Butt is out of step as councillors attempt to respond to Healthy Neighbourhoods issues

 

 

The full webcast can be found HERE

The evidence for a Tweet I sent out during this afternoon's Extraordinary Meeting is Cllr Butt's speech at the meeting is in the video above.  This is what I said:

Although the re-emergence of ex Right-wing Tory councillor Joel Davidson in the guise of the Park Residents Association representative was undoubtedly annoying ,I think the real targets of his rage were the six (or was it 7 - accounts vary) Labour councillors who requisitioned the Extraordinary Meeting and had the audacity to try and have an actual debate in the Council. How dare they try and introduce a slither of democracy into the Council Chamber.  The same goes of course for Councillor Anton Georgiou who really gets up Butt's nose, especially as he is gaining much support in his ward.

If Butt's record of dealing with anyone who shows a smidgen of independence is anything to go by we may have to set up a campaign to 'Save the Brent Six' (or Seven). Some people on social media, following the acceptance of the amendment, have already sugegsted they have been 'got at'.

It was fairly clear that not all councillors have much experience of debating but as one councillor said afterwards, 'If we do more of it, we will get better'.

You can listen to the the full meeting on the link above but here are two contributions worth reading although publication does not equal endorsement.

Charlie Fernandes spoke for Brent Cycling Campaign:

I speak as a representative of Brent Cycling Campaign, a campaign to enable active travel, cycling and walking and as a local resident.

I also speak as a voice for the many local residents that regularly approach us. They express they WANT their neighbourhoods to be healthy low traffic neighbourhoods. With fewer cars on the road during the early lockdown months, people saw what was possible.

So I thank Brent Council for introducing low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) during these difficult times. Residents are telling us they want to see these LTNs become fully operational, and they want more LTNs, and they ask us to push the council to do so.

I will now address (1) the consultation process, (2) the urgency, (3) it’s a question of social justice, and (4) the strategic vision.

1. The process. Some have raised concerns about lack of consultation.
Well, the usual pre-consultation method was not working. Proposals may not be plainly obvious to residents when appearing in technical drawings and writing. And however it’s communicated, the actual effects and benefits cannot be realised that way.

Consultations generally get got low engagement, with the louder voices resulting in a very weak compromise, or just giving up and keeping the status quo. Trialling schemes are a natural means to experiment, demonstrating in real life, with sufficient time for people to adapt and see the benefits. Adjustments can still be made during the trial.

2. The urgency. Perhaps you’re thinking: We’ve got a pandemic on. So why the urgency to enable alternatives to cars right now? Well, Brent, with lots of public transport connections, is highly dependent on public transport. But we’re told to avoid public transport as much as possible. So how can people get around?

Half of households in Brent have at lest one car. So I address this in two halves. First, those who have a car. We’re already around pre-lockdown traffic levels. After furlough ends, car use will climb much higher, while public transport continues to be restricted. Road gridlock will quickly become more severe.

And now, the half of Brent residents that do NOT have a car. They’re much more dependent on public transport This is very much the poorer half. Brent has amongst the worst levels of pollution. The polluted areas are also poorer areas. Brent has amongst the highest rates of obesity and diabetes, linked with inactivity and poverty.

So now on point 3. It’s a matter of social justice that everyone should be enabled to get around their local neighbourhood safely and participate in their local communities as vibrantly as anyone else.

By LTNs restricting rat-running, it leads to our neighbourhoods and inside our homes having better air quality, in quiet pleasant healthier neighbourhoods. Older people, disabled people, children, vulnerable people, those that are less mobile, whatever their background, everyone, can more easily roam and make better use of their surroundings. The neighbourhood becomes more of a community space to engage with our neighbours.

A month ago, I attended a local street meeting on Glendale Gardens road. It was only feasible to safely use this space while the barriers were in place preventing through-traffic.

New LTNs in Lambeth and Waltham Forest have led to heart warming stories of children playing outside their own homes for the first time

4. The vision: And while our love grows for LTNs, they’re only part of the solution. People need to be able to travel from their Healthy Low Traffic Neighbourhoods to low traffic town centres and other destinations.

Protected cycle lanes on main roads, provide the connectors. Altogether this creates an environment that truly enables active travel.It leads to attractive scenes such as children cycling in safety to school.

More women cycling, people whatever their background, age or ability, cycling because their local environment has been made safe and inviting for them to.

But they’re not just attractive nice things to see. They’re real people for whom simple changes to their environment has enabled them to lead lifestyles that enhance their physical health and mental health and by switching to avoid using cars, or using cars less, they are reducing the negative impact of cars on others, improving air quality, making the roads safer. And reducing congestion – which in turn also makes it easier for those that are unable to avoid using their cars

The urgency and for the sake of the residents of Brent, the calling is now for progressive active travel.

I thank you for listening. I will conclude with the following point: While the pandemic has made this a memorable moment, let’s craft it so that in future years, the residents of Brent will look back and say, those were the councillors that gave us a healthier neighbourhood.

Cllr Anton Georgiou said:

I am a Liberal Democrat, but first and foremost, I hope like many in this meeting, I am an environmentalist.

I care deeply and passionately about addressing the number one crisis we all face, the climate emergency.

I was proud to see Brent declare a climate emergency last year. But declaring one isn't enough, what is needed to clean the air we breathe, is action.

We must change the way we travel. No doubt, discouraging car use and freeing up our road space for pedestrians and making them safer for more active travel options like cycling is one way - so is pushing for more affordable public transport.

However, the reason for this meeting today is the process by which this adminstration has chosen to follow to get us where we are.

The implemention of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods without thorough consultation both with residnts and key stakeholders, who are experts on this topic, has left many angry and I fear has taken us backwards, Rather than taking residents forwards on a journey of change, this administration has done us harm.

I'm also concerned about the disregard of local Councillors' views and opinions and the shoddy way that we as elected members have been treated. I'm sure the Lead member, Cllr Tatler, will attest to the fact that throughout this process I have sought to engage with her directly and officers to understand what measures they would implement, An example of the poor communication - I emailed the Lead member in August to request an update on a follow up meeting, and changes that might impact Alperton, this was only replied to on Monday October 12th at 1:28am.

 The secretive, closed way that this administration and the Lead member have acted speak to a much wider problem with the culture of the leadership. They do not want to be scrutinised, they do not want to listen, they just want us all to accept their way.

I propose that we urgently set up a Taskforce made up of backbench counillors across this chamber to oversee the next phase of this project and start doing the proper outreach with residents and stakeholders, so that we can get in place the right measures, that will make the most sense, and will lead to what I hope we all want to see, the start of a shift in attitude by all, in the way we travel.

Only then will we begin to tackle the great challenge we face, the climate crisis.

 Cllr Tatler, Lead member responding to the debate said that there was no perfect solution to the climate emergency - none wuld be pain-free. We are consuming resources at a rate that cannot be sustained.  The Healthy Neighbood schemes were the first opportunity for the Council to make a positive impact through testing a range of experimental schemes to unclog our roads. The Council will incorporate successful measures into their eventual scheme - the ones currently running are not the final resolution of the issues.

 The amended  motion was passed with no votes against. The Conservatives abstained stating that they would have voted for the motion without the amendment. (Motions in post below)

 

 

Oppose anti-semitism and support free speech Brent councillors urged

Brent and Harrow PSC have written to Brent councillors about the motion on anti-Semitism to be discussed at the Council meeting on Monday 18^th September.

Dear Councillor 

RE: Full Council – 18 September 2017

Motion selected by the Conservative Group ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL

HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE ALLIANCE DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM

Councillor Joel Davidson Brondesbury Park Ward 

We welcome the discussion on how to combat anti-Semitism in the ongoing battle against racism in all its forms.

The International Holocaust Remember Association’s definition is as follows:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” 

However, the guidance issued by the IHRA uses a number of controversial examples of forms of anti-Semitism, most of which (7/11) refer to Israel. We submit that the effect of adopting the guidance would be to prevent criticism of the actions of the Israeli State and of a legitimate critique of Zionism as a political ideology. For example, the guidance states that to call Israel a racist enterprise can be anti-Semitic. This has been used to describe anyone who refers to Israel as an apartheid state as ‘anti-Semitic’ and to withdraw meeting facilities from them.  Similarly, the example of not holding Israel to a standard has been used to say calling for boycott is anti -Semitic, which in the opinion of eminent QC Hugh Tomlinson is a threat to legally protected freedom of expression.

Mixing the issue of anti-Semitism with the policies and actions of the Israeli State, it is likely to make it harder to identify and oppose anti-Semitism, a goal to which we are all committed. DETAILS

If you wish to support the adoption of the (38 word) definition, we ask therefore, that this does not include the highly controversial guidance. In this way, opposition to anti-Semitism is made clear, without any limitation of legitimate criticism of the Israeli State or the ideology of Zionism. 

Brent Council and Cara Davani – when (if ever) will we really know what happened?

 

Brent and Kilburn Times June 30th 2016

Guest blog by Philip Grant

Cara Davani – didn’t she leave Brent Council two years ago? And it was a year ago that the Council finally admitted that she had been given a “pay-off” (of £157,610). Surely the enquiry into this must have been sorted out by now? I’m afraid not.

When I last gave an update about “progress” on the investigation of objections to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts LINK we had been told by the Auditor that he anticipated sharing material documents with the objectors by the end of June. When the agenda for Brent’s Audit Advisory Committee meeting on 26 June appeared on the Council’s website,  KPMG’s “External Audit Progress Report” said that they expected to share the documents, and other material, ‘in July’.

As the Auditor had agreed to share those material documents (which he received from the Council in mid-December) with the objectors, and we had been expecting to get them early in 2017, I asked to speak about this item on the agenda for Monday evening’s meeting, and the committee Chair (David Ewart, an independent member) agreed in advance that I could. I hope that Martin will be able to attach the text of what I said to this blog, so that you can read it in full if you wish to. There were two points that I wished to raise with the committee, and the Chair asked me to deal with them separately. 

The first was the objectors’ disappointment with the lack of progress in KPMG’s enquiries, and our concern that the investigation process might have been changed, without explanation. We were originally told that we would have the chance to make further comments before the Auditor reached any ‘provisional findings and views’. The latest progress report spoke of sharing ‘our provisional view and material documents’ at the same time. I asked the committee to invite the Auditor to clarify the position, and to encourage him to provide a timetable for the remaining steps in his investigation, through to his final decision on the objections.

The Auditor, Andrew Sayers, did not seem to accept that there was any real change from what his predecessor had set out in November 2016. He thought that knowing what his provisional views were would help us and the Council when he shares those views and material documents with us. He still wants any further comments from us, and assured the meeting that his provisional views will be open to change in the light of any further comments and evidence he receives. On how long it was taking, his response seemed to be that he had to do his job properly [I would agree that he should, but does it really need to take so long?]. 

The Auditor seemed to suggest that the material would be shared in about six weeks (so August, rather than July?), but said the timetable after that would depend on what further comments he receives and what further investigations he may need to make, so he could give no indication of when his final decision might be published.

There were murmurings from the committee over how long his investigation was taking, and what it would cost (Mr Sayers did not know how much it had cost so far, but he would write with a figure that could be passed on to committee members). Cllr. Davidson, in particular, was concerned over the costs, and appeared to suggest that KPMG could be carrying out unnecessary work, just to increase their fees.

My second point, asked the committee to recommend that Council Officers consent to Mr Sayers sharing the legal advice with us "in strict confidence". The papers around that advice comprise very ‘material documents’, as they provide the only evidence in support of Brent’s decision to make the payment to Ms Davani.

The Chair asked Brent's Chief Legal Officer, Debra Norman, to address them. She told the committee, effectively, that "Legal Privilege" was a fundamental principle that should never be breached. She did not appear to consider whether, in the particular circumstances of this investigation, refusal by the Council to allow the objectors access to the documents, in strict confidence, might appear to be unfair.

The Chair asked Mr Sayers whether the lack of consent from the Council was "impeding" his investigation, and the Auditor said that it was not, although it might mean that he had to take legal advice himself over whether to disclose certain documents to the objectors. I am not sure whether committee members realised that this would mean additional costs to the Council for the investigation.

I was allowed a brief reply, but like Mr Sayers, I had to say that I could not disclose the full nature of the allegations in the objection, but that they did involve matters which were 'contrary to law', and that this was more than a possible query over whether a QC's advice was correct.

There was no real discussion or vote on what action the committee should take over my second point. It was almost like a shrug of the shoulders to say "well, we can't go against the advice of the Chief Legal Officer".

I was probably naïve to think that the Audit Advisory Committee might, just might, be persuaded to recommend that the legal advice, which the Council claims as justification for the £157,610 “pay-off” to Cara Davani, could be shared with the objectors. But at least I tried to move things forward towards getting this long-running matter resolved, and the minutes of last Monday evening’s meeting will hopefully record the main points of what was said.

So, Wembley Matters readers, and the rest of Brent’s citizens, will have to carry on waiting for details of why the payment was made, if that is found to be different from the Council version(s), to be officially revealed. You can be sure, however, that the five local electors who objected to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts will do their best to see that the truth comes out, eventually.

Philip Grant.

Lib Dems down to zero on Brent Council and Tories play political musical chairs

Lib Dem councillor Helen Carr introduces herself to Tim Farron

Tonight's Brent Council meeting began with an announcement that the only Lib Dem councillor had decided to become an Independent - ending Lib Dem representation on a Council where they were once senior partner in a Coalition with Paul Lorber as their leader. Carr gave no explanation to the meeting but celebrated her independence by abstaining on most of the votes that took place tonight.

My prediction before the meeting

Joel Davidson after his recent attack on Tory Leader John Warren announced that he was moving to the Kenton Tory Group who now (for how long?) have 4 members to Brondesbury Park's 2. At one point the Kenton Tories were split 2-2 on a vote so three Tory groups may not be faraway.

Tories Kansagra, Davidson, Colwill and Maurice

I am not clear who is now the leader of the opposition, if wonder if the Tories are?

Davidson, the only person who comes close to a Brent Council version of Hugh Grant, was in his element making drawling contributions to the meeting but Cllr Warren once more provided the only real opposition.

Warren raised the fact that the Brent Development Plan hadn't been legally compliant at the time of its approval by the Council and had only been saved by suggested modifications from the Planning Inspector.   He cited the Auditor's acceptance of 5 objections to Brent Council's accounts for further investigation as extremely unusual with most local authority accounts sailing through through the process without challenge.

Perhaps his most powerful intervention was in a motion calling for the CEO to prepare a report on the possibility of Brent returning to a Committee system of governance for consideration by the Full Council. He explained that only eight people, the Cabinet, were really involved in decision making and the other 55, of all parties, excluded.

Warren suggested that the South Kilburn Granville debacle would not have happened if a cross-party committee had examined the proposal.

Rather than actually debating the merits of the proposal Cllr Butt, Labour leader, denounced it as a political ploy to 'take us back to the 80s' and his councillors duly voted it down.

Cllr Warren during the debate had said he had heard that the Labour Group held 'votes on whether to vote' but one of their number told me afterwards that they seldom had votes at all - 'everything is decided by acclamation'...

Tory turmoil is bad for Brent democracy

No, I am not remotely sympathetic to the Tory party.

However, I do believe that with 56 of Brent's 63 councillors being Labour we need an effective opposition to provide proper scrutiny of council policy and in particular its multi-million budget. Instead we have 6 Tories who currently have split into two opposing groups and an ineffective lone Lib Dem.

The Kilburn Times LINK reported this week on a claim by Brondesbury Park Tory John Warren that the three Kenton Tories have been de-selected and then followed that up with a claim by Warren's colleague, Joel Davidson, LINK that Warren had publicly sabotaged a deal that could have seen the two Tory groups come together again.

Doubtless Labour will make the most of this at Monday's Council meeting (you can see it from 7pm on livestreaming HERE)

Brent CEO Carolyn Downs  recently warned the Labout Group at an awayday that their internal squabbles were making it very difficult for Council officers to work effectively and there are reports that even within the Cabinet two camps are developing.

Disagreements are inevitable and a little 'creative tension' over policy can be beneficial but disputes in both camps seem to be more about personalities than policy - Brent residents deserve better.

Controversial Tory choice for Brent and Harrow GLA seat

The Conservatives have selected Joel Davidson as their constituency candidate for the Brent and Harrow GLA constituency. Davidson is a Brondesbury Park councillor and belongs to one of the two Conservative groups on Brent Council.

Davidson is often controversial. Apart from his campaign against a homeless hostel in Brondesbury Park he called for Brent Council to stop funding the Tricycle Theatre as a result of their decision not to accept Israeli Embassy funds for the Jewish Film Festival (a decision later reversed) LINK

He is a contributor to Conservative Home and as a newly elected councillor turned down the ipad and iphone distributed to all councillors. LINK

I have not heard whether he will resign as a councillor as he is standing for the GLA. Meanwhile Twitter warned  me that a tweet about Davidson contained 'sensitive material'.

 

Final outcome of Tory showdown at Brent's OK Corrall uncertain

Last night's Full Meeting of Brent Council must have left the new Chief Executive Carolyn Downs wondering about the tough task ahead in getting the Council out of its slough of despond, while Christine Gilbert could be forgiven for celebrating her forthcoming liberation by performing  cartwheels in the Civic Centre atrium.

The showdown between the two groups of Tory Councillors dominated the business part of the meeting but when the gunfire died down no one could agree on the final outcome.

The 56 Labour councillors may have decided to recognise the Kenton Tories as the principal opposition with the status and funding that goes with that or the decision may have been  handed over to a constitutional working party to negotiate on before the next meeting of the General Purposes Committee.

CLARIFICATION (sic) These are the responses I got this morning:
 

Brent Council Press Office:

The group led by Cllr Kansagra was voted in as the principal opposition last night.  

Cllr Michael Pavey (Deputy Leader - Labour)

As it stands Kenton are the principal Opposition. There is a meeting of the constitution committee next week which will review the situation,  but only a vote by Full Council or a change in the number of members in either Tory Group can change this.

The next challenge is to try and allocate Committees between the two.

Cllr Joel Davidson (Briondesbury Park Conservatives)

What happened is that Mo Butt has chosen the Kenton Group to be Principal Opposition, that's what he got his Group to vote for last night. That means that Kansagra and Colwill will once again draw the allowances - 12k and 8k - that come with being Leader and Deputy Leader.

The constitutional working party, if there is one, is supposed to negotiate between the 2 Opposition Groups - Brent Tories and Kenton/Butt Group - as to who sits on the 6 main committees - GP, planning, equalities etc. 

If we can't agree, as seems very likely, then Council will again vote to give all the main committee posts to the Kenton/Butt Group.  It's another sad day for democracy in Brent when a Dear Leader can hand-pick a pliant Opposition which has no political affiliation and is committed to giving him as easy a ride as possible.  As I asked Butt last night - is 56 Labour Cllrs not enough that you need to co-opt 3 more AND make them the 'Opposition'??  

Meanwhile the tweets can tell the story:

Brent Conservatives: splits, leaders and ultimatums

The split between the two Conservative groupings on Brent Council has widened following intervention of Conservative Campaign Head Quarters.

A Brent Conservatives' AGM was held recently attended by CCHQ and SE England officials at which Cllr John Warren was elected leader.

However the meeting was attended by only the three 'Brondesbury Park' Conservatives with the three 'Kenton Conservatives' absent.   I understand that the Kenton Conservatives had already held their own AGM of their 'official' group (recognised as such at the last Brent Council AGM) to which the Brondesbury Park Tories were not invited as they are not part of the group.

They elected Cllr Suresh Kansagra leader.

Conservative Campaign Head Quarters have now issued an ultimatum to the Kenton Group which expires at 1pm on Monday to accept Cllr Warren as leader following what they consider the constitutionally valid election, or forfeit their right to be considered Conservative Party councillors and to stand as Conservatives at the next local election.

Cllr Joel Davidson told me today that Brent residents had been 'ill-served by the weak opposition to Labour provided up to now by Cllr Suresh Kansagra and the Kenton Conservatives.'  He said that a stronger Conservative opposition would seek to represent not just Conservative voters but everyone who had not voted Labour.

Davidson went on to say that the failure of the Kenton Conservatives to vote for the Brondesbury Park no confidence motion in Muhammed Butt and the alternative budget proposals Kenton had put forward proved their cosy relationship with Brent Labour.

The results of the most recent AGM have been communicated to Brent Council officials ahead of the vote due to be held at the Council AGM on May 20th on who to recognise as the Principal Opposition Party.

Will Labour vote for Cllr Kansagra's group or the rather more militant Bondesbury Group?