Guest post by Asif Zamir, Independent Community Advocate
BRENT COUNCIL CLAMS UP:
Transparency Challenges Over the £20m St Raphael’s 'Pride in Place' Board
Recruitment
Following a formal Freedom
of Information (FOI) request regarding the recruitment process for the
Independent Chair of the £20 million St Raphael’s and Stonebridge Pride in
Place fund, Brent Council has issued a highly evasive response (Ref:
IRC-92027-V6F0K0).
Rather than demonstrating
the "open, fair, and transparent" governance promised in its
corporate guidelines, the local delivery authority has completely withheld
specific candidate metrics and process logs. Instead of providing the specific
information requested, the council has merely supplied generic, blank
procedural policy documents.
From the perspective of
community oversight, this response raises serious transparency concerns.
The residents of the St
Raphael’s & Stonebridge are entitled to full disclosure on the following
three institutional points:
1. The Omission of the
Advertised Resident Panel
The original request sought
the specific decision logs confirming why the publicly advertised, localised
resident stakeholder interview panel was omitted from the final evaluation
process. The council’s response completely bypassed this question.
* The Procedural Breach:
While the Candidate Pack permits political figures and council officers a seat
on the final panel, Page 9, Section 4.5.9 of Brent Council’s own internal
Recruitment and Selection Policy explicitly mandates that “steps must be taken
to involve service users [residents] in the selection process wherever
possible.” By completely omitting the advertised resident selection panels, the
council removed vital community-led checks and balances, leaving political
leadership as the sole evaluators of the post.
2. The Withholding of Basic
Aggregate Statistics
The FOI request sought
basic, non-identifiable numerical data: the total number of individuals who
applied for the Chair position, and the total number successfully shortlisted
for a formal interview.
* The Overreach of Data
Protection: The council has claimed that disclosing these raw numerical figures
violates Section 40(2) (Personal Data) under data protection laws. This
represents a significant overreach of UK GDPR frameworks. Releasing a simple,
raw aggregate statistic carries a zero percent probability of individual
re-identification.
Withholding basic
statistical counts prevents the public from assessing the competitiveness and
openness of the selection process.
3. The Conflict Management
Audit Trail
The successful candidate's
public employment record indicates they served as a senior Brent Council staff
member directly inside the Brent Council Leader’s Office until August 2025.
They were subsequently appointed as the Independent Chair of this
multi-million-pound community board in September 2026—just 13 months later.
* The Mandatory Policy
Window: Under Page 7 of Brent Council’s own Conflict of Interest Policy, the
Declaration of Interest forms of former employees must legally be held by the
department for a minimum of 2 years after leaving the council's employ. Because
the appointee falls squarely within this active 2-year audit window, an
internal record trail MUST exist.
Despite this, the council
has refused to provide anonymised copies of the due diligence, political
activity disclosures, or conflict management logs requested to verify how the
public perception of independence is being maintained.
Next Steps for Accountability
A flagship national
initiative funded by central government to be "community-led" cannot
be administered behind closed information barriers.
Consequently, we have taken
two formal steps to challenge this evasion:
1. Escalated to Chief
Executive Kim Wright: We have officially triggered a statutory Request for an
Internal Review with the Information Governance team, copying in the Chief
Executive and the legal department, to challenge the withholding of this data.
2. Notified Whitehall
Assurance: We have forwarded the entire evasive FOI file and relevant council
policy pages directly to the MHCLG Communities Delivery and Assurance Unit
(PiPPcorrespondence@communities.gov.uk) for an independent compliance review.
I have also issued a direct,
formal notice response to the newly appointed Chair, Priyesh Patel.
Our position is absolute: we
have explicitly rejected any invitations to step into closed-door or private
briefings at the Brent Civic Centre.
We will not enter any
polished boardroom to discuss the future of a £20 million community fund while
the council is actively hiding the recruitment data from the public. A formal,
transparent meeting under strict public record rules will only be considered
after Brent Council fully complies with basic transparency regulations,
overrides its faulty data protection excuses, and releases the aggregate FOI
statistics.
Public confidence cannot be
rebuilt behind closed doors; the paperwork must be fully disclosed to the
community first.
I’ve also formally written to
Councillors Aden, Knight, Blackman and Leader Councillor Butt requesting
clarification on the governance and conflict-of-interest arrangements
surrounding the appointment of the Independent Chair for the £20m St Raphael’s
Pride in Place Neighbourhood Board.
I’ve asked them to confirm,
among other things, whether any relevant professional or political associations
were declared, whether any conflict-of-interest or risk-mitigation assessments
were undertaken, whether the candidate’s recent Brent Council employment was
considered in assessing independence, and whether residents were involved in
the selection process.
I’ve given them until *5pm
on Wednesday 7 October* to respond.
Dear Councillors Aden, Knight, Blackman, and Leader Councillor Butt,
I am contacting you in my capacity as an independent community advocate for the St Raphael’s estate and Stonebridge regarding the recruitment and appointment of the Independent Chair of the £20 million St Raphael’s Pride in Place Neighbourhood Board.
Given your elected roles and responsibilities within the ward and borough, I am seeking clarification on the governance and conflict-of-interest arrangements surrounding the selection process, particularly in light of information raised through my Freedom of Information investigation.
The FOI process (Ref: IRC-92027-V6F0K0) has not, to date, provided answers to several specific questions concerning resident involvement in the selection process, aggregate applicant and shortlisting figures, and whether conflict-of-interest or independence assessments were undertaken in relation to the successful candidate.
I have also obtained information which indicates that the successful candidate was employed by Brent Council, including within the Council Leader’s Office, until August 2025. I have further identified information concerning subsequent local political activity involving ward representatives. I am not asking you to accept any allegation of impropriety; rather, I am asking for the relevant governance arrangements to be confirmed publicly.
I therefore request confirmation of the following:
1. Declaration of association
Prior to the conclusion of the Independent Chair selection process, did any Stonebridge Ward member, or anyone within the Executive Office involved in the process, formally declare any previous professional, political or campaign association with the successful candidate to the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Director of Legal Services, or other designated officer responsible for managing conflicts of interest?
2. Conflict-of-interest assessment
Were any conflict-of-interest declarations, assessments, registers, risk assessments or other governance records created in relation to those associations?
3. Risk mitigation
If any potential conflict or perceived conflict was identified, what risk-mitigation measures were put in place to ensure that participation by elected members in relation to the Neighbourhood Board remained appropriately separated from any previous professional or political associations?
4. Independence of the Chair
Was the successful candidate's recent employment by Brent Council considered as part of an assessment of whether they met the independence requirements of the Independent Chair role? If so, who conducted that assessment and what governance framework was applied?
5. Resident involvement
Did residents or local stakeholders participate in the evaluation, interview or selection of candidates for the Independent Chair position? If not, what was the recorded rationale for not incorporating a community-led interview or evaluation element?
6. Selection transparency
What were the total numbers of applicants, shortlisted candidates and candidates who progressed to formal interview for the Independent Chair position?
For clarity, I am not requesting personal data relating to other applicants.
I am seeking aggregate recruitment statistics, procedural information and confirmation of governance arrangements.
The Council's FOI response confirms that Brent was responsible for recruiting the Independent Chair positions. It also states that individual candidate scores and assessments were withheld as third-party personal data. My questions above are deliberately framed so that they can be answered without disclosing individual applicants' personal information.
I have now formally requested an internal review of FOI Ref: IRC-92027-V6F0K0. That review specifically asks the Council to reconsider whether the unanswered questions concerning resident involvement, aggregate selection figures, independence assessment and conflict-of-interest arrangements fall within the scope of the original request and can be disclosed without identifying individual applicants.
I would therefore be grateful if you could provide a substantive response to each question above by 5:00 PM on Wednesday 7 October 2026, so that the response can be placed on the public record alongside the ongoing FOI review.
If any of the information requested is not held, please state that expressly. If it is held but cannot be disclosed, please identify the relevant exemption or governance basis relied upon.
The purpose of this correspondence is to establish a clear factual record concerning the governance of the St Raphael’s Pride in Place programme and to ensure that residents can understand how independence, conflicts of interest and community participation were addressed during the appointment process.
I look forward to your response.
Regards,
Asif Zamir
Independent Community Advocate
St Raphael’s Estate and Stonebridge
