Not so 'simplistic' after all! Cllr Butt takes up Lib Dem suggestion on CIL with the Labour Government

 

 

From the Brent Infrastructure Funding Statement that went to Brent Cabinet in December 2023

Despite having dismissed Liberal Democrat Leader Anton Georgiou's suggestion that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could be used to bridge the funding gap ahead of a new local government finance settlement as 'simplistic', Cllr Butt Labour Leader has written to the Government asking for the flexibility to do just that.

Butt had told Cllr Georgiou, 'To make a simplistic statement that we can use CIL is counter-productive to the conversation.'

He has had been asked straightforwardly, 'Would you support asking the Government  to change the way CIL can be spent?'

There was no direct answer but just over a month later Cllr Butt and Cllr Tatler have written to the Labour Government stating that diminishing budgets meant that councils were looking for innovate ways to raise income:

 

I am therefore writing today to put forward an additional case for flexibility to ease restrictions around the usage of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds, devolving the decision making to local councils to decide how to invest in their local aras, as they see fit. It’s our responsibility, as a dual Labour administration, to get these funds to where they need to go.

 

Infrastructure projects alone cannot address the challenges which local areas and residents face. Greater flexibility in the use of CIL funds would mean that councils can address urgent non-infrastructure needs, allowing this council to pilot and pay for new projects that would meaningfully make a difference. Today, CIL funding cannot be utilised for investing in a new waste enforcement team, or community safety officers, for example. We therefore ought to expand the criteria if what we mean by infrastructure and impact mitigations, allowing for the recruitment and retention of additional staff to keep our borough safe and clean.

 

Easing restrictions does not mean abandoning fiscal responsibility, rather adapting to current realities and the challenges councils are facing. Councils can still practice sound financial management while using CIL more flexibly. Establishing clear guidelines and accountability for the use of CIL funds would ensure that the funds are used effectively and responsibly.

 

I urge the Government to implement these reasoned flexibilities and help us to unlock funding that is sorely needed today

 

This is not so very different to what Anton Georgiou had written earlier to Angela Rayner, Secretary of State for Housing, Councils and Local Government:

 

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has the potential to deliver improved infrastructure within local areas but there is a long wait for this. The stringent criteria imposed on the use of CIL makes it far too difficult to use.

 

As a result in the case of the London Borough of Brent the Council in its 2024/25 budget estimates that it will have a staggering £250 million of unused CIL in its reserves at the end of its financial year on 31 March 2025.

 

For years Councils have been pleading with the Conservative Government to set longer term Local Government financial settlements to provide some element of certainty and the ability for Councils to plan ahead. This has fallen on deaf ears.

 

There will inevitably be appeals to the new Labour Government to address this and more importantly to provide more money for local Government. Judging from the statement from the Chancellor this week the financial outlook is tough and the chances of more money for local Government are very slim.

 

There is however something very simple and quick that you could do for Local Government without extra money from the Treasury at this time:

 

Give local councils greater freedom and greater flexibility on how to use CIL for essential services (Revenue and Capital) in their area.

 

Currently the use of main CIL is extremely restrictive and expenditure which is normal in the course of everyday Council business cannot be funded. Brent for example has a massive backlog of road and pavement repairs due to decades of past underspending. Why cannot part of the large CIL pot not be used to tackle this backlog? Who benefits with the money being unspent and simply accumulating and ever growing reserves? It makes no sense at all.

 

At present 15% of CIL is allocated to a Neighbourhood Pot for local residents to allocate. Why not change the rules so that say 42.5% of the remainder is allocated to the expected infrastructure projects and the other 42.5% freed up to be used on essential Revenue and Capital spending to meet the Council’s own priorities.

 

Brent is not the only borough with large amount of unspent CIL. I am convinced that across Local Government the unused CIL pot will amount to many £Billions.

 

So why not do something positive and quick to help Local Government from its current funding crises and at no cost to the Treasury.

 

My colleague Councillor Paul Lorber wrote on this same issue to Michael Gove a few months ago. You won’t be surprised to learn that he received a negative answer which failed to address the issue – which Mr Gove probably failed to grasp.

 

I am hopeful that you not only understand the point I am making but that you are more sympathetic to the plight of Local Government and therefore more determined to free up some of the CIL money and thus help local Council’s to start tackling the backlog of accumulating neglect in their areas.

 

Hopefully, this is a sign of new maturity on Cllr Butt's part. After some reflection and perhaps discussion with colleagues and officers he has recognised that there was merit in the Opposition's suggestion of 'reasoned flexibilities' in the use of CIL. 

 

 

Perhaps it is not too late for a bi-partisan approach to the challenges facing Brent Council and its residents.

Ealing Road blocks replacing bank and public house approved by Brent Planning Committee

 

Brent Planning Committee approved the plans for  245-249 and 253 Ealing Road at Wednesday's meeting. Two members voted against approval. There were representations  against the development from nearby residents and from ward councillor Anton Georgiou. The sound quality of the Coucil recording was very poor so Cllr Geogiou has let me have a copy of his representation:

I am here, once again, to be a voice for the residents in Alperton who are fed up with the intense development in this particular part of the ward. An area that has already had to endure years of construction works, that are still ongoing causing misery to the lives of local people. If any of you have visited recently – you will understand why.

 

As a ward Councillor, I often come to these meetings to voice opposition to the wrong type of development and am often attacked by the Chair and others for not understanding the pressures we face as a local authority with regards to our housing needs – these attacks are totally unwarranted.

 

It is important to recognise that the bulk of the development that has occurred to date has not and will not address the genuine and growing housing need in our community. It has though compounded existing issues in my ward whether that is a lack of infrastructure to deal with the increasing population, or the problems that present for existing residents and even our newer residents who are living in some of the new blocks that have been thrown up.

 

Firstly, I think that it is important to read the letter from my resident Alexandra, who is unable to be here today, which outlines her and her neighbours, objections to this development. The issues she highlights are all genuine planning considerations, loss of light, privacy and overlooking issues, the cumulative effect that ongoing development has had and will have on this area. I do believe that before you make a decision tonight you should read her letter and listen to the comments Mathew, another resident at 243 Ealing Road will make, who will also be speaking in opposition.

 

If I could get into the final details of this application, I think it’s important to recognise that whilst some affordable housing is provided, not all of it is the genuinely affordable provision we need. I continue to take issue with the Council’s view that shared ownership is an affordable housing tenure. It is not. 

 

Shared Ownership is a scam, and you only have to speak to the 1000’s of residents in Brent who have been trapped by the false pretence that Shared Ownership is affordable to see this. In the application it is proposed that there will be 10 Shared Ownership units. In my view that is enough of a reason to reject this version of the application entirely. 

 

Whilst I recognise the scheme proposes a 35% affordable housing offer, as an authority we should be pushing for much more from developers if we are serious about addressing our growing housing need. We do not need 56 more private units at market value, who are they for, who can afford them? It is time this Committee stopped saturating the local housing market with what we do not need.

 

Moving to existing issues in some of the new blocks in Alperton, I would like to ask this Committee if they follow up on the developments that have already been approved. If you had you would realise that most new residents are having to already contend with difficulties in new buildings, such as broken lifts, anti-social behaviour in communal spaces, lack of access to communal areas due to safety issues, significant construction issues, including with cladding, the list goes on.

 

My point is that this Committee is approving new developments without recognising that most of these developments from the offset have major, inherent issues with them. You are effectively allowing residents to move into the ward and into Brent who are then forced to cope with a myriad of problems in their new homes from day one. 

 

Is the Council holding the developers, housing associations and construction/ building companies to account – when they make commitments to us at this stage of the process? I am personally having to intervene when issues present in new blocks and it seems unbelievable, frankly a dereliction of the Council’s duty towards residents, that new developments keep being approved despite there being such flaws in new builds. Enough is enough.

 

I would finally like to turn to the financial contributions offered alongside this development.

 

The papers indicate a £45,00 towards a CPZ close to the site, I would like the Committee to tell me if they know where the existing CPZ is, and whether the mentioned extension will simply be imposed on residents. Before accepting more money for CPZ’s I would suggest the Council gets its act together in progressing schemes – they take too long to implement and in the meantime parking havoc ensues on local roads.

 

£7,000 for off street tree planting is welcome but are the Council committing maintenance and upkeep, rather than letting new trees die?

 

£10,000 for improvements to open spaces within the borough but not solely for the ward so again money generated in Alperton being spent elsewhere. This is not fair.

 

Another £150,000 for step free access at Alperton tube. Welcomed. But will it actually happen. TfL are good at sending out press releases on this, but how long will it take? Issues at the station are present now, local people cannot wait any longer.

 

CIL contribution again welcomed, but how much will actually be spent on infrastructure in my ward, to mitigate the impact of this development. Will the Council not be tempted, as it has been to date, to just grow the overall pot and resist spending it on immediate needs?

 

These financial sweeteners are simply not reason enough to justify even more development in Alperton.

 

I will close by saying, the proposed site used to house a public house and bank. Both great amenities, that local people want and need. The worrying trend of pubs closing down and being redeveloped into unaffordable housing will continue if you approve this application. I am sure many of you have fought to save such amenities in your wards. Why doesn’t Alperton deserve the same fight?

 

This Committee is making my ward a place for people to sleep in but not live. It is a concrete jungle, with little to no community vibe. Please pause and think again before agreeing to two more tower blocks here.

Brent Council turn down request for public consultation meetings on Wembley Stadium's application to hold up to 54 'Large Events' a year with crowd theshold increased from 51,000 to 60,000. Decision expected in August

 

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou has tabled a question to Brent Council over Wembley Stadium's controversial application to increase the number of events and the crowd threshold at the stadium. The council reject a request to hold public consultation meetings on the proposal and suggest the application will go to Planning Committee in August when many residents will be away.

The question and response:

Question from Councillor Georgiou to Councillor Tatler (Cabinet Member for Regeneration Planning & Growth):

 

Large scale events at Wembley Stadium, especially when held on three successive days, have a major impact on the ability of thousands of Brent residents to go about their everyday activities.

 

In 1999, planning permission was granted allowing the Stadium to hold 37 'Large' events, which has subsequently been increased to 46 'Large' events. Now the stadium wants this increased again to 54.

 

Can the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth advise:

 

1. Will Brent Council hold consultation meetings to hear first hand the impact the ever increasing number of Large-scale events have on the lives of local people?

 

2. Has Brent Council carried out a detailed impact assessment of how Large Event days affect the lives of local people?

 

3. Will due regard in the planning officers assessment be given to social impacts on lives of local people and not simply financial benefits for the Stadium?

 

4. What direct compensation or benefits can local people expect if the changes proposed were to be approved?

 

Response:

 

The Stadium has applied to vary a condition on their planning consent to allow them to hold up to 8 additional stadium events each year. They are also applying to increase the threshold above which the event cap applies from 51,000 to 60,000 people and to change the distinction between sporting and non-sporting events.

 

Events at the stadium been an important feature of Brent life for over 100 years bringing both benefits and impacts to our residents and businesses. There were no restrictions on the number of events at the previous stadium but an “event cap” was introduced for the new stadium. As you are aware, this started at 37 events and is now at 46 events following previous applications to increase the cap.

 

The Stadium have submitted supporting information with their application which examines the implications and potential impacts of the proposal, and this is available on our website.

 

We are currently consulting on this application, with letters sent to over 50,000 properties in the Wembley Event Day Zone and site notices put up around the stadium. Over 100 comments have already been received and these will all be considered.

 

We are not intending to hold a public meeting prior to the Planning Committee meeting for the application and it’s important that comments on the planning application are provided in writing.

 

Impacts to local residents and businesses are being carefully considered. We do not consider profits for individual organisations such as the stadium, but we do take the wider benefits that a proposal may bring to the local economy into account.

 

We secure measures and obligations that are required to mitigate impacts of a proposal but are not able to secure compensation for local businesses or residents. We must also look at the difference between what can happen now and what could happen if the application is approved.

 

We encourage residents and local businesses to let us know what they think about the Stadium’s proposal. We are still out to consultation, and it is likely that the application will be considered by the Planning Committee in August

Will Brent Council decision on Scrutiny call-in disempower Labour backbenchers as well as opposition groups?

 

 The importance of scrutiny in a council with a massive one party majority was the subject of two debates at Brent Council Annual General Meeting last week.

In the first debate a bid to have at least the deputy chairs of Scrutiny Committees from opposition parties was defeated by the Labour majority with the Brent Council Labour leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt, arguing that their election mandate gave Labour the right to hold all the positions.

The second debate was over a Labour move to curtail the right of the opposition groups, and its own backbenchers, to refer Cabinet decisions or Key Decisions to Scrutiny Committee for further decisions.

There had been a Labour move earlier this year to increase the number of councillors required to sign a call-in from five to 10.(There are 8 Opposition councillors in all) This was dropped and replaced by a more subtle change that requires the five councillors to be from more than one political party.

As you will see from the video above Cllr Muhammed Butt made no attempt to justify the change, either in his moving the motion or responding to the Liberal Dem amendment. It sas more a case of 'we are doing it, because we can.'

 So what was behind the change?

It is well known that Cllr Butt is not all that keen on criticism but what infuriated him and his colleagues was a Conservative call-in opposing the siting of a children's home in a conservation area.  LINK They claimed this showed a 'lack of respect' for a conservation area. The move was not supported by the Liberal Democrats but with five councillors the Conservatives were able to do it on their own.

Under the new proposals they would need support from the Lib Dems or Labour backbenches for such a call-in.

That one unpleasant episode should not be the basis for a significant constitutional change but the officers' paper quoted Centre for Scrutiny and Governance advice that was not cited by Cllr Butt in the debate:

Guidance was issued by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) in March 2023 which comments, in respect of requirements in call-in thresholds that the councillors involved should represent different parties, that “This can help to ensure that call-in’s reflect matters on which there is crossparty

concern”.

However, the CfGS had said that a call-in review should happen after an election and change of political control:

The guidance from CfGS is that requirements on numbers/types of members, bodies or persons requesting call- in’s should be clearly justified and reviewed following each election and after a change in political control to ensure their ongoing fairness and applicability as endorsed by the authority.

The proposal was not made after an election and there has been no change of political control for a very long time. There has been a change of Chief Executive.

 The paper concludes:

Arrangements across London are very varied, especially once the effect of political balance is taken into account. A significant number have arrangements that mean more than one party group must be in support of the call-in request.

 

The possible introduction of this requirement in Brent was discussed at a recent meeting of the Constitutional Working Group (CWG) but a consensus was not reached. Full council is therefore requested to make a decision on this issue.

So the whipped Labour majority was used to defeat the Liberal Democrat amendment which had stipulated:

To maintain the objectives of effective democratic scrutiny, as intended by the Labour Government which introduced the current decision making process, we therefore propose, having taken account of the current review of arrangements for call-in:

(1) That any Cabinet decision which has implications for the whole or a large part of the borough can be called in by any three Councillors (for the avoidance of doubt these can be Councillors of one or more than one group).

(2) That any Cabinet decision which has implications for just one ward within the

borough can be called in by any one councillor.

In answer to criticism that this would substantially increase the number of call-ins it is argued that there are are already guidelines in place that would ensure call-ins were legitimate. A call-in in the past has been refused on that basis.  LINK

 As Cllr Kasangra pointed out. the new rule  requiring more that  one party submit a compliant call-in request, also means that Labour backbenchers, however many may support a call-in would not be able to do so with Opposition councillor support.

There was such a call-in previously over plans for the Granville Centre in Kilburn LINK:

The call-in of the proposal to build housing on the Granville-Carlton site on the South Kilburn estate will be heard by the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday. The Cabinet's decision was called in by required 5 non-executive councillors in this case Cllrs Abdi, Chan, Hector, Pavey and Hassan.

An example of a Liberal Democrat - Conservative call-in was Altamira in 2022 which was not well-received by Cllr Butt. LINK

The change effectively means that any call-in must now be supported by both Opposition groups and, given their widely differing political perspectives. can we expect fewer call-ins in the future?

Is this good for democracy?

 

Cllr Tatler taken to task on regeneration issues

 Tuesday's Resources and Public Realm Committee was the swan song of the Committee as it was the last one of the municipal year and it may well have new members and chair after the Council AGM.

I may put the kibosh on the present committee if I say that in my opinion this would be a pity as it has developed its skills over the last year and Cllr Rita Conneely has proved a formidable chair. It takes time for councillors to undergo training and increase their confidence at holding lead members to account.

Cllr Shama Tatler, with the regeneration and planning brief, was in the hot seat on Tuesday and faced some tough questions.

The issue of the viability of both private and public developments was a major theme in the light of the post-Truss financial situation with its high interest rates and reduction in confidence, inflation, shortage of labour post-Brexit and supply-chain problems. In addition the post-Grenfell need (rightly) for second staircases in tall buildings has meant that developments have had to be reviewed.

Cllr Tatler explained how as a result the amount of units for sale might have to be increased and affordable housing reduced, tenure cmay be hanged to include more 'intermediate# housing (often shared ownership) or alternative sources of funding sought.

A note of realism was introduced early in the meeting when Pete Firmin, a South Kilburn resident, spoke about the problems with the regeneration of the South Kilburn estate including poor quality new housing, scaffolding up around relatively new blocks and problems of incursions into blocks where tenants had been decanted. His contribution and Cllr Tatler's response can be seen in the video at the top of the page along with some of the other exchanges reported here.

Cllr Anton Georgiou brought up tenure on the new South Kilburn blocks. saying that he had been told that they were not at social rent as Cllr Tatler claimed but at the higher London Affordable Rent. He promised to produce evidence to this effect.

Improvements in infrastructure was an issue in Alperton regeneration as it lagged behind the building of new blocks. He gave the example of improvements to Alperton Station needed by the new residents in car-free developments.

Cllr Tatler said it was often difficult to get the improvements in place because of the need to work with partners such as TfL, regarding the station and the NHS regarding the promised medical centre on South Kilburn, and things moved slowly.

She pointed out that it was pivate housing that yielded Strategic Community Infrastructure levy in regeneration areas - Council housing did not qualify.

The need for more affordable social housing was another major themes. Committee chair Cllr Rita Conneely said, 'That is what we want as a committee, what backbenchers want and what residents want.'

She urged Cllr Tatler and the Regeneration Department to challenge developers more ('Let's say no, let's start saying no!' ) and for London councils to get together a common front to stop developers' divide and rule. 'Whatever you bring back to use, we will want more.'

 Cllr Tatler had said, 'We can't say no to developers', but Gerry Ansell who earlier had said, 'we can't walk away from  developers' pointed out that the Planning Committee could say no and reject applications. That as we know happens seldom and Planning Committee members are reminded of the need for housing at the start of each meeting and are also warned that an Appeal by a developer would cost the council money.

Shama Tatler pointed out that there was already a London-wide body in the form of the GLA and that as Local Plans began to more closely mirror the London Plan there would be more consistency across London.

She went on:

It is wrong to say we don't challenge developers. Mo (Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council) and I have conversations day in, day out, with developers about what our red lines are. This is why we get criticised for having too many high blocks. I will have high blocks if it means we are getting as much affordable housing in a scheme as possible.

The committee, following a point raised by Pete Firmin, said that community spaces in regeneration areas needed to be publicly owned rather than belong to the developer.

The meeting finished with Cllr Tatler agreeing to meet with concerned residents in regeneration areas.

 Note: It was a very long meeting. The full webcast is HERE

Following comments on this article here is a link to the latest ONS (Office of National Statistics) data on rent levels and house prices in Brent. Main findings in the image. For links to each go to: 

 https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/housingpriceslocal/E09000005/

 

Is Muhammed Butt's attempt at increasing the number of councillors required to call decisions in for scrutiny an abuse of democracy?

  

Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt: Limitting 'the voices of those who do not blindly agree with him'

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou has sent the following message to Debra Norman, Corporate Director of Governace at Brent Council, after changes proposed by Brent Council's Labour leader in the number of councillor's required to sign a call-in request. The number proposed by Cllr Butt would require some Labour councillors to join the Liberal Democract and Conservative opposition to achieve the revised required number.

 

As Labour councillors are tightly whipped this would be extremely unlikely and if they did their card is likely to be marked so that they are barred from committee places and standing again.

 

To Debra Norman,

 

At the meeting the Leader of the Council asked for you to look at increasing the number of required signatures (by Councillors) for a call-in to take place from 5 to somewhere around 10. 

 

 Cllr Butt is perfectly aware that if this change were to occur, call-in’s would no longer take place in Brent as the combined Opposition (the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Group) totals 8 elected members. Labour members under the current regime, wouldn’t dare to sign a call-in scrutinising decisions by the Cabinet, for fear of retribution by their Whip. You only have to look at what happened to the Labour members who signed a call-in last term (2018-2022), related to poorly implemented LTN’s. Not one is currently an elected Councillor in Brent.

 

  If the changes suggested by Cllr Butt are agreed to, it would be a total affront to democracy in our borough. Democratic scrutiny is the pillar of healthy and functioning governance. Seeking to stifle it in this way (which is how I view Cllr Butt’s request) sets a very dangerous precedent. It would also once again expose Brent as a place where scrutiny and inclusion of Opposition voice is not welcomed, rather it is frowned upon and limited. As you are aware, following the May 2022 local elections, Cllr Butt took it upon himself to banish Opposition Councillors from Vice-Chairing the two Scrutiny Committees in the borough. The move was seen by others in local government circles as a power grab. Frankly, it looked rather petty and insecure. It also took Officers by surprise, as the move had not been cleared with anyone (not even you?) beforehand.     

                         

 Cllr Butt’s latest attempt to stifle democratic scrutiny by limiting the ability for call-ins to take place is wrong and not in the interest of our residents, who want to see Council decisions challenged forcefully when required. After all, scrutiny leads to better outcomes. Residents are clearly very engaged in local democracy, take just the recent example of a petition on the Council website regarding the blue bag recycling system, which generated close to 3,500 signatures, a record for an e-Petition of this kind in Brent  - https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=267&RPID=0&HPID=0/. If Cllr Butt gets his way, decisions like this, which are clearly very unpopular with Council taxpayers, will likely be left unchallenged.

 

I want to make clear that if Officers agree to take Cllr Butt’s suggestion forward, the Liberal Democrat Group will robustly oppose the changes and will ensure residents are fully aware of the petty dictatorship that he leads.

 

I urge you to reject Cllr Butt’s suggestion and ensure that call-ins, an important form of scrutiny, in a borough with limited scrutiny already, can continue to take place, when they are required and legitimate.

 

I will be making this email public so a debate can begin about the Leader’s latest insecure attempt to limit the voices of those who do not blindly agree with him.

 

EDITOR: Brent Council Call-in Protocol LINK  (Irritatingly Council documents are often undated but I think this is the latest).

Barham Park Trustees approve original accounts in 7-1/2 minute meeting after refusing representations

 

The Barham Park Trust Committee, made up solely of members of the Brent Cabinet and chaired by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, took just 7 and a half minutes to deal with the CEO's 'High Level' review  report into the accounts and the Scrutiny Committee's Report made as a result of the Call-in of the Barham Trust accounts by backbench councillors.

That evening the CEO of Brent attending Scrutiny Commitete seemed reluctanmt (after a slight panic) to reflect on the content of the report when requested by Cllr Anton Georgiou.

 

 Councillor Butt was not paying much attention while the CEO was speaking!

Cllr Butt refused Cllr Georgiou's colleague, Cllr Paul Lorber's request to address the Trustee's at the Barham Park Trust Committee.

This triumph of open government and transparency resulted in the accounts as originally submitted being approved. There was a short reference to the need to collect rents - an issue that Cllr Lorber had first raised as the amounts shown in the accounts was much lesss than the rents due from the occupants of the Barham Park buildings.

The correspondence below speaks for itself - it all took place on January 23rd :

Philip Grant correspondence

This is the text of an email that I sent to Cllr. Muhammed Butt just before 5pm today. It was copied to the other four members of the Barham Park Trust Committee, to Brent's Chief Executive and Corporate Director of Governance, and to Cllr. Lorber:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

I have read online that you have refused a request from Councillor Paul Lorber to speak in respect of items 5 and 6 on the agenda for tomorrow morning's meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee. Is this true?

If it is true, I am writing to ask, as a citizen of Brent interested in the workings of democracy, that you change your mind on this, and let Cllr. Lorber know, without delay, that he will be permitted to speak to the committee.

What your Committee has to decide is whether to reconsider its acceptance of the Barham Park Trust Annual Report and Accounts, as it has been requested to do by the Council's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

Surely it is right that the Trust Committee hears all sides of this matter, before it makes its decision? That is the essence of openness and transparency in decision making which underpins our democracy.

Not to allow Cllr. Lorber to speak, as long as he does so respectfully, as required by the Members' Code of Conduct, would reflect very badly on Brent Council, and on yourself.

 

Within 15 minutes of sending the email in "FOR INFORMATION" above, I received the following reply from Cllr. Muhammed Butt:

'Dear Mr Grant

Thank you for the email and for trying to make the case.

I respectfully have to say the answer is no and will remain a firm no.

Regards

Muhammed

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council.'

 

I did not find that a satisfactory response to the points I had made, so I sent the following reply (copied to the same people as my first email) just after 6pm this evening:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my email.

As you acknowledge, I made a case for Cllr. Lorber to be allowed to speak at tomorrow's Trust Committee meeting.

You have said that 'the answer is no and will remain a firm no', but you have not explained your reasons for that.

I'm aware from watching previous Council meetings that there is "no love lost" between yourself and the former Lib Dem Leader of Brent Council. However, personal animosity should not influence your actions as Chair of the Trust Committee (if that is a factor in this case).

Have you taken advice from the Corporate Director for Governance over whether to block Cllr. Lorber's request to speak? Although you may have the power, as Chair, to refuse his request, it could be seen as an abuse of power.

Any councillor, and especially a Leader, is expected to demonstrate leadership by example. I have to say that this appears to me, as an independent observer, to set a poor example.

 

Yours,

Philip Grant.

 

Further to my two "FOR INFORMATION" comments above, I received the following email from Cllr. Butt at 7pm this evening:

'Thank you, Mr Grant.

I wouldn't describe the sharing of these exchanges to the Green Party blog to be either "independent" nor the definition of the public arena either - but what you do them with is your prerogative.

Cllr Lorber and I perfectly understand one and other, we have been colleagues on different sides of the council chamber for two decades and I am grateful as ever for his continued opinions on the matter, as is his right. It is also perfectly within mine to disagree.

I am clear there has been ample democratic opportunity and copious officer time and resource afforded to the matter. This item has been discussed at both the initial Barham Park meeting and at a subsequent scrutiny call-in meeting where there was repeat opportunity for all members and members of the public to contribute.

Given this is a reference back of a decision called in by Cllr Lorber the meeting will continue as planned.

Best wishes and thank you for your continued interest, please feel free to tune into the next meeting of the next Barham Park Trust meeting.

I wish you all the best and thank you for your continued interest.'


I sent the following reply to the Council Leader at 7.15pm:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your email, and fuller response.

The point I am trying to make is that, although the matter of the accounts has been looked at in various ways, the meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee tomorrow is meant to be reconsidering its original approval of the 2022/23 Annual Report and Accounts, on a referral back from a Scrutiny Committee.

If the Committee is not allowed to hear both sides of the case before making its decision (even though your own mind may already be made up?), that does not reflect well on Brent Council's democratic process. Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.'

 

This is the final exchange of emails between Cllr. Butt and myself this evening.

His email highlighted some of its text, and I will put that section in inverted commas:

'Dear Mr Grant

I think you have missed the point that I made to yourself, so I have highlighted it for you for clarity.

"I am clear there has been ample democratic opportunity and copious officer time and resource afforded to the matter. This item has been discussed at both the initial Barham Park meeting and at a subsequent scrutiny call-in meeting where there was repeat opportunity for all members and members of the public to contribute."

I wish you a good evening.'

This was my reply, shortly afterwards:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your email.

I had noted the point you have highlighted, but feel that you are also missing the point.

However, as our exchanges are, unfortunately, getting nowhere, I will also wish you a good evening. Yours,

Philip Grant.'

23 January 2024 at 19:46

 

Paul Lorber correspondence

 

In my discussions with the Brent Chief Executive and the Brent Director of Finance I made it clear that one of the beneficiaries of the mistakes made by the Trustees and Council Officers was a charity - Friends of Barham Library - of which I was a Trustee. I was urging them to correct their errors in the full knowledge that it will cost Friends of Barham Library money.

One of the material errors made by Council Officers, which the Trustees, including Cllr Butt, failed to spot was the failure to implement Rental reviews as set out om the various Leases between The Barham Park Trust and a number of the organisation (including friends of Barham Library) who rent premises in Barham Park.

What is wrong with the Barham park Trust 2022/23 Account No.5 deals with this point.

While throughout this process Cllr Butt and his fellow Trustees refused to accept that there was anything wrong at precisely 20.11p.m. (some Council Officers do work late) an officer from the Council's Property Department sent me an email to advise me that Friends of Barham Library will be subject to a rent review under the terms of our Lease backdated to October 2021.

I received this email just 36 hours before the Barham Park Trust Meeting due to start at 9:30am on Wednesday 24 January and after Cllr Butt refused my request to speak so that I could explain why the Accounts are wrong and what action was required to correct them.

Brent Council Officers have been charging the wrong rent to one of the tenants in Barham Park since 2019. Friends of Barham Library rent has been wrong since 2021. I have been pointing this out to the Trustees and to Council Officers for a very long time.

Assuming that the other tenant was sent a similar email and demand for back dated rent the Barham Park Trust will be better off by over £18,000.

To date neither Councillor Butt or the Council Officers have had the decency to admit that I was right or to acknowledge that as a result of my actions the Barham Park Trust is at last trying to retrieve some of the losses suffered as a result of their basic mistakes.

In contrast to the Accounts prepared by Council Officers for the Barham Park Trust which are wrong - the Accounts for Friends of Barham Library are correct. We knew what our correct rent should have been since 2021 and provided (accrued) for the extra rent due in our accounts for the last 2 years.

Councillor Butt may ignore the sensible contribution from Philip grant or silence me and others. He cannot hide the fact that he is WRONG and we are RIGHT.

Perseverance pays off (as the belated Council action about the rent reviews highlights) and the fight goes on.

 

 

UPDATE: APPROVED BY BRENT PLANNING COMMITTEE! Next to highly polluted road, on a flood plain, no nearby amenities - what's not to like about the Prospect House development?

 

 UPDATE: BRENT PLANNING COMMITTEE APPROVED THE APPLICATION

 

Councillors on Brent Planning Committee had no questions for Alperton Councillor Anton Georgiou after he gave this presentation on the Prospect House development at tonight's Brent Planning Committee.

I wonder why?

I am here to speak against the application for the development of Prospect House on the border of Alperton ward and on the edges of the North Circular.

 

I will start by re-iterating the palpable local anger at never-ending development in our area. Alperton has experienced more than its fair share of large development in recent years. Schemes that have been completed and those currently at building stage are already causing countless issues for local residents. Whether to do with limited investment in needed infrastructure, traffic congestion, pressures on parking provision.

 

This is not the first time I have said this at Planning Committee, but decisions being taken by this Council are driving people, many who have lived here for most, if not all of their lives, to move away from Brent.

 

I therefore plead with members of the Committee to keep this in mind when making the decision about the application in front of you today.

 

The possible approval of yet another large, unsightly tower block, in this instance 23-storeys high, would continue what seems to be Brent’s principal objective of trying to achieve its housing targets outlined the borough plan. Fitting as many units in as possible, without acknowledging their impact on the wider community.

 

Housing targets are important, particularly targets for the right type of housing.

 

We all recognise that London is experiencing a shortage of genuinely affordable homes for local people and importantly a distinct lack of Council homes for Council tenants. However, are the units being proposed at Prospect House and indeed others already approved in Alperton actually meeting that need? I and many others would argue no.

 

I would like to refer the Committee to the report paper which breaks down the tenure types in the proposed development.

 

Once again, we see a distinct lack of genuinely affordable units and a reliance on Shared Ownership units to beef up the supposed affordable units in the development.

 

A significant percentage of the supposed affordable units are made up of Shared Ownership units. I’m confused at this, as I had thought the Council had previously been quite clear that Shared Ownership is not an affordable housing model, and not something that should be lumped under the umbrella term ‘affordable’.

 

I would refer the Committee to comments made by Senior Council Officers and Councillors on this matter at a Scrutiny meeting in November 2022 and elsewhere.

 

By approving yet another development that incorporates Shared Ownership into the ‘affordable offer’ you will be legitimising this controversial housing model once again and in doing so trap potential shared owners into a housing scheme that will cause years of financial and mental misery.

 

Seeking to develop another large tower block on the edge of one of the busiest, polluted roads in Brent, is alarming and should alarm members of the Committee too.

 

The area around the North Circular is notorious for bad air quality.

 

This issue has become more and more prominent in recent months, given incoming changes to ULEZ. There is universal acceptance that air quality in London is poor. People in London die as a consequence of bad air quality. Therefore, why would this Committee seek to approve the development of dwellings in an unsuitable, polluted area like this?

 

What will the quality of life be for those who might consider living at the Prospect House development. What will the long-term impact on their health be?

 

A lack of required amenities in the vicinity of the proposed development is also a concern and something the current owners of Prospect House have highlighted as a reason for limited appeal from potential tenants. Quite frankly, it is in the middle of nowhere and access to shops and other amenities is very limited.

 

As is access to open green space, which I still believe is very important to enhance the quality of life for those who may choose to live there. A diagram in the plans show some distance would need to be travelled for a potential resident to get to the nearest green space. It is highlighted in the diagram that a child would need to be accompanied by a parent or carer to get to the nearest open space, in this case Heather Park. Will it now be the norm that young people will only have access to local green spaces in exceptional circumstances?

 

For any potential residents with a disability or mobility issues, where would the Committee suggest they do a food shop or pick up prescription medication?

 

Prospect House is also located within Flood Zone 3a and sits between the Grand Union Canal and close to the River Brent. Whilst the Flood Risk Assessment is considered to be acceptable, I continue to have concerns about the potential for flooding, particularly in light of recent major flooding very close to the site in Tokyngton Avenue. In recent weeks this has been flooded three times.

 

There is always a risk of flooding when buildings of this size and scale are built so close to a watercourse, coupled with it being in an area known to be vulnerable to flooding.

 

The fallout from flooding has a major impact on all residents in the area, I can only imagine the huge inconveniences we will have to put up with if indeed flooding occurs at this site in future. Are you confident that enough has been done to mitigate this potential risk?

 

I ask that the Committee reject this application based on all the points raised and in view of the unsuitability of this site for another large housing block.

 

I also request that the Committee take the time to visit Alperton in the near future to understand the concerns residents and I have long raised with you.

 

It is time that this Council pauses and takes stock of the negative impact developments like this one will have and have had in our area. If you do not, you will continue to drive lifelong residents out of their borough.

 

I think I know why...