B hssvvvGq B hssvvvGq ! B rhr Gq6u v Hh!! B rhr Gq6u v SrCr Hh uhT rr GqTX Q"Q` yqtx rv vr!&('"# vvp!&('"##$' DT7I '$!% "%% 8r ut hu ! !! Foreword by the Chair of the Graffiti Investigative Committee In the Association of London Government’s ‘Survey of Londoners 2001,’ 77% of Londoners listed graffiti as a quality of life concern. The London Mayor’s ‘London Survey’ by MORI did not, surprisingly, address the issue directly but 73% of respondents said that London was not a clean city and 52% listed crime as a major concern. Graffiti will have been a contributing factor to both these responses. Our investigation included interviews with graffiti writers and a full day receiving evidence from Local Authorities, the police, transport organisations and major companies. In addition we received over two hundred written responses, including most valuable input from overseas. It is clear that graffiti is a problem that affects ALL London Boroughs, not just those situated in ‘inner’ London. South London appears to be particularly blessed or cursed by graffiti depending upon your point of view. It is also clear that the amount of graffiti is growing. Some respondents to our investigation signalled that their spending on removing graffiti has tripled over the last five years. Our standards for combating illegal graffiti are way below the best practice internationally. Our standards also vary dramatically across London. I am very grateful to my Assembly colleagues on the committee, Valerie Shawcross and Lynne Featherstone for their significant input into this investigation. We enjoyed a very positive and non-party tone to our discussion on an issue that can have a very high party political profile in London’s Boroughs. The investigation engaged a very good number of London’s residents. This is partly a reflection of the high degree of public concern about this issue. I am personally very grateful for the personal contact I had from individual residents associations with their practical experiences of graffiti. This report moves the debate forward on graffiti with its emphasis upon a broad and co- ordinated menu of solutions to illegal graffiti. I trust also that the document will also serve as a handy aide-memoire for all dealing with the challenge of illegal graffiti writers defacing London. Andrew Pelling Chair of the Graffiti Investigative Committee 1 The Graffiti Investigative Committee The London Assembly established the Graffiti Investigative Committee on 11th July 2001 with the following membership: Andrew Pelling (Chair) - Conservative Valerie Shawcross - Labour Lynne Featherstone - Liberal Democrat The terms of reference of the Committee were as follows: x To investigate graffiti across London examining examples of best practice in its prevention and removal, to be made available to London Boroughs and all interested parties. Contacts: Ijeoma Ajibade, Scrutiny Manager, Tel: 020 7983 4397 Penny Housely, Committee Administrator, Tel 020 7983 6559 2 Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 4 Chapter 1. Introduction 6 Chapter 2. Graffiti – Exploring the Sub-Culture 8 Chapter 3. The Cost of Graffiti to London 14 Chapter 4. Quality of Life Issues 18 Chapter 5. Legislation and Law Enforcement 22 Chapter 6. Local Authorities and Partnership Working 28 Chapter 7. Community Involvement and Self-Help 34 Chapter 8. Young People and Graffiti 37 Chapter 9. Conclusion 43 Annex A Summary of Recommendations 44 Annex B Evidentiary Hearing - List of Witnesses 48 Annex C Site Visit to Groundwork Merton 49 Annex D List of Written Evidence and Bibliography 51 Annex E Summary of Written Evidence 56 Annex F Table of Recommended Solutions 141 3 Executive Summary Graffiti is an increasingly prevalent and obvious environmental crime in London, degrading streets, houses, offices, buses and trains. For the majority it is ugly, and sometimes offensive. It engenders an atmosphere of neglect and criminality. Graffiti also involves serious risks to the graffiti writers themselves. The London Assembly decided to undertake the first London-wide focussed consideration of how to prevent and reduce graffiti in the capital. We have brought together for the first time a wealth of best practice and data from all over London which can be used to develop a more targeted and co-ordinated approach. We have heard not only from Boroughs and transport companies but also from residents and graffiti writers. Our report investigates the culture and motivations of graffiti writing. We look at what works in graffiti prevention both across London and also in the rest of the United Kingdom and in cities around the world. Our main recommendations can be found in the body of the report and are listed in full at Annex A. Our principal findings are: The Cost of Graffiti We estimate the total cost of graffiti in London to be over £100 million per annum. In this report we have identified expenditure by London Boroughs and transport companies of approximately £13 million per annum. This figure rises to £23 million if all the etched glass on the underground is replaced, but does not include costs to businesses, utilities, rail companies and homeowners. Costs go beyond just removal costs and include damage to economic development and loss of capital values to people’s homes. We were unable to identify accurately these additional costs, but we estimate that when they are taken into account, the cost of graffiti to the London economy each year exceeds £100m. This is money lost to productive expenditure and investment in our public services. Graffiti involves an unacceptable cost to Londoners. Enforcing the Law Illegal graffiti is criminal damage. Effective law enforcement should deter graffiti writers and reduce the incidence of graffiti in London. ¾We support current proposals to ban the sale of graffiti materials to minors and believe that legislation should be introduced to apply such a ban across the country. ¾We found some examples of effective law enforcement where the courts, the local council, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service have joined together with an agreed commitment to take graffiti more seriously. Such an approach must be extended across London. Graffiti should no longer be considered a minor offence. ¾There must be more use of reparations – those who are convicted of graffiti should be made to remove it. 4 Community involvement All parts of the local community must get involved in the fight against graffiti and we saw some impressive examples of involvement from community groups which local councils across London should encourage. We are critical of a number of the utility companies which appear to allow graffiti to remain on their property, thus harming the local environment. The need for more youth provision Our investigation revealed an absence of alternative, legal and creative outlets for the young people whose energies are currently misdirected into illegal graffiti. Those projects that do exist are often short-term and unsustainable. We call for further work to be undertaken on reviewing the state of youth provision in London. The Capital Standards Programme We have found pockets of success across the boroughs of London, but our city is an integrated whole and graffiti writers are no respecters of borough boundaries. There is an urgent need for a co-ordinated approach, sharing intelligence and best practice amongst boroughs, transport operators, the police and other key bodies. The Capital Standards Programme established by the Mayor, Tidy Britain Group and the Association of London Government is a good vehicle to promote such a London-wide effort against graffiti and to promote the insights and recommendations of our report. The fullest participation in the Programme will come when it has moved on from establishing what current standards are to setting standards. 5 1. Introduction Is graffiti a problem? 1.1 Graffiti has become of increasing concern to Londoners, with local authorities, transport organisations, businesses and private individuals spending millions of pounds each year trying to prevent and remove it. Graffiti has a negative effect on the lives of the thousands of Londoners who travel in vandalised, unpleasant buses and trains, and live in areas blighted by graffiti. Its presence often coincides with other environmental problems such as abandoned cars, litter and fly posting. Graffiti also spreads fear and can be offensive. The increasing importance attached to graffiti removal is evidenced by the increase in the demand for Councils to remove it.1 1.2 We believe that graffiti is an issue that needs to be addressed urgently. The London Assembly has a clear role in providing leadership and strategic direction for London. Our scrutiny aims to initiate and to encourage a co-ordinated, effective response to graffiti across the capital. The scrutiny process 1.3 As part of the scrutiny process we took oral evidence at a one-day hearing2 and analysed over two hundred written memoranda. These included written evidence from several world cities who provided us with examples of a variety of innovative anti-graffiti strategies with which to benchmark and develop our own. Our investigation has also included studying literature and press articles, analysing the evidence received, investigating graffiti web sites and interviewing graffiti writers. We visited Groundwork Merton3 that has a diversionary youth programme, to see examples of how graffiti has been used in diversionary youth work. We have considered wider issues such as social exclusion, urban design and crime and have taken these issues into account in making our recommendations. We are grateful to all who assisted us in our investigation. Our definition 1.4 In this report we have chosen to use the term ”graffiti writer” as our definition of a person who does graffiti. We have used this as a generic term to cover both legal and illegal graffiti and it also encompasses the different types of graffiti.