Agenda item
Environmental Sustainability
This report provides the Scrutiny Committee with a summary of the work undertaken across key service areas to address the issue of sustainability, with a particular focus on flood risk management.
Minutes:
A report summarising the work undertaken across key service areas to address the issue of sustainability was introduced to the committee by Councillor Southwood (Lead Member for Environment). Members heard that the report was wide ranging and addressed seven key areas: transport and travel; air quality; in-house carbon management; street lighting and parking; public realm and waste; parks and biodiversity; and, flood risk management. The committee also welcomed representatives from the Environment Agency, Lee James (Team leader, London West Partnerships and Strategic Overview Team) and Edward Crome (Lead for engagement with Brent on planning matters) who outlined the borough’s flood risks and explained the structures in place for responding to these.
During members’ discussion, the committee questioned what plans the council had to regenerate areas with persistently poor air quality, address traffic congestion in the borough and tackle proposals to include an incinerator in the Brent Cross Cricklewood development. It was noted that the report, in referring to the council’s existing powers to control and limit emissions, omitted mention of charges on diesel vehicles. In light of this, it was queried whether the message was made clear to residents that such charges were intended to act as a deterrent. Clarification was sought regarding the cost implications of the contractual arrangements for disposal of residual waste. Members referred to a BBC report which listed Brent as the second worst borough in London for fly-tipping, questioned whether there was insufficient targeting of enforcement activity and sought details of the level of evidence required to pursue prosecution.
Responding to the queries raised Amar Dave (Strategic Director Regeneration and Environment) referred to the council’s air quality action plan, which would tie in with the Mayor of London’s plan, and advised that air quality was a key consideration of regeneration projects across the borough. Councillor Southwood noted that the borough would benefit from the Mayor of London’s clean bus corridors and advised that a traffic study had been undertaken which would inform work to improve traffic flow, with particular focus on the Wembley triangle. The public mood regarding a charge for diesel vehicles appeared to have become more accepting over the past year as discussions around this issue had progressed. It was understood that the current plans for the Cricklewood Brent Cross development did not include an incinerator, though members heard that incineration was now considered to be a clean process.
Chris Whyte (Operational Director Environment Services) confirmed to members that the council’s public realm contractor bore the costs associated with residual waste tonnages exceeding the agreed level. Although specific comment could not be made on the BBC report referred to, it was noted that Brent had a very good and accessible reporting system for residents; this could lead to higher levels of reported incidences of fly-tipping relative to areas without such a system. Councillor Southwood advised that the council’s enforcement strategy targeted a range of littering offences. The proportion of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) issued for cigarette butts was now below 60 per cent. Rob Anderton (Head of Environmental Improvement) advised that there was a broad range of enforcement responses to fly-tipping. It could be difficult to obtain sufficient evidence of the act of fly-tipping to enable a FPN to be issued or to pursue prosecution of the perpetrators; however other measures could be undertaken including identifying ownership and enforcing a duty of care in relation to the waste.
The committee subsequently directed questions to Lee James and Edward Crome of the Environment Agency. Members queried why the borough of Brent did not have a flood defence project in the capital programme of the Regional Flood and Costal Committee. Further details were sought regarding the influence of the Environment Agency with the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC).
In response, Lee James and Edward Chrome explained that Brent council over a six year period would contribute £1.2million to the Regional Flood and Costal Committee capital programme. Currently, the North West London Flood Partnership (of which Brent Council was a member) was represented on the RFC committee by a Councillor from the London Borough of Barnet. It was through this representative that the council could exert influence over the RFC capital programme. It was further explained that flooding from rivers would be addressed by projects lead by the Environment Agency; however, the responsibility for addressing surface water flooding sat with the council, who could submit a proposal to the RFC committee to access funding. The Environment Agency held the same statutory consultee powers in relation to the OPDC as it did with the Council.
Chris Whyte asserted that the risk of flooding in Brent was quite low and recent incidences were attributable to drains being overwhelmed. The council’s Transport Team had undertaken a range of work to address this issue. It was confirmed that maintenance and cleaning of gullies was carried out and monitored by the Highways team which now employed a targeted, rather than cyclical, cleaning programme.
During the discussion, the committee requested that information be circulated to the committee following the meeting regarding the procedures in place to ensure that drainage was protected in new developments; detailing the actions taken to mitigate further incidences of surface water flooding; and, identifying funding received from or opportunities to obtain funding from the RFC Committee. Members also sought further details of the practical measures that could be taken to improve traffic flow and requested confirmation of whether the Cricklwood Brent Cross development plans currently included an incinerator.
RESOLVED: that the report be noted.
Supporting documents: