Democracy in Brent – Council and Leader responses to my open email.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Martin reports Cabinet’s (in)action over my efforts to get 28 May minutes corrected.

 

If you have been following the saga over the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease, and what happened at the Brent Cabinet meeting on 28 May, you will know I feel strongly that the subsequent official minutes for item 7 are not a correct record.

 

On Sunday, Martin published a guest post from me, setting out the text of an open email which I had sent to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, and all the members of his Cabinet. This forwarded an email I had sent to Brent’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance), which gave details of the changes I believe needed to be made to the minutes, to make them a correct record, which is what minutes of meetings are meant to be. I wrote: ‘I hope that you will approve those amendments at your meeting on Monday.’

 

In the hour before that meeting, there was an exchange of emails between the Corporate Director and myself, followed by an email from the Council Leader after the meeting. As Martin has published my views, I think it only fair that he should also publish the Council’s response to them.

 

Here are the full texts of the email exchanges on Monday 17 June, so that followers of “Wembley Matters” can read them if they wish to, and make up their own minds on the issues. All of the emails were copied to the Council Leader, Cabinet members and Brent’s Chief Executive. (As I am writing this, I will reserve the right to have the final word! You are welcome to agree or disagree with me in the comments section below.)

 

Monday 17 June at 9.15am, from Brent’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance):

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your emails relating to this matter and I note your main concerns identified in your email of 14 June 2024 (now copied to the Cabinet and Chief Executive) following your consideration of Mr *****’s email of earlier that day.

 

The main purpose of minutes of a Cabinet meeting is to establish a clear record of the decision(s) taken.  The minutes should also establish the reasons for the decision(s) including any alternative options which are placed before Cabinet but not agreed.  This can be done by reference to the report relating to the decision.

 

The minutes meet these requirements.

 

Other details of the meeting are not required to be included.  In respect of what is included I cannot see that the minutes are inaccurate.

 

In respect of the first section you wish to substitute, the decision and reasons are required to be recorded in the minutes.  The minutes refer to the potential options being presented in the report, they do not state that the Leader specifically presented these options himself. You had of course already spoken about the Options so there could be no doubt that the Cabinet was aware of them and of the views of those who supported the petition to take note of them.  In agreeing the recommendations in the report, the Cabinet was agreeing to note items as recommended as Mr ***** explained.

 

Cllr Donnelly-Jackson thanked you for your contribution, which was for the purpose of representing the residents who supported the petition, and I think recording that as Cabinet thanking residents is not inaccurate.

 

There is no general requirement for Cabinet members to vote by a show of hands or to formally state their support.  Cabinet members were given the opportunity to indicate that they did not agree the recommendations which the Leader had proposed be agreed, for example if they had thought Option A was the correct choice.  None of them chose to do so.

 

In respect of your second proposed substitution and your intervention to raise a point of order, the minute clearly captures the import of the Leader’s response.  As a member of the public observing a Cabinet meeting you would not have the formal right to raise a point of order.  However, given you stated the point you wish to raise anyway, had the Chief Executive or Head of Law considered there was a matter of concern to address I am sure they would have provided advice.

 

In summary, although I wasn’t at the meeting, I have watched the webcast and do not consider the minutes to be an incorrect representation of the decision or the reasons for it, including the options which were presented by the report.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra

 

Debra Norman
Corporate Director, Law & Governance

 

Monday 17 June at 9.35am, my reply to Ms Norman’s email:

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for yoùr detailed response to the concerns I raised.

 

I note what you have said, but still believe that the minute for item 7 of the 28 May Cabinet meeting is NOT a correct record, and should not be accepted by Cabinet as such.

 

I would be grateful if you would, please, publicly make clear at the meeting that a member of the public involved at that meeting does not accept that minute as being a correct record, and have that included in the minutes of today's meeting. Thank you. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Monday 17 June at 9.59am (meeting started at 10am!), reply to me from Ms Norman:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email.

 

This would be a matter for the Leader.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra

 

Monday 17 June at 11.08am, from Cllr. Muhammed Butt’s to me:

 

Thank you.

 

The minutes were accepted as a true reflection of the cabinet meeting held in May.

 

Regards

 

Muhammed

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council
Labour councillor for Tokyngton ward.

 

It is not often I agree with Cllr. Butt, but I think that what has happened over this matter, since the open email I wrote to him on 20 May (about the need for the voting on the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease to not only be fair, but to be seen to be fair) is a ‘true reflection’ of the state of Democracy in Brent under his Leadership.

 

I said above that I would have the final word. This is the reply I sent to the Council Leader, with copies to Cabinet members and Brent’s Chief Executive and Corporate Director … etc.:

 

Dear Councillor Butt,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I will pass on your message to those who are interested.

 

I hope that you and your Cabinet colleagues will consider, along with the Chief Executive and Corporate Director (Law and Governance), the points I made in my email of 15 June, about the need for Cabinet decisions, and votes on them, to be more visibly seen to be considered and made, in the interests of open democracy.

 

That is also something where "Change" would be welcomed. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Brent residents deserve to be treated with more respect by our elected councillors*. The least we should expect in a democracy is that the decision-making body, Brent’s Cabinet, considers  decisions carefully and votes properly on them in its public meetings!

 

Philip Grant.

 

* They were democratically elected. Cllr. Butt topped the poll, receiving 1447 votes, when he was elected to represent Tokyngton Ward in 2022, and Labour councillors won 57.6% of the votes cast in Brent, on a 30.67% turnout. Under our first-past-the-post system, that gave Labour 49 out of 57 Council seats, and after such a victory it was unsurprising that Cllr. Butt’s councillors voted to give him four more years as Leader of the Council (a post he has held since May 2012).

Cllr Muhammed Butt loses his cool when petitioner wants to make a point of order at Brent Cabinet. Bobby Moore Bridge Mural to be covered by advertising.

 Note: An earlier video has been replaced by this Brent Council video which has better sound quality.

Philip Grant, a regular contributor to Wembley Matters, who has no party political affiliation, presented a 100 signature plus petition to Brent Cabinet today setting out the case for the permanent display of the Bobby Moore Bridge tile mural. See LINK for details.

Council Leader Muhammed Butt made a brief response and then after asking for contributions  from Cabinet colleagues (there were none) put only one Option forward with no show of hands from Cabinet members. This was the option to cover the mural with advertising.

When Philip Grant tried to raise a point of order on this (4.20) above Cllr Butt refused to hear the point of order.

As it is hard to hear the point of order on the video I asked Philip what he had been attempting to say when shouted down: 

The point of order that I went to the public speaker's microphone to make was that the Leader had declared the Officer recommendation approved when not a single Cabinet member had put a hand up to show that they accepted the recommendation.

I then added the second point (which I'd already advised him of in my open email a week before), that the decision the Cabinet was meant to make was either Option A or Option B, and they had not been given the opportunity to vote on both options.

 

Wembley Tile Murals – Open email to Cllr. Butt about 28 May Cabinet vote

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Wembley Tile Murals – Open email to Cllr. Butt about 28 May Cabinet vote

Earlier this month, Martin published a reminder about the petition I had launched, calling on Brent’s Cabinet to award a new advertising lease only for the parapets of the Bobby Moore Bridge, which would allow the heritage tile murals in the subway to be put back on public display. The petition attracted 114 signatures (thank you!), more than enough to allow me to present it to the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday 28 May.

 

The agenda for that meeting was published on the Council’s website last Friday, including the Officer Report for item 7, about the award of the new advertising lease. I will be writing more about this subject in the coming days, but there was one matter which I thought needed to be raised with the Cabinet Chair / Council Leader in advance of the meeting.

 

The opening section of the Report makes a clear statement:

 

‘It was agreed by the Chief Executive that the final award decision should be made by Cabinet.  This report explains the outcome of procurement for Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising and requests a decision between the two options below: 

 

Option A - Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge only where the existing digital screens are located. This will not affect any of the tiled areas.   

 

Option B - Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.’

 

I have, in the past, raised concerns about decisions that are meant to be made, openly and publicly, at Cabinet meetings (Democracy in Brent – are Cabinet Meetings a Charade?). How could I try to ensure that both options were considered at the meeting, and the decision between the two options made fairly?

 

This seemed particularly important because the key recommendation in the Officer Report is that Cabinet: ‘Approve the award of a contract for Bobby More Bridge Advertising on the basis of Option B to Quintain Ltd’, and the Report is heavily biased in favour of Option B.

 

This is the full text of the open email I sent to the Council Leader, with copies to the other members of Brent’s Cabinet, first thing on Monday morning, 20 May:

 

 

‘To: Cllr. Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council.

 

This is an open email

Dear Councillor Butt,

 

Cabinet meeting on 28 May - Voting on the new Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease 

 

Last year, at an event in Olympic Way, you kindly and publicly thanked me for keeping Brent Council “on its toes” over heritage matters. That is what I will try to do when I present the public petition on the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals to the Cabinet meeting on 28 May.

 

The relevant Officer Report to that meeting sets out that the Cabinet ‘is required to decide whether to award a contract for Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising on the basis of’ either Option A or Option B, as set out in the procurement process. 

 

You may already have thought how you will ensure that this decision is taken fairly, but I hope you will consider the request I am making below. This would ensure that not only is the decision fair, but that the wider public, interested in the tile murals at Wembley Park, can see that it is fair.

 

The Officer Report recommends that Cabinet approve the award of the contract under Option B, because that will provide a higher level of income to the Council. That is understandable, as it is their job to generate as much income as possible from Council-owned assets.

 

The petition I will present to the meeting urges the Cabinet to approve a new advertising lease under Option A, as although that would provide a slightly lower income, there would be added value in putting the heritage tile murals in the subway back on public display.

 

Individual Cabinet members may have different, yet both perfectly legitimate, views on which option should be approved. As this will be a Cabinet decision, each member should be entitled to vote according to their honestly held view.

 

From my previous experience of watching Cabinet meetings, you would usually ask members whether they agree with the recommendation(s) made by Officers in their Report. 

 

In this particular case, I am requesting that you invite individual votes for “those in favour of Option A” and for “those in favour of Option B”. In the event of an equal number of members voting for each option, you would, of course, have the casting vote as Council Leader and Chair of the meeting.

 

I look forward to seeing this form of voting used at the meeting on 28 May. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

Regular readers may remember my recent correspondence with Brent’s Corporate Director for Law and Governance, about Cabinet Member Forewords in Officer Reports. Her view is that they ‘provide an opportunity for the council policy context of decisions to be made explicit in reports to Cabinet by the Cabinet Member who is accountable for initiating and implementing council policies within the relevant portfolio.’

 

The Cabinet member handling the award of the new Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease is Cllr. Butt himself, and for your information, this is his Leader Foreword in the Report:-

 

 

 

Complaint over party political content of a Council report – Brent’s Final Word.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The opening paragraph of Cllr. Tatler’s Foreword in the SCIL request Officer Report to 8 April Cabinet.

 

For “Wembley Matters” readers who have been following my correspondence with Brent’s top Council Officer for Governance (and now with the extended title: Corporate Director, Governance and Law), since my initial guest post on 5 April, here is the final instalment.

 

When writing about the previous exchange (published on 18 April), I said that I felt ‘the Senior Officer was trying to create a smokescreen’, over the central issue of party political content in a Cabinet Member Foreword (see an example in the extract above, but with a ‘content and style’ of a political manifesto as well). That is why, when replying to her on 17 April, I wrote:

 

‘So that we can finalise this point, please let me have your straightforward answers to these two questions:

 

a) Do you accept that the Cabinet Member Foreword, in the SCIL Request Officer Report to the Cabinet meeting on 8 April, contained some political material, including at least one piece of Labour Party political material?

 

b) Do you agree that it is wrong for Officer Reports to Cabinet meetings to include material which ‘in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party’ (irrespective of whether or not its publication breaches Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986)?’

 

You can judge for yourselves how well (or not) these specific questions were answered in this final exchange of emails on this matter, set out in full below.

Email from Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance at 9.12 am on 23 April:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email,

 

My role is to advise the council in relation to the law and governance.  As a matter of governance, I do not consider there to be any good reason why reports to Cabinet should not contain a section for the relevant Cabinet Member to provide the council policy context of decisions to be made.  As indicated previously, it is my view that the Cabinet Member Foreword about which you are concerned did not contain any material covered by the legislation to which you refer.

 

The new report template, including the section for a Cabinet Member Foreword, was introduced at the request of the Chief Executive.

 

The Chief Executive has considered your emails and does not consider there to be any need for the inclusion of the Cabinet Member Foreword in the template to be reviewed.

 

I recognise that you have a strong opinion in respect of this matter.  As a result of your emails, I have reminded officers of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword and how it should be presented in reports.  However, our opinions differ as to the appropriateness of including the Cabinet Member Foreword in Cabinet reports.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra

 

Corporate Director, Law & Governance

 

My response to that email at 8.45am on 26 April:

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email of 23 April.

 

On point 2 of my email to you of 17 April (Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate in Officer Reports to Brent’s Cabinet?), our opinions do differ. You have my views on this, and the reasons for them, on record should the matter be raised again in future.

 

I am disappointed that you have failed to answer either of the two specific questions which I asked you at point 1 of my email of 17 April (Did Councillor Tatler’s Cabinet Member Foreword contain political material?). Instead of the straightforward answers I requested, you have repeated your earlier view that the Cabinet Member Foreword: ‘did not contain any material covered by the legislation to which’ I had previously referred.

 

I acknowledge and accept that your ‘role is to advise the council in relation to the law and governance.’ But, as Monitoring Officer, should you not also be showing leadership, by example, in answering questions objectively and honestly, rather than evading them?

 

I can only hope that, when you say you have: ‘reminded officers of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword and how it should be presented in reports’, this means that you have advised them to ensure that there is no party political material included in them in future.

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

Complaint over party political content of a Council report – Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate for Brent?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

This is a continuation of the correspondence which you may have read last week, in a guest post headlined “Abuse of Power?”. One anonymous comment was glad that Brent Council were being held to account, to which I replied: ‘It is not an easy task, especially when Senior Council Officers seem determined that they have to defend what is sometimes the indefensible.’

 

If you read the previous emails, and feel interested enough to read this further exchange, you may see what I meant by that. I felt that, rather than dealing with the issues I’d raised, the Senior Officer was trying to create a smokescreen. I have tried to cut through that, politely I hope, with a view to seek a resolution of the points I thought it important enough to write to her about in the first place.

 

Email from Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance at 4.25pm on 12 April:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email and I have considered the points you raise.

 

I have also had a quick look at practice elsewhere.  The templates used by councils for reports to their Cabinet (or Executive) are varied.  In at least 8 councils reports are expressed to be from the Cabinet member(s) to the Cabinet, in others the reports are jointly from the Cabinet member(s) and relevant senior officer(s). The template used by at least 5 councils includes a cabinet member foreword or introduction, e.g. Haringey and Newham.

 

The new approach in Brent was adopted for the reasons I gave in my previous email and is not out of step with the approach elsewhere.  Having adopted this template, reports addressed to Cabinet for decision are prepared using the template.  The legislation then requires the council (subject to rules concerning exempt and confidential information) to publish those reports and permit the public and press to attend and observe the Cabinet meetings at which they are discussed.  The publishing of the reports is clearly undertaken in compliance with the Regulations i.e. in discharge of the council’s duties under them. 

 

I remain of the view that it’s perfectly clear from the heading of the Cabinet Member Foreword section of the report that the comments in that section are comments of the Cabinet member and not of the officer.

 

I note what you say about section 3., “Contribution to Borough Plan Priorities & Strategic Context” in the particular report.  On reviewing the other reports on that agenda and other recent agendas I have noted that there is an inconsistency in practice, with some reports including this additional heading and some not.  The template itself does not have two separate headings.

 

Thank you for drawing this to my attention and I have reminded the officers who sign off the report and also the Governance team of this.  I have also reminded them of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword as indicated in my previous email.

My response to that email at 4.45pm on 17 April:

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email of 12 April. 

 

I will make this response shorter than my email of 10 April, and will concentrate on the two main points.

 

1. Did Councillor Tatler’s Cabinet Member Foreword contain political material?

 

You appear to have overlooked that my original email of 5 April was a complaint, about political content in the Cabinet Member Foreword, and you have managed to avoid addressing this question in both of your replies to me (8 and 12 April). So that we can finalise this point, please let me have your straightforward answers to these two questions:

 

a) Do you accept that the Cabinet Member Foreword, in the SCIL Request Officer Report to the Cabinet meeting on 8 April, contained some political material, including at least one piece of Labour Party political material?

 

b) Do you agree that it is wrong for Officer Reports to Cabinet meetings to include material which ‘in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party’ (irrespective of whether or not its publication breaches Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986)?

 

2. Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate in Officer Reports to Brent’s Cabinet?

 

For ease of reference, this is the purpose of Cabinet Member Forewords given in your email of 8 April:

 

‘The purpose of the introduction of the Cabinet Member Foreword was to provide an opportunity for the council policy context of decisions to be made explicit in reports to Cabinet by the Cabinet Member who is accountable for initiating and implementing council policies within the relevant portfolio.’

 

You have not explained whose decision it was to adopt the practice of including such Forewords, or at whose request. Please provide that information.

 

You have brought in information about what some other local authorities do, but all that should concern us, as citizens, Officers or Council members of Brent, is what is appropriate for our borough.

 

I understand that it helps Officers drawing up reports for Cabinet meetings to have a template, and that template (or necessary variations of it) can be drawn up or amended as appropriate, when the question I have asked in the heading to this section is resolved.

 

I think the best way to resolve it would be through a review, as I suggested, overseen by yourself, as Corporate Director of Governance, but taking views from other Senior Officers, Cabinet members and, I would suggest, the Leaders of the other Party Groups on the Council, and perhaps also the Chairs of Scrutiny Committees.

 

I have already put forward my views, as a politically independent observer of local democracy in Brent, where I have lived for more than 40 years. To summarise my views:

 

·      Officer Reports should be written solely by Council Officers, as their role is to provide the Cabinet, impartially, with all the information they need to make key decisions, and to make recommendations based on that information.

 

·      Officers making and signing off those reports must be aware of the Borough Plan Priorities and other Council policies for the service area they are responsible for, and it makes sense for that to be included in one section of their reports.

 

·      If the Cabinet Lead member with the portfolio covered by the report wishes to add their own views on the policy context, they can do so when introducing the item at the meeting, and also by circulating their own briefing document to their colleagues, should they think it necessary.

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Wembley Housing Zone – Brent’s Cecil Avenue development downsized!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Revised East and South elevation drawings for Brent’s Cecil Avenue development.

 

It may not look any smaller, but as disclosed in the Affordable Housing Supply Update report to December’s Brent Cabinet meeting, the number of homes to be built on the Council’s Cecil Avenue development has been reduced. The reason is the need for second staircases, because of new fire regulations introduced as a result of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

 

I mentioned this in a guest post last month, Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – open and transparent?, when I wrote: ‘the report does not say how many of the new figure of 237 homes will be for private sale, and how many of those left for the Council will now be for “genuinely affordable” rent, rather than shared ownership. A lack of openness, which I will try to remedy!’ 

 

I’ve now received a reply to a Freedom of Information request, and can provide the answer. Cecil Avenue is part of a wider Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) project, together with Ujima House, on the opposite side of the High Road. Brent Council’s contract with Wates in March 2023, said each would have half (152 out of 304) of the WHZ homes. However, all of the Wates homes, for private sale, would be on the more desirable Cecil Avenue site. 

 

The revised split of the Cecil Avenue homes, from Brent’s 8 January FoI response.

 

These figures show that although there will now be thirteen fewer homes on the Cecil Avenue development, those going to Wates will only be 2 less, while Brent Council loses 11. This is partly compensated for by the revised proportion of family-sized homes going in Brent’s favour. The Council will now have 71.4% of the family-sized homes, rather than 68.75%, but the total number of family-sized homes at Cecil Avenue has been reduced from 64 to 42, as part of rearranging the unit sizes to fit in the staircases.

 

Surely these changes would need planning permission? They did! An application was submitted on 21 August 2023, but Brent’s planners treated it as “non-material” amendments to the original consent given in February 2021, so that it was not publicised or consulted on. The application was approved by the Delegated Team Manager on 30 October 2023.

 

The heading to the Delegated Planning report, October 2023.

 

The report on this application (23/2774) makes clear that despite the WHZ involving two sites and a combined building contract, for planning purposes the Cecil Avenue application must be looked at on its own. Brent’s planning policies require that large housing schemes, such as this one, should provide 50% affordable housing. These revised proposals only provide 36.7% (and only 48.5% if the whole WHZ scheme is taken together). If it had been 50% at Cecil Avenue, there should have been at least 118 affordable homes on the site, not just 87 out of 237.

 

Brent’s affordable housing planning policies require a tenure split of at least 70% of the affordable housing to be “genuinely affordable”. The 56 homes at London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) out of 87 “affordable” Council homes is only 64.4% (62.4% over the WHZ scheme as a whole). Despite not meeting either of Brent’s planning policy percentages for affordable homes, the amended application was accepted. 

 

The only “good news” this time is that 21 of the 28 family-sized homes for Council tenants at LAR (down from 35 family-sized, on the figures supplied to me last July) will be 4-bedroom homes, with private gardens. There is currently a desperate need for these large family homes for affordable rent in the borough. It is unfortunate that, because of more than two years delay by Brent Council, in going down the “developer partner” route, it will be nearly three years before these homes are actually available! And LAR rent figures exclude service charges, which could bring the total bill up to as much as 80% of local open market rent level.

 

Extract from the approved documents for the amended application 23/2774.

 

35.6% of the “affordable” Council homes at Cecil Avenue will be what is known as Intermediate homes. This is a summary of what these 31 homes comprise:

 

Extract from the approved documents for the amended application 23/2774.

 

As shown in the information provided to me above, 28 of these homes will be for shared ownership (despite there being a surplus of these in the borough, it not being affordable to most people in housing need – a household income of £60k a year required to afford a 1-bedroom flat - and shared ownership being a “scam”!). What about the 3 “other affordable” homes? The planning application documents show that these Brent Council homes are intended to be sold, by Wates, as Discount Market Sale (”DMS”) homes.

 

The DMS homes must be ‘offered to Eligible Purchasers for sale at a price that is no more than 80 (eighty) per cent of Open Market Value, with the Council retaining and holding the remaining equity under an equitable charge’. To be an eligible purchaser for one of these 1 or 2-bedroom flats you would (on current figures) need to have an annual household income of no more than £90k. Affordable?

 

It is not just the number of homes (and affordable homes) which has been downsized in the amended plans for the Cecil Avenue development. In his reply to an email I had sent him about the Council’s Cecil Avenue development in February 2022 (that’s nearly 2 years ago!), Cllr. Muhammed Butt spoke proudly of ‘a new publicly accessible open space during this latest development. A positive outcome for the residents of Brent.’

 

My guest post including his reply did concede that: ‘The approved plans for the Cecil Avenue site include a courtyard garden square. This would mainly be for the benefit of residents, but there would be public access to it, through an archway from Wembley High Road.’ All of the tower block developments, existing and planned, along this stretch of the High Road, will bring thousands of extra residents within a short walk of this ‘publicly accessible open space.’ However, that too has been downsized:

 

Paragraph from the Delegated Planning Report on application 23/2774.

 

The amended external amenity space may just ‘exceed the minimum requirement’ for play space needed by the reduced number of future occupants at Cecil Avenue, but there will be little to spare for the other ‘residents of Brent’. 

 

Delay and downsizing. What more can go wrong for a Brent Council housing scheme, on Council-owned land, which received full planning consent on 5 February 2021? If only Brent had got on and borrowed the funds to build it, at the very low interest rates at then, and hired a contractor straight away, they could have had 250 (or at least 237) affordable Council homes at Cecil Avenue available in 2024, rather than 87 in late 2026.

 

Philip Grant.