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.

Lycee litter annoys locals

Locals have stopped me to complain about litter and neglect in the former munical gardens outside the old Brent Town Hall,  now belonging to the Lycee de Londres Winston Churchill. The litter is dropped by passersby rather than the school but residents suggest the school is responsible for clearing it up as the land belongs to them.

Apart from the litter there is a pile of rubble and no spring planting has taken place in the flower beds. The gardens contains contain several memorial trees and the plaques remain.

The French School wanted to excavate a basement swimming pool on the gardens on the southern side of the building but their application was twice refused by Brent Planning Committee.

The main school grounds are beautifully landscaped and maintained.  The gardens on Forty Lane appear to be a neglected no man's land.

Petition to change law on leafleting for small scale events

Guest blog from Manifesto Club

Under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, councils can designate areas within which people must buy a licence to hand out leaflets. Nearly a third of councils now restrict leafleting, and licences are prohibitively expensive.

These rules have been catastrophic for theatres, village halls, comedy clubs and small nightclubs, which rely on leafleting, but cannot afford such fees.

A flyer ban in Leicester Square caused the collapse of several comedy nights. One Women’s Institute was threatened with a fine for handing out leaflets about its art exhibition. Oxford student societies were asked to pay £100 a month for leafleting.

Leafleting is a key civic freedom, with a long tradition in this country, and should not be restricted without good reason. Litter can be dealt with through the proper provision of litter bins and other common-sense measures, rather than restrictions on people’s rights to use public space.

The 2005 Act already provides exemption for political and religious leafleting, or leafleting on behalf of a charity. The Government should amend the Act, to provide an additional exemption for leafleting for small-scale cultural and community events. 

Lord Clement Jones is introducing a private members' bill in early May which would exempt small-scale local events from the need to buy leafleting licenses. The Manifesto Club has a petition to support a change in the law on leafleting HERE

Was Brent Council's leafleting licensing a success?

Brent Council's revised regulations regarding the licensing of leaflet distribution designated areas  the borough caused considerable controversy last Spring. Initially said to be aimed at limiting litter during the Olympics it was later justified as merely tightening up existing regulations. LINK

There were concerns that voluntary organisations and campaigning groups may have had to request a licence months in  advance of any events and the impact this would make on free speech. The complex regulations seemed to be using a sledgehammer to break a nut and suspicions that it was a disguised money making venture that would impact on small business.

No one has come to me to say that 'political' leafleting has been affected but I made a Freedom of Information request top find out how much licensing had actually take place.

I got a very quick response (thanks, Yogini Patel ) and here are answers to my questions (Answer in bold):

1. How many licences were issued after the introduction of the new regulations up to December 31st 2012?  20
   

2. How many were refused? 4

3. List the number of licences issued for each designated area? Wembley 18, Neasden 2

4. List the number of licences issued during the period of the Olympic Games 2012 compared with the normal period. 9 during Olympics, 11 outside Olympics 


5. How many unlicensed distributors were given warnings by council officers? 28

6. How many leaflets were confiscated from unlicensed operators and on how many occasions was this? Leaflets were confiscated on 15 occasions ranging from 150-300 on each occasion

6. How much increase was there in the amount of littering in designated areas during the Olympic Games 2012 compared with normal times? This information is not gathered but observations suggest that during the Olympics streets appeared to have less litter.

Fly-tipping is hard work compared with ringing for a bulky collection

Barn Hill pond

I took advantage of the 'lighter shade of grey' skies and temporary cessation of rain this morning for a brisk walk around the perimeter of Fryent Country Park.

The park is waterlogged at present with a number of temporary streams and ponds. In contrast with the Spring the ponds are full which bodes well for a better year for amphibians in 2013.

Barn Hill Conservation Group LINK who do so much to conserve and enhance the park have picked up  320 large black bags of litter as well as bigger items since January this year.  It never ceases to amaze me what lengths people go to in order to dump rubbish.

This morning in the field below the pedestrian bridge to Shakespeare Drive a huge suitcase had been dumped into the hedgerow.  This would have required parking a car by Michael Sobell Primary School, trundling the case up the tarmacked  slope to the bridge, down the steep grassy slope on the other side and then bumping it across the meadow. The case had been opened and the contents scattered across the grass. This included dozens of pairs of trainers, a Gok Wan fashion book, a guide to embroidery, an exercise book of poetry  and items of clothing.

The clothing could have been bagged and left out with the recycling, the shoes at one of the street side collection banks (the nearest is on the corner of Valley Drive/Kingsbury Road) and the books donated to a charity shop or one of the community libraries. I took advantage of the sunshine on New Year's Day to clear the dump.

The recent figures on the big rise in private rental accommodation does perhaps point to one of the reasons for the increase in fly-tipping. With tenancies changing frequently new tenants throw out stuff left by the old tenants and these are frequently left in front gardens or by the road side. This accounts for the number of mattresses scattered throughout the borough.

One idea I would like the council to consider is issuing leaflets to Letting Agents to go to  new tenants about the recycling services and particularly bulky collections. It would be helpful if this could be translated into Eastern European languages and any others felt appropriate.

Here is a reminder about what can be picked up through the bulky collection service:

Item	Such as	Items must be
Furniture-plastic, wooden or metal	Beds, mattresses and bedframes, sofas, tables (larger tables may count as 2 or more items due to their size), wardrobes, armchairs and chairs.	Small enough to be carried and loaded on to a vehicle by no more than two workers
Flooring	Linoleum and floor tiles	Bagged or bundled. Wooden flooring or ceramic tiles are not accepted.
Metal	Metal filing cabinets less than 40kg and fire guards.
Carpets		Manageable by two people, otherwise it must be cut into smaller sections, rolled and tied. Each section counts as a separate item. Underlay is also classed as a separate item.
Large electrical goods	Washing machines, cookers, microwaves, fridges, freezers, dishwashers, dryers and vacuum cleaners.
Small electrical item	TVs, monitors, Hi-Fi systems and radios
Glass or mirrors	Glass top table, mirrored parts of doors or cabinets and fish tanks.	Wrapped in a safe and secure manne

Slippery statement from Brent on leaf clearance

Last autumn Brent Fightback launched a campaign to reverse street cleaning cuts.  Amongst the concerns was the ending of the seasonal autumn leaf clearance. Instead, responsibility for cleaning leaves this was to be combined with normal street cleaning of litter with street sweepers now cleaning streets less regularly.

A section of the petition to the council stated:

The ending of the seasonal leaf service will result in hazardous conditions for pedestrians as leaves rot and will open the council to compensation claims for injuries. (September 2011)

The impact depends a lot on conditions - dry weather results in crisp and crunchy leaves but wet conditions and frost result in slimy, slippery leaves that rot on the street. Last year conditions favoured the council but this year there has been wet weather which has produced complaints from residents and criticism from Cllr Daniel Brown at the council meeting earlier this week. In response Cllr Jim Moher seemed to imply that residents should clean up their own leaves.

Brent Council issued this statement:

We are operating a reduced leaf clearance programme in 2012. In previous years we deployed extra, seasonal resource to clear leaves. That resource was removed this year.

The onus is now firmly on street sweepers to clear leaves as they go about their normal duties.

Dealing with this extra workload is obviously more difficult, especially as litter clearance remains our firm priority.

We must reasonably expect that leaves will take longer to remove this year and full clearance will only be done over a number of weeks.

We are coming to end of the period of 'leaf fall' so things should start to improve.

For a reminder of last year's campaign watch this video: (apologies for the horrible pic of me on screen - can't get rid of it!)

Council report confirms Brent streets are dirtier but landfill reduced

 A council report LINK confirms that despite improvements in recycling rates and the amount of waste going to landfill, that Brent streets are dirtier than a year ago.

In October last year the council made the following changes in street cleansing:

• Reduced frequency of sweeping from 2 to 1 weekly in zone 5
• Reduced frequency of sweeping from 3 times per day to twice in zone 2
• Reduced frequency of sweeping in industrial areas from 7 to 2 weekly
• Removal of weekend afternoon shift
• Reduced weekday morning mechanical sweeping
• Reduced weekend morning cleansing.

The report admits:

The cleansing reductions led to deterioration in some areas.

Compared to 2010/11:

• • The number of streets showing a less than acceptable level of litter increased by 5 percentage points.
• • The number of streets showing a less than acceptable level of detritus increased by 6 percentage points 

Although Brent Council has focused on leafleting as a potential cause of litter during the Olympics (the statutory notices for the licensing scheme are currently posted around the borough) it is clear that there is a residual problem as a consequence of the cuts and what seems to me an increase in fly-tipping and street corner depositing of surplus residential 'grey bin' waste.  At the same time the council has cut the Streetwatchers Scheme through which local residents informed Streetcare of fly-tipping and uncollected waste.

The report concludes:

The consequence of less frequent cleansing in some areas is that streets are less tidy. Officers have embarked on a programme of engagement with councillors and community groups to understand local concerns and to develop solutions.

Would one solution be the reintroduction of more frequent street cleaning and the reinstatement of the Streetwatchers scheme? It is important that the council gets this right before the waste services contract goes out to tender next year.

The news is better on recycling although it would be useful to know the post-process figures as well as those given on pick-up rates from the blue bins. How much of the material in blue bins is ultimately recycled and how much after sorting still goes into landfill as the result of contamination or the inclusion of non-recyclables in the blue bins?

The council puts forward plans to increase the amount of waste recycled or composted from the present 41% to 52%:

High – High Output (+8 percentage points)

1. Improve recycling of collected bulky waste.

2. Maximise output from food waste collections by providing caddy liners/replacement caddies.

3. Bid for funding to introduce food waste collections at flats

4. Replace/remove excess landfill bins.

5. Introduce alternate weekly collections at appropriate flats.

6. Extend recycling provision at flats above shops.

7. Review and improve resident engagement programme.

8. Advertise availability of additional blue-topped bins.

9. Comprehensive communications plan for 2012/13, with more frequent reissue of collection calendar and service information.

Medium – High Input, Less Output (+3 percentage points)

10. Review and improve bring bank network.

11. Identify options for recycling street cleansing waste.

12. Remove trade waste from street cleansing waste.

13. Install in-cab devices to report non-collection issues.

14. Re-use shops / third sector collections

Low – Low Output (+0.5 percentage points)

15. Recycle waste collected at events.

16. Enhanced waste reduction initiatives – real nappies, junk mail, home

composting.

17. Investigate a borough-wide recycling incentive scheme.

18. Collect food waste from schools.

19. Take advantage of pan-London textile framework.

20. Dedicated Olympic recycling programme for the games period in August.

21. Provide collection points for small electronic equipment.

22. Improve collection arrangements and range of materials at Re-use and Recycling centre.

Brent to charge for licenced leaflet distribution in designated streets

Brent Council is seeking approval for new powers to restrict the distribution of leaflets, flyers, free newspapers and other materials on Brent's streets ahead of the Olympics.

They see this as reducing litter and nuisance and state that  it does not include materials promoting charities or for religious or political purposes.  I can see that there may be problems of definition here.

There are three parts to the plans:

1. Designating particular areas or streets where it will apply
2. A licensing process with a list of charges
3. An enforcement system.

1. The proposed designated areas are:

Kilburn/Cricklewood – Kilburn High Road, Shoot-Up Hill, Cricklewood Broadway, Willesden Lane

Willesden/Harlesden – High Road (Willesden), Walm Lane, Craven Park Road, High Street (Harlesden), Dudden Hill Lane, Station Road (Harlesden).

Wembley – Bridge Road, Wembley Hill Road, Wembley Park Drive, Park Lane, Empire Way, South Way, Rutherford Way, Engineers Way, Olympic Way, Fulton Road, Brook Avenue, Great Central Way, First

Way, Fourth Way, Fifth Way, High Road, Harrow Road, St John’s Road, Lancelot Road, Ealing Road, Ecclestone Place, London Road, Dagmar Avenue, Linden Avenue, Mostyn Avenue

Kingsbury/Kenton/Edgware – Kenton Road, Kingsbury Road, Edgware Road

2. The licences will be subject to:

 

1. An application fee of £175 to cover administrative and part enforcement cost;
2. A £75 re-submission fee will be applied to cover administrative cost.
3. A discount of £25 will be applied to applicants that apply and pay online.
4. The discount is applicable to both applications and resubmissions
5. A fee for each distributor employed for each day of £75 except where the distribution takes place after 1800 hours or before 0800 hours where the fee will be £100 per distributor per day, or for Sundays and bank holidays where the fee will be £165 per distributor per day. 

The licence may be limited by:

 

1. Reference to the material to be distributed;
2. Reference to a particular period, or particular times or dates;
3. .Reference to any part of the designated area/road; or particular distribution

3. Enforcement

It will be a criminal offence to distribute materials in designated areas without a licence and material can be seized. The definition of distribution includes on vehicles and in telephone boxes. Fines will not exceed £2,500.  However it is unclear how, and by whom, this new law would be enforced and the alcohol ban enforcement problem is not a good precedent. 

The proposal will be discussed at the Council Executive on Monday.