Cllr Duffy resigns from Brent Labour Group in protest over asbestos issue

Cllr Duffy's new seating position between Tory front bench and Cllr Carr

Cllr Duffy (Kilburn) resigned from Brent Labour Group  at the beginning of tonight's Full Council Meeting over the lack of support from the Group over the Paddington Cemetery asbestos issue (covered below).

Despite support for Duffy from Cllr John Warren (Conservative Group leader) the Mayor refused to allow discussion of the issue.

Cllr Tom Miller, a member of the Labour Group, tweeted:  'Frustrating at #BrentLive to have people trying to wedge in serious issue of asbestos without sorting out an agenda item or using the correct process generally. Gah.'

Later in the evening the Chair of the Audit Committee appeared to believe that a lengthy private discussion of a report on the asbestos dump and the participation of two independent members of the committee, made an independent inquiry unnecessary as they were satisfied  with the officer's report.

Brent Tories call on Brent Council leader to 'clear the air' over planning allegations

Cllr John  Warren has written to Cllr Butt, Leader of Brent Council, regarding this week's Brent and Kilburn Times front page:

Dear Muhammed,
 
                           I refer to the front- page article in this week's Brent & Kilburn Times in respect of the three meetings that you held with the developer R55 earlier this year.It was noted in the article that one such meeting took place the day before the Minavil House  planning decision was made....this was a R55 development.
 
    You will be aware of the considerable public disquiet with Brent's planning process, and the allegations- albeit unproven to date - of your interference in this process.

I would hope you would take this opportunity to " clear the air."

1. What was the purpose of these three meetings,and in broad terms what was discussed?

2. Why were no minutes of these meetings taken - so as to follow LGA guidance?

3.What meetings have you held with other developers in Brent -particularly Quintain- since 2014?

4. Please confirm, for the record, that you have not attempted to influence the votes of any member of the planning committee ?

Regards,

     John

Cllr John Warren

Brent Conservative Group Leader
         Brondesbury Park Ward

Brent Conservatives misleading on Tricycle

The following motion has been submitted by Brent Conservative Group for the next Full Council meeting on Monday July 10th:

TRICYCLE THEATRE
 

This Council notes with dismay the recent awarding of £1m. to the Tricycle Theatre by Brent’s cabinet. 

This Council is particularly surprised at the decision in the light of.....
- apparent lack of monies in Brent’s coffers.
- failure to invite other community groups to bid for the available £1m.
- the artistic discrimination previously shown by the Tricycle in cancelling the Jewish Film Festival. 

This Council calls upon cabinet to allocate the £1m. through an open bidding process inviting applications from all community groups ....not just the Tricycle. 

Councillor John Warren


Leader of the Brent Conservative Group Brondesbury Park Ward

I have no problem with the Tories querying the bidding process for the grant but would point out that the claim that the Tricycle Theatre cancelled the Jewish Film Festival is incorrect. The Tricycle did not cancel the Festival - the UK Jewish Film Festival organisers withdrew the festival from the Tricycle. Although the Tricycle later changed its position this is what it said at the time LINK:

-->

We have been contacted by several patrons who have been given misleading information about the Tricycle and the UK Jewish Film Festival. We would like to set down an accurate account. 

The Tricycle has always welcomed the Festival and wants it to go ahead. We have proudly hosted the UK Jewish Film Festival for many years. However, given the situation in Israel and Gaza, we do not believe that the festival should accept funding from any party to the current conflict.  For that reason, we asked the UK Jewish Film Festival to reconsider its sponsorship by the Israeli Embassy.  We also offered to replace that funding with money from our own resources. The Tricycle serves many communities and celebrates different cultures and through difficult, emotional times must aim for a place of political neutrality. 

We regret that, following discussions, the chair of the UKJFF told us that he wished to withdraw the festival from the Tricycle.   

To be clear, at this moment, the Tricycle would not accept sponsorship from any government agency involved in the conflict. We hope to find a way to work with the UK Jewish Film Festival to allow the festival to go ahead at the Tricycle as it has done so successfully for the past 8 years.’  

Indhu Rubasingham

'Remind me, please, who is our local Council meant to serve?' - Brent Council propaganda on Wembley Stadium condemned

Brent Council's celebratory announcement of the approval of the Wembley Stadium - Tottenham Hotsput planning application to increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium has drawn stinging criticism.

Cllr John Warren has written to fellow councillors:

Am I the only member appalled at the "celebratory " tone of the Your Brent piece on the Wembley Stadium / Spurs planning approval on the Brent website?

The piece mentions the "extensive consultation process, "but is completely silent on the results of that consultation! Our intelligence is then insulted by a quote from a Brent Council spokesman, who speaks about a " balance being struck." What balance?

It is complete propaganda...and why are we celebrating a decision which offends a very large number of our residents? The phrase "rubbing salt in the wound " springs to mind.

Cllr John Warren

On Friday Philip Grant on a comment on this  blog wrote:

It is sickening that, this morning, Brent Council's website has a banner headline celebrating Spurs being given full capacity use of Wembley Stadium, linked to a Council press release about the Planning Committee decision which does not mention the objections made by local residents and businesses:
https://www.brent.gov.uk/council-news/press-releases/pr6556/

Remind me, please, who is our local Council meant to serve?

... and then, to add insult to injury, at 1pm today the Council emailed me "Spurs are on their way to Wembley!", a copy of the latest "Your Brent" digital news-sheet, with the same banner headline celebrating the Planning Committee decision.

But this is a very distorted news report, because it makes no mention of the very valid objections put forward to the committee, by local people and some councillors on behalf of their residents.

It is as if the Council's press release reporting the decision was prepared before the Planning Committee meeting took place, which it probably was!

Philip Grant

This is the Council's statement. complete with an image of celebratory fountains, posted on its website on the evening of March 23rd - the day of the Planning Committee:

Temporary increase to full capacity events at Wembley Stadium approved

23 March 2017

An application from the FA/Wembley National Stadium Ltd to temporarily increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium has been agreed by Brent Council's Planning Committee this evening (March 23).

The decision, which follows an extensive consultation process, paves the way for 22 additional full capacity events for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club matches, of up to 90,000 fans to take place at the stadium between August 2017 and July 2018.

Under current rules there is no limit on the number of events that can be held at a maximum capacity of 51,000.

It is understood that Tottenham Hotspur are set to make the national stadium their temporary home while their new ground at White Hart Lane is developed.

Wembley had originally requested permission for an additional 31 full capacity events but this was reduced to 22 prior to the application coming to committee. The application has now been approved subject to a number of additional measures being put in place, including ones designed to deal with the impacts of increased numbers of people in the area. These include controlling parking and traffic, signage, street cleaning, event management and control of public safety including aspects such as alcohol sale and street trading. The Committee heard from objectors and the applicant before making their decision.

A Brent Council spokesperson said: "Wembley Stadium is a highly valued part of our borough bringing visitors from around the world. We are pleased that a balance has been struck between recognising the impact on local residents and businesses whilst enabling the Stadium to make good use of its facilities and support a London club to operate in the capital while their ground is being redeveloped."

"We look forward to working closely with the Stadium, the Football Association and Tottenham Hotspur Football Club in the forthcoming year both on the management of events and their work in the local community that they outlined in their application."

Brent CEO confirms Cllr Butt's right to speak on Wembley Stadium Planning Application tomorrow

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council CEO, has responded to my request for clarification on the Council Leader’s right to speak on the Spur’s/Wembley Stadium Planning Application tomorrow evening:

Cllr Butt is entitled to speak at the planning committee in his role as a ward member representing the views of the residents of Tokyngton ward on this planning application.

The issue was also taken up with Carolyn Downs by Cllr John Warren, Brent Conservative Group:

I understand that Cllr. Butt intends to address the meeting in support of the application from Spurs re.Wembley Stadium .

If true, I find this outrageous and is a clear conflict of interest.  I recognise that he is a Tokyngton ward councillor, but there are two other members of his ward. I do not believe that Cllr.Butt has spoken in the past few years at planning  on the numerous Quintain applications that have been made in his ward.....for obvious reasons. As a cheer-leader, and leader of Brent Council, it would be totally inappropriate for any involvement from him at planning.

Brent was recently on the receiving end of a savage report from PWC regarding all aspects of the planning process. Surely, Brent should be conscious of the need to have a process that is  not only  totally fair and even- handed  but seen by a “reasonable person “ to be fair and even-handed.

I believe that Cllr.Butt speaking at the meeting would jeopardise any belief  that this controversial planning decision will be dealt with fairly....having the Council leader attempting “ undue influence “ on the committee members is hardly a fair approach.

Carolyn Downs replied:

As you know Cllr Butt is entitled to address the planning committee as a local ward member and raise issues that are specific to his role as a local member representing the views of the residents in Tokyngton ward.

It will be interesting to see how Cllr Butt maintains the separation between representing the views of residents, his own views amd his views as Council and Labour Group leader tomorrow evening.

This is what the Brent Constitution says about the Committee’s deliberations:

36.         When the Planning Committee vote to refuse an application contrary to the recommendation of officers, the Chair shall put to the meeting for approval a statement of the planning reasons for refusal of the application, which if approved shall be entered into the minutes of that meeting. Where the reason for refusal proposed by the Chair is not approved by the meeting, or where in the Chair’s view it is not then possible to formulate planning reasons for refusal, the application shall be deferred for further consideration at the next meeting of the Committee. At the next meeting of the Committee the application shall be accompanied by a further written report from officers, in which the officers shall advise on possible planning reasons for refusal and the evidence that would be available to substantiate those reasons. If the Committee is still of the same view then it shall again consider its reasons for refusing permission which shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. 


37.        Members of the Planning Committee shall refrain from personal abuse and party political considerations shall play no part in their deliberations. Members of the Planning Committee shall be respectful to the Chair and to each other and to officers and members of the public including applicants, their agents and objectors and shall not bully any person. Members of the Planning Committee should not make up their mind before hearing and considering all relevant information at the meeting and should not declare in advance of the vote, how they intend to vote on a particular application or other matter. 


38.        Members of the Planning Committee should not speak to members of the public (including applicants, agents and journalists) during a meeting of the Planning 
Committee or immediately prior to or after the meeting concerned, other than where permitted by this Code or Standing Orders. 

41.        When questioning members of the public or the applicant who have spoken at a meeting of the Committee, members of the Planning Committee shall ensure that their questions relate only to planning matters relevant to the particular application, and the question should not be party political. 


Move to discuss Bridge Park land sale to GMH defeated by Brent Labour

I drew attention to the above notice that was posted on the Agenda of Monday's Council Meeting in a recent article LINK claiming that the public interest was not served by curtailing discussion on these important items.

At the Council Meeting Cllr Warren moved the suspension of Standing Orders to allow discussion to take place but this was heavily defeated by Labour and other councillors.

In the course of the discussion Cllr Warren, speaking to Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, referred to 'Your friend Mr Auchi'.  Sir Nadhmi Shakir Auchi is Chairman of the off-shore British Virgin Islands company General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH) which is Brent Council's partner in the redevelopment of Bridge Park.  Muhammed Butt is the lead member for the conditional land sale of the Bridge Park site to GMH.

At the Brent Cabinet on January 16th Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of the Council, said that she was 'thrilled' by the Bridge Park deal. LINK

Auchi is controversial because of a 2003 allegation of  fraud LINK and of course the whole issue of tax havens and tax avoidance is a current political issue with Jeremy Corbyn promising action by a future Labour Government.

Cllr Thomas intervened to call for Cllr Warren to withdraw his statement about 'Your friend Mr Auchi' directed at his leader, as the Council Meeting was being streamed and he wouldn't want a 'wrong impression' to be given. Warren, saying he couldn't remember exactly what  he'd said,went on to say, 'Mr Auchi has connections with the Labur Party. Let me say that. That is what I was referring to.'

The alleged link goes back to 2001 when the Guardian published an article entitled 'A Tycoon, a Minister and Interpol' LINK and involved Keith Vaz MP.

You can see the live stream and the vote on suspensions of standing orders here:

Brent’s 2015/16 accounts – progress on objections to the Cara Davani “pay-off

Guest blog by Philip Grant

As it is a couple of months since I wrote about the latest developments in “the Cara Davani Saga” LINK , I thought that the many “Wembley Matters” readers who are interested in this case might like an update on what has been happening.

The Auditor at Messrs KPMG dealing with the Council’s accounts to 31 March 2016 is still considering the objections from five local electors against Brent’s payment of £157,610 to its former Director of HR, so I cannot pass on any details which are still confidential at this stage. However, I hope that they will eventually come into the public domain when the Auditor has completed his enquiries.

In my guest blog of 19 November I said that I was willing to discuss the issues raised with Brent Council, along with the other objectors, as encouraged to do by the Auditor. I did ask to see a number of documents relevant to the payments I had objected to, although my request was rejected, in respect of most of them, by Brent’s Chief Finance Officer. Despite this, along with three other objectors, I met with him and the Council’s Chief Executive on the evening of 6 December 2016. The fifth objector, Cllr. John Warren, could not make that meeting, but had met with them separately earlier that day.

Although no agreement was reached, the discussions took place in a constructive atmosphere, and helped both sides to understand the other’s position. The objectors explained to Ms Downs and Mr Hall why they felt that the £157k paid to Ms Davani was wholly inappropriate expenditure for the Council to incur, and that this was money which should instead have been used to provide services for people in Brent.

The Chief Executive agreed that the whole episode did not reflect positively on the Council, and she did not dispute that elements had been poorly managed, but said that steps have since been taken to ensure that the organisation no longer operates in this way.

Much of the meeting was spent going through the list of documents I had requested to see, and discussing points arising from these. Mr Hall explained that the Council felt it could not allow the objectors to see any legally privileged advice or confidential documents (which was most of them!). However, the auditor would be provided with all of the information that is available, so that he can reach a decision based on that evidence.

Although we could not see the documents, the discussions did provide some interesting information.

We asked for more information about the circumstances which gave rise to Cara Davani leaving Brent. When Ms Downs provided a brief outline of the grounds on which the former HR Director claimed she was entitled to compensation from the Council, the objectors expressed their incredulity. I am sorry that details have to remain confidential for now, but I can say that we asked Ms Downs whether she was joking, and she said that she was not!

One surprising fact was that for many items I had asked to see, no documented evidence had yet been found, even though it should have existed. Ms Downs agreed it was unthinkable that key decisions, such as whether to take disciplinary action against Cara Davani in 2014 or whether to make a settlement agreement with her in 2015, had not been discussed with the Council Leader by the then interim Chief Executive, even though the final decision would be for Christine Gilbert to make.

The absence of any evidence of those discussions suggests that either they were entirely verbal (with no written note made of them), or that they had “off the record” written communications, or even that evidence was deleted or shredded before Ms Gilbert left Brent Council. [Dear Reader: If you can provide any definite information (not just speculation) on this matter, and are willing to share it not only with me, but also with Carolyn Downs and the Auditor, it would be helpful if you could do so, please.]

Following the meeting, Brent Council sent the Auditor its formal response to our objections on 14 December. The Council maintains its view: ‘… that the settlement payment to the former HR Director was made lawfully and that, under the circumstances that existed at the time it was agreed, it was the most appropriate way forward in order to protect the Council’s financial position.’ It recommends to the Auditor ‘… that you should either dismiss the Objections, or at any rate conclude that you should take no action in respect of them.’

Brent’s response concludes by referring to a separate letter sent to the Auditor, attaching the confidential and legally privileged documents, and makes clear that the Council does not consent to these being disclosed to anyone else (i.e. the objectors!).

I wrote to the Auditor about these documents, pointing out that he had invited the objectors to make further comments, and that it was unfair to expect us to do so without being able to see the evidence on which those comments needed to be based. Just before Christmas he did reply to say that he would share with us all of the documents which he considered material to his decision. We have not seen any of these documents yet.

The sticking point is over whether the objectors should be allowed to see the legal advice, which appears to provide the sole justification for the Council making the £157k payment to Cara Davani. The Auditor could not force Brent to disclose that advice to him, but the Council did so voluntarily, and there is a provision which allows the Auditor to disclose information: ‘…except where the disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective performance of …’ his functions as Auditor.

As well as giving an assurance that I would keep the information confidential, I have pointed out that disclosing the legal advice would actually assist the effective performance of his function as Auditor, by giving me the opportunity to either satisfy myself that the legal advice, and actions taken by the Council as a result of it, were lawful, or to explain to him why the evidence supported my objection that the payment involved was unlawful.

What I can tell you about the legal advice is that, although it is said to have been given by an employment law QC, it was not a written legal opinion from him, but a note made by a Brent Council officer of what the QC is claimed to have said. That advice was summarised by the Chief Finance Officer to Brent’s Audit Committee on 30 June 2016, as recorded in the minutes of that meeting:

‘Conrad Hall explained that in May 2015 advice had been sought from a leading QC specialising in employment law.  The QC had been recommended by the Council’s Monitoring Officer from a framework contract operated by the London boroughs legal alliance.  His advice, in conference, had in summary been that the Council lacked good grounds to conduct a fair dismissal of the Council’s former HR Director for a variety of reasons, and had it attempted to do so it was likely to have been found to have acted unfairly by an Employment Tribunal.  Conrad Hall further advised that had such a course of action been attempted then the Council had been notified that a substantial claim would have been submitted by the former HR Director and that under those circumstances the decision had been taken to seek to settle matters by way of a compromise agreement.’ 

Once we have been given the opportunity to see all the documents which the Auditor does disclose to us, all five objectors can submit their further comments. One of the points that I am likely to make is that there appears to be no evidence that Brent dismissed, or even attempted to dismiss, Cara Davani, so how could the Council be ‘… found to have acted unfairly by an Employment Tribunal’ for something that it didn’t do?

I’m afraid that readers will have to wait for the Auditor to complete his enquiries before we discover the outcome of this final attempt to get something done about what many of us feel was an injustice. I hope that the result will be worth waiting for.

Philip Grant.

After rancorous Scrutiny Committee a chance to move forward on Granville?

Cllr Roxanne Mashari's scalp was still intact at the end of yesterday's Scrutiny meeting on the Carlton/Granville redevelopment despite the best efforts of the cross-party combo,  'The Two Johnnies', Cllrs Warren and Duffy.

Cllr Warren had proposed that Cllr Mashari, lead member for Regeneration be stood down from the South Kilburn part of her portfolio because of 'her failure to reply to several important e-mails or to visit the Granville Centre or the school during the period July-October 2016 causing the local community to believe Brent Council was intending to demolish a community asset without consultation.'

Instead he proposed that a Task Force be set up led by the council leader and include the three Kilburn ward councillors and one or two members of the local community. The  Task Force 'should review and ensure that there is a balance (of) private sector housing, social sector housing and community services, such as Health centres, Schools, Employment Hubs and Community Centres.

The Committee Chair, Cllr Kelcher, attempted to prevent what he deemed personal attacks  on Cllr Mashari from both Cllr Warren and Duffy.

Much of the controversy hinged on the July Cabinet's approval of Option 2 on the redevelopment of Carlton-Granville which residents and users saw as approving complete demolition of the site. This is the actual record on the Cabinet decision:

-->

(i)        that approval be given to Option 2 for redeveloping the Carlton & Granville Centres, Granville Road, London, NW6 5RA (the subject site) to deliver 95 new homes, an Enterprise Hub and 3274sqm of additional community use space;

(ii)       that a further update be provided to formally approve final scheme plans and the required capital investment to bring forward the phased redevelopment of the Carlton and Granville Centres and ensure continuity of occupation for the Enterprise Hub within the site;

(iii)      that the site be included within the scope of the South Kilburn Masterplan review to ensure wider place making considerations are incorporated;

(iv)      that the Strategic Director for Resources in consultation with the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment, Chief Legal Officer and Chief Finance Officer enter into a legal agreement with the South Kilburn Trust and the GLA to secure their funding contributions in return for project delivery of the Enterprise Hub by March 2018, and setting out Council commitment to underwrite the shortfall in project funds;

(v)       that authority be delegated to the Strategic Director for Resources in consultation with the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment, Chief Legal Officer and Chief Finance Officer to oversee scheme development through further viability testing, local consultation, and planning consent;

(vi)      that authority be delegated to the Strategic Director for Resources in consultation with the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment, Chief Legal Officer and Chief Finance Officer in respect to any works and/or professional services contracts for scheme development to agree pre-tender considerations, invite tenders and thereafter award the contract.

Reason Key: Significant expenditure/savings > 30% of budget for the function in question

Cllr Mashari pointed out that she was not the lead on the July report and admitted that consultation on it had been poor. In his contribution Cllr Nerva said that it was a pity that the councillors responsible (Ed: Cllr Butt (Property and Cllr McLennan) were not present. Certainly I got the distinct impression that Cllr Mashari had been hung out to dry by her colleagues so the proposal to make Cllr Butt the lead was a little strange to say the least.

Cllr Mashari said:

I'll be as transparent and clear and collaborative as possible going forward (on the project). We can't go back in time. I can only guarantee clarity in the future.

Away from the Warren/Duffy-Mashari battle the actual local users of the Centre made passionate speeches about the essential services they provided for the local community. Responding to officer claims that the facilities were under-used  Leslie Barson said that the Council itself had acted to limit its use leading to the run-down. The headteacher and Chair of Governors spoke about the many services offered by Granville Nursery Plus and the £800k extension that had been built for the school.

In the course of the discussion Richard Barrett, Director of Regeneration, seemed to suggest that this building would go when said that the headteacher and her team would be asked to put forward ideas for the nursery school provision and that his team would then turn it into building plans. However, during interchanges it became clear that the South Kilburn Trust would be the senior partner in the redevelopment. Cllr Mashari said that the regeneration of South Kilburn should take into account the need for 'social' regeneration.

Cllr Rita Conneely said that it was important to be clear whether the November report, which was actually the subject of the call-in, was an extension of the July report or an over-turning of that report. In response Cllr Mashari said that 'we have more or less said that complete demolition is not now an option. There is a step change from the July report and that will be shown in the coming months.'

Cllr Pitruzella called for involvement of ward councillors in proposals that affected their ward well in advance of any proposals going to Cabinet. Cllr Duffy said that the council would get more value from developers if they involved people who actually know the local area. Cllr Nerva claimed that one of the reasons for the confusion was the lack of detail of each lead member's portfolio responsibilities.

Towards the end of the meeting during tense exchanges with Cllr Duffy, Cllr Mashari stating that this was not the only occasion there had been conflict with her Labour colleague, revealed that she was asking for disciplinary action against him. She did not specify the form of disciplinary action but this could be through the Labour Party's own procedures or the Council's Code of Conduct for Members.

The Committee decided not to refer back the November decision and instead made the following recommendations:

1) Continuation of Granville Nursery Plus was paramount and the school to be involved in the full design process.
2) Mechanisms need to be adopted to fully involve ward councillors before such reports go to Cabinet (this would be referred to the Constitution Working Group)
3) A full 12 month timetable for the collaborative work on the redevelopment proposals should be constructed as soon as possible and brought back to the Scrutiny Committee
4) Scrutiny should received a full report in six month's  time from lead members and officers on moving the project forward with details of consultations and the progress of collaborative work on the project.

This morning Cllr Duffy wrote to his Labour colleagues giving his take on last night's meeting: (typos corrected)

Dear All,

Went to the Scrutiny Committee last night, to raised the issue of why the Cabinet agreed a report to demolish a thriving community centre and a local school to maximise investment from the private sector and devastate community assets.This was not a mistake this was done by the Cabinet (Neil Kinnock accent) a Labour Cabinet, knowing they had not consulted the school or community centre or local councillors.

The report was agreed in July, but because I highlighted it saying "I would not give it political cover "and a strong community campaign.They were force to reverse it in November.   

At the meeting usual stuff happen. I had put a lot of effort into highlighting the cabinet attempt to demolish the school and centre.However the Chair of the meeting ruled because the first person to call in the report was Cllr Warren he was allowed introduce it that I could only ask 2 questions, not bother I am used of it.

Cllr Warren introduce the item and questioned whether Cllr Mashari was hindering the project by her lack of action and her failure to engage with residents and local councillors, between July and November. The Chair ruled him out of order and said we can only talk about the November meeting ,the fact the November meeting was a result of the failure of the July meeting seemed to escape the Chair. .

A number of residents spoke The Granville centre,The Head of the School, The Chair of Governors, The South Kilburn Trust and both Cllr Connelly and  Cllr Pitruzzella spoke .

Cllr Mashari replied saying she was sorry about the lack of consultation and it was not her fault its was Cllr Butt's fault and various officers, one of whom had nothing to do with the July report. Neil Nevra also spoke saying it was Cllr Butt's fault and he should be called to the meeting.

As I say I was limited to 2 questions which were (1) Why did she vote to demolish the Granville Centre knowing no consultation had taken place?  (2) Why did you not answer any emails or attend any meeting or visit Kilburn between July and November to assure the local community? Cllr Mashari refused to answer the questions as she said she had referred me for disciplinary action which is news to me? The Chair said she did not have to answer the questions so we will never know why she voted to demolish the Granville centre and why she went AWOL between July and November.

The outcome was OK, I think Cllr Mashari was force to make concessions like real consultation and that consultation to be recorded before she makes a decision. Cllr Butt was found guilty in his absence so Cllr Mashari and Cllr Nerva are happy .

I am still a little bemused by the fact the person who voted to demolish Granville centre is now in charge of saving it and the same person who ignored the fact no consultation had taken place is in charge of consultation, but you can't have everything.

So on the night the Kilburn councillors and community seem to have saved the Granville centre from the clutches of the cabinet and Cllr Mashari's wings have been clipped, but did not get a Task- Force to deliver the regeneration of Kilburn ,which is unfortunate but all in all I'm happy.

 Perhaps now South Kilburn residents will be treated with due respect.

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.

Brent: Full Council barred from discussing RSG freeze and Efficiency Plan

Cllr John Warren's request LINK to the Mayor for discussion of the possibility of an Extraordinary Brent Council Meeting to discuss the freezing of Brent Council's Revenue Support Grant (RSG) for four years  and the consequent Efficiency Plan has been turned down by Council Officers.

The Revenue Support Grant is the main source of funding for local councils but is gradually being phased out

This will mean that both decisions will be made by Brent's CEO and Muhammed Butt, and will not be discussed by the Council or any further by the Cabinet.

In a letter to Warren, Fiona Alderman, Brent Council's Chief Legal Officer stated:

The Mayor has considered your request and has confirmed the his response set out below after having taken advice from officers.

"There are no special circumstances justifying the consideration of this item at this meeting as a matter of urgency. I cannot therefore allow it to be added to the agenda. I would also add that the decision on the Financial Position 2017/18- 2019/20 and option to fix RSG settlement is a function exercisable by the Cabinet and has already been considered by the Cabinet."

Cllr Warren, leader of Brent Conservative Group, commented:

It is totally disgraceful that the  leader is allowed to make such an important decision and Council members will not be able to question/ express a view.

Warren seeks details on source & content of Brent's legal advice on Cara Davani

Following the debate at Brent Council yesterday evening LINK when Cllr McLennan said the Council's decision not to discipline Cara Davani and to give her a pay-off was based on legal advice, Cllr John Warren has made the folowing request:

You are aware of my concerns over the pay- off to Ms Davani. I make a formal request for details of the firm that gave advice to Brent to settle on  a £157,610 pay -off.

I also seek details of this advice.

If you are unable to give me this information would you please take this as a freedom of information request.

 I just find it extraordinary that the evidence against Ms Davani at the Employment Tribunal was not deemed sufficient to pursue disciplinary action against her.

 I have also received the following comment from a reader.

How could Cara Davani (CD) claim constructive dismissal as she had already been found guilty at a tribunal of bullying and harassment?

How could she be entitled to statutory redundancy payments as she was not directly employed by the Council / paid through payroll as an employee for more than two years?

Had she been employed by the Council for more than two years and not been found guilty at a tribunal for matters potentially deemed to be gross misconduct, whereby she could have been dismissed, she would only be entitled to statutory redundancy pay,  which I understand to be one week's pay per year of service.

It beggars belief that Brent should pay CD this extortionate amount of money. Perhaps Brent should consider sacking, or suing their lawyers. 

Brent Council to debate call for Independent Inquiry into Rosemarie Clarke case on Monday

The Brent Conservative Group motion on the Rosemarie Clarke case has been redrafted LINK and accepted by Fiona Alderman Brent's Chief Legal officer. It will now be circulated for debate at Monday's Full Council Meeting (7pm Brent Civic Centre).

The motion now reads:

This Council agrees to an independent inquiry into all aspects of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case.

This Council agrees that the inquiry shall commence at the conclusion of the Tribunal remedy hearing.We further agree that the inquiry costs shall be funded from reserves and that the new Chief Executive shall be charged with setting up the inquiry panel.

The new Chief Executive will have overall responsibility for setting the terms of reference,but this Council agrees that the following questions will be included in the terms of reference.........

1.What was the rationale behind the Council initially bringing disciplinary action against the claimant and was it fair and reasonable?

2. Why did the Council pursue this matter so vigorously through the Tribunal......and was it fair and reasonable?

3. What part,if any ,did this case figure in the departure of senior management from Brent?

4. What were the financial arrangements behind the second respondent's departure from Brent,including any indemnity given in respect of Tribunal costs awarded specifically against the second respondent?

5. What role did Cllr. Butt play throughout this case?

6. What were the total costs in this case ......and was it a fair and reasonable way to spend Council taxpayer monies?

7. What reputational damage, if any, has this case done to Brent Council?

This Council believes that this is an important independent inquiry, and that both Brent Council staff and Brent residents would support such an inquiry.

MORE BRENT COUNCIL SCANDAL! Now they ban opposition motion seeking the truth

On top of the denial of a deputation to Philip Grant (see posting below) Brent Council has now advised that a  motion for Monday's Council Meeting from the Brent Conservative Group should not be moved or accepted as drafted:

This is the message received by Cllr John Warren: 

Dear Councillor Warren

I have reviewed the Motion selected by the Brent Conservative Group.  My advice would be that it is not appropriate for individual, current employees or former employees of the Council to be named in this context in a Council motion and that the Motion should not be moved or accepted as drafted.

Kind regards,  

Fiona Alderman Chief Legal Officer Chief Operating Officer’s Department

Wembley Matters won't be silenced so here is the motion:

This Council agrees to an independent inquiry into all aspects of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case.

This Council agrees that the inquiry shall commence at the conclusion of the Tribunal remedy hearing. We further agree that the inquiry costs shall be funded from reserves ,and that the new Chief Executive shall be charged with setting up the inquiry panel.

The new Chief Executive will have overall responsibility for setting the terms of reference, but this Council agrees that the following questions will be included in the terms of reference...........

1. What was the rationale behind the Council initially bringing disciplinary action against M/ s Clarke.... and was it fair and reasonable?

2.Why did the Council pursue this matter so vigorously through the Tribunal ......and was it fair and reasonable?

3. What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Fiona Ledden from Brent?

4.What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Cara Davani from Brent?

5. What were the financial arrangements behind Ms Davani ‘s departure from Brent, including any Brent  indemnity given to Ms Davani in respect of Tribunal costs awarded against her personally?

6. What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Christine Gilbert from Brent?

7. What part did Cllr. Butt play in this case throughout its course?

8. What were the total costs in this case.......and was it a fair and reasonable way to spend Council taxpayer monies?

This Council believes this  is an important independent inquiry, and that both Brent Council staff and Brent residents would support such an inquiry