'The missing' undermine Brent Scrutiny as its wrestles with the Barham Trust accounts. Brent CEO commissions independent review of the accounts and associated issues.

 Four councillors were missing from the meeting of Brent Public Realm and Resources Scrutiny Committee last night (Cllrs Miller, Mitchell, Shah and Aden) as well as the CHief Executive, Head Of Audit and representatives from Brent Council property team. The meeting was a call-in by 5 opposition councillors on the Barham Trust accounts. LINK

The latter absences particularly affected the Committee's ability to get answers to their questions. This was compounded by a ruling that councillors could only ask about the format of the accounts, and the changes made in the presentation, but not the accuracy of the figures. They could not touch on 'operational' issues. At one point legal officers seemed to back down and say questions about the figures could be asked but Cllr Tatler (deputising for Cllr Muhammed Butt who is at a wedding in Pakistan, but acting as a Barham Park trustee) quickly stepped in to declare her complete confidence in the accounts, and officers were not pressed further to answer the questions, leaving committee members high and dry.

Cllr Geogiou drew attention to the call-in paper that had been approved by officers that clearly referred to inaccuracies in the accounts, rather than just the presentation. He was puzzled as to why he could not ask about figures,

On the last point (above) the Committee found out for the first time that a council committee had ruled that the Council could not pay for the  £25,000 consultant's site redevelopment  report (architect's fees)  from capital funds, and that this would have to be paid from the Trust's own funds, despite an earlier agreement for council payment.

Presenting the call-in Cllr Paul Lorber drew attention to the recording of an income of £1,625 for 2022/23 when the income from the site's four main tenants (excluding the children's centre) should be £54,000 as well as include income from funfairs.  Towards the end of the meeting the finance officer said the £1,625 was a net figure which suggests there were a lot of arrears in that year. 

Officers repeatedly claimed that the change in the method of presentation of the accounts was to make them more understandable and transparent with the council's contribution clear. A perplexed Cllr  Fraser (a substitute), herself a trustee elsewhere, felt the new presentation raised more questions than answers.  The Committee were told that questions  about rent should be addressed to Brent Property but they were not present to answer.

Lorber clashed with officers over their rulings and Cllr Tatler at the end of the meeting said that she was going to report him via a complaint about his treatment of officers.

The carpet was rather pulled from beneath the Committee when they were told that the Chief Executive of Brent had commissioned her own additional consultancy review to provide independent assurances over the recent comments and the correctness of the accounts. This was ongoing and would be concluded in early November.

They became confused about what exactly might happen to their recommendations in the light of the CEO's report. The CEO was not present to answer and officers felt unable to answer for her.

A laconic Cllr Long wondered if a Trust was the best way of looking after Barham Park and was swiftly told that present arrangements had recently been confirmed.

Summing up, Committee Chair, Cllr Rita Conneely said that she respected Cllr Tatler's position of absolute confidence in the accounts but a move towards more transparency would be welcomed by people who have an interest in Barham Park and its governance. 

The results of the CEO's reports were not in front of the Committee and so it would be difficult for the them to preempt what was in the report and prejudge any conclusions. Everything that had been done so far appeared to be in line with the Charity Commission, but the committee did not have that data.

Scrutiny Committee had requested earlier this week, when they received paperwork from the Head of Audit, who signed off the report,  that they be present at the meeting. They were not available  and so could not answer questions, which was a shame.

Conneely went to on to say that although some information was available to the committe it also limited some of the questions they would like to have asked.  Her own position would be that the commitete should recommend that when the CEO's  had completed her report, that any concerns or examples of good practiced, should be shared with the Trust for consideration and for implementation.

She hoped that the CEO's report and the Trust itself would reflect on the committee's discussion and the additional matters that were raised by Scrutiny councillors, and would be considered as evidence in their future meetings.

Committee members asked how they could gain further information and were told  that they would have to make Members' Requests.

Cllr Saqib Butt declared himself satisfied with the accounts but Cllr Moghaddam said unanswered questions meant that he was not happy with them. Cllr Butt and Cllr Tatler said that they thought the call-in was a waste of time and the monies expended put to better use. Cllr Georgiou strongly contested this saying call-in was part of effective scrutiny and accountability and essential to local democracy. For the record he disassociated himself from their remarks.

A rather frustrating meeting all round.

Brent’s affordable housing needs – is this “answer” acceptable?

 Guest Post by Philip Grant in  a personal capacity

Brent’s future flats at Wembley High Road, from the plans approved in February 2021.

 

On 13 August, Martin published an article I had written about Brent’s plans for Council homes in its Wembley Housing Zone. This set out why the Cabinet should question the recommendations made to them by Council Officers, particularly the lack of any social housing provision, and why it was proposed that two-thirds of the 250 flats and maisonettes in the Council’s Cecil Avenue scheme would be handed over to a developer for private sale. 

 

I sent a document copy of my article to all members of the Cabinet, for their consideration before their meeting. None of them replied, and on 16 August they accepted the Officers’ “preferred delivery option” for the developments at Cecil Avenue and Ujima House.

 

As I’d not received a reply from the Lead Member for Housing, Cllr. Eleanor Southwood (or any of her Cabinet colleagues), I raised this matter again with her when she did answer another housing matter which I’d written to her about [Brent’s “secret” Council Housing projects and the Council’s response]. I emailed her about the Council’s Cecil Avenue proposals on 19 September, with a copy to her Regeneration colleague, Cllr. Shama Tatler, and Brent’s Strategic Director for Regeneration, Alan Lunt. 

 

Cllr. Southwood responded on 23 September, writing: ‘Dear Mr Grant, just acknowledging your email, which I will respond to substantively shortly.’ Despite a reminder to her on 8 October, I did not receive any response, either from her, Cllr. Tatler, or any Council officer on their behalf.

 

As I believe this is a matter of some importance, I was not prepared to let it drop. On 16 October, I submitted a Public Question, to be answered at Brent’s Full Council meeting on Monday 22 November:-

 

Question to the Lead Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning:-

New Council Homes at Cecil Avenue, Wembley.

 

Brent Council has an urgent need for new Council homes, and has accepted the Brent Poverty Commission recommendation that more social rented housing should be a priority.

 

Brent Council owns the vacant former Copland School site at the corner of Cecil Avenue and Wembley High Road, and since February 2021 has had full planning permission to build 250 flats and maisonettes on this site.

 

Yet, at its meeting on 16 August 2021, Brent's Cabinet approved a 'preferred delivery option' that included only 39% affordable housing for this development, with less than a quarter of the total homes being rented at London Affordable rent levels (not Social rents), the balance of the affordable housing being at Intermediate rent levels or for shared ownership. Under this 'preferred delivery option', the majority of the homes at the Council's Cecil Avenue site would be sold privately by a 'developer partner'.

 

At the same meeting, Brent's Cabinet also resolved: 'To delegate to the Strategic Director of Regeneration & Environment, in consultation with the Lead Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, the decision on alternative development scheme proposals and procurement routes, if procurement of the preferred option was unsuccessful in relation to the Sites.'

 

My questions are:

 

1) Given Brent's urgent need for social rent housing, why is Brent Council not proposing to build all 250 of the homes at Cecil Avenue as affordable rented Council housing?

 

2) As, since 16 August, the GLA has approved a grant to Brent Council of around £111m under its 2021/26 New Affordable Homes programme, to be used mainly for social rent housing, will the Lead Member, in consultation with the Strategic Director of Regeneration & Environment, now recommend that Cabinet changes its mind, and approves alternative proposals to make the Council's Cecil Avenue scheme 100% affordable housing?

The answers from Lead Members to Public Questions are published in advance of the Council meetings, as part of the agenda package. This is Cllr. Shama Tatler’s answer to the two points which I raised in my question:

 

Response:

1) Brent Council’s redevelopment of council-owned Cecil Avenue and Ujima House sites as part of the Wembley Housing Zone programme together proposes 50% affordable housing. However, because it is vitally important to ensure the long term sustainability of the Housing Revenue Account (which ultimately would be responsible for repaying loans secured to deliver new housing) it is not financially viable to deliver all 250 homes at Cecil Avenue as socially rented housing. 

 

2) Brent Council’s £111.7m GLA grant under the 2021-26 New Affordable Homes Programme is separate from the Wembley Housing Zone programme, and allocated to deliver an additional 701 socially rented homes across the Borough.

 

The response from the Lead Member is brief, and ignores much of the detail that my question was about!

 

Cllr. Tatler writes that Cecil Avenue and Ujima House together will provide 50% affordable housing. She doesn’t say that NONE of this will be Council housing at social rent levels, which is what homeless families and people on the Council’s waiting list desperately need. 

 

Ujima House is expected to provide 54 homes, all at London Affordable rent levels. Of the 250 new homes on the Cecil Avenue site, only 98 will be “affordable”, with 152 handed to a developer partner for private sale (‘to cross subsidise the affordable housing and regeneration of the area’). Of the 98 “affordable” Council homes, only 37 will be at London Affordable rent levels, with the other 61 as “intermediate housing” (‘either shared ownership or intermediate rent’).

 

 

The Wembley Housing Zone sites.

 

I realise that Council housing provided through the Housing Revenue Account must have long-term financial sustainability. The expected rental income over the period of the loan borrowed to pay for the homes (usually sixty years) must be sufficient to pay the interest on that loan, and to repay the capital sum. But with interest rates as low as they are ever likely to be, I find it difficult to understand why this Wembley Housing Zone development could not be financially “sustainable”, especially as the report to Cabinet on 16 August said that: ‘the GLA have also agreed in principle an additional £5.5m grant to deliver the scheme.’

 

It all comes down to “viability” (and we know from planning applications that the financial experts who developers employ can come up with any figure for viability that their client wants, in order to reduce the amount of affordable housing they have to include in their plans!). The viability of Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone scheme is, of course, known only to Cabinet members and the Senior Officers advising them. It is hidden away from the rest of us in a document named “Appendix 5: WHZ internal financial appraisal summary (exempt)”.

 

Cllr. Tatler writes that ‘it is not financially viable to deliver all 250 homes at Cecil Avenue as socially rented housing.’ But Brent is not delivering ANY socially rented housing at Cecil Avenue. Surely it would be financially viable to deliver at least some!

 

But, fear not, with the money from the GLA’s 2021-26 programme Brent promises ‘to deliver an additional 701 socially rented homes across the Borough.’ Around 300 of these might be provided through the “infill” of part of the open space beside the St Raphael’s Estate. More would be from the “infill” of (green!) spaces on existing Council estates, together with “airspace” developments on top of blocks in these. There is also an opportunity for ‘New Build for Rent in South Kilburn’ (Granville Park?).

 

Having asked a Public Question, I am allowed to ask a supplementary question at the Council meeting on 22 November. I’m not able to be present at that meeting myself, but hope that someone (I have asked the Mayor if she would be kind enough to do so) can ask it on my behalf. I’ve not made up my mind exactly what to ask, so if you have any (polite) suggestions, please feel free to make them as comments below, during the next couple of days.

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

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.