35,000 incidents of flytipping in Brent in 2022-23 makes it the highest of all English Boroughs

 The BBC yesterday LINK  published government data which showed that the London Boorough of Brent had the highest number of flytipping incidents of all Ennglish boroughs. 

The news that there were 35,000 incidents of flytipping in Brent in 2022-23 was greeted with a distinct lack of surprise on local social media.

Tokyngton residents get some action over the state of their streets

Sonia Francis (no relation) presented the Tokyngton residents' 320 signature petition about littering, flytipping and street drinking to the Brent Cabinet this morning LINK that was publicised on Wembley Matters last month.

After publication, and before today's Cabinet, a site meeting was arranged in the area, attended by Cllr Butt (Brent Council leader and ward councillor), Cllr Krupa Sheth (lead member for Environment), Chris Whyte (Operation Director Envirnment), the Council Enforcement Manager and three Neighbourhood Enforcement Officers as well as local residents.

Quite a turnout!

Responding to the petition presentation Cllr Sheth said she agreed that there was a definitely a problem in the are aznd that the council would agree an Action Plan,  hold regular meetings with residents and set up a Whats App grouo for residents to report concerns. In terms of the detailed request she said that action was limited by budget constraints  but she would work with enforcement officers, council officers and Veolia to clean up the area.

Chris Whyte added that it was good to hear directly from residents and the council could not deny that there were problems in the area. Cllr Butt said that a Fixed Penalty Notice was served on a street drinker during the site visit,

Brent Council, councillors & Network Housing fail to deal with 'extraordinary' flytipping and litter problem in Neasden

A Brent resident who moved from south Brent across the North Circular to Press Road, Neasden has met a brick wall when trying to 'Love Where you Live' and getting something done about the 'extraordinary' amount of litter that he has found in the area.

He told Wembley Matters:

In the last 15 months or so and after I moved to Neasden, something quite extraordinary caught my attention and that was the staggering amount of rubbish, fly-tipping and plastic waste. It is particularly bad around Press Road, near Neasden tube station and Neasden Lane on both side of the North Circular.
 
I have done everything I could to improve the neighbourhood. To my disappointment, my endless efforts have had very little effect if any. 
 
I communicated the issue with Brent Council first over a year ago and many times after. The Neighbourhood Manager from Brent Council was assigned to deal with the matter. They agreed that the situation with litter is very bad. But unfortunately they didn’t do much to tackle the problem.

In addition we have a huge problem with litter around our building, Printworks Apartments, on Press Road. The council advised that it was our building management's responsibility to deal with litter. But again, to my disappointment the management, Network Homes, could not care less despite charging a generous amount of service charge for maintenance and cleaning.

I think I have exhausted every possible option. I spent a considerable amount of time and energy trying to report the problem and work with both the council and our housing association to improve the situation, but the more I try the less improvement we see. Out of desperation, I contacted our  Welsh Harp ward councillors. But again they either didn't respond or didn't take any action. One of them mentioned that they are aware of the problem and they're looking into it. That was last summer.

Needless to say  the problem with litter and fly-tipping is not only very unpleasant, but also poses a serious health and environmental hazard.

 I hope Wembley Matters  can help to raise awareness and assist me to tackle this tragic situation in Neasden.  

It appears that the slogan should be 'Ignore those that want to Love Where they Live' ! Let's see some action on this.

Brent Green Party backs Cllr John Duffy on waste services

Fly-tip in King's Drive, Wembley

Brent Green Party has announced that it backs Cllr John Duffy’s call for a public consultation on improving Brent Council’s environmental services.


A spokesperson said:

‘Leaving aside Cllr Duffy’s difficulties with the Labour Group we believe it is in residents’ interests to review environmental services, particularly waste collection and fly-tipping, with a view to improving efficiency and value for money.

'We know from speaking to residents that their daily experience of Brent as a ‘dirty borough’ littered with discarded mattresses, clothing and much else, is demoralising and degrading.

‘Cllr Duffy has expertise in this area that the Council should utilise rather than ignore.’

Cllr Duffy's waste strategy is outlined here
 

Councillor claims residents will flytip and report via Cleaner Brent App to avoid £35 bulk collection charge

Councillor John Duffy (Labour, Kilburn) has returned to the theme of alleged waste in Brent Council's waste policy. He has sent the email below to all councillors:

Dear Councillors,

It is obvious to anyone who understand data there is a direct correlation between the failure of the Cabinet to monitor the bulky waste service and ensure the contractor perform to contract specifications and the increase in fly-tipping.

It is unacceptable that the cabinet were aware of the both the rising fly-tipping figures and the rising delays in the bulky waste collection Times and chose to do nothing. It is clear  to me the longer the waiting time for the bulky waste service the more likely the waste is to be dumped on the Street. It is also clear residents are resourceful and using the Cleaner Brent  App to report their own dumped furniture/waste (therefore the rise in reported dumping) therefore getting the waste taken away for nothing in 24 Hrs rather than wait the 8 weeks for a collection.

The likelihood of thing improving once the £35 charge has been introduced is remote and clutching at straws, especially  as residents will soon realise they have already paid for the collection service once in their Council Tax.

It beggars belief that  the cabinet are offering our residents the choice of paying £35 for  bulky collection that will take  up to 5 days too collect or to take the items  outside and use the Brent Appto report the dumping and get it picked up in 24 hrs  for Free. I think many will chose the second option especially when they realise  they have already paid for the service in their council tax.

I believe the service will yield little income and will increase fly-tipping, I have asked the CEO on Monday to suspend the charge and asked for a full evaluation.The CEO has not got back to me, but I understand her and the leader will not suspend the £35 charge and stand by it.

I am having further conversations with residents groups to put together a package of improvements based on environmental needs. Which I will hopefully update you with on Monday.

One of the guiding philosophies in the environment is the polluter pays, however what the cabinet are suggesting is the polluter pays twice.

I still hope the cabinet will see reason and enter into dialogue to improve the environment and suspend the £35 charge, however based on my previous experience that will not happen. 

See below email

Dear CEO and All Councillors ,

I am very concerned about the £35 charge for Bulky Waste as I believe the decision is double charging residents for a service they already pay for and has no financially modelling and is environmentally damaging and is not also sustainable,

The reason I believe this is the case because the charge is being brought in to hide the failings by the cabinet to improve services. The service has gone from a 5 day pick-up in 2014 when I (most of us) was elected to an 8 week delay today. The delay is wholly at the doorstep of the cabinet for believing in the supposed Zero Tolerance policy with Kingdom Security , which squandered resources, while misunderstanding the issues around contract compliance and sustainability.

As well as the wasting of resources on the KS contract one of the only environmentally revenue (we lost over £100k) from the government, that was available to us. The contract had no controls on what services were needed by the council. This allowed the contractor to chose the most lucrative areas for themselves , while avoided the areas of most need like street dumping .This lack of controls and other decisions taken by the cabinet has seen the number of case of fly tipping go up by over 32% from10,000 reported cases  to 17,000 reported cases in the last year alone.

I am therefore amazed with Fly-tipping rising at constant rate over the last 3 years ,the cabinet have decided  the best way to reduce fly-tipping is to introduce a £35 charge for the bulky waste service.

The Service

The truth about the existing service is the Street Cleansing contract is clear . The contract makes the contractor ( Veolia) liable to pick up 17500 bulky waste collections PA 70 pick-ups X 5 Days X 50 Weeks. This year we picked up 17485 collections. Albeit the service clearly running at near capacity, it should not have lead to an eight weeks delay….. It would seem that the residents have already paid for this service via the council Tax for the street cleansing contract and the disposal contract, but the cabinet failure to ensure contract compliance and Fly-tipping as their priorities have let the service fail.

Financial Modelling.

Albeit the service has been paid for once. I believe there is a case for more investment in the environmental services. However I believe the £35 charge will be the highest charge by any licensed waste carrier in Brent and is not competitive and the charge will have a negative affect on the environment .Those who will not pay the £35 will do one of the following.

(i)        Some will taken Civic Amenity centre , some residents will still have a problem transporting larger item,settee,mattresses.

(ii)       Some will use licensed private collectors.

(iii)      Some will use the grey bin ( breaking-up smaller items)

(iv)      Some will use Street dumping

(v)       Some will  use Street Dumping and use the Brent Cleansing Apt to report it.  

(vI)     Some will use unlicensed (White Van Man) waste carriers , much of which will end -up dumped on the street.

Model A 

I understand officers have based their modelling on a take-up from 11000 to 17000 collections and income between 25k to £250 , this seemingly is only based on a £35 per collections price. Their model excludes the collection of bags of rubble and some other items and the figures are very broad.

Whereas it is always hard to a financial breakdown  on what is a new charge, but there are obvious facts ,the service will still operate a substantial discount for residents in receipt of benefits  which can be as high as 20% so allowing for a 15% against what is in the contract 17500- 15% = 14875  paid collection. we also know the higher the cost the bigger the lose of customers.

I believe that a nominal fee of £10 should have little affect on paying on the people who pay now but the £35 will deter many my analyses is based on work I did some years ago on increasing costs for commercial Waste.

£10 cost Customers  lose 10% of customers   =  14131 X   £10 = £141000  (90% of customers including discounted residents)  

£20 cost Customers  lose 45% of customers   =    8181 X   £20 = £164000  (70% of customers including discounted residents)  

£35 cost Customers  lose 75% of customers   =    4462  X  £35 = £156180  (45% of customers including discounted residents)  

You can see from this model the £20 would bring in the most. The £35 is unsustainable because its more expensive that other options, however the £10 is more fair as the residents have already paid for collections in the Veolia contract and already paid for the deposal in the West -Waste levy. I also have more confident in the take -up of the £10 cost as its affordability for most residents.

There also other issues, why are we using 5 items as the cut of point , it is more logical to me to cut it to £10 for 4 items this is based on the bulky collection usually being one or two items (bed and mattress or a fridge-freezer) we could then charge a progression cost for £5 per item after that , believe this would also bring in more income.

Officers and the Cabinet say they oppose a progressive charge because they wish to keep the costing simple. I completely disagree there is nothing simple about doubling the price once you have past a threshold. A progressive charge is both fairer and reflects the true cost.

The Way forward

As you know I am trying to get the support of a number of councillors (hopefully in late November) to call a full council meeting  to discuss sustainable Environment policies around enforcement , recycling and  street cleansing. I will get back to you on those proposal shortly.

In the meantime I am asking the CEO and the Leader of the Council to consider

(1)      Freezing the introduction of the scheme until a full evaluation of the increase in fly-tipping is assessed.

If however you are not willing to freeze the introduction of the charge please answer the questions below as an FOI if you like.

(2)      Explain the price modelling. 

(3)      Explain why,now that we are charging, why are certain wastes prohibited 

(4)      Did  officers explore progressive pricing. 

(5)      How much increased revenue do you expect to received from the the new charge of £35 

(6)      What impact do you think the Charge will have on Fly-tipping. 

I understand under this scheme Brent are going to takeaway old Christmas Trees.I buy my Tree at Ikea for £16 , I feel hearten to know the council will take it away for just…...£35.

I think the cabinet have missed the point.

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.

UPDATE Flytipping and Litter fines NOT DISCUSSED PUBLICLY at Scrutiny tonight

As he is now a member of Scrutiny Committee there will be a chance for Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn) to get to the bottom of the Kingdom contract which employs operatives to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for litter dropping in the borough, at tonight's meeting..  Duffy has raised the issue of the legality of the contract as well as whether the Council has received 'best value for money' from the arrangement.

One of the documents tabled has been withheld from the public. The public report can be found HERE

UPDATE

When it came to the agenda item this evening Carolyn Downs, CEO said that the public and press should be excluded from the meeting because of the 'below the line' report. It apparently contained information that had not yet been communicated to Kingdom. I suspect this means that it contains a recommendation to end the Kingdom contract and perhaps to provide the service in-house. Downs also said that it was unusual to have a paper discussed before it had gone to Cabinet. Councillors who are not on Scrutiny were allowed to stay as they are bound by confidentiality rules.

Separately Cllr Duffy protested at the withholding of documents he had requested from Downs.  He'd discovered that there were no minutes of the meeting where Kingdom was awarded the littering contract. He'd then asked for any notes that officers had taken at the meeting. Downs refused this saying that these were private notes by officers and that if they were released it was likely that officers would stop taking notes at meetings for fear that they would be made public.

Duffy asked, 'What's the point of electing councillors if officers are going to make the decisions?'

Surely in a Council with nothing to hide scrutiny should take place in front of press and public? 

Young Eco-Warriors: New 'Cleaner Streets' App for primary schools

Bapchild & Tonge School 'Eco-warriors' using the app to report litter

Brent Council already operates the Cleaner Brent Phone App for reporting flytipping and much else.  Could we see Brent schools using something similar in the future?

Primary schools across the country are invited to join a national clean-up mission, using the latest technology to help make the area around their school cleaner.

Environmental reporting app, Love Clean Streets, was successfully used by Eco-Schools across England in July this year. The successful pilot study took place with 11 primary schools from Rochdale to Kent and has resulted in the Love Clean Streets Board committing to develop the app further for use within the curriculum.

Year 5&6 Woolmore Primary School Students making a report of a vehicle part on the pavement

The modified app, developed specifically for primary school children to use, will be launched in schools throughout the UK in early 2017 and will be fully functional as a tool for both learning and taking action on local environmental issues in school catchment areas. Teachers involved in the pilot study reported considerable learning skills and educational value across the curriculum, positively mentioning benefits to Personal Social Health Economic, litter education, use of technology and demonstrating relevance to our everyday lives, encouraging pupils to be active citizens.

Max, aged 9, a pupil from Middleton Parish C of E Primary School in Middleton, North of Manchester, took part in the pilot study in the summer term which involved looking around the school grounds for environmental issues to report. He said: "The app is good as you can inform people of the areas you don't like and they will then make the environment a better place to live in."

Susannah Butcher, Eco- School leader at Bapchild & Tonge School, said: "The children had a lot of fun taking part in the project. It was an excellent chance for us to do some real work in trying to combat the problem of litter in the school area. " Pupils liked that they could take a picture, detail the problem and send it off themselves. They liked it even more when an overflowing bin outside the school as reported at lunchtime and by end of school at 3.15 it had been emptied!

"This project highlighted a variety of local environmental issues and raised questions with the children, which ensured they were fully engaged and motivated by the task. Smart phones and tablets are big part of children's lives, so showing them how these can be used in a positive way made the lesson really enjoyable for them," said Susannah.

Sophie, aged 11, a pupil from Bapchild & Tonge School in Kent, said: "I hate seeing litter on the way to school. With the app I can let someone know there is litter and it is cleaned up." Love Clean Streets Founder, Ian Blackburn, said: "We believe that educating the next generation on the importance of keeping our environment clean is a step in the right direction to ensure our world is a cleaner, happier place to live for generations to come. By getting involved with the LCS Education Project, children will ensure the issues do not go unnoticed and will inspire their peers to follow their lead."

Primary schools across the UK are invited to register their interest in taking part next summer by contacting Ian Blackburn on +44 203 126 4885 or emailing ian@bbits.co.uk. A further announcement will be made next spring when the revised app for primary schools has been tested and is ready for UK roll-out.

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.

Powney is not alone as questions raised over Flytipping Report

'Am I alone in finding this change of wording interesting?' asks James Powney LINK , drawing attention to a discrepancy between a report  on the Scrutiny Task group on Flytipping from the Chief Executive going to Brent Cabinet on January 20th and the actual body of the Task Group's Report (which is also included in the Cabinet papers).

Spot the difference:

Chief Executive's Report LINK

The Task Group Report LINK

So 'Why the mysterious change in Scrutiny wording?' as James Powney asks. Could it be that someone (who?) has decided the critical second sentence in 22 should be deleted? Why and on what authority?

I quoted the whole section so that readers could see that the other points are identical so this is no simple editing of the entire report.

It could be argued that it makes no difference because the original report is also included in the Agenda but then the Cabinet is actually voting on, and adopting, the version in the Chief Executive's Report.

James Powney was  Lead Member for the Environment at the beginning of 2013 and was succeeded by Cllr Roxanne Mashari at the AGM. In 2014 Cllr Keith Perrin was elected to the position but resigned in September 2014. Cllr George Crane was appointed in his place after an interval in which there was no one in the post.  LINK  Cllr Eleanor Southwood is the current Lead Member.

It is not quite Stalin removing Trotsky from the photographic record but intriguing all the same. Is there someone at Brent Council who cannot tolerate criticism or is it just a harmless tidying up exercise?

Brent Scrutiny Committee agenda and documentation for Wednesday September 9th

These are the main items for the Brent Scrutiny Committee tomorrow.  Wednesday September 9th 7pm Brent Civic Centre

	Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust - Care Quality Commission report and action plan PDF 62 KB               The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has published a report on the quality of services provided by Central North West London NHS Foundation Trust and an action plan has been developed by the Trust to respond to the findings of the inspection. Additional documents: CQC rpt , item 5. PDF 616 KB CNWCQC , item 5. PDF 132 KB
	Scrutiny task group on Access to extended GP services and primary care in Brent PDF 123 KB Brent Clinical Commisisoning Group (CCG) and London North West Healthcare NHS Trust are changing the way healthcare is provided in Brent. The Scrutiny Task Group was established to review the primary care element of Brent CCG’s transformation programme and assess the extent of the changes and investment made in the Brent GP networks and primary care services for the effective implementation of the changes to the acute sector set out within Shaping a Healthier Future (SaHF).   Additional documents: Access to Extended GP Services FINAL REPORT , item 6. PDF 1 MB Appendix 1 - Growth rates by Brent GP Practice 2014-2015 , item 6. PDF 52 KB Appendix 2 - Numbers of Patients Registered at a GP Practice , item 6. PDF 50 KB Appendix 3 - Location of services in Brent , item 6. PDF 61 KB Appendix 4 - Healthwatch Brent Report docx , item 6. PDF 386 KB Appendix 5 - Primary Care Workforce Profile Jul15 , item 6. PDF 116 KB
	Terms of reference for task groups on Fly Tipping and CCTV PDF 187 KB These reports set out the proposed scope for the Scrutiny task group on Fly Tipping in Brent on Close Circuit Television (CCTV) in Brent.  Additional documents: CCTV Scope-Terms of Reference , item 7. PDF 161 KB
	Scrutiny forward plan and key comments, recommendations and actions PDF 51 KB Additional documents: Recommendation Summary Table V3 , item 8. PDF 124 KB

Brent Council environment cuts break 'cleaner and greener' pledge

I reproduce below Brent Friends of the Earth's comprehensive response to the current Budget Consultation. I am sure that similar responses could be written on other areas of the proposed cuts making it clear that the level of cuts  now required is unacceptable and making no long-term economic or social sense.

Response to Brent Council Budget Consultation from Brent Friends of the Earth

Our members are concerned about the cuts to Council services overall, in particular cuts to vital front line services.  Whilst we recognise that Brent's income has been severely reduced, we do not wish to see vital welfare services axed, especially those for children. The vision of what will remain is stark and in some cases unrecognisable from the provision residents have come to know and expect as Council services.  However our comments as a group focus on the impact of proposed cuts to environmental services. We also question whether some of the cuts proposed will actually save money in the long run: