Now rubbish lands on the Town Hall's doorstep

We are all becoming familiar with the mattresses that are left all over the borough, often it seems after short-term tenants move from a property (or are evicted).

One arrived on the Town Hall's doorstep at the weekend and was still there earlier this week.

North London Waste Plan in trouble

From http://www.pinkhamwayalliance.org/

One of the largest MBT waste processing sites in Europe is coming to North London and it's much closer than you think. The North London Waste Authority (NLWA) wants to build an industrial-scale waste processing plant in our community to manage waste from up to seven London boroughs, and other parties. They plan to do this on land that is very close to houses and schools and is currently a mature wildlife habitat that acts as a green buffer from the North Circular. It will also increase traffic congestion in an already congested area and further pollute the already poor air quality, which will affect the health of nearby residents.

The Pinkam Way Alliance have posted the following update on the North London Waste Plan:

The Examination in Public (EiP) of the North London Waste Plan (NLWP) was to have taken place for six days over this week and next, with sessions examining the soundness of different aspects of the plan.  At an EiP, a planning authority must demonstrate to a Planning Inspector that their proposed plan is sound.  The first morning was for NLWP, the waste planning authority for the seven North London boroughs of Barnet, Haringey, Enfield, Waltham Forest, Camden, Islington and Hackney, to demonstrate that their plan is legal.  For example, the Localism Act imposes a legal duty on Planning Authorities to cooperate with one another regarding the sustainable development or use of land that has a significant impact on at least two planning areas.

South East Waste Planning Authority Advisory Group (SEWPAG) and East of England Waste Technical Advisory Body (EEWTAB), representing the waste planning authorities of the East and South-East of England had submitted a joint written statement prior to the hearing.  They complained that the NLWP had failed to cooperate with them.  Because some districts generate more waste than they can cope with, and others have more capacity to manage waste than they need, there is a system of “apportionment” where waste authorities are allocated the amount of waste that they must manage.  Some are therefore helping others.  Most of the landfill of London’s waste that happens outside London is accepted under this apportionment system, and some extra to it. 

Although the NLWP envisages gradually reducing North London’s reliance on such landfill to zero by 2031, the East and South-East waste authorities would prefer this to be sooner, are doubtful of the accuracy of the NLWP’s landfill reduction figures, and would, anyway, prefer smaller apportionments: but there is little they can do about that.  However, they claimed that nearly all the authorities who accept waste from North London had received no communication, let alone cooperation, relating to formulation of the NLWP.  Oxfordshire County Council had written to the NLWP and received no reply.   Some types of landfill site were due to close, and others to open, so discussion about alternative provision was necessary but lacking.  “This additional work has not been carried out” alleged these authorities, who take nearly a million tonnes of waste  per year from North London.

 The PWA planning team studied this joint SEWPAG and EEWTAB submission as part of our preparation for the hearing, but could not assess, in advance, how much impact it might have.

 

 As it was, the NLWP official could do little to rebut these allegations, save for mention of having met at regional advisory board meetings, one of which he missed while taking annual leave.  There was no answer in terms of specific discussions to agree particular matters of concern.  Instead the NLWP’s main defence came from the barrister they hired to argue that the legal duty to cooperate applies only to strategic matters, and the matters complained of were not strategic.  Hence, she reasoned, NLWP was legally compliant.

The North London Waste Authority’s barrister had evidently worried about this problem prior to the hearing.  He distributed, to all of us at the table, a three-page written legal submission which argued that the complaint did not relate to the development and use of land in the NLWP, and that cooperation and engagement had taken place within the processes of the making of the London Plan, and of the Regional Technical Advisory Boards.

Readers may feel that commonsense should have guided the NLWP to make sure, through face to face discussion with their Councillor and officer waste management partners outside London, that the latter were supportive of the NLWP, or at least reluctantly acquiescent to the point that “cooperation” was a reality.  And that colleagues would cover for one another’s annual leave. 

Even after this very full discussion, the Planning Inspector was left in such serious doubt whether the NLWP was legal, that he decided to adjourn the EiP, to give himself two weeks to consider the matter in depth, and give his detailed written opinion one way or the other.  Thereafter, the NLWP and any other interested party will have a further week in which to respond, before the Inspector finalises his decision on this point.  If he rules that cooperation has taken place, the hearing will resume, but not before September 2012.  If he rules that there has not been cooperation, that is what he called a “showstopper”, and the NLWP will have failed its EiP for being unlawful.  A new Plan will then have to be produced, consulted on and examined, before North London has a valid Waste Plan.

Further details will be made available on the NLWP examination website.

The PWA team were content with this outcome, because it is consistent with our considered view that the NLWP is deficient in multiple respects, and not only in its selection of the Pinkham Way site.  But those of us who have worked as local government professionals were saddened by the state of affairs revealed at the hearing.

 

Met racism review should include stop and search

Research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has shown that the Metropolitan Police Service are 11 times more likely to stop and search black people than white people. The research looked at the powers used under section 60 of the 1994 Public Order Act, which does not require suspicion of involvement in crime. 
 
The EHRC found that in 2010-11, the Metropolitan Police stopped 32.8 out of every 1,000 black people in its area. The figures also show section 60 may be ineffective in fighting crime. According to the report in England as a whole 2.3% of section 60 stop and searches resulted in an arrest in 2010-11.
 
Responding to the research Green Party Assembly Member Jenny Jones  said: 
 
This research shows black youth are being disproportionately targeted with stop and search. It’s no wonder some communities feel over policed and under protected when they are targeted in this way. The Met has to stop the amount of wasteful stop and searches it currently carries out. It’s alienating communities and has a poor arrest rate for the damage it does.
 
The Met need to act on the findings of this research to address the problems of disproportionality in section 60 stop and searches now, or face losing this power. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime should widen its review into racism within the Met to include the ongoing problem of disproportionality with stop and search.

Risky times ahead for Muhammed Butt

Brent Council records the level of  corporate strategic risk on a 1-6 scale for impact and likelihood. It's latest assessment  records the political and reputational risk of  the move to the Civic Centre at 6 ('very serious') for impact and 5 ('probably' a 61-80% likelihood).

The risk relates to the combined risks of multiple service changes including the move to the Civic Centre on April 1st 2013 and new ways of working for staff (these include hot-desking); self-service help for residents and the impact of  new legislation such bas the benefit caps and local council tax rebate changes. The major impact could be major IT and customer service failure.

The possibility that the Civic Centre completion timetable will over run or that the move from other buildings will result in a systems failure is rated at 6 for impact and 5 ('probably') for likelihood which would result in damage to the council's reputation, delays in expected savings and disruption where building leases have already been terminated.  One issue that is not mentioned in the report but has been by officers and councillors is the lack of car parking at the Civic Centre. With workers from the Town Hall, Chesterfield House, Mahatma Gandhi House, Brent House and the Centre for Staff Development, to name just some of the buildings to be vacated, all converging on the Civic Centre there is an expectation that nearby roads and some of the event day private parking places will be used by Brent workers, resulting in congestion and punctuality problems. Of course they may all arrive by bus and tube as we Greens would like them to - let's wait and see...

The Town Hall car park this morning

Even worse though is the assessment of the economic risk factors including budget reductions, recession, demographic change and local benefit changes which will bring increased demand for services. This risk is assessed at 6 for impact and 6 for likelihood ('almost certain') with increased demand for council accommodation, increased crime and antisocial behaviour along with the possibility that the council will not meet its statutory service demand or its objectives.

An insight into the role of regeneration in Brent Council's thinking is provided by the risk represented by lack of external investment in the borough which reduces income from business rates and increases unemployment and poverty. Scored 6/6 this is 'de-risked' by 'assisting with planning permissions etc on behalf of developers' and 'maintaining dialogue with investors/developers'. This is clearly an area in which a conflict may develop between the council-developer alliance and local residents.

The risk that the council will fail to comply with legislative obligations, including consultation and equality duties, when it makes policy changes is rated at 6 for impact and 4 ('Likely') for likelihood with the possibility of legal challenges and Judicial Review.

At an individual level 'very serious' risks are recorded for both child and adult safeguarding. Both could impact through 'abuse, injury or death of vulnerable persons. Reputational damage to council'  After taking into account extensive council actions the probability is only reduced to 4 ('likely' 41-60%% likelihood) for children. This must be a cause for great concern. Adult risk is reduced to 3 'possible'.

Recruitment and retention of staff, with  'fewer people having to work harder and do more', with resulting stress and absences is given a 6/4 rating but this is reduced to 5/3 with controls around human resources issues including flexible working.

Of course the purpose of  the risk register is to take action to reduce the risk but all in all it looks as if Muhammed Butt, his officers and of course we, the residents,  have a tough and possibly dangerous time ahead.The register provides stark evidence of the impact of the Coalition cuts in local government funding and the damage they are causing.

Peace rally in threatened Willesden Green public space

The Brent chapter of London Citizens rallied in the open space outside Willesden Green Library on Saturday as they launched a 100 Days of Peace. The 100 days refers to the 50 days of peace that were observed between warring groups before and after the ancient Olympic Games that allowed athletes to get to the games safely.

Following last year's riots and recent violent crimes London Citizens aim to create 'CitySafe Zones' where the community works together to provide safe havens. There were speakers from many local schools and organisations, including a Year 2 pupil and Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council expressed his support for the scheme. Former MP Dawn Butler was also in attendance.

Willesden Green is one such safe space so it was ironical that the rally  was being held somewhere that will disappear if the proposed redevelopment. of Willesden Green Library Centre goes ahead. Instead of being on the high road and open to view, the replacement open space will be behind the new building and over-shadowed by the new flats. It will be in shadow most of the day and shoppers will not be able to see it from the High Road. Many local people think that it will be far from safe.

An allocation has made been to register the open space as a Town Green or Town Square. It is not yet clear what impact, if any, the application will make on the redevelopment plans.

The rally from Wembley High Road

Muhammed Butt addresses the crowd

 

The crowd represented Brent's diversity

Can we afford to lose this public space?

How's this for a new Brent logo?

Martin Redstone suggests this as the new logo for Brent Council. He notes: "The logo  was designed for the Madhatters Theatre Club's 2003 production of The Government Inspector (by Gogol) Guess what the satire was aimed at!". See LINK

 Commenting on the new Brent logo LINK Martin said,  

It is appalling. Brent Council's coat of arms is a historic and proud insignia, but I assume Brent don't want to keep anything historic/heritage.

Also it won't print so well in Black and White and will therefore cost more to print and will look rubbish as a photocopy.

It is a meaningless symbol.

Finally, whatever happened to the motto 'Forward Together'. Presumably this is not the modern ethos of Brent.

What a waste of money.

Council bid to increase food waste collection

Brent Council is to bid for government funding to extend the collection of food waste to326 blocks of flats  (8,600 households) and to distribute biodegradable caddy liners to street level homes to sustain and increase recycling of food waste.

The bid is worth £312,638 over three years and is part of the government funding to encourage weekly waste collections. Brent officers in their report reject that as a proposition for residual waste and recycling claiming that the present scheme fortnightly scheme is a success and saves a projected £1m annually. Food waste is collected weekly alongside garden waste.

Officers warn that the funding is already over-subscribed so it is by no means certain that Brent's bid will be successful.

Although the extension to flats is welcome I would hope that in line with the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle slogan that the Council will also encourage the reduction of food waste through an educational process that could involve families and retailers. There are many ideas on Love Food Hate Waste LINK

I would also be interested to find out if food waste is collected for composting from all Brent's schools.