No Brent Council ban on glyphosate but use to be kept under review

The commonest brand containing glyphosate

Cllr Southwood responded to a question on the use of the the herbicide glyphosate from Cllr Colacicco with the following written answer (as printed on order paper with no closure of quotation mark).  Wembley Matters raised concerns about the issue HERE

The Council uses Amenity Glyphosate for weed control across its sites, and has no current plans to ban its use. However, I appreciate that there are public concerns about this and will continue to keep this policy under review. Whilst studies have concluded that “under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for it to pose a health risk to humans, I’m aware of more recent work that links contact with humans to a type of cancer. Clearly, this is to b taken very seriously.

Proper application techniques are vital for keeping people working with it free from harm. Our contract with Veolia includes an ongoing commitment from them to review herbicide application in accordance with EU recommendations and our own environmental policies. This will be achieved by constantly seeking new and improved herbicides and more efficient methods of application whenever these might become available. We work closely with them to ensure that all latest guidance in terms of safe working practices is being followed and have reiterated the importance of this to them in light of public concerns.

Should Brent follow Hammersmith & Fulham and replace glyphosate

I am well aware that dangers to public health are often under-estimated or dismissed only to be cited decades later as the cause of illness and perhaps early death. As an NUT representative at a school in Fulham in the early 70s I discovered asbestos, claimed to have been safely removed over the summer holidays, stuffed behind classroom radiators.  The borough Medical Officer of Health at the time was  not particularly sympathetic. Now the effects of exposure to even small amounts of asbestos dust  is well documented.

Currently concerns over the weed killer glyphosate are being similarly down-played.  When I informed Brent Council about the TUC's concerns about safety concerns for workers who use the spray LINK

The TUC report said:

There is no question that weed killers containing glyphosate are dangerous. If it gets on the skin it can cause irritation and dermatitis. It can also cause oral and throat discomfort if it is breathed in. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis. If swallowed it may cause corrosion of the throat and can lead to kidney or liver failure.

It is also believed that it can cause cancer. In March 2015 the International Agency on research into Carcinogens (IARC) announced that glyphosate probably caused a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This was based on a study of agricultural workers who were exposed to the chemical, although it was backed up by tests on animals. However it is not known whether the cancer is being caused by contact through the skin or through breathing it, or both. It is therefore necessary to try to prevent any workers coming into contact with glyphosate.

It advocated action to protect workers:

Given that the risks to the skin, lung and eyes have been known about for many years, employers should already have been taking action to prevent any contact to glyphosate, even before there was evidence it causes cancer

Now that there is new evidence that glyphosate is likely to cause cancer, all employers must review their risk assessments, including their COSHH assessments. Where possible they should consider alternatives to the use of herbicides, but if that is not possible they must investigate whether there are safer alternatives. If there are alternatives then they should be introduced, regardless of whether they are more expensive. However they should not rush into substituting another herbicide for glyphosate without ensuring that they know the risk from the substitute. All herbicides are likely to have some dangers to humans.

If they are going to continue to use glyphosate then they should look at whether there are alternatives to how it is used now. Often it is sprayed from backpacks (which often leak) and are filled in an enclosed space. The employer must consider alternative ways of applying it and also look at how containers are filled, cleaned and the chemical stored and disposed of. They also need to provide training and information to the workers about the risk.

If, after that, any workers are still likely to come into contact with glyphosate, they must provide protective clothing. That may include gloves, masks and protective overalls. This must be done free of charge, and arrangements need to be made for them to be stored and cleaned. The safety representatives should be involved in any discussion on the best protective equipment.

Employers should also be monitoring the health of all those who use glyphosate (or any pesticide).

 In my email to Brent Council I said:

 I would like to draw your attention to the latest advice from the TUC re Health and Safety and the use of glyphosate  based weed killers which was issued last month.

With many schools out-sourcing grounds maintenance I wonder if a warning could be issued to them as well as clarifying the situation with Veolia.

Samantha Haines replied for Brent Council:

I have spoken to our contractor and the public realm department here at Brent and they have told me that our contractor are aware and adhere to these practices.

This did not address the issue regarding school contractors and of course some schools may have their own premises staff using the chemicals.   Apart from the danger posed to the workers concerned there is also that of exposing children to the herbicide.

Last week Hammersmith and Fulham Council responded to a 38 Degrees petition on the use of  glyphosate.   Wesley Harcourt, the cabinet member for environment, said:

As is the case at almost all local authorities, glyphosate-based herbicides are currently  used by Hammersmith and Fulham council contractors, Quadron-Serco.

However we have been working with contractors for some time to replace these with chemical  alternatives, such as hot foam and steam.

In May a group of 48 MEPs volunteered for a test to detect levels of glyphosate in their urine. The average was more than 17 times the safe limit and the lowest double the limit. at 0.17ng/ml LINK

Jean Lambert, MEP for London, a member of the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee whose personal test results show a glyphosate contamination level of 0.67 ng/ml, said:

It is genuinely frightening that glyphosate is everywhere in our everyday lives. These test results show that no matter where we live, what we eat, or our age we cannot escape exposure to this toxic substance. With glyphosate widely used in cities, in urban parks and public spaces, on streets and pavements, the European Commission must bow to public pressure and put the safety of people and the environment ahead of the profits of chemical industry giants.

The general public using herbicides in their gardens, need to be aware that popular weedkiller Roundup, on sale in garden centres and other outlets, contains glyphosate.  Manufacturer Monsanto is fighting a public relations battle against critics of its product LINK

In May campaigners claimed a minor victory when the EU decided to delay re-approval of the use of glyphosate in the EU.  The Monsanto backed Glyphosate Task Force  complained about ' acute politicisation of the regulatory procedure' while Pekka Pesonen of the main European Farmers' Union deplored the fact that a ban on glyphosate ban would put them at a 'competitive disadvantage'.

The battle continues.

 The 38 degrees petition can be modified for any local authority and can be found HERE

Will 'Social Value' procurement take into account ethical standards?

Brent Council's strategy for Social Value in procurement will be discussed at Cabinet tonight. The documents do not mention ethical procurement except with reference to sourcing practices:

Ethical sourcing practices: Ensuring compliance with UK, EU and international standards, promoting fair trade and fair pricing policies, tackling corruption, child labour and similar social issues.

However this does not appear again in the council's glossy publication on Social Value LINK

During the controversy over Veolia's bid for the Public Realm contract there were promises by the council to look at developing an ethical procurement policy.  Veolia was opposed because at the time it provided infrastuctural support for  illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Campaigners through the public money should not be used to support such practices by awarding the company a multi-million contract.

Recently the government has moved to ban councils and other public bodies from making procurement decisions that take into account ethical issues.

Cllr Tom Miller was among signatories of an attempt  by councillors to challenge this (see below)  and other organisations, including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, have campaigned on the issue:

 

Letter from councillors regarding attacks on local democracy

Proposed regulations would give central government powers to veto investment decisions made by democratically elected local councils if it believes that local decisions conflict with the views of Westminster politicians.

Scores of councils have in recent years taken steps such as adopting fair trade principles or excluding fossil fuel, tobacco and arms companies from their investment portfolios, following campaigns by pension fund members and local citizens.

Many councils have passed motions stating they will not procure services from companies that avoid tax, aid and abet Israeli violations of international law or from construction companies that blacklist trade union members.

The Government now aims to undermine the right of councils to make democratic decisions reflecting local public opinion and the views of local authority pension fund members, who under current proposals would have less rights to influence pension fund investment decisions than those investing in personal pensions.

These proposals fatally undermine the government’s stated commitment to transfer power to local government and communities and represent a serious attack on local democracy.

We urge the government to reconsider

Brent Council to share procurement with Harrow and Buckinghamshire

A proposal is being put to Brent Cabinet to share procurement of services with the London Borough of Harrow and Buckinghamshire County Council.

Harrow will be the lead borough and in the first phase Brent staff will transfer to them. The report is pretty opaque but it looks likely there will redundancies in the second phase. Brent argues that the proposals will enable them to cut the procurement budget by £272,000 in 2016-17.

The proposal aims to 'deliver in five key areas':

·      contribute to the Council’s savings target, in particular enabling the delivery of savings to the procurement service; 

·      enable the Council to take a strategic view of procurement activity 

·      provide new approaches to the delivery of Social Value benefits in Brent contracts 

·      enable the potential generation of additional income by selling procurement services, as opportunities to do this currently have been limited due to the size of the current team; 

·      ensure that there is resilience built into Procurement activities; and 

·      maximise the opportunities for collaboration. 


Creating a Procurement Shared Service (PSS) from the three councils will help assuage cuts to budgets and bring together best practice, knowledge, skills and resources. LB Brent has a savings target of £272k in 2016/17 and without a form of transformation LB Brent will only be able to provide a largely transactional procurement service. By joining this initiative LB Brent will be in a good position to deliver the savings target whilst also guaranteeing a level of resilience in its procurement activities. 


By becoming one of the founder organisations LB Brent will avoid having to reduce the current procurement service from a team of 11 to a team of 6, with 5 staff being forced to take redundancy. This reduction would mean that LB Brent’s ability to provide procurement services would be significantly impacted. However by entering into the Shared Service arrangement, the impact of the reductions will be mitigated allowing LB Brent to continue to receive a good level of procurement support
 
The second paragraph is particular is confusing. After several readings I think it means  that Brent itself won't have to make people redundant but redundancies will happen in the new shared service - but I am open to corrections or alternative explanations.

The proposal has further consequences in terms of Brent residents' ability to lobby over ethical procurement (eg Veolia). Councils’ability to make decisions based on ethical standards is already under attack from the Conservative government.  It is also unclear what powers Brent councillors will have in the new situation.

Details HERE

Scrutiny Committee delves into green bins

Some of the issues raised on Rik Smith's guest blog on the green bin charge LINK came up at the Brent Scrutiny Committee last night.

Cllr Duffy expressed doubts about the report's claim that the charge had not resulted in more garden waste going into grey bins but Chris Whyte, head of Environment Management, said that this had been confirmed by 'visual inspections', officers would take it up if it became apparent there was a problem.

Duffy said that he would expect weekly, rather than fortnightly, collections of the blue bin dry recycling, should have resulted in less going into the residual grey bins, but this had not been the case. Whyte said this could be accounted for by an increase in the borough's population, an explanation that Duffy did not accept.  Former environment lead member Cllr Keith Perrin asked if the council were collecting enough dry recycling now to merit weekly collections.

Dumped Christmas trees in Chalkhill Friday January 8th 2016

Officers were urged to do more to increase take up of compost bins by residents. Fly-tipping was a major concern with the report claiming that after an initial surge there had been no substantial increase in the fly-tipping of garden waste but Cllr Southwood conceded that the council needed to be more pro-active regarding the collection of Christmas trees. Chris Whyte said that the council had an obligation to pick up any tree left in the street and did not want residents without green bins to put them into blue bins as this would encourage them to use them for organic waste throughout the year.

There was close questioning on contamination  of dry recycling by organic waste and of the additional cost of fly-tipping. Although fly-tipping came under a single contract charge by Veolia, so there was no additional charge for any increase in fly-tipping, it did cost in terms of an increase in landfill tax.

There was extensive discussion on making the 'Cleaner Brent' smart phone app LINK more widely known and it was agreed that it could be demonstrated at Brent Connects meetings.

On missing statistics for Q3 in the report Chris Whyte explained that the figures would be available but there was a lag in gathering the data from various data points.

The Committee agreed a recommendation from Cllr Nerva that the council consider distributing organic waste collection bags at libraries and other centres (he suggested five bags for £10) so that residents without green bins or compost bins could recycle at kerbside.

The issue of dry recycling and organic waste collections from flats and multi-occupied houses continues to be an issue and there were calls for enforcement of an obligation via the licensing scheme for landlords to ensure efficient recycling.

Cllr Duffy asked why Veolia had retained £40,000 of the £120,000 additional revenue from the better than expected take-up of the green bin charge. He had fought for the council to retain the whole amount. Chris Whye said that this had been reinvested by Veolia in an additional vehicle to cope with the 3,000  extra green bin customers. Duffy was not satisfied with this, suggesting that Veolia's initial costing must have included some leeway for extra capacity.

Intervening Cllr Perrin said he was concerned that there didn't seem to have be a mechanisom for the allocation of the £120,000 including the retention of £40,000 be Veolia. Was it a one off payment or an annual charge?

The chair, Cllr Kelcher, allowed me to ask a question from the public gallery. I asked about the claim in the report (6.1) that 35% of the reduction in green waste collected would be because it 'would no longer be produced'. I suggested that there was a wider environmental consideration here including the paving over of front gardens to reduce vegetation or the burningof garden waste affecting already poor air quality in the borough.  Chris Whyte had no information on this but said it was a consideration.

Is Brent Green Bin Tax a success?

Brent Scrutiny Committee will tonight discuss a report on the charge for Green Bin collections. In this guest blog Rik Smith considers the claims made in the report.
 

Since March 2015, Brent council introduced a £40 charge for households to have “green waste” collected regularly (ish) - before this point, most households had a green wheely bin which was collected weekly.

The Brent Scrutiny Committee agreed to review the impact of the changes to the “Garden Waste Service” (or known as the Green Bin tax by most residents) after 9 months of operation.

The green bin tax was anticipated to achieve the following outcomes:

A.    Deliver £378,000 financial savings

B.    Improve and extend the council’s recycling offer

C.    Reduce the amount of waste generated overall

D.    Better comply with the national waste hierarchy

It would be reasonable to expect cover these issues. The report can be found HERE

Overall, it’s not exactly the next PD James novel, but it does contain a significant amount of back slapping and a modest amount of retrospective learning - from the operational difficulty in dealing with ~20,000 requests to “opt in” and pay £40 for the waste collections.

In summary:

●      A) was over achieved due to greater than anticipated sign up

●      B) Brent will suggest that weekly blue bin (dry recycling) addresses this

●      C) not clear – as I will explain below.

●      D) dependent upon the outcome of C

Detail 

Deliver £378,000 financial savings

Brent estimated that 17,000  (15%) of households would sign up to the green bin tax, in reality, 20,000  (18%) signed up. This lead to the council receiving £480,000, a £3 profit for each household that signed up over and above the original target This is a modest surplus per additional household, but may also explain why the coucil are already suggesting that the green bin tax won’t increase next year - or suggest that their poor estimations led to them overcharging for the service. Another interpretation is of course that Brent is getting shafted by Veolia.

I say poor estimation because the sign up was 3,000 more than the 17,000 estimated, that’s a 17%  forecast error. It’s in the councils interest to understate the forecast for the following reasons. Low forecast leads to:

●      “higher than expected uptake” headlines, helping spin the introduction of the green bin tax in  a positive light

●      Bonus extra cash if forecast is exceeded because the cost per household is set to recover costs over a smaller number

●      Low probability of making a loss on the new scheme

Reduce the amount of waste generated overall

This is where spin on the green bin tax starts to wear a bit thin. It’s also worth remembering that at the same time as the green bin tax was introduced, we moved to weekly blue bin collections.

First a rather odd assertion, that moving from collecting the blue top bins (dry recycling) bins from every 2 weeks, to weekly would have zero impact - thoroughly implausible!

"It was also anticipated that the changes would have no significant impact on the council’s recycling rate. This was because it was predicted that the amount of dry recycling collected by the weekly service would remain the same”

I know before weekly blue bin collections i was regularly faced with an overflowing blue bin, so some residual cans or boxes went into the grey bin. If my experience is partially replicated across some of the 110,000 households then from April 2015 the council should expect grey bin (residual waste) volumes to FALL and blue bin (dry recycling) volumes to INCREASE - keep this in mind for later.

“whilst the amount of collected organic waste would reduce, it would be mainly displaced to home composting or to the council’s Recycling Centre at Abbey Road”

The rate of “organic waste” collected from households and recycling centres has fallen by 3,248 tonnes between April and October. This is equivalent to 72 kgs of organic waste for each of the 45,000 green bins that the council removed from residents. i’d estimate that to be 2, maybe 3 wheely bins FULL of grass or hedge trimmings. Composting this amount of green waste would require more than just a garden Dalek composting thing, and will soon mount up.

So what’s happening to this stuff if it’s not being collected? Yes some is probably being composted at home, but I’d argue the rest is going to landfill. However, the scrutiny report appears to ignore / gloss over this waste stream. The amount that goes to landfill is costing the council £82.60 for every tonne - this cost is glossed over and lost (and probably ignored) in the opaque mystery benefits stated earlier.

Furthermore, the report states

“... the service changes appear to have had a positive impact on the borough’s recycling rate, and have had no noticeable impact on residual waste (grey bin) tonnages”

The report appears to come to this conclusion with some very simplistic, and rather misleading graph below.

The blue bars are 2014, red bars 2015. The green Bin Tax was introduced on 31st March 2015 - so the very end of Q1.

The graph shows that Q2 2015 grey bin tonnages were more than in 2014 and that they increased by a greater amount between Q1 and Q2 in 2015 than they did in 2014. so I’d argue that there was an impact.

The GLARING omission is of course, Q3 and  Q4 2015 data. as a reminder Q2 is April to June and Q3 is July to September - arguably the time when gardeners would expect to cut the grass, prune hedges, weeding, and general maintenance in the garden during the summer. The exclusion of Q3 data in a report written to cover the 9 months from March is incompetent, but at worse it’s deliberately misleading. By the time the report was published, most of Q4 should have passed, allowing the council to make a reasonable estimate of Q4 volumes.

One data point is nowhere near enough data to draw any conclusions or make any decisions; instead more data should be presented.

Has Brent reduced the amount of waste generated overall? Probably, but only because some people will compost some of the waste themselves, even if all other green waste goes into the grey bin.

Better comply with the national waste hierarchy and does it now comply better with the national waste hierarchy?

Source LINK

Effecitvely, the idea is to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (then dump the rest) - in the process produce high quality (pure) recyclable material, and the smallest volume of landfill.

This is supported by the “landfill Tax” which is currently £82.60 and payable by councils and commercial producers of landfill waste.

The datum (singular data point) shows an increase in the amount of grey bin waste, and hides the impact in Q3 and Q4. it also hides the likely beneficial impact of the weekly blue bin collections and the likely replacement / uplift volume of green waste being diverted to landfill.

The diversion to landfill would be contrary to the national waste hierarchy, the fact these two events coincide make it very difficult to unpick the size of the impact of each on landfill waste, we can only look at the net impact.

in conclusion, there are a number of unanswered questions

1.     How much residual waste was produced in Q3 and Q4 2015 - and why wasn’t this included in this report?

2.     How much green waste did they estimate would be diverted to landfill by bin tax avoiding residents, and have they budgeted for this?

3.     How much green waste was collected in the 45,000 green bins removed from residents?

4.     Did the council intentionally under-estimate the green bin tax uptake, leading to overcharging residents?

5.     How does Brent’s performance compare to other councils in London and England that have introduced a similar Green Bin Tax?

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.
    

Duffy claims he was punished by Butt & Co for saving council tax payers up to £500k

Councillor John Duffy (Labour Kilburn) reveals in his blog today LINK that he is snubbed by the Council's Labour leadership and some other members of the Labour group scarcely speak to him. 

This is despite his vigilance over the green waste contract that was out-sourced to Veolia.  Duffy successfully challenged a clause that gave Veolia any income from the scheme once the collection target of £400k had been achieved. His claim that this would be illegal was eventually supported by the Chief Finance Officer despite Duffy initially getting the brush off from the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council when he raised concerns.

Duffy says:

You may think Brent Council Labour group thanks me for this. No the leadership of Brent Council Labour group are unforgiving that I forced this amendment, they took me off all committees; many of the Labour group hardly talk to me or shy away. They seat me next to the Tory group (a fate worse than death) as they believe by forcing the amendment I undermined their authority. One member of the Cabinet accused me of bullying officers because I would not let it drop. I am not allowed to speak at full council. If I do members of the cabinet heckle me.

Cllr Duffy claims that the Council could benefit by up to £500k  in contrast to the council tax money that Veolia would have handed to the contractor. He is concerned, however, that the additional money will be spent on Council vanity projects rather than supporting vital services.

Concluding his posting Duffy says he is going on holiday but on his return will  reveal why St Patrick's Day may not be coming to Brent and 'the tale of the missing nomination'.

Wembly Central petition Brent Council for more action on rubbish and flytipping

The Green Party and Brent Fightback long ago forecast dirty streets LINK  as a result of cuts to street cleaning and other services and the decision to make the contractor Veolia responsible for monitoring its own performance.  More recently I have also had comments regarding the maintenance of parks which is also part of Veolia's empire.  As a result of the Veolia taking over Brent's Public Realm the Environment Department of the Council has been severely cut LINK.

Wembley Central residents have now launched a public online petition to Brent Council and Muhammed Butt calling for action LINK

The petition reads:
 

--> We the undersigned petition Brent Council to resolve the issue of unacceptable amounts of rubbish being dumped on our streets.  The dumped rubbish is anti-social, it causes potential health hazards by attracting rats and other vermin to our streets and it affects the well-being of responsible residents, whilst making the area unwelcoming to visitors.

We call on Brent Council to implement the following 6 point plan to clean up Wembley Central:

1.      We call on Brent Council to put in place measures which prevent rubbish being dumped on our streets and to fully publicise what these measures are.

2.      We call on Brent Council to strongly enforce existing laws and regulations against those who litter, those who dump rubbish/fly-tip and those who do not manage their waste properly on private land.

3.      We call on Brent Council to raise awareness of this problem, stressing that it will no longer be tolerated, through an education program including posters and leafleting, whilst engaging with local landlords, businesses, schools, colleges and places of worship.

4.      We call on Brent Council to respond to genuine complaints from residents in a timely and respectful manner.

5.      We call on Brent Council to pro-actively combat the effects of recent multi-occupancy housing on the existing local community.  Each landlord licence would generate £400 per property.  This income must be invested to regulate and enforce regulations.

6.      We call on Brent Council to issue financial penalties against Veolia where the service fails to meet the required standard.

For too long the Council have ignored our complaints about rubbish in our area and they need to take immediate and long term action to solve this problem.

On the petition sight Cllr Sam Stopp (Labour, Brent Central) writes:

The cleanliness of our streets is the measure of our community spirit.

To rebuild community spirit, we must first remove the blight of dumping from our streets.