Scrutiny makes recommendation that Cabinet ring fence £700k for tree replacement and planting

Scrutiny Committee last night heard a presentation about street trees from Alison Durant of the Brent Trees Group and considered a recommendation that some of the one-off £700,000 made from the sale of additional cemetery space could be used to plant and maintain trees.

The recommendation had been made in the Budget Scrutiny Report:

To acknowledge the great work of the department in achieving these savings, we believe that this money should be ring fenced to be spent on a project with an environmental theme. In line with the council’s priorities, and the fact that Brent has recently declared a climate emergency, the obvious area for spending this money would be on improving air quality. There are actions that can be undertaken by the authority to improve air quality where a one-off capital injection of £700,000 would make a significant difference. 

We believe the most notable is in the area of tree planting. The council currently does not have the revenue budget to replace all diseased or dying trees it removes (outside of those removed as part of the footway improvement plan), or to plant all of the mature trees it would like to. The presence of mature trees on our streets can help to reduce levels of carbon in the atmosphere and significantly reduce storm water runoff. We will therefore be recommending to cabinet that this pot of money is ring fenced and invested in a tree planting scheme.

Responding Cllr Margaret McLennan, deputy leader and lead member for Finance and Resources, said that it could be considered but that the first obligation of the Council was to provide hard-pressed statutory services.

In her presentation Alison Durant made the following points:

• Brent views trees in terms of their immediate and future potential cost to the council.
• The council fails to calculate the value of its mature street trees.
• Brent Trees public meeting with the council was attended by 150 residents, which demonstrates the strength of feeling about the lack of care of street trees, removal of healthy street trees, lack of replacement of trees removed, and stumps being left in the place of removed trees.
• At the public meeting we made a presentation on the value of mature trees: amenity, carbon sequestration, air quality control, air cooling, storm-water run-off, to name a few.  Small replacement trees and new small trees will provide relatively little in terms of climate change mitigation compared to large mature trees. 
• We have a climate crisis; Brent Council has declared a “climate and ecological emergency”; Brent aspires to be the “cleanest and greenest” London borough; and yet it removes mature healthy trees that mitigate climate change in order to save money.
• Brent Council has historically underfunded trees; the council has admitted that it removes trees because it can’t afford to maintain them and yet the environment department underspends year after year. 
• There is a compelling case for committing additional funds to the maintenance of street trees, replacement of street trees, replacement of street trees removed historically.

Cllr Nerva pointed out that there were 12,000 tree stumps in Brent that needed to be removed. He suggested that there needed to be a more efficient use of Neighbourhood CIL money for trees perhaps led by an application from the Environment  Department and then allocated according to a set of criteria to local neighbourhoods. Cllr Tatler said she was talking  with Cllr Krupa Sheth (Lead Member for Environment) on how to approach the planting of trees.  The first priority should be to plant in the borough's areas of poor air quality.  The Environment Department was looking at methods of establishing a monetary asset value for all of the borough's trees.

Cllr Nerva is leading a Scrutiny Task Group on trees. Contact:
cllr.neil.nerva@brent.gov.uk

Scrutiny's recoemmendations will be considred by the Cabinet at its Budget meeting.

 

UPDATE: Brent library hours cuts 'off the table for now'

Brent Council's deputy leader, Cllr McLennan, told last night's Scrutiny Committee that cuts in library hours has been 'taken off the table for now'. Questioned further she said that even though it was off the table this did not mean that the proposal was not being looked at in the background and it may have to be considered in 2020. With those cuts off the table the council will have to look for cuts elsewhere.

Cllr Nerva pressed the Budget Panel's case for consideration of transferring libraries to a Trust in order to save money without reducing hours, as well as handing some services over to volunteers to prevent closures.  Cllr McLennan did not rule out consideration of these proposals.

Philip Bromberg of Preston Community Library commented to Wembley Matters after the meeting:

If I understood Margaret McLennan correctly, all of the proposed cuts to the Library Service (which included the possible closure of one library as well as cuts in opening hours) are now 'off the table'. That's very good news. Unfortunately the committee seems to have felt obliged to recommend alternative savings. Their first two recommendations would amount to a radical transformation (yes, really) of the library service and, as I said at last night's meeting, would probably prove more controversial than the proposed cuts in opening hours.

I asked where their recommendations had come from - who had they consulted, and what evidence had they considered? The surprising answer was that these recommendations for major changes in library policy had arisen from 'discussions among the members of the budget scrutiny panel'. (Discussions which, incidentally, are held in private). Had they asked their own library service? No, they had not (even though the library service had looked at - and rejected - the idea of a trust three years ago). Had they consulted any of the existing volunteer-run libraries in Brent? Or elsewhere? No, they had not. But they had discussed it among themselves. And that, evidently, is how policy gets made in the London Borough of Brent.

But, for the time being, the threat of further cuts seems to have been averted. And, as I said, that is good news.

Philip Grant adds:

I am strongly against the suggestion that Brent's libraries (and Museum & Archives?) should be hived off to a charitable trust. Although this might appear to provide savings for the Council, the increased administration costs which would have to be incurred by an "independent" library organisation mean that the funds available for the front-line service would be greatly reduced. Brent's Libraries/Museum & Archives play an important part in delivering a range of Council services to local residents, and should be kept "in house".'

My opposition to such Trust arrangements is based partly on the experience of a member of my family, who was working for a local Council museum service in the Midlands. The City Council decided to transfer its Museum and Art Gallery to a Trust, for similar reasons to those put forward in the Brent Libraries proposals. 

Because it was now an independent entity, the Trust appointed a Chief Executive (of course, on a salary higher than any of the existing Museum staff), who then "had to have" a personal assistant, and staff to look after finance, HR etc. 

The end result was that they had to make big savings in other staff costs, and a number of existing front-line museum staff, providing key services for the public and ensuring that the museum objects and displays were properly looked after, were made redundant.So, Brent beware of transferring Libraries to a Trust!

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: