Councillors Raise Concerns Over Focus On Cigarette Butt Fines

Councillors have raised concerns that a private enforcement contractor is focusing too heavily on people dropping cigarette butts rather than offences including dog fouling and fly-tipping.

The concerns were raised during a council meeting yesterday evening (Tuesday), when members questioned the contractor's performance and the number of fixed penalty notices issued for different environmental offences.

One councillor highlighted figures showing 110 cigarette butt offences in July, while penalties for other environmental offences were considerably lower.

Concerns were also raised about the approach taken by some enforcement officers, the affordability of fines and whether payment plans could be introduced.

One councillor said the previous private enforcement contractor had been criticised for concentrating on cigarette butts and expressed disappointment that a similar pattern appeared to be emerging again.

He said dog fouling and fly-tipping were among the environmental issues councillors regularly heard about from members of the public.

He also relayed concerns from a Portrush business owner about an incident involving enforcement officers entering a shop after a person who had allegedly discarded a cigarette butt went inside.

The councillor said the business owner believed the officers' approach was "rude and quite aggressive and threatening".

Another councillor said the current statistics appeared to show the contractor was doing "precisely" what members had sought to avoid when the contract was established.

The meeting heard that the contract contained a percentage relating to cigarette butt enforcement, with a council officer acknowledging that the target for the balance between cigarette butts and other offences had not been achieved.

The officer said the matter had been raised with the contractor and it had been asked to focus more on other areas.

However, members were told that catching people committing offences such as dog fouling was more difficult and required better information about where and when offences were taking place.

The meeting also heard that only two enforcement officers were currently operating because of difficulties recruiting to the roles.

One councillor said he had initially been "a bit disappointed" when he saw the figures but had "very quickly" become angry.

He said: "I would have no issue with 110 cigarette butt offences being given out if we were seeing similar offences, similar notices being given out for dog fouling, for littering, for fly-tipping."

He said safeguards had been discussed when the contract was drawn up specifically to prevent enforcement becoming overly concentrated on one type of offence.

Questions were also raised about whether fixed penalty notices could be paid in instalments.

Councillors said some people accepted that they had committed an offence and should pay a fine but could struggle to find £150 or £200 within a short period.

A council officer said the possibility of a payment scheme was being investigated and members would receive an update.

Concerns were also raised about what one councillor described as the "heavy handedness" of some enforcement officers when dealing with members of the public.

Members backed the suggestion of holding a meeting or workshop with the contractor, potentially ahead of the next Environmental Services Committee meeting, allowing councillors to question those responsible for delivering the service.

The meeting was also told that around 50% of fines were being paid.

A council officer said unpaid penalties would proceed through the prosecution process and could ultimately go before a court.

Councillors also called for greater public awareness of the level of fines and for more education around cigarette litter.

The council officer said publicity would follow the meeting to highlight some of the issues discussed and make people aware they could be caught.

Members were encouraged to provide information about known problem areas, including locations and times where dog fouling or other offences regularly occur, so enforcement patrols could be targeted more effectively.