Agenda item

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 clear planning guidance requiring landlords and developers to make appropriate provision for waste storage and the Council could challenge where that was not happening in the right way. Councillor Sheth added that the community skips had also been introduced to alleviate some of those factors that contributed to dumping, and the Council was considering how that could be improved to make them even more convenient and accessible.

• In relation to bulky waste collection, which was a paid service allowing the collection of up to 5 bulky waste items, the Committee highlighted that many residents using that service often did not have 5 items, and therefore were less willing to the pay the same for the removal of only one item compared to 5 items. Rashmi Agarwal (Head of Service Development and Contracts Performance, Public Realm, Brent Council) responded that the service collected up to a maximum of 5 items, and agreed that data showed many people were usually disposing of 1-3 items. Some households came together to pay the fee for bulky waste collection with waste then collected across households, which was something that could be promoted. The Council was currently procuring a new contract for bulky waste and would keep the Committee updated on that procurement. This was a separate contract to the waste contract with Veolia, with the West London Waste Authority leading the procurement of that.

• In considering the new procurement for a bulky waste collection contract, the Committee asked whether the requirements of the contract would need to be replicated across all boroughs involved, or whether the Council had discretion to change the conditions so that residents could pay for the number of items that they were disposing of, instead of a blanket fee for up to 5 items. Chris Whyte advised that the Council could have bespoke arrangements with the provider, but highlighted that the fee should cover the cost of providing the collection and a single visit to the household, regardless of the number of items being collected. In response, the Committee asked what information officers were gathering to consider doing this differently. Officers highlighted that the bulky waste element was only one factor in flytipping and littering, but agreed that there was value in undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of providing a free bulky waste collection service compared to the cost of clearing the bulky waste, or a tiered approach based on the number of items for collection. He advised that the reason the Council originally moved away from providing free collection was due to the cost of the vehicles and staff required to do those collections, and the increase in demand for a free service. The waiting times for collection had been almost 8 weeks for a single item, which had now been reduced with the quality of service improved.  

• The Committee asked what the Council was doing to improve waste storage inside properties, such as through planning enforcement for HMOs. Chris Whyte explained that where HMOs and other landlords were licensed, they were required to make appropriate arrangements for the storage and presentation of waste as a condition of their licence. An Enforcement Officer had recently been appointed with a specific focus on upholding those licence conditions, so where waste problems were emanating from a licenced property the Enforcement Officer could raise that directly with the tenants and landlords as necessary. In terms of the internal arrangements of waste storage within private dwellings, he advised that the instruction of that was beyond the Council, but the Council was clear on how that waste needed to be emptied, and the onus for that was on the tenants and landlords to ensure those arrangements were in place. Veolia also had a team responsible for educating tenants who may be disposing of waste incorrectly.

• Endorsing the appointment of an Enforcement Officer for licensed landlords, the Committee asked what more the Council could do so that landlords were not dumping mattresses for quick tenancy turnarounds. Dennis Lewis (Environmental Enforcement Manager, Brent Council) explained that NCIL funding had enabled the recruitment of the Enforcement Officer dedicated to licensing conditions related to waste, and other officers were also in post focused on other major licensing conditions such as mould. Housing was looking to contribute an officer to that team, as it was recognised that the waste issues emanating from HMOs specifically were contributing to flytipping and littering in the borough. he added that the appointed officer knew the area very well and it was hoped that by the end of the NCIL project an evaluation could be put together to show the success of the project.

• The Chair asked how the Council was closing the loop to ensure that the data collected which identified the HMOs and licenced landlords contributing to the waste issues in the borough was being used to revoke landlord licences. Dennis Lewis advised that the department was working through that process, working with colleagues in the Private Rented Sector team, to develop a fixed matrix on how and when action could be taken, but he added that the process for withdrawing a licence was very prescribed, so the service was focused on encouraging landlords to comply with the rules in the first instance. The framework was complex, as, legally, a dumping offense was done by an individual, which was difficult to link to a landlord, but with the new licensing scheme and NCIL project being implemented there was a way to start looking at that information more accurately. Chris Whyte added that the new licensing scheme allowed the Council to test a method to hold people to account in the right way for the first time. With the NCIL project, there was a requirement as part of NCIL funding to undertake a review of how effective the project had been and whether that represented value for money, as part of other projects being done through NCIL funding. It was expected that the project would run to October 2027, and the Committee asked that the evaluation was brought back to the Committee to see how the project had been delivered and whether it fulfilled its aims, including whether a business case would be put forward to continue the project as business as usual.

• The Committee commented that it was difficult for members to understand impact and improvements made to flytipping and littering in Brent when assertions were made in reports but were not consolidated by figures and indicators, such as how the data compared to previous years. Chris Whyte acknowledged that the report was missing some of those data comparisons, and agreed to provide further information showing year on year comparisons to the Committee. In relation to street cleansing waste volumes, he confirmed that those had significantly reduced over the last year with enforcement actions increasing, showing that impact. It was added that there were some year on year comparisons provided in section 5.2 of the report.

• Whilst recognising the number of fly tip reports had increased, Chris Whyte expressed that this was not necessarily a negative, as it implied that people were engaging more with the reporting system. He confirmed that the Council could evidence, using data, that there had been a significant reduction in the volume of street cleansing waste, which corresponded to an improvement in the number of enforcements undertaken and the revenue generated through taking that action.

• Whilst recognising that a 34% increase in street cleansing reports meant residents were engaging with the reporting system, the Committee highlighted that residents often expressed dissatisfaction to members about the condition of streets and often viewed those 38,000 reports as points of failure. Chris Whyte responded that he viewed the point of failure to be the moment someone dumped items on the ground when they should not, which was the point in which the Council would need to deploy resource to counter that dumping. He believed that the most effective way to do that was in collaboration with residents who lived in those areas and who could provide the relevant information, as well as through education campaigns. He expressed that there was also a proactive element of the contract through the work Veolia did to identify particular dumping hotspots. Due to the fact that the street cleansing volumes had gone down, there was a view that the increase in reports was a measure of people’s engagement with the process and willingness to support the work the Council did to keep the borough clean. He also recognised that there were elements of the reporting system that could be improved, including the feedback provided when issues were resolved in order to improve satisfaction with the entire service.

• The Committee asked whether the service regularly analysed reports to see whether the initial response had been correct or whether there had been multiple and repeat reports. Rashmi Agarwal confirmed that the Council did track reporting metrics and discussed this with Veolia in the monthly contract monitoring meeting, with actions taken where required. Gisela Endres (Regional Manager – Brent Municipal and Wembley Stadium, Veolia) advised that there were a number of reasons the system may have duplicate events. The control room checked all reports, and closed those issues that had been resolved, with feedback provided to the resident on the resolution at that point, but where reports had incorrect information due to human error then the control room may need to close those ones and create a new report, and there were system limitations in providing that feedback. Reports were reviewed every week and where reports were closed incorrectly they were investigated and findings presented to the Council.

• The Committee asked what mechanisms were in place to hold the contractor to account and ensure robust monitoring arrangements were in place, particularly in relation to the accuracy of report closures. Councillor Sheth advised that the Council was always looking to make improvements, and felt that the commissioning and contract management team was very experienced and held contractors to account rigorously. Contract managers also attended her Lead Member Briefings to update her on the performance of the contracts and any current or ongoing issues. In response to members’ concerns that, historically, KPIs for these contracts had been favourable towards the contractors, making it harder to leverage terms due to poor performance, Chris Whyte highlighted that there was no specific KPIs for system reporting errors, but the system could be tracked to show whether a report had been completed and establish that it was correct. Jamal Maharajh (Performance and Data Insight Manager - Environment Strategy Waste and Climate Action, Brent Council) advised that he personally reviewed all reports closed by Veolia Central Command to check that they were accurate, and there were also internal measures to check the status of when a report had been opened and closed, and photos showing before and after action.

• In relation to the North of the Borough, the Committee fed back that it was difficult for those residents to travel to the tip in Abbey Road, highlighting that Harrow tip was much closer for those residents. They asked whether any conversations had taken place allowing Brent residents to make use of the Harrow tip. Chris Whyte advised that conversations had taken place with the Leader of Harrow Council who had refused to open their skip to non-Harrow residents, which was a long-held position. Residents in the North of Brent had the opportunity to make use of the community skip programme to get rid of their waste.

• The Committee highlighted that the Brent recycling centre was closed for two days a week, which inhibited residents wanting to get rid of bulky items on certain days. Members were advised that the closure was initiated to create a cost saving from the operation, built on a good understanding of user data as to whether that could be done without detriment. The site was not used often due to its location in Brent.

• In response to members detailing cases where residents had received fines where paper may have fallen out of blue bags, officers highlighted that irrespective of how waste got to where it was, the individual still had overall responsibility for the discharge of that waste, and if waste was found on the street the Council would take strong enforcement action. The Council did have a representation process where people could write to the Council to explain the situation, and the Council could not issue fines without evidence or a witness to the offence. Members were advised to get in touch with the department if there were issues with individual cases.

• Rashmi Agarwal confirmed that the total value of the current Fix My Street contract was around £250,000 over a 4-year period, but the terms and estimated value of the incoming contract was not yet confirmed. Social value would be built in to the contract terms for both Fix My Street and the bulky waste contract.
• The Committee highlighted that there were different standards across departments and contractors for dealing with waste reported through Fix My Street. For example, waste was removed swiftly on public highways compared to waste reported in parks. Chris Whyte advised that was likely an issue with the contractor response rather than a system issue, as Veolia was not responsible for parks. He acknowledged that this should be addressed through the new procurement to ensure a standard response across all areas.

• Noting that different departments and contractors were responsible for different areas of land, the Committee highlighted the possibility of co-ordinating cleaning schedules across those areas more effectively. Chris Whyte advised that co-ordination in a more functional way would be a piece of work the Council’s monitoring officers would need to do, working with contractors.

In seeking to bring consideration of the item to a close, the Chair thanked officers and members for their contributions to the discussion. As a result of the outcome of the discussion, the following suggestions for improvement and information requests were AGREED:

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT:

1)    Continue to explore other potential sources of funding (external grants, partnerships, regional or national streams) to support fly?tipping prevention, litter reduction, and related enforcement activity.

2)    Where feasible, improve coordination between Housing, Public Realm teams and relevant partner organisations to provide a more joined?up cleansing and waste?management service across the borough, addressing inconsistencies caused by administrative boundaries/separate arrangements between estates and nearby streets.

3)    Ensure the FixMyStreet and Bulky Waste retendering processes include clear, measurable social?value requirements that directly support the Council’s environmental sustainability priorities, underpinned by a robust monitoring framework.

4)    As part of the forthcoming retender of the FixMyStreet contract, explore options to improve the user experience. This should include assessing:

i)               The feasibility of the system automatically signposting users to the correct responsible department/organisation where a report cannot proceed, rather than the current practice of closing reports that fall outside the contractor’s remit (e.g. Housing Association land or Highways);

ii)              Whether improvements to GPS and location accuracy functions could be incorporated under new contract arrangements to reduce incorrect land identification and unnecessary report closures; and

iii)            The potential for the system to identify and record the stages at which users abandon report submissions, so that the Council can analyse barriers to engagement and improve the reporting journey.

5)    Where feasible, improve coordination between Housing, Public Realm teams and relevant partner organisations to provide a more joined up cleansing and waste management service across the borough, addressing inconsistencies caused by administrative boundaries/separate arrangements between estates and nearby streets.

6)    Ensure the FixMyStreet and Bulky Waste retendering processes include clear, measurable social value requirements that directly support the Council’s environmental sustainability priorities, underpinned by a robust monitoring framework.

7)    As part of the forthcoming retender of the FixMyStreet contract, explore options to improve the user experience. This should include assessing:

INFORMATION REQUESTS:

1)    Provide an evaluation of all relevant NCIL?funded projects delivered under the Public Realm Improvement Programme 2025–2026 aimed at improving waste management, fly?tipping and littering. The assessment should set out the effectiveness and performance of each intervention, and identify which projects delivered sufficient benefits to justify a business case for continuation, including evidence of income generation and/or cost savings.

2)    Where possible, provide details on the proportion of abandoned FixMyStreet submissions over the past 12 months, broken down by reason for abandonment and by device type (mobile, desktop, tablet).

Please note, whilst the suggestions for improvement, and information requests agreed as an outcome of each item were based on discussions and issues identified during the meeting, the final requests have been refined following the meeting to improve clarity and readability, while remaining consistent with the Committee's discussions and intended outcomes.