Lib Dems call on Brent Council to promote action to help protect tenants and leaseholders from unsafe and defective new builds

 Wembley Park developments from King's Drive

 

 The Liberal Democrats have tabled the following debate topic for Monday's Full Council Meeting (6pm Brent Civic Centre):

Guaranteeing new builds are safe and free of dangerous defects.

 

The number of new residential buildings in the borough has increased substantially in recent years. New buildings have changed the landscape of our borough, with the vast majority of large towers blocks around Wembley Stadium, Wembley Central and Alperton.

 

Brent’s Labour Cabinet, particularly the Leader and former Cabinet Member for Regeneration, often point to significant building in the borough as their proudest achievement – but they always fail to recognise its negative impact on existing residents in Brent and those who end up living in these buildings.

 

A worrying number of new buildings in Brent have significant defects. The standard of some new builds is shockingly poor – issues include dangerous, faulty lifts in high-rise blocks, water and waste leaks, unsafe balconies and outdoor communal spaces.

 

At the planning stage, developers are keen to highlight how seriously they take building standards and commit to building good quality, safe new homes. Sadly, somefail to do this and very little is done to hold them to account. Brent Council has little involvement after the planning stage and Council Officers are on record as effectively stating it is not the local authority’s responsibility to do anything if there are issues in new buildings once built.

 

All residents deserve to live in safe buildings, free of defects. When issues arise, developers, construction companies and housing management companies must do a better job of resolving these issues quickly to minimise the impact on residents.

 

Brent Council should have a much tougher line on developers who consistently fail residents by building unsafe buildings with significant defects and should be a leading voice in calling for better regulation and accountability from developers who are failing residents in their buildings.

 

This Council therefore resolves to:

*Create a borough-wide log of issues in new builds to get a better picture of the type of problems faced and urge the Labour Government, as part of their planning reforms, to enable decisions about whether to allow developers, who have issues in their existing stock, to continue building in our borough to be treated as a material planning consideration
 
*Urge the Labour Government to make it possible for local authorities to step in and act when issues in new buildings occur. Currently Brent’s Building Control Team are only responsible for ensuring that the construction of any new building is undertaken in line with building regulations. This needs to be extended to when building is completed and when issues present after the construction phase. Additional costs associated with increasing responsibilities for the Council should be permitted to come directly from CIL contributions made by developers.
 
*Create a dedicated helpline for tenants and leaseholders in new blocks across the borough, for them to be able to report issues so that the Council can assist in guaranteeing action from the relevant bodies and when necessary to support residents in raising complaints with the Housing Ombudsman.

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou

Alperton ward

Newland Court residents put question to Brent Council

REQUEST TO BRENT COUNCIL

 I would like to speak at the next council meeting on Wednesday 21st September regarding Brent Council's proposal to build 7 new homes opposite existing flats at Newland Court. My question will be directed at Cllr Promise Knight  (Member for housing homelessness and renters security), Cllr Shama Tatler (Member for regeneration and planning) and Cllr Neil Nerva (Member for public health and adult social care) on whether they have any concerns and have thought about how this could have a huge impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the existing residents if this proposal were to go ahead.

 

With crippling inflation and energy prices which are already affecting mainly elderly pensioners, those on benefits and on low income! These residents make up a large percentage at Newland Court who are so worried and concerned and have signed a petition and are totally opposed to Brent Council’s proposal to build 7 new town houses opposite the existing flats at Newland Court. 

Question:-

Is Brent Council still prepared to go ahead with this proposal at the expense of the health and mental well being of the existing residents who are already at breaking point as it is?  

Yours sincerely, 

Marc Etukudo.

Representing concerned and worried Newland Court residents

 

Discovering local democracy on-line, the Brent Council way

Guest blog by Philip Grant
 

Although Martin has shared his experience of Monday evening’s Brent Council meeting with you in his blog on “The death of Brent Council”, I am writing to share some personal thoughts, and images, of following part of the same meeting on-line.

At 6.50pm that evening I went onto Brent Council's website to watch the Full Council meeting, so that I could see and hear what (if anything) Cllr. Butt had to say about the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision to reject the Council's appeal in the Rosemarie Clarke case, and hoping that he would finally make a public apology to Rosemarie, on behalf of Brent, for the harm she had suffered at the hands of Cara Davani and other senior Council officers. I was in for a disappointment, as the “Live Streaming” web page showed:

I have never followed social media before, but it seemed that #BrentLive was my only option, so I spent the next half-hour or more watching a column at the right hand side of the screen. The first tweet to appear was from Cllr. Matthew Kelcher (one of the new Labour intake in May 2014), just before the meeting began, to say that he might be making his maiden speech. Thereafter a slow succession of #BrentLive tweets, all apparently from people at the meeting, began to scroll down the column. 

The on screen details said that councillors would ‘be able to reply to tweets’, but it appeared that Cllr. Kelcher had a whole list of tweets ready to issue, each one praising a positive story announced by the successive Cabinet Lead Members who presented their reports to Council. Cllr. Roxanne Mashari even re-tweeted his comment on her positive story! 

One “tweeter” at the meeting commented that although many councillors appeared to be busy on their tablet ‘phones, very few of them seemed to be involved in posting tweets on #BrentLive. An exchange of tweets with another “tweeter” wondered whether they were sending DM’s to each other (perhaps someone will add a comment to let me know what a DM is!). The other replied that they might be playing Candy Crush, which I think is probably a reference to the actions of a Westminster MP, but again I am ignorant of such social media or on-line games terms.

 

Not all “tweeters” were convinced by the views put out on social media by Cllr. Kelcher, especially when it came to the report by the Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt. With all of the # and @ references in Matthew Kelcher’s tweets, I got the impression that he must have prepared them in advance, but perhaps he really is a social media whizz-kid (as opposed to my social media dinosaur), and can compose them far more quickly than I can write emails. 

 

Pukkah Punjabi showed that she is not just an anti-Labour “tweeter”, with her comments about the response from the opposition Conservatives. I seem to remember something about a cure for insomnia.

By this time I was finding #BrentLive a bit slow, without the live pictures and sound from the Council Chamber to let me hear exactly what my elected representatives were saying about important issues. Perhaps it would have been better if I had made the effort to be there in person. But then again, perhaps not, if the final tweet I read was a fair reflection of proceedings.

And I never did find out if Cllr. Kelcher made his maiden speech.

Philip Grant

DM equals Direct Message. Tweeters who follow each other can send each other private direct messages.

Surviving Christmas at Brent Council?

In the run up to the 'Season of Goodwill' things are looking distinctly frosty at Brent Council despite the Christmas tree recently erected at the Civic Centre.

Relationships between Labour councillors are a little fraught as Full Council becomes a testing ground, not just about the cuts envisaged in the First Budget Reading and a a likely motion on the Employment Tribunal appeal but also over the question of whether a court order on conditions of bail will allow Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala to attend. The ban on him entering the Civic Centre has been lifted after intervention from the courts and Labour Party region.

On the officer side the consultation on proposed cuts to the senior management team has produced some emotional scenes as it proceeds at a pace.  Fiona Ledden, whose post is proposed to be deleted, is not at work at the moment. Her automatic email message says she is away from November 28th, with no return date given. Ben Spinks' post as Assistant Chief Executive is also under threat.

However senior people will have some protection as deals are done. Not so rank and file council workers who face an unhappy Christmas contemplating the future as 4 out of 10 posts in the central departments are proposed to be cut.

It is sad to see things at such a low point as the year drags to an end.

Comments are now closed on this piece

Butt suggests combined West London Authority as 40% central staffing cuts sought in Brent budget

The  Report for the First Reading Debate on the Council Budget LINK was up on the Council website by 23.45 last night. It includes a section on the Borough Plan Consultation which is fast work as the consultation only closed at 5pm yesterday.

Full Council was changed from November 17th to December 8th ostensibly to enable a report on the Borough Plan to be made.

The report states (4.3)

Between 16 September and 28 November the council, with its partners undertook a major consultation exercise to gather information on local people's views of:

• The area where they live
• Their aspirations for the future of the borough
• Their spending priorities, including those services they felt should be protected and areas where they felt we could do less
• What more they, the community group, or others could do to help build strong communities in Brent in the context of shrinking public resources 

Mysterious Brent Full Council Meeting change may have unintended consequences

This is the rather terse statement on the Brent Council website announcing the very unusual change in the meeting of Full Council.

Peter Goss gave me rather fuller information just before his office closed on Friday:

Councillors have this afternoon been notified that the Full Council meeting on 17 November has been moved to 8 December in order that the outcome of the consultation on the borough plan can be considered as part of the 1st reading of the budget.  The web site has been amended to reflect this change.

However, this raises rather more questions than it answers.

1. Who made the decision and under which provision of the Brent Constitution?
2. When the Council has a carefully constructed Forward Plan how was this major item missed in the calendar?
3. With the Borough Plan consultation not closing until Friday November 28th, how will it be possible for the Brent officers to compile a report for Full Council in just 5 working days?

 I remain sceptical about the reasons for this decision.

One consequence of the three week delay is that some councillors may be caught in the six month rule. This disqualifies councillors from office if they have not attended a council meeting, which they are expected to attend, in a six month period.

Unless some special dispensation is granted, or councillors presently not on a committee are drafted on to a committee that meets before November 24th, there appear to be  three councillors who face disqualification as a result of the postponement.

These are John Duffy (Kilburn), Zaffar Van Kalwala (Stonebridge) and Ahmad Shahzad (Mapesbury).

This may (or may not) be an unintended consequence of the postponement decision but it would be absurd, and expensive, if as a result of the postponement three by-elections are triggered.

Midday today deadline for addressing Brent's Full Council Meeting on September 8th

Brent Council sent out a tweet on Friday advertising the 5 minute slot at Full Council meetings where the public can address the Council:

Brent Council @Brent_Council  ·  Aug 29

Speak out to the whole council. Ask for a five-min slot (a deputation) @ full council. For 8 Sept email committee@brent.gov.uk by noon Mon.

The deputations are made under Standing Order 39:

Deputations

.    (a)  Deputations may be made by members of the public. Each deputation shall last not more than 5 minutes and there shall be a maximum of 3 deputations at any one council meeting on different subject matters. There shall be no more than one deputation made by the same person or organisation in a 6 month period and no repetition of the subject.

.    (b)  Any deputation must directly concern a matter affecting the borough and relate to a Council function. Deputations shall not relate to legal proceedings or be a matter which is or has been the subject of a complaint under the Council’s complaints processes. Nor should a deputation be frivolous, vexatious, or defamatory. The Director of Legal and Procurement shall have discretion to decide whether the deputation is for any other reason inappropriate and cannot proceed.

.    (c)  Any person wishing to make a deputation shall give written notice to the Director of Legal and Procurement of the title and summary of the content of the deputation not less than 5 days before the date of the meeting.

.    (d)  If more than three deputations are received a ballot will take place three days before the Council meeting to select the deputations to be presented before the Council.

Muhammed Butt accused of tricking Labour councillors on Scrutiny

James Powney, ex Brent Labour councillor, has returned to the matter of the changes in Scrutiny voted through by the Full Council on June 4th with no comments or questions from Labour backbenchers.

Here is an extract from his hard-hitting posting about the Labour Group meeting LINK:

Neither Cllr Butt nor anyone else chose to mention the drastic changes to the Council Constitution which he at least must have known about.

Why therefore did the entire Labour Group simply nod them through?  I asked a councillor this, and was told that no one in the Labour Group had chosen to read the changes and therefore they did not really know what they were voting on.  If true, that statement is a fairly damning comment on the thoroughness with which councillors prepare for meetings.  When the Tories pointed out the content of the rule changes, the inevitable partisan instincts kicked in and the Labour councillors all voted for them.

Had I been there I would have argued for deferral on the grounds that most of the councillors didn't understand what they were being asked to vote for because parts (eg describing scrutiny arrangements) are just obscure, and parts have sersious implicationms which new councillors simply won't understand until they are given some sort of grounding in Council governance.

Cllr Butt has effectively tricked his colleagues.  I hope they return to the issue at a later date, when they have had time to think about it.

The claim that 'no one in the Labour Group had chosen to read the changes' is interesting. The day before the Full Council I emailed a selection of councillors from all parties with the following message:

Dear Councillor,

First of all congratulations on your election as a Councillor for 2014-18.  With a Council returned with a large majority it is important that there is effective scrutiny in place with backbenchers playing a full part. Effective scrutiny protects against bad decision making and also protects against the damage to the Council's reputation that could be caused by poor decision making.

There has been extensive coverage on Wembley Matters of the proposed changes tabled for Wednesday which have not had full discussion, tabled as they are just two weeks after the election and with many new councillors elected.

Effective scrutiny is a matter for all political parties on the Council and I suggest that you read the pieces below and consider referring back the proposals to allow for the provision of more details and to allow for proper discussion.

Martin Francis

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/powney-calls-for-councillors-to-give.html

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/powney-blasts-scrutiny-proposals.html

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/brent-scrutiny-proposals-elaborated.html

http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/scrutinising-brents-scrutiny-proposals.html

The only councillor who really questioned the changes and pointed out the issues was John Warren, leader of the Brondesbury Park Conservative Group.

I understand that disquiet is now developing in the Labour Group with newly elected councillors complaining about the lack of discussion beforehand. A source suggests that there is a possibility of a review although there may be some constitutional impediment to the reversal of a policy recently adopted by Full Council.

South Kilburn anger as Council denies them a voice on being dumped with ventilation shaft

A recurring theme of this blog has been the lack of democracy and poor consultation in matters involvng Brent Council: the views of library users over the transformation project, Willesden Green residents over the redevelopment of the library site, human rights campaigners over Veolia's multi-million public realm contract and more recently the denial of residents' requests to speak at Council meetings on matters that affect them.

Here a South Kilburn tenant outlines the latest case of 'democracy denied'.

Last year Brent Council changed the rules so that residents can no longer address full Council meetings about issues of concern, however much support they have. The claim is that this is unnecessary, since petitioners can address the committee meetings or Executive where the issues are discussed, and there are all sorts of consultations where there views can be heard. 

 

Even when such opportunity exists – committees and consultation forums – this is inadequate, since it is only when an issue comes to full Council that all Councillors are present to hear the issues.

 

But what happens when an issue comes to full Council without going to any committee or consultation beforehand? Isn’t it obvious that in such a situation those affected should be heard? It would be a simple matter of suspending Council standing orders for this to happen

 

Far from it. A report is going to Full Council on Monday (March 3rd) about the affect of the HS2 Bill on Brent. This report notes that the HS2 Bill allows for the acquisition of 2 blocks of (Council) flats and St Mary’s school in South Kilburn, and also calls on HS2 to move the planned ventilation shaft, currently proposed to be next to Queens Park station to a site next to St Mary’s school and those flats.

 

That report has not gone to any committee or the Executive. Affected residents were not informed of its existence by any Councillor or Council Officer, despite their Tenants and Residents Association asking for over 2 years now how they would be affected by HS2 and Brent Council being unable or unwilling to provide them with answers. Residents received recorded letters from HS2 last year saying it might want to acquire their property, and still Brent Council was unable to provide advice on what this might mean. And, of course, residents have not been consulted on their attitude to having the shaft moved next door. This in a situation where residents have made numerous complaints about the effect of living on a building site – being in the middle of regeneration with all the dirt and disruption involved.

 

Yet despite all this, Councillors are denying residents the right to put their views to the Council meeting. There have been attempts to fob them off by saying that their Councillors are able to speak and represent their views. Some of those saying this have no idea whether the Councillors and TRA have the same view on the issues concerned! But the very idea is patronising – who better to put their views forward than residents themselves, especially when so directly affected.

What's happening with Brent's 2013-14 budget?

Brent Expenditure and Income 2012-13

The Council Budget for 2013-14 should be on the agenda for the Full Council Meeting on November 19th according to the Council's budgetary process:

There is a Full Council meeting (usually in November) where the budget is raised as an issue. All Councillors of all political groups are invited to submit ideas, plans and suggestions for inclusion in the next year's budget. These suggestions are then taken away and discussed by the Executive (usually in December).

The Executive will then issue their proposals for the budget.

At the same time Scrutiny's Budget Panel is sitting and they also come up with their proposals by February. The report is considered by the Executive and, if required, changes are made to the proposals.

Finally, the proposals go to another Full Council meeting where they are voted on, and, whatever is agreed, is implemented as the council's budget for the next year.

However, there are reports that the Council is behind with the process this year perhaps as a result of changes in the officer and councillors involved in Finance.  By the second week in November last year Cllr Ann John had issued a 'Bad News' budget report LINK.

Is is likely that we will receive an 'Even More Bad News' report from Muhammed Butt soon. There has been no word from Cllr Ruth Moher, now Lead Member for Finance and Resources who took over the post from Butt following the 'coup'.

Meanwhile the Budget Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Thursday 15th November may give us some clues. What is beyond doubt is that with government grants reduced and pressures on council spending from homelessness and social care of the elderly the situation will be dire. Apart from the potential revenue from a rise in Council Tax (a tiny proportion of the overall budget which is mainly made up of government grants) there are few options open to the Council apart from making more cuts which will impact on the vulnerable, or taking a stand against the Coalition and devising a campaigning needs led budget and a consequent deficit budget.  

This would involve a real dialogue with trades unions, voluntary organisations, community groups, campaigning groups and residents. Time is limited and such  process should begin as soon as possible.

Background is provided by the mid-year Brent Treasury Report by Mick Bowden, Deputy Director of Finance. The Director of Finance, Clive Heaphy remains suspended and there is no word on the financial settlement for Gareth Daniel, the former Chief Executive.

The Report outlines theCapital Finance Requirement (CFR) requirements for the years ahead with a significant  increase next year:
 

	31/03/12 Actual	31/03/2013 Estimate	31/03/2014 Estimate	31/03/2015 Estimate
CFR	£537m	£598m	£594m	£591m

 At the same time there is a significant  forecast reduction in 'usable' reserves:

	31/03/2012 Actual	31/03/2013 Estimate	31/03/2014 Estimate	31/03/2015 Estimate
Usable Reserves	£58m	£37m	£30m	£24m

There has been a shift from short-term to long-term borrowing which remains under the limits set out by the Department for Communities and Local Government. An additional £20m has been borrowed since April 2012 and a rise in the rate of interest:

Borrowing	Balance on 01/04/2012	Debt Repaid	New Borrowing	Balance on 30/09/2012
Short-term	£26.3m	£44.3m	£18m	0
Long-Term	£405.5m	£1.2m	£20m	£424.3
Total	£431.8m	£45.5m	£38m	£424.3
Average Rate %	4.45%			4.71%

The Report states that the Council expects to recover £4m of the £5m inested in Icelandic domiciled banks and £9m of the £10m invested in non-Iceland domiciled banks. The Council's investment income this year is estimated at only £0.1m .

The full Mid Year Report is available HERE



 

Butt: Borough unity will make fightback against government more effective

Cllr James Denselow has not waited for the niceties of confirmation by the Full Council to proclaim Muhammed Butt the new leader of Brent Council. LINK  He quotes the following acceptance speech by Butt:

It is an honour to be elected to this position. I would like to pass my deepest thanks to my predecessor Cllr. Ann John and look forward to her continuing to be deeply involved in the Borough that I know she has loved and served for many years.

These are the toughest financial times in the history of Brent. I want to develop a new approach to the relationship between Councillors and Officers, between front and back benchers and between the Labour Party and our residents. I believe that the more united we are as a Borough the more effective our fight back against this government will be.

I stand for responsibility, fairness and the values of equality that underpin the Labour party and I look forward to beginning the hard work for Brent residents in my new role.

Cllr James Powney, architect of the library closures, survived a challenge for his Executive position from Cllr Claudia Hector according to my sources.