Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: December 12, 2025

Purpose:

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.