Bid to call-in Waste, Recycling and Street Cleansing Cabinet contract award to Veolia

 

Editor: Veolia workers being included in party political tweet and lead member social media

 

A group of opposition councillors have submitted a request to call-in the recent Cabinet approval to award  the Waste, Recycling and Street Cleansing contract to Veolia. The request is in the name of councillors Georgiou, Lorber, Matin, Hirani and Maurice.

Please provide below an explanation as to why you are calling in the decision and if you are calling in all or part of the decision:

 

 

As a service based organisation, Brent Council should be putting residents’ needs and concerns at the forefront of all we do. This call-in is based on our belief that the views of residents have mostly been ignored throughout the tendering process and that the decision made by Cabinet will in fact lead to worsening outcomes for local people for this very important and valued service.

 

We believe the way that this process has been handled has always advantaged the current contractor. In order to increase competition and as a result a better service for our residents the Council should have considered splitting the contract into smaller areas, perhaps the Brent Connects areas, or grouping of wards, which might have resulted in more interest from contractors other than the current contractor.  

 

We are particularly concerned about two key aspects of the decision:

 

The use of sacks for the collection of some recyclable materials (paper and cardboard).

 

A move towards a so called ‘intelligence led’ street cleaning service.

 

Our view is that both changes were highlighted during the consultation period as being unpopular with local people and will in fact not work in practice.

 

During the trial period the size and sturdiness of the sacks to be used was questioned by residents. In the Scrutiny session on this item at the end of last year, numerous Councillors, who were also involved in the trial, highlighted this concern. A recommendation from the Committee, whilst being noted in the Decision, has effectively been ignored, as there is no clear indication that an alternative will be implemented.

 

On street cleaning, we have huge concerns about how a new ‘intelligence led’ approach will impact local roads in our wards. There is already a significant issue in our areas when it comes to upkeep and cleanliness of streets. As admitted by an Officer of the Council at the Scrutiny session last year, this new approach, “will not make the situation better.” If our purpose as an organisation is to improve the standard and quality of our area, it is evident that in fact this decision does not do this, therefore, an alternative needs to be found.

 

We are also specifically concerned about the reduction of Zone A ‘headers’ (side roads) from 50m to 20m. There are already significant issues on roads closest to High Roads and Town Centres. Our belief is that the reduction of this aspect of the service will both be incredibly detrimental to the residential roads close-by and in the long run costlier for the Council to deal with.

 

Please provide below an outline alternative course of action to the decision being called in.

We propose on sacks that the Council agree in full with the recommendations by the Scrutiny Committee that wheelie bins be provided where possible to residents who wish to have them, so as to avoid the possibility of sacks being misused, broken and lost. If necessary, by revising recycling collection routes.

 

To maintain the Zone A ‘headers’ (side roads) to at least 50m, as is the case in the current contract.

 

A review of the way service consultations are conducted so as to ensure they are proper, thorough, and rather than imposition of an already agreed to decision. This will give greater confidence to the residents that the Council are listening to their concerns and acting on them.

 

As suggested during the consultation process with residents, to increase the number of waste and recycling bins on local streets.

 

 

 

How can the 'You Decide' process for Council grants be made fairer?

 November's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, which was also attended for two items by the Chair of Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny, was notable for the contribution of residents to the item on Brent Council's Grants Programme. Key points were made questioning the fairness of the 'You Decide' meetings that allocate grants including the packing of meetings by some groups and the disadvantage of not being used to public speaking.

The Committee also considered the Borough Plan with questions asked abou the lack of much mention of the council's climate emergency structure.

The Committee made a range of recommendations.

The Minutes of the meeting are now available so I have embedded them below for your perusal and as an example of effective scrutiny.

Postponed Scrutiny Committee will now discuss recycling and street cleansing proposals on Thursday 15th December

Papers for Brent Council meetings are usually posted a week before the meeting in order to enable the public to read them beforehand. This enables the public to request to speak at a meeting if they feel there are issues in the papers about which tey have questions or a view.

Yesterday I noticed that Tuesday's papers for the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee had not been published meaning that councillors and public had little time to read them. In fact, the Committee usually discusses them at a pre-meeting before the actual meeting so councillors would have had even less time to get their head round the issues.

The meeting was due to discuss controversial changes to the recycling service and street cleansing.

I protested to the Council via Twitter and called for the postponement to enable proper perusal of the documents. After interchanges this was conceded.

 

From Wembley Matters: Dec 8^th Brent Council: papers for Tuesday's Scrutiny only just published less than a week before the meeting. Insufficient time for members of the public & likely committee members to adequately scrutinise far-reaching changes to street cleansing, recycling etc. Meeting should be postponed.

 

From Wembley Matters to Cllr Conneely and Cllr Sheth (Chairs of Scrutiny) and Brent Council’s CEO: This is no way to treat Scrutiny. Particularly on such a controversial topic.

 

From Brent Council: Dec 9^th Thank you for raising this concern about the delayed publication of some of the scrutiny papers for which we apologise. All papers have now been published in full and can be viewed on the council website.

 

In the circumstances, to enable residents and the committee to have the usual amount of time to review the content, the meeting has been postponed. The rearranged meeting will now take place on Thursday 15 December.

 

From Wembley Matters: Thank you. A good decision.

 

This is the main paper for the Resources and Public Realm Scrutinny Committee now to be held on Thursday 15th December:

Redefining Local Services: Update on the Integrated Street Cleansing, Waste Collections and Winter Maintenance Services Contract Procurement Programme PDF 422 KB

For Recycling the Council pronounces its 8 week trial of alternate weeks reycling a success The first week a paper sack collection for paper and card and the second the normal blue bin collection minus paper and card.:

The results from the eight-week trial have been analysed and the trial is considered to have been a success when measured against the following key critical success factors

• The set out % for the sacks (the number of households putting their bluesack out with paper and card)
• Contamination levels within the sacks
• Contamination in the existing, blue-lidded recycling bin (including levels of paper/card)

They reject a weekly 'twin' collection of both sack and blue bin as too expensive and say it would mean cuts in other services. Officers recommend that the Preferred Option (alternate collections) be included in the final Integrated Contract.

They argue this method will mean less contamination of waste and thus increase recycling rates and save money.

The officers give more weight to the Face to Face meetings they held (which favoured to proposed system) than the On-Line Consultation which rejected it. Nearly 8 times as many residents took part in the On-line consultaion compared with Face to Face at the Roadshows. Officers felt this was because they saw the sacks and were able to talk to Council employees about the new system.

The majority of the On-Line consultees wanted to keep the present system:
 

The suggested changes in the Street Cleansing Contract are for a switch from a 'frequency led system' (Translation: How often your street is cleaned on a regulat basis) to an 'Intelligence Led System' when new officers in teams and residents let thecontractor know when a street needs cleaning.

The approach will include six new, dedicated rapid response teams in each Brent Connect Area (with two in Wembley) which the council will be able to task directly to address any ad hoc issues arising and to target hotspots.  

Data management will also be improved within the new contract with a new dedicated Digital Manager post sitting with the contractor and a live dashboard shared with the Council’s client team which we will jointly monitor daily and which the council will analyse for trends to determine locations which require changing levels of resource. The new regime will therefore be flexible allowing resources to be reallocated where required across the borough.

This comes with a reduction in frequency of the cleaning of residential streets: (Note DM and DL and North Circular)

I could not find a list of DH, DM and DL roads or definitions but will try and find out tomorrow.  Again On-line responders were more likely to oppose the changes, though not as strongly as for Recycling.
 

Residents made some suggestions on improving street cleansing and the officers responded:

 

Additional measures include the Education Team, currently with Veolia, being brought in-house and a new free, bookable small items collection service would be introduced. The  service would collect:

• Textiles
• Small electrical appliances
• Household batteries
• Paint
• Used coffee pods

Consultation Findings LINK

 

 

 

Scrutiny Committee upholds Alan Lunt's decision on 1 Morland Gardens (Altamira)

Members of the public and opposition councillors presented at the Call-in Scrutiny Committee over a Key Decision on the  controversial 1 Morland Gardens made by the Director of Regeneration. 

Philip Grant’s presentation to R&PR Scrutiny meeting on 9 June:

The Key Decision Report briefly mentions the Council’s need to have ‘all the necessary statutory approvals in place’. It doesn’t have those approvals yet, and may never get them.

 

In January 2019, Officers were told they’d need to stop-up the highway outside 1 Morland Gardens, and appropriate the land, if they wanted to build on it. They failed to consider what the effect of this would be, and have continued to do so.

 

I’m one of several people who’ve objected to the proposed Order, for environmental and public health reasons.

 

Pedestrians who currently use footpaths across the land are shielded from Hillside and Brentfield Road by the trees of the Community Garden. Stopping-up and building over the land would force them to walk beside that junction instead.

 

Planning application documents showed dangerous levels of NO2 and particulates there. This meant that all windows in the new building, up to the second floor, must be sealed, with fresh air provided by mechanical ventilation. No thought was given to people walking past!

 

The health risks to local people, especially children, who’d have to walk through this polluted air, are a strong reason why objections to the proposed Order may well be upheld.

 

That will be decided by an independent Inspector, and it’s likely to be next year before the Council knows the outcome.

 

Melvyn Leach

Presentation to Brent Council R&PR Scrutiny meeting on 9 June 2022

After being deputy headteacher in a Brent secondary school, in 1994 I was appointed as the first head of Brent Adult College, now Brent Start, that opened at 1 Morland Gardens.  I hope to persuade you not to allow its unnecessary demolition.

Brent Council and Harlesden City Challenge invested significantly to regenerate the site into a tastefully restored heritage building, used as a successful new adult education centre. At that time decision-makers in Brent Council showed huge pride and value in preserving the local and architectural history of 1 Morland Gardens.

1 Morland Gardens is an attractive listed heritage asset. My experience as a teacher has shown how significant such buildings are in helping students relate to, and learn about, the lives of people who lived and worked in Brent in the past.

 

If the Council can’t get approval to build on the extra land, it could draw up alternative plans that retain the Italianate villa as part of a modern development.

 

Heritage sites like this can show young people the importance of Brent Council promoting and enabling conservation, alongside essential regeneration. Political Leaders need to set an example of the value of such special assets. Children learn by example. 

 

The heritage building and educational facilities are too valuable to demolish. Unless it’s absolutely certain that the proposed redevelopment can legally go ahead, I urge you to prevent the unnecessary loss of 1 Morland Gardens and the community garden.

 

Alan Lunt, Director of Regeneration, apologised for the delay in the stopping up orde for 1 Morland Gardens and assured the Commitete that it would not happen again.  Cllr Rita Conneely, Chair expressed the strong opinion that the Committee expected that strong checks and balances should be put in place  to ensure that this was the case.

One comment by Alan Lunt that the difference between Council rents and London Affordable Rent (the scheme is the latter) was 'only' £10 a week (£520 a year) was challenged on Twitter with this reference LINK but accepted at face value by councillors and quoted by them.

 

Emphasising that this was a two stage project, Stage 1 Design and Stage 2 Build, Lunt said that the Design Stage would cost £1.1m, but if a contract was not signed and work started by August, if only a hoarding around the site, the Council stood to lose the £6.5m GLA grant towards affordable housing. Any delay would mean a significant rise in costs, Someone suggested 13%, because of current inflation in materials.

The Adult College had already been moved to the Stonebridge Annex site (previously occupied by Stonebridge Primary School) and the buildings were empty.  He undertook that no demolition would take place on the Altamira heritage site until a Stopping Up Order was in place, although the Council were ready to start on demolition.

Lunch said that it was highly unusual for the public to object to such Orders and the normal process was objections from utilitiy  companies until negotiations had taken place for access or diversion of their resources.  The Council was using the right powers for the right reasons and issued Stopping-Up-Orders about six times a year. None had been refused but if the London Mayor did so it would go the the Planning Inspectorate with a lead-in time of about 6 months.

Objectors had raised concerns that the plans for the site did not conform to the Council's commitments on air quality and the climate emergency. Mr Lunt maintained that the development would reduce pollution and any increase in public exposure using the revised pedestrian route would be 'miniscule'. In any case the extension of the ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) the ban on new petrol cars in 2030 and hybrids in 2035, would reduce emissions.

There was only a minor contribution to the discussion by Cllr Mili Patel, Cabinet lead for Finance and Resources, who emphasised the benefits of the scheme for the local Stonebridge community in terms of education, 'affordable' housing and a community cafe. 

 Some of the issues to do with loss of mature trees and the heritage building were deemed not to come under the Committee's remit as they had been dealt with by the Planning Committee.

The Scrutiny Committee vice chair, Cllr Janice Long, expressed the view that 'life is a risk' and that the potential gains of the scheme were a risk worth taking. 

She was disparaging about the City Challenge community garden on the site and could not imagine why anyone would want to sit in such an unattractive area. Alan Lunt had said that the garden was being moved rather than destroyed and that although mature trees would be lost they would be replaced by semi-mature trees rather than saplings.

The Committee voted to support the following option set out in the Officer's Report:

The Committee does not wish to refer the matter back to the decision maker or to Council, at which point the decision is deemed to be confirmed and takes effect immediately following the meeting.

It is worth noting that the meeting was well-chaired and the process explained with opportunities for all to contribute. There was an absence of any political point scoring. New Labour councillor Mary Mitchell acknowledged that the Call-in was based on legitimate concerns.

A promising start to a new era of effective scrutiny?

 

NOTE

Once again there were technical hitches. The public watching on the Live Feed were able to hear Melvyn Leach on zoom but the Committee were not, with the result that his presentation had to be read out.

 

 

Another problem was that the live feed camera maintained a wide view of the whole committee during the webcast so it was sometimes difficult to know who was speaking unless their name was clearly said when they were called upon to speak. Apologies for any mis-attributions.

 

1. 
   

    

   
   

VIDEO: The moment when Muhammed Butt sprang a surprise move to seize more power for his Brent Buttocracy

 I apologise for the poor sound quality of Brent's original webcast, but it is worth watching for the reaction of the opposition councillors

At 54.13 Council Leader Muhammed Butt slips in a constitutional change so that he appoints the Vice Chairs of the two Scrutiny Committees which had previously been filled by oppositon councillors. Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive, intervenes to clarify the proposal so that all councillors are aware of what it means.

A move by the Liberal Democrats supported by the Conservatives that the Chairs of Scrutiny should be from the opposition is defeated.

Thus the Chairs and Vice Chairs of both Scrutiny Committees are now filled by the Labour Party. Chairs are elected by the Labour Group but Vice Chairs appointed by the Council Leader. This extend's the leader's patronage.

A worsening of the previous position.

Two opposition councillors now on Brent scrutiny committees

 Full details of Cabinet, Committee chairs and Committee members in the new Brent Council adminstration should be released later today before the Council Annual General Meeting takes place at 5pm. You can view the meeting HERE.

Meanwhile following the election of 5 Conservative and 3 Liberal Democrats the allocation of seats has been agreed and  published on the agenda.  These are:

 

There are now single Liberal Democrats on the two key Scrutiny Committees alongside single Conservatives which should strengthen scrutiny if a good working relationship is established. However, Lib Dems are not represented on Planning Committee which given the prominence of a critique of new developments in their election campaign is a pity.  They also have one seat on the General Purposes Committee which in the last adminstration consisted of Cabinet members plus one Conservative. That arrangement has been criticised as being a Cabinet committee in all but name, thus centralising power, and it will be interesting to see how that situation developes.

The allocation of Liberal Democrat councillors is:

General Purposes: Cllr Lorber with Cllr Georgiou as first alternate and Cllr Matin as second.

Licensing: Cllr Georgiou with Cllr Lorber as first alternate and Cllr Matin as second. 

Resources and Public Realm: Cllr Georgiou with Cllr Lorber as first alternate and Cllr Matin as second. 

Community and Wellbeing: Cllr Matin with Cllr Lorber as first alternate and Cllr Georgiou as second.

It is worth noting the difference between allocation of seats in the council as a pecentage of the total  and the proportion of the total vote that each part achieved (latter in brackets).

Labour 85.97% (58.60%)

Conservative 8.77% (21.99%)

Liberal Democrat 5.26% (13.52%)

Other constitutional changes are made in the light of the election result. With Liberal Democrats now recognised as a group alongside the Conservatives. Each opposition group will have the right to ask a question at Council and to put a motion.

Brent’s Cecil Avenue Housing Scheme – Where is the Scrutiny?

 Guest post by Philip Grent in a personal capacity

If you have read my recent guest post, Deputation on Poverty Commission Housing Update – Brent finally responds! , and my Deputation to the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9 March, you may have noticed that something was missing. 

 

Information on the Committee from Brent Council’s website

 

The Council’s reply of 9 May completely failed to acknowledge or respond to this section of my Deputation:

 

‘One place where Brent could increase investment in social housing is the former Copland School site. It is vacant land, owned by the Council, which has had full planning permission to build 250 homes there for over a year.

 

I wrote to Cabinet members last August, when that item was on their agenda, urging them to fulfil their Poverty Commission promises, and make at least some of this development homes for social rent.

 

Instead, they approved a proposal which allows 152 of the new homes there to be sold privately. Of the 98 Council homes, 61 would be for shared ownership, and only 37 for London Affordable Rent.

 

Overall, the Wembley Housing Zone scheme claims to provide 50% “affordable housing”. But the balance of that is 54 flats at London Affordable Rent level on the Ujima House site, and only 8 of those would be family-sized homes.

 

There would be NO social rented homes. That’s the reality hidden in this Poverty Commission Update.

 

You, as a Scrutiny Committee, need to challenge that, and demand that Brent Council does better.

 

You can recommend that in meeting its Poverty Commission commitments, it should invest in more social rent housing as part of the New Council Homes programme, including at its Cecil Avenue development.’

 

The Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9 March was the last before the 5 May Brent Council elections, and the last with Cllr. Roxanne Mashari in the Chair before she stood down as a councillor. Chairing that committee must have been a frustrating role, trying to hold Cllr. Muhammed Butt’s Cabinet ‘publicly to account’.

 

I could see her frustration in emails she wrote, apologising to me for the continuing delay in getting a written response to my Deputation. It should have been provided within ten working days, and was initially expected from Cllr. Ellie Southwood, Lead Member for Housing, who had been the Cabinet member presenting the Poverty Commission Update report to the Scrutiny Committee. In her final email to me, on 5 May, Roxanne wrote: ‘I would finally like to thank you for your continued engagement with policy and practice at the council and for playing an active role in holding the council to account.’

 

From the Scrutiny section of Brent Council’s website.

 

I have certainly tried to hold the Council to account over the plans for Cecil Avenue in its Wembley Housing Zone. My initial approaches to Cabinet members from August 2021 got no response. I tried using a Public Question at last November’s Full Council meeting to get a proper explanation over why 152 of the 250 homes on a Council housing development should be for private sale, and only 37 at affordable rent for people on the Council’s waiting list, but without success. 

 

I even tried a satirical approach, using some of the Council’s own images of the three key Cabinet members involved (Cllrs. Butt, Tatler and Southwood), to show graphically how their Cecil Avenue proposals made a mockery of their “New Council Homes” promises. Still no real engagement on the issue from councillors or Council Officers!

 

Parody of a Brent publicity photo for its “1,000 New Council Homes” programme.

 

Brent’s website says that ‘Scrutiny … seeks to involve the public,’ and in January I wrote to the Chairs and Vice Chairs of both Scrutiny Committees. I sent them a copy of a guest blog I’d written about the Cecil Avenue proposals, saying ‘It looks bad. It looks wrong’, and asking: ‘Why are Brent’s Scrutiny Committees not asking for explanations?’ 

 

The (then) Vice Chair of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, Cllr. Suresh Kansagra, copied me into an email he’d sent, saying that he thought it should be an item on the agenda for their next meeting (9 February). The day before that meeting, a Scrutiny Officer at the Council wrote to me saying: ‘As the issue you have raised relates to housing, your request falls under the remit of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee.’ 

 

I queried this, and three days later she wrote again, saying: ‘It is correct that this is within the R & PR Committee remit and I am sorry for my misinterpretation of your request as a housing matter.’ Unfortunately, the agenda for the next (9 March) meeting was already full (that was the chaotic “joint” meeting which spent two hours considering Baroness Casey’s report on the Euros final at Wembley Stadium).

 

I had to resort to including my Cecil Avenue points in a Deputation on the Poverty Commission Update report. As you will have seen at the start of this blog article, those points were not answered. Brent’s Cabinet and Senior Council Officers do not want their Wembley Housing Zone proposals to be scrutinised. That makes me all the more convinced that they do need to be scrutinised, and soon!

 

Notice of an intended decision, posted on Brent Council’s website.

 

Last month I wrote a guest blog about a “hush hush” decision over the terms of a contract for the Wembley Housing Zone project. The actual decision was due to be made on 4 May (the day before a new Council was elected), but this doesn’t appear to have been confirmed yet (as of 12 May).

 

What has appeared, on the gov.uk “contracts finder” website on 30 April is an invitation to contractors to apply to be Brent’s “Delivery Partner” for the Wembley Housing Zone development. They must do so by 31 May 2022, with the construction contract expected to begin on 28 March 2023, and be completed by 31 March 2026. The advertisement had first been put online earlier that day, but was quickly taken down and replaced. 

 

The only change made, as far as I could see, was that the original start date was shown as 1 April 2023. My guess is that the additional funding of £5.5m, which the GLA agreed for Brent Council’s Wembley Housing Zone housing scheme last year, is only available if work begins “on site” by 31 March 2023!

 

Main contract details from the official public “Contracts finder” website.

 

Proposed Development details from the “Contracts finder” website.

 

From the published details, it appears that there has been no change in the proposals for Cecil Avenue from when the Cabinet approved them in August 2021. The 39% “affordable” would be 98 homes, with only 37 at London Affordable Rent and 61 for shared ownership (or intermediate rent level, which would be unaffordable to most Brent residents in housing need). The remaining 61%, that’s 152 (with 20 3-4 bed) of the 250 homes Brent Council will be building here, would be for its “Delivery Partner” to sell privately, for profit. How can that be right?

 

Proper scrutiny of the proposals for Cecil Avenue is needed urgently. Can Cabinet members and Senior Officers explain in detail how their plans are justified? If not, they should be told by a Scrutiny Committee that they must do better. Why can’t all of the 3- and 4-bedroom family-sized homes be for Council tenants, as that is meant to be a high priority for Brent? Even if only 98 of the 250 can be affordable, surely they should all be for “genuinely affordable” rents, as recommended by the Brent Poverty Commission?

 

As Brent Council’s website clearly states, Scrutiny is there ‘to ensure that decisions are made in line with council policy and in the public interest.’ We deserve to see this work in practice!

Philip Grant.