LETTER: Promises, Promises...

 Dear Editor,

 

It is local election time and existing and prospective councillors are on doorsteps or in hustings making promises. We recall our community’s experience of an election promise.

 

On the 7^th May 2014 at a public meeting in St. Erconwald’s Church Hall, Councillor Roxanne Mashari then a member of Brent Council Cabinet and still a Councillor today said:

 

‘Therefore this Labour administration the Labour Party in Brent will offer the building at a peppercorn rent to a local community group who can provide a sustainable community library and that is our pledge’.

 

The ‘building’ was the Preston Library Building – the only publicly owned community space in our area. The matter was an election issue because the Labour administration closed the library in the face of widespread opposition.

 

Years of evasion followed while the Council looked for every possible excuse (school use need etc.) to renege on their promise.

 

Eventually Brent submitted a planning application for the redevelopment of the site and faced down persistent, reasoned, and evidenced opposition that the redevelopment was contrary to their promise, is contrary to the Local Plan, will increase the flood risk, and will result in climate abuse. Brent ignored these issues in years of ‘community consultation’ and twice granted planning consent for their own development. The matter then proceeded to the High Court for Judicial Review.

 

At the second Judicial Review – the first one quashed the planning consent – and faced with a High Court Judge finding for a second time that the development is contrary to the Local Plan – the Labour administration instructed its lawyers to invoke the Senior Courts Act – a law introduced by the Thatcher Government to limit the involvement of ordinary citizens in government decisions.

 

To the astonishment of many including their own supporters a Labour Council (who persistently say they are constrained by Tory Government cuts) used the tools of the Thatcher Government to impose its development on our community.

 

On 26 June 2020 in a video meeting – we asked the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive to honour Councillor Mashari’s Pledge. They did not deny the pledge or what it meant for the library, but the Chief Executive replied that an administration coming into office after an election could never be bound by the promises made by a candidate for council in an election campaign.

 

The pledge was referred to the Council’s Monitoring Officer who administers the Brent Members Code of Conduct. This describes the expected integrity, accountability, and honesty of members – qualities which most residents would see as relevant to a failure to keep a public promise.

 

In a decision published on 26 August 2021 the Monitoring Officer decided that too much time had passed since the pledge for it to be in the ‘public interest’ to investigate the matter. She added - as an individual Member of the Council and the Cabinet, Cllr Mashari had no power to make a binding commitment on behalf of the Council or Cabinet.

 

Residents should therefore heed the advice of the Monitoring Officer - candidates cannot make promises and don’t be patient when they mislead.

 

Despite Brent Council’s appalling treatment of our community, we believe in free speech and a right of reply. On the 15 October 2021 we asked Councillor Mashari to explain why she had not kept her promise because we intended to publish this review and wanted to give her a right to reply.

 

Within an hour Councillor Mashari replied that she would make a substantive response by next Tuesday. (19 October 2021).

 

On the 23 October 2021 she said she was ill but would address the points you have made here thoroughly. Please be assured that I will reply as soon as possible.

 

We never heard again from Councillor Mashari.

 

It seems for Brent councillors ‘next Tuesday’ just never comes. ‘Next Tuesday’ never comes either for Brent Council’s ‘promise’ to tackle the climate emergency.

 

Brent Council demolished the library in December 2021.

 

Instead of giving the building to the community as Councillor Mashari promised, it was given to a demolition contractor to take to landfill to aid in the Council’s destruction of the planet.

 

Michael  Rushe,

Chair

South Kenton Preston Park Residents Association

 

Brent Cabinet fails to take scrutiny seriously

Interventions by Cllr Neil Nerva and Cllr Roxanne Mashari at the Brent Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday centred on the failure of the Cabinet to properly consider the recommendations made by the Committee and its Task Groups.

An example was the recent Air Quality report where the Cabinet merely 'noted' its recommendations. This could mean that officers go away and make detailed action plans or just that the recommendations are vaguely borne in mind or put on the back burner.

The most telling document presented at the Committee was the 'Tracker' which records the Executive/Cabinet response to the two Scrutiny Committees' recommendations. Out of 18 reports only one - the Air Quality Report has a response, and that was just to 'note'.

Click bottom right for full page:

Cllr Mashari questioning officers on the latest Council Assets report complained that there was less information in the latest reports than previous ones that had been referred back as inadequate. She was told that information had been withheld because of 'commercial considerations.'

Cllr Nerva demanded proper responses based on good practice. The information below may help both councillors in their demand for proper process. However well Scrutiny Committees do their work they are of little use if then ignored by the Cabinet.

The Centre for Public Scrutiny publishes a Good Scrutiny Guide LINK 

1.2.1 Powers in relation to councils: in general,
1.2.1.1. Scrutiny can:

• Require information from the council. Councillors sitting on scrutiny committees have broad information access rights which means that they can and should be able to have access to information even on matters exempt for reason of commercial confidentiality, and the other exemptions found in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. More information on information rights can be found in section 4.1 below and at section 5 of the guidance.
  
  
• Require attendance from council officers and councillors. Members of the executive invited to attend scrutiny committee meetings, and council officers issued with similar invitations, are expected to do so. While the law does not specify the seniority of officers who should be invited to give evidence, it will usually be most appropriate for senior officers to attend, even where questions are being asked about operational delivery. More information on engagement with councils officers and executive-side councillors can be found in section 2.1 below.
  
  

• Require that the council provides responses to scrutiny’s recommendations. Importantly, it is for scrutiny to determine the nature of the response. It is legitimate, for example, for scrutiny to require that a substantive response to each recommendation be made individually, with timescales for implementation; scrutiny can require that the executive do not respond to recommendations simply by “noting” them. More information on recommendations and impact can be found in section 5 below.  

Some councils continue to codify how and in what timescales this should be done – see pts 12 and 13 (below) in Camden Council’s constitution) . Brent does not appear to do this.

11. POLICY REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT
The specific functions relating to policy development and review functions of Scrutiny Committees are detailed in Article 6 in Part Two of this Constitution. In addition, the terms of reference of the Resources and Corporate Performance Scrutiny Committee are listed in Part 3.

12. REPORTS FROM THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEES 

a.     The Scrutiny Committee may develop a protocol for the production of reports.

b.    Reports from the Scrutiny Committees shall be submitted within a reasonable
time of their completion to the Proper Officer for consideration by the Cabinet and/or the Council as appropriate.

c.     The Cabinet and/or Council shall send a written response to the Scrutiny
Committee within a reasonable time of considering a report, with a copy to the Proper Officer 1.

1 Section 21 B of the Local Government Act 2000 now imposes a time of limit of two months for the Cabinet/Council to reply

13.MAKING SURE THAT SCRUTINY REPORTS ARE CONSIDERED BY THE CABINET

a) The agenda for Cabinet meetings (including any meetings of single members and the Cabinet (Environment) Sub-Group) shall include an item entitled ‘Issues arising from scrutiny’. Reports of the Scrutiny Committees referred to the Cabinet shall be included at this point in the agenda within one month of it being submitted, unless either they have been considered in the context of the Cabinet’s deliberations on a substantive item on the agenda or the Cabinet gives reasons why they cannot be included and states when they will be considered. The Cabinet shall send a written response to the Scrutiny Committee within a reasonable time of considering a report, as set out in Rule 11 above.

It is worth remembering Barry Gardiner's warning after Labour won the overwhelming majority of Brent council seats. LINK

Granville & Carlton Centre users assured that they will be included in plans for the future of site

I was unable to make tonight's Cabinet meeting where the Granville and Carlton Centre plans  were on the agenda.  However an observer tells me that Cllrs Conneely, Duffy, Jones and Warren spoke for the occupants of the buildings. Lesley Benson, head of Granville Nursery Plus amd Momata from Granville Kitchen also spoke.

Several contributors said that it has been the worse decision making process that they had every seen.

Apparently the Cabinet was contrite and Cllr Butt and Cllr Mashari said that they wanted to reassure the Granville and Carlton users that they would be included as contributers in the future, rather than just consulted.

The Cabinet approved the report. LINK

Who was really responsible for the Granville Centre debacle?

Last week I published Cllr Duffy's interchange with Cllr Mashari in which he called for her resignation over the Granville and Carlton Centres in South Kilburn. LINK

Cllr Mashari claimed that the proposals for regeneration  of the sites came under the Property portfolio which Cllr Butt, leader of the council, holds, rather than Regeneration. Property covers council ownership of buildings and sites and Brent Council has a policy to realise the value of these assets to address their financial plight.

The Granville proposal was put to the Cabinet by Margaret McLennan, deputy leader, rather than Butt who chairs the Cabinet.  Other South Kilburn proposals on the agenda at that meeting, Phase 3a and Site 18,  were put by Cllr Mashari.

It has not been possible to find the full list of responsibilities of each portfolio holder including the leader and deputy, as up to date details do not appear to be available on the Council website.

The report about Granville was written jointly by the Strategic Directors for Resources, and Regeneration and Environment.

Philip Grant points out in a comment on the earlier post:

However, both of those Directors, Althea Loderick (Resources) and Amar Dave (Regeneration and Environment) were new to Brent, having taken up their posts in June 2016, having previously been in Waltham Forest and Essex respectively. So they probably knew very little about Kilburn, and may not even have visited the area from their new offices in the Civic Centre before they put their names to the report.

The contact officers for the report were:

Althea Loderick
 Strategic Director of Resources

Sarah Chaudhry
 Head of Property

Tanveer Ghani
 Project Manager

Dale Thomson
 Regeneration Manager

There is only a cursory reference to the Granville Nursery Plus (and not by name) in the report and none to the Granville Kitchen.

 Given the economic deprivation found on the South Kilburn Estate  and the presence of many protected groups the Equality Analysis attached to the report is clearly deficient - particularly the last sentence:

Appendix 4: Equality Analysis Stage 1 Screening Data

What are the objectives and expected outcomes of your proposal? Why is it needed?

The proposal covers the phased redevelopment the Carlton & Granville Centres, Granville Road, London, NW6 5RA to deliver new homes, an Enterprise Hub and additional community use space.

Who is affected by the proposal?

The proposal is relevant to residents in South Kilburn, small businesses in the area and the South Kilburn Trust. As the premises proposed for re- development are largely unoccupied and will shortly be vacated by the remaining users, there is no impact for existing users.

Could the proposal impact on people in different ways because of their equality characteristics?

The proposal will deliver new workspace accommodation for up to 30 small businesses as well as new housing for households in housing need. To the extent that some protected groups are over-represented among households in housing need or seeking employment opportunities, the positive impacts of the proposal may offer particular benefits to these groups.

Could the proposal have a disproportionate impact on some equality groups?
If yes, indicate which equality characteristic(s) are impacted

No, other than as noted above.

Would the proposal change or remove services used by vulnerable groups of people?

The proposal will provide new or improved services that may be used by vulnerable groups.

Does the proposal relate to an area with known inequalities?

Yes.

Is the proposal likely to be sensitive or important for some people because of their equality characteristics?

Yes – although the proposal is not seen as sensitive, it may offer important new opportunities for some protected groups and more generally.

Does the proposal relate to one of Brent's equality objectives?

The proposal relates to the following objectives:

            To know and understand all our communities 


            To ensure that local public services are responsive to different needs 
and treat users with dignity and respect 


Recommend this EA for Full Analysis?

No.

Although according to Cllr Duffy, recently  Cllr Butt and Cllr McLennan have met up with him, Kilburn councillors and  Granville and Carlton users, to discuss the situation,  some of the responsibility may rest with them for the original failure to recognise the needs of the community. The potential confusion between the Property and Regeneration roles of Cllr Butt and Mashari, and the involvement of recent Strategic Director appointees, may mean that the resulting consultation failure and furore, may have been more cock-up than conspiracy.

For reference here are the Minutes of the July 25th Cabinet Meeting:

Brent Council set to increase Council Tax by 3.99%, make cuts and increase charges

Brent Council issued the following press release yesterday on its budget proposals. I drew attention recently to Camden's revision of its Council Tax Support Scheme in the light of Council Tax increases. There are, as far as I can see, no proposals for a review of Brent's scheme. LINK

BRENT COUNCIL PRESS RELEASE

Plan to protect local services by raising income set to be discussed

14 October 2016

 

Protecting local services is the top priority for Brent, the council leader has said, as a plan to get residents' views on a draft set of budget proposals for the next two years is set to be discussed.

Brent Council's Cabinet will meet on Monday 24 October to consider a paper which includes a proposal to protect local services by increasing council tax by 3.99 per cent - or 85p a week for an average Band D household.

The report sets out how councils are still in an era of austerity and are facing further cuts in Government funding despite growing demand for local services from an increasing and ageing population. The paper also includes some savings proposals although these are relatively small compared to recent council budgets.

Last year was the first year council tax had risen in Brent for six years after successive freezes despite Government funding being slashed by £117million since 2010.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said:

"Imagine your household bills went up every year, but your salary kept being cut. You would have to make some tough choices and find new ways to make your money go further.

"That's what this council has been doing in finding new, more efficient ways to maintain and improve the services that we all need, but it has also meant making some very difficult decisions.

"We know how important our local services are to the people of Brent which is why, rather than cutting back on those vital services, the option of raising income through a small council tax increase to protect these services is being considered.

"The choice we face in Brent is this: will we pay a bit extra each month to keep our services available to those who need them, or will we let the Government's cuts to our budget further limit the services we can provide?"

In addition to the proposal on council tax, the paper includes proposals to:

·       Help residents with low-level nursing care needs to live independently, which will improve their quality of life and save £300,000

·       Negotiate a £500,000 reduction in spending on contracts with mental health service providers

·       Outsourcing the management of two day care centres in the borough to save £300,000

·       Negotiate a £900,000 saving in the public realm contract with Veolia

·       Charging for a next-day and 'pick your day' bulky waste collection service, generating £250,000 each year

·       Consult on saving £100,000 in the Regulatory Services team through a reorganisation

·       Participation in the London wide sexual health transformation programme to achieve better services while saving £600,000 over the next two years

·       Consultation on plans for differential parking charges to help manage pressure for spaces in high demand areas - £1million

·       Dim street lights where appropriate which would save £100,000 and benefit the environment

Cllr Butt added:

"As a Cabinet, we will discuss the draft proposals set out in the report at our next meeting and, if approved, will then put them to residents to have their say in a detailed budget consultation."

The budget consultation is set to run from November to December with a series of public meetings arranged for January. A final decision on the budget will be taken by Full Council in February 2017.

View the full Cabinet report here.

There is little information on any debate within the Labour Group or the Brent Labour Party as whole over these proposals although Cllr Michael Pavey in his letter resigning from the Cabinet LINK said, 

'I think it is clear that the Leader and myself have developed differing views regarding how Brent Council can best serve its residents at a time of brutal Tory cuts.'

Pavey may have fought against cuts in his own brief, Stronger Communities, or perhaps he had an alternative strategy which was defeated. 

As usual the devil will be in the detail and one has to look beyond the phraseology of the bullet points to see what they really mean. Some appear to be deliberately vague.

Taking the first proposal on helping people with 'low-level nursing care need to live independently' , the report  acknowledges that this 'help' may not be welcome - but it delivers 'savings' through what will be a reduced service:

Proposal to move lowest need (c.20%) of clients currently in nursing care to Supported Living which would deliver a £0.3m saving. This is based on an analysis of nursing home placements, which suggest there are a number of placements at the simpler end. 

How would this affect users of this service? 

Clients would need to agree to the move and some may find moving traumatic. Families and carers may also be averse to disrupting stable placements. Some users may prefer a less institutional environment and regain independence and skills lost through being in nursing care.

Brent's poor provision of mental health services came under sharp criticism at the recent 'Extremism' debate so the £0.5m cut in spending on contracts will need close scrutiny:

£0.5m ('savings') achieved through: 

 enabling a more effective recovery pathway – better access to housing and

employment will accelerate step down to general needs housing 

Supported by ongoing negotiations with providers to manage costs and focus

on the right support. 

How would this affect users of this service? 

This would support the delivery of the current objectives of the service, supporting people to move towards independence, and further efficiencies would be achieved through negotiations, which would not mean a change in service. 

The key here is 'negotiation with providers' which often means reducing the payment to providers affecting the pay and working conditions of those working for them and perhaps contradicting the Council's commitment to the London living wage.

Despite Jeremy Corbyn's remarks on Council 'in-sourcing' LINK,  Brent may decide to  outsource the management of the John Billam and New Millennium day care centres. There is little detail in the proposals but they expect to generate income by opening up the use of the buildings to outside groups.

The report notes:

Key consultations

Extensive consultation required with users and carers in both day centres would be required however the service developed, and with Unions, staff and with potential providers 

Key risks and mitigations 

Risk that users and carers will oppose the changes to the service – mitigated through extensive and ongoing communication and engagement

If the first risk becomes an issue, significant risk of adverse publicity and public protest – mitigated through extensive and ongoing communication and engagement Risk that the council cannot generate the additional income and efficiencies – mitigated through financial modelling and change management

Risk that we will need to consider outsourcing as the way to drive the change.

The almost £1m efficiency savings over two years on the Public Realm contract with Veolia which covers street cleaning, waste collection, waste recycling, parks maintenance and much more are in a proposal so vague as to be virtually meaningless:

This proposal generates £900k from operational efficiencies within the Public Realm Contract. These will rationalise operational arrangements so they better manage and properly resolve hot spots and other persistent problems. 

How would this affect users of this service? 

Service users may see revised working practices and operational schedules.

This is coupled with a proposal to raise £0.25m by charging for bulky waste collections.  Whether to charfe  for bulky waste collections has been an ongoing debate between Labour and the Lib Dems. The introduction of a charge for next day or pick your day collections follows widespread complaints about the length of time it takes Veolia to pick up bulky waste under the present free system LINK.  It is unlikely that residents expected charges to be introduced as a result of their complaints and a two tier system may well result in longer delays for the free service and increased fly-tipping.

Participation in the London wide sexual health programme and consequent savings of £0.6m are based on moving away from face-to-face consultations with health professionals to a web-based service:

Analysis of activity in current sexual health services and a waiting room survey indicates that not all current attendances at GUM clinics need that specialist service. Brent is participating in a London wide procurement of a new ‘front door’ to sexual health services. The front door into services will be web based, a single platform providing patients with information about sexual health, on line triage, signposting to the most appropriate service for their needs and the ability to order self-sampling tests.

 Tellingly one of the risk factors identified for this saving is:

• a failure to change patient and / or clinician behaviour and so not achieve the diversion of activity on which savings are based 

Given the nature of the Opposition on Brent Council the proposal on parking charges is likely to be the most controversial, but again it is pretty vague:

This is an exercise to account for the parking pressures that are expected to arise from an increase in the borough’s population. Regeneration and increased development may result in additional cars and increased parking pressures. This creates the need to provide parking restrictions that meet current and future demand, with the revenue paying for the service and any additional revenue being reinvested in the service. This exercise will consider residential parking permits and some car parking tariffs but will not include a review of visitor parking charges.

With the exception of some fairly minor proposals on Regeneration which is Cllr Mashari's remit, all the above proposals either come under Cllr Hirani (Adult Social Care) or Cllr Southwood (Environment). There are none under Cllr Pavey's Stronger Communities remit. Perhaps he was not so keen to see services reduced.

Now that Cllr Butt has taken over that brief, pending a 'review' LINK, is there a possibilty that further proposals will be tabled?

•