefulness of Fixed Penalty Fines depends on local authorities authorising individuals to issue them. One possibility might be to make this a function of community wardens. In considering this suggestion, we have to balance the advantages of adding to the range of local authority personnel who could issue Fixed Penalty Notices with the potential disadvantage that this role would have in relation to wardens' acceptance within the community. Experience elsewhere shows that wardens derive their success not from the powers they possess, but from their relationship with the local community and the go-between role they play with agencies. In England, warden schemes have been offered limited notice powers related to environmental nuisance, but few have opted to take these up. Some local authorities feel that the power to issue Fixed Penalty Notices could usefully be given to police, particularly since otherwise littering which occurred outwith local authority working hours would be less likely to be penalised. Once litter is dropped, it must be cleared up. Local authorities and others are given a duty under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to keep particular areas of land clear of litter. The standards applicable to various areas of land are listed in a UK-wide Code of Practice.2 The Scottish Executive has commissioned KSB to produce a new Code of Practice, tailored specifically to Scottish conditions. However, there may be additions which could usefully be made to the powers given to these bodies. For example, in England and Wales consideration is being given to permitting local authorities to clear up litter on Crown land and land belonging to statutory undertakers, such as Network Rail and roads authorities, where these bodies do not take action themselves, and to bill them for it. We may wish to consider this and other alterations to powers for Scotland. Your views:
Fly-tipping and Abandoned Vehicles Less serious cases of fly-tipping may be dealt with in the same way as littering. However, fly-tipping can also involve the dumping of large quantities of industrial or commercial waste, which may be toxic or otherwise hazardous. There is also the question of abandoned vehicles, where thoughtless vehicle owners cannot be bothered to take broken-down vehicles to the scrapyard, or are not prepared to pay for proper disposal. Just as for litter, an important part of the solution will be an examination of how powers to deal with fly-tipping and abandoned vehicles can be used more effectively. During the preparation of a recent independent report commissioned by the Scottish Executive on the effectiveness of current legislation on litter and fly-tipping3 it emerged that local authorities' chief concern appeared to be better interaction with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). We have already moved to secure this by establishing a Fly-Tipping Forum, on which all main stakeholders are represented, and which will define best practice for statutory bodies dealing with fly-tipping. Sometimes, however, changes to current regulations might be helpful. As an example, in January we made regulations4 to shorten the notice period before abandoned vehicles could be removed. Further changes may be desirable. Staying with abandoned vehicles, the local authorities which remove them may charge the owner to recover their expenses. At present, the authorised charges are £105 for removal, £12 a day for storage and £50 for disposal. It is possible that these charges should be revised to take account of present-day costs. Vehicles which cause an obstruction may be towed away. Vehicles may be removed for obstruction on any road, whether public or private, provided there is a public right of passage along it by whatever means. It may be desirable to extend these powers, for example to private accesses. On the wider issue of fly-tipping, during preparation of the ERM report a number of possible additions to local authority powers were considered. Some, such as awarding Fixed Penalty Fines to fly-tipping offenders, or convicting on the evidence of only one witness, may already be done under the littering legislation. For the more serious kinds of fly-tipping these may not be appropriate, however. £50 would be a small fine for the more serious kinds of fly-tipping, and in the event of heavier penalties being applicable, it may be argued that the accused should be given the full protection of the Scots legal requirement for corroboration. Another possibility would be the extension of the right to demand waste transfer documents to local authorities. Movements of industrial and commercial waste must be documented until its final recycling or disposal. If the documentation accompanying a consignment of waste cannot be traced to the point of legitimate disposal, this may be evidence of fly-tipping. At present SEPA has the right to demand and examine these documents. It may be considered desirable to extend this right to local authorities. Finally, there are penalties. It is clear that fly-tipping is a major problem. Cleaning it up is expensive and difficult. This is reflected in the penalties available to the courts, which may impose an unlimited fine, as well as a substantial term of imprisonment, if a case is taken on indictment. However, in common with a range of other serious environmental offences, if the simpler summary procedure is used the penalty is limited to a fine of £20,000. We believe that doubling the potential fine for such offences would provide a more effective deterrent. Your views:
Graffiti Too many of our communities are scarred and demeaned by graffiti. Buildings and other property suffer. So do the people who live and work in and around these areas. Graffiti is not a victimless activity. Those who own the property affected often have to spend considerable amounts cleaning the damage up. Some graffiti is racist and offensive and may have a devastating effect on those targeted by it: undermining confidence and spreading fear of attack or victimisation. However, graffiti has debilitating impacts on our neighbourhoods irrespective of its nature. It undermines community confidence and pride and creates an environment where greater evils may be accepted. We want to do what we can to stamp out graffiti. For that reason, we will legislate to make it an offence to sell spray paint to young people aged under-16. Where graffiti has occurred, we hope that the proposals made earlier in this paper about strengthening the place of reparation in the community would assist in getting those who caused the damage to help clean it up. We also want to ensure that local authorities are properly equipped to deal with graffiti where it occurs. To do so requires the right mix of powers and resources. In relation to resources, tackling graffiti is one of the aims of the Quality of Life initiative, which was set up by Ministers last year to take action to improve the quality of the local environment. The Spending Review 2002 committed £180m over the next 3 years to local authorities to enable them to fund local "quality of life" initiatives. The Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 gave local authorities a power to advance well-being to enable them to work in a more innovative and creative way in responding to the needs of their communities. The well-being of people in an area is dependent on many factors, including various environmental factors, and we think that authorities may wish to consider using the power to advance well-being to address the removal of graffiti. We would be grateful for views on whether local authorities feel that this power is sufficient to allow them to tackle the problem effectively or whether authorities feel they need further powers, and what these might be. We would be grateful for views about whether further powers for local authorities are required to deal with graffiti. Some local authorities have told us that their power to deal with graffiti on non-council property, especially privately-owned shops and property owned by public utilities, is limited. Your views:
Noise Nuisance There is an increasing awareness of, and annoyance with, noise problems in communities and within domestic dwellings. At present noise issues are dealt with by local authority Environmental Health Officers (EHOs), community mediation services or the police. Existing procedures do work in particular for a recurring noise problem. However, in reality there is a lengthy process to obtain an abatement notice. We believe that local authorities may require more powers to deal with this problem, especially when it occurs at night, and that a more immediate and effective resolution is required. Current building regulations should cover acceptable sound insulation but new build properties and refurbished properties may require greater scrutiny and testing. There is a need for tenancy agreements to promote considerate behaviour and the use of good practice in, for example, the installation of wooden flooring. The use of community mediation services should be encouraged to resolve neighbour disputes informally. Extending powers to local authorities to deal with night-time noise in domestic dwellings would bring Scotland into line with the Noise Act 1996, which covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland. At present Sections 2 to 9 of that Act are adoptive, giving local authorities discretion to adopt them. However, once they do, they must provide a compulsory night-time noise service seven nights a week. These arrangement have not proved workable and the UK Government is proposing to make amendments enabling local authorities to use their powers in a more flexible way. The Act enables EHOs to either prosecute the person or issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs). A successful prosecution allows a maximum fine of £1,000. In the case of FPNs, these are set at £100 and are issued to those deemed responsible for the noise emitted above the permitted level between the hours of 11.00 pm and 07.00 am, if they do not heed a warning notice after a specified notice period. The minimum notice period is 10 minutes. The permitted level of noise, as stated in the Noise Act, relating to between 11.00 pm and 07.00 am has been set at 35dB(A), where the background level does not exceed 25dB(A). The actual noise does not require to be measured if deemed by the EHO to be excessive. There is a strong case for extending the issuing of FPN powers to community wardens. However, as indicated earlier, we would need to balance the advantages of adding to the range of local authority personnel who could issue FPNs with the potential disadvantage that this role would have to wardens' credibility and acceptance within the community. In England, warden schemes have been offered limited notice powers related to environmental nuisance, but few have opted to take these up. Decisions about the involvement of wardens in issuing FPNs need to be taken locally and will be dictated by type of scheme. Getting effective evidence of excessive noise is often difficult. Present legislation makes no specific provision on evidence. This means that the normal rules of evidence apply and corroboration from more than one source is necessary. If community wardens are to have a role in enforcing noise regulation, there will still be a requirement for evidence from another source as well as that of the warden, unless evidence provisions are changed in this area. Again, there may be a case for having specific evidence provisions. Options We believe there is a need for a new approach on how we address noise nuisance. Such a new approach might involve the following:
Your views:
Fireworks Fireworks can be a source of pleasure and public entertainment around Bonfire Night, Hogmanay and other special occasions throughout the year. Organised shows, whether at the national or local level, are enjoyed by many people both young and old. However, the use of fireworks as a means of causing nuisance, noise and distress at all times of the year and at all times of the day and night is becoming increasingly common. Some even use fireworks as weapons to cause harm to people and animals or damage to property. Many of those who use fireworks irresponsibly are young people. It is already illegal to sell fireworks to those under age but we believe further action is needed. That is why the Scottish Executive is right behind the Private Member's Bill at Westminster that will bring a more effective regime for the control of fireworks on a GB-wide basis. Anti-social Behaviour and Housing Anti-social behaviour is an issue in all parts of the housing market: owner-occupied, the private rented sector and the social rented sector. Effective action is needed wherever it occurs. The anti-social behaviour strategies that local authorities are to prepare (see above) will need to address anti-social behaviour in all sections of the housing market. The measures described elsewhere in this consultation document, such as Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and Anti-social Behaviour Orders, can be used in all tenures. They will be the main means of addressing anti-social behaviour in owner-occupied property. Landlords, in both the social rented and private sectors, share with all other citizens a responsibility to play their part in tackling anti-social behaviour, and we are considering further measures to underline these responsibilities. Registered Social Landlords The regulatory framework within which RSLs operate has recently been modified to take account of the need to address anti-social behaviour and Communities Scotland, the regulator of RSLs, is committed to ensuring landlords tackle anti-social behaviour effectively. Communities Scotland will assess the performance of RSLs in dealing with anti-social behaviour in each and every inspection, and this will be taken into account in publishing reports on their performance, deciding the grading given to the RSL, and in the improvement plans required by the regulator following inspection. RSLs are also subject to a performance standard which requires them to work in partnership with others to manage anti-social behaviour. We are consulting on whether to strengthen this by placing a formal duty on RSLs to participate in the production and implementation of anti-social behaviour strategies. Private Sector Landlords Private landlords share with all other citizens a responsibility to play their part in tackling anti-social behaviour. They have a particular role to play in managing the tenancies from which they receive income. Good tenancy management includes the control of unacceptable behaviour by tenants, whether by advice, warnings or sanctions. The law specifically provides for anti-social behaviour to be a ground on which the landlord can apply to the Sheriff for the tenant to be evicted. There is a concern that some private landlords fail to take action to control anti-social behaviour by their tenants. Faced with persistent problems of anti-social behaviour, local residents may have difficulty identifying and contacting the landlord and, if they do manage to do so, the landlord may be unwilling to take management action to stop the behaviour. Although the tenant is the basic cause of problems of anti-social behaviour in the private rented sector, there is a case for considering measures to require landlords to take more effective action. We would expect any such measures to be part of the package of tools available to local authorities for dealing with anti-social behaviour. The measures that could be taken include regulation of the activities of landlords, either within a defined area or targeted at specific properties. These options should be seen within the context of the Housing Improvement Task Force (HITF), which has recently made proposals to strengthen the regulation of the privately rented sector with the main aim of improving the housing conditions of tenants. Regulating the Activities of Private Sector Landlords There are two options, or a combination of these, for putting the regulation of private sector landlords on a legal basis. Option 1: Giving local authorities the power to require all privately let property in a defined area to be registered Legislation would define serious anti-social behaviour and the action private landlords should take to control it. The local authority could withdraw or refuse registration (subject to appeal to the court) where the landlord failed to take action to control a serious problem of anti-social behaviour. Letting of unregistered property would be illegal, with criminal penalties. The legislation would also provide that no rental would be payable for unregistered property. This would mean, amongst other things, that the tenant would not have a rental liability and Housing Benefit would not be payable. Local authorities would have a duty to re-house (or arrange for the re-housing of) any tenants who were displaced as a result of enforcement action. This option ties in with other aspects of our approach to anti-social behaviour and social decline. Option 2: Giving local authorities the power to take over the management of individual properties To ensure that anti-social behaviour was properly managed in individual cases, the local authority could require the landlord to state what they would do to end the anti-social behaviour. If the proposed action was insufficient or was not taken, the authority could apply to the court to decide appropriate sanctions in the light of the authority's evidence and the landlord's representations. Possible sanctions could include:
Under a Management Control Order the local authority or its agent would, for a specified time, have full management responsibility for the property as if it were the landlord of the private sector tenancy, and would take immediate steps to address the anti-social behaviour. It would pay the landlord the net income from the property after deducting administration and management costs. Housing Benefit would remain payable for what would now be a properly managed tenancy. Housing Benefit Issues The UK Government has recently issued a consultation paper seeking views on a possible Housing Benefit sanction to deter and address anti-social behaviour. The proposals are based on the principle that state welfare should combine rights with responsibilities, and that it is right to question whether the state should continue to support the housing costs of persons whose behaviour brings misery to the lives of individuals and communities. It sought views on two options for implementing possible sanctions. The first option would require courts to identify whether particular offences or successful civil actions involved anti-social behaviour and this could trigger a Housing Benefit penalty. The second option would allow local authorities to apply Housing Benefit penalties in cases of anti-social behaviour without recourse to the courts. We look forward to seeing the results of the consultation in due course. We will be working closely with colleagues in the Department of Work and Pensions in considering the way forward for Scotland. This will take account of the consultation responses and our legal and administrative framework in Scotland. Piloting "good neighbour" Declarations In A Partnership for a Better Scotland we made the commitment to pilot
"good neighbour" declarations. These agreements set out what tenants can expect
from landlords and other agencies, for example in terms of levels of services
and response times to complaints, while Rewarding Good Tenants Often people who are law-abiding tenants and meet their responsibilities to their families and their communities feel that it is anti-social individuals and families who are targeted for support and resources. We need measures that reward good behaviour and which send clear signals to others to desist from anti-social behaviour. A number of social landlords, including Edinburgh City Council, are piloting schemes whereby tenants who behave themselves and pay their rent on time get rewarded. This can include financial bonuses, day trips and a faster repair service. Tenants who misbehave get the basic service, with increasing sanction and punishment for those who persistently misbehave. ASBOs and Legislation on Housing and Homelessness Existing legislative provisions on ASBOs are also linked to housing legislation. In particular, a landlord may convert a Scottish Secure Tenancy (SST) to a short Scottish secure tenancy where the tenant (or any one of joint tenants) or a person residing or lodging with, or subtenant of, the tenant is subject to an ASBO (Section 35(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001). The landlord has an absolute right to possession at the end of the tenancy (which can last up to 12 months). In our view, these provisions should apply in cases where an ASBO has been granted against a person under-16. There is emerging evidence from England that this has a powerful influence in making parents take a more active role in controlling the behaviour of their children. Under the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003, a homeless applicant found to have a priority need for housing but also to be intentionally homeless would normally be offered a short SST. However, where the applicant, or someone who resides with the applicant, is subject to an ASBO the applicant will have no automatic right to such a short SST. Instead the local authority may offer accommodation to which Section 7 of the 2001 Act applies (i.e. non-tenancy). This legal framework means that, even though a local authority does have a responsibility to offer accommodation to someone evicted following an ASBO, the type of accommodation likely to be offered will be very much less attractive (non-tenancy accommodation such as in a hostel) than that from which they have been evicted. The suspension of a right to a tenancy enables the local authority to take action to remove the tenant from the community affected by their anti-social behaviour. It then gives the authority flexibility to tackle the anti-social behaviour in the most appropriate way, whilst still ensuring the person remains in (non-tenancy) accommodation within the control of the authority. Your views:
< Previous | Contents | Next > |
|
|
|
|
Home | Topics | About | News | Publications | Consultations | Search | Links | Contacts | Help | |
| Crown Copyright | Privacy policy | Content Disclaimer | General enquiries |