CHANGING ROLES FEATURE
There’s a genuine concern that cuts
to policing will have a knock-on effect on this kind of low-level crime
police accreditation to deal with litter- dropping – despite Police Federation misgivings, Byng describes the relationship in Southampton as ‘quite good’. ‘We are the eyes and ears – the police have no interest whatsoever in litter and they’re quite happy for CEOs to deal with it,’ he said. Police have also provided specialist training to deal with violence and abuse. But regardless of their new responsibilities, traffic management remains the priority. ‘When the Department for Transport (DfT) saw the scheme coming in, it was worried – so it’s laid down that their primary role is traffic contravention,’ said Byng. The council has no targets in terms of CEOs dealing with litter. ‘Our expectation is quite low – they’ve had around 70 cases in a year. They don’t go looking for offences. If they come across them in the course of patrol, then they’ll deal with
them.’ Time consuming
Of those, eight resulted in fines – most people seem prepared to pick up any mess they make. But that minority can create a disproportionate level of work, as Byng explains. ‘There can be a very time-consuming process for PCNs. If they don’t want to take it at the time, we have to send one through the post. There have been some cases where we’ve been given ‘Mickey Mouse’ names and addresses. And if people don’t pay up, we have to take them to court. ‘We have to sit down and work out the time and money all this will cost. Sometimes you have to be realistic about what you pursue and what not. Instead we try to get people to pick up litter and educate them. If something takes up too much time, we pull the plug and move on.’ Extended powers for CEOs were introduced in Southampton by its last Conservative council – with more enthusiasm among politicians than those on street, it seems. ‘The previous administration thought it would be a good use of CEOs’ time if they became multi-skilled,’ says Byng,
drily. ‘The Labour
www.britishparking.co.uk
administration has indicated that there won’t be any change.’
First in the UK
Meanwhile in Salford, CEOs have been working to help curb anti-social behaviour for almost six years. They hit the headlines in 2007, becoming the first officers in the country to wear head-mounted video cameras when out on patrol. Cameras have since become part of the body uniform and, the council thinks, may deter the public from abusive behaviour. As with Southampton, parking contraventions remain CEOs’ priority. They have, however, dealt with around 1,000 cases of ‘enviro-crime’ such as littering since 2007. ‘CEOs have a good working relationship with Greater Manchester Police and regularly take part in multi-agency operations with them,’ a Salford City Council spokesperson said. ‘They have adapted well to the new powers. The main problems are offenders providing incorrect identification details, or none at all. Although it’s an offence, CEOs have no powers to detain people while details are checked or the police are asked to attend. In cases of littering where items are thrown from moving cars, details of owners are traced and enquiries followed up by the council’s environmental services department.’
The public ‘have been supportive’, especially when they see improvements in the cleanliness of their streets. ‘There have been no specific cases of hostility. Cameras are in use all the time a CEO is on patrol, and people tend to moderate their behaviour when they realise they’re being video-recorded. The BPA is firmly on the side of the DfT in its view that parking management should be the priority of CEOs. ‘It is felt that if CEOs had any spare time, they should be reporting signs and lines in need of repair rather than dealing with litter,’ said Kelvin Reynolds, BPA director of policy and public affairs. ‘That was made clear when the Traffic Management Act came into play in 2008. But the model of them having more responsibility has become popular If they’re going to replace any patrols, these should be highway inspection and maintenance rather than environmental ones. But in the end, it’s our members’ choice.’
MAY 2013 35
NATALIYA HORA. / SHUTTERSTOCK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52