Agenda and minutes

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on this agenda.

None declared.

None received.

The minutes are attached.

RESOLVED:

that, subject to correcting the name of the Interim Head of Community Safety to Genny Renard on pages 2 to 5, the minutes of the last meeting, held on 9 December 2009, be agreed as an accurate record.

None raised.

This report provides an update on the performance of the Council’s Waste Services Contract with Veolia, specifically with respect to waste and recycling, street cleansing, missed collections and complaints.

Chris Whyte (Head of Environment Management) introduced the report and answered questions from Councillors on the performance of the Council’s Waste Services Contract with Veolia, specifically with respect to waste and recycling, street cleansing, missed collections and complaints. Data to the end of December 2009 showed a recycling rate of 30.69%, an increase of 1.5% on the same period in the previous year. The main feature had been a significant reduction in waste and in landfill waste in particular. This was part of a wider UK and West London pattern, and had led to savings in the cost of disposal. Performance on street cleansing showed that the good performance of the previous year had been maintained, although there had been some concerns about the level of detritus in the first set of scores. Missed collections – attributed to snow and ice – had peaked around Christmas and the New Year. The situation had been rectified promptly, and the number of missed collections was now at an acceptable level. In general performance had been good, and the number of complaints was the lowest since the start of the current contract.

Asked what proportion of properties in the borough had access to recycling, Chris Whyte informed the Committee that 105,000 properties had recycling collections, 80,000 had green box collections, and 60,000 had green bins. The remainder had access to sack-based collections, with a good number of flats served by mini ‘bring’ sites. The Council had achieved its target of 30% recycling, and the current waste strategy review was part of the Council’s improvement and efficiency strategy.

In answer to a question about the sweeping of streets after waste collections, Chris Whyte reported that, if crews did not clear up litter created as part of the process of waste collection, then that was a failure on their part, as they were equipped to do this. Street cleansing was part of the review process, and Chris Whyte agreed to take this issue into account when reviewing Veolia’s performance.

Asked what Brent Council had done to promote a Bottle Bill, a scheme to impose refundable deposits on drinks containers, Chris Whyte informed the Committee that the idea of deposits was in its infancy in the UK, and that Brent watched developments with interest. He added that the Council’s review would be considering a number of options.

The Chair suggested that the Council consider the use of bye laws to get retailers to provide waste recycling facilities.

RESOLVED:

that the report and members’ comments be noted.

The report informs Members of the winter arrangements for maintenance of priority streets for 2009/10 and the issues that have arisen this winter.

Chris Whyte (Head of Environment Management) introduced the report and answered questions from Councillors on how the Council had dealt with the severe weather conditions in December and January. Chris Whyte reported that Brent had an arrangement with the London Borough of Harrow to store and purchase salt. Brent had abided by government guidelines to store sufficient grit for six nights of heavy gritting. However, this reserve had been used up rapidly in the heavy snow before Christmas. Further supplies had been on order, but the weather became so severe that national supplies became scarce. Suppliers prioritised authorities in need, as a result of which some authorities in London also started to run out. The London Local Authorities Control Centre took on the role of distributing grit to those in greatest need, and Brent received 150 tonnes from Ealing and 141 tonnes from TfL. Further heavy snow fell on 7 January 2010, persisting for a number of days. Much of the remaining salt was used up, and Brent started rationing the stock going into the weekend of 9/10 January. The decision was taken to reduce the priority network. There was further heavy snow on 13 January, and Brent’s stock was reduced to the lowest level so far – 19 tonnes. In response to the widening concern over salt supplies, the government convened the Salt Cell, which sought to co-ordinate and prioritise the distribution of salt. Brent was allocated 500 tonnes, which did not arrive. Veolia had to collect this, and was able to collect 315 tonnes. Currently around 430 tonnes were in stock, which Chris Whyte reported was sufficient to last the rest of the winter. Along with a number of other councils, Brent had run very low on grit and had had to take decisions to ration it and reduce the priority network. Residents had been dissatisfied with the state of many residential roads, and these expectations needed to be managed. The situation had been very difficult, and a package of measures would be developed after a review of what had happened.

Asked why some roads thawed more quickly than others, and whether the Council could be more flexible in gritting residential roads, Chris Whyte reported that thawing depended on topography, the shape of buildings, the road surface and the presence of residual grit, and that the Council was willing to turn attention to non-priority roads if time and stocks allowed.

During a discussion of the Council’s communication strategy during the severe weather, the Chair commended the fact that he had found more information on Brent’s website than on those of other West London boroughs he had visited. However, it was recognised that some people, particularly elderly people, did not use the internet as much as others. Chris Whyte acknowledged this, but reported that the internet was the best way of getting information out quickly.

In answer to a question about the Council’s legal obligations, Chris Whyte informed the Committee that the Council was required to treat its  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

This report provides an update on the development of a revised Waste Collection Strategy for Brent.

Chris Whyte (Head of Environment Management) introduced the report and answered questions from Councillors on the development of a revised Waste Collection Strategy for Brent. Chris Whyte reported that the review of the strategy was part of the wider review of waste and recycling, a gold project in the Council’s Improvement and Efficiency Strategy. The aim was to submit a draft strategy to the Council’s Corporate Management Team (CMT) in May and to the first available Executive meeting for decision. A period of consultation with the local community and other stakeholders would then start, and a revised strategy would be submitted for approval by Councillors towards the end of 2010, with a view to implementation in April 2011. Chris Whyte informed the Committee that David Pietropaoli (Waste Policy Manager), also present at the meeting, was developing the business plan, a key element of which had been a waste collection workshop with key advisers. The outcome had been a number of options carried forward for further appraisal. Consultants had been engaged to carry out this study, and were due to conclude by mid-March. The consultants’ conclusions would form the basis of the report to CMT and the Executive. Everything was on track for implementation in April 2011.

Asked about the diversity of collection systems used by local authorities, Chris Whyte informed the Committee that there were many ways of collecting waste, and there was no consistent national approach. It was clear in Brent that the current system of the green box was no longer adequate, in view of the need for more recycling capacity, to which Brent was committed.

In response to a suggestion that residents should be consulted at an earlier stage in the process, Chris Whyte told the Committee that the current stage was one of building up a clear knowledge base of best practice in order to be able to deliver a set of proposals for CMT and the Council’s Executive to offer to the public and other stakeholders. Cathy Tyson (Assistant Director – Policy) added that, in addition to the desirability of options to residents, the Council needed to balance methods of collection and disposal, and there were cost implications. Solutions might not necessarily be the same for all properties, although the aim was for the methods to be easy to use and value for money.

Asked about cross-boundary work with other boroughs, Chris Whyte reported that Brent was reliant on the West London Waste Authority, within which a programme of waste reduction and reuse was being co-ordinated across six London boroughs.

Chris Whyte told the Committee that fundamental changes in the strategy would be needed in order to generate the required £1.2m efficiency savings, and that many alternatives would be considered. Asked whether incentives would be provided for residents, Chris Whyte reported that he was confident that there would be policies on this. Responding to a question on compulsory recycling, Chris Whyte informed the Committee that the Council had been satisfied with its effectiveness and had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To follow.

Cathy Tyson (Assistant Director – Policy) presented the report and answered questions from Councillors on the Council’s spending, activity and performance in Quarter 3 of the financial year 2009/10. In general the Council had made progress towards delivering the key objectives in the Corporate and Community Strategies, with the majority of Vital Signs indicators – considered critical to the success of the Council – performing broadly in line with the targets set. A total of 53% were on or just below target, but 25% were well below target. One issue affecting the reporting of performance had been missing or delayed data. This had led to delays in reporting, and was being addressed internally.

Performance relating to the theme of ‘a great place’ was best, with 47% of targets regarded as low risk, and 35% as high risk. There was concern that recycling had missed its target slightly, also that there had been a slight increase in gun and knife crime, against the background of a longer-term downward trend. The level of sports participation by young people was below target, largely because of seasonal variation and the severe weather.

Performance around the theme of ‘a borough of opportunity’ had been affected particularly badly by a total of 27% missing data, which would be chased. Some of the missing data related to Local Area Agreement (LAA) targets on social care and the performance of the Primary Care Trust (PCT). The Council was continuing to focus on increasing the level of self-directed support to social care clients and, although the target had not been achieved, there had been a large number of new direct payments made to people with mental health needs. There had also been good performance on reducing delayed discharges from hospital.

Performance on the theme of ‘one community’, affected by missing data on 24% of targets, showed 39% of targets as low risk. The main concerns were Special Educational Needs assessments and the provision of local foster care placements. Cathy Tyson reported that, although the number of looked after children was stable, the lack of in-borough foster placements meant that children were being placed with independent carers at a higher cost.

Also on the theme of ‘one community’, increased awareness of the MEND (Mind, Exercise, Nutrition, Do it!) programme, aimed at reducing child obesity, meant that this target had been achieved. While the slowdown in the housing market had proved a challenge to achieving the target of increasing the number of affordable homes, there were some housing schemes due for completion soon. There had also been good progress on reducing the number of households in temporary accommodation.

Duncan McLeod (Director of Finance and Corporate Resources) informed the Committee that there had been three main areas of overspend. One was children’s services, partly as a result of the large increase in referrals following the Baby Peter case. The second aspect was the recession, which had affected income from parking and land charges, for example. In addition, there had been an increase  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

This information summarises the responses to the Select Committee’s task group’s recommendations on community use of Council owned buildings.

James Young (Deputy Head of Property and Asset Management) introduced the report and answered questions from Councillors on the work of the group set up to look at use by the community of Council-owned buildings. Two meetings had been held, and it had been agreed that bimonthly meetings would take place in future. The process had been a learning experience for everyone involved, especially the issue of identifying the service departments responsible for monitoring the outputs of community groups, and the community engagement aspect was complex. Officers now understood which buildings were involved, although there were grey areas around community buildings and commercial operations. The Council wanted to establish a market rent for each building, with the rent abated in line with outputs measured against agreed criteria. At the next meeting, in March 2010, it was hoped to establish the abatement criteria. There were still issues to work through, for example, that of responsibility for external maintenance, for which the Council had no budget.

Duncan McLeod (Director of Finance and Corporate Resources) informed the Committee that this was an evolving process, and was not easy. The recession had affected many of the community organisations involved, and this was not a good time for them to cope with change. The March 2010 meeting would be crucial in setting the abatement criteria and, while progress had been made with community organisations, much of what needed to be done required a budget that did not necessarily exist. The work of the task group was very helpful, but delivery was challenging.

The Committee noted that it would be monitoring the progress of work in the future as part of its work programme.

RESOLVED:

that the report  be noted.

Members are asked to consider future topics to be included in the Select Committee’s Work Programme for 2009/10.

The Committee agreed to add to the work programme:

(i)            the issue of planning enforcement relating to Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

(ii)                the successes of the Anti-Social Behaviour Team and the impediments to its work.

None.

None.

None.

None.

The next meeting of the Performance and Finance Select Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, 14 April 2010 at 7.30 pm.

The Committee noted that the next meeting of the Performance and Finance Select Committee was scheduled for Wednesday 14 April 2010.