Will Brent Council Council's vital services to residents be improved by these proposals going to Cabinet on Monday?

 

A process with major repercussions for the future of basic services provided to residents and worth millions of pounds will be discussed at Brent Cabinet on Monday.

Brent Council synchronised the end dates of various Public Realm contracts so as to enable the Council to consider ways of Redefining Local Services (RSL). Of the contracts above the Veolia contract is the most costly.

Following an initial consultation over the provision of local servives the Council proposes to adopt a 'specialist contracts delivery model with low to moderate levels of insourcing [the council providing the service rather than external contractors].' 

This is a lower level of insourcing that some Labour councillors hoped for. Insourcing would involve TUPE from existing providers.

 The objectives of RSL are listed:

The Final RLS Delivery Model will aim to achieve the following overarching objectives: 

 
· A neighbourhood approach to managing local issues to meet the needs of local areas
· A borough-wide approach to managing our assets and infrastructure (e.g. highways, street lighting) to ensure investment is spent well
· A specialist contracts approach for outsourced services
· Improved contract management and monitoring for contracted services
· An intelligence-led approach to the deployment of resources
· Integrated deployment of environmental enforcement services across public realm
· Greater responsiveness to addressing issues and problems in the public realm
· Better digital customer interface with real-time information and issue reporting
· Additional council capacity for continuous service improvement and innovation
· Focusing specialist officers where they can add the greatest value, with more triaging between generalist and specialist roles
· Deliver improved Social Value outcomes via our Social and Ethical Procurement Policy, including: striving for carbon neutrality by 2030 and enhancing nature and biodiversity; the number of local jobs created (where appropriate for the contract), including focus on disadvantaged groups; and the number of SMEs and third sector organisations that benefit from the procurement exercises.

 The service benefits are set out:

The Final RLS Delivery Model offers the following service benefits:

· Ongoing funding for the highways reactive maintenance gang based at the Depot, tasked with 20% of reactive highways repairs which arise from customer reports, in order to provide a more flexible and responsive service than the current highways services contract. No additional cost as this has already been funded from within R & E budgets). 

· Insourcing the Education, Communication and Outreach (ECO) team (6 staff) would give the Council direct responsibility for communication, education and outreach to help address our considerable waste, climate emergency and circular economy objectives and challenges. 3 of these staff are already on LGPS with the additional cost of insourcing estimated at £52k per annum. 

· Insourcing the Head Park Warden and 4 Park Wardens would enable better integration of education and enforcement across the whole public realm in Brent. It would also enable a more strategic and holistic approach to stakeholder management and community engagement of park interest groups and park users and help to increase participation and volunteering in parks. All these staff are on existing LGPS via an Admission Agreement with the Council but there would be additional cost estimated at £26k per annum to cover Brent’s higher employers’ pension contribution (35% compared to Veolia’s 20%). 

· The Pre-Notice to Owner (NTO) Correspondence work-stream (informal parking appeals) could be incorporated back into the larger Parking back-office Notice Processing Team (formal parking appeals). The addition of these two individuals would be absorbed within the structure without any need to change either structure or management capacity. The additional cost of insourcing is estimated at £32k per annum. There has historically been discomfort that outsourcing this function results in a situation where the contractor is in effect "marking its own homework” as it is issuing the PCNs and then answering the challenges to those same PCNs. Moving this service back in house could provide: 

‒ Greater transparency on the activities of the contractor
‒ More control on how policy is applied to the cancellation of PCNs
‒ Improved quality of Pre-NTO correspondence
‒ Greater consistency between Pre and Post NTO communications with
customers
‒ Greater flexibility across the wider PCN correspondence team to deal with
surges in workload 

· In-sourcing the Tree Surveying function, tree database and the raising of
tree works orders would provide the Council with greater strategic and
financial control of the Arboriculture Services contract, improved planning
and completion of works and achieve better value for money from our tree
maintenance budget. This is estimated to cost an additional £30k per
annum, comprising £20k in staff costs and up to £10k in annual tree
database license costs. Staff time required to maintain the database would
be covered from existing resources, and/or as an element of the TUPE
transfer to the Council of the existing surveyor post. 

· Creating a stronger highways inspection regime - 1 additional highways
inspector post would significantly address the lack of resource for highways
inspections noted in section 4 of this report. Total cost £43k per annum.

 

Street cleaning, litter, fly-tipping, waste collection and recycling are one of the main concerns of residents so dealt with in my detail here.

One of the proposals is for an 'Integrated Street Cleaning and Waste Contract' that combines street cleansing and waste collection but separates waste collection from recycling. A discussion with potential providers was in favour of such a separation. The Cabinet paper outlines the main requirements:

Street Cleansing Services 

 
· Provide comprehensive, seven-day cleansing services that deliver high performance standards across all land use types and which maximise the amount of waste segregated for reuse, recycling, composting and recovery
· Provide a ‘Clear All’ service on designated roads ensuring the removal of all waste in these areas, regardless of the source material
· Provide and manage receptacles, including litter bins, ensuring that they never become full or overflowing
· Provide a fly tipping removal service which proactively reduced the amount of fly tipped waste and delivers the highest possible performance standards
· Provide a graffiti and fly posting removal service that meets EPA standards

 

 Waste and Recycling Collections 

 
· Provide a scheduled residual, recycled, food and garden waste collection service that maximises the amount of waste segregated for reuse, recycling and composting, while minimising contamination of target materials to improve the quality of the separately collected waste streams
· Provide an assisted collection service to meet the needs of those households who are unable to present household waste and recyclables at standard collection points
· Provide a special collections service for bulky household waste that maximises the amount of waste segregated for reuse, recycling and recovery

 

Winter Maintenance 

 
· Provide an effective winter service which ensures that safe passage along all main highways, priority routes and other relevant land use types is not endangered by ice and/or snow during the designated Winter Service Period
· Provide and manage all salt bins, ensuring that they are stocked and available for use during the designated Winter Service Period to reduce risk to residents

Other Services 

 
· Emergency and out of hours response
· Waste container management and delivery
· Customer care and satisfaction, including response to service requests and complaints.

The potential for further insourcing in the future is noted:

Under the Final RLS Delivery Model, there would be potential to insource further functions from the proposed Integrated Street Cleansing & Waste Contract during the main contract term, as detailed in paragraph 6.12 of this report, and to insource the full grounds maintenance service after the next contract ends in 2027/28, should the council’s finances improve. There was broad support for such further insourcing in the best value duty consultation response.The council would also retain an interest in considering insourcing the full street cleansing service at the end of the main contract term of the proposed Integrated Street Cleansing & Waste contract

The Timetable:

The full report can be found HERE

Packed meeting wins commitment to improved tree policy from Brent Council but more resources needed

Brent Trees' Three Asks

The strength of feeling amongst residents over the protection of the borough's street trees was evident yesterday evening when there was standing room only at the newly formed Brent Trees public meeting of residents, council officials and councillors. The Cabinet lead member for environment, Cllr Krupa Sheth, was unable to attend.

There were three very professional presentations from members of Brent Trees campaigns with space for a response from the Council after each one. Most responses came from officers, Chris Whyte (Environment), Tony Kennedy (Highways) and Gary Rimmer (Principal Trees Officer).  Cllr Butt only spoke when a member of the audience pointed out that many of the questions were about Council policy and should be answered by politicians who make policy rather than officers.

The first presentation was about the value of trees and why there needed to be significant reasons for removal. A slide was shown of the trees outside Furness Primary School and the adjacent footway, damage to which had been cited as a reason for removal. There was laughter when the presenter said, 'By Brent standards that is a pretty good pathway.'  Campaigners had managed to save some of the trees from removal.The Council was criticised for not giving sufficient, evidence based reasons for removal, and proper notice to residents who might wish to make representations.  The conclusion was that Brent Council did not value its trees and saw trees as a cost and not a benefit.

CAVAT (Capital Assessment Valuation of Amenity Trees) in Sheffield has valued each mature tree at £25,446. It would take 20-30 years for replacement trees to give the same benefit. It need 26 young trees to replace the benefit of one mature tree.

Wrexham Council records the benefit of trees

Brent Trees wanted an Action Plan on the maintenance of mature trees to reduce the need for removal:

• Prioritise mature trees
• Do not remove an healthy trees
• Commit to removing trees only as a last resort
• Commit to replace all removed trees

Officers responded that dead, diseased and dangerous trees had to be removed, insurance claims had to be avoided, and solutions had to be found for trees that created obstacles for pedestrians. A campaigner said that the issue was more complex than simply chopping trees down to make pavements safer. Engineering solutions needed to be found.

A second presentation focused on poor communication by the council in the form of notices and the need for reasons for removal to be clearly stated and sufficient notice given.  DEFRA had set out a Duty to Consult and a Duty to Report:

The Council needed to use the full range of social media available to it to develop a clear communications strategy to inform the public. Notices should state whether a new tree would be substituted for a removed tree and, if so, the type of tree that would be planted in its place,

Brent Council had failed to  provide information for the London Mayor's tree map. A slide showed the information for part of Brent compared with Westminster across the border.

A traffic light monitoring system for trees was suggested:

GREEN - tree inspected and assessed and no action required
AMBER - tree inspected and assessed and some work needed to be done
RED -  tree inspected and assessed as needing removal with reason and evidence cited (eg tree surgeon's report)

Chris Whtye of the Environment Department said  that they had not entered a debate with the public but made a judgement themselves on individual trees. Independent consultation on every tree was not practical but if the government made  it a requirement the Council would have to comply. A traffic light system was more than the council could provide. He admitted a lack of quality in the information that the council had been provided and there needed to be a clear description of the logic for removal.  He recognised that there were gaps in information but that it was positive that Brent Trees had been set up and had entered into dialogue with the Council.

Members of the audience gave examples of trees removed without good reason in various parts of the borough as well as Old Paddington Cemetery. Data via i-tree (LINK) should record not just the number of trees but the size of the canopy and other information.  Chris Whyte said that a larger canopy meant more uptake of water with a shrinkage impact on clay soils.

Officers said the the Council Communications Team would be asked to devise a new communications strategy.

An audience member was cheered when he condemned the officers' claim that because records did not have to be kept that they weren't. He said flatly, 'I don't trust you to make decisions on what is a healthy tree.'

The last presentation was on the lack of resources provided for trees in Brent. Similar boroughs such as Hackney and Islingtton were better staffed. The highest number of tree officers in London boroughs was 7, the average 3.38 and the lowest (one) was Brent.

Given the Declaration of a Climate Emergency by the Council, trees needed to be given a higher priority. The lack of resources devoted to trees indicated the low priority currently given to this vital issue by the Council.

Cllr Butt claimed that Islington and Hackney were not comparable to Brent and had a higher council tax revenue base while an officer said that more people were involved with trees in Brent than indicated by the quoted figures.

Cllr Butt said that because of government cuts to Brent's funding the council had to prioritise areas such as adult social care.  He urged the public to take part in the current budget consultation to put their views.

He responded angrily when I pointed out the c£18m that had been earmarked to be spent on the replacement of the Wembley Stadium pedway by steps and the huge underspend in the 2017-18 Community Infrastructure Levy. The 2018-19 report should have been published by December 31st but is not yet available.

 

Cllr Butt said that the pedway removal was a planning obligation and that it was up to the public to make applications for Neighbourhood CIL.

The crowd at last night's meeting (Photo: Brent Trees)

 

After the meeting Brent Trees issued the following press release:

Following a public meeting on January 15th, the BRENT TREES group is satisfied that the council has taken a step in the right direction but asks for a budget commitment on a par with the climate emergency. 

With a turnout of more than 100 people, the event we organised at Newman Catholiv College on Wednesday showed the depth of concern felt by Brent residents regarding the maintenance of street trees by the council, particularly in light of the council’s own declaration of a climate emergency.

We heard many stories from the audience, echoing our own experiences. Last November, the council tried to remove 11 trees on Furness Road in Kensal Green, even though residents had not been given proper notice and most of the trees were healthy. That incident caused a storm among the local community and resulted in the creation of the Brent Trees group. 

On Wednesday, ​Chris Whyte, ​Operational Director, Environmental Services, Regeneration and Environment, Brent Council,​ ​welcomed the formation of our group. ​“W e need to enter a constant dialogue with you to get back onto a better footing​”​, he declared during the course of the public event. 

Mr. Whyte also stated that the council will adopt ​“much clearer communication” with residents ahead of any planned felling of trees by the council. 

Gary Rimmer, who is Brent’s sole Street Tree Officer, informed those attending that in future ​“a different sign will go on trees” recognising that the information displayed in Furness Road last November was inadequate. 

We welcome the willingness shown by both Chris Whyte and Gary Rimmer as well as the leader of the council, Councillor Muhammed Butt - who was also present at the meeting - to improve communication with residents. 

We expect that the promises made at the meeting will be confirmed to us in writing and are hopeful that a way of working will quickly be established. ​We want to avoid any further removals of healthy trees as was the overall intention in Furness Road likewise ​thetaking down of a 150 YEAR-OLD tree in Paddington Old Cemetery​ which happened last November. 

However, we are deeply concerned at the lack of resources dedicated to trees by Brent council and believe, having declared a climate emergency, this is a serious oversight that needs to be rectified. Brent has just one Street Tree Officer​. When we compare the number of street tree officers employed by other London boroughs with a similar socio-economic deprivation profile it is clearly too low. Haringey employs 4 street tree officers ; Tower Hamlets has 2.  

The BRENT TREES group will use ​the ongoing budget consultation to repeat our request for the allocation of more resources to street tree care. We believe the climate emergency declaration adopted by Brent council last July compels Brent to take bold budget decisions. 

We are aware of the extraordinary impact of the austerity driven cuts imposed on the council by central government since 2010. Nevertheless, the climate emergency is so serious we have no choice but to raise the environment protection bar to an unprecedented level. 

We believe this can be achieved in Brent if both residents and the council take inspiration from other local authorities in London and across the UK, emulating best practice. We simply have no other choice. 

For any questions, please email us at:

 saveourtreesbrent@gmail.com 

Twitter: @Brent_Trees

Housing, waste & road repairs lag in Brent Council performance

Brent Council's Cabinet will receive data on the Council's performance at its meeting on Monday March 11th. Performance is recorded as a RAG (Red, Amber & Green) rating, often known as the traffic light system, according to performance against targets.

The report includes comments on the reasons for good or poor performance. The majority of ratings are Green or Amber but discussion centres on the Red areas and the action officers are taking to improve performance.

Some of the stand-out Red items are (target in brackets):

Proportion of waste recycled (Year to date) which is up to Quarter 3): 38% (45%) In 2016-17 the London average was 33% with Brent at 36.4%. Bexley was top at 52.1% and Newham bottom at 14.1%.

Residual waste collected (YTD): 51,283 tonnes (49.489). The more residual waste collected and the lower amount recycled increases the Council's landfill costs.

Timeliness of repair of highways defects(YTD): 56% (98%) See notes on document below.

Times taken to re-let empty council homes with minor defects to be addressed (YTD): 39.1 days (24)

Time taken to re-let council homes with major defects to be addressed (YTD): 90.4 days (76)

Tenants' satisfaction with council housing repairs (YTD): 75.6% (82%)

Waste and highway repairs are both out-sourced, Council housing has been brought back in-house but repairs are contracted out.

Click on bottom right square to enlarge

Brent's cycling hopes punctured by Mayor's Office

The Brent Highways Committee, which meets on December 10th, will hear disappointing news about the prospects for cycling highways in Brent. Brent Council was not chosen for the Mayor's 'mini-Holland' scheme and it now appears that secondary projects are also encountering problems.

Brent's initial proposals to the GLA included:

• ·  The Jubilee/Metropolitan Superhighway - a direct route between Wembley and Willesden to include a “green bridge” crossing over the North Circular.
• ·  The Jubilee/Metropolitan Quietway - to run parallel to the Jubilee line between Northwick Park and Wembley Park, and again between Dollis Hill station and Kilburn station.
• ·  The Bakerloo Superhighway - along the Harrow Road between Wembley and Kensal Green towards central London; and
• An Orbital Quietway - to run along the canal between Alperton and Stonebridge Park, and also along the River Brent 

Despite an initial favourable response Andrew Gilligan the Mayor's Cycling Commissioner,  later supported just two routes. The first was a route following the Jubilee Line  linking Wembley ith Neasden, Willesden and Kilburn and an orbital route paralleling the North Circular, linking to Brent Cross.

Brent Council was interested in promoting local routes while Gilligan wanted routes into Central London.  Brent Council believe the latter would be of only limited benefit to Brent residents.

Officers summarise their reservations over content and progress of the proposals: LINK

Brent officers are very supportive of the Mayor’s cycle initiative. It complements sustainable transport, employment opportunities, public health and regeneration objectives for the Borough as well as contributing to improving cycle safety. At the same time we have some concerns about its delivery. These concerns are as follows:

a)      Officers are concerned that there is a focus on strategic routes into central London rather than more local cycle routes, which is where the greatest growth in cycling is likely to be achieved – only a certain population of our residents work in central London and we believe that the proportion that could be persuaded to cycle to central London would not be as great as the number of local cycle trips that we could encourage through local infrastructure investment;

b)      Selection of routes and local priorities does not appear to be as collaborative as expected, with priorities being set and defined by the Mayor’s office rather than being discussed and agreed in partnership with Brent;

c)      TfL have appointed consultants to develop the feasibility and design of local cycle routes, which intimates that Boroughs will not have the freedom and flexibility to commission and develop cycle projects on Borough roads – Brent has recently entered into the London Highways Alliance contract, which has the flexibility to enable delivery of consultancy services and we are concerned as to why alternate consultants are being used outside of the LoHAC framework;

d)      We are also concerned about decision making powers and processes by which local councillors and communities will be engaged given that design consultants are being employed by TfL to develop schemes on local roads; and

e)      At present, none of the boroughs have received any of the published funding and there is no indication of how and when any funding will be made available and what the role of Boroughs will be in utilising and receiving this funding. To date all development costs have been borne by the Boroughs and we have been given no indication as to when funding will be made available.