Will skipping reduce fly-tipping?

When I lived in Shepherd's Bush a couple of decades ago the Council used to leave skips in key sites for the collection of bulky items that would be otherwise fly-tipped. It worked pretty well and quite a few items used to disappear overnight as people raided the skip for useful or saleable bits and pieces.

Cllr Butt & Cllr Sheth (see comments)

Now Brent Council is trialing a similar scheme.

Will the skips initiative encourage people to get rid of surplus items they've been keeping in their shed, loft or the cupboard under the stairs?

Will it result in more landfill?

Will it reduce fly-tipping on our streets and open spaces?

This is is the announcement from Brent Council:

Community skips are coming to Brent, as part of a trial providing a new and easy way to help residents get rid of their household junk.

Under Brent Council's Love Where You Live campaign, the community skips will be manned by local residents and will give people the chance to dispose of unwanted household items and learn more about how we can all do our bit to create a cleaner, greener Brent.

Waste such as furniture, garden clippings, small electrical items, recycling and mattresses can be deposited in the skips. Each household can drop off up to five bulky items or five black bags (or a mixture of both) and will be required to bring one form of identification, which can include a drivers licence, council tax or utility bill.

Under the new trial, community skips will be at the following locations over the next six weeks from 8am - midday:

• 20 October 2018 - Townsend Lane, Fryent
• 03 November 2018 - Ken Way, Barnhill (opposite Lidl)
• 17 November 2018 - Shaftesbury Avenue, Kenton (bottom end)
• 01 December 2018 - Essoldo Way, Kingsbury

The community skips are for residents only and no trade waste will be accepted. The skips will not accept the following items:

• Asbestos
• Car tyres
• Fridges / freezers
• Oil / oil drums
• Paint cans

Cllr Duffy calls for Special Council Meeting on waste strategy waste

Cllr Duffy (Labour, Kilburn) has sent the following email to all Brent Councillors:

Dear Councillor

Firstly I am sorry for the length of this email , but I believe it deals with important issues.

I am asking for your support to call a special Council meeting to discuss the issues concerning  the waste of resources  around fly-tipping , enforcement and bulky waste collections, together with the cabinets failure to maximise income on the green bin service  and their failure to improve our recycling levels.

FLY-TIPPING

To get to the issue why I am sending this email  and to put it into respective. In Nov 2015 a scrutiny task group reported into fly –tipping which was plaguing Brent ( and other boroughs) and made up more than 90% of Street Environment complaints. The Task group review was concerned with "reducing the levels of fly tipping in Brent and ensuring clean and safe environments for Brent resident’s; and as a result, a reduction in cleanup and enforcement costs".

The committee looked at 14 different types of fly-tipping , which were causing problems in Brent. Dog-ends was not among them and did not figure in any charts made known to the committee. The task group was informed of 2013/14  fly-tipping incidents and costs. There were 7001 incidents of reported fly-tipping. 

The  Lead member for the environment advocated employing Kingdom Securities  to deal with the problem of Fly-tipping. Kingdom Securities are a well known low-wage , non-union company.. The cabinet and later the Scrutiny Committee agreed (against my advice) to award the contract to Kingdom Securities without going out to tender or looking at an In-House option. You may remember the details of that contract  that the private contractor was to get £46 per Fixed penalty notice (PFN) issued ,the council would get £34 for every PFN paid  and the council would  paid all legal fees and that Kingdom securities would not search or investigate fly-tipping instead they would concentrate on Cigarette dog -ends even though they were not named as a problem. Altogether approximately 6000 were issued ( many to vulnerable people ) therefore Kingdom securities received  £246k and the leadership and Lead member used the soundbite "Zero Tolerance"  to explain the policy.

How wrong they were!

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.

Revealed-the true extent and cost of fly-tipping in Brent

The Local Government Association has published an analysis LINK of the extent and cost of fly-tipping in different local authorities. They are careful to point out difficulties in terms of making direct comparisons between authorities (1) but it makes for interesting reading and shows what a huge challenge the issue is here in Brent and across the country. Whether the higher bulk collection fee LINK Brent has introduced from September will worsen the problem remains to be seen.

On the tables below the comparison is with the mean for London local authorities, excluding the City of London. The site is interactive so if you visit you can select other comparisons.

(1) This data is from the collection "ENV24 Fly-tipping incidents and actions taken", published by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Fly-tipping statistics are taken from the WasteDataFlow database.

Fly-tipping is the illegal deposit of waste on land, contrary to Section 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Local authorities and the Environment Agency both have a responsibility in respect of illegally deposited waste. This includes local authorities and the Environment Agency collecting and reporting data on fly-tipping in their area, this dataset however, only includes LA collected data. Due to varying levels of estimation between councils and years, some caution is needed in the interpretation of the trends. Direct comparison between local authorities may also not be appropriate as there can be some differences in approach, where there is a level of discretion in using the guidance on reporting. The situation is complex and can be influenced by population density, housing stock, demographics, commuter routes, the rigour with which local authorities identify incidents or encourage the public to report incidents, training of street crews, and increased used of more sophisticated methods for capturing and reporting incidents. Therefore, in assessing the figures local authorities should not be classified as 'good' or 'poor' performers based purely on numbers of fly-tips.

Duffy forces Council U-turn on out-sourcing

Following recent controversy about the Kingdom littering contract, including the Scrutiny Committee discussion from which the public were excluded and the revelation that no formal minutes existed for the original contract meeting between officers and Kingdom LINK, it appears that Cllr John Duffy may have achieved a break-through, forcing a re-think by the lead member and Cabinet.

I understand that following Duffy's production of figures showing that an in-house solution would offer better value for money than the Kingdom contract, that this is now likely to happen.

Duffy has maintained that the original Cabinet decision to out-source the contract wasted over £100,000 of the environmental budget at a time when council finance was under pressure from government cuts.  Duffy challenged the Cabinet's claim that Kingdom paid the London Living Wage and it does now appear that the company was not LLW accredited and that rates are far below those for similar officers directly employed in the public sector.

In an interchange earlier in the Scrutiny meeting Duffy quoted 73 fly-tipping fines versus 4,000 fixed penalty, notices mainly for dropping fag ends. Cllr Southwood said the proportion of FPNs for fag ends had been reduced to nearer 60% after talks with Kingdom. Cllr Duffy claimed that this was still still out of balance. An Environment Department officer claimed it was more difficult than people might think to get admissable evidence on the perpetrator of  fly-tipping. Even if addressed letters were found inside black bags you still had to prove the addressee was responsible for the fly-tipping.

The figures suggest that Duffy has been vindicated and that an in-house service will not only produce a better service and value for money for council tax payers but that workers involved will secure  better pay and conditions.

Brent set to double fly-tipping fixed penalty to £400

The October Brent Cabinet meeting will discuss a proposal to double the Fixed Penalty Notice for fly-tipping to £400.  Following the introduction of legislation on May 9th 2016 Brent Council set the default level at £200, reduced to £120 for early payment.

If agreed by Cabinet the new rate will be £400, the maximum upper limit, reduced to £180 for early payment.

UPDATE: It is time for Veolia's Public Realm Contract performance to be scrutinised

"Love where you live'

Brent Council's bulk collection service before the Public Realm contract was handed to Veolia used to take about a fortnight from request to notification.

I have received a number of complaints about how long it now takes for goods to be collected. 

This is an example sent in by reader Paul Lorber with a 7 week gap.

From Brent Customer Services June 15^th 2016
Thank you for your Special Collection enquiry. Your request for:
Item 1: Freezer
Item 2: Non Metal Bed Frame
Item 3: Other Household Waste
Item 4: Other Household Waste
Item 5: Other Household Waste
To be collected has been logged and your unique reference number is  XXXXXXX
Your items will be collected on 08 August 2016.
Please ensure the items are placed together in the front garden ready for collection.
If you have any queries or wish to change the week of your collection please telephone the Customer Services on 020 8937 5050.

 Lorber has asked what the service timescales are but remarks that if this service has been commissioned by Brent Council and is acceptable to them it is clearly poor value for money, although representing plenty of profit for Veolia.

 Lorber is fortunate in having a front drive in which the items can be placed but many residents have extremely small front gardens or none at all and is is surely no wonder that mattresses, sofas, fridges, gas stoves, lavatory pans and broken gym equipment all end up on the pavement attracting further fly-tipping.

Brent Council promised an improved service when Veolia took over but I pointed out what I saw as a weakness in the contract:

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'.

I think it would be useful for the Scrutiny Committee responsible for Public Realm to review Veolia's performance by inviting Veolia executives to answer questions from councillors and the public about the service.  Cllr John Duffy has raised a number of issues on his own blog LINK and on Wembley Matters  LINK  LINK

This should cover the grounds maintenance of BHP estates and parks maintenance which were handed over to Veolia along with street cleansing, cemeteries, sports centres and much else.  When the Council gave the Public Realm contract to Veolia they withdrew from the Green Flag scheme for parks and open spaces which had provided a widely valued external audit of parks maintenance.

One matter we have heard little about is how the litter enforcement contract, awarded to Kingdom, is working.  This was also criticised by Cllr Duffy LINK and an update on it would be useful as it was seen as a trial.  At the same time Veolia's promised role in spotting fly-tipping and acting upon it included  working with Brent's enforcement team. Is this happening?

From the original Officer's report to Cabinet on the Public Realm contract:

Fly tips will be cleared promptly. That is a key requirement. Veolia have committed their operatives to becoming “the eyes and the ears” of the council, trained to identify, report, and manage all day-to-day fly-tips using mobile devices. The initial role on all enforcement will be Veolia. Enforcement investigations will be managed as far as possible by the Veolia supervisors and managers who will ensure photographic evidence and pocket notebook records are taken to secure evidence. Once a case is correctly and sufficiently built, Veolia will work with Brent’s enforcement team to bring final prosecution. 


UPDATE; The day after this article was published Brent Council issued a press release on the Kingdom fixed penalty litter enforcment trial. LINK

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 out-sourced Dumping & Litter Patrols called-in for Scrutiny and some vital questions

Bath time at Randall Avenue, NW2

The Scrutiny Committee will consider the proposal for uniformed patrols to provide on the spot fines for environmental offences such as litter, dog fouling, fly-tipping, spitting, fly posting and graffiti at problem areas across Brent at its April 5^th meeting.

Although  the 12 month contract to  Kingdom Security was approved by Cabinet the proposal has come in for criticism on several grounds, the most important of which are:

·      The terms, pay and conditions of the people who will work on patrols, and their relationships to officers working on enforcement currently working in the Council
·      The lack of consideration of an in-house option
·      The process by which Kingdom was chosen as a partner for the trial period
·      Some of the costings contained in the report 

  The Kingdom Security Enforcement Officers would be paid £9.40 per hours for a 40 hour week which would include weekend and evening work. Working pay out at 52 weeks a year this comes to £19,552 for each operative plus extra if one is a foreman. The current Council Waste Enforcement Officers employed by the Council are on  £31,360-£33,660 a year. The former, despite being on slightly above the London Living Wage of £9.40 an hour, will be worse off than similar employees whose jobs have been cut , as well as well below  the rate (and working conditions etc) of the Council’s own employees.

The Council Officers to justify this on the grounds that the roles are different:

The Waste Enforcement roles attract a salary of Pay Scale PO1 (currently £31,368- £33,660); however, these directly employed officers undertake very different work. They use investigatory powers to administer enforcement cases through the formal process right up to and including representing the council in court, which accounts for the higher job evaluation outcome. 
The work that Kingdom is being asked to do is very much intended to complement and not replace the work of the existing in house team, who do not have the capacity, and are not equipped to carry out pro-active litter enforcement patrols. 


The Officers’  Report admits that no job evaluation has been done for the out-sourced workers so it is hard to see how a comparison can be made.

The failure to consider an in-house option is justified on the grounds that this is a 12 month pilot project and has less risk attached than if the operatives were directly employed by the Council.  They also rely on the claimed  positive experience of Ealing Council with Kingdom. 

However, this does not directly answer the general local government principle, which the Council enforces on schools for example, that three bids should be sought for contracts. This has not been done by the Council which instead went straight to Kingdom.

The costings assume the employment of 4 operatives issuing  5 Fixed Penalty Notices each per day for which the Council will pay Kingdon £46 per Notice.  Thus, as the FPNs will be for £80 each the sum is not equally shared between the Council and Kingdom. On the basis of 5,200 FPNs annually this gives Kingdom an income of £239,200. Equivalent to £60,000 per operative before wages and other costs - not a bad return. However, an additional report to Scrutiny Committee suggests that there will also be a supervisor and admin staff.

This is not the end of the matter however as it is assumed, based on the Ealing experience, that only 70% of the fines will be paid. Kingdom will receive £46 for 100% of the Notices but Brent Council £34 for only 70% pf them.  This gives a total income of 3,460 Notices (70% of total) x £80=£291,200.

Once Kingdom has been paid its £239,200 this leaves Brent with £52,000.

Scrutiny will need to consider whether this represents Best Value for residents, the issue of what will be done to recover the 30% of unpaid Notices, and whether an in-house solution will be considered after the 12 month pilot period and indeed what Kingdom's reaction will be to a move to in-house if they have successfully delivered the contract.

Scrutiny may also be interested in looking at the wider costs in the contract for Brent Council in terms of the support they are offering which presumably will come out f the £52,000, as well as what appears to be additional Kingdom staff (admin support and senior supervisory officer):
 

The typical responsibilities to be undertaken by both the council and by the contractor are set out below:


Brent:
·      Provide authorised officer identity cards to all Enforcement Officers working to the direction of Brent. 

·      Provide stationery and meet postage costs in respect of the service. 

·      Arrange for Enforcement Officers to be authorised to issue FPNs on behalf of 
Brent. 

·      Provide guidance as to areas to be patrolled and times of patrols. 

·      Provide workstations for administrative officers employed by the contractor 
(essentially, the Council will be required to provide an administrative base for Kingdom’s operatives at the Civic Centre. Such staff will attend on an ad-hoc basis, and such arrangements will be facilitated locally within the Environmental Services Department). Kingdom will be required to sign a licence covering any such ad hoc occupation as set out in paragraph 8.7. 

·      Manage and administer the appeals process


Contractor:
·      Issue FPNs to anyone caught committing an environmental offence. 

·      Provide fully trained, to Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) standard, 
Enforcement Officers, admin support and a senior officer for supervision. 

·      Provide uniform agreeable to Brent. 

·      Ensure Enforcement Officers carry out enquiries to ensure accurate identity 
details have been obtained from offenders before issue of FPNs. 

·      Provide statistical information and other reports, including equality monitoring.  
 Not issue an FPN to a person under the age of 18 or those suspected of suffering 
      mental ill health
In addition Brent Council is considering extending the contract. The viability of this seems doubtful given the amount of littering and fly-tipping in the borough:

Once established- and if successful, the scope of the contract may be expanded during the course of the pilot to incorporate other offences, such as:
·      Graffiti and Flyposting – Section 43 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 

·      Dog Fouling – Section 3 Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1990 

·      Exposing vehicles for sale on a road - section 6 of the Clean Neighbourhoods 
and Environment Act 2005
·      Carrying out restricted works on a motor vehicle on a road - section 6 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005
The Officer's report goes further to suggest other 'Added Value' benefits:
In addition to on-street enforcement, the contractor is also able to provide the following: 
·      ‘No cost’ provision of back office support and administration 

·      Trade waste and residential waste investigations 

·      Dealing with juvenile offenders and education through schools. 

·      Delivering a bolt on service aimed at investigating failures to recycle domestic 
waste correctly. 

·      Positive contribution to the reduction of street litter by intelligence-led patrols 

·      Working with the police to target other types of antisocial behaviour. 


The four enforcement officers (plus or including a senior officer) and admin support staff look as if they will be very busy.

Brent Council abolishes fly-tipping

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

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

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

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

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

Derivation of the term fly-tipping

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

Brent Fly-Tipping Report's wide-ranging recommendations

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

These are its recommendations:

Knowledge

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

Education 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enforcement

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

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

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

Publicity

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