I have a piece on the City Mayors website about how Lewisham has been using Mediaklik, and a wider application of mobile technology on local government:
Next year will see the tenth anniversary of the increasingly ubiquitous camera phone. In South East London it, along with the introduction of the borough council ‘Love Lewisham’ website (www.lovelewisham.org), has transformed the way many residents report environmental problems and engage with the council.
Our experience is that fly tipping on private land is often misunderstood by members of the public. We think that Mediaklik can help.
Traditionally they have written or phoned the local authority to report fly tipping, and have been frustrated when nothing seems to happen.
Of course the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act does give local authorities powers to require owners of land to clean up fly tipping on their land, but it is often a more drawn out process than members of the public appreciate. The guidance sets out what local authorities can do in more detail:
The Environment Agency and local authorities will be able to serve a notice on a landowner requiring him to clear fly-tipped waste from his land. Notices can be served on a landowner if there is no occupier, or the occupier cannot be found without the authority incurring unreasonable expense. Notices can also be served where the owner is not the occupier if the authority has served a notice on the occupier but either he has failed to comply with the requirement or the notice has been quashed. An owner or occupier has grounds for appeal against a requirement to remove or deal with waste under section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 if he can satisfy the court that he neither deposited nor knowingly caused nor knowingly permitted the deposit of the waste.
The Environment Agency and local authorities have previously been able to serve a notice requiring the removal of the waste on the occupier of land where fly-tipping occurred. The occupier could appeal against a notice if he neither deposited nor knowingly caused nor knowingly permitted the deposit of the waste. However, no notice could be served on culpable land owners where there was no occupier. [more]
Its also often the case that enforcement resources are stretched making it possible for sites like the one in the photo to become overrun.
While Mediaklik can’t magic away the fly tip what it can do is help explain what the process is to members of the public which use the service.
Because there is the facility to send back text or email messages to anyone who reports an issue the authority can keep them up to date on the progress in finding out who owns the land and what action is being taken to get them to clean up their land.
I see that the LGA are endorsing the use of “shock tactics” to show members of the public their impact on litter. They are suggesting that some councils might stop picking up litter for a defined period to show just how much we drop, and point out:
People in England drop 30 million tonnes of litter every year, that’s enough rubbish to fill 1,500 aircraft carriers.
It costs local authorities £663 million a year to clear up this rubbish.
I saw this on my lunch break today and thought it might be useful to look at what the law says about graffiti.
Graffiti is criminal damage as set out in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and if the damage caused to a building is more than £5,000 then if caught the person responsible could face upto 10 years imprisonment (if they are over 18). Young people between the age of 12 and 17 can be detention and training order of up to 24 months.
Where the damage is less the maximum penalty is 3 months imprisonment or a fine of upto 32,500 for adults.
Local authorities also have the ability to use Fixed Penalty Notices. The Cleaner Neighbourhoods and Environment Act enables a local authority to vary the fixed penalty amount for a graffiti or fly-posting offence in its area. Where no amount is specified by a local authority the base amount is £75.
The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 makes it an offence to sell aerosol paints to persons aged under 16.
Local authorities also have the power to require that graffiti is removed and if it isn’t to reclaim the costs.
One of Lewisham’s local newspapers report on efforts being made by the council to reduce the level of graffiti in their borough:
Last year Lewisham Council removed 25,335 square metres of graffiti at a cost of over £275,000.
Hotspots include: Bankfoot, Rushey Green, Lee Green and Brockley.
It usually takes three hours to remove graffiti with specialised graffiti equipment, with a team of eight staff working five days a week on the problem.
If anyone can identify a tag they should ring enviro-call on 020 8314 7171 and ask to be put through to the graffiti team. Residents can also visit the LoveLewisham website.
A new anti-graffiti coating is also being applied to shops and businesses across the borough.
Of course, if you’re here you’ll probably already know that the Love Lewisham website is powered by Mediaklik technology and that it was responsible for helping Lewisham Council triple the amount of graffiti removed last year at twice the speed, without a significant increase in budget.
I see that Brent have a page on their website which says:
Whilst we are determined to wipe out illegal graffiti, we are aware that some street artists show great artistic talent. StreetCare has sponsored a number of community arts projects. We have been really impressed with the quality of the artwork that has been produced by young people and will continue to sponsor similar projects.
The picture below is an example of the sort of project they’ve sponsored.
It seems to me that this sort of mural art, while drawing on graffiti culture, is significantly different to the idea of legal graffiti walls, where there is little supervision and pictures are changed on a regular basis.
But as this paper from New South Wales points out:
To some however, legal graffiti projects send the wrong message to graffiti writers by encouraging them in their activities and providing them with opportunities to improve their skills which they can then use illegally. Other perceived disadvantages of legal graffiti projects include the fact that such projects do not generally attract taggers who have no interest in graffiti as art (nor would this strategy be useful in relation to political, humorous, racist graffiti) and that writers may only be diverted from illegal activity for a short time.
The reading I’ve done suggests there the evidence on whether legal walls and mural projects have an effect on the level of illegal graffiti and tagging is uncertain and that where they are introduced there can be strong feelings against the projects.
Has anyone seen anything they think is definative on this question?
Environmental problems like graffiti and flytipping are often considered problems for cities and larger towns; and with London spending an estimated £13 million a year on graffiti removal it certainly is an issue for urban local government and their citizens.
However, a meeting I had with officials from a rural town and District the other day, suggest that rural communities are also looking for ways to reduce these problems too.
What struck me was that in rural areas Mediaklik has the potential to deliver considerable efficiencies. With the distances being covered by a District being so much more than a urban borough the ability to assess the scale of a flytip and send the right resources without a site visit ought to be a huge advantage.
My hosts also saw the advantages in having a public website where as well as pictures of the problems the area has they could celebrate the beauty of their area.
Like many areas they take the “in bloom” competition very seriously and there is a thought that having the website could be a way of recording what they and their citizens like about living in their area as well.
Personally I really like that idea.
