Agenda item

7.1

The committee received two questions in advance of the meeting and also two people in attendance via online remote connection.

7.2

Question - Gill Green (online) firstly gave some context around her written question.

As some of you may recall, I attended the recent SE LAC meeting via Zoom but was only allowed enough time to raise part of my question which I sent to you prior to the meeting. As a result, the ensuing discussion In the room focussed on volunteer litter picking in the area rather than the problem areas that I highlighted in my email to you and in my question to the LAC i.e. hedgerows and verges at the side of the A57, Bochum Parkway, Donetsk Way see my email to you all (below). I did, however, appreciate Councillor Smith’s comment to the meeting that my question was an attempt to target littering of our highways and that the Council should do something about the problem of littering from vehicles. Unfortunately, unfairly and much to my annoyance, as a resident who was attending the meeting virtually, I was not given the opportunity for a follow up comment or question. I was also disappointed with the rather fatalistic and patronising response to my question about littering from vehicles given by Amey’s representative at the meeting. I felt that the attitude within Amey and amongst some councillors and officers is that litter collection is a waste of time because (to quote Amey’s representative) “it’s all about education” and “….we’ll never stop people throwing litter, it’s a waste of time picking it up because it’s as bad again the next day.” Amey’s representative clearly did not appreciate that not all residents are able to take part in volunteer litter-picking or attend meetings in person to challenge their response. I found her comments were disrespectful, discriminatory and lacked an awareness of the Council’s inclusivity policy and I would like this to be fed back to Amey. 

I feel quite strongly that throwing litter is at its best, low-level anti-social behaviour, and that if it’s left unchecked and unchallenged, contributes to the decline of the whole neighbourhood and city. It is also a criminal offence under the Cleaner Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. Littering from vehicles is also an offence under Rule 147 of the Highway Code. Could I also refer you to the “Broken Windows Theory” which states:

The basic idea for the Broken Windows theory is that any kind of urban blight – a broken window, graffitied walls, rubbish on the streets, etc. – does no harm to a neighbourhood if it is immediately remedied. However, if left untended, it signifies a lack of care in the community, the kind of environment in which it is acceptable for residents to relinquish any notions of concern. And while the initial damage and disrepair is physical, the next stage is psychological. That is, if it becomes acceptable for people to litter and vandalise at will, why not walk around drunk, or beg for money, or mug others for it? Why follow any kind of rules at all? In sum, the Broken Windows theory postulates that the smallest symptoms can lead to the greatest crimes.

Because I feel strongly about how littering damages the environment (causes pollution, wildfires), wildlife and society, not to mention the cost to taxpayers of paying Amey to collect it, I have been in contact with Andrew Kemp, the CEO of Littercamai . He advises me that in 2022 the Chair of the Waste and Street Scene Policy Cttee stated that “there would not be enough offences to justify the expense of the system”. 

Please could the SELAC devote some of its resources towards asking the Waste and Street Scene Policy Committee to re-consider trialling the use of Littercams on our most littered highways, and on what basis and in which area of Sheffield was it considered to not be cost-effective? 

Regards

The Chair thanked Gill for her question and advised that she would get a full response to her in writing to her question and the additional points raised.

Councillor Rooney commented on the service provide by AMEY and that it should not be advocated for the public to have to litter pick on a busy main road.  AMEY had a responsibility to do this.  Councillor Rooney asked if the responsibilities of AMEY could be put on the LAC webpages and also who the public should contact in case of flooding.

Councillor Horner advised that the litter pickers in Beighton did an amazing job, but AMEY were responsible for keeping the City clean and fulfilling its contract.

Councillor Smith suggested that AMEY be invited along to answer questions at the LAC on issues of grass cutting.  It was advised that a higher management person from AMEY should attend.

Question – Ken (Owlthorpe Litter Pickers) – Was the Community Payback Scheme still in place?  The probation service picked this up.  The Chair advised that they could be invited to litter pick in the SE area.

The Chair advised that Dave Cronshaw had submitted a series of questions on various issues from burglaries and thefts to blue bins, in advance of the meeting.   Mr Cronshaw was unfortunately not in attendance but would be provided with a written response.  These would be published on the website.

Question (unknown) – Can the outcomes of the South East LAC priorities be demonstrated before moving on to new priorities?  Assurance were given that these outcomes would be demonstrated and were looking at benchmarks.  An update would be given later on the agenda.

Question (unknown) – In relation to burglaries and theft, what area was this in relation to as there was a lot of concerns over this around the area where they lived.  Is there any opportunity for a local neighbourhood team to attend these meetings?  It was advised that the Police were invited to the meeting but were not in attendance on this occasion.

Councillor Horner advised that the Police had limited resources  and only had six officers in the Moss Way area.

Councillor Norris advised that the Police were working really hard to get more officers from September, but the more issues that were reported online, the better.  It would help the argument for more resource.

Councillor Downing had a briefing with the Police Crime Commissioner, and they were recruiting more Police Officers, but it took three years to get them on the streets.

Councillor Smith mentioned that a lot was being said in community online groups, but had it been reported?

Councillor Rooney advised that recording of crimes was important for the allocation of officer resourcing, some areas had high crime rates and it needed debating whether SE area was getting the right allocation.

The Chair advised that a link would be sent to all community groups on how to report crime.

Jayne Mason (Hybrid) – As an admin of a neighbourhood watch group, she saw a general apathy for reporting crime.  Everything should be reported, if it was important enough to put on social media, then it should be reported to the police.

Question (Unknown) – Living on the boarder of Sheffield in North East Derbyshire, she often saw litter and anti-social behaviour from Sheffield and reported this to Derbyshire.  She was interested to know how information was shared between Derbyshire and South Yorkshire Police?  The Chair advised that she did not know, but had the contacts to ask how the information was shared between forces.