Content

13.1

Members of the committee
considered a report of the Executive Director Neighbourhood
Services containing a proposal to enter into an initial 1-year
agreement, with an option to renew annually thereafter, with City
of Doncaster Council for the provision of certain enforcement
services and recommend to Full Council that the relevant powers be
delegated to their Executive.

 

 

13.2

RESOLVED
UNANIMOUSLY: That the Environmental
Services and Regulation Policy Committee:
 

a)   
Agrees that the Council enters into an agreement
with City of Doncaster Council for the provision of litter and dog
fouling enforcement services for an initial one-year period with an
option to renew annually thereafter, subject to Full Council
agreeing to delegate the relevant powers to the Executive of City
of Doncaster Council.

b)   
Recommends to Full Council that the following powers
are delegated to the Executive of City of Doncaster
Council:
• Enforcement of littering offences under Part IV of The
Environmental Protection Act 1990;
• Service of a Fixed Penalty Notice under section 4 of The
Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996;
• Issue and enforcement of a Community Protection Notice
under Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and
Policing Act 2014 in respect of dog fouling.

 

 

13.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

13.3.1

Sheffield City Council has a
statutory duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to keep
public highways and land free of litter and refuse. The previous
enforcement arrangement ended, leaving no dedicated proactive
enforcement in place, which risks non-compliance and declining
environmental standards.

 

 

13.3.2

The proposed agreement with
City of Doncaster Council offers a cost-neutral, scalable solution
that significantly increases enforcement capacity without
recruitment or additional financial burden. It leverages proven
expertise, ensures citywide coverage, and aligns with SCC
priorities for cleaner neighbourhoods, community wellbeing, and
sustainable service delivery. This approach also frees internal
resources to focus on strategic objectives such as fly-tipping
reduction.

 

 

13.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

13.4.1

Alternative Option 1: Continue
to employ agency staff
 
Engaging agency staff to
deliver enforcement services would provide short-term
capacity but is not recommended
for several reasons:
 
• Previous agency
arrangements cost up to £108,000 annually with
some
weekend working, creating
significant budget strain. SCC bears the full
financial burden and we have
extensive data demonstrating that the cost of
the agency staff was not being
covered by income from FPNs, hence the
service had a budget
pressure.
• SCC is currently under
recruitment restrictions, and while agency staff are
not permanent hires, their
onboarding still requires internal resources and
management time.
• Agency contracts are
typically short-term and reactive, offering no long-term
solution or opportunity for
service expansion.
• This option does not
leverage CDC’s proven contract management expertise or
WISE’s operational infrastructure, resulting in duplication
of effort and slower implementation.

 

 

13.4.2

Alternative Option 2: In-house
recruitment
 
Recruiting permanent SCC
enforcement officers could provide direct control over service
delivery. However, this option is not viable because:
 
• SCC has enforcement
restrictions in place, and the financial model would be unlikely to
get through the vacancy control process as there is no cash limit
for such posts and income would not cover the costs of the
posts.
• Salaries, training,
equipment, and ongoing management would create substantial
financial pressure without offsetting income.
• Recruitment and training
processes would delay enforcement improvements, leaving SCC exposed
to statutory compliance risks.
• Existing staff who are
already stretched would be diverted from strategic priorities such
as fly-tipping reduction, compromising wider environmental
objectives.

 

 

13.4.3

Alternative Option 3: Reactive
enforcement only
 
Continuing with existing
resources and responding only to complaints, without proactive
patrols:
 
• Reactive enforcement
does not ensure highways and land are kept free of litter. •
SCC does not have the staff resource available that WISE can commit
to delivering this function.
• Complaints would likely
increase, damaging SCC’s reputation and trust in service
delivery.
• Existing staff would be
diverted from strategic priorities such as fly-tipping reduction,
compromising wider environmental objectives.

 

 

13.4.4

Alternative Option 4:
Outsourcing directly to WISE
 
Contracting directly with WISE
without CDC involvement:
 
• CDC has established
systems for managing WISE contracts and processing FPNs efficiently
and follow-up in the event of non-payment utilising the Single
Justice Procedure. SCC would need to build this capacity from
scratch.
 • SCC would assume full responsibility for
appeals, complaints, and legal progression, increasing
administrative burden and risk and our back office and management
resource is already stretched.
• Without CDC’s
existing framework, mobilisation would take longer, delaying
benefits.