Brent Cabinet Stumped

             On how to deal with Trees!                                             

I am off to the council tonight and for the first time in 2 years, I have been allowed to ask a question.This will be my maiden speech.

The question I am asking 

“Why have the Labour Cabinet failed to deal with the 300 tree stumps that are have not been remove from our streets and are becoming an eyesore to our environment for over 18 months. What do the cabinet intend to do and how much extra will it costRatepayers because they failed to included the clearance in both the Trees contract and pavement replace contract?”

Now you would think every tree removal contract, would have a provision to remove the tree stump after you cut down a tree, alas not in Brent. 

I raised this issue in November 2014, but no attempt was made to find the revenue. At least you would have expected the Cabinet to make some financial allowance in last 2 years  for they removal and reinstatement of these stumps. Well you would be wrong. There are between 200-300 tree stumps (many in Kilburn) waiting grinding and then reinstatement. At the present rate it will take 4 to 5 years to remove the excising stumps, that if we do not cut any more trees down.

The cost to the ratepayer will be £270k,which works out at about £1,000 a tree, just to grind and reinstate the area around it. I spoke to to the lead member who seems to think its a capital project not something that should have been paid via the revenue account over the years or should have been specified  in the tree felling contract.

The cabinet made no extra provision for this service, knowing that there was no provision in the  contracts they decided to ignored the problem.Until now when we have find over 1/2 Million to remedy it .

This cost should been avoid by making the  grinding of the stumps and reinstatement part of the main contracts.But Hey -Ho what a  half a million quid between ratepayers.

Parking Costs,

Its long been a complaint of mine that the Cabinet aim their savings in Brent by cutting services,cutting terms and conditions of our workforce or from the public via the council tax.Over the last 2 years The Cabinet  have been addicted to the private sector and  privatising services and have never look to the contractor to either make savings ,or ensure the contractors are paying their way.

The cabinet have just gone throughout a root and branch review of the  parking costs for residents. however they decided not to included the subsidy we give the private sector.

Because of my concerns , I have had to write to CEO  about the small amount contractors paid to park anywhere in the Borough in comparison  to amount residents paid to park in a small area.

Dear CEO,

                          Private contractors Essential Users

                                   Permits subsidy (EUPs).

 As you are aware, I have been concerned about the way the Parking review has been carried out by the Cabinet. The Cabinet has failed to carry out a root and branch review instead relying on increasing parking costs, without also finding additionally from the private sector, who enjoy a large subsidised from us. 

As you are aware I ask your officers to give me the number of EUPs issued by Brent . they revealed we are issuing 865 permits to private contractor’s at a discounted price and another 360 to Brent direct services.       

See report attached.

I am very concerned to find -out there is a subsidy being given by Brent council officers to our contractor particularly Veolia. Your officers are wrong when they say that contractors are not getting a subsidy as the cost to Brent residents is £140 for each CPZ permit, that only allows residents to park in one zone.

Therefore, using Veolia as an example as we have 40 CPZ zones that make the bill for an all Brent permits for their 14 managers should be £5600 per permit not the £140 per vehicle, they are presently being charged. This means their yearly bill should be £78,400 not the £1960 we receive from them. This means council taxpayers subsidies a multi-billion pound company by the tune of over 76K PA.

Veolia managers are not essential users. In Westminster city council, where I was head of Street Cleansing Enforcement, they receive no permits and were expect to pay for parking meters out of the profits, if they receive a ticket they also pay for it out of their profits. We have no contractual obligation to give these permits to contractors.

On a broader point if we use the proper cost for all EUPS, to private contractors based on the price of all 865 issued permits. The value of the permits is 40x 140x 865 = £4.8million. (Yes £4.8million)

I also not saying these permit’s are not needed for many emergency and essential services. I am aware many of them are regular health visitors, but many are just contractors who happen to working for us and are being undercharged. I am not advocating we should withdraw the EUPs but we should negotiate a better deal for our residents

There are many formula’s you can use to get VFM (and I am willing to help to find that formula), which can be based on many inputs , size of contracts, emergency needs etc.  It would seem more than reasonable that the cost for a pass to park anywhere in Brent should represent somewhere near the true value of the permit. I believe from my experience the true value of a borough wide parking pass is somewhere between £240-£520,if that was the case it would raise between an extra £120k-340K.

I am also concerned there are 44 (5%) of EUPs issued,are to contractors we can't identify and the fact we issue 18 EUPs to the regeneration department, which may be important, but are neither essential or could be considered emergency work.

I would suggest you have a root and branch review, of the costing (subsidy) to private contractors, separate the council essential users (ensuring it not a unofficial manager’s perk) and review the needs of essential services.

I am therefore requesting you confirm that you set up a group ASAP (as I say I would like to be part of that group) to review the private sector subsidy. You also make the review/report available to the full council not just the cabinet who in my opinion has failed the ratepayers on this issue.

Regards