Legal action leads to transformation of M40

How an  action for a Litter Abatement Order under s91 of the Environmental Protection Act transformed the M40 motorway in 2010

 

 

 

In the latter part of 2009 I became increasingly aware of the heavily littered state of the verges of  the M40 from J1 to J4 High Wycombe, a stretch of road I use on a regular basis. I had never seen any litter picking in operation.

On 19th February 2010 I sent a warning notice under Section 91 of the EPA to the Secretary Of State for Transport.

I received an unsatisfactory response from the Highways Agency and handed in a Complaint for a Litter Abatement Order to the Wycombe & Beaconsfield Magistrates Court on 24/03/10.  This was accompanied by a statement and photographs taken on 20/02/10,  27/02/10 and 23/03/10 The court eventually issued a Summons on 22nd April.

The issuing of the warning notice in February and the Summons in April clearly spurred the Highways Agency and their contractor into action.  Litter picking trucks became a common site and the verges were transformed by the end of May.

When my “Complaint for a litter abatement order” was heard at the High Wycombe Magistrates Court on 07/06/2010 I was consequently able to say that an abatement order was no longer appropriate as there was now very little  litter to abate.    The Court then awarded me costs under under EPA  S91(12) which says that if the magistrates are satisfied that, at the time the complaint was made, the highway in question was defaced by litter and there were reasonable grounds for making the complaint the defendant is required to pay costs.

Information Obtained Under the Environmental Information Regulations

I e-mailed the Highways Agency asking under the Environmental Information Regulations  for  information covering the 6 months to 31/03/10.  I asked for notifications from their stakeholders  and  communications / minutes of meeting etc  with UK Highways  referring  to the state of cleanliness or otherwise of these section of the M40″.  I received copies of 19 telephone and e-mail complaints confirming the dire state of the road during that period.  In contrast  I was told that there were no communications / minutes with the contractor as the topic had not been discussed.

The Highways Agency’s maintenance contractors are also subject to the EIR.   I therefore was able to obtain from their M40 contractor, UK Highways M40 Ltd, data on their cleaning activities from which I was able to produce this chart:

It can be seen that cleaning was at a very low level from November to February.  In fact in February no cleaning took place until after the contractor had been sent a copy of my Section 91 Warning Notice  on 24th February.

The litter picking activity in terms of kms  covered  increased by a factor of 6 comparing Nov- Feb to Mar -June !!!!!

Unfortunately the slip roads are still being given little attention.  This will be taken up with the Highways Agency.  I will continue to monitor the situation over the coming months.

.

.
Peter Silverman