Showing posts with label rubbish. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rubbish. Show all posts

Monday, 27 November 2023

Just another story of South Kilburn neglect – a rubbish saga

 

How the rubbish accumulates


 

Guest post by South Kilburn resident Pete Firmin 

 

Coventry Close is a cul-de-sac off Kilburn High Road, leading to the South Kilburn estate. It is not a residential street, but one containing Royal Mail's NW6 delivery office and a car wash (which replaced an earlier coach depot). It is a popular street for people to park who are shopping on Kilburn High Road, and busy with foot traffic of estate residents and pupils and parents going to and from St Mary's primary school via the footpaths which lead on from the road. Not a very pleasant street at the best of times, it only has a pavement on one side and the border for the car wash is an ugly corrugated iron fence. Hardly salubrious.

 

Near the top of the road is the rear entrance to what used to be the Kilburn job centre, now closed and unused for many years. The rear entrance was to the underground car park of the job centre. That entrance is now shuttered. Ever since the job centre closed there has been a problem of rubbish accumulating at the back.

 

After previous complaints in previous years, the rubbish got cleared, although local residents were never told by who (which might have helped in the current situation).

 

To be clear, local residents (including from the nearby Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury TRA) have always recognised that this is not public land and it is not the responsibility of the street cleaners to clear this. However, we have asked Brent Council to do something about it, not least on health grounds. They must be able to take action to get the owners of the building to clear the rubbish, not just on a one-off basis, but also regularly. Or arrange for Brent to clear it and charge the owners. 

 

The current version of the problem stems from - at least - September. Despite regular pleas, accompanied by photos, to various Council officers the pile of rubbish has just grown (see photos from 21 September and 26th November., it was not cleared once in that period).

 

It’s not that Council Officers, and a Councillor, haven't acknowledged the problem and recognised that it is unacceptable, but nothing ever happens.

 

Report it to the Council's fly tipping app, you get the response that, since it is on private land, it is not the responsibility of the council.

 

Other Council officers have referred the issue to the `fly tip team' (same response as we had) and other Council departments.

 

One reply from an officer (24/10) said "This is not BHM land- I have absolutely no jurisdiction over it. [which we had never claimed] I will come back to you today establishing who we can escalate this to directly."

 

One of the more substantial communications we were copied into (between two Council officers) (25/10) said

 

I inspected the location after the last email and contacted the owners of the building and the previous occupants (which I more recently discovered are no longer in control of the building- sadly the Business Rates database is not updated).

I have made subsequent visits to the location and whilst there appeared to be a litter accumulation in the small recess area in front of the understorey carpark, it looked as though it was a new accumulation to the one originally identified.

 

I have contacted Rossmore Properties Ltd again by email (office@aminpatelshah.co.uk ) and now telephone (+44 20 7278 7651) . Their representative has advised that they had originally instructed a local maintenance firm to clear the location and this should have been done. I have requested routine maintenance; however it is unlikely that the routine maintenance will be more frequent than our own street cleansing or refuse collection schedules and would be unreasonable for us to expect this. I am expecting a confirmation email with regards to remedial works here by the end of the day.

 

Generally speaking the issue is more related to litter accumulation and evidence of ASB activities ( drinking and laughing gas evidence) as opposed to “fly tipping” of larger items.

 

The last several inspections of Coventry Close would also indicate a lack of general street cleansing for this busy thoroughfare into Kilburn High Road, however the road surface and parked cars may have an impact with this regard.

 

3 Cambridge Avenue remains empty and lends itself to ASB type issues in its current state. This is another location of concern to add to the list of hotspots for patrols in the Kilburn locality. Whilst there has been a planning application submitted to convert the building into 19 flats, it appears that this application may have already expired ( according to the agency whom submitted the application) therefore its empty state may continue and one wonders what the financial incentive would be to leave a building like this unoccupied.

 

The carpark area off of Coventry Close/Bristol Walk is managed by Catalyst Housing / Peabody Trust.

 

Any issues relating to this area should be directed towards them. 

 

Anyone reporting issues here should be advised to send in photos which always helps to identify and action issues accordingly.

 

One solution may be to introduce Catalyst /Peabody representatives to Rossmore Properties Ltd to see if this small tiny recess area can be maintained at the same time as the routine maintenance for the estate; for an appropriate fee.

 

As soon as I get an update from Rossmore Ltd, I will let you know.

 

Sound useful? But nothing happened. And quite why Catalyst/Peabody (which now have some nearby properties) would take any more responsibility than Brent , which not only has nearby properties, but should also take some responsibility for obvious health issues, is a mystery.

 

As you might expect by now, nothing happened. When we pointed this out, we got this response:(30/10)

 

To clarify, the email I previously sent was to explain who is responsible for the small recess area in front of the understorey carpark for 3 Cambridge Avenue ( access area located on Coventry Close) and to differentiate the adjoining private land managed by Catalyst/Peabody ( which also suffers from waste and highways issues from time to time).

 

The litter accumulations periodically accumulate either as a result of wind blowing it from the public highway sections of the street or as a result of itinerants whom congregate around here to take “rest” on the small wall away from prying eyes.

 

I have previously served notice on the owners to clear the land in question and put measures in place to prevent future waste accumulations. As a result the metal shutter was installed some time ago. However as a result of the angle of the slope and the layout of the building lines, the shutter could not be installed up to the boundary edge of the public highway and hence you have a tiny recess that continues to suffer with this problem from time to time.

 

I am aware that the owners of the property have a locally sourced private maintenance contractor whom periodically attend the site to clear any accumulations ( as was advised in the original Notice served on them).

 

I have spoken with a representative of the company that owns the property to advise them that there is an existing accumulation that requires attention last week.

 

I have further contacted them today to insist upon action.

 

Unfortunately the landlords are not based locally and are reliant on their private contractor.

Brent Council can pursue enforcement and issue penalties when non-compliance of a Notice is observed, however in the initial instance would prefer to work with private individuals and organisations to effect a solution. Previous correspondence with the owners have generally been met with compliance whenever this issue has been brought to my attention.

 

With regards to rubbish bins on Coventry Close I am aware there are a number of recycling bins that were positioned along Coventry Close to serve the blocks of flats and are also accessible to anyone passing. However it is my understanding that the Veolia Street Cleansing contract no longer accommodates litter bins on residential streets unless there are some exceptional circumstances. Furthermore the only section of Coventry Close covered by the street cleansing contract is between the top block of Alpha House to Kilburn High Road. The remaining section from the top block of Alpha House to Canterbury Road is the remit of BHM’s maintenance regime

 

If you continue to experience negative impacts resulting from waste accumulations on private land please report these to waste.enforcement@brent.gov.uk or via Fix My Street platform. If you can include photos at the time of reporting will also be useful to help us identify locations and deal with the issues accordingly.

 

We then had to point out that there are, contrary to that message, no rubbish bins on Coventry Close (which is why we have been asking for them for years.....) And Coventry Close is not a residential street.

 

From what locals observe, while obviously some of the rubbish comes from street drinkers, the majority comes from people walking through and from those who park on Coventry Close. But it doesn't really matter who causes the problem, it needs dealing with both in the short and long terms and while Brent talks of doing so, the rubbish continues to pile up.

 

We wonder whether this would happen in other parts of the borough or is yet another sign of how Brent neglects its basic responsibilities in South Kilburn. Building showcase new housing looks nice, less so when surrounded by uncleared rubbish. And before anyone accuses us of exaggeration, Council officers have repeatedly accepted that the area is neglected and promised to sort it. And little happens.

 

Pete Firmin

 

Saturday, 28 January 2017

Duffy rubbishes Council litter contract but does he know about BHP?



Cllr John Duffy, elected to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee by the Labour Group on the evening of the tube strike, has lost no time in setting out his stall in an email to fellow councillors.
Dear All,

As you know I have been elected to the scrutiny committee, albeit the leadership of the Labour party wished to rule my nomination out of time so the leader could play musical chairs with who he wanted to scrutinise the cabinet decisions or council contracts.

Now that I have been endorsed by the full council. I wish to state my view on scrutiny. I believe that just as a puppy, is not just for Christmas, Scrutiny is not just for committees. Members of the committee are duty bound to raise issues of waste and financial mis-management by the Cabinet.

Therefore I listen to Monday night's full council meeting, which seemed to allow cabinet members to make statement without explanation. They were also allowed to avoid questions by saying the problems were caused by a lack of resources. Whereas I believe many problems are caused by government cuts. However the cabinet has to take responsibility for bad polices making which undermining our ability to be efficient and use our limited resource’s to ensure service improvements. Those who care about these issues should read on and those who do not should stop reading now.

ENVIRONMENT (CAUSE)

On Monday Cllr Southwood, said we have successfully taken 50 residents to court for non-payment of June 2016 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) for mostly smoking related litter. However as far as I understand the true number is 41. The problem of smokers litter around tube stations and bus stops is an easy way to make money from FPNs as a smoker about to go into a tube station or get on a bus have no alternative but to put out their fags before boarding their train or bus, particularly as we have no cigarette butt disposal bins place close by.

The government in the middle of devastating cuts to service,did however allowed L/As to keep the 100’s thousands of pounds income from those FPNS and was this was one of the only ways councils could raise money for environmental protection.

Unfortunately and bewilderingly Cllr Southwood and the cabinet decided not to use the money for environmental protection. Instead the cabinet decided to outsource the service to Kingdom Securities (KS)  therefore ensuring the majority of the income was not used for Environmental protection but was paid in profits to the private company. KS introduced the service using cheaper less qualified staff and ensured the council agree certain conditions.

(i) They received £46 for every ticket issued, whether the fine was paid OR NOT.
(ii) Residents were not allowed a discount if they paid early unlike all other fine given out by the council.
(iii) The council meets all the costs of appeals and legal support and reviews.
(iii) The service did not undergo a VFM review

These conditions were introduced purely to increase KS's profit and is the cause of the council having no increased resources to deal with other environmental enforcement .The figs show-using June (the period Cllr Southwood mentioned) as an example. The council have received £49k and paid £35K to KS (approx. £25k pure profit a month for KS), whereas the council makes £9k a month after write –off, costs of admin and legal costs, work stations, free use of our car pool etc.

ENVIRONMENT (EFFECT)

I believe that bad policy making by the lead member and cabinet has cost us £25K+ per month of income and  has had the effect of ensuring that we have no strategy or resources for other environmental enforcement. Whereas dog–ends concerns were less than 1% of complaints that are 99% of our enforcement (FPN) strategy.

For example, when Cllr Crane on Monday night rightly raise the issue of dumping behind shops in a private area by the Hyde in Colindale on behalf of his residents.Which is an ongoing issue which has caused concern from residents about the unpleasant and nasty conditions they are forced to live with.They also complaint the place was overrun with rats.

Cllr Southwood reply (I think) went something like this saying we have not the resources or trained officers to deal fly tipping on private land and was therefore was difficult to deal with. Cllr Southwood reply ignores the reality of the situation. There is legislation EPA (S59 private land) where the owner of the land can be fined £5000 if they do not clear the land and £500 a day if they fail to comply.There are also ways of working with the Environment Agency  to ensure any companies using the alley way for fly-tipping are dealt with.However you need qualified, trained officers with a full understanding of legislation, to carry-out surveillance, interviews and ultimately prosecutions. However the cabinet policy of introducing cheap (LLW) unqualified officers has left us deprived of well trained officers to deal with issues as well as ensuring we have no resources.

I believe Scrutiny committee should be asked to look at the way we organise our enforcement section, to ensure VFM, flexibility ,priorities and increased investment.They should also look at the way the FPN are issued and why 154 (20%) are written off, remember we already paid KS over £7k   for the issuing of those ticket and writing them off is a direct lost  and if that is constant over a year it would mean a loss of £84k per year.

I intend to talk to the Chair of Scrutiny to see if there are ways the committee can  review and recommend service improvements.
Cllr Duffy may also be interested in the contract awarded to Kingdom Security on Brent Housing Partnership's estates.  This is Kingdom's own account - they don't seem aware that BHP is soon to be taken back in-house by the Council.:
Kingdom is pleased to have won a new contract with Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) to help tackle anti-social behaviour in north west London on their behalf. The new contract will start on 9th January 2017.

Kingdom’s Environmental Protection Division will be providing a reception & concierge service in some of BHP’s properties, and will also be carrying out uniformed patrols, both of which are intended to provide reassurance to residents that anti-social behaviour is being tackled and that the lives and properties of residents are being protected.

Anti-social behaviour is something that can affect the lives of a great many people, making their day to day existence a real misery and leaving them feeling helpless, desperate and with a reduced quality of life. It often includes but is not limited to the following:
  • Vandalism
  • Graffiti
  • Fly-posting
  • Nuisance neighbours (noisy or abusive neighbours)
  • Intimidating groups taking over public spaces
  • Acting in a rowdy or inconsiderate manner
  • Littering
  • Being drunk in public or street drinking
  • Aggressive dogs
  • Prostitution
  • Begging
  • Abandoning vehicles
  • Using vehicles inappropriately
  • Trespassing
We have previously written in detail about tackling anti-social behaviour – our in depth article on the topic, including more information about what it is, who to contact to tackle it, and what action agencies and individuals can take can be found here.

Kingdom will be acting on behalf of Brent Housing Partnership (BHP), an arms-length management organisation (ALMO) and community housing company owned by Brent Council. In 2013 BHP signed a 10 year management agreement with Brent Council. The council owns the homes and takes responsibility for housing policy and strategy, whereas BHP is responsible for day-to-day management of housing services to over 9,500 council tenants and 3,000 leaseholders.

Friday, 30 October 2015

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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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’.
  6. The Council should work with other local authorities and the National Fly-tipping Prevention Group to lobby the Government for more effective enforcement powers.
  7. 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.
  8. 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”.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Leafleting campaigns led by the council and voluntary groups should be in multiple languages, appropriate to the socio-dynamics of the local area.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

Friday, 5 June 2015

Wembly Central petition Brent Council for more action on rubbish and flytipping

The Green Party and Brent Fightback long ago forecast dirty streets LINK  as a result of cuts to street cleaning and other services and the decision to make the contractor Veolia responsible for monitoring its own performance.  More recently I have also had comments regarding the maintenance of parks which is also part of Veolia's empire.  As a result of the Veolia taking over Brent's Public Realm the Environment Department of the Council has been severely cut LINK.

Wembley Central residents have now launched a public online petition to Brent Council and Muhammed Butt calling for action LINK

The petition reads:
 
--> We the undersigned petition Brent Council to resolve the issue of unacceptable amounts of rubbish being dumped on our streets.  The dumped rubbish is anti-social, it causes potential health hazards by attracting rats and other vermin to our streets and it affects the well-being of responsible residents, whilst making the area unwelcoming to visitors.

We call on Brent Council to implement the following 6 point plan to clean up Wembley Central:

1.      We call on Brent Council to put in place measures which prevent rubbish being dumped on our streets and to fully publicise what these measures are.

2.      We call on Brent Council to strongly enforce existing laws and regulations against those who litter, those who dump rubbish/fly-tip and those who do not manage their waste properly on private land.

3.      We call on Brent Council to raise awareness of this problem, stressing that it will no longer be tolerated, through an education program including posters and leafleting, whilst engaging with local landlords, businesses, schools, colleges and places of worship.

4.      We call on Brent Council to respond to genuine complaints from residents in a timely and respectful manner.

5.      We call on Brent Council to pro-actively combat the effects of recent multi-occupancy housing on the existing local community.  Each landlord licence would generate £400 per property.  This income must be invested to regulate and enforce regulations.

6.      We call on Brent Council to issue financial penalties against Veolia where the service fails to meet the required standard.

For too long the Council have ignored our complaints about rubbish in our area and they need to take immediate and long term action to solve this problem.

On the petition sight Cllr Sam Stopp (Labour, Brent Central) writes:
The cleanliness of our streets is the measure of our community spirit.
To rebuild community spirit, we must first remove the blight of dumping from our streets.

Wednesday, 26 December 2012

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 metalBeds, 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
FlooringLinoleum and floor tilesBagged or bundled. Wooden flooring or ceramic tiles are not accepted.
MetalMetal filing cabinets less than 40kg and fire guards.
CarpetsManageable 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 goodsWashing machines, cookers, microwaves, fridges, freezers, dishwashers, dryers and vacuum cleaners.
Small electrical item
TVs, monitors, Hi-Fi systems and radios
Glass or mirrorsGlass top table, mirrored parts of doors or cabinets and fish tanks.Wrapped in a safe and secure manne