Agenda and minutes

Councillor Conneely (as Chair) welcomed members of the Scrutiny Committee to the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Saqib Butt.

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary or personal interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

There were no declarations of interest made during the meeting.

To hear any deputations received from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 67.

Members are asked to note that a deputation has been received from a local resident in relation to flytipping.

Members were asked to note that a deputation had been received from a local resident, Ms Sarah Archer, in relation to fly tipping and, unless otherwise indicated, members were asked to allow the speaker up to 5 minutes to present their deputation.

Ms Archer began her presentation by explaining that she was speaking on behalf of the residents of Brondesbury Villas who were concerned about flytipping and litter. She had met with some committee members and worked closely with Brent’s Waste Enforcement Team to raise this issue. In detailing the issues residents were experiencing, Ms Archer advised that Brondesbury Villas connected to Kilburn High Road and experienced a lot of waste from there. The location had two shops and a fruit stall which all attracted a lot of waste and litter.

She drew members attention to Brent’s Street Cleaning Programme which used a grading system from A to D, with A being extremely clean and D being heavily littered, and advised that Brent’s aim as outlined on the website was to keep streets to a minimum standard of at least B, which was mostly free from litter except for a few items. In considering the level of litter and waste on Brondesbury Villas, she advised that she would grade it a D, with litter in the gutters amassing every two weeks. As such, she was addressing the Committee with the aim of discussing how Brent could move to a place where the street cleaning programme brought more streets in line with their aim of a grade B.

In addition to the litter amassing on the streets from commercial businesses, she highlighted flooding as a result of clogged drains from litter and an increase in fast food containers being littered where the Electric Vehicle Charging Points were used. As there were no residential bins, Electric Vehicle owners were generating a lot of litter, and, although Veolia had started to place bin bags around trees and lampposts near Charging Point locations, these were often full quickly and she did not feel this was a long-term approach. In comparison, when she had visited the borough of Camden, she had noticed Enforcement Officers on the streets and residential bins available, as well as regular pavement washes which was not included in Brent’s contract with Veolia.

Further adding to the condition of the street was ‘charitable tipping’, which she described as residents taking waste such as electrical goods, ironing boards and books out of their home and placing them on the public pavement for others to take instead of taking them to a charity shop or skip. When she had queried this, Waste Enforcement had confirmed that this type of behaviour met the legal threshold to be defined as a fly tip. In 2024, Brondesbury Villas had 63 incidents of this, increasing to 527 in 2025.

In summing up, she hoped the Committee would work with residents, the Waste Enforcement Team, and relevant contractors, to address the issues raised by residents living in Brondesbury Villas  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 21 January 2026  as a correct record.

It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meetings held on 21 January 2026 be approved as a correct record.

To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting.

There were no matters arising raised at the meeting.

This report reviews the effectiveness, performance and future development of the Council’s arrangements for preventing, reporting, enforcing and cleaning up fly tipping and littering in Brent.

Councillor Krupa Sheth (Cabinet Member for Public Realm and Enforcement) was invited to introduce the report relating to fly tipping and litter in Brent, which reviewed the effectiveness, performance and future development of the Council’s arrangements for preventing, reporting, enforcing and cleaning up fly tipping and littering in Brent. She reassured the Committee that the Council was aware of how important these issues were to both residents and councillors, and confirmed that the Council was working hard to address the issues, particularly with the introduction of the Don’t Mess With Brent campaign, and was being as creative as possible in tackling fly tipping and littering in the borough.

In continuing the presentation, Jehan Weerasinghe (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration, Brent Council) began by addressing the comments made by the resident and committed to reviewing the issues and situation in that particular location. In highlighting the work of the Council to address fly tipping and littering in Brent, he advised that, in the current reporting year alone, reports had increased to more than 38,000 by January 2026, with Veolia as the contractor out-performing the target for response times and clearance rates at 98.95% compared to a target of 95%. As such, he felt that the report showed a picture of improvement, compared to several years ago when Brent had been regarded as one of the poorest performing boroughs in the country for fly-tipping. He felt there was now swift action, a robust and well-managed contract in place, and good working relationships with the contractor.

In responding to the deputation made by Ms Archer, Chris Whyte (Director of Public Realm, Brent Council) acknowledged that the issues she raised in that area were very common, attributing them to a consequence of the many pressures faced in the very busy urban environment in and around Kilburn High Road. He hoped that the scrutiny undertaken that evening would provide an insight into the work the Council and its contractors undertook to keep control of those issues and keep Brent in good condition. He then led introductions of those present, which included representatives from the Council’s Waste Enforcement Team and representatives from Veolia.

Having thanked Councillor Sheth, Jehan Weerasinghe and Chris Whyte for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee, with the following points raised:

• The Committee asked to what extent systemic factors, such as bulky waste accessibility, commercial waste and non-compliance, housing density, and limited waste storage solutions, contributed to flytipping and littering, and how the Council was addressing any underlying issues contributing to flytipping and littering. Chris Whyte (Director of Public Realm, Brent Council) advised that all of the factors listed would contribute to the level of dumping in the borough, and the duty on the Council was to help resolve some of those issues at the source, including by making the bulky waste service as accessible as possible, which he felt the Council did. In relation to provision for waste storage, there was very  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

This report sets out the financial forecast for the General Fund revenue budget, the Housing Revenue Account, the Dedicated Schools Grant and the Capital Programme as at Quarter 3 2025/26. It also includes a separate in?depth overview of the Housing Revenue Account, providing further detail on the financial position and the key risks and challenges facing the fund.

Councillor Patel (as Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) introduced the report, which set out the financial forecast for the General Fund revenue budget, the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and the Capital Programme as at Quarter 3 2025-26. In outlining the report, she advised that the forecast outturn showed a net overspend of £12.5m against the approved budget, and the Council’s revenue budget was revised to approximately £431.4m. She advised that the report detailed the demands and service pressures causing an overspend, particularly highlighting Adult Social Care (ASC) as an area that continued to be a major cost driver as the number of complex cases increased, Housing which was significantly above budget expectations due to the increase in housing demand and reduced supply of affordable housing, the DSG which was projecting an overspend due to increased demand in the High Needs Block, and children’s residential care and secure placements which had emerged as additional pressures.

Councillor Nerva (as Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Public Health and Leisure) provided an update on the Adult Social Care funding challenges. He advised many of these challenges were not limited to Brent but experienced across the country, with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Care signalling a £300m overspend across England. He advised that Adult Social Care budgets were not static, and often savings plans were written into future years that required actions during the reporting year to achieve. As a demand-led service underpinned by the Care Act, the local authority was under an obligation to provide support, but also wanted to ensure good value for money and the promotion of prevention and early intervention where possible to avoid escalating costs.

Having thanked Councillor Patel and Nerva for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments, with the following comments and issues discussed:

• The Committee acknowledged the significant Adult Social Care (ASC) overspend of £8m, but felt that throughout the years very little progress had been made to address recurrent overspends. Rachel Crossley (Corporate Director Service Reform and Strategy, Brent Council) responded that ASC closed the year on budget in 2024-25 and built additional growth into next year (2026-27) to account for additional spend, meaning the years either side of 2025-26 had more positive positions and next year had a more realistic position in terms of growth. She advised that 2025-26 had been difficult in relation to the care analytics work and, through benchmarking across London with the West London Alliance, a £20m pressure was forecast based on inflation and the changes to National Insurance, meaning there were a number of savings that ASC was required to make to hold its placement costs within a smaller growth envelope. Much of the pressure was also driven by the cost of care, and the department was looking at changing some commissioning models to address those challenges. For example, where ASC had not traditionally used block contractors, there were some new providers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

This report seeks to provide an overview of Brent’s performance in handling and resolving complaints and presents the Complaints Annual Report for 2024-25.

The Committee received the Annual Complaints Report 2024-25 from the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources which provided a breakdown of complaints received by departments and the top five issues of complaint for those respective departments, including the number of upheld, partly upheld, not upheld, rejected or withdrawn for each department.

The Chair invited questions and comments from the Committee in relation to the report, with the following comments and issues discussed:

• In relation to complaints about repairs, the Committee highlighted that the number of complaints had not formed part of the KPIs for the contractors delivering repairs. Emphasising the officer time that went into investigating complaints and the extent of upheld complaints in that area, the Committee suggested KPIs relating to complaints should be incorporated into relevant contracts. Spencer Randolph (Director of Housing, Brent Council) responded that this was something he would want to look at implementing with the two new contractors, Wates and Mears, as well as how the Council could be recompensed when complaints were upheld. The new contracts were still being embedded, and this was something he would take forward to contractor meetings by April 2026. As he had not been in post when the contract terms and conditions were agreed, he did not know if these mechanisms were available, but if they were he would want to make use of those. Members made the point that the Committee had recommended incorporating complaints into contractor KPIs at the previous annual complaints review and re-emphasised that recommendation. Officers present agreed that there were contracts in place that would benefit from those additional KPIs if they were not already included.

• The Committee acknowledged the high level of upheld complaints within housing and asked how they were being managed and responded to. Councillor Donnelly-Jackson responded that complaints were an opportunity to learn and improve services. The Council did not want residents to be in a position where they had to complain, and wanted to adopt a culture where all feedback in any forms was accepted, heard, learned from, and actioned, in order to improve services. In 2024-25, housing initiated a full review of complaints handling and promoted learning reviews from that. Training had also been reviewed. The service was also logging compliments in order to collate best practice where services were getting things right. Where a complaint was serious enough, the service would look into compensating the resident for their distress, so it was important there was robust financial oversight of complaints handling to ensure this was not excessive but proportionate to the issue raised.

• The Committee felt that there was a significant proportion of complaints that were escalated to Stage 2 that were upheld, and asked why these had not been filtered and upheld at Stage 1 and whether training would be delivered to assist with that. Tom Cattermole advised that training had initially supported officers in how to deal with improving first time resolutions and embedding the complaints code of conduct. Staff were being trained on understanding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The purpose of this report is to present the Scrutiny Recommendations Tracker to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee for consideration.

The Committee noted the recommendations tracker.

To provide an update on the changes to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee’s work programme.

The Committee noted the work programme.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Deputy Director of Democratic and Corporate Governance or their representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

None.