Showing posts with label Cllr Muhammed Butt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cllr Muhammed Butt. Show all posts

Wednesday 18 May 2022

The Buttocracy hangs on to every little bit of power it can and even extends it - even at the expense of effective scrutiny

An attempt to loosen the  grip of the Buttocracy on Brent Council failed tonight when Labour councillors voted down an amendment that Scrutiny Committee  chairs should come from the opposition councillors so as to provide great transparency and collaborative work. Leader of Brent Council, Muhammed Butt, went further in undermining the opposition by springing a surprise decision that he would appoint the vice chairs of the scrutiny committees (from his own party) rather than the custom and practice that these should come from the opposition. 

Hithertoo that has been the case as Roxanne Mashari, former Chair of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny said on Twitter:

Alarmed to hear of changes brought in at Brent Council to make vice chairs of scrutiny members of the majority party rather than opposition parties as has previously been the case. This change weakens democratic scrutiny with no tangible benefit to residents.

Unfortunately the legislation around local authority scrutiny is woefully lacking and allows councils to effectively mark their own homework and cut back and control the scrutiny function. It’s truly absurd. Legislative change is very overdue in this area.

Cllr Connely (Labour) will chair Resourcs and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee with Cllr Janice Long (Labour) vice chair. Cllr Ketan Sheth (Labour) continues to chair Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny  with Cllr Diane Collymore vice chair.

Paul Lorber, a previous leader of Brent Council and newly re-elected this time round, made the case for greater participation by opposition councillors. He said scrutiny should come before decision making, not after decisions had been made by Cabinet. Effective scrutiny needs real teeth and power. He said chairing of scrutiny committees by opposition councillors happened in other council. He was backed by Cllr Kasangra for the Conservatives. 

This is the moment when Cllr Butt seized more power:

 


Cllr Butt was having none of it. Such loss of power and patronage was unthinkable. In fact he was actually extending his patronage.

Clearly when there is heavy domination by one party a case can be made on democratic and representative gounds for enabling the opposition to be as effective as possible by appointing them as chairs or vice chairs of scrutiny.

The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (202-21) Annual Survey of Overview and Scrutiny in Local Government LINK found that in 49% of councils all chairing positions are in the hands of the majority party, and in 17% most chairing positions are in the hands of the majority. In only 20% are chairing positions occupied in a politically balanced way and in just 14% are chairing positions mostly in the hands of the opposition. Importantly it  did find that scrutiny in councils where oppositon councillors hold some chairing positions tended overall to be more effective.

Shouldn't we all be in favour of more effective scrutiny?

It is worth remembering what Barry Gardiner told the Kilburn Times in 2014 after Labout won 56 out of 63 council seats on 53% of the votes LINK:

Barry Gardiner MP for Brent North, who attended the vote count, said he was delighted with the result but issued a stern warning to the group’s councillors.

He said: “I’m thrilled, of course I’m thrilled but we need to be very careful.

“It is a huge responsibility because a majority this big for any party means that we have to look within ourselves for the sort of scrutiny that we need of the policies that we ourselves are proposing.

“All of these people got elected because they managed to persuade voters they wanted to represent them in the civic centre on the council. They must remember their job is to represent the people to the bureaucratic of the council and not to represent the council bureaucrats to the people.

“We are here to be a critical voice to say where things are wrong and to set policy to change Brent for the better.”

You don't have to look just 'within ourselves' for effective scrutiny if there are opposition councillors also able and willing to do it.

 


Tuesday 11 May 2021

Brent Annual Standards Report - 11 complaints against councillors of which 3 resulted in public apologies

 This afternoon the  Audit and Standards Committee will be asked to note the complaints received by Brent Council against councillors.  The Annual Standards Report  LINK 2020  states:

 

During 2020, 11 complaints were received against different Councillors for alleged breaches of the Members Code of Conduct. Of these complaints, two resulted in public apologies being made on the Brent Council’s website as follows.

 

a)    The first apology resulted from an upheld complaint arising from the sharing of a link to a video discussion on the Dudden Hill Mutual Aid Group WhatsApp group. It was held to be in breach of paragraph4 (high standards), para 5 (seven principles of conduct in public life and para 12 (conduct... in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the council into disrepute) of the Member’s Code of Conduct.

 

b)    The second apology arose in relation to the attendance of two councillors at Ealing Road Temple during a prayer and reflection event. The complaint, that the councillors had brought their office into disrepute, was not upheld but both councillors acknowledged they had inadvertently breached the restrictions on such events in place at the time and were apologetic about how this may have appeared to the public.

 

 The first apology refers to Cllr Aslam Choudry (Labour, Dudden Hill)  who was alleged to have shared anti-semitic material. The final decision notice on the allegation can be read HERE


The second complaint was against Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council  and Cllr Sangani (Labour, Alperton)  and resulted in the apology below:

 

Apologies by Cllrs. M Butt and Sangani

Allegations were recently made of a breach of the Member’s Code of Conduct by Councillor M Butt and Cllr Sangani in relation to their attendance at Ealing Road Temple during a prayer and reflection event organised by the Brent Multi Faith Forum.  An allegation that the councillors had brought their office or the council into disrepute was not upheld.  Both councillors acknowledged that they had inadvertently breached the restrictions on such events in place at the time and were apologetic about how this may have appeared to the public.  Councillor Butt apologised both on his Facebook page and in a press statement.  Both he and Councillor Sangani have also given apologies to the Monitoring Officer, relevant extracts of which are set out below.

 

Apology from Councillor Butt:

On the 11th of June, Cllr Trupti Sangani and I attended a small and socially distanced gathering at the Ealing Road Temple in support of Brent’s Multi Faiths Forum. …………..As Leader of this Council, whilst I do of course accept that a mistake was made regarding the time between what happened and what was sanctioned, I do believe that an argument could be made for the actions of those in attendance being a positive demonstration of well-intended community leadership. …………… the idea that such a gesture would upset anyone had simply not occurred to me for which I am happy to apologise unreservedly.

 

Apology from Cllr Sangani:

On the 11th of June, I attended a small and socially distanced gathering at the Ealing Road Temple in support of Brent’s Multi Faiths Forum. ……………………I regret that in the confusion surrounding various government announcements that we were mistaken in how our brief moment of quiet reflection unfolded. I ……………. would like to apologise to them for what was a honest mistake made in good faith by well-intentioned people.

There are no details of the other complaints in the report.

 

Wednesday 4 November 2020

Cllrs Butt and Sangani blame their confusion over Covid restrictions for breach when they attended a place of worship

Debra Norman has issued the result of her investigation of a complaint by former Brent Council Liberal Democrat leader Paul Lorber about the conduct of  Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council and fellow Labour councillor Cllr Trupti Sangani in attending a place of worship during Covid19 restrictions. Norman partially upheld the complaint.

Cllr Anton Georgiou, the sole Lib Dem currently on Brent Council has called for Butt's resignation as a consquence of the findings:

Muhammed Butt today posted a message on the Brent Council website urging residents to comply with the new restrictions that come info force tomorrow. LINK

 

The Decision Notice:

 

MONITORING OFFICER DECISION NOTICE
Brent members’ Code of Conduct
Complaint about the conduct of Councillors Butt & Sangani

The Complaint

A complaint about the conduct of Cllrs Butt & Sangani has been considered under the Council’s procedure for considering complaints that the Members’ Code of Conduct has been breached. The complaint was received from Mr Paul Lorber and contained 5 allegations:

1.     That 2 days before the COVID related restrictions on members of the public attending places of worship were lifted, Cllr Butt and other unspecified Labour Councillors attended prayers at the Ealing Road Temple.

2.    That Councillor Sangani shared a recording of the occasion on Twitter and referred to Councillor Butt as the Leader of Brent Council.

3.    That Councillor Butt publicly criticised other members of the public for breaking lockdown and social distancing rules after his own alleged breach.

4.    That Councillor Butt and the other Labour Councillors, by their actions, failed to show leadership and placed Brent Council in an impossible position in undermining the authority and the credibility of the Council in trying to send out important health and safety messages and insisting on public acceptance and compliance with the rules.

5.    That Councillor Butt has failed to make an unreserved apology for his actions.

The complaints allege that the above actions have breached the following provisions / obligations of the Members’ Code of Conduct:

1.     a)  Para 5 – In particular, you must comply with the seven principles of conduct in public life set out in Appendix 1, including:

·  Leadership: you should promote and support these principles by leadership and by example and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.

·  Integrity: You should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.

2.    b)  Para 12: You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the Council into disrepute.

The Facts

On the 11 June 2020, Cllrs Butt and Sangani attended a small, socially distanced gathering at the Ealing Road Temple in support of Brent’s Multi Faiths Forum. Both state that they

understood that the gathering was to be held outdoors, but it transpired that the gathering in fact took place inside. At the time, lockdown restrictions required that places of worship should be closed to worshippers. This situation was amended on the 13 June so that individual prayer could resume in places of worship and socially distanced communal worship was allowed from the 4 July onwards.

An article appeared in the Newham Recorder on the 6 July 2020 which stated that Brent Labour councillors had attended a prayer service in a place of worship before lockdown restrictions were relaxed. The article contained a photograph in which six individuals could be seen sitting in a socially distanced formation. The article also reproduced a tweet from Cllr Sangani referring to the event and an attached video she had posted, which also showed a small number of people sitting in a socially distanced formation. Cllr Sangani subsequently amended the privacy settings on her Twitter account which limited access. An article also appeared in the Kilburn Times on the 3 August which reported that an opposition councillor had called for an apology from Councillor Butt for attending a joint prayer event before restrictions were relaxed. The article alleged that Councillor Butt had attacked others for failing to abide by the rules imposed in response to the coronavirus pandemic. A further article published on the 21 August reported that Mr Lorber, a former Leader of Brent Council, had also called on Councillor Butt to apologise.

Councillor Butt made a statement to the Kilburn Times which contained the following comments: “I attended a small and socially distanced gathering at the Ealing Road Temple in support of Brent’s Multi Faiths Forum. It was subsequently suggested that the impromptu event might have inadvertently pre-empted by a couple of day’s government advice on religious activities. I do believe that the lack of consistent clarity from Whitehall during lockdown meant that people were unsure what they could and could not do.

I see now that we were mistaken as to how our moment of joint prayer and reflection for all the people who tragically lost their lives during this pandemic aligned with that sanctioned by government and hope that our positive example of community cohesion does not get lost in any ensuing noise. I know that forum members have come under intense pressure during this period from local journalists and I can only apologise to them for the unpleasant inconvenience. I do hope that this excessive media intrusion will not diminish your willingness to remain part of this important movement in our borough.”

Response to Complaint

Both Cllrs Butt and Sangani provided written responses to the complaint.

Councillor Butt explained that:

·       He would not describe the event as “organised prayer”. The event had consisted of a brief moment of quiet refection amongst people of different faiths, intended as a simple act by and for people who were looking for small comfort in what was a distressing time. The actions were intended as a positive demonstration of well- intended community leadership.

·       He accepted that a mistake was made regarding the time between what happened and what was sanctioned at the time. There was, however, a degree of uncertainty at the time in terms of when places of worship would re-open as the Prime Minister had talked of an earlier re-opening. The contradictory statements which were in the public domain at the time, and the time lags between announcements and implementation had led to an honest mistake being made in good faith at a very confusing time.

·       He offered an unreserved apology for not having thought that his actions could cause upset to anyone.

·       He provided correspondence from the editor of the Kilburn Times which confirmed that the paper accepted that it had erred in two ways in reporting that, in relation to the inference of his attacking others for breaches, he had commented that "people disregarding social distancing guidance was 'not acceptable and heightened risk'". In fact his comment had been: “Of course the parties and the use of outdoor gyms we saw during lockdown are not acceptable given the heightened risk, but when you have such mixed messages from central government on what can and can’t be done, you can see why people were confused and were restless and frustrated after so many weeks of lockdown."

·        He confirmed that he had not received any formal invite to the event but had, he recalled, been verbally invited by Cllr Sangani with whom he had been visiting a food bank earlier in the day.

Councillor Sangani responded that:

·  She accepted that she had posted the Tweet in question

·  She attended the small socially distanced gathering at Ealing Road Temple in support of the Multi Faith Forum and had also been of the understanding that it would be held outdoors.

·       There had been confusion as a result of government announcements which led to a mistake being made in attending the event.

·       She understood why the complainant felt aggrieved and offered an apology for having made an honest mistake, with the best intentions.

·       She did not recall having received any formal invite to the event, but rather became aware of the time, date and place via conversations.

The Chief Executive and the council’s Head of Communications have both stated to the Council’s Monitoring Officer that they do not consider that the incident and the reporting of it has undermined the authority and the credibility of the Council in trying to send out important health and safety messages and insisting on public acceptance and compliance with the rules. Other than this complaint, they are not aware of any communication or other evidence which suggests this is the case.

The Scope of the Members’ Code of Conduct

All local authorities are required to adopt a code of conduct “dealing with the conduct that is expected of members....of the authority when they are acting in that capacity” (s27(2) of the Localism Act 2011).

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct states that “This Code applies to you as a member of Brent Council” (para 1(1) and sets out its scope at para 2(1):

“You must comply with this Code whenever you –

1.     a)  Conduct the business of the Council (which in this Code, incudes the business of the office to which you are elected or appointed); or

2.    b)  Act, claim to act, or give the impression you are acting as a representative of the Council,

And references to your official capacity are construed accordingly.”

I take the view that the words “a representative of the Council” should be broadly understood and that acting or giving the impression of acting as a councillor should be equated with acting as a representative of the Council, which maintains the important distinction between councillors’ personal and public actions.

Decision

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure, before deciding the outcome of this complaint, I consulted the Council’s Independent Person and have taken his views into account.

Neither councillor has disputed that they attended the event on the 11 June 2020, which they both accepted was, in fact, in breach of the restrictions in place on that date. They both accepted that, therefore, a mistake had been made on their parts. It seems clear to me, given their responses and given that Cllr Sangani’s Tweet referred to the fact that they were both councillors, that their attendance was as representatives of the Council. As such I have determined that the breaches fall within the scope of the Code.

In accordance with the Assessment Criteria set out in section 2 of Annex 1 to the Code of Conduct Complaint Assessment and Determination Procedure, I have been able to conclude that there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct without an investigation.

Turning now to consider whether specific provisions of the Code have been breached:

Para 5 – In particular, you must comply with the seven principles of conduct in public life set out in Appendix 1, including:

 

·       Leadership: you should promote and support these principles by leadership and by example and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.

 

·        Integrity: You should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.

 

Leadership:

Both councillors have acknowledged that they were confused about the specific restrictions which were then in place in relation to attendance in places of worship and as a result of that confusion, inadvertently breached the restrictions which were in place at the time. I find that the error could have led to a reduction in public confidence at a difficult and confusing time.

Integrity:

Attendance at the event was reported unfavourably in the press subsequently as a result of the fact that this amounted to a breach of restrictions then in place, which corresponds to both councillors placing themselves in a situation where their integrity could be questioned, despite their stated good intentions in attending the event.

In respect of both findings, I have given additional consideration to the fact that both councillors state they had been of the understanding that the event was to be taking place outside, rather than inside. However, I have concluded that on the 11 June 2020 the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, which, at regulations 6 and 7 imposed restrictions on movement and participating in a gathering in a public space, had not yet been amended to allow for gatherings outside in these circumstances. As such, the fact that the gathering in fact took place inside, rather than outside made no difference to the fact that, either way the attendance at the event would still have been in breach of the restrictions then in place.

Para 12: You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the Council into disrepute.

Although the attendance at the event received adverse publicity in the press, I do not consider that it has brought the Council into disrepute, given that the wider intention behind the attendance was to provide comfort at what was a very distressing time for many. Further, the Kilburn Times has since acknowledged that Councillor Butt had been wrongly quoted as attacking members of the public for breaches of the rules and as such I find that there has been no suggestion of his having acted in a hypocritical manner which might have brought his office into disrepute.

In conclusion therefore, whilst I have found that there has been a breach of para 5 of the Code of Conduct in that the attendance at the event could have threatened public confidence / led to both councillors’ integrity being questioned, I do accept the good intentions behind the decision to attend the event (which Councillor Butt described as a quiet moment of reflection, as opposed to an organised prayer session). I do not consider that on the facts para 12 of the Code of Conduct has been breached.

Sanction

In considering the appropriate sanction it is relevant to take note of the actions already taken by both councillors to seek to remedy the breach, specifically:

·  Councillor Sangani restricting access to her Twitter account

·  Both councillors offering apologies

·  Both councillors acknowledging their error

·  Councillor Butt contacting the press to seek confirmation that a specific quote alleging that he had criticised others who breached the rules was incorrectly recorded.

In all the circumstances, I consider that the appropriate sanction in this instance to be as follows:

1.     Both councillors to be advised to ensure that appropriate and up to date advice is sought in advance of any intention to attend an event, to ensure that current coronavirus restrictions are accurately followed

2.    Apologies from both councillors based on those provided as part of their responses to the complaint, to be published on the Council’s website for 6 months.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct Complaints Procedure, as far as the complainant is concerned my decision is final and there is no right of appeal or right of internal review against my decision.

As far as Councillor Butt and Councillor Sangani are concerned, they may request in writing within 10 working days of receiving this decision notice that I review my decision that they breached the Code of Conduct and/or the sanction imposed. The reasons for requesting a review must be given and any new supporting documentation provided.

Debra Norman
Monitoring Officer, Brent Council 19 October 2020.

 

Saturday 17 October 2020

Cllr Tatler's speech on the Healthy Neighbourhood schemes

Cllr Shama Tatler, Lead member for Regeneration, has circulated her speech at the Extraordinary Meeting of the Council on Healthy Neighbourhoods on social media. It contrasts with the speech made by Cllr Butt. I reproduce the speech below:






Tuesday 13 October 2020

Healthy Neighbourhoods: 'Let's face it, we weren't up to scratch,' Cllr Kennelly tells Cabinet

 Cllr Kennelly made a presentation to the Cabinet yesterday regarding the Healthy Neighbourhoods scheme.

He said that the Council needed to make sure that the local community was fully engaged but it sas clear from residents and fellow councillors that they felt totally cut out of the process.  Had they been consulted they would have been able to identify the issues and would have sought to address then with Cabinet and project leads.

Kennelly asked a series of questions: (verbatim as far as possible)

1) Can you provide written consultaion responses from the emergency servies, particularly the ambulance service?

2) When will a clear outline be published to demonstrate the success that will be needed for the schemes to be made permanent?

3) How did you accurately measure the width of the road turning points and closures? What risk assessment was done and will these be made public?

4) What consideration was given to suggestions made in the inter-active consultation on active travel and by communities which I do not recall having road closures on these and other schemes? 

5) Why has the signage and implementaton of the scheme, let's be fair, not been up to scratch? It hasn't been done the way we would have wanted and why has it taken as long as it has to get the community engagement involved?

6) Will you publish the documentation surrounding both previous and current funding bids as these plans are submitted ahead of time?

Cllr Butt in response said that they had to ensure funding bids were submitted in a timely manner under Emergency Powers Act. He said that it was a UK issue, not just a Brent one and everyone had the right to walk uo and down the  streets without hindrance. 

Cllr Tatler said that she was willing to look at any recommendations in her portfolio area on active travel and the econony, the latter also involved Cllr Stephens. Any decisions relating to the budget must be done within the wider context.

Turning to Cllr Kennelly's presentation she said that she wanted to push back on the claim that councillors had been cut out of the process. She and Cllr Krupa Sheth had engaged with councillors throughout the summer including pre-implementation of any of the schemes; 'Councillors have been involved in shaping some of the, all of the, schemes.'

She said that the Council was committed to making sure residents are involved throughout the trials. These are not a fait accompli in any way, shape or form.  These are trials and by their nature, as traffic orders the Council has to consult during the process.  She said that she could confirm that during the process the Council will be making sure that residents are asked for feedback at the 2, 4 and 6 month intervals of the scheme: 'If anything needs to change we can come out and meet residents and so on'

She went on to claim that to say that councillors had been cut out of the process was probably an inaccurate picture. Councillors had been involved in shaping of schemes in their particular wards.

She concluded:

We are completely committed to the air quality agenda and the climate emergency agenda. It is vital that we work towards trial schemes that could help better quality of air, quality of life and ensure that our children, going forward, can breath cleaner air in our borough.

Cllr Krupa Sheth (Environment Lead) made a very short contribution referencing the climate emergency and the need to spend Covid19 monies wisely.

Cllr Butt said that there was a need to appreciate that these were difficult decision and not everyone would be on board.

 





Thursday 16 January 2020

Packed meeting wins commitment to improved tree policy from Brent Council but more resources needed

Brent Trees' Three Asks



The strength of feeling amongst residents over the protection of the borough's street trees was evident yesterday evening when there was standing room only at the newly formed Brent Trees public meeting of residents, council officials and councillors. The Cabinet lead member for environment, Cllr Krupa Sheth, was unable to attend.

There were three very professional presentations from members of Brent Trees campaigns with space for a response from the Council after each one. Most responses came from officers, Chris Whyte (Environment), Tony Kennedy (Highways) and Gary Rimmer (Principal Trees Officer).  Cllr Butt only spoke when a member of the audience pointed out that many of the questions were about Council policy and should be answered by politicians who make policy rather than officers.


The first presentation was about the value of trees and why there needed to be significant reasons for removal. A slide was shown of the trees outside Furness Primary School and the adjacent footway, damage to which had been cited as a reason for removal. There was laughter when the presenter said, 'By Brent standards that is a pretty good pathway.'  Campaigners had managed to save some of the trees from removal.The Council was criticised for not giving sufficient, evidence based reasons for removal, and proper notice to residents who might wish to make representations.  The conclusion was that Brent Council did not value its trees and saw trees as a cost and not a benefit.

CAVAT (Capital Assessment Valuation of Amenity Trees) in Sheffield has valued each mature tree at £25,446. It would take 20-30 years for replacement trees to give the same benefit. It need 26 young trees to replace the benefit of one mature tree.

Wrexham Council records the benefit of trees

Brent Trees wanted an Action Plan on the maintenance of mature trees to reduce the need for removal:
  • Prioritise mature trees
  • Do not remove an healthy trees
  • Commit to removing trees only as a last resort
  • Commit to replace all removed trees
Officers responded that dead, diseased and dangerous trees had to be removed, insurance claims had to be avoided, and solutions had to be found for trees that created obstacles for pedestrians. A campaigner said that the issue was more complex than simply chopping trees down to make pavements safer. Engineering solutions needed to be found.

A second presentation focused on poor communication by the council in the form of notices and the need for reasons for removal to be clearly stated and sufficient notice given.  DEFRA had set out a Duty to Consult and a Duty to Report:


The Council needed to use the full range of social media available to it to develop a clear communications strategy to inform the public. Notices should state whether a new tree would be substituted for a removed tree and, if so, the type of tree that would be planted in its place,

Brent Council had failed to  provide information for the London Mayor's tree map. A slide showed the information for part of Brent compared with Westminster across the border.


A traffic light monitoring system for trees was suggested:

GREEN - tree inspected and assessed and no action required
AMBER - tree inspected and assessed and some work needed to be done
RED -  tree inspected and assessed as needing removal with reason and evidence cited (eg tree surgeon's report)

Chris Whtye of the Environment Department said  that they had not entered a debate with the public but made a judgement themselves on individual trees. Independent consultation on every tree was not practical but if the government made  it a requirement the Council would have to comply. A traffic light system was more than the council could provide. He admitted a lack of quality in the information that the council had been provided and there needed to be a clear description of the logic for removal.  He recognised that there were gaps in information but that it was positive that Brent Trees had been set up and had entered into dialogue with the Council.

Members of the audience gave examples of trees removed without good reason in various parts of the borough as well as Old Paddington Cemetery. Data via i-tree (LINK) should record not just the number of trees but the size of the canopy and other information.  Chris Whyte said that a larger canopy meant more uptake of water with a shrinkage impact on clay soils.

Officers said the the Council Communications Team would be asked to devise a new communications strategy.

An audience member was cheered when he condemned the officers' claim that because records did not have to be kept that they weren't. He said flatly, 'I don't trust you to make decisions on what is a healthy tree.'

The last presentation was on the lack of resources provided for trees in Brent. Similar boroughs such as Hackney and Islingtton were better staffed. The highest number of tree officers in London boroughs was 7, the average 3.38 and the lowest (one) was Brent.


Given the Declaration of a Climate Emergency by the Council, trees needed to be given a higher priority. The lack of resources devoted to trees indicated the low priority currently given to this vital issue by the Council.

Cllr Butt claimed that Islington and Hackney were not comparable to Brent and had a higher council tax revenue base while an officer said that more people were involved with trees in Brent than indicated by the quoted figures.

Cllr Butt said that because of government cuts to Brent's funding the council had to prioritise areas such as adult social care.  He urged the public to take part in the current budget consultation to put their views.

He responded angrily when I pointed out the c£18m that had been earmarked to be spent on the replacement of the Wembley Stadium pedway by steps and the huge underspend in the 2017-18 Community Infrastructure Levy. The 2018-19 report should have been published by December 31st but is not yet available.


Cllr Butt said that the pedway removal was a planning obligation and that it was up to the public to make applications for Neighbourhood CIL.

The crowd at last night's meeting (Photo: Brent Trees)
 
After the meeting Brent Trees issued the following press release:

Following a public meeting on January 15th, the BRENT TREES group is satisfied that the council has taken a step in the right direction but asks for a budget commitment on a par with the climate emergency. 

With a turnout of more than 100 people, the event we organised at Newman Catholiv College on Wednesday showed the depth of concern felt by Brent residents regarding the maintenance of street trees by the council, particularly in light of the council’s own declaration of a climate emergency.
We heard many stories from the audience, echoing our own experiences. Last November, the council tried to remove 11 trees on Furness Road in Kensal Green, even though residents had not been given proper notice and most of the trees were healthy. That incident caused a storm among the local community and resulted in the creation of the Brent Trees group. 

On Wednesday, Chris Whyte, Operational Director, Environmental Services, Regeneration and Environment, Brent Council,​ ​welcomed the formation of our group. W e need to enter a constant dialogue with you to get back onto a better footing, he declared during the course of the public event. 

Mr. Whyte also stated that the council will adopt “much clearer communication” with residents ahead of any planned felling of trees by the council. 

Gary Rimmer, who is Brent’s sole Street Tree Officer, informed those attending that in future “a different sign will go on trees” recognising that the information displayed in Furness Road last November was inadequate. 

We welcome the willingness shown by both Chris Whyte and Gary Rimmer as well as the leader of the council, Councillor Muhammed Butt - who was also present at the meeting - to improve communication with residents. 

We expect that the promises made at the meeting will be confirmed to us in writing and are hopeful that a way of working will quickly be established. We want to avoid any further removals of healthy trees as was the overall intention in Furness Road likewise ​thetaking down of a 150 YEAR-OLD tree in Paddington Old Cemeterywhich happened last November. 

However, we are deeply concerned at the lack of resources dedicated to trees by Brent council and believe, having declared a climate emergency, this is a serious oversight that needs to be rectified. Brent has just one Street Tree Officer. When we compare the number of street tree officers employed by other London boroughs with a similar socio-economic deprivation profile it is clearly too low. Haringey employs 4 street tree officers ; Tower Hamlets has 2.  

The BRENT TREES group will use the ongoing budget consultation to repeat our request for the allocation of more resources to street tree care. We believe the climate emergency declaration adopted by Brent council last July compels Brent to take bold budget decisions. 

We are aware of the extraordinary impact of the austerity driven cuts imposed on the council by central government since 2010. Nevertheless, the climate emergency is so serious we have no choice but to raise the environment protection bar to an unprecedented level. 

We believe this can be achieved in Brent if both residents and the council take inspiration from other local authorities in London and across the UK, emulating best practice. We simply have no other choice. 

For any questions, please email us at:


Twitter: @Brent_Trees