Effusive praise for Cllr Tatler - a tale of two articles

We have a regular commenter on Wembley Matters who champions the Labour Council and s/he is so over the top that it often appears to be satire, actually serving to undermine the council. At other times it has been suggested it is written using an Artificial Intelligence program.

The latest missive is in response to Philip Grant's series of exchanges regarding what he sees as a political foreward by Cllr Shama Tatler to  Cabinet report about the Wembley Housing Zone development.

Out of curiosity I resorted to Artifical Intelligence and asked CHATGPT to:

Write in praise of Councillor Tatler's (London Borough of Brent) of the Labour Party efforts at regeneration calling into question Philip Grant's criticisms of her schemes and her alleged politicisation of the issue. Question Philip Grant's political neutrality and condemn his actions as enabling support for the Conservative Party

Here are the two pieces of writing. Can you identify similarities?

 

ARTICLE ONE 

Councillor Tatler's tireless efforts in the regeneration of the London Borough of Brent stand as a beacon of progress and community empowerment. With steadfast dedication, she has spearheaded initiatives aimed at revitalizing neighbourhoods, improving infrastructure, and enhancing the quality of life for residents. Her vision extends beyond mere development; it encompasses inclusivity, sustainability, and social cohesion.

Despite her commendable endeavours, Councillor Tatler has faced unwarranted criticism from individuals like Philip Grant, whose motives seem questionable at best. Grant's disparaging remarks and attempts to politicise the issue not only undermine the genuine progress being made but also reveal a disturbing lack of concern for the welfare of Brent's diverse populace.

Grant's purported neutrality crumbles under scrutiny, as his actions appear more aligned with partisan agendas than with the genuine interests of the community. By echoing critiques that serve to benefit the Conservative Party, he betrays a disregard for the fundamental principles of impartiality and integrity.

In contrast, Councillor Tatler's approach remains resolutely focused on the betterment of Brent, transcending party lines in pursuit of meaningful change. Her leadership exemplifies a commitment to serving the people above all else, fostering a sense of pride and optimism among constituents.

As we navigate the complexities of urban renewal, let us rally behind leaders like Councillor Tatler, whose passion, integrity, and unwavering dedication illuminate the path toward a brighter, more prosperous future for all residents of Brent. Grant's politicisation of the issue only serves to hinder progress and perpetuate divisiveness, making it imperative that we reject such divisive tactics and unite in support of genuine, community-driven regeneration efforts.

 

 ARTICLE TWO

As a passionate Labour supporter and an avid follower of Councillor Tatler's tireless dedication to our community, I must express my wholehearted support for her invaluable contributions to Brent Council. 

It's disheartening to see Philip Grant's attempts to undermine the vital role Councillor Tatler plays in providing clarity and context through their Cabinet Member Forewords.

Grant's narrow focus on political content overlooks the broader picture of Councillor Tatler's commitment to transparency, accountability, and inclusive governance. The Cabinet Member Forewords serve as a crucial bridge between policy decisions and the community, shedding light on the Labour Party's vision for a fairer, more equitable society.

Grant's insistence on dissecting every word of these forewords in search of supposed political bias misses the mark entirely. It's abundantly clear that Councillor Tatler's motivations lie in championing the interests of all Brent residents, regardless of political affiliation. Her unwavering dedication to serving the public interest is evident in every aspect of her work.

Furthermore, Grant's suggestion of reviewing the inclusion of Cabinet Member Forewords reeks of political manoeuvring rather than genuine concern for good governance. It's a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the Labour Party's influence and stifle progressive policies that aim to uplift the most vulnerable members of our community.

Residents need to stand in solidarity with Councillor Tatler and reject attempts to discredit their invaluable contributions. We must continue to champion transparency, accountability, and social justice in Brent Council, with Councillor Tatler leading the charge towards a brighter, more inclusive future for all. This is a really important year for Labour and you are either with us or Tory enablers. 

 

 

 

Complaint over party political content of a Council report – Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate for Brent?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

This is a continuation of the correspondence which you may have read last week, in a guest post headlined “Abuse of Power?”. One anonymous comment was glad that Brent Council were being held to account, to which I replied: ‘It is not an easy task, especially when Senior Council Officers seem determined that they have to defend what is sometimes the indefensible.’

 

If you read the previous emails, and feel interested enough to read this further exchange, you may see what I meant by that. I felt that, rather than dealing with the issues I’d raised, the Senior Officer was trying to create a smokescreen. I have tried to cut through that, politely I hope, with a view to seek a resolution of the points I thought it important enough to write to her about in the first place.

 

Email from Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance at 4.25pm on 12 April:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email and I have considered the points you raise.

 

I have also had a quick look at practice elsewhere.  The templates used by councils for reports to their Cabinet (or Executive) are varied.  In at least 8 councils reports are expressed to be from the Cabinet member(s) to the Cabinet, in others the reports are jointly from the Cabinet member(s) and relevant senior officer(s). The template used by at least 5 councils includes a cabinet member foreword or introduction, e.g. Haringey and Newham.

 

The new approach in Brent was adopted for the reasons I gave in my previous email and is not out of step with the approach elsewhere.  Having adopted this template, reports addressed to Cabinet for decision are prepared using the template.  The legislation then requires the council (subject to rules concerning exempt and confidential information) to publish those reports and permit the public and press to attend and observe the Cabinet meetings at which they are discussed.  The publishing of the reports is clearly undertaken in compliance with the Regulations i.e. in discharge of the council’s duties under them. 

 

I remain of the view that it’s perfectly clear from the heading of the Cabinet Member Foreword section of the report that the comments in that section are comments of the Cabinet member and not of the officer.

 

I note what you say about section 3., “Contribution to Borough Plan Priorities & Strategic Context” in the particular report.  On reviewing the other reports on that agenda and other recent agendas I have noted that there is an inconsistency in practice, with some reports including this additional heading and some not.  The template itself does not have two separate headings.

 

Thank you for drawing this to my attention and I have reminded the officers who sign off the report and also the Governance team of this.  I have also reminded them of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword as indicated in my previous email.

My response to that email at 4.45pm on 17 April:

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email of 12 April. 

 

I will make this response shorter than my email of 10 April, and will concentrate on the two main points.

 

1. Did Councillor Tatler’s Cabinet Member Foreword contain political material?

 

You appear to have overlooked that my original email of 5 April was a complaint, about political content in the Cabinet Member Foreword, and you have managed to avoid addressing this question in both of your replies to me (8 and 12 April). So that we can finalise this point, please let me have your straightforward answers to these two questions:

 

a) Do you accept that the Cabinet Member Foreword, in the SCIL Request Officer Report to the Cabinet meeting on 8 April, contained some political material, including at least one piece of Labour Party political material?

 

b) Do you agree that it is wrong for Officer Reports to Cabinet meetings to include material which ‘in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party’ (irrespective of whether or not its publication breaches Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986)?

 

2. Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate in Officer Reports to Brent’s Cabinet?

 

For ease of reference, this is the purpose of Cabinet Member Forewords given in your email of 8 April:

 

‘The purpose of the introduction of the Cabinet Member Foreword was to provide an opportunity for the council policy context of decisions to be made explicit in reports to Cabinet by the Cabinet Member who is accountable for initiating and implementing council policies within the relevant portfolio.’

 

You have not explained whose decision it was to adopt the practice of including such Forewords, or at whose request. Please provide that information.

 

You have brought in information about what some other local authorities do, but all that should concern us, as citizens, Officers or Council members of Brent, is what is appropriate for our borough.

 

I understand that it helps Officers drawing up reports for Cabinet meetings to have a template, and that template (or necessary variations of it) can be drawn up or amended as appropriate, when the question I have asked in the heading to this section is resolved.

 

I think the best way to resolve it would be through a review, as I suggested, overseen by yourself, as Corporate Director of Governance, but taking views from other Senior Officers, Cabinet members and, I would suggest, the Leaders of the other Party Groups on the Council, and perhaps also the Chairs of Scrutiny Committees.

 

I have already put forward my views, as a politically independent observer of local democracy in Brent, where I have lived for more than 40 years. To summarise my views:

 

·      Officer Reports should be written solely by Council Officers, as their role is to provide the Cabinet, impartially, with all the information they need to make key decisions, and to make recommendations based on that information.

 

·      Officers making and signing off those reports must be aware of the Borough Plan Priorities and other Council policies for the service area they are responsible for, and it makes sense for that to be included in one section of their reports.

 

·      If the Cabinet Lead member with the portfolio covered by the report wishes to add their own views on the policy context, they can do so when introducing the item at the meeting, and also by circulating their own briefing document to their colleagues, should they think it necessary.

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Abuse of Power? Complaint over party political content of a Council report – Brent’s reply and Philip Grant's response to it.

 

 

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Last Friday, Martin published an Open Email which I’d sent to Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance, complaining about a Cabinet Member Foreword included in the report illustrated above. I received a reply from that Senior Council Officer on Monday morning, and sent my response to it just before lunchtime on Wednesday. 

 

It may seem as though I am making a fuss over a relatively minor matter, but when those in power at our local Council seem to be abusing the power that they hold, I think it is important to point it out, and to do so publicly. If they allowed to get away with one abuse, the next one may be bigger, and so on.

 

If the way that “Democracy in Brent” is conducted is of interest to you, the full text of the Council’s reply to my email of 5 April, and of my response to it, are set out below.

 

Email from Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance at 9.03am on 8 April:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I have looked at the section of the report to which you refer and also had a discussion with the Chief Executive.

 

Although, as you rightly say, it forms part of a report addressed to Cabinet signed off by an officer, the Cabinet Member Foreword in the report is separated from the main body of the report and clearly provided by the councillor and not by the officer who has signed off the report.

 

Leaving aside the question of whether there would otherwise be an issue in relation to the publicity related provisions to which you refer, I would point out that they arise under Part II of the Local Government Act 1986.  Section 6 (7) of that Part of that Act states:

 

(7) Nothing in this Part shall be construed as applying to anything done by a person in the discharge of any duties under regulations made under section 22 of the Local Government Act 2000 (access to information etc.)

 

These are regulations relating to publication of papers for, and admission to, meetings of the council’s Executive (Cabinet) and its committees and related matters.

 

The purpose of the introduction of the Cabinet Member Foreword was to provide an opportunity for the council policy context of decisions to be made explicit in reports to Cabinet by the Cabinet Member who is accountable for initiating and implementing council policies within the relevant portfolio. 

 

I am happy to remind officers signing off reports of this intention.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra

My response to that email at 11.50am on 10 April:

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email on Monday morning, 8 April.

 

I have considered it carefully, and have studied the legislation and Statutory Instruments arising from the main point you made on Section 6(7) LGA1986.

 

1. Your claim that ‘the Cabinet Member Foreword in the report is separated from the main body of the report’ does not stand up to scrutiny. Yes, it is headed Cabinet Officer Foreword, but it is subsection 3.1 of section 3 “Detail” in the middle of a document which, as I pointed out, is the ‘Report from the Interim Corporate Director of Communities & Regeneration’.

 

2.0 I admit that I had not considered the possible effect of Section 6(7) LGA1986 on the points I raised in my complaint email to you on 5 April. For that, I apologise. You appear to have used this to justify avoiding any answer over the content of the Cabinet Member Foreword being political material. But is Section 6(7) the “loophole” which allows that otherwise prohibited material to be published?

 

2.1 For ease of reference, I will copy that paragraph again here, but I have emphasised some of the key wording:

 

‘(7) Nothing in this Part shall be construed as applying to anything done by a person in the discharge of any duties under regulations made under section 22 of the Local Government Act 2000 (access to information etc.)’

 

Those regulations are set out in The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/3272) [“the Regulations”]. Under the Regulations, the executive (in this case, Brent’s Cabinet) is the “decision making body”, an individual member of the executive can be a “decision maker”, and the duties of decision makers, either collective or individual, are to make “executive decisions”.

 

Paragraph 11 of the Regulations, “Access to agenda and connected reports” begins by stating:

 

‘(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a copy of the agenda and every report for a public meeting shall be available for inspection by the public at the offices of the local authority when they are made available to the members of the executive or decision making body responsible for making the decision to which they relate.’

 

Subsequent sub-paragraphs make it clear that providing those reports, and managing public access to them, is part of the duties of officers of the Local Authority.

 

2.2 This is also reflected in Brent’s own Constitution. Paragraph 3 in Part 1 illustrates the clear distinction between the roles and duties of Cabinet members and Council officers, and states:

 

‘The Cabinet is responsible for putting policies, which Full Council has approved, into effect. The Cabinet is the part of the Council which is responsible for most of the Council’s day-to-day decision making not delegated to officers.’

 

Standing Order 13 in Part 2, “Meetings and Decisions of the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees”, includes these provisions:

 

‘(e) Any decision taken by the Cabinet or by Cabinet Committees shall be taken following the consideration of a written report and after having taken into account all legal, financial and other relevant implications, the responses to any consultation and the comments received from the relevant Scrutiny Committee and any previous meeting of Full Council where the matter the subject of the decision was considered.

 

(f) Any decision of the Cabinet or Cabinet Committees shall be taken in accordance with all current legislation, these Standing Orders and the other applicable rules contained in the Constitution.’

 

The report which the Cabinet must consider is written by Council Officers, and signed off by the Corporate Director responsible for the Department which deals with the report’s subject matter. That is done ‘in the discharge of’ that officer’s duties. 

 

2.3 It is not part of a Cabinet member’s duties, even a Lead Member’s duties, to write part of such a report. Their duty is to consider the written report, which provides all of the information they need in order to make their decision. For that reason, I do not believe that Section 6(7) LGA1986, applies in this case, so that the Cabinet Member Foreword in the report is still subject to, and breaches, Section 2 LGA1986.

 

3.0 I wrote that I could see no valid reason for Cabinet Member Forewords in Officer Reports to Cabinet. You have provided the following explanation:

 

‘The purpose of the introduction of the Cabinet Member Foreword was to provide an opportunity for the council policy context of decisions to be made explicit in reports to Cabinet by the Cabinet Member who is accountable for initiating and implementing council policies within the relevant portfolio.’

 

3.1 However, section 3.2, “Contribution to Borough Plan Priorities & Strategic Context”, of the very report we are considering here, sets out the council policy context explicitly. It also does so far better, and without the party political bias of Cllr. Tatler’s foreword.

 

3.2 The Report is about Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding to deliver a new publicly accessible courtyard garden and a community centre at the Council’s Cecil Avenue development, part of the Wembley Housing Zone. It is not about the housing project as such, but para. 3.1.3. of the foreword, in particular, concentrates on housing, beginning: ‘The housing crisis did not begin yesterday ….’

 

3.3 In this part of her foreword, the Lead Member for Regeneration, is putting forward views which appear to be different from the adopted Council policy she is meant to promote and deliver. Brent Council’s housing policy, is set out in Strategic Priority 1, “Prosperity and Stability in Brent”, of the Borough Plan 2023-2027. The key references are:

 

‘We will create more accessible and genuinely affordable housing. We want to be the leaders in London for inclusive housing development that works better for everyone. This means buying houses; building new social, accessible and affordable homes and improving our existing estates. We will also continue working with partners to increase the supply of private rented accommodation.’

 

‘DESIRED OUTCOME 2: Safe, Secure and Decent Housing - We will continue with our pledge to deliver 1,000 new council homes and be leaders in London in building inclusive and genuinely more affordable homes. This includes our pledge to deliver 5,000 new affordable homes within the borough, of which 1,700 will be directly delivered by the Council, by 2028.’

 

‘What Success Will Look Like - More council homes and more temporary accommodation provided by the council. More genuinely affordable and accessible homes available to families and residents.’

 

3.4 Cllr. Tatler’s version of the Council’s housing policy is:

 

‘We have a moral imperative to do all in our power to build more housing and communities that last long into the future. The regeneration that underpins the Wembley Housing Zone, is exactly that – an effort to build a better Brent, a place where home ownership is a reality, not just a dream.’

 

I’ve used bold type again to emphasise what she is championing in her Cabinet Member Foreword. Whereas the Council’s policy is to deliver new genuinely affordable Council homes, Cllr. Tatler’s agenda appears to promote homes for sale. 

 

Sadly, that is what the Brent Council development, under her “Regeneration” guidance, on Council-owned land at Cecil Avenue is actually going to deliver, with 150 (out of 237) of the new homes there being built for private sale, and only 56 as Council homes for genuinely affordable rent.

 

4.0 My email to you of 5 April suggested that the inclusion of Cabinet Member Forewords in Officer Reports to Cabinet should be reviewed, because I could see no valid reason for them. I think that our correspondence has confirmed that view (see 3.0 and 3.1 above), and I hope that you and the Chief Executive, to whom I am copying this, will initiate that review and publish its results.

 

4.1 Another reason why such Forewords are unnecessary, given in my email of 5 April, was because: ‘the Lead Member has the opportunity to make any additional comments she/he may wish to when introducing the agenda item at the Cabinet meeting.’

 

Cllr. Tatler proved this point at the Cabinet meeting on 8 April, when in introducing item 9 she read out large extracts from her Cabinet Member Foreword, including the claim about ‘a Labour pledge met.’ The evidence is on the webcast, published on Brent Council’s website.

 

4.2 If ‘the Cabinet Member who is accountable for initiating and implementing council policies within the relevant portfolio’ wishes to put their view on what those policies are to her or his colleagues, in writing and in advance of the formal Cabinet meeting, they can circulate their own document to their Cabinet colleagues. Those views should not be included in a Report by a Council Officer, on which the Cabinet is being asked to make a decision.

 

4.3 That is especially true if the Cabinet member has included political material, which the Council is prohibited from publishing, as part of their “Foreword”.

 

In view of the above, hope you will be happy to advise officers signing off reports to Cabinet that they should not, in future, include Cabinet Member Forewords in those reports.

 

I look forward to receiving your confirmation of this. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Complaint over party political content of Brent Council report on new Wembley Community Centre

Guest post  from Philip Grant in a personal capacity. Open Email to Debra Norman, Brent Council Corporate Director and Monitoring Officer. Also see report on the proposed community space HERE,

 

Subject: Political publicity in an Officer Report to the 8 April Cabinet meeting

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

I am writing to you, in your roles as both Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance and Monitoring Officer, to complain about part of the content of a report published on the Council’s website which, I believe, clearly represents political publicity, in breach of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 (“LGA1986”).

 

The report is under item 9 of the agenda for the Cabinet meeting on Monday 8 April, “SCIL request for a new Publicly Accessible Courtyard and new Community Centre in Wembley”, and the part of that report I am complaining about is section 3.1, headed “Cabinet Member Foreword”.

 

Under the Standing Orders [13(e)] in Brent’s Constitution, Cabinet decisions ‘shall be taken following the consideration of a written report …’, and those reports are prepared and submitted to Cabinet by Council Officers. The report I am complaining of is such a report, from the Interim Corporate Director of Communities & Regeneration, and has been signed off by her, as shown by these screenshots from the online version of the report:

 

Heading

 

Although the title heading of the report does identify Councillor Tatler as the Cabinet member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth, the report is, as it should be, a Council Officer report, giving information to Cabinet about the matter they are being asked to consider and decide, including the necessary legal and financial details, and making recommendations based on that information.

 

In many ways, a Cabinet Member Foreword is superfluous, as it does not give any details which are not, or could not be, included by the Council Officer(s) in the report. Additionally, the Lead Member has the opportunity to make any additional comments she/he may wish to when introducing the agenda item at the Cabinet meeting, and having those comments recorded in the minutes.

 

In this case, the seven paragraphs of the Cabinet Officer Foreword, covering 1¼ pages of the report, are more in tone and content like a political manifesto. Section 2(1), LGA1986, specifically states that: 

 

‘A local authority shall not publish, or arrange for the publication of, any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party.’

 

Any claim that the text of this “Foreword” is simply reflecting policies adopted by Brent Council is undone by this sentence from paragraph 3.1.1.:

 

‘A Labour pledge met to continue using public assets for public good – balancing regeneration projects in the interests of the many in search of a new home, not the few that decry change.’

 

The specific mention of the pledge being a ‘Labour pledge’ means that, if such a pledge was actually made, it must have been made in words or a document published by the Labour Party. (Was such a pledge made, and if so, where is the evidence for it?). The use of the words ‘in the interests of the many … not the few’ is also clearly drawing on a slogan previously used in an election campaign by the Labour Party.

 

Section 2(2), LGA1986, explains how to identify political material which a local authority is prohibited from publishing:

 

‘In determining whether material falls within the prohibition regard shall be had to the content and style of the material, the time and other circumstances of publication and the likely effect on those to whom it is directed and, in particular, to the following matters—

 

(a) whether the material refers to a political party or to persons identified with a political party or promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another;’

 

I have already pointed out that the ‘content and style’ of this Cabinet Member Foreword is similar to that of a political manifesto, and the words ‘a Labour pledge’ clearly refers to a political party. 

 

The Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity (“the Code”), which applies to all local authorities and is included in Part 5 of Brent Council’s Constitution, makes clear that Section 2, LGA1986, must be followed, and that Section 6, LGA1986, ‘defines publicity as “any communication in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or a section of the public”. Although it could be claimed that this report is addressed to Brent’s Cabinet, it is a publicly available document, which I have already seen quoted in local online blogs and newspapers, so it must be 'addressed to the public at large.'

 

Para. 33 of the Code says: ‘Local authorities should pay particular regard to the legislation governing publicity during the period of heightened sensitivity before elections …’ We are in a so-called “purdah” period before the London Mayoral and GLA elections on 2 May, and the opening sentence of Councillor Tatler’s “Foreword” actually begins: ‘Working in partnership with Wates Construction and the Mayor of London ….’, while later in the paragraph referring to a ‘Labour pledge’, as I have shown above.

 

I hope I have shown why the Cabinet Member Foreword is ‘political publicity’, which should not have been allowed to be included in this report. The Council Officers compiling, checking and signing off this report should have identified it as such, and insisted on it being, at the very least, amended, so that it did not include party political content.

 

Council Officers should not be afraid to point out to elected members, and particularly Cabinet members, when they are overstepping the mark. They should also know that the Council’s most senior officers will support them when they do stand up against such attempted abuses of power, which is why I am copying this email to Brent’s Chief Executive.

 

The remedy, when this complaint is upheld, should be for the report document appearing on the Council’s website to be amended, so that the Cabinet Member Foreword is removed entirely from it, or at least the parts of it referring to party political matters.

 

The inclusion, a fairly recent feature, of Cabinet Member Forewords in Officer Reports to Cabinet, should also be reviewed. There seems no valid reason for them. If they are allowed to continue, there should be clearer guidelines to Cabinet members and Officers over what can, and cannot, be included in them.

 

I look forward to receiving your response to this complaint. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

Brent Council to contribute up to £11.23m to Wembley Housing Zone's community space and community centre

 

 

Wembley Matters contributor, Philip Grant, has been assiduous in following the proghress (or lack of it) of the Wembley Housing Zone in Wembley High Road/Cecil Avenue. The main theme is the lack of truly affordable housing with the amount diminishing over the years when Brent could have acquired much more. See LINK for one of the main articles and the adjacent search box for more. (Search for Wembley Housing Zone).

Now the mainly private development (and the developer through increased value of the development) will benefit from plans for a courtyard and community centre/centres on the site to be paid for by Brent Council.

 

There are very few details about the community centres (there are two options) in the documentation. The developer Wates would contribute Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy monies to Brent Council but Brent Council would use this to enhance the scheme through outside community space and a community centre. Additional monies woud be needed from SCIL  for the more expensive option:

The proposed capital contribution of up to £11.23m SCIL is necessary to deliver the infrastructure elements of the scheme. The Wembley Housing Zone development is itself estimated to generate £5.267m Brent CIL receipts and Wates are liable to pay this sum. Therefore the net additional SCIL ask to the Council to fund the infrastructure elements of the scheme for Option#1 is £2.6m and for Option#2 is £5.96m. The Council has sufficient Strategic CIL reserves to meet this request.

 

As reported to Cabinet in August 2021, the Council can retain and lease the commercial and community space on the WHZ scheme, or dispose of it for a one-off capital receipt. Requested costs at Appendix 1 present two options, both of which would deliver the publicly accessible courtyard. Option #1 at £7.87m would also designate one flexible community and commercial space for the new community centre. Option #2 at £11.23m would however designate both flexible community and commercial spaces for a larger new community centre. Marketing of the commercial and community spaces will determine the range of occupiers interested in the WHZ scheme, and on what terms. Whether or not it is in the Council’s best interest to pursue Option 1 or Option 2 will depend on market demand and the balance of socioeconomic and financial outputs that can be delivered.

This is a substantial sum of money from  SCIL but the Officers' report states there are sufficient funds in the account to cover the cost:

There is a foreword to the Officer's Report by Cllr Shama Tatler which in my view amounts to a Brent Council party political broadcast during an election period (or parliamentary candidate pitch)  but has been defended by the Brent Council CEO as clearly separate from the officers' contribution. See the Report and Foreword  HERE,

Extract from Shama Tatler's Foreword:

Working in partnership with Wates Construction and the Mayor of London,

Brent Council is delivering on its longstanding commitment to revitalise the

eastern stretch of Wembley High Road. This report sets out how we will embed

community use at the heart of our regeneration plans for the Wembley Housing

Zone, with a landmark £11.23m investment into a publicly accessible courtyard

garden, alongside new community facilities. A Labour pledge met to continue

using public assets for public good – balancing regeneration projects in the

interests of the many in search of a new home, not the few that decry change.

 

The economic regeneration of Wembley is clear for all to see, from the world-

class Stadium to the re-developed public realm – thousands more Londoners

now also call the area home, and the area is attracting more inward investment

than ever before. This has been made possible thanks to long-term public and

private partnership, leveraging resources, expertise and crucially, investment.

Through the Wembley Housing Zone we have another opportunity to create

another powerhouse, driving positive change along Wembley High Road.

 

The housing crisis did not begin yesterday, and it will not finish tomorrow. It is

therefore vital that we create plans which respond to the economic drivers as

they are not as we wish them to be. We have a moral imperative to do all in our

power to build more housing and communities that last long into the future. The

regeneration that underpins the Wembley Housing Zone, is exactly that – an

effort to build a better Brent, a place where home ownership is a reality, not just

a dream. Supply of housing, of all tenures is vital to this, after all in the United

Kingdom we have some of the lowest ratios in Europe for housing stock to

people. Taken together with the toxic headwinds of inflation, prices are being

pushed everywhere and house prices are now at their most unaffordable,

relative to earnings since 1876.

 

Of course community centres are much needed and more community space essential and welcome in the increasingly  dense Wembley High Road but could Brent Council have got a better deal from one of their favoured developers?