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
