Brent Council decides bins more important than human rights

Labour Brent Council's Executive last night approved the awarding of the £142.3m Public Realm contract to Veolia despite representations calling for the company to be removed from the procurement process because if its alleged grave misconduct in servicing illegal Israel settlements in the Occupied Territories of Palestine.

 The Executive was addressed by Dan Judelson of Brent Jews for Justice for Palestinians,  Cllr Paul Lorber, leader of the Liberal Democrat group on the council, and myself.

Executive members argued, to varying degrees, that they cared about human rights and the plight of the Palestinians, but that they had no option, for legal reasons and to get the best deal for Brent council tax payers, to award the contract to Veolia. Cllr Jim Moher, rolled out on these occasions as the Executive's blunderbus, accused me and Paul Lorber of attempting to wreck the contract with an eye on gaining electoral advantage next year. He said that people like us, trying to occupy the high moral ground, may be concerned about human rights but the man in the street cared about his bins being emptied. Muhammed Butt summing up said there was no greater advocate than him of the Palestinian cause but that the Council had to act legally and could not risk Veolia taking legal action against them for not following procedures. He added that faced with huge cuts in central government funding the savings the new contract involved was the most important issue.

Fiona Ledden, answering a challenge about lack of transparency in not informing  the campaign and the public of the legal advice she had received regarding  Bin Veolia in Brent's allegation said that she was constrained because it would be irresponsible to share legal advice with the public as it was privileged. It had been shared with members of the Executive behind closed doors. If the advice had been made public it could have been used by other parties in a Judicial Review. She said that she had received clear legal advice that Veolia UK was a separate company from that operating in Israel/Palestine and that in her communications with other local authorities she could find no case of Veolia being excluded from a contract.

This is the speech I made to the Executive:
 

When Muhammed Butt took over from Ann John as council leader he recognised, in the light of the library closures issue, the need to communicate with residents better and engage with them –

        

                                         be a ‘listening council’

Following his disagreement with Gareth Daniel  (former Chief Executive) he recognised the need to rebalance the power relationship between officers and elected members

                                   he wanted to move from ‘managerialism’ to              

                                        political leadership.

The public realm contract issue leads us to ask:

                                what happened to these intentions?

Veolia’s activities in the occupied territories of Israel are a moral and human rights issue, as well as a ‘political one’ just as British companies’ collusion with the Apartheid regime in South Africa was for the Brent Labour administration in the 1980s.

But from the beginning we were handed over to officers to discuss the issue – not elected members.

These officers were about as transparent as a lump of lead.

We gave officers detailed legal evidence on Veolia’s grave misconduct in the occupied territories – the procurement panel decided there were no grounds for exclusion of Veolia but gave no reasons why or how they had reached that decision.

We and our human rights lawyer met Fiona Ledden (Head of Procurement) to ask what legal advice they had received so that we could respond – they refused to tell us what the advice was and its source. We were put in the Kafkaesque situation of attempting to respond to evidence we couldn’t see. Our lawyer warned Fiona Ledden that this refusal could be used to press for a judicial review.

We asked if our allegations had been put to Veolia, they said no.

Surely any fair process would do that and should have in terms of protecting the council’s reputation.

When Veolia did write to the council, apparently of their own volition, they claimed to have sold the Tovlan landfill site. We submitted evidence that this was untrue.  No reaction from officers to being deliberately misled by a bidder.

When Enterprise asked for extra time to put in their final bid they were refused. The council’s reason for refusal of extra time are almost the same, and as unenlightening, as the refusal to exercise their discretion to exclude Veolia –

‘because that’s what we have decided.’

So no comeback for Veolia for giving misleading information to the council but instead officers’ action leaving Veolia as the only bidder.

If the officers refused to engage with us, what about the elected members of the executive?

Our petition with more than 2,000 signatures was presented to the executive. There was no response from the Executive member leading on the environment. It was referred to Fiona Ledden, head of procurement for consideration.  The same Fiona Ledden who had been stonewalling us.

A request to Cllr butt and Fiona Ledden for the outcome of that consideration was requested some time ago but only answered on Thursday. This merely said the council did not intent to revisit the decision not to exclude Veolia made on January 31^st

                                          in other words ‘we are ignoring your petition’

Our supporters made presentations on the issue to various Brent Connects forums. The notes say their comments would be referred to Cllr Roxanne Mashari as lead member for environment.  They have heard no more.

Liz Lindsay, Secretary of Brent and Harrow PSC has received no response to a request sent to Cllr Mashari in June, to meet with her and Brent members of Jews for Justice for Palestinians regarding the contract.

The officers’ report you are considering this evening makes absolutely no reference to any of these representations. If we had not made them public and written to councillors you will have had no idea that this is a controversial issue.

           Transparency? Accountability? Participation?

The GCs of both Hampstead and Kilburn and Brent Central Labour parties, Brent TUC and Brent members of Jews for Justice for Palestinians have supported our case.  We have been supported by several of the candidates for the Brent Central parliamentary nomination. Brent Lib Dems were ruled out of order when they tried to put a question about Veolia at full council.

I know that some members of the Executive have misgivings on the issue. Cllr Mashari herself, reporting on a visit to Israel/Palestine with the Young Fabians, paid for by BICOM (set up to ‘create a more supportive environment for Israel in Britain) said that the one issue she was repeatedly told should be addressed to bring peace was that of illegal Israeli settlements.

Apart from all of the above can the council truly save that they are sure of ‘best value’ for Brent residents in a process that led, at the final hurdle, to Veolia having no competitor for the Executive to consider.

 In Q1 of 2013-14 there was a failure to reach targets for reduction in residual waste and increased recycling at a cost of £226,000 with Veolia the current contractor.

We suggest the Executive:

1.     Extend the current contract for a year

2.     Start a new procurement process with robust ethical conditions attached

3.     Consider separating the parks/ground maintenance services from that contract to allow waste specialist companies to bid.

4.     Consider supporting an in-house bid for the parks/grounds maintenance contract

Cllr Hirani tells Gove Gladstone Park academy conversion 'simply not needed'

In a welcome move Brent Council Executive member,  Cllr Krupesh Hirani,  has  written to Michael Gove regarding the DfE's attempt to force Gladstone Park Primary to become a sponsored academy:

(Click on image to enlarge)

Preview of decisions to be made at Brent Council Executive on Monday

Monday's Meeting of the Brent Council Executive will be making some important decisions. Here is a preview of some of the post important ones:

Delegation of awarding of 'Supporting People Contracts' to achieve 'savings'
Re-procurement of existing services which provides housing support workers, sheltered housing managers, women’s refuge workers, etc. support vulnerable adults to prevent hospital admissions, evictions, mental ill health, homelessness and anti-social behaviour. The budget is additionally utilised to provide a range of non-statutory welfare services including handyperson, accident prevention, and hospital discharge support.

The council aims to make a reduction in costs (cut) of £900,000 through the new contracts. As they are due to run from February 1st there is no time for the Executive to make a decision so it is delegated to Head of Regeneration, Andy Donald and Director of Adult  Social Services, Alison Elliott in consultation with the lead members. LINK

Blue Badge Scheme for people with disabilities
Introduction of a £10 charge for Blue Badges usually payable every three years when badges are renewed plus tougher enforcement. LINK

Green Charter Monitoring
I will cover this in a separate posting. LINK 

Secondary School Expansion 2012-16
I have already blogged on these proposals which involve increasing the capacity of some secondary schools to cater for rising numbers. Kingsbury High will have 15 classes in each age group which will make it a very large school. My blog  HERE Executive Report LINK 

Capital funding for expansion of Vicar's Green Primary, Ealing
Vicar's Green is just over the border in Ealing and provides places for many Brent children. Brent will make a contribution to its expansion to provide more places subject to consultation LINK  

 London Living Wage 
Brent is aiming to becoming an accredited London Living Wage organisation itself and enouraging out-sourced suppliers to also pay it. It is not included as a requirement in the current Public Realm procurement.  My blog on it HERE Council Report: LINK 
 
 Working with Families
An integrated strategy to work with Brent's 810 'Troubled Families' aiming to save money by making it unnecessary for children to go into care and maximising Brent's income from the Government's 'Payment by Results' funding.(!)  It is worth reading the report in full LINK

Annual Audit Letter 2011-12
The letter from the Audiitor states:   
 Following the Audit Committee, on 28 September 2012 Ithe Auditor:
• issued unqualified opinions on the 2011/12 financial statements of the Council and the Pension Fund; and
• concluded that Brent Council made proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in your use of resources in 2011/12.

London Housing Consortium
Proposes that the Brent Executive's responsibilities for the Consortium be discharged to the Lead Member for Housing and another non Executive member (TBC) who will be on the the newly formed Joint Committee of the London Housing Consortium LINK

 The meeting begins at 7pm at Committee Rooms 1-3 Brent Town Hall and is likely to be over by 7pm.

Bigging up Brent Connects, but what about the budget?

Some of Brent Council's sternest critics are featured in this new video from Brent Council extolling the virtues of the council-resident 'dialogue' that take place at the Brent Connects Forums (formerly Area Consultation Forums). I didn't attend Brent Connects Kilburn and Kensal featured in this video but that panel debate format here certainly seems to have produced a livelier meeting. The format hasn't been adopted for all the Brent Connects events. This notice  for Brent Connects Wembley to be held at the Patidar Centre, London Road on Tuesday Jan 15th, with due respect to the councillors concerned, failed to excite me:

 One half of the forum will be devoted to portfolio updates from two members of the council’s Executive

* Cllr Krupesh Hirani – Lead Member for Adults and Health

* Cllr George Crane – Lead Member for Regeneration and Major Projects.

 This is an excellent opportunity for residents, service users and stakeholder groups to put questions on specific council portfolio to key-decision makers to help foster greater understanding of council initiatives. A full agenda will be available at the forum. 

The most important decision the council will be making this year, the 2013-14 budget proposals, does not feature on any of the current  Brent Connect agenda and by the time the next round comes round the cuts and increased charges wil have been implemented.

I criticised the lack of substance in the consultation last year, with no detailed proposals available, but this year there is no consultation at all.

The ramifications of Council Tax Support proposals

Brent Council Executive will discuss proposals for the Council Tax Support scheme which replaces Council Tax Benefit next year. It will go to full council for approval. The shift includes a 10%  Coalition Government cut in funds available for the support.

Brent's extensive consultation received only 184  residents' responses. 97 online and 87 paper. This represents 0.5% of the benefits caseload. In addition there were submissions from Citizens Advice Bureau, Mencap, Capita, GLA, Network Housing, Catalyst Housing, Brent Children and Families and Brent Partnership and Improvements.

The response on how the Key Principles outlined in the proposals should be prioritised were:

These are the proposals::

5. The Council’s Proposed Council Tax Support  scheme

5.1 The Council undertook consultation concerning its proposed draft scheme which comprised the key principles and features set out below for working age claimants:

Principle 1: “Everyone should pay something”

All working age claimants (unless defined as protected) shall be required to pay a minimum contribution towards their Council Tax – set in the draft scheme at 20%.

Principle 2: “The most vulnerable claimants should be protected”(from the minimum contribution)

Claimants shall be protected from the 20% minimum contribution if they or a dependant in their household are entitled to a disability premium, enhanced disability premium, disabled earnings disregard, Disability Living Allowance or Personal Independence Payment, Disabled Persons Reduction for Council Tax purposes, War Disablement Pension and War Widow’s Pension.

Principle 3: “The scheme should incentivise work”

Incentives to work are achieved by letting claimants who are working keep more of what they earn (before means-testing) – the recommended scheme proposes an increase of £10 per week in the earnings disregards for Single Person, Couple and Lone Parent earnings (currently set at £5, £10 and £25 respectively). In this context, a disregard means the amount of weekly earnings that may be ignored when calculating entitlement to Benefit.

Principle 4: “Everyone in the household should contribute”

Other adults in the claimant’s household (“non-dependants”) should contribute more proportionately to their income – the recommended scheme proposes doubling the existing rates of non-dependant deductions from those in place in 2012/13 and replacing the current nil deduction for other adults in the claimant’s household receiving Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based) with a deduction of £6.60.

Principle 5: “Better off claimants should pay relatively more so that the least well off receive greater protection.”

The recommended scheme proposes that the taper used in the Benefit calculation for those above the means-test (i.e. where the claimant’s income exceeds their needs) should be increased to 30% from the current 20%. This is the rate at which Council Tax Support reduces where weekly income exceeds basic living needs and will be 30 pence in the pound rather than the 20 pence currently applied for CTB.

Principle 6: “Benefit should not be paid to those with relatively large capital or savings”

The recommended scheme proposes reducing the current savings cut off limit applied for CTS claims from £16,000 at present for the purposes of CTB to £6,000.

Commenting on feedback from consultees the report states:

In summary, (the responses) appears to indicate a clear distinction as to whether principle 1 is fair based upon whether the respondent is in receipt of Council Tax Benefit or not, principle 2 was agreed as being fair by the majority of both sets of respondents, principle 3 was agreed as being fair by the greater majority of both sets of respondents, principle 4 was agreed as being fair by the greater majority of non Benefit respondents than in the case of Benefit respondents, principle 5 was not agreed as fair by Benefit respondents but had an equal split of non Benefit respondents considering it unfair and principle 6 was considered unfair by a greater majority of Benefit respondents than non Benefit respondents

The scheme recommendations are:

Appendix C to the report sets out the implications for the budget ion the future and the impact of various Council Tax rises: LINK

Any increased revenue from a higher Council Tax will be reduced by 25% as more become eligible for Council Tax Support.


The report anticipates difficulties in Council Tax collection:

Additional challenges are anticipated in collection arising from the implementation of Council Tax Support and difficulties in achieving full collection on the accounts affected may result in an overall collection rate that is less than the 97.5% currently built into the Council Tax Base. The assumed collection rate used in the Council Tax Base setting for 2013/14 will need to be given careful consideration as any anticipated reduction in future Council Tax collection rates would have the effect of increasing the Band D Council Tax unless a corresponding reduction in Council expenditure were to be provided. An overly optimistic collection assumption could lead to a need to declare a deficit on the Collection Fund in later years. Consideration will also need to be given to the other potential financial effects of the proposed scheme on the Collection Fund to prevent a deficit position from occurring (i.e. the scheme would need to raise sufficient additional Council Tax revenue).

The report recognises that Asian families will  be disproportionately  hit by a reduction in entitlement because they are more likely to be of working age, have more dependants (22% have 3-4 children compared with 10% in the 'white group), live in larger houses and have more adults living in the household. The 18-24 age group  are most likely to be affected by an entitlement loss of £3-£5 a week. The report states that claimants aged 55 to 60 are proportionately more likely to have a difference in their entitlement of £8.00 to £30.00 per week than the younger age groups. For example, in the £8 - £15 category they are represented by 11% rather than the 6% average. One factor for this variance is because claimants aged 55 to 60 are more likely to live in larger properties. For example, 15% live in Band E properties compared to 3% aged 18 - 24 and 6%aged 25 - 34 than the younger age groups. They are also in proportionate terms more likely to have more non-dependants living in their home.

Same old faces in the new Brent Executive

The new Council Executive are the same old faces with minor changes as a result of the defeat of Ann John. A fresh and dynamic approach looks highly unlikely given that there is only one newcomer - Cllr Krupesh Hirani:

Lead Member for Corporate Strategy & Policy Co-ordination – Cllr Muhammed Butt (prev Ann John)

Lead Member for Resources – Cllr Ruth Moher (prev Muhammed Butt)

Lead Member for Crime Prevention & Public Safety – Cllr Lincoln Beswick - unchanged

Lead Member for Children & Families – Cllr Mary Arnold - unchanged

Lead Member for Adults, Health & Social Care – Cllr Krupesh Hirani   (prev Ruth Moher)

Lead Member for Environment & Neighbourhoods – Cllr James Powney - unchanged

Lead Member for Highways & Transportation – Cllr Jim Moher - unchanged

Lead Member for Housing – Cllr Janice Long - unchanged

Lead Member for Customers & Citzens – Cllr Lesley Jones - unchanged

Lead Member for Regeneration & Major Projects – Cllr George Crane - unchanged

Cllr Pat Harrison will be Chair of the Labour Group and Chief Whip Barnhill councillor Shafique Choudhary.

The new Mayor will be Cllr Michael Adeyeye and his deputy will be Cllr Bobby Thomas.

Public frustration at lack of answers at Brent Executive

Cllr Ann John lost her cool at tonight's Executive Meeting after residents who had made representations on Treetops Nursery and the proposed Willesden Library Centre had left the committee rooms at Brent Town Hall.

Cllr Ruth Moher had been reading, inaudibly, a report on Adult Social Care and procurement of a framework for short break for carers. Chairing the meeting Cllr John had told her that she did not need to read out  the recommendations as councillors could read them for themselves then broke off to say:  "But that's not to say that this isn't important. This, safeguarding and the budget  are important things but I don't see people coming to talk about them. We weren't political at all tonight. Maybe we should have been.  People come for the small things, trying to hang on to what they've got, but they don't care about these things which will affect more people.  The poor people of Brent will be a lot poorer because of this government.".

The meeting began with a representation about Treetops Nursery where the council will consider it being taken over by a private provider. This was followed by a series of presentations about the Willesden Green Cultural Centre project, the fate of the Willesden by library campaigners  to provide study space during the closure period at Preston library at little cost to the council.

Residents criticised the poor consultation over the Willesden Regeneration which only saw 12 people and the ward councillors involved in the first round.One speaker accused the council of being in hock to the developers and failing to represent the interests of local people as the client in the partnership. Suggesting it was a 'done deal' another said that there were a lot of angry people who wanted their voices hard and warned that at the next election these people could make a difference when voting turn-out was so low. A local GP described the information on the council website as 'platitudes and fluffy aspirations and called for detailed and substantive plans to be published. It appeared that the future of the community was being decided by developers and not the elected local council. Another resident criticised the haste involved and called for the signing of the developer agreement to be delayed so that local people could mull over the proposals and  have a calm consideration of the issues.

Cllr Paul Lorber speaking on the motion from Scrutiny echoed previous contributions, particularly those dealing with consultation and said that he had failed to get answers from officers on the cost of refurbishment of the present building.  He drew attention to the fact that the interim arrangements for the 18 month period of closure had a budget of £2.1m and opening the closed libraries for that period would be cheaper.

Ann John from the chair had commented on several of the speeches from residents and prompted Cllr Crane, lead member for Regeneration and Major Projects about questions he needed to address. Unfortunately Cllr Crane began to read sections of the Officers' Report rather than answer the questions raised by the public and heckling began as the audience became more frustrated. Ann John in turn got irate with the public and even cited me as a model of decorum!

Cllr Crane repeated previous statements bout the unfitmess of the current building, the impossibility of finding tenants for the cinema and the bar, the unaffordable cost of refurbishment. He said that the Willesden Bookshop was valued but 'at the end of the day it is a commercial entity' .  He said that the word 'consultation' was sometimes misused ("By you!" - public cry)and that the initial small group discussions a limited consultation' was only to get ideas to put to potential developers. He said that thorough consultation would start now and there would be a 3-4 month discussion with Galliford Try the developer partner. Andy Donald, the lead officer for the project, confirmed that the developer agreement had not yet been signed, and that there would be further consultation before the project went to planning committee in July. Neither mentioned the apparent fact that the exclusion of the bookshop from the Cultural Centre and demolition of the 1894 Victorian Willesden Library would not form part of these 'consultations'.

When Councillor Powney opined that the Bookshop would not want to be relocated twice, during rebuilding and then moving into the Cultural Centre, the public shouted "Have you asked them?" In fact supporters of the Bookshop said the owner said he would be happy with two moves if it meant getting located in the new Centre. Cllr Powney then said that it would be such a high quality development that retail space within it would be too expensive for the bookshop. Responding to my claim that there were no meeting rooms in the list of 'key components' the council wanted in the Cultural Centre, something essential for local democracy, he said that there were. It turned out that Andy Donald's developer language had run away with him and that the  'Three Creative Cluster Spaces which will be fitted out to facilitate an array of artist and cultural programming" were in  fact meeting rooms. I don't really think Cllr Powney can really blame me for not being able to translate that into plain English!

The Executive then voted to approve all the officers recommendations and Cllr John said that the council would now go ahead and sigh the developer agreement.

The budget and its 28 recommendations involving major cuts across services was approved following a three minute introduction by Muhammed Butt and councillors declining Ann John's invitation to ask questions. The budget including the damaging cuts itemised elsewhere on this blog will now go to Full Council on February 27th.. Other items including the closure of Harmony Nursery and increases in council rents were also approved.

The February 2011 Willesden Green Library consultatation that you missed!

The furore over the Willesden Green Library Regeneration had led many people to ask me about the earlier consultation on the proposals. The Council discussed the proposals on February 15th 2011 and then consulted two focus groups on February 21st and February 28th. Blink and you missed it!

We were all busy with the library closures, budget meeting and academies at the time but I did put a short post about the plans on Wembley Matters HERE

Details of the February 2011 consultation process can be found here HERE

Only a few days left to have your say on future of Brent Town Hall

Brent Council is consulting on a Supplementary Planning Document for the future use of the Brent Town Hall once the new Civic Centre is open.  The consultation closes on Monday January 16th. CONSULTATION LINK

The Town Hall is a Grade 2 listed building.

The Council state:

In 2013, Brent Council is moving to a new state of the art New Civic Centre which means that our grade II listed Town Hall on Forty Lane, will be retired from civic duties.  The Town Hall has been at the centre of local governance in Brent since 1940; but is now unable to provide the facilities that our residents and clients expect of an efficient up to date public service.  However, the Council is very keen to ensure that the Town Hall has a dignified, productive and useful new life and to ensure this happens has produced a development guide for prospective new owners of the building.

A draft Development and Planning Brief for Brent Town Hall has been produced to help with the marketing and sales campaign and will help guide the expectations and aspirations of potential buyers. It gives helpful planning and listed building advice on appropriate new uses, alteration of the existing building and the potential for extensions and new development within the site.

It is intended that the Brief will be adopted as a “Supplementary Planning Document”, which will help confirm it as a standard by which future applications for alterations and additions to the building and the site will be judged.  Before the guide is adopted, the Council is keen to hear your opinions on its contents and has set up this consultation exercise to ensure that all views are considered and reported to the Councils’ Executive at the adoption meeting in March.  The consultation will close at 12:00noon on the 16th January 2012.

Upcoming Brent Executive Decisions

Somewhat surprisingly, given the need for proper scrutiny of Executive decisions, the Call In and Scrutiny Overview Committee due to be held this evening has been cancelled.

The Executive meets again on November 14th and the most controversial item is likely to be consideration of options for the redevelopment of the Willesden Green Library Centre site. No details of proposals are available as yet but I will try to publish them as soon as possible. There has been only internal council  consultation on this so far. Redevelopment would mean the closure of the library for at least two years and thus will add to the impact of the recent closures of  six of the borough's 12 libraries.

There may be organised protests by dog walkers against the Dog Control Orders due to be approved that night. Dog walkers will be limited to a maximum of six dogs per person. Dogs will be excluded from playgrounds, multi-use games areas, tennis and netball courts and bowling greens. Other areas will be specified where dogs must be kept on a lead. (See my earlier post LINK)

The Executive will be asked to approve the awarding of a Design and Build Contract to rebuild the Girls' and Boys Crest Academies and a joint procurement of council Human Resources through the Oracle system led by Lewisham and Lambeth.  This aims to rationalise back office support systems within London's local councils.

The December 12th Executive will be presented with the Quarter 2 2011/12 - Performance and Finance review which may have repercussions for spending for the remainder of this financial year. The same meeting will consider alterations in fees and charges for council services,  The most controversial decision at the January 16th 2011 meeting will be over the future of children's centre childcare provision.

Executive will make weighty decisions tonight - at breakneck speed?

I am unable to make tonight's Brent Executive Meeting because of another meeting but Wembley Matters readers may be interested in some of the items coming up. It starts at 7pm but don't be late - it will probably be over by 7.30pm despite the major items on the agenda.

Petitions on the retention of school crossing patrols will be presented and the Executive are likely to revise the cuts and delay implementation. However they remain on the back-burner and there is likely to be a gradual reduction in the hope it will attract less publicity.

The Executive will decide on a public consultation on the Wembley Action Plan in the light of changing economic conditions with possible re-zoning of some areas. Officers will seek endorsement of their response to the Government's consultation on High Speed 2 with representations of the Oak Oak interchange to Crossrail and concerns about the impact of tunnelling on houses in Kensal Green.

Changes will be sought in the Articles of Association of Brent Housing Partnership in preparation for it becoming an enhanced ALMO (Arms Length Management Association). A revised system of payments for Adult Social Services will be presented which will see some paying more for services, some less and some unchanged according to the Council. The documentation is extremely complex and the Mayor may offer prizes to anyone who understands it!

The Executive will vote to close Knowles House residential Home and Westbrook Day Centre despite the opposition of many residents and their families. They will seek to reassure users that there will be re-provision of care by' independent and voluntary agencies as near to family and friends as possible'.

New rules on the Taxicard Scheme will be agreed to reduce a projected 'over-spend'. Changes will include the limit on trips using the scheme being reduced from 96 to 48.

The very full Preventing Youth Offending Task Group Report will be presented. It stresses the importance of early intervention and has 19 recommendations for action across the Council. It merits full discussion but probably won't get it on the basis that such discussions have taken place elsewhere.

To end with better news the Executive will make a decision on renewal of the Brent Citizens Advice and Law Centre for 6 months.

Full documentation can be found on the Council website. To avoid multiple clicking follow this LINK

Curious Consultations

When Cllr James Powney stated from the platform at the recent Town Hall meeting that 'There is no alternative' to the library closures, someone heckled, "Then why are you consulting us?" Other speakers were equally disenchanted with consultation suggesting that major questions were already decided ahead of consultation outcomes.

A little cynical you may think...

However there was a statutory consultation before the holiday on the proposed expansion of Preston Manor High School so that it will also provide primary education in the future. A report on the consultation outcomes will go to the council Executive on February 11th 2011 and they will decide whether to approve the expansion. Obviously they will approach the issue with open minds and take note of the submissions?

However this month the Council is consulting on a planning application for a new 2 form entry primary school on the Preston Manor High School site - to be decided no earlier than January 20th 2011. (An earlier date had been given but residents protested that consultation letters arrived late because of the Christmas post.)

When we queried why the Council was seeking planning permission before the Executive had discussed whether to expand the school, Brent Council told us:

"The Planning Application has been submitted in advance of the Executive approval to ensure that  the statutory proposal can be implemented on time."

I will leave you to decide whether the statutory consultation was genuine or just another exercise in ticking the boxes.