Agenda item

Questions will be put to the Executive in accordance with Standing Order 39.

Councillor Kansagra referred to the closure of Fryent Way for the UEFA Champions League final at Wembley Stadium.  He felt this had been an unnecessary measure and reflected on the terms of the planning permission for the stadium which had restricted the provision of parking and this meant there was extra pressure put on the surrounding roads.  He asked if it was intended that this would be repeated for the Olympics.  Councillor J Moher replied that the Champions League final had been the biggest event to take place in the borough and was run by UEFA who set out the requirements for hosting the game.  Upon the award of the game to Wembley Stadium a planning team had worked on the logistics of preparing for two, at that time, unknown teams from unknown parts of Europe bringing their fans into the area.  The closure of Fryent Way had not been a complete closure and lessons from it had been learnt.   Councillor Kansagra responded that he was not satisfied with the arrangements and wondered if fees were paid for parking coaches in Fryent Way.  He made reference to the difficulties people faced when attending funerals in the area and suggested the experience showed there was not enough parking provided.

Councillor Hunter stated that she understood lead members had received representations from residents asking that Veolia be excluded from the current procurement exercise for waste disposal because they felt the company had demonstrated racist recruitment practices with reference to its activities in the West Bank and Israel.  Councillor Powney replied that West London Waste was embarking on a waste procurement exercise and it could not jeopardise this by not following the proper processes.  Councillor Hunter responded by saying that she would like to see West London Waste take the concerns of local residents seriously and that she had been shocked to see the advertisement for jobs on the Jerusalem Light Railway which effectively prevented the majority of local Palestinian citizens from applying.  She asked how it could be allowed that Veolia was treated as a suitable contractor and felt that the matter needed to be given serious consideration.

Councillor Beckman asked how often would Brent residents have their rubbish collected under the new waste and recycling strategy.  Councillor Powney replied that from October food and organic waste would be collected weekly, with dry recyclables and waste going to landfill being collected every alternate week.  He added that under the new strategy all households would be able to recycle more waste material.  Councillor Beckman thanked Councillor Powney for his reply.

Councillor Beck stated that whilst he was glad the Council had secured the funding for the CREST Academies he was concerned over the effect of the redevelopment plans on the residents in Hillcrest Gardens and Vincent Gardens who were concerned about overlooking from the buildings and the access road.  He felt the residents had asked for reasonable changes to be made but this had so far been met by a poor response from the Council and asked if any further help could be given to them.  Councillor John replied by saying that she had already received a lot of messages about this matter and that she would be only too pleased if planning solutions could be found that would satisfy the residents.  She added that she was happy to receive the views of residents on this matter.  Councillor Beck acknowledged the answer to his question.

Councillor R Patel asked if residents of South Kilburn would be affected by the coalition Government's desire for social housing tenants in London to pay rents of up to £450 a week.  Councillor Crane replied that the tenants would be rehoused into new homes provided in phase 1 of the redevelopment owned by Fortunegate and London & Quadrant Housing Associations.  It had been agreed that the new tenants would only pay up to 10% more than their current rent when they transferred.  An example of the effect of this was that the rent on a 2 bed property would be £88 per week (or £352 per month) rather than the target rent of £103 per week (£412 per month).  The amount they paid would increase over a period of time until it hit the target rents.  As a further example, Councillor Crane stated that the market rent for similar properties was £260 per week or £1040 per month.  Councillor Patel responded by expressing reassurance over the reply he had received but felt it showed how the Government wanted to move families out of areas such as Kilburn.  He was pleased that the Council had been able to keep the promises it had made to its tenants living in Kilburn.

Councillor Ashraf asked why the school crossing patrol at Dollis Hill Lane had already been withdrawn.  Councillor J Moher replied that from time to time it was necessary in specific cases to remove school crossing patrols.  However he gave a re-assurance that no decision had been made to permanently remove any school crossing patrols.  Further consideration would be given to the issue and any decision to remove patrols would be implemented in January 2012.  Councillor Ashraf responded by saying he was not happy with the reply and that it came as no surprise that residents were suspicious of the Council's actions especially given the short consultation period that took place over the half term holiday and now that a final decision would be taken during the summer holiday period.  He stated that the Council needed to be clearer about its position on the matter if it wanted to gain the confidence of local people.

Councillor Van Kalwala stated that the Evening Standard had recently reported that London councils were failing to collect hundreds of millions of pounds of Council Tax and asked if Brent was letting tax dodgers get away with it.  Councillor Butt replied by assuring members that the council was not letting people get away with not paying their Council Tax.  For the financial year 2010/11 the Council had achieved record collection rates and since 2002 had managed to collect 99% of all Council Tax.  The objective was to make sure that whoever was liable for Council Tax and had the means to pay would pay.  Councillor Van Kalwala responded by congratulating the Council on the collection rate achieved and asked that the new contract being entered into for Council Tax collection should ensure this continues.

Councillor Brown asked how axing school crossing patrols could be justified and how accident data was used to justify such action.  Councillor J Moher replied by first reminding members that the Government had required the Council to find £43m savings from its budget and that in such circumstances every aspect of the Council's services had to be reviewed.  Proposals for school crossing patrols had been put out to consultation and it had to be remembered that this was not a statutory service.  The feedback to the consultation had been considered and as a result an extended period of consideration had been undertaken because of the concerns expressed.  Councillor Moher was therefore able to reassure members that child safety was taken very seriously.  Councillor Brown responded by saying that he felt the key driver behind the proposals was a financial one and that he had not received a reply regarding the use of accident data.  He added that parents were worried about the proposals.  Fourteen of the busiest roads in the borough were faced with losing a school crossing patrol and he felt it was important to explain how the proposals had been assessed. 

Councillor Oladapo asked, given the considerable concerns of many residents about the use of khat, what steps were being taken to address this problem, when a report would be received from the task group looking at the issue and could an assurance be given that the affected communities would receive the support they needed to tackle the issue.  Councillor R Moher replied by saying that stopping the use of khat was a difficult issue because it was not a banned substance in Britain.  She was aware that it posed a particular problem in some communities because of the side effects it could have; it could put a great strain on family relations and it did not always get the attention it needed which was why a task group had been established to look into this issue which would report in the autumn.  She had also asked the Chair of Health Partnerships Overview and Scrutiny Committee to keep the issue on the committee's work programme.  Councillor Oladapo expressed the hope that similar action on the use of khat might be taken as was taken in dealing with the use of paan in Wembley.

Councillor Lorber asked if the Executive was ready for the confusion that would follow the publicity on the future arrangements for the collection of waste.  Councillor Powney replied by referring to the publicity set out in the Brent magazine and saying that he felt it was clear enough.  In addition further publicity would be undertaken so that as the new arrangements were put in place people would be clear about them.  Councillor Lorber criticised the presentation and use of colour in the publicity, saying that it was not representative and that many people did not have a green and a grey bin.  He felt the use of language would be misleading to many, given the many languages used in the borough.  He submitted that the biggest obstacle to increasing recycling was in getting the message across and that required good communication.  He felt the current publicity was misleading and that the bins should be clearly labelled.