Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 4, Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane, Wembley, HA9 9HD
Contact: Toby Howes, Senior Democratic Services Officer Email: toby.howes@brent.gov.uk, 020 8937 1307
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of Personal and Prejudicial interests Members are invited to declare, at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on this agenda. Minutes: Councillor Powney (Lead Member for Environment, Planning and Culture) declared an interested as a member of the Waste London Waste Authority in relation to item 5 (b) on the agenda, Waste Management Strategy. However, he did not consider the interest personal or prejudicial and remained present to discuss this item. |
|
Deputations (if any) Minutes: None. |
|
Minutes of the Previous Meeting held on 11 August 2010 To follow. Minutes: Members noted that the minutes would be circulated at a future meeting of the Committee. |
|
Matters Arising (if any) Minutes: None. |
|
Call-in of Executive Decisions from the Meeting of the Executive on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 Decisions made by the Executive on 11 August 2010 in respect of the reports below were called-in for consideration by the Forward Plan Select Committee in accordance with Standing Order 18. Minutes: Decisions made by the Executive on 11 August 2010 in respect of the reports below were called-in for consideration by the Forward Plan Select Committee in accordance with Standing Order 18. |
|
Educational Use of Coniston Gardens PDF 114 KB The reason for the call-in is:-
· To explore further the implications of the loss of much needed capital receipts and housing and the financing of demolition and clear up of the site.
The Executive report is attached. The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions. Minutes: The reason for the call-in was:-
· To explore further the implications of the loss of much needed capital receipts and housing and the financing of demolition and clear up of the site.
Councillor Butt (Deputy Leader of the Council and Lead Member for Resources) introduced the report and confirmed that the decision to revoke disposing of the site to a housing association and to retain the site within the Council’s portfolio for educational and community use would represent a potential loss in capital receipts of £150,000. However, he confirmed that the housing association identified to purchase the site had since withdrawn its interest. In addition, with less funding available for supporting social housing and Registered Social Landlords, the prospect of the site being used for such a purpose was considerably diminished. A statement by Councillor Arnold (Lead Member for Children and Families) was circulated to Members which outlined the benefits to Oliver Goldsmith school and its pupils, young people and the local community in general by the decision that had been made.
Mick Bowden (Deputy Director of Finance and Corporate Resources) confirmed that the loss of capital receipts by not disposing of the site would not jeopardise the Capital Programme as the potential loss of £150,000 did not represent a significant variation in the £400 million overall allocated to the Programme over 2009/10 to 2013/14.
Councillor Beck, a Member who had called-in this item, was invited to address the Select Committee by the Chair. He began by enquiring whether the revocation of a previous decision made by the Executive would set a precedent for other such sites in Brent and what other avenues had been explored with regard to disposing of Coniston Gardens, such as approaches to any other housing associations. With regard to the proposed use of the site with Oliver Goldsmith Primary School, Councillor Beck enquired what percentage of funds would be used from the Schools Maintenance Budget and would the school itself be making any contributions. He also enquired if there would be any future consideration of opportunities to generate revenue from the site.
Councillor Ashraf had also called-in this item and was invited to address the Select Committee by the Chair. Councillor Ashraf, in acknowledging that retention of the site would mean the possibility of providing facilities for the school and the local community, stated that there would be costs involved in maintaining the site. He enquired about the future of the site if funds could not be raised to develop the site for educational and community uses and in view of these concerns he sought further clarity as to the overall merits of disposing of the site. He also asked if other housing associations had been approached before the decision not to dispose of the site.
During Members’ discussion, Councillor Brown referred to a similar site in Sudbury that was being disposed of, stating that residents had wanted the site to be retained for allotments and he enquired why different approaches were being taken between ... view the full minutes text for item 5a |
|
Waste Strategy Review PDF 150 KB The reasons for the call-in are:-
· To explore further the implications of the bulky waste charge decision and its financial impact on other services/projects · To discuss consultation proposals regarding changes to collection patterns for refuse.
The Executive report is attached. The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions. Additional documents:
Minutes: The reasons for the call-in were:-
· To explore further the implications of the bulky waste charge decision and its financial impact on other services/projects · To discuss consultation proposals regarding changes to collection patterns for refuse.
Councillor Powney (Lead Member for Environment, Planning and Culture) introduced the report and confirmed that the decisions made included the withdrawal of the £25 charge to dispose of bulky waste items to be replaced by free collections from 1 October 2010 and the introduction of a three bin collection system already operated by other London boroughs. The collection involved organic and food waste collection every week, whilst grey bin and dry recycling waste collection would take place on alternate weeks. The range of materials to be collected for recycling was also to be increased and would include mixed plastics and tetrapaks and collection extended to all flatted properties. Councillor Powney advised that the proposals in the Waste Strategy Review would potentially be deliver savings of £1.02 million in year two of implementation.
Councillor John added that it was very important to educate residents of the need to participate in recycling, including in flatted properties such as Chalkhill Estate and other areas difficult to reach. Working with housing associations and encouraging them to accommodate bring-back schemes would be beneficial to achieving the objectives of the Strategy. Councillor John enquired whether general waste bins eventually be reduced in size.
Councillor Beck, a member who had called-in the item, was invited to address the Select Committee by the Chair. Councillor Beck enquired what measures would be undertaken in view that some waste collections would now be fortnightly and he commented on the need to change the behaviour of residents to ensure the three bin system worked and recycling rates increased. He expressed concern that a number of residents may still be depositing food waste in residual bins which would only be collected fortnightly. Councillor Beck cited a recent article in the Evening Standard newspaper which highlighted some concerns about fortnightly collections, especially in summer which heightened the risk of animals interfering with waste and increased decaying. He asked what consideration had been made in this respect. It was enquired as to the possibility of fortnightly collections of grey bins during winter but restoring weekly collections in summer. Councillor Beck enquired where would food waste be deposited if the food bin was full and would bin lids be secured. He also sought further clarification as to why the bulky waste charge was to be removed.
Councillor Ashraf, who had also called-in this item, was invited to address the Select Committee by the Chair. Councillor Ashraf enquired whether all properties would be receiving bins of the same size and further clarity with regard to the frequency of waste collections and how refuse would be collected from flatted properties was sought. He suggested that some residents were confused by the present waste collection system and enquired what measures were being taken to educate residents about the new system and whether this ... view the full minutes text for item 5b |
|
Introduction of a Vehicle Emission-Based Charging Regime for Residents' Parking Permits PDF 146 KB The reasons for the call-in are:-
· Controlled Parking Zones were originally introduced to protect residents, not produce revenue for the Council. Call-in should explore further the possibility of a cost neutral scheme and the implications for residents of the proposed scheme.
The Executive report is attached. The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions. Minutes: The reasons for the call-in were:-
· Controlled Parking Zones were originally introduced to protect residents, not produce revenue for the Council. Call-in should explore further the possibility of a cost neutral scheme and the implications for residents of the proposed scheme.
Councillor J Moher introduced this item, stating the scheme was a complex one designed to address emission reductions. The Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) schemes would still continue to provide protection for residents and facilitate parking provision in their area and remained particularly important in areas where there was considerable pressure on parking spaces such as in the south and east of the Borough. An emissions-based scheme had been introduced in 2008, whilst this scheme sought to relate CPZ charges to the level of CO2 emissions from any given vehicle with the intention to encourage residents to use lower emission vehicles. With regard to concerns about excessive charging, Councillor J Moher advised that CPZ permit fees had not risen in 1999 and were lower compared to neighbouring London boroughs. He drew Members’ attention to the proposed charges as set out in the report and stated that the lowest emitting vehicles would be eligible for CPZ permits at no cost or the present £50 fee. It was estimated that approximately one-third of vehicle owners in the Borough would pay either £50 of £75 for their first annual permit. Only higher emitting vehicles would be subject to the higher CPZ charges, however as such vehicles were usually more expensive it was likely that the owners would have more ability to pay the higher fee. The fee charges would place the Borough more in line with other London boroughs. Residents could chose to return their permits on a buy-back scheme if they were to change their mode of transport or decided to join a car club. Councillor J Moher added that both The Daily Telegraph newspaper and the Automobile Association had praised a vehicle emissions based scheme for parking permits.
Councillor Beck, a member who had called-in the item, was invited to address the Select Committee by the Chair. Councillor Beck enquired what revenue would the Council receive from the scheme and had there been consideration of any other proposals to reduce vehicle emissions without raising revenue. He sought views with regard to balancing the need to reduce vehicle emissions and increase revenue.
Councillor Ashraf, who had also called-in the item, was invited to address the Select Committee by the Chair. Councillor Ashraf sought clarification with regard to the engine capacity limit for band two in the charging scheme and whether consideration had been given as to the impact this may have on motorists who may consider increasing their driveways or concreting over their front gardens. He also asked how the buy-back permit scheme would be funded.
During Members’ discussion, Councillor Brown suggested that the scheme could be cost neutral by not raising more revenue from residents through reducing the permit costs of lower emission vehicles by an even larger amount. Councillor Hirani ... view the full minutes text for item 5c |
|
The List of Decisions from the meeting that took place on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 are attached. Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the Executive List of Decisions for the meeting that took place on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 be noted. |
|
Briefing Notes/Information Updates requested by the Select Committee following consideration of Issue 4 (2010/11) of the Forward Plan |
|
Annual Complaints Report 2009/10 PDF 106 KB The Select Committee requested a briefing note to provide details of the patterns and trends of the complaints made and a profile of the complainants.
Briefing note to follow.
Lead Member and lead officer have also been invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions. Minutes: Cathy Tyson (Assistant Director – Policy and Regeneration Unit) introduced the briefing note and stated that Corporate complaints had fallen from 2006/07 onwards until 2009/10, when a slight increase had been recorded. This was mainly due to a significant increase in Stage One complaints in respect of the Revenue and Benefits Service. This was partly attributable to a significant increase in new or change in circumstance cases because of the economic downturn. Complaints referred to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) had similarly fallen over recent years and the same number had been referred to the LGO in 2009/10 as had been the previous year. As in the previous two years, no formal complaints had been issued by the LGO and just seven complaints resulted in local settlements, a rate of 11 per cent compared to the National Average of 26.9 per cent and the second lowest overall amongst London boroughs. Cathy Tyson drew Members’ attention to Equalities data in respect of complaints and advised that many complainants chose not to provide such information. Members noted that mapping was currently underway to identify the source of complaints by postcode.
During Members’ discussion, Councillor Van Kalwala enquired how the Equalities data was used, stating that it was important that such information was collected and he enquired whether different approaches were being considered to increase the number of respondents and whether the Call Centre asked for such information. He felt that it was particularly important to obtain ethnicity details of complainants in view of the Borough’s wide ethnic diversity. Councillor Van Kalwala also enquired whether a translator service was available in respect of Child Care complaints. Councillor Hirani suggested that the Equalities data section be placed at the front of the complaints form to increase the response rate. Councillor B M Patel asked in what form the majority of complaints were submitted and why was it important to obtain ethnic details of a complainant.
The Chair enquired about the nature of complaints in respect of housing repairs and he asked to be provided with more information in respect of this. He also sought further details with regard to restructuring in the Housing Benefits Service.
In reply to the issues raised, Cathy Tyson advised that the Council was obliged to request Equalities data from complainants, although few actually provided this and such information needed to be used sensitively. In addition, many complaints were received by letter or e-mail rather than through the Complaints Form. Cathy Tyson advised that a number of different measures were being considered to increase Equalities information response and Members noted that the Equalities section was in the form of a tear off slip on the Complaints Form in order to mitigate concerns from residents that the information might be used as part of the complaint’s assessment. Another measure that could be considered was to request Equalities data from complainants after the complaint had been resolved. Members noted that the Call Centre would not seek Equalities information from complainants. Cathy Tyson ... view the full minutes text for item 7a |
|
The Forward Plan - Issue 4 PDF 134 KB Issue 4 (01.08.2010 to 30.11.2010) is attached for information. Minutes: Members noted Issue 4 (2010/11) of the Forward Plan. |
|
Items considered by the Executive that were not included in the Forward Plan (if any) None. Minutes: None. |
|
Date of Next Meeting To be confirmed. Minutes: It was noted that proposals would be put to Full Council on 13 September 2010 with regard to changing the name of the Forward Plan Select Committee and to revise its remit to meet only if decisions from the Executive have been called-in. In view of this, the date of the next meeting was yet to be confirmed. |
|
Any Other Urgent Business Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Democratic Services Manager or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64. Minutes: None. |