Bobby Moore Bridge murals – where will the advertising money be spent?

 Guesy post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

I thought that I’d finished writing about the Brent Cabinet meeting on 28 May, the “decision” to allow adverts to cover the heritage tile murals in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway at Wembley Park for at least another four years, and the cover-up of how the Council Leader failed to deal appropriately with the point of order which I raised. Then, this public question to Cllr. Muhammed Butt for the 8 July Full Council meeting was brought to my attention:

 

Extract from the 8 July agenda papers, published on the Council’s website.

 

I had no idea who the questioner was, but the publicity (on “Wembley Matters”?) about the award of the new Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease had obviously attracted his attention. My efforts had been directed at trying to persuade Cabinet members that it was worth accepting a slightly lower amount of advertising revenue, in order to put the tile murals in the subway back on public display. His question asked what the money raised would be spent on.

 

At the meeting on 28 May, Cllr. Butt had spoken about the money received from advertising on the Bobby Moore Bridge helping to 'provide residents with the services they depend on.' This was, presumably, his justification for accepting the Officer recommendation to award the new lease under Option B, because it ‘provided greater financial benefits’ (= more money).

 

Extract from the Officer Report on the advertising lease to the 28 May Cabinet meeting.

 

Cllr. Butt’s response to the Full Council public question contains a slightly different answer. Instead of services that residents depend on, he says that the money raised will be used ‘to inform residents about a wide range of council services and deliver communications campaigns.’ There is a difference between providing much needed services and simply telling residents about them!

 

Cllr. Butt refers in his response to informing residents about campaigns on ‘tackling fly-tipping’, ‘health inequalities’ and ‘community safety’. Here are some examples of how the Council does that:

 

Fly-tipping article from the Spring 2024 “Your Brent” magazine.

 

Double page spread health article from the Spring 2024 “Your Brent” magazine.

 

Brent Council press release on a community safety subject.

 

You will note that these are all positive stories about Brent’s (Labour) Council, which all feature photographs of smiling Brent (Labour) Cabinet members. As well as ‘inform[ing] residents about a wide range of council services,’ they are also promoting the Council’s majority political party, and particularly its Cabinet. Every (then) member of Brent’s Cabinet is pictured at least once in the Spring 2024 edition of the “Your Brent” magazine, with the Leader appearing five times and Cllr. Krupa Sheth topping the list with eight photos!

 

The Council has not been allowed to feature local politicians in its publicity material during the General Election “purdah” period, but on Monday 8 July (the same day that Full Council would be considering a Lib Dem motion on fly-tipping), Brent Communications was back in action, putting out a press release about a new Council campaign, with a photograph featuring … (you’ve guessed the answer!):

 

 

So, when Cllr. Butt said on 28 May that the recommendation to award the new lease under Option B had been agreed (even though no Cabinet members raised their hands or spoke their agreement – staying silent is said to be showing unanimous support for what the Leader says!), he and (allegedly) his Cabinet were deciding to put more money into the funds used for promoting themselves and their local Party! 

 

Cllr Butt, at least, must have known that is where the money would go, as his top “cross-cutting” area of responsibility (as the latest Cabinet Portfolios information shows) is ‘Communications’. That might explain why he ignored my reasonable request to allow his Cabinet the chance to vote for Option A, which would have provided a slightly lower annual rental figure (but still a minimum guaranteed figure of more that £90,000 a year).

 

I have pointed out in earlier articles that the Officer Report to the 28 May Cabinet meeting was heavily biased in favour of Option B. Although that Report was signed-off by the Corporate Director, Partnerships, Housing & Resident Services, such reports are actually prepared by one or more of the “Contact Officers” shown under the Report heading:

 

 

In this case, the main author of the Report appears to have been Brent’s Head of Communications! If, as it appears from Cllr. Muhammed Butt’s response to the question from a member of the public, the rental income from the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease was going straight into the Council’s Communications budget, then the Head of Communications had a clear conflict of interests. He would find it difficult to be (and I’m pretty sure he was not) impartial in making the recommendation in that Report, because Option B would provide more funding for his own department. 

 

There was no mention of where the money would go to, or the conflict of interests, in the Report. Not only was the “decision” to allow the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals to remain covered with advertising equipment for another four years a bad decision, badly made because the case for Option A was not properly considered (if at all), and badly handled by the Council Leader at the 28 May Cabinet meeting, it was another example of the “dodgy” way in which allowing Quintain to advertise on the Bobby Moore Bridge has been dealt with ever since 2013.

 

Philip Grant.

 

Brent publishes a draft of its Covid19 Transport Recovery Plan

From Brent Council

COVID-19 has disrupted our daily travel habits. As lockdown restrictions are eased, we want to support and encourage people to adopt greener, more active forms of transport. We have developed a plan to introduce short, medium and longer-term improvements in the borough. The plan supports social distancing, walking and cycling, as well as a reduction in car use.

Draft measures include: new low traffic neighbourhoods, school streets, new pop up cycle lanes and bike parking, further pavement widening in town centres, and bus supporting measures. We have submitted an application for £100,000 of DfT funding and making bids to TfL for schemes under their £45m London Streetspace Programme. Schemes will commence shortly as funding becomes available. It will be periodically reviewed to include new interventions to address emerging priorities.

Please email highways&infrastructure@brent.gov.uk if you have any comments or suggestions.

We will be shortly launching an interactive platform to make it easier for residents to make suggestions and comment on our plans.

Draft Plan




For more information

• Transport Recovery Plan programme (.pdf, 1.49MB)
• Low traffic neighbourhood examples (.pdf, 1.07MB)

Brent Council puts out a call for new foster carers to avoid Covid-19 disruption to children

From Brent Council

We are calling out for new foster carers to join us in Brent to ensure we have enough homes for the children who need us most.

Whilst the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic is having an impact on us all, some things do not change - our local, vulnerable children still need caring families to look after them.

Anyone who lives in Brent or a neighbouring authority and meets these five basic requirements can apply to foster with us:

1.         Over 21 years old (there is no upper age limit)

2.         Have indefinite leave to remain in the UK

3.         Have available living space: space for a cot in the bedroom to foster babies (0-2 years-old), or a spare room in the house to accommodate older children

4.         Live in Brent or the neighbouring boroughs so that travelling for foster care purposes is easy for you and your foster children

5.         Enjoy spending time with children, and be loving, kind, open-minded and inclusive.

Applicants will undergo an online assessment consisting of virtual meetings and visits, aimed at keeping them and their families safe and protected. Given the urgent need for foster carers, the application process, which normally lasts between 4 and 6 months, can be fast-tracked in certain circumstances.

Cllr Patel said:

We need to make sure that we have enough carers to deal with the challenges posed by Covid-19 and that throughout, our children have someone to look after them. They have experienced disruption before and we do not want them to go through this again. There are lots of caring people in Brent who have what it takes to foster and we hope to see some of them step up to help vulnerable children during this challenging time.

Anyone who is interested in fostering is encouraged to speak to our team directly by calling 0800 001 4041. There is a social worker at the other end of the line from Monday to Friday, between 9am and 5pm. 

Alternatively, to find out more about fostering and to check the support and rewards package, please visit brent.gov.uk/fostering.

Details of budget proposals going to Brent Cabinet on Monday

Brent residents will face another rise in Council Tax in 2020-21 (3.99%) under the budget proposals going to Brent Cabinet on Monday while council rents will be increased by 1% above the CPI (Consumer Price Index) measure of inflation over the next few years.

The officer led proposals will go out for public consultation if agreed by the Cabinet and will be discussed by the Brent Connects meetings and considered by the Scrutiny Committee.

As Brent Council front-loaded many of the 'savings' in previous years the cuts this time are not as attention-grabbing as previously and cover decisions already made last year such as the closure of Children's Centres. There are projected increases in income through marketing of services and increases in fees to external bodies, builders and developers.

A key aspect is expected savings through re-procurement and bringing services in-house but that is balanced by a welcome commitment to paying those working in services such as homecare the London Living Wage.

Throughout discussion of the various proposals the officers insist there will not be a negative impact on service users and the Equality Impact Assessments record that protected groups will not be affected.

The level of Council Reserves is discussed in the officers' paper. The Tory opposition and some activists have previously urged the Council to 'raid the reserves' to reduce cuts but no change is suggested apart from some internal shifting of the reserves to different headings.

There is a down-grading in the expected rate of growth of the Council Tax base (the number of people who pay Council Tax) and the report points out that most claims on services are made by the young and the elderly. (The 'life style' occupants of the Wembley high-rises make little demand on services while paying high services charges to their managing agents.)

The 'savings' which include cuts, efficiencies, digitising services and income generation,  will balance the budget for 2021/22-2022/23 and amount to £6.1m which includes a contingency of £0.5m:

The Direct Schools Grant is separate from the main budget and comes direct from the government. Its distribution is decided by the Council in  consultation with the Schools Forum. Brent pupils are funded above the Government minimum standard so are unlikely to gain. The recent pay increase for teachers is not fully funded by the Government so school budgets will be under pressure. Meanwhile the Special Education and Disability (SEND) budget faces increased demand and there appears to be a potential cut in the money for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) for the most needy pupils.

An interesting and likely controversial proposal is for the Council to develop a commercial training arm for apprenticeships that would deliver the Apprenticeship Standards. This would require initial investment of £20k in 2020-21 and £80k in 2022-23 but generate an income in the longer term. The Council says this would be delivered via the Council, local schools, health sector and the care sector. Previous attempts have foundered on questions over the quality of provision and allegations that these are not 'real apprenticeships' but cheap labour.

OVERALL  POSITION

The officers' report can be found HERE and I have inserted the list of savings below. A more detailed list is available HERE  

Click bottom right corner for full page version.

How effective was Brent Scrutiny's consideration of the STP?

The Sustainability and Transformation Plans for the NHS have come in for severe criticism as a cover for cuts.  The Brent Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee of September 20th discussed the plans.  This is the official minute of their discussion:

The committee considered the report from the Chief Executive of Brent Council and Chief Officer of Brent Clinical Commissioning Group on the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP). Rob Larkman (Chief Officer, Brent Harrow Hillingdon CCGs) advised that the requirement for the production of the STP was introduced by the NHS England in 2015. The purpose of the STP was to help local organisations plan how to deliver a better health service by addressing three key areas; improving health and wellbeing, improving quality of care and tackling the financial gap. The STP moved away from an organisation by organisation view to establish a broader strategic approach. Brent fell under the STP for North West London. It was acknowledged that work for this was taking place at several levels. At the North West London Level work was underway to draw together the place- based planning taking place in Brent and the seven other North West London Boroughs which were encompassed by the North West London STP. The STP was required to be submitted by the end of October 2016. It was emphasised that the timescales set out for the creation of the STP were extremely challenging. A draft NWL STP had been published and it was now necessary for all the statutory bodies affected by the STP to consider the details in line with their respective governance arrangements.

Addressing concerns regarding transparency and accountability, Carolyn Downs (Chief Executive of Brent Council) explained that the task of creating high quality plans to the level of detail required within the timescales set out had been extremely challenging. However, the NWL STP was recognised as one of the more detailed plans created and was the only one in the country for which joint governance processes had been supported to ensure political input from all affected local authorities. Reflecting this, five of the eight local authorities had jointly commissioned work to test the assumptions in the plan specifically related to the cost of additional out of hospital care to social care as a result of any proposed changes to acute services. The NWL STP was the only plan in the country to specifically address the social care funding gap. The NWL STP was also one of only two plans to have been published and a series of public engagement events would be held. Councillor Hirani (Cabinet member Community Wellbeing) added that events would be held out in the community in places such as supermarkets, stations and high streets to inform and engage residents.

Sarah Mansuralli (Chief Operating Officer, Brent Clinical Commissioning Group) outlined the work taking place at a local level. Members heard that a STP Brent- level working group had been established bringing together statutory partners including the Acute Trust, the Central and North West London Mental Health Trust and Brent Healthwatch, to break down organisational barriers. The working group had sought to identify the initiatives that would have the highest impact in Brent for addressing the three key issues at which the STP was targeted. Phil Porter (Strategic Director, Community and Wellbeing) detailed the five areas which had been identified as part of this work noting that this included prevention and self- care, renewing the ambition and focus in Brent’s Better Care Fund schemes, using the OnePublic estate model, ensuring mental health and wellbeing had equal focus with physical health and wellbeing and, underpinning all the rest, integrated workforce and organisational development.

At the invitation of the Chair, Simon Crawford (Director of Strategy, London North West Healthcare NHS Trust) emphasised that the STP provided a vehicle for collaborative working on the out of hospital agenda and integration and Brent was one of the most advanced in identifying what this meant locally. Julie Pal (Healthwatch Brent) expressed her confidence in the process being followed in Brent, having experience of delivering across a number of STP areas and noted that Brent residents’ voices were clearly contributing to the shaping of the transformation agenda.

Members questioned the extent to which Brent had been able to influence the setting of local priorities within the STP. A Member emphasised that housing was integral to the safety and security of those with Mental Health issues but that taking up employment could create a significant barrier for accessing appropriately supported housing. In view of this and with reference to plans to develop a multi- disciplinary team with a remit for mental health, employment and housing it was questioned what would be done to address this issue and ensure necessary support was provided. Further details were sought regarding the planned engagement activity and how this had been advertised. It was suggested that local pharmacists be approached within this engagement work in recognition of the level of contact that they had with people and similarly, that consideration be given to involving other local organisations and bodies including voluntary organisations and the patients forum. Questions were raised regarding extending access to GPs and investment in the Central Middlesex and Willesden sites. Addressing the tight timescales involved, the committee queried whether this posed any risks in terms of gaps in delivery.

Rob Larkman and Sarah Mansuralli confirmed that the borough had absolute discretion in determining the priorities for Brent. Local priorities had been established with reference to the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and had then been consolidated at the NWL level. Similar processes had been followed by other NWL authorities. Phil Porter acknowledged the significant challenge posed by housing and employment issues for those with mental health needs and noted that a dedicated housing officer was now in place and work was underway to build a network of private sector landlords willing to offer secure tenancies. Carolyn Downs welcomed the insight provided by members into this area. It was suggested that the committee consider at a future meeting the West London Alliance Mental Health and Employment Integration National Trailblazer which aimed to bring together GPs and wider organisations to support people into employment.

Addressing queries regarding the community engagement activity, Councillor Hirani emphasised that public meetings would be held alongside a series of events at public locations. Members of the public would be invited to share their views in a variety of ways. Work was also currently being carried out to allow residents accessing acute and hospital services to feed their views into the process. Sarah Mansuralli welcomed members suggestions regarding approaching pharmacists and other groups including patients’ forums and confirmed that these would be taken forward. A Health Partner Forum was scheduled for 19 October at which the CCG commissioning intentions (based on the STP) would be discussed. Members were further advised that an online engagement tool had been launched for the whole of North West London and had been widely circulated.

Rob Larkman confirmed that extending access to GPs was a crucial element of the STP and now that co-commissioning arrangements were in place between NHSE and CCGs, greater influence could be exerted. Addressing queries about investment in the Central Middlesex Hospital and the Willesden Hospital sites, Sarah Mansuralli explained that the intention was to fully utilise each site for out of hospital provision. The demography of the area around the Central Middlesex Hospital was changing and consideration was being given to how best to organise service provision accordingly. Carolyn Downs emphasised that the work on the STP would remain an alliterative process and the flow of investment, savings made and outcomes achieved would need to be constantly reviewed.

RESOLVED:

.        (i)  that the officers and colleagues present be thanked for contributing to the detailed and open discussion held; 


.        (ii)  that the committee welcomed the work being undertaken to ensure that issues regarding transparency and accountability were highlighted as part of the process of creating the Sustainability and Transformation Plan; 


.        (iii)  that an update be provided to the committee on the OnePublic Estate, including an update on the Central Middlesex and Willesden Hubs; 


.        (iv)  that efforts be made to engage with Health Scrutiny across North West London with regard to the Sustainability and Transformation Plan; 


.        (v)  that consideration be given to collaborative work with Healthwatch groups to support engagement around the Sustainability and Transformation Plan 


.        (vi)  that a regular progress report on the Sustainability and Transformation Plan be provided to the committee, the first of these to be provided six months from the date of the current meeting. 


Latest on Brent Chief Executive appointment

Following various rumours circulating about the appointment of the new Chief Executive of Brent Council last week I sought clarification from the Brent Council Press Office.  This is their statement:

The (CEO) interview process has not yet taken place therefore no appointment has been made.   The new Chief Executive will be appointed by a panel of elected members later this month and this appointment will be subject to ratification by Full Council on 22 June 2015.  As yet Christine Gilbert has not agreed a leaving date.

I can confirm that Lorraine Langham, Chief Operating Officer, has not applied for the role.

The Council will make a public statement once an appointment has been confirmed.

Muhammed Butt ousts Ann John as Brent Council leader candidate

Well informed sources tell me that following a challenge to Ann John's leadership that her deputy, Muhammed Butt, will be put forward as leader of Brent Council at next week's Annual Council Meeting.

The Labour Group voted for Butt by 21 votes to 19 and their decision has to be confirmed by Full Council. It is a very narrow margin...

Muhammed is currently lead member for resources and is councillor for Tokyngton ward.

The way cuts, and particularly library closures, have been handled by Ann John, appear to have been the motivating factor in the challenge. At the meeting Butt said he wanted to mend relations with the local community.

The leadership change, if confirmed,  is likely to lead to other changes in the Brent Executive at Wednesday's meeting.

Betrayal of library closures

From e-mail correspondence on libraries today:

The upsetting thing were the people who were utterly aghast at Neasden being shuttered. One young man - who spoke fluent Arabic, Farsi and Dutch, and who was desperate to improve his English, was appalled. He loves reading, lives in Neasden. Those are the people being betrayed.