Showing posts with label Waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Waste. Show all posts

Tuesday 21 October 2014

Cllr George Crane appointed Brent Council lead member for the Environment to replace Keith Perrin

Hot on the tail of my story about the non-filling of the Lead Member for Environment cabinet post left vacant by the resignation of Cllr Keith Perrin LINK and my suggestion that Cllr Butt was reluctant to have another election for the post, comes this story on the Get West London website LINK

It appears that former Executive member Cllr George Crane has been appointed to the post. There is no press release on the Brent Council website about this:
A former manager of Rolls Royce has been appointed the new lead member of environment at Brent Council.

Councillor George Crane from Wembley has taken up the role after Councillor Keith Perrin stepped down from the position last month.

Councillor Crane has been a councillor for a number of years and was the lead member for regeneration and growth in the last Cabinet.

He has two grown up sons and is retired now but was a senior manager at Rolls Royce for 20 years and after that worked as a buyer for a food manufacturing company in Harrow.

He said: "I am delighted to take on the role of Lead member for Environment at the request of the Leader of the Council.

"I am excited about the portfolio area - there are lots of new things in the pipeline in Brent including improvements to the public realm and waste management including new and more frequent recycling collections from Spring next year. However I am also acutely aware that Brent Council faces some tough challenges with public services facing dramatic cuts in funding from central government, so the Cabinet will have to be making some tough decisions over the coming months.

"I am keen to listen to and engage with residents. I look forward to working with them and other Partners over the coming months."

Friday 25 October 2013

Harlesden Incinerator: Open letter to Ealing Council leader


Guest post by Mark Walker

Open letter to Julian Bell, leader, Ealing Council

Mr Julian Bell
Leader
Ealing Council
Town Hall
New Broadway
Ealing W5 2BY

Dear Mr. Bell

I am writing to ask that you take account of the serious health and pollution risks to the North Acton ‘island triangle’ community from Clean Power Properties Ltd’s proposed energy recovery plant and withdraw your council’s consideration of it.

As you will know, Clean Power plans a combined anaerobic digestion (AD) & advanced conversion technology (ACT) plant at the Willesden Freight Terminal, which facility would handle 198,000 tonnes of commercial & industrial waste annually. Food waste in tanks will be turned via AD into biogas while the ACT process chars non-food waste also to produce gas which is likewise burned for energy.

The plant is wholly unsuitable for our residential area of 200 homes as it will generate low level gases like sulphur dioxide and benzene for many years. Your council’s own environmental health department advised in August that the application be rejected since the developer cannot prove that it will not harm the local community.

It’s well-known that AD plants cause pollution, as DEFRA itself admits in its recent research. ACT plants have never been successful operated within communities and those in construction are large scale and well away from people’s homes. Some of ACT’s pressurised autoclaving operations carry particular risks, as the fatality at the Sterecycle plant in 2011 and subsequent collapse of the operating company has tragically shown. These are not technologies to be located next to local families’ homes.

Clean Power’s waste site will be fed by an average of 67 lorries every day, using the narrow Channel Gate Road, passing only 3-4 metres from local people’s small Victorian houses. Residents have for years been troubled by day and night noise, vibration and lorry pollution from the freight yard’s operations. Approving this proposal would lock local families into 16-hours-a-day vehicle pollution for a generation.

The North Acton community has already been plagued by odours of rubbish from the Powerday materials recovery site on the other side of Old Oak Lane - for almost a decade. Local people know, far better than your planners or an offshore developer’s paid advisers, the stupidity of siting waste plants by people’s homes – where the quality of life is frequently spoiled by simple (to an outsider) matters like a lorry that isn’t cleaned or a containment building not being correctly sealed during a shift.  Powerday’s operations have generated over 300 telephone complaints to the Environment Agency in the last three years alone. For Clean Power to now propose another waste plant - only 300 metres away from an existing one - is highly inappropriate, as East Acton ward local councillors and our local Ealing MP Angie Bray have stated already. The Powerday experience shows beyond any doubt that where waste sites are located in the midst of residential areas, unpleasant odours and other polluting impacts cannot be mitigated by planning conditions or environmental regulations.

You more than anyone will also be aware of this application’s non-compliance with the West London Waste Plan, the ongoing strategy for the area’s waste processing that comes under your direct remit. The WLWP has identified possible waste sites but Clean Power’s chosen site never made the study’s shortlist.  This application is thus based on a discredited site and goes against your own council’s three-year investment in strategic waste options, consultations and expert conclusions.

Clean Power talks repeatedly of its clean, green technologies but offered the planning committee no evidence whatsoever of safely working sites among residential areas, in Britain or anywhere else.  Your members’ bemusement at the lack of any plant performance data or site approvals from the developer was plain to see.

TITRA residents’ group has repeatedly asked your planning officers for Clean Power site certificates or fact-finding site visits and received nothing – not one sheet of paper or one working waste site address. What person, still less a responsible London borough, would buy goods from a tradesman without industry approvals and proper references?  Clean Power appears to be a salesman without any proper goods, let alone any satisfied customers.

Your council’s approval of this ill-advised energy recovery plant would be to condemn local people to a risky experiment in ‘green’ energy that will harm residents’ health and degrade the area with polluting activity. The pragmatic option would be to site a waste processing plant on an industrial estate next to food producers and other manufacturers’ operations – not in the middle of an existing residential area.

I urge you to seek safer and more practical alternatives to Clean Power’s unproven waste processing technologies. Approval of this high risk development would be a disaster for the already-blighted North Acton triangle. And it would demonstrate beyond doubt that you and your council have abandoned our community and your own principles of giving people a decent hearing and looking after their well-being.

Yours sincerely
  
Mark Walker

Member of Island Triangle Residents’ Association committee
North Acton
Ealing
London NW10



Sunday 6 October 2013

Will Veolia, as sole bidder, represent Best Value for Brent Public Realm contract?

The Officers' report on the Public Realm contract to be presented to the Brent Council Executive on Monday October 14th reveals that only Veolia submitted a final bid. Serco dropped out at Stage 3 due to internal changes within the company structure and 'issues relating to resourcing and targets' but more controversially at the final stage Enterprise, the only competitor to Veolia left, asked for extra time to finalise their bid. The report states:
Officers fully considered the merits of the request but determined that it was not appropriate to agree such an extension.
The report contains no explanation or justification for this decision in the same way as campaigners were given no explanation for the panel's decision that no grounds existed for the exclusion of Veolia on human rights grounds.

A spokesman for Amey, who now own Enterprise said unfortunately as there is an on-going procuremnt process, we cannot comment further at this time.
 
The officers' decision means that the comparative tables for the Invitation to Submit Final Tenders (ISFT) stage look rather ludicrous:

In an email to Brent Executive members I wrote:
It is clearly legitimate to ask if ‘Best Value’ has been obtained when such a large contract is awarded with no competitive bid to evaluate it against. It is also legitimate to ask why Enterprise was not granted more time to submit. (Enterprise has now been taken over by Amey)
The new contract is a mixed bag with some improvements envisaged for the service but other changes which impact on jobs.

The Council expects costs for the new contract to be £1.3m less in the first year 2014-15 rising to £1.7m in 2017-18. This is brought about by reduction in the crews of bin lorries and the expectation that all residents, except those not physically able to, will leave their bins at their property boundary. These changes will be implemented before the new contract with a reduction in costs this financial year of £300,000.

88 council workers are directly affected  and will be subject to TUPE, although Veolia has said it will honour their pension position. Wetton's employees who service Brent Housing Partnership estates  and SDK employees who empty the dog excrement bins will also be subject to TUPE,

More positively, Veolia has undertaken to pay those who remain the London Living Wage, although that will be little comfort to those who lose their jobs. Volia has also undrtaken to fulfill the 'Safer Lorries' pledge which protects cyclists, to offer 8 apprenticeships and to take action to offer jobs locally through various agencies.

One aspect that may concern councillors is that Veolia will be responsible for monitoring itself:
The contract will be self-monitoring, meaning that the contractor is accountable for measuring, monitoring and improving their own performance with the council carefully auditing their performance. This, along with Key Outcome Targets set for each of the different services will ensure that the Contractor is motivated to deliver the services.
Veolia will also be dealing with complaints from councillors and residents in the first instance thus 'placing responsibility on the Contractor to ‘own’ and be accountable for service complaints'.

All new or replacement residual bins will be 140litre rather than the present 240litre. Large households or multi-occupied premises will be able to request a largr bin if they can justify it. Although increased recycling should mean a smaller residual bin is adequate I do worry that some of the fly-tipping so evident on our streets is the result of residual bins being full and residents then dumping the excess on the street.

There are changes to the street sweeping regime with the expectation that streets will meet the Grade A standard after cleansing and will not fall below Grade B:

Grade A: No litter or refuse
Grade B: Predominately free of litter and refuse apart from some small items
Grade C: Widespread distribution of litter and/or refuse with minor accumulations
Grade D: Heavily affected by litter and/or refuse with significant accumulations

This is clearly a challenge given the current state of our streets.

One of the main concerns of residents has been over parks maintenance. We are rightly proud of our parks and have witnessed the sensitivity of Brent staff in maintaining them properly, rather than the 'chainsaw' gardening that we see on some estates where shrubs are reduced to three dimensional geometric shapes regardless of whether they are about to come into flower or have a different natural shape.

Although the report says that Veolia has agreed to maintain the parks to Green Flag standard, without any further explanation it also says that the council will no longer submit  applications for Green Flag Awards. Given how the council has always proudly publicised these awards, and the tremendous effort parks staff put into achieving them, I can only ask why not submit applications? Surely the Award is a prestigious external audit of the success or otherwise of the contract?

The full report can be found HERE







Tuesday 1 October 2013

Brent recycling and library visit rates fail to meet target

The Brent Council Performance Review report for the first quarter of 2013-14 gives several areas a red rating using the RAG (Red, Amber, Green) traffic light system. Red indicates targets are not being met and Amber a danger that they will not be met.

The volume of residual waste per household is a key measure both environmentally and financially (landfill tax). Currently the year to date total  is 119.7kg per household against a target of 89.

The percentage of household waste being sent for recycling is 42% against a target of 55.6%

Tonnes of waste being sent to recycling is 16,313 against a target of 13,110

These figures contribute to a forecast overspend in recycling and waste of £226,000  Veolia currently hold the contract. Brent Executive on October 14th will choose between Veolia and Enterprise for the new Public Realm Contract to run from 2014.

It is in the area of inspections and investigations for fly-tipping that the discrepancy is most marked with 330 against a target of 1,000.

The figures for the number of streets falling below expected cleanliness measures are not yet available.

Elsewhere the number of library visits per 1,000 of population is 1.150 against a target of 1,215 and the percentage of Brent population who are active library users is 20% against a target of 22%.

Children and Families had a target of zero for secondary and primary schools judged Inadequate by Ofsted  but the figures are respectively 2 and 4.

The reports go to the One Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday 9th October LINK

Saturday 22 December 2012

Greens celebrate double victory over Veolia and incinerator


Greens and others fighting a proposed  incinerator in Pinkham Way and campaigning against Veolia being considered for a valuable waste contract by the North West London Waste Authority, got some good news yesterday.

The NWLA have withdrawn their planning application for a mechanical and biological waste treatment plant in Pinkham Way. Originally this was to be one of two sites but it now appears that only one will go ahead and subject to a successful planning application, that will be the Edmonton site. It is likely that a campaign will continue against this site too.

Greens have also supported the No2Veolia Action Group (NO2VAG) which has sought to get Veolia rejected as a possible bidder for the NWLA waste contract on the grounds of its abuse of human rights in the Occupied Territories of Palestine. Veolia announced yesterday that it was withdrawing from the bidding process for the £4.7bn contract.

Andrew Newby of Barnet Green Party said:
Barnet Greens welcome the withdrawal of Veolia and the scrapping of the Pinkham Way plan. We call on the NLWA to abandon the disastrous procurement process -- ie privatisation - and to keep its waste services in house while it researches the various viable alternatives now available to incineration of waste or dumping of rubbish to landfill.
The NO2VAG campaign which has been energetically spearheaded by Yael Kahn and Rob Langland  stated:
For two years the No2VAG has vigorously campaigned for Veolia to be removed from the list of bidders due to its grave misconduct in providing infrastructure to illegal Israeli settlements. Despite this involvement and its dire financial, health, safety and environmental record, Veolia was shortlisted for the final bids in February 2012.

This extraordinary withdrawal of Veolia comes after an intensification of the campaign against the company. The No2VAG staged twelve protests over the last two months at each council contributing £600m to the £4.7bn contracts.

The procurement process was shrouded in secrecy and campaigners faced a wall of denial when it came to Veolia’s unethical practices, environmental and technical shortcomings and financial instability. Engineer Rob Langlands and secretary of No2VAG said:
 North London residents want an environmentally responsible and cost effective solution to waste disposal. The Veolia technical proposals were not on track to provide this. I am especially delighted because of the ongoing Veolia involvement in the illegal Israeli settlements that the Veolia bids have now been consigned to the rubbish bin.
 Yael Kahn, chair of No2VAG said:
Our strategy to force councillors to seriously consider and publicly debate the issues at stake and the further actions planned No2VAG played a critical role in achieving our aim of eliminating Veolia from the NLWA procurement process.


Thursday 1 November 2012

Barnet Council explains why it is not proceeding with supercontract

From Barnet Council Press Office:
Barnet Council’s Cabinet is to discuss proposals for the future delivery of waste collection, street cleaning and parks maintenance.

Under the proposals, to be presented to the council’s Cabinet on 7 November, the collection of recycling, currently outsourced to May Gurney, would be run directly by the council from November 2013. The service would be merged with the council’s in-house waste collection service reducing costs to the taxpayer. The council refers to this as the “in-house with stretch” option.

Councillor Richard Cornelius, Leader of Barnet Council said: ‘We believe that there is an opportunity to both drive down costs and improve efficiency by merging these services. This is the “in-house with stretch” option.
“In particular our planned NSCSO project will invest in improved technology and customer information and we will be able to improve these critical services to residents.

“I have always said that the One Barnet programme is about running the most efficient and locally effective service we can. We want the best for Barnet.

“We did explore in detail working with several neighbouring authorities who already outsource this service, but felt that in this instance the “in-house with stretch”, working very closely with our NSCSO provider to improve the services, is the best option. It is actually the investment in innovation and technology that the NSCSO offers that makes the in-house option feasible.

“Rising landfill taxes mean that our real challenge in our waste and recycling service isn’t simply to reduce the council’s costs of collection, it is to work with residents to increase the amount that they recycle. We see a key role in our new customer services operation in doing that."

One Barnet is the council’s change programme aimed at creating a council able to face the financial and other challenges facing local government over the next decade.  The most high profile elements of the programme are two proposed outsourcing projects, New Support and Customer Services Organization (NSCSO) will outsource back office functions, and Development and Regulatory Services.

However over the last year the council has also merged its legal service with Harrow Council, set up a local authority trading company (LATC) to deliver elements of social care and housing advice, and committed to moving its music service into a charitable trust. The programme in predicted to make savings of £111million over a ten year period.

Cllr Cornelius said “We are entering much more diverse world of public services where every council will be looking for a range of options to best deliver services to residents. In many ways the straight ideological approach of public or privately owned will break down and give a much more complex relationship between different council commissioned services. For Barnet this may well mean outsourcing payroll while, for the near future at least, having waste collection in-house. Each authority will differ.”

Barnet Council has previously announced plans to revise its waste collection services from late 2013, moving to ‘co-mingled waste’ to encourage residents to recycle more.  The council’s membership of the North West London Waste Authority is unchanged by these proposals.

Harlesden Town Team call for informed debate on Willesden Junction waste plant

The Harlesden Town Team issued this statement today:
A Statement on the Proposed Energy Recovery Centre at Willesden Junction

Harlesden Town Team were disappointed to learn about the proposed Energy Recovery Centre at Willesden Junction only after formal consultation by LB Ealing had ended. Although the site is closer to many more Harlesden residents than Ealing ones, Harlesden Town Team were not formally consulted. Brent Council planning officers were notified.


At this stage Harlesden Town Team has no view for or against the energy recovery centre. What we seek is an informed debate so that all Harlesden residents who could possibly be affected by the development are informed and their views sought. We expect that this number of households is considerably more than the 1,000 leafleted in the consultation, as the majority of Harlesden (Town)'s 10,000 households are directly down-wind.


We recognise the danger of much ill-informed comment that is starting to circulate and we therefore believe that wider explanation and consultation is urgently required.


To this end we shall discuss the development proposals at the next Harlesden Town Team meeting on Monday 12th November (Salvation Army Hall, 6.30pm). We expect representative of the developers, Ealing and Brent Council planners and local councillors from East Acton, Kensal Green and Harlesden to attend as well as those Harlesden residents that actually live in Ealing.


If, at the end of the meeting, a majority of our members consider it appropriate for the Town Team to take a position, then we shall do so.


It is worth noting that, earlier this year, Harlesden Town Team helped facilitate a consultation on changes to Harlesden High Street which covered over 10,000 households and achieved a 10% response rate.


Brent Council wields its cudgels over Harlesden incinerator

A Harley Road back garden - sitting out amongst waste smells soon?
 Brent Council has told Ealing Council that if they go ahead with  the plans for an energy from waste facility ('Harlesden incinerator') on its border at Willesden Junction  it will 'object strongly to the proposals until satisfactory information has been provided to enable an accurate assessment of the implications of the proposal on the Borough of Brent and its residents'.

The plans are due to go to Ealing Planning Committee this month but have recently been modified to increase the volume of waste processed at the site from 148,000 tonnes per annum to 195,000. Brent's comments relate to the original proposal and so they have requested that 'an additional re-consultation exercise be undertaken to notify all local residents of the changes and to allow for additional time to review and comment on the implications of the increase'.

One of Brent's key objections is that the proposals don't comply with the West London Waste Plan which set out potential sites a year ago LINK . The proposed site was not listed then and Brent argue that the Willesden Junction site should  be refused planning permission as it has not been demonstrated that the other approved sites are unsuitable.

Brent argue that residential properties in Harley Road, Harlesden are down wind from the site under prevailing weather conditions and thus the  plans would have an impact on residents in terms of air quality, odours, operational noise and site traffic.

A full copy of Brent Council's response can be found on the excellent Harleden Town blog HERE


Wednesday 31 October 2012

Labour Brent's public realm privatisation too high risk for Tory Barnet

Barnet Today LINK is reporting that Barnet Council has decided that the proposed four borough waste, recycling, street cleaning and parks maintenance super contract was 'too high risk' and will approve having the services in-house.

So Labour Brent Council has turned out to be more of a privatiser than right-wing Conservative Barnet Council!  Barnet is presently in turmoil after Cllr Brian Coleman and former London Assembly member was suspended from the national Conservative Party. Coleman is in trouble over alleged racist slurs and an assault.

The Barnet Today report states:
 The council had been exploring the possibility of procuring its waste management services in partnership with Brent Council. But while the neighbouring borough agreed to pursue that avenue earlier this month, Barnet’s council officers ruled that it was too high-risk.

The decision will be seen as a departure from the council’s controversial One Barnet model, which will see a raft services, including planning and customer services contracted to private companies via two outsourcing projects worth around £1billion.

Council leader Richard Cornelius said providing the services in-house represented the best option for driving down costs and improving services.

“The One Barnet programme has always been pragmatic and this was the pragmatic way to go,” he said. “The rubbish collection in this borough is well done. It can be improved but we don’t want to muck it up.”
Brent Council press office today refused to answer my request about the future of the contract on the grounds that I was not an accredited journalist.

Barnet may opt out of public realm 'supercontract'


On Wednesday 7 November 2012 Barnet Council Cabinet Resources Committee is considering a recommendation to support the One Barnet in-house Street Scene Project. The One Barnet Street Scene Project includes the following services:
·         Refuse, organic waste and recycling collections
·         Waste strategy
·         Street cleansing
·         Greenspaces
·         Highways operational team

Earlier this month the Brent Executive approved a joint 4 borough procurement for a contract of up to 16 years  which would have covered the first four of the above items. Barnet was one of these partner boroughs, another,  Richmond recently dropped out. If the recommendation is approved by Barnet Council only Brent and Hounslow would remain in the 'super public realm' contract.


A proposed  Brent and Hounslow joint appointment of a Public Health Director was withdrawn before the Brent Executive meeting after encountering opposition from within the Labour Group.

John Burgess Barnet UNISON Branch Secretary said: “This is fantastic news for residents and 700 council workers delivering these services. I want to take the opportunity to applaud the Council for at last recognising the potential of in-house services to be able to compete with the private sector. We are now calling for the Council to halt the current outsourcing plans for the other two contracts (1), worth in excess of a Billion Pounds public money. We are asking for the Council to work with staff, unions and the community to develop efficient, innovative services for Barnet residents and ensure savings go back into the pockets of the council tax payers.” 

(1)  The first One Barnet project known as New Support Customer Services Organisation (NSCSO) will be for back office services such a Finance, Revenues & Benefits, Estates, IT, HR & Payroll etc, it is estimated to be worth up to £750 million.
 
It involves approximately 700 council workers. There is a high probability that the winning bidder will not deliver these services from Barnet so there is a high risk of significant redundancies at the moment of transfer.
 
This contract will be awarded to either Capita or BT at the Barnet Council Cabinet Resources Committee on Thursday 6 December 2012.
 
The second One Barnet project is known as Development & Regulatory Services (DRS) which includes the following services:
Trading Standards & Licensing, Land Charges, Planning & Development, Building Control & Structures, Environmental Health, Highways Strategy, Highways Network Management, Highways Traffic & Development, Highways Transport & Regeneration, Strategic Planning & Regeneration, Cemeteries & Crematoria.
This contract, worth up to £275 million pounds, will be awarded to Capita Symonds or EC Harris at the Barnet Council Cabinet Resources Committee on 8 January 2013.

Monday 22 October 2012

Waste and the Wembley Plan - some reservations

As residents of Ealing and Brent in the area around Willesden Junction station fight a planning application for a 'waste to energy' incinerator on the Freightliners Depot site, readers may be interested in Brent Campaign Against Climate Change's submission on the Wembley Plan. This includes references to waste processing. Wembley was of course the site of the 'Wembley Stink' during the Olympics when the stench from rotting organic waste at the Seneca Materials Recycling Facility became a national issue.

Since this response was submitted the Brent Executive have agreed plans for the purchase of a site for a new waste management depot in Brent as part of the four-borough contracts for waste management, recycling, street sweeping and parks maintenance. £6m has been allocated and one wonders if the site will be in the Wembley Plan area.

Brent Campaign Against Climate Change – submission on Wembley Plan


We have limited our comments to the most relevant aspects of the Plan. Omission of comment on other areas neither indicates agreement, nor disagreement, with those proposals.

VISION OBJECTIVES (p13)

  • To preserve open spaces for recreation and biodiversity and create new and enhanced open spaces to address deficiencies where possible, but particularly to meet the needs of additional population commensurate with current levels of provision. AGREED
  • To increase the amount of public open space (at least 2.4ha within Wembley) and the amount of land with enhanced ecological value. AGREED
  • To enhance green and blue infrastructure by tree planting, returning rivers to their more natural courses and mitigating the pollution effects of development. AGREED
  • To achieve sustainable development, mitigate & adapt to climate change. AGREED
  • To reduce energy demand from current building regulation standards and achieve exemplar low carbon schemes and combined heat and power plants. RESERVATIONS SEE BELOW
  • To create a well-connected and accessible location where sustainable modes of travel are prioritised and modal share of car trips to Wembley is reduced from 37% towards 25%. AGREED AS A START BUT NEED TIMELINES FOR MORE AMBITIOUS TARGET
  • To promote access by public transport, bicycle or on foot and reduce car parking standards because of Wembleys relative accessibility AGREED
Wembley Area Action Plan - Preferred Options 13

Business Industry and Waste

  1. We are in favour of strict controls on waste management and processing sites in the entire area, rather than the limited area proposed. We would also favour relocation where that is possible. The events over the summer regarding the Seneca MRF and the ‘Wembley stink’ should serve as a warning for the future.  The Neasden/Wembley area already suffers from severe air pollution problems with school pupils particularly at risk because of the impact of air pollution on their smaller lungs. Chalkhill Primary, St Margaret Clitherow Primary, Northview Primary, Oakington Manor Primary and the proposed new Wembley Stadium Primary in Fulton Road are all in the vicinity. Older people also suffer disproportionately from respiratory problems.

  1. We propose the creation of a Green Enterprise zone in the area with a concerted effort by Brent Council, in conjunction with the College of North West London, to bring green training, apprenticeship and jobs into the area. At present aside from the building jobs associated with regeneration there is an over dependence on the creation of jobs in retail and leisure. Green jobs would make a significant contribution to the upskilling of the Brent labour force.

Response to Climate Change

  1. We welcome the inclusion of a response to Climate Change in the report and note this statement from the Wembley Plan:
10.6 Climate change will have a significant impact on the economic, social and environmental well being of Wembley. Hotter summers will have a bigger impact in Wembley because of the predominance of concrete and buildings. Heat waves will mean more people are likely to suffer from illnesses and could also lead to damage to roads, railways and buildings. Heavy thunderstorms and intense winter downpours will become more common, and will lead to flash flooding where the drainage system cannot cope with the increased rainfall. It is therefore crucial that future development in Wembley addresses these impacts and limits its contribution to climate change by minimising carbon emissions.
10.7 Specific issues for Wembley include the legacy of industrial use in the area which led to a lack of green and cool spaces. Much of Wembley is deficient in open space and there are few mature trees. Land adjacent to the Wealdstone Brook is most at risk of flooding, although much of Wembley is also prone to surface water flooding. In addition, the majority of the sewer network in the Wembley area is undersized.

2.       We welcome the recognition of the importance of this issue and that fact that it is being addressed in detail by the Council. We welcome the proposals on naturalising of the Wealdstone Brook, flood plain storage, tree planting, green roofs and creation of new parks are all welcomed as  responses to this situation.

Climate Change Mitigation

1.       Under this heading the Council make a number of proposals for Decentralised  (CHP) Combined Heat and Power facilities and for Energy from Waste over which we have reservations.

2.       The  reservations below regarding CHP are pertinent: and should inform the Council’s plans: (From  www.arthurshumway.smith.com)
 "Combined Heat and Power" (CHP) or "cogeneration" systems for producing both heat and electric power are generally mature and really can reduce emissions of CO2 compared to other fossil-fuel technologies. But there are two problems with typical discussion of CHP:

(1) Fossil-fuel-based CHP cannot be a long-term solution on climate or energy because they still burn fossil fuels, and therefore still emit a lot of CO2. Reducing that by 20% or even 50% is not enough; we need to take steps that over the next 30-40 years will bring fossil CO2 emissions close to 0.
(2) Efficiency claims for CHP systems are frequently greatly overstated. Heat is lower-quality energy than electricity, and only at high temperatures does it become close to comparable. Efficiency claims for CHP systems that use high-temperature heat are not so far off, but CHP systems that make use of low-temperature waste heat have much lower thermodynamic efficiencies than usually claimed.

The inflated efficiency claims often lead to assertions that CHP is the "largest" or one of the largest potential solutions. But the number of applications that require high-temperature heat where CHP efficiency really is quite high are limited. And the modest efficiency gains with low-temperature waste heat use, which could be much more widely applied, don't lead to very much improvement in overall energy use. The combining of heat and power production in CHP systems can reduce our fossil CO2 emissions by a few percent, but much more than that is needed in coming decades.

3. The Wembley  Plan (WEM 33) supports Energy from Waste and again we have reservations.

3.i The first issue is that the emphasis should be on the reduction of waste at source in manufacturing,  then re-use and recycling. There is a danger that in using residual waste as fuel in order to reduce landfill, the incentive to reduce waste is removed. Furthermore, dependence on waste as fuel to generate heat and power, can lead to the need to import fuel in order to keep the processes going. The NABU Study (2010) in Germany illustrates this:

The study shows that in 2010, somewhat less domestic waste will be produced in Germany than at present.. This is due to a decline in the population and a slight increase in recycling. Overcapacities with incinerators are already occurring. This applies to combustible material used in energy from waste plants as well as conventional incineration   
At this point in time, 2 million   more tonnes  of waste are imported into Germany than exported. This is equivalent to a goods train 1000 km in length. Germany is therefore a net importer of waste

We would not want Brent to become an importer of waste in order to fuel our EfW plants.

3.ii  Secondly, the Plan states ‘There are a number of new and emerging technologies that are able to produce energy from waste without direct combustion’ . Our reservation on this is that in some technologies the initial stages do not involve combustion but further stages involve, for example, gases being burned off..  We cannot pretend to be expert on these issues but urge that complete transparency, independent expert advice (rather than assurances from the companies involved) and public debate must take place before any such technologies are employed.

3.ii In investigating the detrimental impact on human health the Council must take into account the concerns that exist over nanoparticles  produced in the incineration process and the emerging science discipline of nanopathology that studies the impact of such particles on the human body.


Food Growing

1.       We welcome the proposal to include food growing areas in new development (WEM 38) and the use of temporary vacant spaces. However we do not agree to the claim that restricted space means that such spaces cannot be provided in any new schools in the area. Raised beds do not take up much space and there are many imaginative solutions involving containers, window boxes, growing walls etc that could be incorporated into new build. In addition the growing spaces in existing schools in the area show what can be done. Provision of demonstration food growing areas in newly created parks would be useful as well as support for finding food growing spaces alongside the Chiltern/Metropolitan and Jubilee  railway lines.

2.       Food growing in schools raises awareness of the children about the impact of climate change and encourages healthy eating and a long term interest in gardening. It links with the curriculum and awards such as Healthy School and Eco School. The Council should be vigorously supporting it and making every effort to find food growing space for children.

3.    The Metropolitan Housing Trust is already working on these issues on the Chalkhill Estate with residents and are seeking additional growing spaces on the estate Involvement of other housing providers should be sought.





Friday 12 October 2012

Harlesden Incinerator protest tomorrow

There is a pop-up protest, jointly with Ealing residents, about the proposed "Harlesden Waste Incinerator", at 11am prompt tomorrow (Saturday) at the entrance to Willesden Junction station approach.
Ealing Council is set to approve this large waste plant in November, made up of:
    - an incinerator (not called that, for PR reasons), [see www.ukwin.org] and
    - "anaerobic digestors" (big tanks of decomposing food, to produce compost).
(The "advanced conversion technology facility" mentioned in the planning application IS an incinerator, because it involves
        - dustcart and lorry waste IN
                    (likely to be commercial, rather than domestic,
                    but may change), and
        - ash OUT.
Houses in Old Oak Lane will have dustcart traffic "all day" on the access road, which is only metres from their homes and gardens. The plant capacity is c150,000 tonnes/year.
Some of the dustcarts and lorries will pass through Harlesden. I suspect this will vary from month to month, depending on what contracts the waste plant can sign.
.
Please pass this link on to others.
Photo op. is at 11am on Saturday, Willesden Junction Approach (junction with Old Oak Lane / Station Road).
Refs:

Monday 8 October 2012

Brent to join with other boroughs to out-source 'Public Realm' including waste and parks maintenance

In a report to go before the Executive on October 15th LINK officers are recommending that the Council join with Barnet, Hounslow and Richmond in a 'super contract' see my previous blog HERE that will cover:

• Household waste collections and recycling
• Street Cleansing operations
• Graffiti clearance
• Winter maintenance
• Cleansing of public conveniences
• Grounds maintenance to parks and open spaces (including Brent Housing Partnership HP estates)
• Grounds maintenance to cemeteries and grave digging
• Highway verges and shrub beds
• Playground inspection and maintenance
• Warden service
• Commercial waste

Brent's contract with Veolia ends on March 31st 2014. The contract, across the 4 boroughs and BHP which may not all buy into all the services, would be worth £700m over the 16 year contract period..

In a controversial move the report recommends:
The Executive to give approval to an exemption from Contract Standing Order 88 to allow an advert to be placed and a pre-qualification process to be run without the approval of evaluation criteria and certain other pre-tender considerations, subject to approval of such matters at a future Executive
And further recommends, as a consequence of the problem of the lack of a Brent Council depot when the last contract was awarded to Veolia, that the Council acquire a depot. Andy Donald Director of Regeneration and Major Projects, appears to be leading on this:
That the Executive agree to an amendment of £6.2m to the Council’s capital budget for 2012/13 to procure a new depot as set out in section 3.6 of the report. If a suitable site is identified, due to the reasons set out in paragraph 3.6.6, that the final terms of any acquisition including the purchase price be delegated to the Director of Regeneration and Major Projects and the Director of Finance and Corporate Services in consultation with their respective Lead Members. Such purchase price to be contained within the amendment to the Council’s capital budget as set out within this report
As a lay person it seems to me that this is not a particularly transparent or accountable  process when the Executive is not fully involved in an exceptionally large contract.

The proposal has come as a surprise to people in Barnet where a large number of staff are involved. In Brent waste management and recycling are already out-sourced to Veolia and it is the Parks and Sports staff who are most affected. The report states:
For Brent, whilst the majority of staffing implications are for staff currently employed by the current contractor, there are implications for existing Brent staff in Sports and Parks and Highway Operations. The proposal is that in excess of 50 council staff providing grounds maintenance and a number of staff in other services are transferred to the successful provider. In addition, if the decision is to create a single client arrangement a small number of staff in waste and recycling would be affected,

TUPE will apply and presumably this will also be the case for the cleaning and grounds maintenance contractors currently employed by Brent Housing Partnership, which also comes under Andy Donald's umbrella.

Friday 20 July 2012

Wembley's re-cycling graffiti wall ready for Olympics

Readers may be interested in this press release from Seneca, a subsidiary of Careys:

Waste management company Seneca has unveiled a 508-foot long recycling–inspired mural at its materials recycling facility (MRF) in Wembley, North West London, in a bid to tackle a graffiti problem at the site.

The company was approached by the Brent Graffiti Partnership, which includes Brent council, British Transport Police, Network Rail and the Brent Police, to address problems it had been having with vandals spray painting the side of its materials recycling facility (MRF), after it opened in May 2011.
A series of recycling-inspired images have been installed to tackle the graffiti problem at Seneca's Wembley MRF
A series of recycling-inspired images havebeen installed to tackle the graffiti problem at Seneca's Wembley MRF
The facility processes residual waste collected from the West London Waste Partnership, and produces refuse derived fuel that is exported to Europe.

Graffiti

On researching the issue Seneca discovered that graffiti artists consider it bad manners to tag or paint over someone else’s art, and so the idea of creating a street art mural was chosen as a suitable solution to the problem, with all the artwork created using spray paint and stencils.

Artists from across the globe as well as school children from from Harlesden Primary School, Barham Primary School, St. Robert Southwell Catholic Primary School, Roe Green Junior School, Gower House School and Vernon House School have contributed designs and artwork to the project, which includes a sculpture made entirely from material received at the MRF.

The mural overlooks the Jubilee and Metropolitan London underground lines running between Neasdon and Wembley Park and is created entirely from spray paint and recycled materials.

Unveiling the mural, Michael McLarnon, operations manager at the Seneca MRF, said: “The project was created after we had been approached by Brent council’s Graffiti Partnership. The MRF has been targeted by vandals and with the Wembley area highlighted because of the Olympics we thought it was appropriate to do something that engaged with the local community.

“We came up with the idea to create the mural and we are honoured to have artists come from all over the world to take part in this worthwhile project.”

Mural

The mural has taken over 6 months to create, and is thought to be one of the largest outdoor art installations in Europe.

Simon Egbor, Brent council community safety project officer and member of the Graffiti Partnership Board said: “Over three years ago graffiti crime was costing the council in excess of £400,000. This was a real problem and the formation of the Graffiti Partnership Board has managed to focus both council and external partners in not only cleaning graffiti but setting up operations to identify graffiti vandals and enforce action.

“We approached Seneca with this idea as the use of murals in graffiti hot spots has proven to be a successful deterrent. This is illustrated by past murals that we have commissioned including one on Harley Road, Harlesden.”

Monday 18 June 2012

Get rid of your surplus and broken electricals on Thursday


Today's fast moving developments in electronics combine with  feverish consumerism,  the search for the latest gadget and a 'throw away' society to produce a breathtaking amount of electronic waste. Computers, printers, video players, analogue TVs and mobile phones are a major stream along with broken kettles and other kitchen gadgets.

Harrow Council is giving residents a chance to get rid of their surplus electricals and  simultaneously showing concern for the environment by giving them a chance to  drop off unwanted electrical appliances at the council’s ‘Bring Event’ on Thursday 21st June.

As part of National Recycle Week, Harrow Council’s Civic Centre will be transformed into a collection site for unwanted or broken electrical equipment. The event is being supported by 1, 2, 3 Recycle for Free, a free electrical recycling service recently launched in Harrow.

The service collects items directly from businesses to be recycled at an approved treatment facility. The service is a partnership between DHL Envirosolutions and SWEEEP Kuusakosk, supported by Harrow Council.

Harrow Council’s Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Safety, Cllr Phillip O’Dell, said:
By recycling old electrical appliances instead of throwing them away, residents will be helping to save landfill space, save valuable resources and prevent damage to the environment. We must reduce and reuse wherever possible!

Harrow residents are doing tremendously well at recycling – our rates are among the highest of all London Councils. This is why waste minimisation has been identified as an area we would like to work on. Reducing waste will ultimately have a huge impact on landfill costs.

 A staggering 1.2 million tonnes of electrical waste goes to landfill in the UK every year - the equivalent of 150,000 double decker buses.

To do your bit to reduce the general level of waste that the borough sends to landfill drop your unwanted electrical equipment at the civic centre in Station Road, from 9am until 4pm.

For more information on the service provided by 123 Recycle for free, please visit http://www.123recycleforfree.com

Saturday 30 May 2009

BRENT HIT BY ASBESTOS DUMPING


Police have been alerted to a spate of asbestos dumping in Brent. According to Brent Council the dumps appear to be neatly piled on top of each other - either heavy duty corrugated roofing or broken into pieces and put into light grey plastic sacks numbering between 1-25. Police are watching out for flat back lorries that appear to be carrying asbestos or light grey bags, as well as large demolition sites where asbestos roofing may be being taken down.


Dumpings have been found in Birchen Grove NW10, The Rise NW10, Douglas Avenue Wembley, Jeymer Avenue NW2, Lindsay Drive Kenton and Mount Pleasant Wembley.


Anyone spotting dumping taking place should not approach the perpetrators in any circumstances but note details, and should not touch anything that looks like asbestos. They should report what they have seen to Ian Stewart, Waste Services Manager on 020 8937 5057.

Tuesday 28 April 2009

Brent Council Explain What's Happening

Chris Whyte, Head of Environmental Management at Brent Council, has responded to the story below with this statement:

"Compaction vehicles support the recycling collection vehicles by relieving them of bulky mixed cans and plastic bottles. This frees up space so the vehicles can continue with their rounds without returning to the depot. The bottles and cans are collected mixed and are separated at a MRF. This is standard practice and has been agreed with the council. It is a measure of the amount of waste that we collect for recycling. No waste is landfilled."