Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Hornsey Journal claims Haringey worst for fly-tipping. Are they right?
In a report today, The Journal reports:
They refer to "research" carried out by waste disposal firm AnyJunk, but in fact the data on which both AnyJunk's and the Journal's stories are based comes from DEFRA.
Now whilst I'm very comfortable with criticising Haringey when it's warranted, the data looks odd to me. I think it warrants some scepticisim.
A quick look at DEFRA's website shows that their data is from the Flycapture database. The website explains:
I'm taking this to mean that the quality of data for any single authority is influenced by the quality of its reporting.
Dig around in the data and your confidence won't be boosted. Consider the following:
1. Is it realistic that Bexley would experience only 1,160 flytipping incidents in a year, whilst Lambeth had 3,762, Haringey 30,988 and Lewisham 48,609?
2. Is it credible that Lewisham would have taken action on only 3% of incidents and Haringey on 21%, whilst 9 boroughs apparently took action on more than 100% of incidents, six of them more than 200% and the apparently most efficient on over 500%?
(See attached document at the foot of this post - my extrapolation of DEFRA's data - original table linked to below)
This strikes me as distinctly dodgy data. And that's a shame because there is obviously an issue with flytipping in Haringey and, I'm sure, elsewhere in London. It's a shame because it probably diguises what perhaps ought to be our focus. The AnyJunk piece reports:
That's what struck me from DEFRA's table (pdf) - how very little successful enforcement there appears to be. Apparently only Enfield is being pro-active in pursuing fly-tippers.
On the costs side of things the Hornsey Journal tells us that Haringey is "spending the most on tackling the problem". It's not clear to me where that data comes from since I can't find it in either the Anyjunk or DEFRA sources. I do note from my 2007 post on this issue that at the time Haringey were apparently doing rather well. (Although the links in that story no longer work, the dataset it was based on is still available on the DEFRA site (pdf)) What DEFRA do tell us on costs is that clearing flytiping cost councils £45.8 million in 2009 - 2010. A further £19.1 million was spent on enforcement in the same period.
In terms of judging a council's performance, DEFRA has the following to say:
My understanding of Haringey's last assessment on the national indicators in December last year shows them getting the top score.
So I'm not really sure where all that leaves me. Mainly none the wiser. And that's a pity. All DEFRA's caveats and a report they link to on the causes of Fly Tipping (pdf) shows just how complicated the picture is.
[PS: Just going through the tagging I noticed that Alan Stanton has previously referred to the DEFRA stats as "annual pantomime".]
More rubbish is illegally dumped in Haringey's streets than almost anywhere else in London - despite the council spending the most on tackling the problem.
They refer to "research" carried out by waste disposal firm AnyJunk, but in fact the data on which both AnyJunk's and the Journal's stories are based comes from DEFRA.
Now whilst I'm very comfortable with criticising Haringey when it's warranted, the data looks odd to me. I think it warrants some scepticisim.
A quick look at DEFRA's website shows that their data is from the Flycapture database. The website explains:
Due to the variable nature of authorities and the different factors influencing flytipping and enforcement the data cannot be interpreted to provide "best and worst" authorities. An authority reporting a large number of flytips may also be taking a lot of action to address the situation and to properly record incidents.
I'm taking this to mean that the quality of data for any single authority is influenced by the quality of its reporting.
Dig around in the data and your confidence won't be boosted. Consider the following:
1. Is it realistic that Bexley would experience only 1,160 flytipping incidents in a year, whilst Lambeth had 3,762, Haringey 30,988 and Lewisham 48,609?
2. Is it credible that Lewisham would have taken action on only 3% of incidents and Haringey on 21%, whilst 9 boroughs apparently took action on more than 100% of incidents, six of them more than 200% and the apparently most efficient on over 500%?
(See attached document at the foot of this post - my extrapolation of DEFRA's data - original table linked to below)
This strikes me as distinctly dodgy data. And that's a shame because there is obviously an issue with flytipping in Haringey and, I'm sure, elsewhere in London. It's a shame because it probably diguises what perhaps ought to be our focus. The AnyJunk piece reports:
The poor enforcement of fines by many councils only adds to the problem, with the number of actual prosecutions for illegal dumping being extremely low. As a result, more cases of fly-tipping occur and so it continues.
That's what struck me from DEFRA's table (pdf) - how very little successful enforcement there appears to be. Apparently only Enfield is being pro-active in pursuing fly-tippers.
On the costs side of things the Hornsey Journal tells us that Haringey is "spending the most on tackling the problem". It's not clear to me where that data comes from since I can't find it in either the Anyjunk or DEFRA sources. I do note from my 2007 post on this issue that at the time Haringey were apparently doing rather well. (Although the links in that story no longer work, the dataset it was based on is still available on the DEFRA site (pdf)) What DEFRA do tell us on costs is that clearing flytiping cost councils £45.8 million in 2009 - 2010. A further £19.1 million was spent on enforcement in the same period.
In terms of judging a council's performance, DEFRA has the following to say:
In 2008-09 National Indicator NI196 (pdf) was introduced. This measures local authority performance on fly-tipping by recording the number of flytipping incidents against the level of enforcement action being carried out.
My understanding of Haringey's last assessment on the national indicators in December last year shows them getting the top score.
So I'm not really sure where all that leaves me. Mainly none the wiser. And that's a pity. All DEFRA's caveats and a report they link to on the causes of Fly Tipping (pdf) shows just how complicated the picture is.
[PS: Just going through the tagging I noticed that Alan Stanton has previously referred to the DEFRA stats as "annual pantomime".]
Tags for Forum Posts: flytipping, rubbish, street cleaning
- Attachments:
-
-
Flytipping 2010.pdf, 47 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Stuart on
-
Alan's right. It is an annual pantomime. Even Nilgun's comments this year about how the definition of 'fly-tipping' even catches a single black bag (see this week's Journal) mirrors what I recall her saying last year.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Thanks, Hugh, for a thoughtful, factual and above all, critical report.
Tim Witcomb who wrote the AnyJunk piece got in touch for permission to use my photo. He also alerted me to the Hornsey Journal "news story". Though as we see, the Journal failed to question any of the claims and seems to have done little more than reprint a press release. (Adding the traditional quotes from Labour and the LibDems. “Oh, no, we're not!” “Oh, yes, you are!”
Anyjunk claims that high skip permit prices can encourage dumping. But they don’t back this up. It's equally plausible that the price of hiring a skip may be a big factor.
Then there’s the reliability of their figures. Anyjunk are a commercial rubbish clearance and removal company - not researchers. They seem to have simply taken Government figures and used population numbers to give an average per head .
But, as you point out, the Government figures are themselves suspect. They’re from a database called Flycapture. (To which local councillors have no access - even on a read only basis.)
The figures may be even more unreliable than you suggest. Flycapture's definition of a "fly-tip" is supposed to include even a single dumped bag. But I wonder whether a lot of councils (though perhaps not Haringey?) have used a commonsense definition. In other words, reporting only those piles of waste which are obviously 'fly-tipping'.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
How much is it to take 'commercial' waste to the tip? What happens to the cash from those who do pay?
Where are landlords meant to take their (not very) old mattresses otherwise?
What's the cost comparison from clearing up flytipping vs any extra load on the waste site?
Are beds too cheap?
-
-
Really this is just my passive-aggressive way of saying, why not make commercial waste free to tip at the waste centres to stop the bulk fly-tipping which must be coming from commercial sources.
-
-
Pam, your original questions were more subtle. I'll ask them and post the answers I get.
By the way, it's interesting how passive-aggressive crops-up as one of the latest low-flying buzzwords. (Along with toxic and productivity.)
It seems to be used as a synonym for indirect criticism. Which is a shame. The original narrower meaning of the term was very useful - especially to describe someone, say, whose unacknowledged behaviour is tearing a family apart.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
