Councillor claims residents will flytip and report via Cleaner Brent App to avoid £35 bulk collection charge

Councillor John Duffy (Labour, Kilburn) has returned to the theme of alleged waste in Brent Council's waste policy. He has sent the email below to all councillors:

Dear Councillors,

It is obvious to anyone who understand data there is a direct correlation between the failure of the Cabinet to monitor the bulky waste service and ensure the contractor perform to contract specifications and the increase in fly-tipping.

It is unacceptable that the cabinet were aware of the both the rising fly-tipping figures and the rising delays in the bulky waste collection Times and chose to do nothing. It is clear  to me the longer the waiting time for the bulky waste service the more likely the waste is to be dumped on the Street. It is also clear residents are resourceful and using the Cleaner Brent  App to report their own dumped furniture/waste (therefore the rise in reported dumping) therefore getting the waste taken away for nothing in 24 Hrs rather than wait the 8 weeks for a collection.

The likelihood of thing improving once the £35 charge has been introduced is remote and clutching at straws, especially  as residents will soon realise they have already paid for the collection service once in their Council Tax.

It beggars belief that  the cabinet are offering our residents the choice of paying £35 for  bulky collection that will take  up to 5 days too collect or to take the items  outside and use the Brent Appto report the dumping and get it picked up in 24 hrs  for Free. I think many will chose the second option especially when they realise  they have already paid for the service in their council tax.

I believe the service will yield little income and will increase fly-tipping, I have asked the CEO on Monday to suspend the charge and asked for a full evaluation.The CEO has not got back to me, but I understand her and the leader will not suspend the £35 charge and stand by it.

I am having further conversations with residents groups to put together a package of improvements based on environmental needs. Which I will hopefully update you with on Monday.

One of the guiding philosophies in the environment is the polluter pays, however what the cabinet are suggesting is the polluter pays twice.

I still hope the cabinet will see reason and enter into dialogue to improve the environment and suspend the £35 charge, however based on my previous experience that will not happen. 

See below email

Dear CEO and All Councillors ,

I am very concerned about the £35 charge for Bulky Waste as I believe the decision is double charging residents for a service they already pay for and has no financially modelling and is environmentally damaging and is not also sustainable,

The reason I believe this is the case because the charge is being brought in to hide the failings by the cabinet to improve services. The service has gone from a 5 day pick-up in 2014 when I (most of us) was elected to an 8 week delay today. The delay is wholly at the doorstep of the cabinet for believing in the supposed Zero Tolerance policy with Kingdom Security , which squandered resources, while misunderstanding the issues around contract compliance and sustainability.

As well as the wasting of resources on the KS contract one of the only environmentally revenue (we lost over £100k) from the government, that was available to us. The contract had no controls on what services were needed by the council. This allowed the contractor to chose the most lucrative areas for themselves , while avoided the areas of most need like street dumping .This lack of controls and other decisions taken by the cabinet has seen the number of case of fly tipping go up by over 32% from10,000 reported cases  to 17,000 reported cases in the last year alone.

I am therefore amazed with Fly-tipping rising at constant rate over the last 3 years ,the cabinet have decided  the best way to reduce fly-tipping is to introduce a £35 charge for the bulky waste service.

The Service

The truth about the existing service is the Street Cleansing contract is clear . The contract makes the contractor ( Veolia) liable to pick up 17500 bulky waste collections PA 70 pick-ups X 5 Days X 50 Weeks. This year we picked up 17485 collections. Albeit the service clearly running at near capacity, it should not have lead to an eight weeks delay….. It would seem that the residents have already paid for this service via the council Tax for the street cleansing contract and the disposal contract, but the cabinet failure to ensure contract compliance and Fly-tipping as their priorities have let the service fail.

Financial Modelling.

Albeit the service has been paid for once. I believe there is a case for more investment in the environmental services. However I believe the £35 charge will be the highest charge by any licensed waste carrier in Brent and is not competitive and the charge will have a negative affect on the environment .Those who will not pay the £35 will do one of the following.

(i)        Some will taken Civic Amenity centre , some residents will still have a problem transporting larger item,settee,mattresses.

(ii)       Some will use licensed private collectors.

(iii)      Some will use the grey bin ( breaking-up smaller items)

(iv)      Some will use Street dumping

(v)       Some will  use Street Dumping and use the Brent Cleansing Apt to report it.  

(vI)     Some will use unlicensed (White Van Man) waste carriers , much of which will end -up dumped on the street.

Model A 

I understand officers have based their modelling on a take-up from 11000 to 17000 collections and income between 25k to £250 , this seemingly is only based on a £35 per collections price. Their model excludes the collection of bags of rubble and some other items and the figures are very broad.

Whereas it is always hard to a financial breakdown  on what is a new charge, but there are obvious facts ,the service will still operate a substantial discount for residents in receipt of benefits  which can be as high as 20% so allowing for a 15% against what is in the contract 17500- 15% = 14875  paid collection. we also know the higher the cost the bigger the lose of customers.

I believe that a nominal fee of £10 should have little affect on paying on the people who pay now but the £35 will deter many my analyses is based on work I did some years ago on increasing costs for commercial Waste.

£10 cost Customers  lose 10% of customers   =  14131 X   £10 = £141000  (90% of customers including discounted residents)  

£20 cost Customers  lose 45% of customers   =    8181 X   £20 = £164000  (70% of customers including discounted residents)  

£35 cost Customers  lose 75% of customers   =    4462  X  £35 = £156180  (45% of customers including discounted residents)  

You can see from this model the £20 would bring in the most. The £35 is unsustainable because its more expensive that other options, however the £10 is more fair as the residents have already paid for collections in the Veolia contract and already paid for the deposal in the West -Waste levy. I also have more confident in the take -up of the £10 cost as its affordability for most residents.

There also other issues, why are we using 5 items as the cut of point , it is more logical to me to cut it to £10 for 4 items this is based on the bulky collection usually being one or two items (bed and mattress or a fridge-freezer) we could then charge a progression cost for £5 per item after that , believe this would also bring in more income.

Officers and the Cabinet say they oppose a progressive charge because they wish to keep the costing simple. I completely disagree there is nothing simple about doubling the price once you have past a threshold. A progressive charge is both fairer and reflects the true cost.

The Way forward

As you know I am trying to get the support of a number of councillors (hopefully in late November) to call a full council meeting  to discuss sustainable Environment policies around enforcement , recycling and  street cleansing. I will get back to you on those proposal shortly.

In the meantime I am asking the CEO and the Leader of the Council to consider

(1)      Freezing the introduction of the scheme until a full evaluation of the increase in fly-tipping is assessed.

If however you are not willing to freeze the introduction of the charge please answer the questions below as an FOI if you like.

(2)      Explain the price modelling. 

(3)      Explain why,now that we are charging, why are certain wastes prohibited 

(4)      Did  officers explore progressive pricing. 

(5)      How much increased revenue do you expect to received from the the new charge of £35 

(6)      What impact do you think the Charge will have on Fly-tipping. 

I understand under this scheme Brent are going to takeaway old Christmas Trees.I buy my Tree at Ikea for £16 , I feel hearten to know the council will take it away for just…...£35.

I think the cabinet have missed the point.

Brent Council abolishes fly-tipping

Mattresses on the corner of Chapter Road and Deacon Road earlier this week

The Brent Council Cabinet last night agreed to change the term 'fly-tipping' to 'illegal rubbish dumping' . Arguing for the change Cllr Sam Stopp, who chaired the Scrutiny Committeee Task Group on fly-tipping, said that many people did not understand the term 'fly-tipping' and in a borough with many people who were not fluent in English it was important that the terminology should be understand - he was not expecting other London boroughs to adopt the usage.

The emphasis on 'illegal' was welcomed by other Cabinet members. Other recommendations adopted included appointing 'Community Guardians' who would tackle illegal dumping in their areas and have a profile on the Council's web page, a Brent Against Rubbish Dumping Charter which businesses, landlords, estate and letting agents and schools would be encouraged to sign up to and display publicly, and the soft relaunch of the Cleaner Brent App (see side panel).

There was a particular emphasis on co-operation from landlords and Cllr Margaret McLennan said she would like to see the Landlord Licensing Scheme, presently operating in three wards, extended to the whole of Brent.

Cllr Stopp said 80% of his case work was illegal rubbish dumping but he also claimed that Brent wasn't the worse borough in London as sometimes portrayed as it came about half-way in the London Boroughs league table.

Derivation of the term fly-tipping

On the fly meant to move or do something in a hurry. so tipping on the fly, so you don't get caught.

Brent Fly-Tipping Report's wide-ranging recommendations

The Final Report of the Brent Scrutiny Committee's Fly-Tipping Task Group, head by Cllr Sam Stopp has now been published.

These are its recommendations:

Knowledge

1. The task group recommends that the term “Fly-tipping” should be changed to “Illegal Rubbish Dumping” (IRD) in communications with residents. Residents rarely refer to dumped rubbish as fly-tipping and there is apparently confusion among some residents about what “fly-tipping” actually means.
   This is not a good basis on which to communicate with residents about the issue, therefore the task group recommends changing the language we use.
   *We recognise that authorities and bodies outside of Brent will, for the time being, probably continue to refer to illegal rubbish dumping as “fly-tipping”, so we accept that we will have to use this language when communicating with them.
   
2. A named officer/s within the Waste Management service should be responsible for continuous monitoring of new methods to tackle IRD, keeping the council abreast of the latest developments and leading improvement practices; not just from other London boroughs and the UK, but from Europe and the rest of the world. The task group supports the behavioural studies that the council is currently participating in as part of the West London Alliance (WLA) and recommends that it should continue to build on this area of work.
   
3. Brent Waste Management service should review its internal benchmarking, looking internally at how we monitor our own performance and should report performance quarterly in public. It is recommended that this is communicated to residents and other councillors via the council’s website and Brent Magazine.
   
4. Brent Waste Management should liaise with neighbouring London boroughs to develop a benchmarking network. The West London Alliance (WLA) would be a good place to start as there are links already established. There should also be additional cross-border networking, feeding into intelligence with the aim of bringing forward more prosecutions for trade waste dumping.
   

Education 

5. Constitutionally empower “Community Guardians” by appointing, through an agreed selection process, figureheads like the chair of Keep Wembley Tidy. Councillors can support this by identifying suitable candidates. These guardians are to be given a profile on the council’s web page, support and resources from the council and Veolia; to tackle illegal rubbish dumping in their appointed locations.
5.1. It was identified in the task group’s research that residents often identify with different place names than the wards in which they live. The task group is recommending that the community guardians structure in Brent is mapped in the following village localities and guardians are allocated to these areas: 

Wembley	Dudden Hill	Kensal Rise
Kenton	Neasden	Stonebridge
Queens Park	Sudbury	Kilburn
Harlesden	Alperton	Willesden

*This list is intended as a guide and residents are of course free to suggest the names for their own campaigns, as well as the areas these campaigns cover. Keep Wembley Tidy covers Wembley Central and Alperton wards, and it is suggested that campaigns should not overlap with one another. This approach should be integrated with the voluntary Community Action Groups.

2. 5.2.  Guidance and a code of practice for the community guardians and village areas should be drawn up and agreed by officers and residents. This should include action days and identifying and evidencing illegal rubbish dumping hot spots. Village websites should also be linked to the council’s waste management web pages.
   
3. 5.3.  It will be a priority of the community guardians, councillors, officers and Veolia to devise and produce a ‘Brent Against Rubbish Dumping Charter’, which Businesses, HMO Landlords and Estate/Letting Agents will be encouraged to sign up to and display publicly.
   
4. 5.4.  It will be a priority of the community guardians, councillors, officers and Veolia to engage with places of worship, youth clubs and sports clubs to engage and promote the Brent Against Rubbish Dumping Charter.
   

6. The process of reporting IRD should be clear and straightforward, so that both residents and officers know what is to be expected and how and when there will be communication between parties. This should be documented on the council’s IRD web page.

7. Brent waste management and Veolia should liaise with Brent education and Brent schools partnership to ensure that there is a strategic anti-Illegal rubbish dumping programme going into schools, aimed at both primary school and secondary school level. The programme should be continuous and target 100% of schools on an annual basis, encouraging schools to sign up to the Brent Against Rubbish Dumping Charter. Progress should be reported on the council waste management web page on a quarterly basis.
   
8. Business liaison should be part of an officer’s role; this should include an evaluation of any non-monetary incentives that can be offered. Brent should encourage businesses to sponsor a bin or bins, as a result of which businesses will become certified and will be allowed to display a Brent Council sign stating that they are opposed to IRD.
   
9. Additional resources should be invested in to the Special Collection Service, so that items are collected sooner and the number of bulky items illegally dumped is reduced. Other alternative options for waste disposal and recycling should be promoted with direct links on the council’s web page and offered on the phone when residents call to request Special Collection Services such as Freecycle and Freegle.
   

Enforcement

10. The task group recommends the formation of a strategic approach between Waste Management Enforcement services and the CCTV service to ensure more use of the current CCTV provision to monitor IRD hotspots. It is understood that this will require collecting evidence and providing a supported case for each camera.
    *The task group endorses all of the recommendations on IRD made by the concurrent CCTV task group.
    
11. Waste management services, specifically trade and Environmental health services, must work together more strategically; sharing information and working on joint visits where there is clear intelligence that there are crosscutting priorities.
    
12. A strategic approach between Housing Enforcement and Waste Management Enforcement services via Veolia should be formed to ensure that HMO landlords are educated as to their responsibilities regarding waste disposal for themselves and their tenants.
    
13. Enlist the support of night workers such as black cab drivers and night bus drivers to use the cleaner Brent app and report any perpetrators of IRD. This could be achieved by contacting taxi firms and Transport for London to explain our case and by asking them to cascade our request down to workers. The council would in turn be able to release positive press stories about these organisations.
    
14. We will look to pre-capitalise on new fly-tipping legislation, to be brought forward next year, by following a similar model to Ealing Council, as below:
    ‘The council has teamed up with Kingdom Security to provide dedicated teams of uniformed officers in the borough. Kingdom Security will work with the council’s environmental enforcement officers, providing a high-profile deterrent and issuing £80 fines. Operating initially on a one-year trial basis, Kingdom Security is working at no cost to the council. Instead they will take a share of the fines they issue’.
    
15. The Council should work with other local authorities and the National Fly-tipping Prevention Group to lobby the Government for more effective enforcement powers.
    
16. The selective Landlord licensing scheme should be reviewed annually and reported on publicly with statistics on how effective the scheme has been, where it has been effective, areas where the council can strengthen its enforcement and any lessons learnt.
    
17. The landlord licensing guidance should have more detail in the wording regarding waste & refuse, so that it is harder for landlords to avoid discharging their responsibilities effectively.
    

 The most referenced licensed scheme is that of Newham Council’s. Newham’s licensing condition in respect of waste simply requires that “No refuse shall be kept in the front or rear garden other than in an approved storage container for that purpose”.

19. Further investigation is required into the impact of the garden waste collection charges. Cabinet should review its effectiveness from a cost and efficiency perspective, annually until 2018.
    
20. Owing to the lack of quantitative data to evidence the effects of the garden waste charge at this stage, officers should review and report the effects of its first year in operation. Officers should devise logical metrics against which it can compare its performance annually until 2018.
    
21. The number of Brent residents that have signed up, and continue to sign up, to the Garden waste collection service should be more widely publicised. The Brent website and Brent magazine should be the media for this.
    

Publicity

22. Future publicity about IRD should be continuous, mainly word-of-mouth and not confined to one-off PR campaigns. The last major PR campaign in 2013 involved large, difficult-to- read signs under which rubbish was dumped. It also saw photo opportunities to show the lead member was determined to deal with the issue, but officers confirm that it had little tangible impact on levels of IRD.
    
23. Officers, councillors and community guardians need to visit relevant local meeting places – whether they be religious meeting places, youth clubs or sports clubs – to pass on the council’s messages about IRD and how communities can work with Brent to tackle it.
    
24. Leafleting campaigns led by the council and voluntary groups should be in multiple languages, appropriate to the socio-dynamics of the local area.
    
25. Any future communications should also be easy-to-read with no conflicting messages. This should be backed up with targeted local advertising. Brent London Underground and National rail stations are prime locations for such advertising.
    
26. The Cleaner Brent App requires further publicity, and probably a re-launch, as not enough people are aware it exists. There should be further publicity on the web and in the Brent magazine.