Who is responsible for PROW26?

This mound of rubbish, both unsightly and a health hazard, is a continual problem on Public Right of Way 26 - which runs behind the back of the St Andrews Church hut from the cemetery up to St Andrews Road in the Conservation Area.

I have had to make several complaints to the Council about this alleyway in the past, either the pathway itself or fly-tipping like this alongside it. The pathway has been getting cleaned more regularly, but nobody seems to want to take responsibility for these heaps alongside it. Who is responsible for clearing this rubbish, the Council or the St Andrews Church?

It is a great shame, of course, that such a beautiful environs is not being treated with due respect by all the visitors to it. That ultimate responsibility for this scene remains to be identified.

Notice of refusal to collect refuse in Wembley Central ward

This picture was taken in Wembley Central ward on 10 December 2001, whilst out canvassing. Clearly not all residents are favourably adjusting to the new waste disposal regime (previous posting). The notice of refusal to collect this waste states:

"Today you left extra waste next to your landfill waste bin. We only collect waste that is inside the bin. Put it in your landfill waste bin next time. We will not empty your landfill waste bin if it is too full and cannot be shut."

Unfortuantely, that means that this particular resident could be facing a catch-22 situation. They cannot put the waste inside the bin, since it is full and will not be emptied if overfull. But they cannot leave the waste outside the bin either, since it will not be collected. Presumably they should be collecting their waste indoors until or unless they have spare capacity in the grey bin every fortnightly collection?

Is this rule being sensibly applied in this case? The bearer of the notice (Brent's subcontractor) is acknowledging that this waste is meant for landfill but it is being left to stand on the street exposed to the elements and interference from foxes, with the inevitable result that dispersal will result.

Veolia Violates Palestinian Land: Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign

On the evening of 22 November 2011, I attended an excellent public meeting in Willesden Green Library centre organised by the Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Michael Deas, Europe coordinator BDS national committee (pictured above, second from left) spoke first about the reasons for the strength of the boycott against Veolia nationally and internationally and key successes in some local boroughs already, notably Tower Hamlets. He outlined three key areas in which Veolia was complicit in the Israeli policy of illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories of Palestine - the construction and operation of a light railway transport system connecting West Jerusalem to illegal settlements; the disposal and dumping of toxic waste on Palestinian land; and the operation of bus routes along trunk roads to the exclusion of Palestinians (all illustrated below in poster).
Simon Natas, a leading human rights lawyer (pictured right), spoke next about the relationship between international human rights law, in particular, Israel's violations, and the moral basis for our intuitions about legal transgressions. He also identified legally analogous precedents, such as the concept of "aiding and abetting". In the discussion period, I put it to him that there was good moral basis for confronting companies whose actions actively facilitated the oppression of human beings, and violation of their basic rights, in spite of the fact that they were not primary authors of the policies they were acting under: "co-responsibility not diminished responsibility". Mr Natas agreed that Veolia should be held to account, particularly when they had made commitments to protect human rights under corportate social reponsibility (CSR) codes of conduct.

Finally, Salim Alam, a BDS campaigner from Ealing (pictured left, substituting for Rafeef Ziadah), spoke about how the aims of the boycott could be furthered by local residents writing to their local councillors and impressing upon other officials the need to get the West London Waste Authority (which includes Brent as one of six boroughs) to exclude Veolia from consideration for municipal waste contracts on grounds of "grave misconduct". The campaign had already met with the Authority to press its demands, armed with a letter countersigned by 576 residents of the catchment area already (example of the sample letter).

The meeting was diligently chaired by Martin Francis and everybody got a chance to ask questions and network after the meeting on a campaign of great importance to anybody determined to see an end to the injustice and indignity suffered by the Palestinian people. The speakers were dedicated to their cause and this showed in their words, their summary of past actions and declaration of future intentions.

Letter of the Week in Brent Times: Waste Collection

Letter by Shahrar Ali, "Council has wasted a great opportunity", 22 Sept 2011 edition.

Letter in Brent Times: Street Cleaning

Letter by Martin Francis, "Street cleaning: bring service back in-house", 22 Sept 2011 edition.

Brent Dry Recyling Bins: Pay more for less?

Blue topped dry recycling bins are currently being rolled out across the borough, ahead of the start of a new waste collection regime in October 2011. In a nutshell, residents will now have three bins, a green one for organic waste such as food and garden (weekly), a blue one for dry recyclables such as plastics and newspaper (to replace the green box, but now fortnightly), and the grey one to continue for non-recyclable or non-compostable material that has to go to landfill (but alternate fortnightly).

Whilst many residents will have missed the past "consultation" period and may be caught unawares about the changes, there has been comment and formal representation to the Council from the likes of Brent Friends of the Earth before now. They have raised important concerns about the pitfalls of commingling waste, the risk of adverse working conditions for labourers further downstream and, of course, the lack of quality of the consultation (no surprise with Brent council - expose of managerial style).

There is clearly an argument in favour of reducing landfill (grey bin collection will move to fortnightly) and increasing provision for recycling. However, even if all this can be reconciled to, Brent appears to have failed to conform to its own commitment on the provision of the new bins.

In the St Andrews conservation area of Welsh Harp ward, residents have received only one blue bin per two households. Unfortunately, this is not compliant with the Council's own stipulations - that residents will only have to share bins if "living in converted properties" or already sharing bins. Neither of these conditions hold in the case of these streets of which mine forms a part. The maisonettes are purpose-built (one of the features contributing to conservation status) and the boxes these bins are supposed to be replacing in part, are not already shared.

There is definitely an argument to be had about reducing the number of bins overall, as these can contribute to street clutter on collection days and also represent a material cost themselves (see excellent overview by my colleague Martin Francis). However, this argument has not been made by the Council. Moreover, as one of the main services relied upon by local ratepayers, there is clearly a quasi-judicial assumption to be had, that services will remain equitable for all, per household.

So, whilst there may be a case for having neighbours sharing bins, this would have to be on a sufficent criterion, not an arbitrary one. Otherwise ratepayers will find themselves receiving half the level of collection (volume per household) depending on where they happen to live in the borough, without explanation. This may be of overall benefit to the planet, but this should not be imposed upon some ratepayers but not others. Collective actions work best when everybody plays their part equally, can be encouraged to do so, and without having extra burdens imposed upon some only. Unless, of course, the Council would like to offer those households sharing blue bins a rebate.

Unless ... of course, the Council has an addtional motive, to use the rolling out of bins, also to reduce the number of overall collections it has to make. No doubt, some legitmate savings can be made on that score, but only up to a point. Where the commitment has been made for bins to be replaced, like for like - not one for every two households, but one each - any departure from that would constitute inequtiable provision. Like ratepayer; like service provision.

One further legalistic consideration. Brent is keen to mention its powers under Section 46 of the EPA 1990 (environmental protection act) to decide collections strategy. However, enforcement of its powers would become doubly difficult if the Council were unable to determine liability by any resident for contamination of the waste stream - for example, where households have had a shared bin imposed upon them for like cost.

I am soliciting feedback from both the neighbours and the Council about this.

Wasted Authorities: Threat from Pinkham Way Waste Plan

Installation Art in Lincoln Inns Field, July 2011. (photo: S Ali)

On 21 July 2011, the local Green Parties of Enfield, Haringey and Barnet organised a public meeting to raise awareness of the threat to health, environment and well-being posed by the North London Waste Authority’s plan to build an industrial scale waste plant at Pinkham wood.

Quentin Given, Coordinator of Tottenham and Wood Green Friends of the Earth, began with an overview of the kind of things we needed to be doing to reduce the amount of waste we produced as individuals and to take greater responsibility for its destiny in society. He made several excellent points, focusing on how overconsumption was the key illness that needed to be diagnosed and how goods needed to be built to last instead of turned over to the scrap heap.

Colin Parish, a local resident and founder of The Pinkham Way Alliance, spoke from the heart about how he first got involved in the campaign, almost as an unlikely activist, let alone somebody who had ever thought about green issues in the past. He spoke of his deepening understanding of the interconnectedness of things, and in particular the impact upon the planet of so much of human activity we took for granted, but needed to abate, such as supermarket packaging. He spoke about his desire to be able to enjoy his garden, free from fly infestation that would accompany such an industrial scale waste plant in his neighbourhood, and determination to see any future grandchildren be able to do the same, and to be able to visit the Pinkham Wood site as a place of beauty and nature. He spoke about the use of lawyers in the campaign and the need to be prepared to fight in the courts, as and when necessary, at every step – because of the intolerable impact such a plant would have on air pollution and huge lorries coming in and out of the plant, serving seven London boroughs.

Darren Johnson, Green London Assembly member, commended the campaign on its recent success in getting Haringey to postpone the NLWA waste application until the NLWA plan is completed. He spoke about the basic flaws in the waste plant proposal as a method of bringing together so much waste from seven boroughs without concerted action on improving the recycling regime, by introducing organic waste collection, for example. He spoke about the need to fight at every step, how the Greens would be with them every way, and the pressure that would need to be brought to bear on City Hall and the mayor.

Quentin Given (FoE), Darren Johnson AM (Green Party), David Bennie (Chair), Colin Parish (Pinkham Way Alliance)

All the contributions were eloquent and well informed. The contributions from the floor were also to the point and often attempted to address the broader context. Anne Gray spoke about the need for legislation to make it easier for businesses to be able to recycle without prohibitive charges. Laura Davenport spoke about her incredulity that whilst seven boroughs could get together to produce a dull, lengthy waste plan, they could not yet produce a plan to implement, what would be far better, consistency of best practice in recycling streams across the boroughs.

Colin Parish struck me as quite an inspirational figure. The local community will require leaders like that to come forward, to rise to the challenge. He even quoted Churchill, with the qualification (rightly) that he didn’t agree with everything he did or said, “Don’t do your best, do what is necessary.”

Just one thought I was left was the ridiculousness of co-ordinating waste across boroughs in this way. Brent is facing its own challenges up ahead, as part of the West London Waste Authority (see my colleague, Martin Francis's excellent updates here and here). There seems to be an inbuilt assumption amongst contractors bidding for tenders that they can make good on the profit motive by economising on scale, irrespective of whether this is good for the planet. Coordination must not come at the cost of proper appraisal of how to take responsibility for our waste locally.

Haringey Green Party report on the meeting here.

Budgets and Boundaries: Brent StreetCare, Brent Parks and Community Payback

Unfortunately, this fly-tip is still where it was two weeks ago (new picture above taken 17 April). This is not to excuse the initial act of dumping, but why should it take the Council two weeks to finally promise to clear it? I have been advised that there was "confusion" about whether the internal responsibility lay with the StreetCare department or the Parks department. It has now been classified as a job for the Parks department, to be clerared by the end of the day.

More concerning is the admission of a manager I have had correspondence with at the Council regarding another ongoing request of mine to have an alleyway (public right of way, PROW26) which backs St Andrews Church cleaned up. He has requested assistance from the local Community Payback scheme because of "reduced funding". However, does this not risk endangering the rationale for the scheme - firstly that offenders were to be nominated for special projects by their local community, not to receive requests directly from the Council? Secondly, that the general upkeep of a public right of way is not a special project but an ordinary duty, that should be in the jurisdiction of our Council streetcare department.

Here is a quote from the Community Payback website on nominating projects:

"Local projects can be community based or for the good of a charity or charitable organisation. Street clean ups, graffiti removal, and even painting of derelict or run down buildings can benefit the community as a whole as well as specific regions or even individual buildings and residents. As a member of your local community you now have the power to nominate or vote for the project that you believe would gain the greatest benefit and offer the most to you and your neighbours and other community members."

Here Today ... Here Tomorrow

Above taken 3 April 2011.

Above taken 10 April 2011. Spot the difference?

As the annual round of monthly council tax payments begin afresh in April, residents will be rightly concerned to see mountains of garbage in their neighbourhood not being dealt with. This is not to excuse the initial flytipper, but Brent has been made officially aware of this particular heap (at the junction of Birchen Grove and Old Church Lane) since 4 April. Reference 752069, complete with a picture I submitted on-line.

A genuinely sustainable approach to waste management

Brent Council are to consult on a new waste strategy that includes fortnightly collections of residual waste and 'dry' recyclables replacing the current fortnightly collections. Food waste will continue to be collected weekly and cardboard will now be included in the dry recyclables.

Brent Green Party will respond in more detail later but this is our initial response:

A genuinely sustainable approach to waste management would be to minimise the amount of waste by reducing packaging, encouraging the re-use of containers and increasing the amount of domestic composting. This could both reduce the number of collections and produce environmental benefits.

We welcome the strengthening of recycling through extending the scheme to flats but are very concerned that waste produced by businesses and commercial properties remains outside the scheme.We are pleased that cardboard is at last to be included in the 'dry' recycling box.

 We are aware that the organic collection will continue to be  weekly but are realistic in assuming that some organic matter will cling to material in recycling bins and that residual collection bins will still contain some organic material.  These will be left outside for two weeks so it is essential that the council carry out a health and environmental assessment of the consequences of fortnightly collections.

Up Up and Away for Brent and Barnet Green Parties

Photo of Brent and Barnet Greens by Claudia Evans (l-r): Lia, Johnny, Shahrar, Alex, Donald, Gardi, Andrew, Rebecca, Noel and Ben (stitting).

On Sunday 18 April, Green candidates were out in force at Clitterhouse playing fields near Brent Cross. Donald Lyven, parliamentary candidate for Finchley and Golders Green was attempting to fly a kite at 140m to bring attention to the height of a proposed chimney for a gasifying incinerator – even taller than the Wembley arch. He had to gain permission from the Civil Aviation Authority to attempt the stunt.

Donald was supported by several colleagues from Brent Greens: Shahrar Ali, parliamentary candidate for Brent Central, plus council candidates Alex Freed for Queen’s Park and Lia Colacicco Evans and Johnny Wharton from Mapesbury.

Shahrar said: “This was an imaginative idea well executed. The air was still and even at half its intended height, the kite display showed us just how obtrusive an incinerator chimney would be. The balloon release was inspiring. But instead of lifting the spirit the smoke would be oppressive."

The team released helium balloons with a message to finders – warning them that if the wind had blown the balloon in their direction, then they would also receive toxic emissions from the proposed chimney.

Brent and Barnet Greens are members of the Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross, and were joined by local Friends of the Earth groups. Coalition co-ordinator Lia Colacicco is also a Green candidate for Mapesbury.

Lia added a message for local residents: “People may be fooled into thinking that energy from waste is renewable. But after hearing the evidence from leading environmental chemist Paul Connett, I was shocked. The toxic nanoparticles produced by vapours in rubbish are so small they can’t be regulated, and can travel for miles. Rather than getting stuck in the lungs they pass through into the blood and are carried to the brain."

Local Press. Barnet Times.