Agenda item

Report of the Superintendent of Epping Forest.

The Committee considered the report of the Superintendent which informed the Committee of the byelaw enforcement activity undertaken by Epping Forest Keepers within Epping Forest during the period of 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013.

Members noted a similar level of Byelaw enforcement during the period

of 2007 to 2013, with the exception of the 2010 peak which was as a result of a high level of prosecutions for fungi picking and lighting fires. The period of 2007 to date covered a conscious programme of informal education rather than formal prosecution or warning. This was evidenced by the 7,075 “Advisory conversations” conducted by Forest Keepers during the period under report, an increase of 2,828 or 66.6 % on the figure of 4,247 reported for 2012.

Members were informed that there were eight prosecutions undertaken during the period, two for dogs not under effective control, two for fly tipping, two for riding a quad bike on the Forest, one for riding a horse in a restricted area and not

displaying a current licence and one for taking a vehicle more than forty

five metres from the highway.

There had been eleven warning letters sent for various misuse of the Forest, including, taking firewood, feeding wildfowl, dog not under effective control, metal detecting, obstructing an officer, and taking a vehicle onto Forest land.

In response to a query from Members, Officers stated that the level of Court costs and charges for the disposal of fly tips remained the same for three years. The Committee had approved a 50% increase in May 2011. It was proposed to increased charges by 10%, in line with the three year Retail Price Index (RPI) of 10.01%.

Members noted that the cost of taking a case to the local Magistrates’ Court was initially covered by the local risk budget of Epping Forest in the form of staff costs.

These monies were then put to the Court as “case costs” and could be recovered

at the magistrates’ discretion using section 18 of the Prosecution of Offences

Act 1985. If additional Court appearances were required then the costs were adjusted as necessary. These costs were not always awarded in full, and were often unpaid by the guilty parties. It was the responsibility of the Courts to recover these monies and pass them on to the City of London. Payments to the City of London currently broadly reflect the national average collection rate of 52%. From 1 April 2007 the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) Order 2012 introduced a “Victims surcharge”, which was levied in addition to the fine and was aimed at helping improve services for victims of crime.

A Member sought a better understanding of the number of ‘advisory conversations’ in relation to general interaction with visitors.  Officers agreed to furnish additional information.  Members were also informed that a series of site visits had been arranged for local Magistrates to help address concerns regarding the variability and consistency within the current range of fines.

Resolved: That Members approved the proposed increase in Court costs and fly tipping disposal charges.