Brent Council wields its cudgels over Harlesden incinerator

A Harley Road back garden - sitting out amongst waste smells soon?

 Brent Council has told Ealing Council that if they go ahead with  the plans for an energy from waste facility ('Harlesden incinerator') on its border at Willesden Junction  it will 'object strongly to the proposals until satisfactory information has been provided to enable an accurate assessment of the implications of the proposal on the Borough of Brent and its residents'.

The plans are due to go to Ealing Planning Committee this month but have recently been modified to increase the volume of waste processed at the site from 148,000 tonnes per annum to 195,000. Brent's comments relate to the original proposal and so they have requested that 'an additional re-consultation exercise be undertaken to notify all local residents of the changes and to allow for additional time to review and comment on the implications of the increase'.

One of Brent's key objections is that the proposals don't comply with the West London Waste Plan which set out potential sites a year ago LINK . The proposed site was not listed then and Brent argue that the Willesden Junction site should  be refused planning permission as it has not been demonstrated that the other approved sites are unsuitable.

Brent argue that residential properties in Harley Road, Harlesden are down wind from the site under prevailing weather conditions and thus the  plans would have an impact on residents in terms of air quality, odours, operational noise and site traffic.

A full copy of Brent Council's response can be found on the excellent Harleden Town blog HERE

Residents meet on Thursday on Willesden Green Library Plans

Labour Brent's public realm privatisation too high risk for Tory Barnet

Barnet Today LINK is reporting that Barnet Council has decided that the proposed four borough waste, recycling, street cleaning and parks maintenance super contract was 'too high risk' and will approve having the services in-house.

So Labour Brent Council has turned out to be more of a privatiser than right-wing Conservative Barnet Council!  Barnet is presently in turmoil after Cllr Brian Coleman and former London Assembly member was suspended from the national Conservative Party. Coleman is in trouble over alleged racist slurs and an assault.

The Barnet Today report states:

 The council had been exploring the possibility of procuring its waste management services in partnership with Brent Council. But while the neighbouring borough agreed to pursue that avenue earlier this month, Barnet’s council officers ruled that it was too high-risk.

The decision will be seen as a departure from the council’s controversial One Barnet model, which will see a raft services, including planning and customer services contracted to private companies via two outsourcing projects worth around £1billion.

Council leader Richard Cornelius said providing the services in-house represented the best option for driving down costs and improving services.

“The One Barnet programme has always been pragmatic and this was the pragmatic way to go,” he said. “The rubbish collection in this borough is well done. It can be improved but we don’t want to muck it up.”

Brent Council press office today refused to answer my request about the future of the contract on the grounds that I was not an accredited journalist.

Lucas condemns Coalition's pre-emptive Trident strike

The Green Party has condemned the government’s announcement of further spending on nuclear submarines as pre-empting a decision on Trident – and preventing a full public debate on the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond announced on Monday that the government will spend another £350m of taxpayers’ money on ‘design work’ for a ‘future generation of nuclear submarines.Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, criticised Mr Hammond’s announcement, saying:

“The decision about whether to renew the UK’s Trident weapons system isn’t due until 2016. But pre-emptive spending on the ‘nuclear deterrent’ is gathering pace, with at least £2bn already being spent on making enriched uranium components, high explosives and warheads.

“While schools, hospitals, police forces and other services face savage cuts, BAE Systems and Babcock are being handed taxpayers’ money for a vast defence project that hasn’t even been signed off yet – and one which many believe is outdated, and incapable of addressing modern security challenges.”

The Coalition agreement, signed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in 2010, delayed a decision on whether to replace Trident until 2016, after a government study into alternatives has been completed.
But the Ministry of Defence announcement this week has been interpreted by many as a sign that the Coalition is committed to a Trident replacement.

Caroline Lucas is leading calls for the Trident replacement option to be dropped, highlighting serious economic and moral challenges.

She said: ‘There is still a huge public debate to be had about replacing Trident. The economic and moral questions are clear.

“With the total cost of replacement likely to come in at an eye-watering £100 billion over the next 30 years, can the UK afford such an extravagance? Is a Cold War deterrent really the right solution for our defence needs in the 21st century?

“And what message would replacing Trident send out to the rest of the world about our country’s commitment to nuclear disarmament?”