Welcome progress on Climate Change at TUC Congress

Welcome progress on climate change was made at this year's TUC Congress. The latest Greener Jobs Alliance Newsletter for October 2017 LINK contains the following reports.
 

Unions want power sector back!

This year’s TUC Congress in Brighton unanimously agreed new, far reaching policies demanding the democratic control of energy and a modern low carbon industrial strategy. An ambitious motion from the Bakers’ Union brings the trade union movement much closer to the vision set out in Labour’s election manifesto. It also brought a dozen delegates to the rostrum, urging the TUC to campaign for the UK’s rigged energy system to return to democratic control, and to work with unions on a cross-sector industrial strategy to tackle ‘the irrefutable evidence that dangerous climate change is driving unprecedented changes to our environment’ 

Addressing TUC Congress: Sarah Woolley, Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union

The TUC motion LINK proposed in a speech by Sarah Woolley from the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union (BFAWU – see picture), has five key demands for the TUC to:

•   Campaign to bring the UK’s rigged energy system under democratic control. 


•   Back a mass programme of homes insulation 


•   Demand rights for workplace environmental reps 


•   Demand that Just Transition in integral to industrial strategy 


•   Consult with unions on a cross-sector industrial strategy focused on our internationally agreed carbon emission reduction targets. 
Sarah Woolley argued that the breakdown of the planet’s climate is a core issue for her union, with its global impacts on food production and distribution. Agriculture and food manufacture, processing and transport accounted for a tenth of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, hurricanes were devastating the Caribbean, while floods in India had caused massive damage to its infrastructure. And the UK’s rigged energy market would not deliver secure, low carbon and affordable energy for all. ‘We need an industrial strategy to confront the realities of climate change. All sectors need their just transition strategies,’ Sarah argued. 
See the full text of the TUC motion on page 7 


Best ever green fringe at TUC?

At one of the best attended green fringe meetings at this year’s TUC, Suzanne Jeffrey, chair of the Campaign Against Climate Change, announced that her organisation was planning a national conference on Climate and Jobs - another world is possible on 10 March 2018 (note date in your diary!). She said the new TUC commitments provided an opportunity for progressive new policies for the labour movement. 

CACC speakers: Chris Baugh, Sarah Woolley, Suzanne Jeffrey, Diana Holland 
 

The Campaign Against Climate Change meeting was backed by the Greener Jobs Alliance. Here’s how union leaders spoke of the need to tackle climate change:

•   Sarah Woolley, BFAWU regional secretary: ‘We need to know much more about the impacts of climate change and explain it to our members. We need to be at the forefront, getting our members trained as environmental reps in the workplace.’ Tackling fuel poverty and bringing energy back into our ownership were two key priorities. 


•   Diana Holland, Unite’s Assistant General Secretary: ‘Jobs and a safe climate...We have to deal with both...we have to make those words Just Transition really mean something for union members.’ We cannot protect transport workers’ jobs without acknowledging the impacts of transport on the environment. For example, Unite is tackling diesel emissions as a workplace health and safety issue through its Diesel Emissions Exposure register LINK  ‘Because we work in so-called environmentally damaging industries, doesn’t mean we aren’t in the game,’ she said. The union is taking various steps to raise awareness among union members and engaging them in consultations with employers. 


•   Chris Baugh, Assistant General Secretary PCS: 
‘We have come a long way in the past year, by focussing on the core issues of just transition and energy democracy.’ In PCS, in Lancashire, PCS members are challenging claims that fracking will create a jobs bonanza, when there are abundant opportunities in other sectors. And at Heathrow, a PCS study on jobs in aviation LINK  has helped inform the debate on the real economic benefits of expanding aviation capacity. 


•   Graham Petersen said the online environmental education courses provided by the Greener Jobs Alliance, including a new unit on air quality, was filling a gap in mainstream trade union education programmes. 


•   Sean Sweeney from Trade Unions for Energy Democracy said that there’s a growing community of unions pushing for public ownership and control of energy as a means of controlling climate breakdown LINK 

Planning Committee raises issues on Colin Road, Dennis Jackson Centre and Queensbury redevelopment proposals

The Planning Committee heard three pre-application presentations at their meeting on October 9th and the Minutes of the meeting have been published.  All three have featured onWembley Matters. LINK

	Land at 370 High Road, London, NW10 2EA and 54-68 Dudden Hill Lane, London, NW10 1DG PDF 431 KB Minutes: The Committee received a briefing on a pre-application scheme for a mixed use development consisting of 224 residential units, a supermarket, nursery, gym, café, workshops and amenity space. Peter Mahoney and Nick Francis (R55) presented the scheme and answered members questions. Members then went into a session during which they examined the proposal and raised the following issues for further consideration prior to submission of a planning application. The main issues raised at the meeting were: Issue 1 – Locally Significant Industrial Site ·         Concern about loss of existing shopping parade and jobs. Issue 2 – Affordable Housing and Workspace ·         Advocate 25% family housing. ·         Ensure no ‘poor doors’ for affordable housing provision. ·         Questioned reduction from initial proposal in terms of level of affordable housing provision from 65% to 50%. ·         Queried tenure split not following policy. Issue 3 – A1 retail use in out of town location ·         Concerns about large servicing vehicles and impact on residential amenity. Issue 4 – Scale, massing, height and impact on daylight/sunlight ·         Concern raised about the amount of development on the site. ·         Potential for public space to attract ant-social behaviour. ·         Difficult to provide detailed comments without full information (i.e. daylight sunlight report) for analysis. Issue 5 – Public Realm ·         No further comments. Other Comments ·         Question whether adequate servicing and parking provided. ·         Assurance pre-application consultation carried out. ·         There should be an extra pedestrian crossing and traffic calming (particularly in view of proposed nursery). ·         Should be crossings at both ends of development. ·         Not clear on need for pedestrian route through development as other quicker alternative routes. ·         Question how parking for LIDL shop would be managed.
3.	Wembley Youth Centre and former Dennis Jackson Centre, London Road, Wembley, HA9 7EU PDF 4 MB Minutes: The Committee received a briefing on a pre-application scheme which proposed thedemolition of existing community centre and erection of three buildings ranging in height from 3- to 6-storeys containing 150 residential units (including private, temporary and NAIL tenure housing), including a replacement community centre. Stephen Martin and Charlotte Pollard (PRP Architects) presented the scheme and answered members questions. Members then went into a session during which they examined the proposal and raised the following issues for further consideration prior to submission of a planning application. The main issues raised at the meeting were: Issue 1 – Principle of development ·         Full detail of community centre would be required. ·         Queried rationale behind loss of open space. Issue 2 – Housing, tenure mix, including Affordable Housing ·         Council own development should be 100% affordable housing. Issue 3 – Design, height and massing of development within its local context. Queried rationale behind building heights. Issue 4 – Impact on amenity of neighbouring properties ·         Need clarification on daylight/sunlight. Issue 5 – Quality of residential accommodation ·         Concern over stacking of units. ·         Concern as to whether sufficient amenity space is being provided. ·         A compromise on quality for temporary accommodation should not be accepted (temporary can be for a fairly long period). E.g. Lack of windows to kitchens not considered acceptable. ·         Queried whether space would be provided in the NAIL accommodation for visitors to stay. ·         Provision should be made in NAIL accommodation to store mobility vehicles. Issue 6 – Transport ·         Need to consider ‘no right turn’ to London Rd from Wembley High Rd. ·         Over provision of cycle parking? ·         Concern over additional activity on London Road, particularly on event days. Other Comments ·         Detailed construction plan required to include routes for vehicles, hours operation etc to ensure impact on residents minimised.  ·         Queried level of community engagement.
(4.	110 Walm Lane, London, NW2 4RS PDF 410 KB  (Queensbury pub) Minutes: The Committee received a briefing on a pre-application for a scheme for the replacement of existing building (containing a public house and former members club) with a mixed use development comprising a public house and function room (A4) and 48 residential flats (C3).. Luke Raistrick, Nick Mokasis and John Losi (Martin Robeson Planning Practice) presented the scheme and answered members questions. Members then went into a session during which they examined the proposal and raised the following issues for further consideration prior to submission of a planning application. The main issues raised at the meeting were: Issue 1 – Principle ·         Need to ensure that the community space is not just finished to ‘shell and core’ standard. Issue 2 – Design, Heritage and Impact on Conservation Area ·         Concern regarding massing and density. ·         Concern regarding modern design. ·         Concern over loss of existing building- consider façade retention? ·         Queried how it can be demonstrated that the building will be of high quality. ·         Queried depth of frontage. ·         Restrictions should be placed on use of balconies to avoid clutter. Issue 3 – Scale, massing, height and impact on daylight/sunlight ·         Would require confirmation that complies with Council’s standards. Issue 4 – Public Realm ·         No further comments.  Issue 5 – Affordable Housing ·         Require up to date financial modelling.  Issue 6 – Standard of Accommodation ·         Noise mitigation needed in view of proximity to railway line. Other Comments ·         Queried response to consultation. ·         Comments have not suggested that the proposed building is exceptional. ·         Queried licencing for existing pub and if there is a special arrangement. ·         Noted the servicing bay – need to consider bus stop opposite.  ·         Blenheim Gardens Residents should be added to the consultation list

HGV and dust nightmare on Wembley High Road

In a comment on the Heron House development local resident Jaine Lunn also commented on the impact of redevelopment works on High Road Wembley on residents and provided photographic evidence:

The work at Brent House development is causing a massive amount of chaos. The traffic management plan is bloody useless. We have HGV's parked on both sides of the High Road, and in the bus lane, on the pavements, last week I had 3 parked in my street, on the pavement engines running idling for over 30 minutes at a time. The footprint of the site is so small, they have a huge crane, piling thing, and a minimum of 20 lorries a day picking up rubbish and delivering plant and cement. When Chesterfield House gets going God knows how the High Road is going to cope. As I stated before 8 sites within 500 metres of my house. The dust and pollution is so bad I cannot open the windows.

 

Fish and chips for the Prince of Wales?

The function room - it would have an external entrance as well as an internal one into the pub

As part of the refurbishment of the Prince of Wales pub at 97-101 Willesden Lane, an application has been made to convert the pub function room into a kitchen and fish and chip shop serving the public.

The application will be heard at the October 18th Planning Committee. Only 4 comments have been made on the proposal: three against and one in favour.

It rather reminds me of the old Jug and Bottles that used to be attached to pubs.

Add caption

Edward Ardizzone
 

The "Green Man" and its off licence, at the corner of Slough Lane and Old Kenton Lane, Kingsbury, around 1930.
(from the Wembley History Society Collection at Brent Archives)

Brent Council agrees 7.5% 'affordable' housing for Heron House development

Views of proposed development - current building outlined in red

Brent Planning Officers have recommended approval of the Heron House development at 109-115 Wembley Hill Road despite it offering only 7.5% 'affordable housing' and opposition from local residents.The development will have 40 housing units: 23 one bedroom, 7 2 bedrooms and 10 3 bedrooms of which only three are designated as affordable.

On the affordable housing issue officers' report (my emphasis highlighted):
 

London Plan Policy 3.12 requires boroughs to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, having regard to a number of factors including development viability. Core Strategy Policy CP2 sets a strategic target that 50% of new homes delivered in the borough should be affordable. Policy DMP15 reinforces this target and specifies that 70% of new affordable housing across the Borough should be social/affordable rented housing and 30% intermediate housing. However, this tenure mix can be varied on individual developments where this is justified by the viability of the scheme and other site-specific characteristics. Objections have been received regarding the level and tenure mix of Affordable housing. 


A total of three affordable homes are proposed, all 3bed Intermediate Shared Ownership units. This represents 7.5% of the development if calculated by unit or 13.3% by habitable room. The use of habitable rooms as a measure of affordable housing provision is typically considered to be appropriate as it gives weight to the provision of family sized affordable homes for which there is a significant identified need within the borough. 


The applicant submitted a Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) to support the application. This has been assessed by consultants on behalf of the Council. The FVA demonstrates that the scheme would generate a land value £1.48mbelow the benchmark land value for the site. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken by the Council’s consultants to assess the impact on viability of a scheme which also included Affordable Rented homes. This showed that including a 50/50 split between Affordable Rented and Intermediate housing units (as opposed to the current proposal including only intermediate housing) would generate an even greater deficit of £1.78m below benchmark land value. As such, the inclusion of Affordable Rented units is not considered to be viable in this instance, and consequently the proposal for only Intermediate Shared Ownership is acceptable within the terms of Policy DMP15. Given the existing use value of the site and high construction costs associated with the basement construction and ground level changes, the proposed scheme cannot support more than the proposed level of Affordable housing. 


It appears that the CP2 and DMP15 targets are now meaningless,

15 residents attended the consultation about the scheme, 20 have objected and 42 signed a petition against it.  As is usual (except in Cllr Sheth's and Butts' intervention in the Spurs-Wembley Stadium application) councillors for Tokyngton ward, in which the development is situated, made no comment on the application.

Many objections were about the development of 2-6 storeys being out of keeping with the two storey suburban houses in the neighbouring area and the compact houses in the High Street (not High Road) Conservation area. There was a wider comment that the area was becoming a 'concrete jungle'.

The application is on the agenda for the October 18th meeting of the Planning Committee LINK

For those unsure of the difference between the High Road Wembley and Wembley High Street this is a picture of High Street:

From Brent Council Wembley High Street Conservation Area Appraisal LINK

 

Councillor claims residents will flytip and report via Cleaner Brent App to avoid £35 bulk collection charge

Councillor John Duffy (Labour, Kilburn) has returned to the theme of alleged waste in Brent Council's waste policy. He has sent the email below to all councillors:

Dear Councillors,

It is obvious to anyone who understand data there is a direct correlation between the failure of the Cabinet to monitor the bulky waste service and ensure the contractor perform to contract specifications and the increase in fly-tipping.

It is unacceptable that the cabinet were aware of the both the rising fly-tipping figures and the rising delays in the bulky waste collection Times and chose to do nothing. It is clear  to me the longer the waiting time for the bulky waste service the more likely the waste is to be dumped on the Street. It is also clear residents are resourceful and using the Cleaner Brent  App to report their own dumped furniture/waste (therefore the rise in reported dumping) therefore getting the waste taken away for nothing in 24 Hrs rather than wait the 8 weeks for a collection.

The likelihood of thing improving once the £35 charge has been introduced is remote and clutching at straws, especially  as residents will soon realise they have already paid for the collection service once in their Council Tax.

It beggars belief that  the cabinet are offering our residents the choice of paying £35 for  bulky collection that will take  up to 5 days too collect or to take the items  outside and use the Brent Appto report the dumping and get it picked up in 24 hrs  for Free. I think many will chose the second option especially when they realise  they have already paid for the service in their council tax.

I believe the service will yield little income and will increase fly-tipping, I have asked the CEO on Monday to suspend the charge and asked for a full evaluation.The CEO has not got back to me, but I understand her and the leader will not suspend the £35 charge and stand by it.

I am having further conversations with residents groups to put together a package of improvements based on environmental needs. Which I will hopefully update you with on Monday.

One of the guiding philosophies in the environment is the polluter pays, however what the cabinet are suggesting is the polluter pays twice.

I still hope the cabinet will see reason and enter into dialogue to improve the environment and suspend the £35 charge, however based on my previous experience that will not happen. 

See below email

Dear CEO and All Councillors ,

I am very concerned about the £35 charge for Bulky Waste as I believe the decision is double charging residents for a service they already pay for and has no financially modelling and is environmentally damaging and is not also sustainable,

The reason I believe this is the case because the charge is being brought in to hide the failings by the cabinet to improve services. The service has gone from a 5 day pick-up in 2014 when I (most of us) was elected to an 8 week delay today. The delay is wholly at the doorstep of the cabinet for believing in the supposed Zero Tolerance policy with Kingdom Security , which squandered resources, while misunderstanding the issues around contract compliance and sustainability.

As well as the wasting of resources on the KS contract one of the only environmentally revenue (we lost over £100k) from the government, that was available to us. The contract had no controls on what services were needed by the council. This allowed the contractor to chose the most lucrative areas for themselves , while avoided the areas of most need like street dumping .This lack of controls and other decisions taken by the cabinet has seen the number of case of fly tipping go up by over 32% from10,000 reported cases  to 17,000 reported cases in the last year alone.

I am therefore amazed with Fly-tipping rising at constant rate over the last 3 years ,the cabinet have decided  the best way to reduce fly-tipping is to introduce a £35 charge for the bulky waste service.

The Service

The truth about the existing service is the Street Cleansing contract is clear . The contract makes the contractor ( Veolia) liable to pick up 17500 bulky waste collections PA 70 pick-ups X 5 Days X 50 Weeks. This year we picked up 17485 collections. Albeit the service clearly running at near capacity, it should not have lead to an eight weeks delay….. It would seem that the residents have already paid for this service via the council Tax for the street cleansing contract and the disposal contract, but the cabinet failure to ensure contract compliance and Fly-tipping as their priorities have let the service fail.

Financial Modelling.

Albeit the service has been paid for once. I believe there is a case for more investment in the environmental services. However I believe the £35 charge will be the highest charge by any licensed waste carrier in Brent and is not competitive and the charge will have a negative affect on the environment .Those who will not pay the £35 will do one of the following.

(i)        Some will taken Civic Amenity centre , some residents will still have a problem transporting larger item,settee,mattresses.

(ii)       Some will use licensed private collectors.

(iii)      Some will use the grey bin ( breaking-up smaller items)

(iv)      Some will use Street dumping

(v)       Some will  use Street Dumping and use the Brent Cleansing Apt to report it.  

(vI)     Some will use unlicensed (White Van Man) waste carriers , much of which will end -up dumped on the street.

Model A 

I understand officers have based their modelling on a take-up from 11000 to 17000 collections and income between 25k to £250 , this seemingly is only based on a £35 per collections price. Their model excludes the collection of bags of rubble and some other items and the figures are very broad.

Whereas it is always hard to a financial breakdown  on what is a new charge, but there are obvious facts ,the service will still operate a substantial discount for residents in receipt of benefits  which can be as high as 20% so allowing for a 15% against what is in the contract 17500- 15% = 14875  paid collection. we also know the higher the cost the bigger the lose of customers.

I believe that a nominal fee of £10 should have little affect on paying on the people who pay now but the £35 will deter many my analyses is based on work I did some years ago on increasing costs for commercial Waste.

£10 cost Customers  lose 10% of customers   =  14131 X   £10 = £141000  (90% of customers including discounted residents)  

£20 cost Customers  lose 45% of customers   =    8181 X   £20 = £164000  (70% of customers including discounted residents)  

£35 cost Customers  lose 75% of customers   =    4462  X  £35 = £156180  (45% of customers including discounted residents)  

You can see from this model the £20 would bring in the most. The £35 is unsustainable because its more expensive that other options, however the £10 is more fair as the residents have already paid for collections in the Veolia contract and already paid for the deposal in the West -Waste levy. I also have more confident in the take -up of the £10 cost as its affordability for most residents.

There also other issues, why are we using 5 items as the cut of point , it is more logical to me to cut it to £10 for 4 items this is based on the bulky collection usually being one or two items (bed and mattress or a fridge-freezer) we could then charge a progression cost for £5 per item after that , believe this would also bring in more income.

Officers and the Cabinet say they oppose a progressive charge because they wish to keep the costing simple. I completely disagree there is nothing simple about doubling the price once you have past a threshold. A progressive charge is both fairer and reflects the true cost.

The Way forward

As you know I am trying to get the support of a number of councillors (hopefully in late November) to call a full council meeting  to discuss sustainable Environment policies around enforcement , recycling and  street cleansing. I will get back to you on those proposal shortly.

In the meantime I am asking the CEO and the Leader of the Council to consider

(1)      Freezing the introduction of the scheme until a full evaluation of the increase in fly-tipping is assessed.

If however you are not willing to freeze the introduction of the charge please answer the questions below as an FOI if you like.

(2)      Explain the price modelling. 

(3)      Explain why,now that we are charging, why are certain wastes prohibited 

(4)      Did  officers explore progressive pricing. 

(5)      How much increased revenue do you expect to received from the the new charge of £35 

(6)      What impact do you think the Charge will have on Fly-tipping. 

I understand under this scheme Brent are going to takeaway old Christmas Trees.I buy my Tree at Ikea for £16 , I feel hearten to know the council will take it away for just…...£35.

I think the cabinet have missed the point.