High Court grants hearing for landmark case on sewage dumping backed by Good Law Project

 The High Court has given permission for a hearing against the Government’s Storm Overflows Discharges Reduction Plan, which allows water companies to continue dumping sewage into rivers and coastal waters for another three decades. Good Law Project is supporting the legal action, being brought by the Marine Conservation Society, Richard Haward’s Oysters, and Hugo Tagholm, a surfer and activist.

The hearing at the High Court will challenge the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Thérèse Coffey, over her department’s plan.

The Storm Overflows Discharges Reduction Plan was published in August last year and gives water companies a deadline of 2035 to reduce the amount of sewage flowing into bathing water and areas of ecological importance, but until 2050 to stop dumping sewage elsewhere.

The claimants want the Government to improve its plan and bring forward the deadlines for water companies to act and include stronger protections for coastal waters across the country.  

England has around 14,500 storm overflows in operation to stop sewers becoming overwhelmed. They allow a mixture of surface water and raw sewage to be discharged into rivers and coastal waters - but should only be used occasionally following exceptionally heavy rainfall.

The latest Environment Agency data shows that storm overflows are being used with alarming regularity. In 2021, storm overflows discharged untreated sewage 372,533 times over a period of 2.7 million hours.

The date for the hearing at the High Court has yet to be decided. 

Jo Maugham, Director of Good Law Project, said: 

"This could be the most consequential environmental law case in recent history. We contend - and the High Court now agrees the point is arguable - that the English common law contains a principle that the natural environment must be protected, must be held in trust, for future generations."

Sandy Luk, Chief Executive of Marine Conservation Society, said:

“We’re now one step closer to compelling the Government to re-write its Storm Overflows Reduction Plan, so that the ocean and its inhabitants really are protected from untreated sewage dumping. Raw sewage will continue polluting our seas until action is taken. Being granted permission to proceed with this case is an important milestone in achieving our vision for a cleaner, better protected and healthier ocean.”

Tom Haward, Operations Manager of Richard Haward’s Oysters and 8th generation oysterman, said:

“Having clean and safe waterways is something we shouldn't have to fight for or even ask the courts to consider. 

“But, in 2023, we are in that position. I'm happy the High Court has given permission for the case to be heard and  I hope it will be another step toward making water companies accountable - truly accountable - for their actions”. 

Surfer and activist, Hugo Tagholm, said:

“The sewage scandal is now headline news. The writing is on the wall for water companies. Their pollution that was for so long hidden in our rivers and streams now flows in full view of the public. A sign of decades of neglect and complacency. The blue spaces so important for wildlife, people and communities should not be treated as dumping grounds for these corporations. We should be free to swim, surf and enjoy our rivers and coastline without fear of sewage pollution.”

Brent Lib Dems: 'Impossible to justify £1.96m spend' on Brent Civic Centre that 'could bring Council into disrepute'

 'Reach for the book' - the 'concept' plan to replace the spiral straircase

 

The Liberal Democrat Group on Brent Council have expressed doubts about the Council’s decision to spend £2m on the £100m 10 years old Brent Civic Centre.

 

They said:

 

The Cabinet decision to spend an excessive sum of £1.96 million on upgrades to Brent Civic Centre, at a time when services provided by the local authority continue to be reduced, is wrong and unjustified.

 

As a service-based organisation, Brent Council should always be putting the needs of residents first and we do not believe that committing this large amount of money on ‘Improving the Customer Experience’ at the Civic Centre is a priority for our residents. Most residents are concerned about crumbling and dangerous local roads and pavements, increased rubbish being dumped in our area, and most significantly the huge financial pressures faced due to the Cost-of-Living crisis, compounded by upcoming additional pressures like the increase in Council Tax and other charges.

 

It is difficult to justify spending £1.96 on the Civic Centre building, when there are so many other areas the Council should be prioritising at this time. 

 

The Report makes no mention of the number of visitors to the Civic Centre, what the numbers the current arrangements can cope with and what the numbers the redesign will be able to accommodate, after spending £1.96 million. Why?

 

The Report also makes claims about savings without specifying what these savings will be.

 

Brent Civic Centre is barely 10 years old. We find it incredible that the Cabinet have been able to identify such a large amount of money for a redesign, whilst simultaneously claiming shortfalls in the budget exist, which impact the delivery of services and upkeep of our wards.

 

It is accepted by many that, particularly post pandemic, the Civic Centre is not being used to full capacity. Much of the vast space available for use is not being utilised as intended, as many Council Officers are able to do their work remotely and from home. Whilst the Report refers mostly to the customer areas of the Civic Centre, we believe that a discussion now needs to also begin about the continued use of the Civic Centre as a whole, given the costs involved for its upkeep, and the potential for considerable revenue to be generated if it is used in different ways.

 

The Report focuses on the face-to-face public spaces in the Civic Centre as being in need of a redesign. We do not believe that enough effort has been made to adapt, at much lesser cost, the existing spaces for ‘customers’ who come to the building seeking support.

 

We believe that further work needs to take place to understand alternative, less costly action to ensure a better ‘Customer Experience’ at Brent Civic Centre. We acknowledge that some consultation has been done that has led to the decision to produce this Report, however we are sceptical that enough people’s views were taken into account and that a wide range of views were considered in preparation for this Report.

 

As Councillors often in the Civic Centre, we recognise the waste of space in the mezzanine area. This space should be used more efficiently, as noted in the Report, however, we see no need for expansive works to improve it.

 

The Report refers to the need to create private more secluded areas for ‘customers’ (residents) to have meetings and discussions with Council Officers. There is a great deal of empty space on the ground floor and the first floor that could quite easily be turned into private spaces, as is required.

 

There is also an opportunity to create a secondary reception area on the left side of the ground floor, where currently ‘Registrations’ take place. We see no problem in dual purpose use of that side of the ground floor.

 

As to the issues with heating in the building, the current plan seems extravagant and unnecessary. We want to see officers explore alternative options to regulate the heat in the Civic Centre, possibly by installation of additional artificial walls.

 

Our view is that better use can be made of existing Hub centres across the borough, in order to provide a service to our residents out in the community. The money agreed by Cabinet to spend on redesign of the Civic Centre, can be better used to improve existing services that are more likely to directly assist residents with their needs.

 

Fundamentally, we believe it is impossible to justify the £1.96 million spend as agreed by Cabinet. It is the wrong time, the wrong look and could bring this Council into disrepute if this goes ahead.

 

Our residents want to see their Council focus on the issues that matter to them and for the vast majority that will never step foot in the Civic Centre, this decision will have no positive impact.

 

 

REMINDER: Closure of some Brent & Harrow sections of Bakerloo line and London Overground next week

 

 

From Transport for London

We need to close part of the Bakerloo line and London Overground. This is so that Network Rail can carry out work to improve their track and infrastructure.

 

This means we need to close:

• The Bakerloo line between Queen's Park and Harrow and Wealdstone
• London Overground between Euston and Watford Junction
•  

These sections of line will be closed between these dates:

• Saturday 11 February to Sunday 19 February 2023

 

During the closure, a regular four to five minute service will continue to run on the Bakerloo line between Elephant & Castle and Queen's Park.

 

The track and associated infrastructure are in urgent need of upgrading. The works will make journeys more reliable in future.

 

Tube

During the closure there will be no Bakerloo line service at these stations:

Kensal Green, Willesden Junction, Harlesden, Stonebridge Park, Wembley Central, North Wembley, South Kenton, Kenton, and Harrow & Wealdstone,

 

London Overground

During the closure, there will be no London Overground services between Euston and Watford Junction. London Overground stations will be closed at all stations on this section of line except Willesden Junction.

 

That means there will no London Overground services at:

 

Euston, South Hampstead, Kilburn High Road, Queen's Park, Kensal Green, Harlesden, Stonebridge Park, Wembley Central, North Wembley, South Kenton, Kenton, Harrow & Wealdstone, Headstone Lane, Hatch End, Carpenders Park, Bushey, Watford High Street, Watford Junction

 

Willesden Junction

Willesden Junction will remain open to these destinations: Stratford, Clapham Junction and Richmond.

 

Alternative routes

• Map of alternative transport during the closures – weekends PDF 116KB 
• Map of alternative transport during the closures - weekdays

PDF 116KB

 

Check before you travel using our travel tools, including TfL Go and Journey Planner.

Bus

 

Use bus routes to reach your destination or connect with alternative rail routes.

• You can access the Metropolitan line at the following stations: Wembley Park, Preston Road, Northwick Park and Harrow-on-the Hill
• You can access the Jubilee line at Wembley Park and stations towards central London

 

Connecting buses

Use these buses to connect to other lines or to get to destinations on the closed sections of the Bakerloo and London Overground lines.

 

Standard TfL fares apply on these routes.

 

Route 718 Queen's Park to Harrow & Wealdstone (Mon-Fri only, all day)

Via Kensal Green, Willesden Junction, Stonebridge Park, Wembley Central, North Wembley, Preston Road, Kenton

 

Route 719 Queen's Park to Wembley Park (07:00-19:00 weekdays, 10:00-19:00 weekends)

Via Kensal Green, Willesden Junction, Stonebridge Park, Wembley Central

 

Route 720 Watford Junction to Harrow-on-the-Hill (all day, every day)

Via Harrow & Wealdstone, Headstone Lane, Hatch End, Carpenders Park, Bushey, Watford High Street

 

London Northwestern Railway (National Rail)

For central London, use London Northwestern Railway services from Watford Junction, Bushey, Harrow & Wealdstone and Wembley Central.

 

WEMBLEY HERON UPDATE: Walkers asked to keep rescuers informed of sightings

 

The unfortunate heron (Photo: Amanda Rose)

There was no positive identification of the Barn Hill heron on the pond today but it is thought to be still in the Brent area. 

This Grey Heron is now High Priority and multiple sanctuaries and rescue teams are working together round the clock to help him. 

Please do not approach the heron to try and free it youself. The beak is sharp and could harm you if the bird panics. 

Brent Civic Centre - a modern rival to Watkin's Folly?

 

 

Brent Cabinet last week approved a major reconfiguration of part of Brent Civic Centre under the low key title 'Improving Customer Experience at Brent Civic Centre'.   In fact these are major works costing £2m to the 'state of the art'  building which is just 10 years old.  The Cabinet report recognised problems that have been there since the building opened.  At the planning stage Brent Green Party were the only local political party that opposed the grandiose project as expensive (c£100m) and a vanity project when councils were facing funding cuts. By 2011 Labour had reviewed their support and decided to go ahead, Liberal Democrats wanted the library reduced in size as other libraries were being closed and Tories wrote to the local press, 'We don't need a new sparkling civic centre at the detriment of people's jobs and front-line services'. LINK

The initial aim was to centralise the many Brent Council buildings in Wembley. There was even a proposal from the then Brent CEO to rename the borough the London Borough of Wembley. Soon it became apparent that not everyone in the boroughwas prepared to go to Wembley for services and 'hubs' were set up in other areas. The complaint that the Council is 'Wembley-centric' is still common.

Well we got a 'sparkling civic centre' that one critic described as a building fit to house the parliament of a small European state , with an imposing atrium and staircase (not actually used as a staircase) occupying a huge amount of space. The steps were handy for wedding photographs, post-election photo ops and demonstrations. It was a huge area of empty space with office space for concil workers on one side and large and small IKEA style meeting rooms for councillors on the other.

Strathcona closure demonstration

As with any new building there were teething problems but some of those were a product of the sesign itself. The building was cold in winter and hot in summer despite the green credentials, acoustics were so bad in meeting rooms that microphones had to be used even for fairly small rooms, and people had wave their arms in the air to operate the movement activated lighting.  One of the worse issues early on was the telephony system which failed to the extent that staff hads to operate mobile phones on not very good lines. When you rang you could hear other staff bellowing down their phones in the background in an effort to be heard.

Cuts in funding led to a reduction in staff with some floors emptied and attempts were made to let them out to commercial organisations to raise funds.  The Melting Pot restaurant featuring in the public relations video closed.

Wembley Matters early on drew attention to the inflation of library visitor figures because staff chose to walk in and out of the Centre via the library entrance which was convenient to Olympic Way and the station.

That entrance, next to Sainsbury's will now be the new main entrance for residents, rather than the one opposite the Arena which opens on to the atrium and its staircase.

Extract from the report:

New entrance: With the improved layout, residents will enter the building through a new main entrance on Exhibition Way by Sainsbury’s. This follows feedback from residents that the current entrance is overwhelming, unwelcoming, intimidating and very cold in the winter months. Instead, residents will now enter into a dedicated space where they can immediately be triaged and directed to the service that they need. Customers will now have a clear journey through the building.

Temperature: The new layout will resolve current issues with the temperature of the atrium. The atrium’s temperature is similar to outside which means that, during the winter, conditions are extremely uncomfortable for customers and staff. A Health and Safety concern has been raised for staff who spend hours meeting customers in this space. It also creates an unwelcoming and hostile environment for residents visiting the building. The improved layout will see residents enter through a new ground floor entrance, into a vestibule, that will help to maintain heat in the building. This layout will help to ensure that the Civic Centre provides a warm space for residents, which is increasingly critical given the current economic and energy crisis.

Welcome Desk: Currently, residents seeking support and business visitors to the Civic Centre queue together at the Welcome Desk. This contributes to delays and confusion for both customers and visitors. Potential businesses looking to hire floors in the Civic Centre have expressed concerns about the current setup as visitors, including those arriving for interviews, meetings and conferences, are often delayed at the Welcome Desk. The new layout will mean that the smaller Welcome Desk is dedicated to business visitors. This will ensure that the Civic Centre represents a more appealing location for businesses and/or organisations wanting to rent office space. This pressure on the Welcome Desk to triage visitors will only increase with the restacking of the building. Without these changes, there is a risk that the forecasted additional income of almost £750,000 per annum, generated by renting out further floors, could be jeopardised.  (Not quite 'poor doors' but resident and business separation.)

The changes will cost £1.96m which will be borowed over the course of 10 years at £242k per annum with a potential National Lottery Heritage Fund for enhancement of the library. Rather ominously the report notes that the scheme will be partly funded through savings to be identified 'primarily' in Customer Services; Libraries, Arts and Heritage, and Revenue and Development. I am not sure the Lottery will buy that.

Customer Services Area 'Concept' (Willmott Dixon Interiors)

There can be no doubt that the atrium  space is rather overwhelming for visitors to the centre, especially if you are a homeless family with small children dragging your suitcases to find help. The contrast to the surroundings serves to intimidate and make you feel small and insignicant.

I am struggling to work out what is going to happen to the atrium. The presentation below gives few clues.

Overall the proposals raise questions about the original 'grand design' and its suitability, rather similar to those that the GLA experienced at the 'glass testicle' (now abandoned) - a building where architects neglected effective function. LINK

Watkin's Folly was the ill-fated attempt to build a tower at Wembley Park to rival the Eiffel Tower. If history deems Brent Civic Centre a 'folly', I wonder who it will be named after?

Recycling and street cleansing call-in refused by Brent CE0

 The 'call-in' of Cabinet decisions by Labour backbenchers and opposition councillors is one of the few ways that the powerful Cabinet can be held to account. Opposition councillors called-in the decision on the award of the new recycling, waste collection and street cleansings to Veolia for further consideration LINK but this was refused by Carolyn Downs, the out-going CEO in this email:

As you are aware, in accordance with the Constitution the call-in request in respect of the Cabinet decision to award the Integrated Street Cleansing, Waste Collections and Winter Maintenance Services Contract has been sent to me to decide if its valid.  As required by the Constitution I have consulted with the council’s statutory Scrutiny Officer and the Monitoring Officer in considering this issue

 

One criterion for validity of a call-in request is as follows:

 

Have the reasons for calling in the decision already been discussed by the Scrutiny Committee?  If the reasons for calling in the decision have been discussed by the Scrutiny Committee prior to the decision being made the call-in will not be valid,

 

The Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee met on 15 December 2022 to consider and discuss a report called Redefining Local Services: Update on the Integrated Street Cleansing, Waste Collections and Winter Maintenance Services Contract Procurement.  This was the only substantive item on the agenda for the meeting which lasted 3 hours and so there was extensive discussion by the committee in respect of procurement including the specification and the consultation undertaken, both the process and outcome.

 

The minutes of the meeting reflect specific discussion in relation to use of sacks for some recyclable materials and the “intelligence led” street cleaning service through which any ‘headers’ issues can be mitigated) with which the call-in request is particularly concerned.   Indeed, this is also reflected in the call-in request itself.  The minutes also reflect discussion of the consultation undertaken.

 

While Cabinet is not obliged to accept recommendations from Scrutiny Committee, it is worth noting that Cabinet did agree to investigate further the use of sacks and possible alternatives. 

 

The call-in request also refers to the structure of the procurement (whether the contract could have been split into smaller areas) which was not part of the Scrutiny Committee discussions.  However, there is no proposal for alternative action that could now be implemented put forward in the request.  This does not meet the requirement that a valid call-in request must:

 

• include the member’s suggested alternative proposals, action, or resolution of the matter

 

In view of the above, I am afraid I am not able to accept your request as a valid call-in.

 

 

More than 110 UK academics have signed an open letter calling on the Government to exit the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), a little-known legal pact that could hamper climate ambition.

 

More than 110 UK academics have signed an open letter calling on the Government to exit the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), a little-known legal pact that could hamper climate ambition. 

Currently, the ECT allows companies to sue governments directly for policies that could affect their profits, and the number of cases being brought under the treaty against climate measures has been increasing. UK company Rockhopper was awarded £210m against Italy when the country banned the exploitation of oil and gas along its coastline, while German companies Uniper and RWE threatened to take the Netherlands to court for its phase-out of coal-fired power stations.

The letter comes at a moment of crisis for the ECT, when members increasingly view it as incompatible with their climate goals. The European Commission signalled on Wednesday that it intended to withdraw as a block from the treaty, and previously seven European countries - including France, Germany and the Netherlands - had already stated that they would withdraw.

110 academics signatories* warn of “very limited time to undertake a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions”, and note that “continued membership of the ECT will harm our prospects of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees because it will prolong the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels and impede the transition to renewable energy”. This echoes warnings by the IPCC in 2022 that the ECT risks blocking the phase-out of fossil fuels.

By staying in the treaty, estimates suggest the UK could end up exposed to around £5.3bn in claims. However, despite clear climate concerns and mounting international pressure, the Government has remained silent on the issue. The letter explains that now is the time to withdraw - given the conclusion of COP27, the recent end to the UK’s COP26 presidency, and the ECT modernisation meeting proposed for early April.

The letter, sent to energy secretary Grant Shapps on 9 February 2023, is available to read in full at https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/research/centres/chrp/governance/energycharter/ 

Help the Heron signs posted on Barn Hill pond

 

Local photographer Amanda Rose has designed posters to display on Barn Hill pond today. The pond was frozen over this morning and the heron had not appeared.

Obviously the heron has to be at the pond to be given help so there are phone numbers on the notice to alert agencies.  The public are advised NOT to approach the heron to help themselves - they could be injured or could injure the heron.