Agenda and minutes

As the Chair of the committee was not present, Members were required to elect a Chair for this meeting.  Councillor Lorber and Councillor Kabir were nominated.  Both nominations were put to the vote and Councillor Lorber was declared the Chair for this meeting.

RESOLVED:-

that Councillor Lorber chair this meeting of the committee.

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

Councillor Powney (Lead Member for Environment, Planning and Culture) declared an interest as a member of the West London Waste Authority in respect of the Waste and street cleansing – street cleansing efficiency savings and Waste collection strategy reports.  However, he did not consider the interest as prejudicial and remained present to take part in discussions on these items.

Decisions made by the Executive on 15 November 2010 in respect of the following reports were called-in for consideration by the Call-in Overview and Scrutiny Committee in accordance with Standing Orders 6 (b) and 18.

Decisions made by the Executive on 15 November 2010 in respect of the reports below were called-in for consideration by the Forward Plan Select Committee in accordance with Standing Orders 6(b) and 18.

The reasons for the call-in are:-

·         The decision departs from the principle of protecting front line services.

·         Consider the implications for the cleanliness of local streets.

·         Consider the implications of prompt identifying of dumped rubbish and

           their removal.

·         Consider full and effective consultation with local residents on this.

The Executive report is attached. The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.

 The reasons for the call-in were:-

·         The decision departs from the principle of protecting front line services.

·         Consider the implications for the cleanliness of local streets.

·         Consider the implications of prompt identifying of dumped rubbish and

           their removal.

·         Consider full and effective consultation with local residents on this.

Councillor J Moher (Lead Member for Highways and Transportation) introduced the report and advised that the proposals were part of the additional savings that were required.  Negotiations with Veolia, the waste and street cleansing contractor were to take place with the intention of reducing costs.  The main proposal was the option to decrease the sweeping frequency for Zone 5 streets to twice weekly sweeps.  Members heard that some streets in Zone 5 were not necessarily swept three times a week every time under the current arrangements. Councillor J Moher added that the council was reviewing all its contracts in all service areas with a view to seeking more for less because of the council’s financial situation.

With the approval of the Chair, Elaine Henderson addressed the committee.  Elaine Henderson stated that she was speaking on behalf of her residents’ association.  She commented that there had been a large improvement in the cleanliness of streets since the contract agreed in 2007 and she hoped that the high level of cleanliness would be maintained.  Members heard that the street cleaners provided a decent service, showed initiative and also played a useful role overall for the community.  Elaine Henderson suggested that the main method to achieve savings should be through reducing waste that went to landfill to reduce landfill tax costs. 

During discussion by Members, Councillor Brown sought views with regard to the impact on street cleanliness as a result of reducing the sweeping frequency in Zone 5 streets.  He asked for clarification with regard to the total savings target and had this factored in the £0.25m cost required to implement the savings measures and whether this would also impact on summer season sweeps and leaf fall collections.  Councillor H B Patel commented that street cleaning was one of the most visible council services to residents and visitors to the borough and he felt there could be risks involved in maintaining standards with less resources.  In view that the Olympics was less than two years away, he enquired what steps were being taken to ensure high levels of cleanliness to satisfy both residents and visitors to the borough.  Councillor H B Patel also commented that there may be legal complications in respect of seeking changes to the existing contract.

Councillor Mistry asked if there were any implications for the street washing service and whether residents’ views had been sought with regard to fly tipping during the consultation.  Councillor Denselow enquired whether frontline staff would be protected when introducing savings measures.  He referred to the importance of residents’ perception of cleanliness in the borough and asked how the changes to the street cleaning service would be communicated to them.  Councillor Kabir sought assurances that street  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3a

The reasons for the call-in are:-

·         To discuss concerns regarding the nature and openness of the consultation and the possibility of full consulting residents.

·         To consider the concerns of residents around the reduction in service and the implications of the increase in the number of bins.

·         To discuss concerns regarding the co-mingling of waste and contamination of waste.

·         To fully review the options available.

·         To consider how to retain public support for recycling and not lose it by scrapping weekly refuse collections.

·         To consider implications of fortnightly refuse collections on housing estates and properties in multiple occupation.

·         To consider the risk of Judicial Review. 

The Executive report is attached. The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.

The reasons for the call-in were:-

·         To discuss concerns regarding the nature and openness of the consultation and the possibility of full consulting residents.

·         To consider the concerns of residents around the reduction in service and the implications of the increase in the number of bins.

·         To discuss concerns regarding the co-mingling of waste and contamination of waste.

·         To fully review the options available.

·         To consider how to retain public support for recycling and not lose it by scrapping weekly refuse collections.

·         To consider implications of fortnightly refuse collections on housing estates and properties in multiple occupation.

·         To consider the risk of Judicial Review. 

Members had the Executive report on the Waste collection strategy.  Elaine Henderson (Brent Friends of the Earth) was then invited by the Chair to address the committee.

Elaine Henderson began by stating that Brent Friends of the Earth had welcomed the upgraded waste collection and street cleaning contract in 2007 and initiatives such as green boxes and bins were eco friendly and encouraged collection of recyclable waste.  Elaine Henderson acknowledged that the Council needed to make savings, however she suggested that the best way to achieve this was to minimise landfill tax charges which had cost the council £9 million last year.  She commented that there had not been sufficient reference to co-mingling waste collection on the council’s website and the summary report and she felt that it was important to highlight this as it was a major change.  Elaine Henderson then referred to the recommendations from Brent Friends of the Earth circulated to Members at the meeting and stated that a co-mingling system would only increase recycling by 3% and adding glass to the collection would worsen the situation.  Members heard that Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) had recommended that the dry recycling bin needed to be in region of 140-180 litres for fortnightly collections and the cost of the new bins would be approximately £1.7 million.  Elaine Henderson felt that offering more green recycling bins would be preferable.  Members heard that a company that currently bought recycled paper from the council had stated that it would not knowingly buy recycled waste from co-mingled collections and the council was at risk of losing this customer.  Other local authorities, such as Camden council, were moving away from co-mingled collections and such a system increased the risk of inappropriate materials being placed in the bins.  Under a mechanical recovery system, a lot of waste still ended up in landfill.  In addition, providing suitable instructions to residents to make the system work in Brent was complicated by English not being the first language of many and much emphasis needed to be made in educating residents of the need to recycle as well as extending the recycling service.   The same day collection had been successful and increased residents’ satisfaction by 16% and the only other London boroughs with fortnightly collections, Bexley, Harrow and Kingston, were much different in terms of demographics compared to Brent.  Elaine Henderson asked that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3b

The list of decisions from the meeting that took place on Monday, 15 November 2010 are attached for information.

RESOLVED:-

that the Executive list of decisions for the meeting that took place on Monday, 15 November 2010 be noted.

To be confirmed.

It was noted that the next meeting would be a special meeting of the Call-In Overview and Scrutiny Committee that was scheduled to take place on Thursday, 9 December 2010 at 7.30 pm.

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.

None.