Unanswered question on the financial viability of the Bridge Park/Unisys redevelopment

 The Minutes of the Brent Council Meeting on September 19th have been published for approval this evening.

This is Cllr Butt's answer to my question regarding the development of the Bridge Park/Unisys site. You will note that the financial viability part of the question was not answered:

 

In thanking Councillor Tatler for the written response provided, Martin Francis in asking his supplementary question began by taking the opportunity to highlight that it had been nearly 10 years since former Councillor Dan Filson had warned against dealing with General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH) and 7 years since the Conditional Land Sale Agreement relating to Bridge Park had been approved. Referring to the latest accounts from Stonebridge Real Estate Development Ltd (Subsidiary of GMH registered in Luxembourg) he pointed out these had shown a reduction in valuation of the company from £36m to £29.5m.

 

Members were also reminded of the aim outlined within the Council’s original decision notice relating to the agreement back in 2013 which, he pointed out, had been for the council pursue the option of GMH (and its subsidiary company) developing the Unisys and Bridge Park sites for residential and commercial development to fund a new Bridge Park sports centre with the site value of Bridge Park put at £4m and the cost of a new Sports Centre at £9m and the difference made up from the GMH agreement and Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL). Given the financial update provided he therefore asked whether Bridge Park was still felt to be financially viable and if an update was available on the timeline for completion of the financial viability assessment of the GMH plans and when they were expected to go to planning.

 

In responding on behalf of Councillor Tatler, Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leaderof the Council), thanked Martin Francis for his question and attendance at the meeting along with the reference to former Councillor Dan Filson. In terms of the current position, he advised that the Council were still in discussions with GMH as part of the process in reviewing the plans for Bridge Park so could not give a precise date, at this stage, as to when final design proposals were likely to be submitted to planning. Confirmation was, however, provided on the Council’s intention to undertake consultation regarding the general principles of the development at Bridge Park in order to gauge views, with the Council remaining committed to realising the wider opportunities and potential available through the Bridge Park development recognising the commitment of key stakeholders in seeking to progress the original development proposals. In terms of more detailed timescales, the Leader advised he would be willing to provide these once they had been finalised.

 

'He's got the whole of Brent in his hands' - Muhammed Butt grabs more power

 

It  had been suggested that Cllr Muhammed Butt has taken on Cllr Shama Tatler's portfolio only temporarily until a new Cabinet member was appointed. However, in an updated Full Council Agenda yesterday it appears that this is permanent arrangement.

Cllr Butt has granted himself direct power over Regeneration, Planning and Growth in addition to Housing which he took over when Cllr Promise Knight went on maternity leave.

Given the number of controversial developments and planning decisions in Brent this might be seen as too much power and influence for one person. Cllr Butt hs been pro-active in early meetings with developers before applications get to Planning Committee but now has a formal role. What price the independence of Brent Planning Commitee?

Other changes were notified on the Agenda following the resignation from Committee positions of ex-Deputy Mayor Cllr Diana Collymore:

 

Full Council – 18 November 2024
 

Agenda Item 5 – Appointments to Committees & Outside Bodies
Standing Order 30(g) states that, if necessary, Full Council is required to agree appointments to committees and outside bodies. In addition to the changes listed Council is being asked to confirm the appointment of an Independent Person.

Such appointments are set out below:

Cabinet Membership
 

Council is asked to note that effective from 8 November 2024 the Leader of the Council has incorporated the role of Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth within his remit following Councillor Shama Tatler having stood down from her role as a Cabinet Member.
 

Committee Appointments:

1. Audit & Standards Advisory Committee and Audit & Standards Committee – Councillor Lesley Smith to replace Councillor Teo Benea as a full member.
 

2. Community & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee – Councillor Teo Benea to replace Councillor Diana Collymore as a full member
 

3. Corporate Parenting Committee – Councillor Lesley Smith to replace Councillor Diana Collymore as a full member.
 

4. Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee - Councillor Teo Benea to replace Councillor Diana Collymore as a substitute
member

LETTER: Transparency needed on Peppercorn Rents vs Market Rents for Brent Council properties

 Dear Editor,

Following widespread public interest and concern, including on Wembley Matters, regarding the impact of Brent Council's Strategy Review on the voluntary and community sector, I have written (below) to the  appropriate council officer:

I am writing in my capacity as a Councillor concerned about the potentially damaging impact of the new Property Strategy and it’s implementation on the Brent voluntary sector.

The Property Strategy agreed by Cabinet last week indicates that expired rents will be charged based on market values and that Section 25 Notices will be issued as part of the process to achieve this.

As you know your officers started issuing Section 25 Notices to a number of community organisations in Brent and you officers suggested a completely off the wall (some people may say off their heads) figures.

In the case of the East Lane Theatre Club in my Sudbury Ward a new rent of £75,000 Per year has been suggested.

I know of other organisations in Sudbury subject to the same Property Unit approach.

What assurance can you give that this approach will be applied consistently and that community organisations will be treated fairly and equally.

The Leader of the Council has suggested that “ELTC has been in the fortunate position of being able to have space since 1992 for the sun of £1,500 ….and I can assure you that there are many organisations past and present that would love to have been in that position of having had that space”.

He than also claims that “we must start at open market rents”.

He is clearly ignorant of the facts or has not bothered to find out or has not been briefed properly. As you know there a number of organisations in Brent - many occupying larger premises and since before 1992 - that do not pay any rent for properties which belong to Brent Council and for which the Council is the landlord.

As you know one of these properties is The Kiln Theatre (formerly Tricycle Theatre) with a much larger Theatre building of which Brent Council is the freeholder the rent for which is £1 peppercorn.

You have and should be able to publish the full list of all the Brent Council owned buildings where £1 or nominal rent is paid.

Is it the intention of the Corporate Property Policy to review all these subsidised rents too so as to put all  community organisations on the same basis or is it the intention to penalise some with a Market Rent while favouring others with no rent at all?

You will appreciate that will all look very odd to any independent observer who may question the fairness of an approach the aim of which seems to be to deprive long standing organisations of their premises while others continue to receive favoured treatment. 

Perhaps if the Cabinet were informed of this strange situation they may have asked some questions and perhaps even made a different decision.

Because of the public interest in this matter I am publishing this email and will also publish your response.

 

Cllr Paul Lorber

Muhammed Butt: We must start at open market rates for Brent property leases in order to provide services residents need. Policy hits East Lane Theatre Club

 

In an article on the new Brent Property Strategy on September 2nd LINK I predicted that some community and voluntary groups would not be able to afford the new rent and leases that Brent Council were going to charge as these will be based on open market rates.

Now the East Lane Theatre Club in North Wembley has felt the icy blast of thet policy. The increase demanded by Brent Council is such that the theatre may have to close. The lease would be £75,000 per annum rather tthan the £1,500 currenly paid.

Previous property strategy has taken into account the social value of community and volunary groups but that seems to have gone out the window. A precursor of the current market led policy was seen at Stonebridge Adventure playground and Bridge Park, and more recently in plans for the commercialisation of Barham Park buildings.

Respected local resident Zerine Tata wrote to Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt about the threat to East Lane Theatre Club.

This is the correspondence:

Dear Muhammed,

 

Re: East Lane Theatre

 

I was not aware that the Council was the landlord and you are increasing their rent to a ridiculous level.

 

This little theatre has been there for decades and one of the few icons  left in Wembley.

 

The Council should be subsidising this theatre, not charging them rent!

 

This theatre gives so much pleasure to local residents, it's like bringing the West End to us.

 

Many residents cannot afford West End prices and have been going to this theatre for many years.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Zerine

 Muhammed Butt's response:

 

Dear Zerine

 

Thank you for your email. I have attached the email I sent to you earlier as reference.

 

As you will see that the council has been subsidising the theatre for 32 years now, and your assumption below that we have not is incorrect.

 

We charge rent to residents who have council properties, the council officers have been tasked to look at every property we have to see what we can realise and from that work we think that we can obtain a much better rent for the property if it was let out, the officers have been in touch with the theatre about the way forward,

 

The council get many requests from many organisations that they require a space, we are not able to work with them to provide a space for them. There are organisations past and present that would love to have a building for £1500 pa for the past 32 years, sadly we cannot continue to rent out that level in todays financial and economic climate.

 

The theatre has been in the fortunate position to have been able to benefit from being able to have use for the last 32 years at the subsidised rate of £1500 pa.

 

We cannot say its ok for one organisation to continue to have sole use for perpetuity, the council does not have unlimited spaces that we can provide to every organisation in Brent, we would also look to see who else can utilise that space and what value they bring and add to the priorities set out in the councils borough plan.

 

Any decision we make, we will always get some people who will be happy and some who will be upset with us.

 

We have just launched the council's new property strategy which I have attached for yourself, which details the way forward as to how we will be managing the councils assets , namely the properties we have and those that are leased to organisations or individuals.

 

I wish I had properties to give to everyone who comes to myself, sadly that is not the case.

 

I know from officers that there was a meeting arranged with the theatre. I have been saying that the dialogue needs to continue with the officers, I have been open wth everyone that we are reviewing every lease we have in place and that process will continue with everyone.

 

As I said in my email to you earlier, the theatre needs to work with the officer, sometimes we cannot agree, that is life, and we will sadly then have to agree to disagree, and we will then need to go our separate ways.

 

 

Regards

Muhammed

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council. 

 

Earlier email

 

Dear Zerine

 

Thank you for the email and for raising the concerns about ELTC, 

 

I would love to be able to provide spaces to every organisation in Brent with a space they can call their own, but sadly that is not the case as the demand for spaces and for people asking us to provide those spaces at reduced prices or peppercorn rent, it’s just not feasible for us to accommodate all these types of requests and it's not financially sustainable for the council to continue in this manner.

 

The council officers are reviewing all properties that the council has and are looking at the terms of all those leases and what value and returns there are not just for Brent but for the wider community in Brent.  

 

The last 14 years have been the most challenging for local government with councils like Brent being stripped bare of the finances that we need to be able to provide even the most basic of services to our residents. 

 

We have lost over £200m in funding that has impacted severely on how and what services we can provide.  

 

ELTC has been in the fortunate position of being able to have had a space since 1992 for the sum of £1500 pa and Brent is proud to have supported the club in that time and I can assure you that there many organisations past and present that would love to have been in that position of having had that space. 

 

As you may know the lease was for 30 years, and this makes it 32 years to date. The council has been quite accommodating for that period, but today the council is in a very different situation to when the lease started, and we are reviewing all policies across the council.

 

The ending of a lease is no different to any other lease and as a responsible landlord we would need to look at what other options may be open to us, I appreciate that you may say that we need to look at helping community organisations, but this lease has been there now for over 30 years, I think we have demonstrated that we have helped this organisation over the 30 plus years they have had use of the space.

 

We have to be honest with ourselves and with organisations that want to utilise the assets that we have, we must make sure that we are trying to achieve the best that we can from everything that we have, the officers have been tasked with looking at all the councils assets and to look at how we can maximise the opportunities and that means that we must look at rental income from all the spaces that we have, this is a duty that is on local government.

 

I am being honest with yourself, we must start at open market rents, so that the rents contribute to the council's borough priorities so that we can provide the services that so many residents need and depend upon.

 

We are being forced to look at redundancies, closing and reducing services, increasing fees and charges, if we are doing this to residents , then I have to be honest with you, the club, and others, we must look at the assets and whether we are attaining the best value and outcomes for the council and the residents that we serve and also look at whether the charges / rents are realistic or attain the outcomes in relation to finance and measurable outcomes that deliver for Brent.  

 

We have just launched a new housing campaign as we have a projected £16m overspend and we are now saying openly to residents that we must move them to Slough, High Wycombe, Birmingham and even further as we cannot find a place in Brent and we now know that many people will not be able to afford a property in Brent or even London. 

 

 https://www.brent.gov.uk/news-in-brent/2024/august/find-a-place-you-can-afford, 

 

I cannot with my hand on my heart say to residents to move out of London unless I can say to myself that I have done everything possible before asking them to move out of Brent. 

 

The rental income could help us to continue to provide the services people need, keep people employed or help towards us being able to secure homes that our residents need. 

 

Virtually every day and even today , I have had residents begging me to help them to find a safe, secure, space for them and their families as they have been made homeless and have been evicted by their landlords. 

 

I have to make some really difficult choices and decisions and whatever decisions I make there will be someone who will disagree with myself.

 

The rent that was being paid of £1500 pa for the last 32 years would have come to about £48000 over that 32-year period , the officers have looked to see what rent can be realised if we went to the open market, and that is the reason for the new rent levels of £75000 pa. 

 

Accepting the rent of £1500 pa is something that we just cannot continue with that low level of rent, the financial loss to the council is too great, and it would be remiss of ourselves if we did not review the situation.

 

I appreciate that this new proposed rent level may seem high, but we also have a duty to make sure that we are realising the best value for the council as well. 

 

I know that people would want me to look at what they are delivering how it has helped them, but that would need to be measured against the council's borough plan priorities and how we can safeguard and support the most vulnerable and needy in our society and community.

 

I have copied in the two senior officers Tanveer and Denish who manage the councils' assets, they have been tasked to review the assets we have and to look at every lease with every organisation that has a lease with us, they are all going through the same process of rent revaluation.

 

I urge ELTC to keep on working with the officers and we can look to see what we can do to help assist. 

 

Thank you for your email and for making the case to support ELTC. 

 

 

Regards

Muhammed

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council. 

 

Brent Cabinet rejects residents' petition calling for wider discussion of the impact of additional Wembley Stadium events. Planning Committee decision tomorrow.

 

The petition calling on Brent Council to hold a wider consultation on Wembley Stadium's application to hold more large events was presented to the Cabinet yesterday. Presenting the petition Cllr Paul Lorber first declared an interest in having received tickets for events at the stadium that he had then passed on to residents. At the beginning of the meeting Cllr Muhammed Butt asked his Cabinet colleagues if they had any interests to declare and they remained silent - as did he.

 The petition has been added to the end of this post. It points out the impact of events on residents and asks for a public meeting where residents can express their views and the Council respond accordingly. Cllr Lorber pointed out that two representations at tomorrow's decision making Planning Committee, of only a few minutes each, was not sufficient to represent the widespread concerns.

There was no direct response to that request from the Cabinet.

Cllr Shama Tatler, lead member for Planning and Regeneration was  circumspect in her answer, acknowledging the potential for a contribution to be seen as predetermination of the application. She spoke of the need to balance the interests of residents with the economic drive that the stadium gives to Wembley. She said she did not want to comment any further as the planning application is live.

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt showed no such inhibitions:

The stadium has been here longer than all of us have been born and makes a significant contribution, not just to Wembley but to the UK. The various events adds to the value of what we plan to do with working with the stadium, for it to be the great stadium it is, and also to make sure we keep our commitment and support for our residents as well.

The applications goes to Planning Committee tomorrow (Wednesday) at 6pm. Apart from the 274 signature petition there are 166 objections and just six in support. However, planning officers recommend that the Committee approve the application alongside various mitigations LINK:

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, having regard to material planning considerations. While there will inevitably be some additional impacts associated withan increase in the number of higher capacity non-sporting events, a range of mitigation measures are proposed and some benefits are also anticipated. The proposal is, on balance, recommended for approval

THE PETITION

We the undersigned petition the council to Consult and to Listen to concerns of local residents and businesses about the impact of increasing the number of "Large" Events at Wembley Stadium

 

Plans for the new Wembley Stadium were approved in 1999 with a limit of 37 Large Events per year. A few years later Brent Council allowed an increase to 46 Large Events per year. The Stadium owners have now applied for planning permission to increase this by another 8 to 54 Large Events per year.

 

Large Events at the Stadium have a major impact on the lives of local people and business - especially when as many as three events are held on 3 successive days.

 

We call on Brent Council (jointly with representatives of the FA) to carry out an extensive public consultation with Brent residents and local businesses on the social and economic impacts of Wembley Stadium Large scale events before the Planning Application is considered by the Brent Council's Planning Committee.

 

We believe that local people and businesses have the right to be properly consulted and informed about these possible changes and for their views to be assessed and documented before any decision is made.

 

Bobby Moore Bridge – formal complaint submitted over advertising lease award

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The Question and Answer from the Full Council meeting agenda papers.

 

When I wrote my 10 July guest post “Bobby Moore Bridge murals – where will the advertising money be spent?” it was on the basis of a fairly vague answer given by Cllr. Muhammed Butt to a Full Council meeting question from a member of the public. It looked as if some or all of the rental income from the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease would be spent on Brent’s “communications”, which help to promote the Council Leader and his Cabinet. 

 

The Report to the 28 May Cabinet meeting, which recommended the award of a lease which provided slightly more income but left the tile murals in the subway covered up for at least another four years, had been written by Brent’s Head of Communications. That appeared to be a serious conflict of interests, but I did not think I had strong enough evidence of where the money would be spent to make a complaint.

 

I did not know the person who had asked the question, but did manage to make contact with him. As he was also keen to get a more specific answer, he agreed to ask a supplementary question, and at the Council meeting on 8 July the Mayor promised that he would receive a written answer to it. It took a few weeks, but this is the response, which he has shared with me:

 

So there it is, from the Leader of the Council himself (who is also the Cabinet Lead Member for Communications, so probably knew where the money was going when he announced, without a vote, that Option B had been accepted). ‘All of the income generated from the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising revenue is allocated to the communications service budget.’

 

Now that I had the evidence to back up the case set out in my 10 July guest post, I sent an open letter to Brent’s Chief Executive on 30 August, making a formal complaint about how the award of the advertising lease had been dealt with. I will ask Martin to include a copy of my open letter at the end of this post, for anyone who would like to read it in full, but this is the text of the email that I sent it with, which summarises the position. (I have already received an acknowledgement to it, and a promise that Kim Wright will respond to my complaint):

 

‘Dear Ms Wright,

 

I am attaching an open letter to you, making a formal complaint about bias and a conflict of interests by a Council Officer (or Officers) in the Report and Recommendations to the 28 May 2024 Cabinet meeting on the award of the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease.

 

I am also attaching, as it gives further background and detail on my complaint, a pdf document copy of an online article I had published on 10 July, in response to the answer given to a public question at the 8 July Full Council meeting. 

 

That answer gave an indication of where the rental income from the advertising lease would be spent, but as the Mayor said, at the meeting, that a supplementary question had been asked, to which a written reply would be provided, I have waited for further clarity on the facts before making this complaint.

 

Please see the suggested remedies section, on page 3 of my letter, as urgent action may be required if the new advertising lease from 31 August 2024 has not yet been signed and sealed by the Council. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.’

 

As the Chief Executive is only responsible for the actions of Council staff, not councillors, I had to restrict my complaint to that side of the award. But I also wanted to publicly express my views over the actions of Cllr. Butt, and this letter from me was published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” on 29 August. They published my letter in full, but did not use my suggested heading for it: “Leader abused his power”!

 

Philip Grant.