Duffy rubbishes Council litter contract but does he know about BHP?

Cllr John Duffy, elected to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee by the Labour Group on the evening of the tube strike, has lost no time in setting out his stall in an email to fellow councillors.

Dear All,

As you know I have been elected to the scrutiny committee, albeit the leadership of the Labour party wished to rule my nomination out of time so the leader could play musical chairs with who he wanted to scrutinise the cabinet decisions or council contracts.

Now that I have been endorsed by the full council. I wish to state my view on scrutiny. I believe that just as a puppy, is not just for Christmas, Scrutiny is not just for committees. Members of the committee are duty bound to raise issues of waste and financial mis-management by the Cabinet.

Therefore I listen to Monday night's full council meeting, which seemed to allow cabinet members to make statement without explanation. They were also allowed to avoid questions by saying the problems were caused by a lack of resources. Whereas I believe many problems are caused by government cuts. However the cabinet has to take responsibility for bad polices making which undermining our ability to be efficient and use our limited resource’s to ensure service improvements. Those who care about these issues should read on and those who do not should stop reading now.

ENVIRONMENT (CAUSE)

On Monday Cllr Southwood, said we have successfully taken 50 residents to court for non-payment of June 2016 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) for mostly smoking related litter. However as far as I understand the true number is 41. The problem of smokers litter around tube stations and bus stops is an easy way to make money from FPNs as a smoker about to go into a tube station or get on a bus have no alternative but to put out their fags before boarding their train or bus, particularly as we have no cigarette butt disposal bins place close by.

The government in the middle of devastating cuts to service,did however allowed L/As to keep the 100’s thousands of pounds income from those FPNS and was this was one of the only ways councils could raise money for environmental protection.

Unfortunately and bewilderingly Cllr Southwood and the cabinet decided not to use the money for environmental protection. Instead the cabinet decided to outsource the service to Kingdom Securities (KS)  therefore ensuring the majority of the income was not used for Environmental protection but was paid in profits to the private company. KS introduced the service using cheaper less qualified staff and ensured the council agree certain conditions.

(i) They received £46 for every ticket issued, whether the fine was paid OR NOT.
(ii) Residents were not allowed a discount if they paid early unlike all other fine given out by the council.
(iii) The council meets all the costs of appeals and legal support and reviews.
(iii) The service did not undergo a VFM review

These conditions were introduced purely to increase KS's profit and is the cause of the council having no increased resources to deal with other environmental enforcement .The figs show-using June (the period Cllr Southwood mentioned) as an example. The council have received £49k and paid £35K to KS (approx. £25k pure profit a month for KS), whereas the council makes £9k a month after write –off, costs of admin and legal costs, work stations, free use of our car pool etc.

ENVIRONMENT (EFFECT)

I believe that bad policy making by the lead member and cabinet has cost us £25K+ per month of income and  has had the effect of ensuring that we have no strategy or resources for other environmental enforcement. Whereas dog–ends concerns were less than 1% of complaints that are 99% of our enforcement (FPN) strategy.

For example, when Cllr Crane on Monday night rightly raise the issue of dumping behind shops in a private area by the Hyde in Colindale on behalf of his residents.Which is an ongoing issue which has caused concern from residents about the unpleasant and nasty conditions they are forced to live with.They also complaint the place was overrun with rats.

Cllr Southwood reply (I think) went something like this saying we have not the resources or trained officers to deal fly tipping on private land and was therefore was difficult to deal with. Cllr Southwood reply ignores the reality of the situation. There is legislation EPA (S59 private land) where the owner of the land can be fined £5000 if they do not clear the land and £500 a day if they fail to comply.There are also ways of working with the Environment Agency  to ensure any companies using the alley way for fly-tipping are dealt with.However you need qualified, trained officers with a full understanding of legislation, to carry-out surveillance, interviews and ultimately prosecutions. However the cabinet policy of introducing cheap (LLW) unqualified officers has left us deprived of well trained officers to deal with issues as well as ensuring we have no resources.

I believe Scrutiny committee should be asked to look at the way we organise our enforcement section, to ensure VFM, flexibility ,priorities and increased investment.They should also look at the way the FPN are issued and why 154 (20%) are written off, remember we already paid KS over £7k   for the issuing of those ticket and writing them off is a direct lost  and if that is constant over a year it would mean a loss of £84k per year.

I intend to talk to the Chair of Scrutiny to see if there are ways the committee can  review and recommend service improvements.

Cllr Duffy may also be interested in the contract awarded to Kingdom Security on Brent Housing Partnership's estates.  This is Kingdom's own account - they don't seem aware that BHP is soon to be taken back in-house by the Council.:

Kingdom is pleased to have won a new contract with Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) to help tackle anti-social behaviour in north west London on their behalf. The new contract will start on 9^th January 2017.

Kingdom’s Environmental Protection Division will be providing a reception & concierge service in some of BHP’s properties, and will also be carrying out uniformed patrols, both of which are intended to provide reassurance to residents that anti-social behaviour is being tackled and that the lives and properties of residents are being protected.

Anti-social behaviour is something that can affect the lives of a great many people, making their day to day existence a real misery and leaving them feeling helpless, desperate and with a reduced quality of life. It often includes but is not limited to the following:

• Vandalism
• Graffiti
• Fly-posting
• Nuisance neighbours (noisy or abusive neighbours)
• Intimidating groups taking over public spaces
• Acting in a rowdy or inconsiderate manner
• Littering
• Being drunk in public or street drinking
• Aggressive dogs
• Prostitution
• Begging
• Abandoning vehicles
• Using vehicles inappropriately
• Trespassing

We have previously written in detail about tackling anti-social behaviour – our in depth article on the topic, including more information about what it is, who to contact to tackle it, and what action agencies and individuals can take can be found here.

Kingdom will be acting on behalf of Brent Housing Partnership (BHP), an arms-length management organisation (ALMO) and community housing company owned by Brent Council. In 2013 BHP signed a 10 year management agreement with Brent Council. The council owns the homes and takes responsibility for housing policy and strategy, whereas BHP is responsible for day-to-day management of housing services to over 9,500 council tenants and 3,000 leaseholders.

Powney is not alone as questions raised over Flytipping Report

'Am I alone in finding this change of wording interesting?' asks James Powney LINK , drawing attention to a discrepancy between a report  on the Scrutiny Task group on Flytipping from the Chief Executive going to Brent Cabinet on January 20th and the actual body of the Task Group's Report (which is also included in the Cabinet papers).

Spot the difference:

Chief Executive's Report LINK

The Task Group Report LINK

So 'Why the mysterious change in Scrutiny wording?' as James Powney asks. Could it be that someone (who?) has decided the critical second sentence in 22 should be deleted? Why and on what authority?

I quoted the whole section so that readers could see that the other points are identical so this is no simple editing of the entire report.

It could be argued that it makes no difference because the original report is also included in the Agenda but then the Cabinet is actually voting on, and adopting, the version in the Chief Executive's Report.

James Powney was  Lead Member for the Environment at the beginning of 2013 and was succeeded by Cllr Roxanne Mashari at the AGM. In 2014 Cllr Keith Perrin was elected to the position but resigned in September 2014. Cllr George Crane was appointed in his place after an interval in which there was no one in the post.  LINK  Cllr Eleanor Southwood is the current Lead Member.

It is not quite Stalin removing Trotsky from the photographic record but intriguing all the same. Is there someone at Brent Council who cannot tolerate criticism or is it just a harmless tidying up exercise?

Eleanor Southwood is Brent Council's new lead member for Environment

Cllr Eleanor Southwood (Queens Park) was elected to be the new Lead Member for the Environment at the Labour Group AGM today and joins the Cabinet.

She replaces Cllr George Crane who had decided to stand down.

The appointment is welcome as for a time it looked as if there might be no Environment lead member post at all following the outsourcing of most of the department's work to Veolia via the Public Realm contract.

Cllr Southwood was previously on the Scrutiny Committee.

Following her joining the Cabinet this picture of the new Cabinet was circulated on Twitter today:

 They may have been stuck in a lift.
 

Brent Cabinet environment post may not be replaced

Since my post about Cllr George Crane stepping down as lead member for environment and speculation about his replacement LINK, I have heard that the post may be incorporated into an existing cabinet role.

It will be argued that this reflects the reduction in environment responsibilities with most of the Council function out-sourced to Veolia.

It will also conveniently avoid any competition for the role and the testing of loyalties to 'The Leader', Cllr Muhammed Butt.

One of the councillors most qualified for the position challenged the leadership over Council Tax.

Given the power of the Cabinet this will reduce decision making to just 7 people.

Who will champion the environment in Brent cabinet?

Cllr George Crane, lead member for Environment, said his farewells to colleagues at this week's Brent Cabinet meeting as he is stading down. Cllr Crane was appointed by leader Muhammed Butt, following Cllr Keith Perrin's rather sudden resignation soon after being elected to the Cabinet. LINK

The post will come up at the AGM and may be contested. Some have argued that the Environment post is no longer important with the department having been savagely cut and services handed over to Veolia through the Public Realm contract. 

I would argue that this makes it more important as private contractors need to be held to account and environmental issues need an experienced and energetic advocate.

For interested Labour councillors this is what the Council website says about the Cabinet. You will note the vagueness in the first sentence on how apppoinments are made. Who is 'they'?

The cabinet is made up of the Leader of the Council and other senior councillors (Lead Members), they have chosen.

Together they provide political leadership and strategic direction for the council, both within individual portfolio responsibilities and as part of their corporate responsibilities.
They take an active approach to ensuring that decisions made by the council are informed both politically and administratively and the council's executive decisions are collective and made by the cabinet.

The cabinet are each democratically accountable to the public and are the public face of the council. As such they act as ambassadors for the council's work in improving Brent.

Leader of the Council: Cllr Muhammed Butt 
Deputy Leader: Cllr Michael Pavey
Adults, Health and Wellbeing: Cllr Krupesh Hirani
Children and Young People: Cllr Ruth Moher
Employment and Skills: Cllr Roxanne Mashari
Environment: Cllr George Crane
Regeneration and Housing: Cllr Margaret McLennan
Stronger Communities: Cllr James Denselow

Cllr George Crane appointed Brent Council lead member for the Environment to replace Keith Perrin

Hot on the tail of my story about the non-filling of the Lead Member for Environment cabinet post left vacant by the resignation of Cllr Keith Perrin LINK and my suggestion that Cllr Butt was reluctant to have another election for the post, comes this story on the Get West London website LINK

It appears that former Executive member Cllr George Crane has been appointed to the post. There is no press release on the Brent Council website about this:

A former manager of Rolls Royce has been appointed the new lead member of environment at Brent Council.

Councillor George Crane from Wembley has taken up the role after Councillor Keith Perrin stepped down from the position last month.

Councillor Crane has been a councillor for a number of years and was the lead member for regeneration and growth in the last Cabinet.

He has two grown up sons and is retired now but was a senior manager at Rolls Royce for 20 years and after that worked as a buyer for a food manufacturing company in Harrow.

He said: "I am delighted to take on the role of Lead member for Environment at the request of the Leader of the Council.

"I am excited about the portfolio area - there are lots of new things in the pipeline in Brent including improvements to the public realm and waste management including new and more frequent recycling collections from Spring next year. However I am also acutely aware that Brent Council faces some tough challenges with public services facing dramatic cuts in funding from central government, so the Cabinet will have to be making some tough decisions over the coming months.

"I am keen to listen to and engage with residents. I look forward to working with them and other Partners over the coming months."

Brent Council reported to intend to rent out space commercially at new Willesden Cultural Centre instead of providing a One Stop Shop

A Brent Council officer told a recent meeting of the Willesden Green Town Meeting that there would be no One Stop Shop at the new Willesden Cultural Centre.  Instead the Council would be looking for a commercial tenant for the space.

This follows the Council's decision to let two floors of the Civic Centre to Air Francis and squeeze Brent staff into the remaining space.

During the controversial planning application process for the WG Cultural Centre the Council made great play of the benefit to the community that would accrue from the development of unafffordable private flats (later sold on the Singapore market). The developement would finance the Cultural Centre and the One Stop Shop, along with council offices to serve the local area and this  out-weighed the loss of the old library, car park and open space according to  ex Executive member Cllr George Crane, then lead member for Regeneration and Major Projects.

This is an extract from Andy Donald's (Director Regeneneration and Major Projects) report:

4.6 The Council is currently driven by the overarching concept of One Council. This aims to provide excellent public services and deliver these in the most efficient way but also to build strong relationships and better communications between the Council and citizens ensuring local priorities are addressed and that local potential is nurtured. A redeveloped WGLC will play an important role in this strategy supporting both the One Council Library Transformation Project and the One Council Future Customer Service Project.

4.8 The Future Customer Service Project aims to improve efficiency and clarity of the services offered to citizens. The strategy is dependent on developing a new customer contact centre at WGLC providing a service for the south of the borough, an area where many of the Council‟s high need customers reside.

The Council appeared to have been driven, through the Council's budget crisis caused by Coalition cuts, to reneage on its promises to local people, especially those who formed the Keep Willesden Green campaign.

Residents were angry and asked if the Council intended to put these changes to what was supposed to be a local amenity to further consultation.

I understand that Andy Donald has replied that no decision on customer services at the Cultural Centre has been made but 'the Council’s cabinet will be considering a report in October in respect of the overall approach to customer access for the Council as a whole, which will then inform the shape of the customer access offer at the Civic Centre and Willesden going forward.'

He has promised that residents will be informed about any proposals as part of the dialogue over the use of the  new building.

Clearly an issue that residents will be monitoring.

Meanwhile someone who lives on the front line of the development told me earlier this week that a construction worker on site had told her that the open space between the flats and the Cultural Centre, offered in compensation for the lost open space in front of the 1980s library, was just going to be an 'ordinary road'.

I would be interested if anyone else had heard this.

Muhammed Butt 'not prepared to ride roughshod over parents' concerns'

Some might dismiss it as a pre-election gambit but there was a vote, with Executive members taking different sides, at last night's Brent Executive.

The vote was on the officer's report on the proposed expansion of Princess Frederica Primary School. As reported below expansion was opposed by the great majority of parents and some local residents. There were concerns over the limited pavement space for pedestrians around the site, impact on the school's outdoor pay space and disruption during building.

Muhammed Butt said that  extra school places were needed 'but we are committed to listening to the voices of residents and are not prepared to ride roughshod over parents' concerns. In the face of so many opposing views, it is our duty to listen and re-think proposals to see if we can accomodate as many people's views as possible.'

Other campaigners in Brent such as those in Willesden Green and parents at Gladstone Park will wonder why he did not show the same respect for their concerns.  However, his statement still allows for a revised plan to come forward, probably after the local elections.

Cllr Michael Pavey, lead member for children and families,  said that they had learnt from the parents' campaign and would now take a step back to look at the expansion programme anew.

Councillor George Crane, lead member for regeneration and major projects,  however supported the officers' report and said local reservations should be dealt with through the planning process and wondered why Princess Frederica should be different from Newfield, Harlesden and Robert Southwell primary schools that were expanding without problems.

When the issue came to the vote Muhammed Butt (leader), Michael Pavey, James Denselow, Krupesh Hirani, Aslam Choudry and Jim Moher voted against the officers' recommendation.  to expand the school. Ruth Moher (deputy leader) and Margaret McLennan abstained and George Crane voted for the recommendations.

Galliford Try submit revised planning application to Council for Willesden Green Cultural Centre

Brent Council has issued the following press release:

A revised planning application to redevelop Willesden Library and replace it with a state of the art cultural centre was submitted last Wednesday (31 October).

The application, which was submitted by developer Galliford Try, details proposals to deliver a brand new library and cultural centre that will act as the main service delivery hub for the south of the borough.

The proposed revised design is a result of extended consultation with the local community which took place over August and September and includes the old Victorian library as part of the plans.

Brent has secured a self-financing scheme which involves working with developer partner, Galliford Try, to deliver the new cultural centre in return for developing homes on the remainder of the current site for market sale.

For the past few month residents have met with council officers and Galliford Try to revisit the original design and discuss alternative proposals for the new centre and its design.

In response to the recent extended period of consultation Brent has made several changes to the design, including;

• completely redesigning the scheme to include the old library
• increasing the size of the new library within the centre
• creating room for more study spaces and computers
• changing the brief for the building so that it could, potentially, include a bookshop.

The proposals for the centre also include a children's library,  IT provision, museum, community gallery, archive, archive store, three community spaces (which will provide an array of programmed creative events), café/ bookshop, multi faith contemplation room and high quality public spaces designed for markets and events.

Cllr George Crane Lead Member for Regeneration and Major Projects said: "Thank you to the many residents who got involved in consultation and gave up their time to help us develop plans for this new centre."

If the project gets the green light the council hopes to build on its close working with stakeholders to develop the building proposals including how it is may be used and managed.

 Link to Brent  Planning site: 12./2924 LINK   12/2925  LINK

Is Donald's the right development road for Brent?

In December 2011, long before the Brent Council leadership coup, I posted an article on 'Brent Council: Who's in charge?' about the relationship between the then leader Ann John and Gareth Daniel LINK which commented on Garth Daniel's increasingly political comments.

Now the same question is being asked about Brent's Regeneration and Major Projects department and the relationship between the Director, Andy Donald and lead member, Cllr George Crane. I have commented before on the domination of the council by Major Projects and the delegating of many powers to Andy Donald by the Executive.

In March 2010 Jackie Sadek on EstatesGazette,com gushed with enthusiasm about the then assistant Director and the lead  member:

Councillor John Detre (lead member for regeneration for Brent) and Andy Donald (his AD Regeneration) are a formidable team and I congratulate them. They are clearly on a roll.  We are taking a number of jv opportunities from Brent out to MIPIM in just a few days; developers and investors would be very silly not to take Brent very seriously over the next five years. In a time of uncertain political futures, the stability of this London borough coupled with its glorious asset base (my emphasis) and its serious intent to develop and regenerate, make it fertile territory indeed. And they're green: sustainability is key. They are showing the way.

In July 2010 the Money List put Brent Council at No.9 in its list of the Top 100 Public Sector Investors in the UK, just below the then London Development  Agency:

Top 100 projects 2010 £115m
Key contact Andy Donald, assistant director for regeneration, 020 8937 1049


The north-west London borough is in the top 10 due to its commitments to two of London's biggest regeneration projects. First, there is the council's establishment of a £100 million civic centre near Wembley Stadium that is intended to act as a catalyst for the £3.8 billion Wembley City project. Brent is also lead developer for the £772 million housing estate renewal project in south Kilburn, where it has so far spent £15 million on planning, demolition and buying out leaseholders.

"Local authorities should take more direct responsibility for the delivery of regeneration when there is market failure," says assistant director for regeneration Andy Donald. "In South Kilburn we want to stay in control of the quality and timescale of delivery. Looking forward we are likely to continue with that approach in order to make the most of our land and assets."

'Making the most of our land and assets' has become Andy Donald's crusade under the current administration.  The promise of  new buildings and redevelopment at  'nil cost'  to the Council is clearly attractive to them at a time of reduced budgets. However 'our land' is not just the council's - it is OUR land - the people of Brent. That is where the battles over regeneration get nasty, as in the case of Willesden Green Library Centre. The council has given 'our land' and the profits they will get from 92 housing units to developers Galliford Try in exchange for a Cultural Centre. During Margaret Thatcher's period in office and the selling off of public assets to the private sector there was much talk of 'selling the family silver'. Brent Council now appears to be in the same business.

Andy Donald was appointed Director on Major Projects and Regeneration in October 2010. The Brent Council website states:

Andy Donald, Director of Regeneration and Major Projects
Andy’s responsibilities include the delivery of the council’s ambitious regeneration and housing agenda, and he currently leads on major projects such as South Kilburn, Wembley, the new Civic Centre, Willesden Green, and the council’s programme for new and improved schools. Service responsibilities include housing, planning, building control, property and asset management, education assets, regeneration, employment and economic Development. Andy also has responsibility for overseeing the Council’s Housing Management delivery vehicle, Brent Housing Partnership.

The department employs some 450 people, including four assistant directors.He is responsible for a significant revenue budget, including the housing revenue account, and for overseeing a large proportion of the council’s capital programme – currently to a value of £100 million.
Andy is a founding board member of the Future of London, and an active
member of the Smart Urbanism group.

The emphasis on planning and regeneration is mine and reflects my  concern about a possible conflict the between the two. Brent Planning Committee  is advised by council planning officers but has a statutorily independent role,  However councillors usually follow officers' advice and increasing numbers of decisions are made by officers following planning guidelines, rather than the committee.

In the MIPIM Round Table discussion in Cannes in April 2010, referred to by Jackie Sadek, Andy Donald revealed some of his thinking, which perhaps demonstrates a rather cavalier approach to his brief.

This contribution from Donald reinforces my concern over possible conflict between planning and regeneration functions:

What I’ve learned is, when times are good, the big scale projects work well, but when times are not so good, it is best to try and present projects to politicians in a more chunked-up way, where they can generate momentum. Once things have started and momentum builds up it is really difficult to stop it, for funders to walk away. So as local authorities we try and take more responsibility to get things started, which might mean acting as a developer, to take things through planning ourselves, which builds confidence

The council acting as developer and taking things through planning themselves, successfully marginalises the local community. In the Willesden Green Cultural Centre case the council formed a partnership with Galliford Try and initially it appeared that the planning application would be made in both names. This was changed so it became a Galliford Try/Linden Homes application with a Brent Council Planning Officer, a PR company, and latterly Library Labs all involved in the much criticised consultation process.

The question is, has the project got so much momentum that it cannot be stopped? The campaigners have had some success in slowly things down. The question for councillors, who are accountable to the public and the electorate is: Is this how things should be done if we want to retain the public's confidence?

Andy Donald went on to say:

As local authorities we’ve got to start realising and recommending to politicians. The focus should be on doing some delivery, generating the market for delivery, rather than diverting activity around producing big masterplans, often on big areas we don’t own, and trying to tell the market they must deliver this across this area over the next thirty years. Starting small and generating momentum seems to me to be the way to do it.

We want to try and remove some of the technical aspects of the process. If you ask planners what they want to do, it will be to draw a masterplan. But a masterplan won’t make the Thames Gateway happen or make a scheme the size of Wembley happen. More local authorities are realising this, realising we should instead be starting from the site upwards, or the plot upwards.

Donald's enthusiasm and confidence glows as bright as the sunshine in the south of France, but is it a vision shared by Brent Council?

The attitude to local people is revealed again in this interchange in the round table discussion:

Peter Finch The difference between the French and the British is that while Paris was busy delivering the Charles de Gaulle airport, it took the same time for us to get the public inquiry for Terminal 5. Mitterrand was asked how this could be. He gave a very witty response. He said: ‘Very simple. In France, when we wish to drain the pond, we get rid of the frogs first’.

There is a sense that Britain is neither brutal nor generous enough. When we finally get CPOs (Compulsory Purchase Orders), we’re never generous enough and we always make it nasty. We’re not brutal enough to say, we just don’t care, here’s twenty times worth the value, now just go away. Or we’ll arrest you!

Andrew Donald: But we never know if we actually do want to drain the pond. And that’s the big issue. It comes back to leadership. It doesn’t matter what scale you’re working on. There are very few people I come across in the public sector who will nail their colours to mast and say: ‘This is what we want to see happening now’. To be confident enough to know that over the 30-year lifespan of that scheme it is going to involve, there should be more confidence to say: “This is what we want now, but in five years time, if we change our minds, it is okay, as long as we’ve done something in those five years”. That is critical.

Roger Zogolovitch later in the discussions says:
Rather than getting rid of the frogs before draining the pond we’re giving authority to the frogs!

The Civic Centre opens in 2013 and its cost will be paid back over 25 years. Will the council change their minds in 2018?

Donald, despite Brent's 'green development' image, seems impatient with such demands:

I would take out in one fell swoop all the requirements around environmental requirements and transport requirements. I think that their original purpose was quite worthy but now, frankly, it is a pile this big for even tiny application. Replace that with something to the point about what this development is going to make to local area, written in plain English. The decision makers are never going to read all that text. There is a massive disconnect between the decision makers and the officers. To release the development from the upfront cost of these, maybe we can be more collaborative here in saying what a scheme is going to bring to an area in terms of improvement, from the people side and commercial side as well. What does a scheme bring to a place? It is much more about whether a scheme makes a place better or not.

Donald's  idea of  'starting small and generating momentum'  rather than having a Masterplan, seems to be behind the Meanwhile Project reviewed here in an earlier posting LINK  

The proposal greed by the Executive gives Donald the delegated power to buy up unused premises and let them out on fixed term contracts with no tenant right to renewal. His report states:

The term “meanwhile” is used to describe the use of vacant premises or land while it is not being used – it is the pause in the development process between the old and the new. This pause can be a few months or a number of years.

In other words those trendy spaces let out to 'pop up' shops or businesses could eventually become the pieces of a development jigsaw that all fall into place at a later date. Again, are councillors happy with this approach and won't the public be presented, in time, with a development  fait accompli? 

 The council's Corporate Risk Register builds the relationship with developers into the risk management strategy. It addresses the risk of lack of  investment in the borough thus:

De-risking by assisting with planning permissions etc on behalf of developers. Maintaining dialogue with investors/developers. Reviewing other sources of capital finance.

In April of this year Andrew Donald was shorlisted for the Alan Cherry Award:

A shortlist of nine eminent ‘placemakers’ has been announced for the Alan Cherry Award for Placemaking.  The annual award is presented in recognition of the significant contribution made to the quality of placemaking in their communities by a leading figure in the public sector.

Alan Cherry was the founder of Countryside Properties. Countryside Properties was Brent Council's development partner for the Barham Park Estate.

Elsewhere Andy Donald has been named as a 'Rising Star' and a mentor for young people involved in regeneration. He clearly has commitment and energy. The question arises as to whether this is taking Brent Council in the right direction.

Willesden Green redevelopment in trouble?

With the on-line comments on Galliford Try's application to demolish the Willesden Green Library Centre and Willesden Bookshop along with the Victorian Library,  showing over-whelming opposition from local residents, LINK it appears that the developer has launched a last-ditch attempt to find the 'silent majority' councillors have claimed are in favour of the scheme.

A PR company has allegedly been employed to go door to door in Willesden Green to collect signatures for a pro-redevelopment petition claiming that the new building will be 'lovely'.  See 'Beware the stranger at your Willesden door' LINK The petition will squeeze in between the formal deadline and consideration by the planning committee.

Meanwhile the Victorian Society has added their voice to the opposition and chided the Council:

It is disappointing that despite a request in March to be kept informed of developments in this case, the Council failed to notify us of this application. Instead we have been reliant on a huge number of concerned local residents to inform us that an application was submitted

Their full submission can be seen HERE

Cllr Ann John and Cllr George Crane signing agreement with Galliford Try (Brent Magazine April 2012)

There are various technical issues relating to the planning application and particularly the aspects relating to Grange Road that are being challenged as well as doubts over the application  being solely in the name of Galliford Try when  the scheme was a partnership with Brent Council. There have been so many responses that planning officers have been overwhelmed and acknowledgements of written submissions are taking several days and on-line comments taking some time to upload.

A further complication is the role of Cllr Ann John who now sits on the Planning Committee. As someone who as leader of the council advocated the scheme,  she may decide that it would be better not to take part in the discussion and decision making on this issue because of claims of 'predetermination' i.e. that she had already made up her mind before the Committee's perusal of the application.

Meanwhile public notices have appeared in the vicinity and the local press advertising the application to register the public space in front of the present library as a Town Square. The space will disappear if the redevelopment takes place and a successful registration will clearly have repercussions for the developer's plans.