Cllr Duffy launches consultation on improving Brent Council's environmental services

Previously published on Wembley Matters 0 Springtime flytip Chalkhill

Cllr John Duffy (Labour, Kilburn) has returned to the fray over Brent Council's policy on the environment and particularly fly-tipping and littering enforcement.

He is starting a consultation with residents which he says will try and improve environmental services and hopefully stop or change the £35 bulky waste charge and start a schools initiative. All parties are welcome to comment.

He has publicised his initiative on his blog Kilburn Calling LINK and this is an edited version.

In an email to all Brent councillors he says:

Dear All,

I am asking for your input into improving the environmental services available in Brent. I wonder have you a moment  to comment on the issues below.

From my observations Brent Environmental services are often very good, but are very inconsistent and have lacked direction.

It is also clear that the Cabinet continues to waste precious resources and I believe they have no enforcement strategy or are aware of the tactics needed to ensure implementation of an enforcement strategy. The Brent cabinet believe it’s easier to pick the ratepayer’s pocket, than look for solutions. The cabinet have struggled to make environmental enforcement against fly-tipping a priority and relied on unnecessary price increases to cover -up their lack of direction. I find it astonishing that the cabinet continue to Laud over their Zero -tolerance(ZT) policy which waste £100k of precious resources boosting they have issued 6000 FPN ( 99% on fag butts). They do this while concealing  the fact  Fly -Tipping went up by a staggering 32% at the same time.

I am sure I can speak for many resident in Brent when saying if the local police started a ZT policy against burglaries in Brent and arrest 6000 burglars, and at the sometime burglaries when up by 32%. No one would think that was a success most people would call it a failure, however the Cabinet seem to think the opposite.

I believe we need to re-prioritise Brent’s enforcement policy from the sound bite Zero-Tolerance (ZT) into what used to be called Smart Enforcement  which means the policy will be judged by improvements in cleansing out comes (less fly-tipping) not by how many FPNs have been issue.

Enforcement needs co-ordinating of all resources available from the council, the contractor and residents. It is important we seek Value for money to protect and improve the Environment and the cabinet should not treat the residents as a Cash Cow.

The cabinet have continually raised environmental taxes, if you have a Green Bin you pay an extra £20 and an extra £35 for bulky waste collections (allowing for only one collection PA) is £55.That is the equivalent of a 4% rise in council tax this year alone. Some costs are reasonable but other are needless and wasted on paying private contractors to sit outside tube station fining people who drop dog -ends before they get on a train. Instead the cabinet should be investing in a intergrated Environmental Enforcement strategy.

One of the biggest mistake the cabinet made was having no consultation with residents or councillors

What I am suggesting is listed below.I am putting forward these suggestions for consultation with residents. Once  the consultation is complete I hope to gain enough support to call a special meeting of the council in November/December to discuss and implement some of the suggestion and hopefully reconsider the £35 cost for Bulky Waste collections.

ENFORCEMENT AND ANTI  FLY-TIPPING STRATEGY 

(1)      MAPPING    

Firstly we have to analyse the 17000 fly-tips we had last year and remove any duplication, we then have to map the hot spots in each ward (or Village) where the there is consistent fly-tipping dumping.

(2)      SIGNAGE / WARNING LETTERS / ENFORCEMENT NOTICES 

Our no Dumping Signs,Warning/Information letter and Enforcement Notices need overhauling and updated. All information needs to be A (Accurate) B (Brief) C (Clear) with a Direct Enforcement contact email and telephone number should be showing. All correspondence   should seek to be ABC.

(3)      ZONAL IMPROVEMENT PATROL (ZIP)

The government legislation allows us to keep all income we receive from fines, with that income we should fund at least two ZIP team this team will deal with consistent areas of dumping. These teams will be on top of existing officers  and should be self funding via the income from the FPNs. 

All zone one (High streets or roads with a transport hub) with a time -banding collections service should be visited at least twice a week  for inspection and where possible at least one of those should be the week-end where the foot-fall is higher 

(4)      OFFICERS TRAINING

All officers should be generically trained to deal with enforcement. The service over the last year has had the wrong priorities and has been side-tracked away from Fly-tipping have concentrated on Section 87/88 of the EPA (Littering FPN)

Officers should also be trained and use

Section 33 (Depositing waste)

Section 34 (Duty Of Care)

Section 59 (Private Land )

Section 46 (Domestic Bins)

Section 47 (Commercial Bins)

Section 90 (Litter Controls Areas)

or any legislation which has replaced them

This will give Officers the knowledge to deal with a wider range of problems of areas behind shops Neasden, Edgware Road, Hassop Rd and Waterloo passage as some examples.

(5)      Follow -up enforcement

Many of the problems are reoccurring problems. Brent’s officer’s do a good job on their initial visit and clear -up the fly-tips and many issue FPNs to perpetrators. However where they often fail is the follow-up monitoring, it is important we have re- inspections on persistent hot spots and they should be carried out once a week for the first 6 months and once a month for the following 6 months, before the job is signed off. Its is important we do not just temporarily remove the problem, its important we solve the problem.

(6)      Schools and Education 

One of the great failures of the Cabinet and the Labour group is the neglect of environmental education of our young people. Whether it be on issues from graffiti, litter, air - quality or recycling , they have been neglected . This is clearly a wasted opportunity. What I am proposing is a yearly environmental award. This award will paid for by a community chest of say approx £25k PA and will be funded by contractors who have environmental contracts with us. The Brent Environmental Award (BEA)  involve all schools all schools would be sent a Environmental bundle ( litter pickers, tabards, environmental books etc) the older students would become “Brent Environmental Champions” and offered (Environmental) work experience with our contractors or the council along with other rewards and opportunities .The Younger ones would become “Litter Detectives” and learn about their local environment  and how they can improve it. I attach  a poem that was sung by some London schools (including one from Brent) which I produced some time ago.

We need to work with our Head teachers to draw out how the (BEA) can be used in the classroom , schools are also major resource to spread information, to get out anti-littering and fly-tipping and general environmental information out to parents.

(7)      Bulky Waste 

The decision of the cabinet to introduce a cost for a bulky waste collection needs to be reviewed. I believe this decision is bad economics and bad for the environment. It would appear that the decision is purely to raise money and to cover up the inefficient service and the cabinet failure to monitor it. The fact is the residents had already paid for a free service in the street cleansing contract . At a time when fly-tipping is going up by 32% PA, residents need to understand the logic of how this policy will help control fly-tipping or increase income.

(8)      Recycling 

Again this is one of the areas the cabinet have neglected. It was once the holly grail of environment but has been ignored .The council moved from a once a fortnight collection to a once a week collection and the recycling tonnage has hardly increased and overall our tonnage is down. This again is about the cabinet making the environment a priority. Tonnage can be improved by a number of ways, but mostly i believe it by information and reward. We need to analyse the wards that are failing to recycled and target them.

(9)      Street Cleansing.

Street cleansing performance is in my opinion of a good standard, however we need to be more open and have independent surveys  carried out. At the moment we are self-monitoring. The council and the contractor carry out monitoring. Monitoring of our high streets is not done out of hours or at the weekend when the service often fails. I believe we need to employ an independent company like the Tidy Britain Group or another Council to monitor our services and provide us with independent surveys.

As I have said before many of Brent’s services are street cleansing are often good but can be improved. The issue above are some of the areas we can improve in. I would appreciate any input you can put into this If you can reply to CLLR.JOHN.DUFFY@BRENT.GOV.UK. and call the email IMPROVING SERVICES.

Cabinet answers public's questions on Quintain development, fly-tipping and social housing priorities

Questions from the public to Cabinet members is now part of the FullCouncil agenda. Answers are written rather than read out and it is unusual for the member of the public to be present at the meeting to follow up the answer to their question.

These are the questions and answers on the Agenda of the September 18th meeting.

Questions from Members of the Public Full Council – 18 September 2017

1. Question from Mr Wadhwani to Councillor Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills:

My question is specifically around Wembley Park and the regeneration currently on where lots of old buildings are coming down to create new buildings and flats.

I would like to know how the Council is preparing to serve all the thousands of residents that will be living in these flats by 2020 and the pressure on local services that this will put, i.e. Transport, healthcare, schooling, police, welfare etc.

What are the strategies in place or planned so along with Wembley Stadium, Arena, London Designer Outlet (LDO) and Brent Civic Centre, the authorities are able to cope with the pressure expected on them?

Response:

The Council takes a plan-led approach to the regeneration of the borough, in order to prevent development schemes coming forward in an ad hoc, unplanned fashion. Wembley has a comprehensive planning framework, including the dedicated Wembley Area Action Plan (adopted 2015), which sets out how development of the area will progress. The ongoing regeneration provides and plans for infrastructure and facilities to support current and future residents across the Wembley area, including:

•   7 hectare public park 


•   New 3 form entry primary school, including a 2 form entry nursery school, 
plus 2 additional forms of nursery provision 


•   Primary health care facility (1500m minimum) 


•   Contributions towards secondary education in the wider area 


•   6-lane 25m swimming pool available at local authority facility rates 


•   Significant investment in and improvement to the main rail and underground 
stations to improve capacity and the environment 


•   Community facility fund of £1.4m plus to spend on community projects 


• Physical transport improvements e.g. the Triangle, Wembley High Road and elsewhere, together with significant developer contributions to Transport for London (TfL) for public transport, including buses

Developers have additionally contributed a significant cash sum of Community Infrastructure Levy, part of which will be spent on neighbourhood projects, and the remainder on strategic infrastructure needs to support growth in the immediate Wembley area and wider Brent Borough.

The Local Plan and in particular the Wembley Area Action Plan sets out the regeneration and development strategy for the Wembley area. The Local Plan is now to be refreshed and to examine how the whole Borough will develop over the next 15-20 years. Everyone is invited to get involved in this exercise and various public sessions are being held across the Borough throughout September for people to come along and contribute.

2. Question from Ms Dowell to Councillor Southwood, Lead Member for Environment:

I am concerned about the increase of systematic fly tipping in and around Selwyn Avenue, Bruce and Alric Avenue.

Although this is removed by the contractors it defeats the object. I am told by other residents that they see vans dumping their rubbish.

We have a high volume of rental properties which has also caused a problem.

I would like to know how much does it cost to send the contractors out to collect and why doesn't the council look at prevention?

I was told by the environment team last year that would look into it.
I am fed up with the dumping environment as I pay council tax and expect more.

Response:

The removal of illegally dumped rubbish is covered by the cleansing service specification within the Council’s Public Realm Contract. The cost of this service is included in the overall circa £17m annual cost for the Contract; this is a fixed cost and not a variable charge dependent on the number of incidents the contractor responds to.

The Council takes illegal rubbish dumping very seriously and through a combination of enforcement, education and community engagement, we continue to work hard to make an impact on this problem.

Colleagues from Veolia (Brent’s Public Realm contractor) inspect illegally dumped waste for direct evidence and refer their findings onto the enviro-crime enforcement team. This evidence, together with evidence obtained through other direct referrals to the council and investigations by the enviro-crime enforcement team, has resulted in hundreds of fines being issued and a large number of successful prosecutions. In 2016/17, there were 629 cases which led to these such sanctions being imposed, and following a change in penalty level in 2016, Brent issued the second highest number of fixed penalty notices in the country for illegal rubbish dumping.

The Council uses a range of tactics to assist in combating illegal rubbish dumping, including deployment of surveillance utilising our new in-house environment patrol team to carry out high visibility patrols and conducting out of hours in areas known to be environmental crime and antisocial behaviour hotspots in the borough.

These operations include CCTV officers in the Brent Control Room, who monitor and support the patrols on the ground. We do not advertise when, where or how we conduct this surveillance, to ensure it is as effective as possible.

Of course, preventing illegal rubbish dumping also requires assistance and cooperation from local residents, as they can help us by reporting and identifying people who they see illegally dumping waste. We encourage residents to report any incidents of illegal rubbish dumping in as much detail as possible online via the council’s website. All reports are logged, and as mentioned above, waste is searched for evidence before being cleared to enable us to take enforcement action wherever possible. Data on all reports received is collated to enable the council to build a full picture of the problem ‘hot spots’ across the borough, so we can properly prioritise the deployment of our officers.

In terms of the specific areas highlighted in the question above, the enviro-crime enforcement team have conducted a site visit to inspect the problem and developed an appropriate action plan for the locations to include visits by our environmental patrol team, surveillance of the area and our contractor, Veolia, carrying out door knocking in the area to provide information on how waste should be disposed of and how instances of illegally dumped waste can be reported.

3. Question from Mr Adow & Mrs Macolin to Councillor Farah, Lead Member for Housing and Welfare Reform:

We have been on the social housing waiting list over 20yrs for a 4 bed property. Even though we been living in a 3 bed flat for the last 7yrs we are not allowed to bid for a 3 bed house and we have seen people joining the list and without waiting a year being found permanent housing.

We can understand if that family has very specific needs like illness or disability, but all the others we cannot understand why they can't be placed in temporary accommodation at least 5yrs. What is wrong with a first joined first housed system as it is now a local system many feel is open for abuse? Please see our bidding for the last 5 years to understand why we have pointed this out to you.

All we are asking is for a place we can call home. Our children question this all the time and we apologise in advance if we have expressed our feelings wrongly.

Response:

First of all, there is no need to apologise for asking a reasonable question about the long wait for a home. It is not always easy to understand the way the housing system works but we hope this brief explanation will help.

To be able to bid, applicants must fall into one of three priority bands on the system – A, B or C, with Band A representing the highest priority, including the kinds of medical priority mentioned in the question. Households to whom a full homelessness duty has been accepted, as in this case, are placed in Band C. Households within each band are then given priority based on the date they first applied (the “priority date). To this extent, the system is “first come, first served” and those waiting longest in each band have the greatest priority. In most circumstances, the household in the highest band with the earliest priority date making a bid will be accepted first. In practice, the highest priority households will not always bid and the opportunity to do so will fall to the next in line. There may also be cases where a property does not become available through Locata because the council makes a direct offer, usually to meet an urgent need. However, it should not be the case that applicants are advised they cannot bid, unless there is a particular restriction on a property, for example because it is only available to a household with a wheelchair user.

There is a severe shortage or larger affordable homes. In the five years since 2012, 122 four bedroom homes have been let, 71 of them to households in Band C. The current shortest waiting time for 4 bedroom homes is 11 years and the longest 24 years, although it should be stressed that the upper figure is distorted by the number of households who do not bid for a range of reasons.

Officers would be happy to meet with Mrs Malcolin and Mr Addow to discuss their situation and advise them how they can make best use of Locata.

Duff litter enforcement proposal slammed by Kilburn councillor

The proposal to out-source litter enforcement came in for a drubbing from Kilburn Councillor John Duffy at last night's Scrutiny Committee. Cllr Sam Stopp stated at the beginning of the meeting that the Task Group he led report on illegal rubbish dumping could have been interpreted as advocating some sort of out-sourcing  but this was not the case. He cited Islington as a borough where in-house services had proved to be more efficient.

Stopp went on to express 'deep dissatisfaction' that the Task Group had not been consulted on the implementation of any of the recommendations made in their report. He opposed out-sourcing because the Council needed to earn revenue and provide employment  opportunities and in-house provision could deliver both.  He said that there should be a clear commitment to continuing liaison with task group members when implementing recommendations.

Cllr Duffy said that the proposal to out-source to Kingdom was a decision made to employ 'cheaper people'. The Council had reduced enforcement officers from 21 to 7 but were now proposing getting people back to do the same job through a private company - the 'most basic and primitive' form of out-sourcing.  They would be employed well below the average wage and would be reliant on in-work benefits.  He challenged the officers and lead member's view that these would be 'different jobs'.

He challenged the Council's claim that Kingdom's enforcement officers would not be involved in Court appearances.  This was tantamount to saying to those caught 'if you don't pay you won't end up in court'.

He presented figures to show that the Council stood to lose income of up to £100,000 by out-sourcing rather than setting up an in-house operation.

Chris Whyte in response said that the Kingdom employee's enforcement role was on the ground, patrolling streets, spotting litter dropping and issuing tickets, while the Council enforcement team, did a wider spectrum of work investigating fly-tipping crime and follow up work including preparing cases for Court. Kingdom staff would make occasional appearances in Court but would not prepare and investigate cases.

Cllr Duffy said that he had got hold of a Kingdom job description and it was very similar to that he used to have to do as an enforcement officer.  Cllr Southwood, lead member for environment admitted that a job evaluation would only be done if the Council went out to procurement after the six month pilot with Kingdom.

Cllr Kelcher, chair of Scrutiny expressed concern over the safety of enforcement officers issuing £80 Fixed Penalty Notices. Chris Whyte responded that a risk assessment would be undertaken as Brent Council was responsible for the safety of staff.

A 'social value' assessment would be incorporated into the specification if it was decided to go for external procurement after the trial. Whyye said it was essential to collect data during the trial to see what the scale of the litter problem in Brent. By out-sourcing the risk of little return via fining would rest with the contractor and not the Council.

Duffy pointed out that Kingdom would  be motivated to issue a high number of tickets as this would boost their profits. Operatives were likely to go for the easy option of targeting 'rich pickings', such as smokers outside tube stations, where they could issue many tickets in a short time, rather than areas where real action was needed on street litter.

Cllr Southwood said that Kingdom would be guided by Veolia, ward councillors and the public, Chris Whyte said monitoring of the contract was essential. He would be concerned if it was only cigarette butts.

Duffy said that the report had argued that the proposal was cost neutral but the real issue was whether it was best value for money.  He questioned how much of the £52,000 income to Brent Council would be taken up by costs of going to Court.  He claimed the Council were 'addicted to out-sourcing'.  He presented figures to suggest that there was little risk to the Council from an in-house contract but  Whyte said that Ealing Council had found their in-house provision was inefficient and had therefore out-sourced to Kingdom.

For the Committee Matt Kelcher said that after the pilot Brent Council should look at in-house provision and build social value into the process.

Brent Council clarifies Kingdom flytipping and litter patrols contract proposal

I put a number of questions to Brent Council about the proposed Litter and Flytipping patrols contract LINK which is being discussed at Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday next week.

These are questions and responses:

1.    The report states that the Kingdom operatives will be paid at a lower rate than current Brent staff because they perform a different role. One of the differences cited is that they will not represent the Council in Court as part of their enforcement role. I would have thought that if there is an appeal against a fixed penalty notice or a refusal to pay that the Court would require the officer who spotted the infringement to appear as a witness. Is that your understanding?

The Kingdom role will be to undertake patrols to issue on the spot fines for littering. Our own waste enforcement team undertake more complex and weightier investigations, mainly of illegal dumping offences. The two activities are intended to be separate but will complement each other. Our own officers are professional enforcement officers who will investigate and prepare cases and then attend court to present them. It's complex and usually done without witness evidence.

In terms of Kingdom acting as witnesses, last year they issued over 50,000 FPN’s nationally and had less than 30 trials whereby the offender pleaded not guilty. Approximately 75% were paid which negates the need to prosecute. Out of the remaining 25% the vast majority plead guilty by letter or personal appearance or are found guilty in absence. The remainder of cases are remanded for a trial. In these instances, there may be the need for the issuing officer to attend court as a witness only. They would not be preparing and presenting the case.

2.    Can you clarify the total number of staff that Kingdom would deploy on the contract. Will there be a supervisor and manager in addition to the four ‘on the street’ operatives? Would the supervisor also be deployed on the street? Would there be a separate Kingdom admin support worker or would that be provided by the Council?

The Kingdom model proposes the following dedicated personnel. The supervisor would be deployed on-street as necessary.

            4 Enforcement officers

            1 Senior Enforcement Officer

            1 Supervisor / Team Leader.

            1 Admin officer

3.    As the contract was not put out to competitive tender is it possible to give like for like costings for  in-house provision of the service?

The costings from Kingdom and their anticipated resource allows for a like for like comparison with an in house service. However, each job role would be subject to the council's job evaluation process. That review has not been undertaken so the exact cost of the staffing element is not known. Also, any assumption that existing resource can be used to support an in house model is not tested. One benefit of the Kingdom model is that it complements rather than draws from existing resource. An in house model would obviously see the council retain all fines income so it could create more revenue, although experience in Ealing suggests that non-payment may be a more significant factor with an in-house service. The downside is that it would transfer the financial risk from the contractor to the council. The council would need to commit to the cost of staff and equipment without the absolute certainty of recovering that cost. Also, it is hoped such an initiative would correct behaviour over time so less fines would be issued. A contracted pilot arrangement offers better flexibility in that it can be changed or terminated without liability.

What's intended is a pilot and this will allow us to test the model and costs. When the full procurement process commences, any in house option would be considered alongside a bid from Kingdom (should they bid) and any other firm. The benchmarking from the pilot will ensure we have a clear idea of costs to compare.