TfL consults on 83 bus route changes - route would stop at Alperton rather than go through to Ealing Hospital

Transport for London is consulting on changes in the 83 bus route which currently runs from Golders Green to Ealing Hospital via Wembley and Alperton. Along with the 182 and 297 it is a link between Wembley Park Station (Jubilee and Metropolitan line stations and Wembley Central Station (Bakerloo, London Overground and Southern Rail).

TfL Announcement

The London bus network is kept under regular review. We have developed proposals to change route 83 to improve reliability and provide more capacity as passenger demand grows in the area.
Route 83 is a 24-hour service that runs daily between Golders Green and Ealing Hospital serving Hendon, Wembley, Alperton, Hanger Lane and Ealing. Buses run approximately every 8 minutes during the day Mondays to Saturdays, every 10 minutes during the day on Sundays and every 12 minutes on all evenings. The overnight service runs every 30 minutes on all nights of the week.

What are we proposing? 

Route 83
We propose to shorten route 83 so that it would run between Golders Green and Alperton station only, and not continue on to Ealing Hospital as it does now. The frequency of this service would remain unchanged.  It would no longer be a 24-hour service; however new route N83 would continue to provide the night service covering all stops served by the current 83.

New route 483
We propose to introduce a new bus route, numbered 483, between Harrow town centre and Ealing Hospital. The proposed new route would start at Harrow bus station, and then run via College Road, Station Road, Kenton Road, Watford Road and East Lane. Buses would go along Wembley Hill Road and then follow the line of the existing route 83 from Empire Way and Wembley Stadium station to Ealing Hospital.  Buses would return over the same roads.

Buses would run every 8 minutes during the day Monday to Saturday, every 10 minutes during the day on Sundays and every 12 minutes all evenings.

The proposed new route would introduce a bus service to a 400 metre section of Wembley Hill Road between Empire Way and Wembley Park Drive for the first time. We are working with the London Borough of Brent to determine whether bus stops could be introduced here.

Our proposals would provide many new direct links between places in North West London not currently possible and give additional capacity between Wembley, Northwick Park and Harrow supplementing route 182. For some though, who currently travel on route 83 between places north of Wembley and south of Alperton, a change of bus may be required to complete their journey. This would affect approximately 1,680 passengers a day, about five per cent of passengers currently using route 83 on weekdays.

Route N83
Route 83 is currently a 24-hour service.  Therefore to ensure all current stops retain a night service we are proposing to introduce a new service, N83, running between Golders Green and Ealing Hospital via the current 83 route. The frequency of this service would remain at a bus every 30 minutes on all nights.  There would be no separate night service on route 483 but route N18 will continue to link Harrow and Wembley at night via Watford Road and Harrow Road.

Drop-in sessions
You can discuss these proposals with staff from Transport for London at the following times and locations:

Thursday 21 January 2016 from 4pm to 7pm at:
Harrow Bus Station
81 College Road
Harrow
HA1 1BA

Monday 25 January 2016 from 3pm to 7pm at:
Brent Civic Centre
Engineers Way
Wembley
HA9 0FJ

Have your say
We would like to know what you think about our proposals for route 83 and the introduction of new route 483. Your comments and suggestions will help inform our final decision making.
Please give us your views by completing the online survey below by Monday 22 February 2016.
Alternatively, you can:

• Email us at consultations@tfl.gov.uk,
• or write to us at FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

Junior doctors accuse Hunt of gambling with lives: 'Jeremy's Punt' stunt

A faux betting shop storefront has been erected outside a London hospital and the Palace of Westminster by the junior doctors campaign group, ahead of the first planned strike on Tuesday January 12, to represent how Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s plans to introduce radical reforms to doctors’ contracts could gamble with the public’s health.

The betting shop, dubbed “Jeremy’s Punt” was launched as the Government's continued failure to address doctors' concerns that no proper safeguards have been put in place to prevent hospitals from forcing them to work dangerously long hours.

Junior doctors are worried that the new contract will lead to increasingly unsafe working patterns without adequate rest and recovery, as well as changes to the definition of ‘office hours’ weekday and weekend working.

The fake betting shop was offering ‘Money Back’ if Hunt re-negotiates, ‘Evens on being treated by an overworked doctor’ and ‘3/1 on reforms causing a preventable medical error’ as a way to get the message across.

The monitoring system that protects the number of hours junior doctors can work has been in place for over 15 years, but now, under the proposed reforms, faces a drastic alteration that could put the public’s lives in danger, doctors say.

Following a freedom of information request, doctors have received confirmation from the Department Of Health that there has been no specific assessment into modeling patient safety under the new contract, showing that Hunt’s actions are a gamble.

Doctors’ fears carry merit as the most recent study into fatigue and medical errors, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in September 2009*, revealed that fatigue could see an increase of medical error rise by 15%. 

Dr Nadia Masood, an anaesthetic trainee in London said:

We work hard to keep our patients safe and want to continue doing so.  You wouldn’t drive for 13 hours without proper breaks, yet the government want to remove vital safeguards in their version of the new contract. Tired doctors make mistakes, this contract doesn’t protect patients or staff adequately.

We chose this profession because of an innate passion for the care of people, but these reforms are showing a lack of that for both the public and us. We cannot gamble with people’s lives, plain and simple.

Initially the government was content to remove the safeguards entirely, but under pressure from the BMA (British Medical Association), created the role of ‘guardian’ to protect junior doctors from working unsafe hours. However, the Government is insisting that hospital trusts make this appointment, without input from the BMA, leading to a conflict of interest where junior doctors believe the guardian’s true agenda will be helping the overstretched hospital trusts to cut costs, not ending unsafe practice.

The proposed contract will also mean that doctors working shifts as late as 1.59am, which are not classified as night shifts, will not receive the necessary protections (breaks and rest periods) before being back on duty.

Dr Marie-Estella McVeigh, a junior doctor in London said:

For all of us, the strikes, planned to start on Tuesday, are the last resort to make Jeremy Hunt listen to the issues that we face on the front line of patient care. This is not about getting more money; the Government and BMA have agreed right from the start that the total cost of changes remains neutral, there’s no increase in the pay bill.

As doctors we are deeply concerned about safety. We feel the Government are not listening to our concerns and are playing games by ignoring 50,000 junior doctor whistle-blowers.

The current dispute centres on the Government’s new contract offer, which focuses on changes in working hours, patterns and conditions as well as restructuring and distributing pay within a neutral pay package.

Paris Climate talks: success or failure? Discussion next week

A climate change campaigner will talk about the Paris Climate Change Conference at Brent Friends of the Earth's (Brent FoE) January meeting. This will be at Watling Gardens Community Meeting Room in Kilburn on Tuesday January 12th at 7.30pm. DIRECTIONS

Aaron Kiely, Climate Change Campaigner from Friends of the Earth, who was in Paris for the negotiations, will speak about the talks and their outcome and discuss how we can work for a safe climate.

Pam Laurance, a Co-ordinator of Brent Friends of the Earth says, “Many opinions have been expressed about the outcome of the talks; some optimistic and some pessimistic. Clearly we need to continue to press the UK government to reduce our contribution to climate change. This is a chance to hear in more detail about the agreements made and to think about what we should do next.”

Everyone is welcome to attend this free event, and stay for the rest of the group meeting. Light refreshments will be available.

The talk will start at at 7.30pm, and will be followed by Brent FoE's monthly meeting. The meeting will be at Watling Gardens Community Meeting Room, 97/135 Watling Gardens, Shoot Up Hill, NW2 3UB (5 mins. from Kilburn tube/buses on Shoot up Hill). For more information see http://www.brentfoe.com or email info@brentfoe.com.

Brent Labour urges school governing bodies not to convert to academy status

Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council and Cllr Ruth Moher, lead member for Children and Families have written to Brent primary school governing bodies, on behalf of the Labour Group,  putting the case against academisation. This is at a time when Sudbury Primary School Academy is experiencing difficulties and the  Oakington Manor Primary/Furness Primary Federation governing body is moving to convert to an academy.  At the same time in policy adopted last year the Council is looking to academies and free schools to provide additional secondary school places.

Dear Governors,

We are writing to you on behalf of Brent Labour's leadership, following the announcement on the future of schooling by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Without any regard to the wishes of local parents and communities,m the government has announced that it intends to see an end to schools operating within local authorities and become academies.

We urge you to ensure your school remains part of the local council.

While it is critical that schools teach the academic basics to our children, we know that they do so much more.

They are places where young people learn the meaning of being a friend, a team-mate and a citizen; where they find out more about their fellow pupils and themselves than they ever realised there was to know; where they discover the interests and develop the skills that will make them happy, well-rounded an, fulfilled human beings. In short, they prepare our young people for life in the broadest sense,

Such a broad preparation for life requires not a business, but a community. A community of teachers, parents and pupils can go beyond their contractual commitments, to provide the activities that help broaden our children's horizons: After school activities, appropriate extra support for some pupils and teaching beyond the test.

But a community cannot be run for profit. Hours of volunteering can not be given, if they will be exploited for the bottom lines. Currently academies in the borough are not for profit, and collaborate well within the Brent Schools Partnership. They work hard to give their pupils the roundest possible education.

But once out of local authority control there is no guarantee that a school will not eventually become for profit. Michael Gove, the former Education Secretary who promoted much of the academy agenda, has gone on record as saying that he is 'open' to businesses running schools. This Conservative majority government is at liberty to make that happen. A current academy headteacher can be against a school being run for profit, but there is no guarantee what the stance of their successor will be.

The only way to ensure that our schools remain communities, and do not becomes businesses, is for them to remain under the control of Brent Council. On behalf of Brent Labour's leadership, I urge you to do all you can to ensure that they do.

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Cllr Ruth Moher

Note: I have not edited this letter (MF)

Unions call for removal of uncertainty at Sudbury Primary School and look forward to positive working relationship

Officers of the Brent Association of Teachers and Lecturers and National Union of Teachers met with Ian Phillips the new Chair of Governors of Sudbury Primary Academy School yesterday. They said that they looked forward to a positive  working relationship with him and the new governing body.

Staff at the school have voted for strike action if the suspended headteacher returns. The unions anticipate that the imminent Ofsted report will criticise the management of the school but give it a 'Good' grade in other areas.

The unions said:

The governing body will have up to two months to resolve the situation before any action would have to be taken. The Headteacher been suspended since  early November. We are confident that staff and unions working together with the Governing body will mean that the school will thrive and continue to give the children the excellent teaching that Ofsted recognises in their report. In the interests of the staff and pupils, the matter needs to be resolved as speedily as possible to remove this uncertainty about the future. 

Staff and the unions wish to make it clear to parents, the public and Ofsted that strike action will only happen if absolutely necessary to protect staff and children. Further, neither staff nor their unions have any complaint or concerns about any other members of the senior leadership team (SLT). They have done and are continuing to do an excellent job.  SLT are now able to work well with all the staff and there is a new purpose and direction, ably led by Kamini Mistry the acting headteacher.

Frustration over worsening situation in King Edward VII Park

The above scene was what confronted parents yesterday morning when they attempted to take their children to Park Lane Primary School, Wembley, via the St Johns Road entrance to King Edward VII Park, instead they had to take a detour to avoid the pond.

Since Wembley Matters first raised the issue of the works going on in the park LINK  a notice has been put with a telephone contact for information but a resident contacted me yesterday to say that a promised call back had not happened.

The drainage works on the playing field that started last August were supposed to take just 5 weeks at a cost of £350,000. Residents point out that the cost of fencing hire alone must have significantly increased that expenditure and of course a large part of the park is now inaccessible and the drainage is worse than ever.

Inevitably they ask how a cash-strapped council can let this situation continue.

Scrutiny Committee delves into green bins

Some of the issues raised on Rik Smith's guest blog on the green bin charge LINK came up at the Brent Scrutiny Committee last night.

Cllr Duffy expressed doubts about the report's claim that the charge had not resulted in more garden waste going into grey bins but Chris Whyte, head of Environment Management, said that this had been confirmed by 'visual inspections', officers would take it up if it became apparent there was a problem.

Duffy said that he would expect weekly, rather than fortnightly, collections of the blue bin dry recycling, should have resulted in less going into the residual grey bins, but this had not been the case. Whyte said this could be accounted for by an increase in the borough's population, an explanation that Duffy did not accept.  Former environment lead member Cllr Keith Perrin asked if the council were collecting enough dry recycling now to merit weekly collections.

Dumped Christmas trees in Chalkhill Friday January 8th 2016

Officers were urged to do more to increase take up of compost bins by residents. Fly-tipping was a major concern with the report claiming that after an initial surge there had been no substantial increase in the fly-tipping of garden waste but Cllr Southwood conceded that the council needed to be more pro-active regarding the collection of Christmas trees. Chris Whyte said that the council had an obligation to pick up any tree left in the street and did not want residents without green bins to put them into blue bins as this would encourage them to use them for organic waste throughout the year.

There was close questioning on contamination  of dry recycling by organic waste and of the additional cost of fly-tipping. Although fly-tipping came under a single contract charge by Veolia, so there was no additional charge for any increase in fly-tipping, it did cost in terms of an increase in landfill tax.

There was extensive discussion on making the 'Cleaner Brent' smart phone app LINK more widely known and it was agreed that it could be demonstrated at Brent Connects meetings.

On missing statistics for Q3 in the report Chris Whyte explained that the figures would be available but there was a lag in gathering the data from various data points.

The Committee agreed a recommendation from Cllr Nerva that the council consider distributing organic waste collection bags at libraries and other centres (he suggested five bags for £10) so that residents without green bins or compost bins could recycle at kerbside.

The issue of dry recycling and organic waste collections from flats and multi-occupied houses continues to be an issue and there were calls for enforcement of an obligation via the licensing scheme for landlords to ensure efficient recycling.

Cllr Duffy asked why Veolia had retained £40,000 of the £120,000 additional revenue from the better than expected take-up of the green bin charge. He had fought for the council to retain the whole amount. Chris Whye said that this had been reinvested by Veolia in an additional vehicle to cope with the 3,000  extra green bin customers. Duffy was not satisfied with this, suggesting that Veolia's initial costing must have included some leeway for extra capacity.

Intervening Cllr Perrin said he was concerned that there didn't seem to have be a mechanisom for the allocation of the £120,000 including the retention of £40,000 be Veolia. Was it a one off payment or an annual charge?

The chair, Cllr Kelcher, allowed me to ask a question from the public gallery. I asked about the claim in the report (6.1) that 35% of the reduction in green waste collected would be because it 'would no longer be produced'. I suggested that there was a wider environmental consideration here including the paving over of front gardens to reduce vegetation or the burningof garden waste affecting already poor air quality in the borough.  Chris Whyte had no information on this but said it was a consideration.

Pavey says time has come to raise Brent Council Tax - potentially by 4%

Responding to the Scrutiny Budget Panel's report this evening, Cllr Michael Pavey, deputy leader and lead for finance, said because of the substantial amount that could be raised and its potential impact on services, that he now supported a rise in Council Tax.

The 1% freeze grant has been abolished which the Council would have lost previously if it raised the Council Tax. The 2% ring-fenced adult social care rise along with 2% to maintain services would raise 4 times the freeze granr.
 
He said his personal view was that despite Council Tax being unfair and out-dated he was confident that Brent Council could ask residents to pay more because they could honestly tell them it would save services.

Any proposal to raise Council Tax would have to be agreed by Cabinet before being put to Full Council in February.

Cllr Pavey said he was looking forward to hearing the views of the public at the Brent Connects meetings which are coming up in the next few weeks.

While Pavey was speaking at the Committee Cllr Butt rushed from the public gallery to sit beside him. It was unclear whether this was to express solidarity, give guidance or some other reason.

During the discussion Michael Pavey apologised for unintentionally not including the Scrutiny Committee in the published budget timeline and agreed that there should be  earlier involvement. He rejected claims that the budget lacked coherence and vision.

He said that there had been a failure of entrepenuership by the council which included marketing of the Civic Centre. the aim was to find ways that services could produce income or become self-financing.  The Cabinet report shoudl have had more detail of this 'civic enterprise agenda'. Peter Gadson, Operational Director, said that if services currently subject to fees were made more efficient, a larger proportion of the fee would be reatined by the council. It was not necessarily a matter of putting up fees becase a lower fee could increase take up and therefore income.

Cllr Duffy (not a member of the Committee) spoke about the need foo more thorough work to get maximun value for money from procurement and to use the reduced number of staff more efficiently.

Clr Nerva said that every illegally parked car was worth £80 to the council that could be used for community benefit. Improved enforcemment could be self-financing.

Cllr Pavey undertook to look at the question of council reserves, how much was ring-fenced and what was accessible.

Have a free diabetes health check in Chalkhill on Friday and find out about activites near you

The number of people living with diabetes topped 4 million last year. There are more people developing the illness and having it for a longer time with teenagers and even children being diagnosed. About 24,000 people die prematurely from the disease every year. It is estimated that there are 549,000 people with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes.

Should Brent Council raise Council Tax to protect key services?

That will be one of the key questions asked at Brent Scrutiny Committee tonight when they discuss the report of the Budget Scrutiny Panel. LINK

Last year a move to increase Council Tax by 2% was opposed by the Cabinet but the mood appears to have shifted since then. A 2% rise ring-fenced for Adult Social Care, as set out in the Chacellor's Autumn Statement seems inevitable. Another 2% to preserve vital services for the most vulnerable will be more controversial and debate is likely to centre around whether residents now having to pay a portion of Council tax, despite being poor, can be protected by revisions to the Council Tax Support scheme.

Much will depend on the view of Cllr Michael Pavey, deputy leader, who leads on the budget. Officers have repeatedly warned about the erosion of the Council Tax base although that has been offset to some extent by new housing coming on stream with an increased number of residents paying the tax and better collection rates.

The meeting is at 7pm tonight at the Brent Civic Centre and the public may attend.

The budgetr proposals will be discussed at Brent Connects meetings over the next few weeks:

 Brent Fightback will be holding an open meeting to discuss the options open to councils in the face of the devastating cuts they are being asked to make. It takes place at Brent Trades Hall on Wednesday January 13th at 7.30pm.

Brent consultation on Fire Brigade cuts on January 11th

A public consultation on how the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority can make £6.4m of budget savings for 2016/17 is being held between Monday, 7 December 2015 and Monday, 1 February 2016.

Members of London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority approved two proposals for consultation, both of which would ensure no fire station closures and no firefighters would be made compulsorily redundant.

What are the differences between the two options?

The main difference between the options is around the 13 fire engines that have been out of service for two years as part of Brigade's strike contingency arrangements.

If you require the document in a different format or if you would prefer a paper version of the consultation questionnaire, please email consultation@london-fire.gov.uk or call 0800 689 3489.

Public meetings

We will be holding four public meetings that are free for anyone to attend. All meetings will begin at 7pm and end no later than 9pm. This is the Brent meeting.

• 11 January 2016 - Conference Hall, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ (map)

How to have your say

The consultation is a chance for Londoners to have their say on our budget proposals and how the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority can save £6.4m.  

• Open consultation questionnaire

Please return completed paper copies of the questionnaire to:
FREEPOST RRSK-TLGS-YLAK
Budget Consultation
169 Union Street
London
SE1 0LL

Navin Shah, Labour AM has urged residents to go to the meeting. He said:

 “With our fire services facing uncertain times, and response times already rising significantly in Brent, it’s important that local people have their say over the future of London’s fire service.

“The Mayor’s cuts mean that there are very tough decisions ahead. If you take fire engines out of service then of course response times could rise and lives could be put at risk. Nobody wants to see that happen. With frontline services at stake, it hugely important that local people are given the opportunity to make their views known.”

Is Brent Green Bin Tax a success?

Brent Scrutiny Committee will tonight discuss a report on the charge for Green Bin collections. In this guest blog Rik Smith considers the claims made in the report.
 

Since March 2015, Brent council introduced a £40 charge for households to have “green waste” collected regularly (ish) - before this point, most households had a green wheely bin which was collected weekly.

The Brent Scrutiny Committee agreed to review the impact of the changes to the “Garden Waste Service” (or known as the Green Bin tax by most residents) after 9 months of operation.

The green bin tax was anticipated to achieve the following outcomes:

A.    Deliver £378,000 financial savings

B.    Improve and extend the council’s recycling offer

C.    Reduce the amount of waste generated overall

D.    Better comply with the national waste hierarchy

It would be reasonable to expect cover these issues. The report can be found HERE

Overall, it’s not exactly the next PD James novel, but it does contain a significant amount of back slapping and a modest amount of retrospective learning - from the operational difficulty in dealing with ~20,000 requests to “opt in” and pay £40 for the waste collections.

In summary:

●      A) was over achieved due to greater than anticipated sign up

●      B) Brent will suggest that weekly blue bin (dry recycling) addresses this

●      C) not clear – as I will explain below.

●      D) dependent upon the outcome of C

Detail 

Deliver £378,000 financial savings

Brent estimated that 17,000  (15%) of households would sign up to the green bin tax, in reality, 20,000  (18%) signed up. This lead to the council receiving £480,000, a £3 profit for each household that signed up over and above the original target This is a modest surplus per additional household, but may also explain why the coucil are already suggesting that the green bin tax won’t increase next year - or suggest that their poor estimations led to them overcharging for the service. Another interpretation is of course that Brent is getting shafted by Veolia.

I say poor estimation because the sign up was 3,000 more than the 17,000 estimated, that’s a 17%  forecast error. It’s in the councils interest to understate the forecast for the following reasons. Low forecast leads to:

●      “higher than expected uptake” headlines, helping spin the introduction of the green bin tax in  a positive light

●      Bonus extra cash if forecast is exceeded because the cost per household is set to recover costs over a smaller number

●      Low probability of making a loss on the new scheme

Reduce the amount of waste generated overall

This is where spin on the green bin tax starts to wear a bit thin. It’s also worth remembering that at the same time as the green bin tax was introduced, we moved to weekly blue bin collections.

First a rather odd assertion, that moving from collecting the blue top bins (dry recycling) bins from every 2 weeks, to weekly would have zero impact - thoroughly implausible!

"It was also anticipated that the changes would have no significant impact on the council’s recycling rate. This was because it was predicted that the amount of dry recycling collected by the weekly service would remain the same”

I know before weekly blue bin collections i was regularly faced with an overflowing blue bin, so some residual cans or boxes went into the grey bin. If my experience is partially replicated across some of the 110,000 households then from April 2015 the council should expect grey bin (residual waste) volumes to FALL and blue bin (dry recycling) volumes to INCREASE - keep this in mind for later.

“whilst the amount of collected organic waste would reduce, it would be mainly displaced to home composting or to the council’s Recycling Centre at Abbey Road”

The rate of “organic waste” collected from households and recycling centres has fallen by 3,248 tonnes between April and October. This is equivalent to 72 kgs of organic waste for each of the 45,000 green bins that the council removed from residents. i’d estimate that to be 2, maybe 3 wheely bins FULL of grass or hedge trimmings. Composting this amount of green waste would require more than just a garden Dalek composting thing, and will soon mount up.

So what’s happening to this stuff if it’s not being collected? Yes some is probably being composted at home, but I’d argue the rest is going to landfill. However, the scrutiny report appears to ignore / gloss over this waste stream. The amount that goes to landfill is costing the council £82.60 for every tonne - this cost is glossed over and lost (and probably ignored) in the opaque mystery benefits stated earlier.

Furthermore, the report states

“... the service changes appear to have had a positive impact on the borough’s recycling rate, and have had no noticeable impact on residual waste (grey bin) tonnages”

The report appears to come to this conclusion with some very simplistic, and rather misleading graph below.

The blue bars are 2014, red bars 2015. The green Bin Tax was introduced on 31st March 2015 - so the very end of Q1.

The graph shows that Q2 2015 grey bin tonnages were more than in 2014 and that they increased by a greater amount between Q1 and Q2 in 2015 than they did in 2014. so I’d argue that there was an impact.

The GLARING omission is of course, Q3 and  Q4 2015 data. as a reminder Q2 is April to June and Q3 is July to September - arguably the time when gardeners would expect to cut the grass, prune hedges, weeding, and general maintenance in the garden during the summer. The exclusion of Q3 data in a report written to cover the 9 months from March is incompetent, but at worse it’s deliberately misleading. By the time the report was published, most of Q4 should have passed, allowing the council to make a reasonable estimate of Q4 volumes.

One data point is nowhere near enough data to draw any conclusions or make any decisions; instead more data should be presented.

Has Brent reduced the amount of waste generated overall? Probably, but only because some people will compost some of the waste themselves, even if all other green waste goes into the grey bin.

Better comply with the national waste hierarchy and does it now comply better with the national waste hierarchy?

Source LINK

Effecitvely, the idea is to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (then dump the rest) - in the process produce high quality (pure) recyclable material, and the smallest volume of landfill.

This is supported by the “landfill Tax” which is currently £82.60 and payable by councils and commercial producers of landfill waste.

The datum (singular data point) shows an increase in the amount of grey bin waste, and hides the impact in Q3 and Q4. it also hides the likely beneficial impact of the weekly blue bin collections and the likely replacement / uplift volume of green waste being diverted to landfill.

The diversion to landfill would be contrary to the national waste hierarchy, the fact these two events coincide make it very difficult to unpick the size of the impact of each on landfill waste, we can only look at the net impact.

in conclusion, there are a number of unanswered questions

1.     How much residual waste was produced in Q3 and Q4 2015 - and why wasn’t this included in this report?

2.     How much green waste did they estimate would be diverted to landfill by bin tax avoiding residents, and have they budgeted for this?

3.     How much green waste was collected in the 45,000 green bins removed from residents?

4.     Did the council intentionally under-estimate the green bin tax uptake, leading to overcharging residents?

5.     How does Brent’s performance compare to other councils in London and England that have introduced a similar Green Bin Tax?

Rally to support Heathrow 13 at Willesden Magistrates Court on January 18th

From Facebook events page hosted by No Dash for Gas

In the summer of 2015 activists staged a peaceful direct action at Heathrow Airport – less than a fortnight after the Airports Commission recommended a third runway at Heathrow. The action itself involved occupying the northern runway and erecting a tripod and fencing which the activists locked on to. The action stopped some flights, saved greenhouse gas emissions and most importantly put climate change, air and noise pollution back on the agenda.

The science tells us that deep cuts are required from existing levels of emissions to tackle climate change, but successive governments have failed to act. Direct action, therefore, is our only hope of securing a decent future for children everywhere. A new runway, and the hundreds of thousands of extra flights it would allow, would make the necessary cuts far more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. In addition, Heathrow hugely contributes to illegal levels of air and noise pollution, which have massive impacts on human health for people living near the airport.

For defending the planet and human health, the activists have been charged with aggravated trespass and being in a restricted area of the airport without permission. All 13 pleaded not guilty to all charges. If you want to show them your solidarity, please join for the first day of their trial on the morning of Monday 18th January 2015, at Willesden Magistrates’ Court.

To prevent catastrophic climate change and reverse the deadly levels of air pollution in our towns and cities we need to stop airport expansion. This is why we stand in solidarity with the 13 brave activists who occupied the runway at Heathrow, to say, No Ifs! No Buts! No More Runways!

Join us for a rally starting at 9am sharp outside Willesden Magistrates' Court

Please bring banners and come with well rested vocal cords!

The full address for the court is:

Willesden Magistrates’ Court
448 High Road
London
NW10 2DZ

(Nearest tubes: Neasden or Dollis Hill on the Jubilee  line

Greens launch Fair Fares revolution for London's tranport system

“We’ll level the playing field to make everyone’s journey to work  cost the same, removing the hidden penalties if you live in outer London, work part time, need to take two buses, or change between tube, bus and train on your way.”

On the day transport fares go up throughout the country, the Green Party today announces radical plans to flatten fares across the capital and make transport fairer for all Londoners.

The party’s three key measures are: the phased introduction of a flat fare structure, making zones a thing of the past; a daily cap for part-time workers that matches the rates paid by monthly season ticket holders; and a one-hour ‘ONE Ticket’ across all modes which will close the gaps for people who currently pay twice when changing from bus or train to the Tube as well as ensuring that people changing buses pay only once for their journey.

Sian Berry, Green Mayoral candidate said: 

It’s not fair that people in outer London pay so much more to get to work in the centre of the city - especially as it’s also easier for people in the centre of town to use even cheaper or free alternatives such as hire bikes, cycling or walking.

Sian, along with fellow City Hall candidates Caroline Russell and Shahrar Ali and veteran transport planner Dave Wetzel, the architect of Ken Livingstone’s Fares Fair policy at the GLC, will join local Green parties handing out #FairFares postcards at 50 rail and Tube stations all over London.

She said:

The focus of my fares policy is on closing the gaps where the current system is unfair. Flattening the zone structure is the most revolutionary idea for London’s fares since the introduction of the Travelcard in 1983, and I’m delighted that Dave Wetzel, who was in charge of transport in London then, is helping me launch it today.

A Green Mayor and Assembly Members will help level the playing field and make transport fairer and more equal for Londoners. It’s not fair that you have to pay more to change onto the tube from the national rail services that people in south London rely upon, or that if you need to take two buses to work you have to pay twice for your journey.

And it’s not fair that people who work part time pay more per day to get to work than people with full-time jobs – because the daily cap is much higher than what you will pay if you or your employer can afford an annual season ticket. People who work part time are often women, and more than half are paid less than the London Living Wage.

Tory Education policy: Preparing today's pupils for the past

Twitter and Facebook have been buzzing following the announcement of times table tests for 11 years to be introduced and integrated into the Key Stage 2 high stakes testing. So many interesting comments deserved a Storify slide show. Thanks to all the contributors - especially Michael Rosen and TeacherROAR

How can Brent Standards be upheld without properly apppinted 'Independent Persons?

Philip Grant has decided that he cannot continue his personal campaigning against what he sees as wrongs at Brent Council, because of the strain it has put on him and his family. In a final guest blog on the subject, he gives some thoughts on a report which will be going before Brent’s Standards Committee at its meeting on Thursday 7 January 2016.

High Standards of Conduct at Brent Council?

A press release issued by the Council on 11 December 2015 stated: ‘Brent Council is committed to the highest ethical standards in the work of its elected councillors and co-opted members, embodying the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.’ But how true is this in practice?

In her Annual Report for 2015 to Brent’s Standards Committee LINK the Monitoring Officer says that she received SIXTEEN complaints against councillors for breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct during the year (nine from members of the public, two from Council employees and five from other councillors). One of the main purposes of the Standards Committee is to ‘hear allegations of misconduct against members’, but NONE of these complaints were actually referred to the committee in 2015, so that it could consider whether they should be investigated.

I was one of the local residents who made a complaint during the year against a leading councillor, which alleged multiple breaches (covering all seven of the conduct principles) of the Code which members are supposed to follow. My complaint must be among the EIGHT which the report claims ‘did not disclose a potential breach of the code’, as the reason why it was not brought to the attention of the Standards Committee. The Monitoring Officer has the authority not to consider a complaint, but only if it is not against a named member and/or is not ‘in relation to an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct’.

As anyone who has read my open letter of 27 November 2015 to Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs LINK , will know, the allegations in my complaint to the Monitoring Officer against Cllr. Muhammed Butt disclosed a number of potential breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct, which should have been referred to Standards Committee. How can Brent’s people have confidence that high standards of conduct are being maintained by the Council, when genuine complaints of misconduct are covered up in this way?

In explaining how complaints about members are dealt with, the Annual Report says (at 3.7): 

‘There are clear parameters for this and these are set out in the procedure LINK that was adopted by this Committee in January 2013’.   

If the complaint is one which should be considered, the procedure states (at 4.5):

‘The Monitoring Officer will consult with the Independent Person to determine the course of action to be taken.   This decision will normally be taken within 14 days of receipt of the complaint.’

It was only after I challenged the Monitoring Officer’s decision, made three months after my complaint had been received, not to refer my complaint to Standards Committee that a possible review by ‘the Independent Person under the Localism Act 2011’ was suggested.

Who is that Independent Person? According to the Monitoring Officer’s Annual Report (at 3.3):

‘The Council is in the process of recruiting Independent Persons to fulfil the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 …. The recruitment process will start in January 2016.’ *

The Council did appoint two Independent Persons under the Act’s transitional provisions, John Mann and Sola Afuape (who had both been independent members of Standards Committee under its old format). Those appointments ended in May 2014, and these two persons were not eligible to act as Independent Persons thereafter. Minutes of Council meetings show that there have been “vacancies” for Independent Persons for Standards purposes since then, and that NO ONE has been properly appointed to fill that role. It would appear that, for more than eighteen months, Brent Council has not had “an Independent Person under the Localism Act 2011”. In that case, how can Brent’s Standards procedures have been properly applied?

Standards Committee meets at the Civic Centre on Thursday 7 January to consider the Annual Report. The meeting starts at 7pm, and is open to the public. I hope that the committee members will ask the Monitoring Officer to explain why she is not allowing them to carry out the important work of hearing ‘allegations of misconduct against members’ which they were elected to do. Unless there is openness and accountability over standards, Brent, like Rotherham in an Inspector’s report last February, will show itself to be a council which ‘goes to some length to cover up information and to silence whistle-blowers.’

* NOTE:

Wembley Matters readers may like to consider whether they could help to improve standards of conduct at Brent Council by applying to be an Independent Person. The role should be advertised later this month, but from a previous “candidate pack” (issued by the then Monitoring Officer, Fiona Ledden, in April 2014) the main requirements are:

·      to be committed to the need for high standards in public life and be aware of the views of the local community in relation to standards;

·      to have the ability to be objective, independent and impartial;

·      to have a demonstrable interest in local issues and desire to serve the local community and uphold democracy; and,

·      to be of good standing in the community.

There is one main bar to appointment as an Independent Person:

‘A person cannot be appointed as an Independent Person if they have been a member of any political party within the last five years or are actively engaged in party political activity.’ 

Sadiq Khan exposes Mo Butt's short-sightedness

Muhammed Butt retweeted Sadiq Khan, Labour candidate for Mayor on New Year's Eve,  not realising perhaps that in his Independent article Khan advocated exactly the sort of playground that Cllr Butt had bull-dozed in Stonebridge.

Khan's position chimes with Save Stonebridge campaign's argument that the playground brought the community together, aided social cohesion and reduced crime.