There is likely to be little change in Brent Council's final budget compared with earlier drafts. Wednesday's meeting of Scrutiny Committee will hear a presentation on the Budget Task Group's recommendations.
A concern repeated from previous years is around accessibility, transparency and clarity. You may recall that they had argued for calling a cut a cut, rather than a saving last year.
In all there are 11 recommendations. ACE Brent (Action on climate and ecological emergency Brent who have been advocating for more joined up cross-department work on the climate emergency will be pleased with Recommendation 3 on a 'green budget'. Voluntary organisations will welcome Recommendation 4 that recognises if the Council signposts the sector to mitigate the impact of cuts it should first discuss with them how the mitigations will be delivered in practice.
There is similar common-sense in Recommendation 5 that advocates a strategic approach to income generation while warning of the dangers of over-commercialisation. It emphasises the importance of complicance with current policies on empty properties and business rates. Recommendation 6 suggests the renting out of Council meeting rooms for external use. There is still a shortage of such spaces to hire in Brent.
Campaigners for the retention of the New Millenium Day Care Centre will be disappointed that Reccommendation 9 advocates the retention of the building for community use but not as a Day Centre.
An imaginative flourish is Recommendation 10 that suggests a Community Impact Levy on Wembley Stadium tickets.
The Budget Scrutiny Task Group makes the following recommendations to Cabinet. Budget Presentation and Communications
Recommendation 1 – Improvements to budget communications:
The Task Group acknowledge the improvements that have been made to the consultation and engagement process following the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24, but believes further work is still needed to better communicate to residents what the vision, mission, aims and priority protection areas of the upcoming Budget are. This also includes ensuring communications meet agreed accessibility standards, such as writing documents in plain English in line with the average Brent reading age. These revisions will help build a greater understanding of the priority areas safeguarded in the proposals and enable residents to provide more meaningful/influential consultation feedback. As an example the Task Group received evidence that there was only one proposal from the Housing portfolio as the Council had made a concerted effort to protect housing services and the most vulnerable; Although it could be assumed that an area not featured in the proposals would be protected, such information should be made clearer in the draft Budget for the lay person. The Task Group recommend that the Council includes a concise, summary page in the Budget (and in future budgets), adopting more accessible language which makes it clear what its vision, aims, and priority protection areas are.
Recommendation 2 – Developing clearer and concise proposals:
Some of the proposals are generally vague and lack clarity around the possible impact(s) on residents and partners (e.g. 2024-25 CR02, 2024-25 FR02, 2024-25 RS21, 2024-25 CHW03, 2025-26 CHW02 etc.) The Task Group recommend that the Council review the proposals ahead of publication of the final Budget to ensure that the final proposals and their possible impact(s) can be clearly understood and are accessible to all Brent residents. This review could be actioned collaboratively with a lay-panel (e.g. resident focus group) and in future years by including additional questions in the consultation. These suggestions could also help achieve recommendation 1.
Recommendation 3 - Alignment with climate action commitments in Borough Plan 2023-27:
Building on the recommendation made as part of the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24, there still needs to be greater alignment between the draft Budget and the Borough Plan 2023-27, particularly in relation to climate action. The Task Group appreciates changes being made to the corporate reporting template to include a ‘Climate Change and Environmental Considerations’ section - this good practice should also be applied in the budget setting process. The Task Group recommend that the Council adopt a ‘green budget’ which clearly outlines the climate and environment implications of each proposal. This will assist the Council in its urgent climate commitments, including the goal to become Carbon Net Zero by 2030.
Stronger Partnership Working with the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS)
Recommendation 4 - Shared Outcomes Framework:
Although the Council has understandably prioritised protecting the VCS and frontline services over other areas in its proposed budget, there is scope for stronger partnership working with the sector. During the Stakeholder Session (please see section 3), VCS partners expressed concerns that mitigations proposed in the draft Budget were centred around signposting to the VCS, however there had been no discussion or collaboration around how these mitigations would be delivered or achieved in practice.
The Task Group recommend that the Council explores a shared-outcomes framework with the voluntary sector for the benefit of residents/service users. As part of this work, the Council should urgently discuss and collaborate with the VCS in relation to budget proposals that involve them and/or may have an impact on their service provision.
This discussion could build on the Task Group’s recommendation from the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24 which suggested a collaborative strategy with the VCS to enable these organisations to identify and secure new income streams.
A shared-outcomes approach could avoid future service cuts, avoid service duplication and save the Council money long-term. Additionally, it would ensure that a consistent dialogue is maintained with the VCS throughout each financial year around issues like council budgets rather than the current approach which has meant budget discussions with the sector take place after proposals have already been drafted.
Income Generation
Recommendation 5 – Establishing a strategic approach to income generation:
The Task Group commend the Council’s creativity/efforts to generate additional income to bolster its finances, and particularly welcomes proposals such as 2024-25 FR01, 2024-25 RS13, and 2024-25 RS14. However, more could be done to generate even more income.
The Task Group recommend that the Council develops a longer-term, strategic approach to income generation (accompanied with yearly action plans) rather than focusing on piecemeal proposals year to year. The strategy should include a robust monitoring process that enables holistic working across all departments to create synergies for income generation. Specifically, allocating a dedicated, cross- departmental resource to work across the Council to investigate and identify additional opportunities for income generation e.g. compliance with mandatory HMO licensing, compliance with council tax on empty properties, and business rates evasion.
Establishing a longer-term approach will help the Council to be more resourceful and self-sufficient in the absence of large central government funding pots. Strategic interventionscould enable the Council to address areas of improvement in its operations and recoup income that would have been otherwise due, as well as identify new creative ways of generating income. The Task Group however recognise a balanced approach must be adopted that ensures the Council does not become over-commercialised and learns from local authorities that have experienced financial difficulties (i.e. entered s114 territory2) due to certain commercial choices.
Recommendation 6 – Renting out Civic Centre meeting rooms:
The Task Group acknowledge the efforts the Council has made to rent out spaces in the Civic Centre to generate additional income, however believes there are additional opportunities that can be realised. The Task Group recommend that additional space, specifically meeting rooms, in the Civic Centre are made available for external hire given that staff no longer work 5 days per week in the office. To complement this suggestion, some council meetings could be moved outside of the Civic Centre to be held in other community assets in the borough.
Not only could this recommendation generate additional income, but it could provide residents and businesses with office space and workspace solutions in the heart of the borough. It could also encourage members/officers to increase their use of other community facilities in the borough and spread the Council’s visibility more equally throughout the borough.
Recommendation 7 – Implementing additional shared service arrangements:
The Council’s efforts to generate additional income by offering shared services to other local authorities are welcomed. Notable examples include proposal 2025-26 CYP04 which intends to sell additional respite bed nights to other local authorities at the Ade Adepitan Short Break Centre. Another instance is the formation of the Shared Technology Services (STS), an IT shared service for the councils of Brent, Lewisham and Southwark, whereby Brent is the host borough for the service. The Task Group recommend that the Council explores further opportunities for shared service arrangements, learning lessons from its current arrangements and from good practice of the shared service models that already exist across the country.
It is acknowledged that there is not a single model that suits all councils, localities, or types of service provision, and that this recommendation will take time to scope out. However, if delivered effectively, the Council would be able to generate additional income, reduce duplication, potentially increase investment in services, and reimagine services to better meet the needs of residents.
Lobbying and Advocacy
Recommendation 8 - Housing Subsidy Loss:
Although the Task Group welcomes the increase to Local Housing Allowance rates via the Autumn Statement 2023, further pro-active work could still be carried out with neighbouring local authorities, London Councils, and the Local Government Association (LGA) to seek reform to the Housing Benefit Subsidy rules. The Task Group recommend that the Council works with the above mentioned associations to lobby for positive change to the Housing Benefit subsidy rules which currently caps the amount the Council can claim back from the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) to 90% of the 2011 LHA rates per household for TA provided, and which places financially onerous restrictions on the types of TA the Council can provide to be eligible for housing benefit subsidy. Such reform would enable Brent to significantly reduce its overspends, and to have access to a wider pool of affordable temporary accommodation to deal with increased demand in homelessness.
Recommendation 9 – Retaining use of New Millennium Day Centre
The Task Group accept that alternative provision will be put in place to mitigate the impacts of ceasing use of the New Millennium Day Centre. It would nevertheless be disappointing to lose a vital space in the borough that brings local communities together and which allows the Council to achieve its 'Borough of Culture' legacy ambitions. The Task Group recommend that the Council explores options to retain the building for community use.
Recommendation 10 – Wembley Stadium: 'Community Impact' Ticket Levy:
The Task Group welcome the financial contributions made by Wembley Stadium towards the Council’s event day management costs (e.g. cleansing and waste management, highways management, enforcement etc.), however recognise that these contributions do not cover the full extent of the costs incurred by the Council for its operations on event days.
The Task group recommend that the Council explores options with the Stadium for a ticket levy, whereby the Council receives a proportion of each ticket sale in order to fully recover costs incurred or to provide for further enhancement of the Council’s event day operations.
Recommendation 11 - Delegation of budgets and decision making to Brent Integrated Care Partnership (ICP):
The Task Group note that the success of many of the proposals are dependent on effective partnership working with health partners (e.g. 2024-25 CHW01, 2024-25 CHW03, 2025-26 CHW03, 2025-26 CYP06 etc). It was heard that the established working arrangements and governance in the Brent ICP provide opportunities for closer working between the Council and NHS partners. These working arrangements have enabled health funding to be transferred to Adult Social Care to support residents and the local health and care system.
However, the Task Group understand that the centralisation of decisions on NHS budgets away from the borough to North West London Integrated Care Board (NWL ICB) has reduced the ability of the Brent ICP to address local needs and may have increased future demand on the system. For example, in accordance with ICB processes, the ICP has submitted robust business cases for paediatric continence services, nursing provision for children in special schools, and to manage pressures on CYP and adult mental health services. All of these business cases are still awaiting a decision after many months, while need continues to increase.
The Task Group recommend that the Council continues to advocate and make the case to NWL ICB for both a better alignment of NHS resources to population need and for an increased delegation of budgets and decision making to Brent ICP.
Not only would devolution to place allow for more effective collaboration between the Council and local health partners but it would also allow for implementation of service change at greater pace. Additionally, the Task Group is of the view that the ICP is better able than NWL to tailor services to the needs of Brent’s diverse communities with greater flexibility to respond to changing needs or circumstances.
6 comments:
Recommendation 10.
Does this imply that Brent having been undercharging for the costs incurred by the Councils operations on Event Days????
Surely not, with all the money generated by the FA, Premiership, UEFA and FIFA, Concert promoters, we residents should not be paying a penny towards anything related to events!
It was also news to me told on LBC radio that the FA/Clubs only pay for Police inside the venue, and the cost of Policing outside falls on the Local Authority! no wonder we heading for bankruptcy.
To save our regular Labour supporter the trouble, I asked ChatGPT, to justify the closure of day centres for the elderly. This is its answer:
https://chat.openai.com/share/23df0420-8dd0-411d-9b72-2c8ddfcf540e
Closing the millennium day centre, serving about 80 elderly people, is tough. In our tight budget, we think they've had enough support or can access the charity sector, so we need to shift funds and that is the nature of difficult decisions. We want to tackle climate change, so money's going there. Also, making council toilets gender-neutral helps our trans and non-binary community, something that stands us apart from tories and libdems. It's about choosing where funds go in a tricky situation, thanks to the Tories' cuts. You either support us, or you are tory enablers. It needn’t be said we have a momental general election this year.
Politics, politics, politics!
If Labour run Brent Council has no money why give planning permission for thousands of student accomodation flats which will contribute absolutely ZERO to our council tax funding - the students will be using our already stretched local services but neither the students NOR the building owners will pay any council tax!!! We don't even have any major colleges or universities in Brent so why do we need do much student accomodation here???
Also if the funding Brent Council receives from Wembley Stadium doesn't even cover the clean up costs why have Labour run Brent Council given the stadium permission to hold more and more events each year???
What other poor decisions are Labour run Brent Council making?
What on earth does gender neutral toilets have to do with the budget
Anonymous' (21.02) approach is to insult people who have different views.
Were the labour councillors on the planning committee who used Mrs Thatcher's Senior Court Act to facilitate the Council’s own development when the high court found it unlawful - better described as 'tory party enablers' than residents who opposed reducing services for the old and the vulnerable?
Is it only 'tory enablers' who read The Guardian - when in 2020 the paper reported that high buildings have twice the Carbon Footprint of a low rise building of the same floor area.
Tackling Climate Change Cllrs Butt & Tatler?
Butt and his labour colleagues continue to promote high rise development and changed the local plan to facilitate in 2020 - not for the social housing (usually very little) - but for the higher receipts in CIL and community charge from high rise and to show the local residents who opposed the development plan – whose in charge.
Labour councillors go along with Butt because keeping their job as a councillor is more important than any labour party principle of helping the poor or the vulnerable or tackling climate change.
The hypocrisy of brent labour councillors shows them to be closer to the tories – (hang on to power come what may) - not the residents who oppose their actions.
Guardian on high buildings in 11 July 2020: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/11/skyscrapers-wasteful-damaging-outmoded-time-to-stop-tall-buildings#:~:text=The%20Observer-,Wasteful%2C%20damaging%20and%20outmoded%3A%20is%20it,time%20to%20stop%20building%20skyscrapers%3F&text=If%20no%20one%20ever,had%20to%20be%20environmentally%20sustainable.
New Brent Local Plan – Examination in Public September 2020.
Post a Comment