Thursday 23 January 2020

Brent clarifies confusing Neighbourhood CIL consultation survey

Brent Council has clarified the Neighbourhood  Community Infrastructure Levy consultation survey. The drop-down menu on each of the areas is labelled 1 to 9. Some people had thought 9 would be the highest priority as it is the highest number. In fact the highest priority is 1 and 9 is the lowest.

This afternoon the Counncil said:
Based on the data and comments received, we are able to confidently assume that most people used number 1 to rank their highest priority. However, just to be sure we will be emailing all respondents to this consultation to clarify the ranking order and they will be invited to submit a new response which will be counted separately.
The Council amended the relevant page thus:

The closing date for the consultation is confirmed as February 5th. Link to consultation HERE

In answer to a separate query on the Annual CIL report the Council said:
To clarify, the 'n/a' which appears in some of the tables means 'not applicable' rather than 'not available'. For the avoidance of doubt we have included a clarification point at the end of the document which has been republished online. In addition, the third table of the Report includes the name of the item of infrastructure that CIL was used to fund in 18/19 - Olympic Way Pedestrian Improvements - which is linked to footnote 3.
The Olympic Way Pedestrian Improvements expenditure in 2018-19 totalled  £4,632,929 in  addition to the £815,114 Wembley Neighbourhood CIL payments.


Anonymous said...

Whole process is flawed yet Brent won an award for this mess. When only 2 per cent is actually spent and Brent gift millions of CIL to an offshore developer, the process has to be questioned.

Martin Francis said...

I agree and that's why we want some Green councillors to hold Brent Council to account. The 3 Tory opposition councillors are not doing their job.

Trevor said...

I don't agree with judging a political party on a local level before they have had the opportunity to show their ability and effect positive change.
However, I must add that I also don't believe that political affiliation ensures the kind of changes needed in Brent.
If that was the case, given the hold that Labour has retained, none of the other party candidates would have been able to use the shameful neglect of the environment as a bargaining chip to win votes.
Yet Labour, having won support consistently in spite of their failure to provide money for the upkeep of pavements and roads, used the very neglect they are responsible for and yet still received support from the local electorate.
Positive change should not be determined by which political party candidates who receive the most votes and fail to keep their promises but yet that is exactly what is happening here in Brent.
Something is very wrong with the current system and I dare say that there appears to be underhand tactics being used to win votes in spite of the consistent failure to look after the environment and address the needs of local residents.

Surely all Councillors want to use their time to do their very best for all local residents whether they give them their support in the ballot box or not?
Sadly, the current situation suggests that local democracy is increasingly divisive, clearly unjust, and almost certainly unfit for purpose.