Policing

Fly-Tipping

A [not so] green and pleasant land – what more can be done to tackle fly-tipping?

While the vast majority of householders dispose of their waste responsibly, very sadly a minority do not. In 2017-2018 Local Authorities in England responded to just under 1 million (998,000) fly-tipping incidents; a slight decrease of 1% from the 1,011,000 reported in 2016-2017. Two-thirds (66%) of fly-tips involve household waste. In January 2019 new financial penalties came into force meaning any householder failing to pass their waste to a licensed carrier, and whose waste is then found to be fly-tipped, could face a fine of up to £400. Government also issued guidance to Local Authorities about how to use these new powers. What is fly-tipping, what are the costs of dealing with incidents of illegally deposited waste, and what more can be done to prevent the countryside from becoming a dumping ground?  Jessica Sellick investigates.  ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What is fly-tipping? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) define fly-tipping as the ‘illegal dumping of liquid or solid waste on land or in water. The waste is usually dumped to avoid disposal costs.’ This illegal dumping can consist of household, industrial, commercial and other ‘controlled’ waste without a waste management licence (e.g. garden refuse, domestic items such as fridges or mattresses). Fly-tipping is a criminal offence under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which states: 

A person shall not… deposit controlled waste, or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste to be deposited in or on any land unless a waste management licence authorising the deposit is in force and the deposit is in accordance with the licence.  

Under section 75 of the Act householders must ensure that their household waste is properly disposed of. In order to comply, this means taking steps to ensure that the person who takes control of your waste is licensed to do so; preventing the waste from escaping your control; storing waste safely and securely; preventing waste from causing pollution or harm; and providing a written note if you intend to pass the waste on to someone else. If you collect waste from others you must be authorised under the law to collect and receive waste; get a description of the collected waste in writing; and complete and retain a transfer note. 

According to Defra, fly-tipping is a significant blight on local environments; a source of pollution; a potential danger to public health; a hazard to wildlife and a nuisance. It further undermines legitimate waste businesses where unscrupulous operators undercut those operating within the law.

Fly-tipping is different from littering. While there is no official or statutory definition of litter, it is most commonly assumed to include materials that are improperly discarded. Some of the most commonly discarded items in 2017-2018 included food and food packaging, alcoholic drinks, non-alcoholic drinks, general items (such as tissues)  and smoking materials. 

How big is the problem? The latest statistical release, published in November 2018 and covering the period 2017-2018, reveals how: 

  • Local Authorities in England dealt with just under 1 million fly-tipping incidents (some 998,000 incidents), a slight decrease of 1% from the previous year. 
  • Two thirds (67%) of fly-tips involved household waste – with total incidents involving household waste decreasing by 4% compared to 2016-2017.  
  • The most common place for fly-tipping was on highways, which accounted for almost half (47%) of total incidents. However, the number of incidents on highways decreased by 7% compared to 2016-2017. 
  • The most common size category for fly-tipping incidents was equivalent to a ‘small van load’ (33% of total incidents), followed by that equivalent to a ‘car boot or less’ (28%).  
  • 34,000 or 4% of total incidents were ‘tipper lorry load’ size or larger – with the cost of clearance to Local Authorities £12.2 million compared with £9.9 million in 2016-2017. 
  • Local Authorities carried out 494,000 enforcement actions – an increase of 18,000 actions (or 4%) from 2016-2017. 
  • The number of fixed penalty notices issued increased by 20% to 69,000. This is now the second most common enforcement action (after investigations), and accounted for 14% of all enforcement actions. 
  • For the period 2017-2018 some Local Authorities provided a more detailed breakdown of fixed penalty notices – with 11% issued specifically for small scale fly-tipping, 52% for littering and 37% for other offences. 
  • Clearance costs were based on standard unit costs produced 10-years ago and do not fully represent the current costs of fly-tipping enforcement to Local Authorities. While the costs for ‘prosecution’ and ‘injunction’ continue to be published, Defra is currently looking into updating the standard unit costs for clearance. 

All of the figures published above are based upon fly-tipping incidents reported by Local Authorities in England and do not include incidents on private land. While fly-tipping on private land is thought to be a major and widespread problem, very little data is available. Back in 2009, for example, the Environment Agency (EA) launched a pilot with eight UK landowners to identify the extent of the problem. The research revealed 94% of private landowners had suffered from the illegal dumping of waste – with some experiencing more than 100 separate incidents a year and clearance costs averaging some £809 per removal. 

Why do householders/organisations fly-tip? In 2018 Defra commissioned research to understand the most effective means for Local Authorities and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to increase awareness, understanding and engagement with the Household Waste Duty of Care (HWDC). The research involved a rapid evidence review of available literature; telephone interviews with 5 Local Authority representatives; and discussion groups involving 60 people. Within the discussion groups, participants had low levels of awareness the HWDC (i.e., that waste carriers must be licenced); questioned the fairness of the HWDC– and whether they should be held responsible for the wrong-doing of others (especially when they were not aware of the rules); queried what was considered ‘household waste’; expressed some resentment towards the cost of council removal services; expressed their dislike for fly-tipping – however for some participants this was still ‘out of sight, out of mind’; and struggled to make the link between their own household waste disposal and the act of fly-tipping. The research recommended providing information about licensed waste carriers in a salient and simple way; targeting future messaging at the individual and in a personalised way; framing the HWDC as a collaborative effort between councils and the public; and to communicate messages where participants would be most receptive to receiving them. The final report was accompanied by a supplementary report to assist Local Authorities and NGOs to develop communications and campaigns. 

An evidence review and survey of public attitudes and experiences of fly-tipping in Scotland found that while people perceived fly-tipping as unacceptable (particularly where the act was seen as premeditated, such as dumping waste in the countryside), other people were more accepting of fly-tipping in particular contexts. For example: where the public felt they were being charged for something they viewed should be a free service such as waste disposal at recycling centres or bulky uplifts. People and small businesses fly-tipping were found to be motivated by specific conditions relating to local waste services (i.e., convenience, charges), the local environment (how urban or rural the area is, levels of economic deprivation); and attitudes and knowledge of the HWDC.  ‘Organised’ offenders were found to be motivated by conditions relating to economic pressures; convenience; perception of peer behaviour; perception of risk of punishment; and attitudes and knowledge about the HWDC. 

Many of these themes chime with research on the triggers and barriers that lead to fly-tipping in London. The study found residents lacked awareness of what constituted fly-tipping; certain types of fly-tipping were seen as more socially acceptable; fly-tipping was seen as low impact and as not having implications for the broader community; some of the methods used by Councils to collect waste were seen as unintentionally increasing fly-tipping (e.g. some residents were running out of room in their bins before collection day); there was a low perceived threat of enforcement; and people overall felt a lack of personal responsibility for their own waste.  

Who is responsible for cleaning up? In England, Local Authorities are responsible for investigating, clearing and taking appropriate enforcement action in relation to small scale fly-tipping on public land. The EA is responsible for dealing with larger-scale fly-tipping [i.e., more than a lorry load], hazardous waste and fly-tipping carried out by organised gangs. 

On private land it is the responsibility of the landowner to remove the waste and dispose of it legally. Local Authorities and the EA each have legal powers to require landowners to clear fly-tipped waste – contained in Sections 59, 79 and 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and Section 108 of the Environment Act 1995. Local Authorities and the EA also have powers to enter the land and clear it and can seek reimbursement for their costs of doing so.   

How much of a problem is it in rural England? While the statistics provide information about the type, enforcement and costs resulting from fly-tipping; the data is not broken down according to the Rural Urban Classification or form part of the Statistical Digest of Rural England. 

Back in July 2015, a House of Lords debate on tackling litter in urban and rural areas picked up on fly-tipping. Parliamentarians discussed the impact of fly-tipping on farming communities, the nocturnal frequency of incidents, the low conviction rates of fly-tippers, the cost of clearance and the need for tougher penalties (e.g. confiscation of vehicles used for fly-tipping). More recently, in April 2018, there was a debate in the House of Commons on reducing fly-tipping. This included discussions around:  

  • Local Authorities: Council charges for disposing of waste [and whether lowering charges leads to a reduction in local fly-tipping]; the reduced frequency of rubbish collections in some areas [and whether it is cost effective for Local Authorities to do offer more collections versus clearance costs]; and how authorities require more support and funding/resources for Government to tackle the problem. 
  • Residents: the potential of setting up a voluntary scheme of accreditation for people to use – with those choosing not to use an accredited carrier being liable if their waste ever turns up somewhere it is not meant to be; and the need for more anti fly-tipping education. 
  • Landowners: the unfairness around becoming responsible for somebody else’s crime and having to clean up; the prohibitive cost of insurance; and how landowners are trying to reduce the opportunity for fly-tipping (e.g. installing gates or physical barriers such as tree trunks or boulders).  
  • Fly-tippers/illegal dumpers: the need to capture and fine people who have fly-tipped – and take away their means to do it again (e.g. vehicles); whether to change the liability towards the people who produce the waste in the first place rather than lying with the landowner; and a need to review the evidence to look again at what is reasonable to enable a conviction.  

Results from the National Rural Crime Network (NRCN) 2018 Rural Crime Survey found fly-tipping and speeding dominated the list of concerns – with 57% of the 20,000 respondents seeing evidence of fly-tipping and 32% evidence of speeding in their communities in the last 12 months. Compared to the results of the 2015 survey, fly-tipping has risen by 6% and speeding reduced by 21%. While fly-tipping is not solely a policing issue – with responsibility shared with Local Authorities and the EA – respondents described how not enough was being done to tackle the issue. The 2018 survey revealed the average financial impact to a business owner was £1,000 per fly-tipping incident – with that cost falling to the owner alone – with 6 in 10 of businesses responding to the survey falling victim. The NRCN also highlighted the need to ensure that victims of fly-tipping are not left to pay the price of others’ actions. 

In January 2019 the Woodland Trust revealed it had spent some £1 million clearing up fly-tipping from woodlands over the past five years. In 2018 alone there were some 1,290 separate incidents of which 998 occurred in English woodlands. Darren Moorcroft, director of estate and woodland outreach, described how: “reaching over £1 million spent in the last five years on clearing up mess in our woods is clearly not a milestone to celebrate…This money could have helped us plant many trees or protect woods that are in desperate need of help…Although not condoning people’s behaviour in dumping this mess, one contributing fact could be the closure of council refuse sites and extra charges placed on the likes of green bins, certainly when it comes to garden waste mess such as grass clippings.” 

More recently, NFU Mutual’s 2018 Rural Crime Report reveals a trend of how what was once the odd mattress being left at a farm gate has grown into a whole business of bogus waste companies dumping lorry-loads of rubbish in farmers’ fields. The report describes how, on every scale, fly-tipping is a serious threat – to the health of grazing animals, to the environment, and especially to farmers who are often left to deal with the aftermath themselves.

What is being done to tackle the problem?  At a national level, and shortly after the Commons debate in April 2018, Defra hosted a roundtable which looked at the concerns of those living and working in rural areas and some potential solutions (e.g. a fly-tipping hotline so people have one place to report issues; extending the responsibility to other parties for removing fly-tipped waste on private land; increasing the severity of sentences). 

In December 2018 the Government published a Resources and Waste Strategy for England. This includes proposals to reform the Packaging Waste Regulations to ensure producers fund the management of packaging at the end of its life (which may include fly-tipping); a streamlined system of recycling (so it is clearer for individuals and organisations to know the correct bin for disposing of items); reviewing charges and seeing whether to set minimum service standards for Household Waste Recycling Centres (e.g. that centres/services are accessible and delivering value-for-money). The strategy further recommended that Government work with the Judicial Office, magistrates and the Sentencing Council so fines are higher and crimes attract prison sentences. Defra has also committed to developing a ‘fly-tipping toolkit’, a web-based tool hosted by the National Fly-tipping Prevention Group (NFTPG) to help tackle the issue. The toolkit will cover: 

  • How local authorities can set up and run an effective fly-tipping partnership. 
  • How to use new technology to report fly-tipping. 
  • Examples of existing good practice to prevent fly-tipping. 
  • How to deal with fly-tipping associated with unauthorised encampments.
  • How to best share intelligence within a partnership and with other partnerships.
  • How to present robust cases to the courts to ensure tougher penalties. 
  • How to best promote the duty of care for individuals and businesses. 

The toolkit will build upon the ‘national framework for England for tackling fly-tipping through local partnerships.’ Published in 2014 this contains principals, options for action, best practice and case studies that can be used by local partnerships to tackle fly-tipping in a local area.  

At a local level, tackling fly-tipping and waste crime is a key priority at many Local Authorities. Successful approaches include Hertfordshire Council’s ‘let’s SCRAP fly tipping’ platform. This is a one-stop portal for residents to report fly-tipping and check the waste carrier register. The website describes what fly-tipping is, how to prevent it, what else you can do with household waste and how businesses can dispose of waste correctly. The WasteAware Hertfordshire Partnership brings together 11 Councils to take a common approach to tackling fly-tipping and sharing intelligence. Work streams funded by both Hertfordshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner and a number of authorities (e.g. investing in mobile enforcement cameras and CCTV cameras; the roll-out of communications campaigns; and introducing bin sensors) led to a 17.9% reduction in recorded fly-tipping incidents (some 2,731 incidents) in 2017-2018 compared to 2016-2017. In addition to providing residents and business with information online, Buckinghamshire County Council has published a dedicated enforcement policy in respect of fly-tipping and ancillary offences. A consistent policy of ‘Zero Tolerance’ against fly-tipping has applied in Buckinghamshire for over ten years and robust enforcement is pursued. For example, in the last three years (2015-2018) 182 fly-tipping cases have been prosecuted – resulting in total fines and costs imposed at court of £315,000. Operation flyswat is a multi-agency initiative to tackle fly-tipping in Boston. The initiative, which uses manpower from an open prison located on the Lincolnshire marshes, initially covered the area administered by Boston Borough Council but now covers the local authority area of neighbouring South Holland District Council.

From a business perspective, the Environmental Services Association (ESA) has created the ‘right waste right place’ campaign. In highlighting research which indicates 90% of organisations breaking the law are SMEs [with 0-50 employees], often because they do not know what they need to do to comply with the HWDC obligations; the website is intended to help organisations put the right waste in the right place, so as to comply with the minimum of fuss. The information is designed to be practical and useful and includes simple ‘need to know’ cards on common items discarded as waste, giving at a glance advice on how to dispose of them.

For the public, the EA has a register of waste carers that you can check through their registration number or business name. The ClearWaste website and app provides a link to every Local Authority in England so that the location of a fly-tipping incident can be instantly sent to the right Council along with the details and photographs. A businessman, Martin Montague, came up with the idea and has spent £250,000 of his own money to launch the free service – which includes a social media ad starring John Challis (who played Boycie in Only Fools and Horses), Emily Head (The Inbetweeners) and Frankie Oatway (Discovery series ‘Strippers: For Cash’). Mr Montague describes how “there’s no need to go to council websites and find the right place to report it to or phone a helpline and sit waiting in a queue for your call to be answered. You don’t even need to know where you are as you can use your location settings on your phone to do that automatically if you want to. The app also aims to boost recycling rates by linking consumers who have waste items with those who can use them.”  

The House of Lords Select Committee on the Rural Economy’s ‘time for a rural strategy’ report published in April 2019 states that fly-tipping was raised by several witnesses as a challenge in rural areas. While new Government initiatives (e.g. the serious and organised waste crime review in November 2018 and new financial penalties introduced in January 2019) were welcomed by the Committee; two issues raised by witnesses concerning (i) how existing laws and penalties were not being applied and (ii) that the cost of clean-up for rubbish dumped on private property falls to the land owner, were not seen as being fully addressed. The report calls for new measures to be introduced to ensure that landowners do not have to pay for the cost of the clean-up of rubbish that is dumped on their land.

In a rural context, there have been some campaigns and initiatives to raise awareness of the extent and costs of fly-tipping. The CLA, for example, has developed a fly-tipping action plan and the NFU is collating data on the extent of fly-tipping on farmland.  

Taken as a collective these initiatives highlight the importance of: 

  • Partnership approaches at a local level – within a national policy context. 
  • Awareness raising – providing accessible platforms and means for the public and businesses to find out more about fly-tipping, how to notify their Local Authority of an incident and/or how to find and use a registered waste carrier. 
  • Enforcement and penalties on fly-tippers/illegal waste dumpers – recognising the seriousness of the crime within current sentencing and looking at other options such as seizing vehicles used to fly-tip. Analysis by the Local Government Association reveals that no-one convicted of fly-tipping since the Government introduced guidelines in 2014 has received the maximum £50,000 fine or 12 months in prison by the courts.
  • Ensuring Local Authorities and partners have the funding and resources needed to deter and prevent fly-tipping. 

There is no single, simple or one-size-fits-all solution to prevent or reduce fly-tipping. What works in some places may not necessarily work in others. For me, this means improving the data we have about where, how and when rural incidents are occurring and how these incidents are being reported. This mapping could be overlaid with information about what local waste infrastructure is in place and the characteristics of the local community and economy. It also means understanding how much clearance costs – to Local Authorities, the EA and individual landowners, through the development of updated unit costs – and looking at how these clearance costs vary according to type of incident and type of rural area. This could then be used to design interventions to prevent and reduce fly-tipping – with Local Authorities, the EA, landowners, communities, businesses, the police and courts working together.  It would also be useful to better understand what works and share lessons and practice with others – which interventions work well in rural areas that could be replicated, scaled up and delivered elsewhere? How much do the most successful interventions cost and who/how can this be funded? For if we better understand the scale, nature, frequency, causes, impact and costs of fly-tipping on the countryside then we will be better able to look at what more can be done to tackle it. 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration. Her current work includes evaluating two veteran support projects (in Cornwall and North Yorkshire); supporting public sector bodies to measure social value; and evaluating a series of community safety and crime reduction projects. She is also a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). In her spare time Jessica sits on the board of a housing association. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen 

policing the countryside

Policing in the countryside – what more can be done to stop rural crime?

The Metropolitan Police Act 1829 established the Metropolitan Police of London (with the exception of the City), replacing the previous system of parish constables and watchmen. The County and Borough Police Act in 1856 led policing to become a requirement throughout England and Wales, paid for by central Government funds distributed to local government. By 1900 England, Wales and Scotland had some 243 constabularies and 46,800 police officers. The Police Act of 1946 led to mergers and a smaller number of town forces and county forces. Several Acts of Parliament since the 1960s have led to further mergers – including the amalgamation of 8 police forces in Scotland into one – and the current 43 forces covering England and Wales. With the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in 2012, the establishment of the College of Policing in 2012, Sir Thomas Winsor’s review of police officer and staff pay in 2011 and 2012, the Knight Review in 2013 and provisions under the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to take on the governance of fire and rescue services; what more can be done to get ‘rural’ on the policing agenda? Jessica Sellick investigates.

In November 2016 the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and National Police Chiefs’ Councils (NPCC) published ‘Policing Vision 2025.’ Intended to lead to transformative change across the whole police sector, the vision sets out a police service in 2025 focused on local policing, specialist capabilities, attracting and retaining a workforce, digital policing and joined up business delivery around policing support services and community safety. The vision sets out how ‘by 2025 the police service will have transformed the way it delivers its mission with a keen focus on prevention and vulnerability and the effective management of risk. Police and wider reform will be focused on our people, enabled by systems and processes’ (page 5). The implementation of this Vision is being overseen by the Police Reform and Transformation Board.  

In January 2017 the Home Affairs Commons Select Committee launched an inquiry into future policing. Against a backdrop of new forms of crime, technological change and increasing focus on efficiency and innovation, the Committee wanted to explore the challenges of modern policing and examine whether police forces in England and Wales are sufficiently equipped and resourced to keep the public safe. The Inquiry is still open, and copies of oral evidence can be viewed here, and the last committee session watched here. An interesting discussion emerged during the session about whether the appropriate balance of funding between rural and urban forces needs to be looked at – i.e., is there is a need for more intensive neighbourhood policing in cities rather than rural areas or the need to avoid it being seen as an urban versus rural issue?

Are the police forces that cover rural England adequately resourced and able to respond to changing demands and patterns of crime? And what might Policing Vision 2025 mean for rural communities? I offer four points.

Firstly, what are the scale, cost and impacts of crime – and how is ‘rural’ crime understood and acted upon?

Figures on crime levels and trends for England and Wales are primarily based on two sets of statistics: the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) and police recorded data crime.

The CSEW measures long-term trends for a selected range of crimes experienced by the general public, including those not reported to the police. The latest figures, for the year ending June 2017, show that while crime estimated by the survey has fallen considerably from peak levels seen in 1995, crime dealt with by the police has begun to rise. The CSEW estimates there have been 5.8 million incidents of crime in the year ending June 2017, a 9% reduction compared with the previous year. However these estimates do not include fraud and computer misuse offences, for which there were an estimated 10.8 million incidents of crime in the year ending June 2017. John Flatley, crime statistician at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) describes how these figures “suggest that the police are dealing with a growing volume of crime. While improvements made by police forces in recording crime are still a factor in the increase, we judge that there have been genuine increases in crime – particularly in some of the low incidence but more harmful categories.”

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), now Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), undertakes PEEL assessments. These are annual assessments of the effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy of each police force. PEEL 2016 reveals 240 calls for assistance per 1,000 population for a 12 month period ending 30 June 2016 in England and Wales; 68 recorded crimes per 1,000 population – an increase of 7.8% compared to the previous year but a fall of 3.4% compared to figures for the previous five years. Importantly, the assessment has highlighted the inconsistent mapping of organised crime, which is leading to suggestions that organised criminals form a higher proportion of large metropolitan populations rather than rural populations; and/or that some force areas with a large rural population have artificially high numbers of organised criminals per head of population compared to urban forces.

Rural Crime is defined as ‘any crime that affects those living, working or visiting rural areas of the UK…It covers a wide range of crimes but includes theft of machinery, vehicles, heating oil, metal, diesel and pesticides.’ While there is a tendency to think rural areas experience lower levels of crime than their urban counterparts research carried out by the National Rural Crime Network (NRCN) and NFU Mutual suggests this is not the case.

The Rural Crime Report 2017 published by NFU Mutual, reveals in 2016 rural crime cost the UK £39.2 million –and although this was down 4.3% on the 2015 cost, figures for the first half of 2017 suggest this downward trend will not continue. The report reveals how rural crime is experienced differently across the country: with the worst hit region the North East – where rural crime cost £7.3 million (an increase of 8.7% from 2015) – followed by the Midlands at a cost of £6.7 million (down 1.9% from 2015) and the South East at a cost of £5.9 million (a reduction of 8% compared to 2015). Agricultural vehicle theft cost £5.4 million in 2016, livestock theft £2.9 million, land rover/defender vehicle theft £2.1 million and All-Terrain Vehicles/quad theft £1.8 million. Again there are regional variations – with tractor theft more common in eastern counties and livestock theft more common in Wales.

Back in May 2015 the NRCN launched the largest ever survey into crime and anti-social behaviour in rural areas. The survey called on people living and working in rural areas to give their views on crime and policing in their community and to help shape the future of crime prevention and rural policing. 17,227 people responded. The findings suggest in England and Wales the true cost of crime in rural areas could exceed £800 million – equivalent to £200 for every household in the countryside (with the cost to the victims of crime £2,500 for households and £4,100 for businesses). 39% of respondents to the survey were ‘very’ or ‘fairly worried’ about becoming a victim of crime (compared to 19% nationally). Just 39% of rural dwellers rated the police as good (32.4%) or excellent (6.3%) compared to 53% good and 10% excellent nationally. More than one in four (27% of respondents) did not report the last crime of which they were a victim meaning national figures collated by the Home Office and ONS do not reflect the actual number of crimes in the countryside. The NRCN produced a number of recommendations including reviewing the funding formula used so that the costs of policing in rural areas is recognised; finding ways of encouraging rural communities to report incidents to the police; the police and partners needing to work better together to tackle rural crime; policing to be better targeted in rural areas to take account of vulnerable victims; improve knowledge and embed best practice of tackling crimes in rural areas; and that prevention and response policies are needed that focus on improving protection for rural businesses. The NCRN is now looking to replicate the 2015 survey.

On the one hand, these surveys illuminate a number of factors contributing to the rise in rural crime (e.g. social and economic changes in farming and communities, modern transport links and internationalisation); on the other hand, they signal a number of emerging trends (i.e., that being watched or staked out is one of the biggest concerns for people living in the countryside, ongoing livestock theft is raising concerns that stock is being stolen for slaughter and then illegally entering the food chain, and/or small and older tractors are being targeted to steal and export to developing countries).

For me, this demonstrates how there are particular challenges in the way in which data and information on crime is collected which makes understanding crime in rural areas more difficult. It also reflects a need to more adequately collect data on ‘hidden crime’ such as modern slavery, domestic abuse and hate crime. The NCRN is currently commissioning a piece of research to develop a comprehensive understanding of the barriers to victims of domestic abuse in rural areas seeking support and the specific impact of rurality on outcomes for victims.

Secondly, with the increasing quantity and complexity of crimes, how is the police workforce responding? What different/new ways of working are emerging – and how ‘visible’ are these in rural areas?

The College of Policing demand analysis report reveals on a typical day in a typical force there is approximately one officer on duty for every 1,753 people living in the force area – with officers responding to 14 incidents with people with mental health issues, 9 road traffic collisions, carrying out 37 stop and searches, responding to 12 missing persons reports, dealing with 101 anti-social behaviour incidents, 8 dwelling burglaries, 77 thefts, 36 violent crimes, and making up to 50 arrests. In a typical force on a typical day 338 emergency 999 calls will be received, 709 incidents will be recorded and 150 crimes will be reported. These figures take into account ‘public demand’ i.e., calls for service or incidents to which the police respond, and ‘protective demand’ i.e., work connected to safeguarding the public. However, different forces will experience different levels of demand – with more than 50% of recorded crime occurring in urban, or mostly urban, forces. What resource is being deployed to tackle the reactive and proactive work the police undertake?

According to the Police and Crime Commissioners Treasurers’ Society (PACCTS), National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC), at March 2016 there were 126,000 full-time equivalent police officers, a reduction of 3,200 (or 2.5%) over the previous year. This was the largest single fall since 2012-2013 and a 23% reduction in officer numbers since 2009-2010. The equivalent figure for PCSOs is an 11% reduction in 2015-2016 and a 35% reduction since 2009-2010. At the same time the population of England and Wales has increased – meaning the ratio of population per officer has increased from 387.5 in 2010 to 466.7 in 2015, an increase of 20%. Again there are regional variations here – with the major centres of population having a greater rate of police officers per 100,000 head of population: with the Metropolitan, Merseyside and West Midlands police forces having the highest ratio of police officers to civilians. A recent survey of PCCs and police forces predicts further reductions in staffing between 2016 and 2019 of some 902 police officers, 4,256 police staff and 395 PCSOs.

In May 2017 the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) produced a briefing note on police workforce in England and Wales. This reveals the number of police officers peaked in England in Wales (some 143,800 officers) and reduced by 14% by 2017 (to 123,100 officers). Police staff (i.e., non-officers) has fallen at a faster rate leading to the total police workforce to stand at less than 200,000.

Figures on Police Workforce from the Home Office show and Office for National Statistics (ONS) for the year ending 31 March 2017, 7,526 FTE police officers were recruited (up from 4,735 in the previous year) but the number of police officers leaving the service was 8,569 (up from 7,701 in the previous year).

As of March 2017 some 2,424 police officers were on long-term sick leave compared to 2,488 at the same point in 2016 – despite the fall police forces have reported an increase in the number of officers on sick leave as a result of mental health problems.

In an international context, out of 34 nations where data was available, in 2014 England Wales ranked 28th for the number of police officers per 100,000 head of population. Northern Ireland was ranked 11th and Scotland 19th. Montenegro was ranked 1st with almost 800 officers per 100,000 population, followed by Serbia and Cyprus. Norway, Finland and Hungary were ranked 32nd, 33rd and 34th respectively, all having less than 200 officers per 100,000 head of population. It is worth noting that police forces are organised differently in other countries and the policing duties carried out by officers and staff will also vary.

However, regardless of the figures used, the trend appears to be one of falling police officer numbers in England and Wales.

Demands on the police can be grouped around ‘public demand’ (calls for service or incidents to which the police respond), ‘protective demand’ (safeguarding the public) and ‘preventive work’ (which can reduce crime and public initiative demand on the police). Data from the College of Policing shows the number of emergency 999 calls has decreased by 23% since their peak in 2006-2007. The Police Objective Analysis (POA) – a measurement of the policing frontline – shows as of March 2017, there were 105,571 police officers in frontline roles – a decline of 14.4% since 2010 and a drop of 0.8% since 2016. When broken down by crime type, the numbers of crimes per officer has increased for more serious and more complex to investigate crimes. Using estimates of police activity cost for specific crime categories reveals these more complex crimes take up a greater proportion of police recorded crime and are more costly to investigate. Rape offences, for example, have increased by 36% over the last 10 years and their contribution to the cost of crime has increased from 6% to 12%.

In July 2017 Ipsos MORI published its report on public views of policing in England and Wales 2016-2017. Intended to provide insights into current perceptions of crime, safety and local policing, the survey is based on a sample of 16,865 people aged 16+ years across England and Wales who took part in a survey between July and August 2016. Police visibility was cited as important by the majority of respondents – and related strongly to broader perceptions of policing and public safety. 83% of respondents thought it was ‘very’ or ‘fairly important’ to have a regular uniformed police presence in their local area yet only 24% were satisfied with levels of presence in their area. The survey also reveals a reduction in the proportion of people saying they have seen a uniformed police presence on foot or in a vehicle at least once a month since the last survey (with 19% saying they have seen a police office on foot, down from 26%; and 42% in a vehicle, down from 48%). When asked directly whether the uniformed police presence had gone up, down or stayed around the same, 33% felt it has gone down (particularly older or disabled respondents) while 5% thought it had gone up in the past 12 months.

Public perception, therefore, is that the number of ‘bobbies on the beat’ is declining and that the police are no longer ‘highly visible’ in their community.

PEEL 2016 found all police forces in England and Wales allocate some resources to the prevention of crime and anti-social behaviour, through neighbourhood or local policing teams. They found different models operating in different forces, with rural area neighbourhood policing teams likely to be a mix of preventative and proactive roles and focused on emergency response as they will be the closest people to the incident. Similarly, police forces closely cooperate with other public services to keep communities safe. But as other public services have faced funding and staffing reductions, the pressure on police forces to respond has increased – leading some officers to attend incidents involving people with mental health problems – and leading HMICFRS to reflect how the police cannot continue to fill the gaps left by other agencies in its latest annual report.

As police forces become the ‘first’ and ‘last resort’, how can we improve our understanding and measure police officer and staff workloads and activities? How could this lead us to consider where the police could do more or less (in rural areas), help us better plan for the future and better support the police workforce?

Thirdly, how much money is spent on policing, where does it come from and is it enough?

Police and Crime Commissioners receive funding from central Government, council tax precepts and income from activities such as policing major sporting events which they then distribute to police forces and to other crime reduction initiatives.

The Home Office produces an annual report setting out the aggregate amounts of grants for the police in England and Wales. The needs formula used to calculate funding is based on the different activities that the police undertake (e.g. crime, incidents, traffic, fear of crime and special events); a basic amount per resident and a basic amount for special events. This is then topped-up according to five areas which include sparsity (to address the specific needs of rural forces) and area costs (which take account of regional differences in costs). The latest report, published in February 2017, details the aggregate amount of grants allocated to each local policing body. England and Wales does not have a single police force, rather a series of 43 forces loosely based on a county structure. For 2017-2018 the sums available vary from £1,708,419,427 to Greater London to £32,860,993 to Dyfed-Powys with the cumulative amount of grant for all local policing bodies amounting to some £7,324,892,843.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for finance, Chief Constable Dave Thompson, describes how numbers do not tell the full story as the police have the advantage of different powers, tactics, technology, specialist staff and PCSOs. However, the current flat cash settlement for policing means force budgets are falling in real terms. Taking into account inflation and cost pressures there will be less money every year for forces on top of real terms cuts of 18% since 2010. He describes a situation of forces using reserves to maintain current staff numbers which, when spent, will see numbers falling. He sets out three areas where police forces need to make a difference. Firstly, the funding forces receive needs to be stabilised with real terms protection for policing as a whole. Secondly, the money forces have needs to be spent more effectively (e.g. changing the way forces deliver forensics, armed policing, surveillance and major investigations by making them more affordable). And thirdly, targeted increases in Government spending to help forces tackle the threats police forces face.

Yet in her address to the National Police Chiefs Council and Association of Police and Crime Commissioners annual summit on 1 November 2017, the Home Secretary, the Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP, described how “police-recorded crime has gone up by 13% this past year. This reflects continued improvements in crime recording and an increased willingness of victims to report crime…But behind these national rises are huge local variations…Local policing can make a difference…And since 2015 we’ve protected the total amount of spending that goes to policing in line with inflation. That means that overall police spending is increasing from £11.4 billion in 2015 to 2016 to around £12.3 billion in 2019 to 2020…I know a number of you have been calling for more money on top of this…But police reserves now amount to more than £1.6 billion and the independent inspectorate remains clear that there is more forces can do to transform, with greater efficiencies still available.”

Back in June 2015 the National Audit Office published its report on the financial sustainability of police forces in England and Wales. This found £12.8 billion was spent in 2014-2015 by all 43 police forces in England and Wales; these forces had faced a 25% real terms reduction in central government funding to police and crime commissioners from between 2010-2011 and 2015-2016 and there had been a reduction in the size of the police force of 36,672 between March 2010 and September 2014. The NAO examined whether the Home Office and other policing stakeholders were effectively managing the risks associated with reduced police funding. They found, taking into account changes in central and local Government funding, total funding to individual forces had reduced by between 12% and 23% since 2010-2011. They concluded that the Home Office’s current funding approach does not consider the circumstances of individual forces – applying the same percentage funding reduction to all forces. Police forces had reported they had been required to make £2.5 billion of savings between 2011-2012 and 2014-2015, with forces estimating they would need to make an extra £656 million of savings in 2015-2016. The NAO found the Home Office had insufficient information to determine how much further it can reduce funding without degrading services, or when it may need to support individual forces. The NAO recommended the Home Office adopt an approach to funding that takes account of forces’ local circumstances more fairly.

In 2016 the National Rural Crime Network commissioned the University of Plymouth to consider the funding needs of rural forces in light of rural demands and as part of a wider call that the complex and varied demands on police officers and budgets in different areas and contexts should be taken into account to ensure fair funding. The report found crime statistics to be heavily biased by volume crimes and this relates closely to urban deprivation skewing funding towards urban areas; that rural police forces have higher rates of non-crimes such as Road Traffic Incidents (RTSs) than urban forces and lower support service resources to respond to mental health incidents; that non-staff costs are higher in rural police forces which cannot benefit from economies of scale (this equates to some £32.1 million across the 10 smallest police forces by population size); rural police forces have higher round-trip distances and lower officer numbers increasing the ‘burden per officer’ by up to 65%; rural police force areas with National Parks and/or coastal areas experience seasonal variations; and that rural police forces experience greater responsibility for other services because they often have to deal with service provision out of hours or in isolated areas (e.g. mental health, dementia, missing persons).

The Government has previously consulted on proposals for new funding arrangements for police forces in England and Wales. It was generally accepted that the existing formula is no longer appropriate and the Government wants to replace the existing funding formula with a simplified formula. However, following statistical errors having been discovered in the funding proposals, the Government decided to delay changes to police funding for 2016-2017 and subsequent announcements are now awaited. What might the rural gains and losses be from any change to police funding?

It is also worth noting that police forces assist national Government, Local Authorities and other bodies in achieving their objectives (e.g. community safety, protecting vulnerable individuals, thriving local economy); how might we measure the benefits the police bring to rural communities and economies through their involvement in social and economic development initiatives? How do other public services and bodies benefit from police services and how might this lead to new cross-sector and cross-organisational approaches to resourcing?

Fourthly and finally, what is being done to combat rural crime?

Some police forces have rural taskforces, and at local levels support initiatives such as farmwatch and countrywatch schemes, produce prevention booklets or have rural and wildlife strategies, which all assist in encouraging vigilance and information sharing between the police and rural communities. At a national level the NCRN publishes a range of best practice case studies, NFU Mutual funds a number of police initiatives (including ‘ewe hostels’) and provides practical help to farmers, there is a national policing lead for rural affairs and mechanisms for reporting information about rural crime (e.g. Crimestoppers). How can we build on these initiatives which aim to improve engagement with rural dwellers, provide enforcement against those committing rural crime and prevent rural crime from happening in the first place? How can rural communities better work with the police and partners to identify gaps in provision and further develop solutions that are bespoke to rural places?

While police recorded crime and incidents had been decreasing, the trend is now one of increasing crime and incidents. Yet official statistics do not always capture the many and varied types of work police officers and staff undertake – especially in rural areas – from fulfilling their statutory duties to the preventive work they undertake or the assistance they provide to other public services. Police officer numbers have been decreasing and budgets falling at the same time as the average cost of investigating and solving crimes are increasing.

If Policing Vision 2025 aims to ensure any pooling of specialist services through cross-force or hub structures does not risk capabilities being drawn to urban areas at the detriment to rural areas; how can we ensure rural policing does not fall off the edge of the agenda? If the Vision is focused on prevention and vulnerability what kind of policing is needed to support this in rural areas – and how can Local Authorities, rural communities and businesses continue to work with police forces and PCCs to deliver this?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration; an economic development business working with communities, Government and business to help them achieve their full potential. Her current work includes supporting a Lottery programme to help people into paid work; research for the NHS on rural workforce recruitment and retention issues and supporting a community rail partnership. Jessica can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk or telephone 01522 521211. Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/ Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ Twitter: @RoseRegen