Brent Council decides bins more important than human rights

Labour Brent Council's Executive last night approved the awarding of the £142.3m Public Realm contract to Veolia despite representations calling for the company to be removed from the procurement process because if its alleged grave misconduct in servicing illegal Israel settlements in the Occupied Territories of Palestine.

 The Executive was addressed by Dan Judelson of Brent Jews for Justice for Palestinians,  Cllr Paul Lorber, leader of the Liberal Democrat group on the council, and myself.

Executive members argued, to varying degrees, that they cared about human rights and the plight of the Palestinians, but that they had no option, for legal reasons and to get the best deal for Brent council tax payers, to award the contract to Veolia. Cllr Jim Moher, rolled out on these occasions as the Executive's blunderbus, accused me and Paul Lorber of attempting to wreck the contract with an eye on gaining electoral advantage next year. He said that people like us, trying to occupy the high moral ground, may be concerned about human rights but the man in the street cared about his bins being emptied. Muhammed Butt summing up said there was no greater advocate than him of the Palestinian cause but that the Council had to act legally and could not risk Veolia taking legal action against them for not following procedures. He added that faced with huge cuts in central government funding the savings the new contract involved was the most important issue.

Fiona Ledden, answering a challenge about lack of transparency in not informing  the campaign and the public of the legal advice she had received regarding  Bin Veolia in Brent's allegation said that she was constrained because it would be irresponsible to share legal advice with the public as it was privileged. It had been shared with members of the Executive behind closed doors. If the advice had been made public it could have been used by other parties in a Judicial Review. She said that she had received clear legal advice that Veolia UK was a separate company from that operating in Israel/Palestine and that in her communications with other local authorities she could find no case of Veolia being excluded from a contract.

This is the speech I made to the Executive:
 

When Muhammed Butt took over from Ann John as council leader he recognised, in the light of the library closures issue, the need to communicate with residents better and engage with them –

        

                                         be a ‘listening council’

Following his disagreement with Gareth Daniel  (former Chief Executive) he recognised the need to rebalance the power relationship between officers and elected members

                                   he wanted to move from ‘managerialism’ to              

                                        political leadership.

The public realm contract issue leads us to ask:

                                what happened to these intentions?

Veolia’s activities in the occupied territories of Israel are a moral and human rights issue, as well as a ‘political one’ just as British companies’ collusion with the Apartheid regime in South Africa was for the Brent Labour administration in the 1980s.

But from the beginning we were handed over to officers to discuss the issue – not elected members.

These officers were about as transparent as a lump of lead.

We gave officers detailed legal evidence on Veolia’s grave misconduct in the occupied territories – the procurement panel decided there were no grounds for exclusion of Veolia but gave no reasons why or how they had reached that decision.

We and our human rights lawyer met Fiona Ledden (Head of Procurement) to ask what legal advice they had received so that we could respond – they refused to tell us what the advice was and its source. We were put in the Kafkaesque situation of attempting to respond to evidence we couldn’t see. Our lawyer warned Fiona Ledden that this refusal could be used to press for a judicial review.

We asked if our allegations had been put to Veolia, they said no.

Surely any fair process would do that and should have in terms of protecting the council’s reputation.

When Veolia did write to the council, apparently of their own volition, they claimed to have sold the Tovlan landfill site. We submitted evidence that this was untrue.  No reaction from officers to being deliberately misled by a bidder.

When Enterprise asked for extra time to put in their final bid they were refused. The council’s reason for refusal of extra time are almost the same, and as unenlightening, as the refusal to exercise their discretion to exclude Veolia –

‘because that’s what we have decided.’

So no comeback for Veolia for giving misleading information to the council but instead officers’ action leaving Veolia as the only bidder.

If the officers refused to engage with us, what about the elected members of the executive?

Our petition with more than 2,000 signatures was presented to the executive. There was no response from the Executive member leading on the environment. It was referred to Fiona Ledden, head of procurement for consideration.  The same Fiona Ledden who had been stonewalling us.

A request to Cllr butt and Fiona Ledden for the outcome of that consideration was requested some time ago but only answered on Thursday. This merely said the council did not intent to revisit the decision not to exclude Veolia made on January 31^st

                                          in other words ‘we are ignoring your petition’

Our supporters made presentations on the issue to various Brent Connects forums. The notes say their comments would be referred to Cllr Roxanne Mashari as lead member for environment.  They have heard no more.

Liz Lindsay, Secretary of Brent and Harrow PSC has received no response to a request sent to Cllr Mashari in June, to meet with her and Brent members of Jews for Justice for Palestinians regarding the contract.

The officers’ report you are considering this evening makes absolutely no reference to any of these representations. If we had not made them public and written to councillors you will have had no idea that this is a controversial issue.

           Transparency? Accountability? Participation?

The GCs of both Hampstead and Kilburn and Brent Central Labour parties, Brent TUC and Brent members of Jews for Justice for Palestinians have supported our case.  We have been supported by several of the candidates for the Brent Central parliamentary nomination. Brent Lib Dems were ruled out of order when they tried to put a question about Veolia at full council.

I know that some members of the Executive have misgivings on the issue. Cllr Mashari herself, reporting on a visit to Israel/Palestine with the Young Fabians, paid for by BICOM (set up to ‘create a more supportive environment for Israel in Britain) said that the one issue she was repeatedly told should be addressed to bring peace was that of illegal Israeli settlements.

Apart from all of the above can the council truly save that they are sure of ‘best value’ for Brent residents in a process that led, at the final hurdle, to Veolia having no competitor for the Executive to consider.

 In Q1 of 2013-14 there was a failure to reach targets for reduction in residual waste and increased recycling at a cost of £226,000 with Veolia the current contractor.

We suggest the Executive:

1.     Extend the current contract for a year

2.     Start a new procurement process with robust ethical conditions attached

3.     Consider separating the parks/ground maintenance services from that contract to allow waste specialist companies to bid.

4.     Consider supporting an in-house bid for the parks/grounds maintenance contract

Brent Council to rely on volunteers for Meals on Wheels provision

Brent Executive approved the handing over of the provision of Meals on Wheels and meals at Day Care Centres to the voluntary sector this evening. There were passionate speeches by Brent Fightback and Labour Party members Michael Calderbank and Graham Durham expressing concern over the proposals and posing some incisive questions. Their speeches caused Cllr Pavey to hesitate saying they had raised legitimate concerns and Cllr Denselow said that he could see the concern, in an era of cuts, over a Big Society style solution, but he preferred to see it as a cooperative solution offering vulnerable people choice and control.

Calderbank expressed concern over redundancies at the current provider, payments to be made to new providers, whether the voluntary organisations would be paid the London Living Wage that the Council had committed itself to, the report's 'high risk' with  'medium' probability assessment that vulnerable people may go without a meal with a number of different voluntary sector providers.

Stressing he was not opposed to voluntary organisations providing services, but that this should not be  a cover for cuts, or at the cost of a reduction in quality, he asked about monitoring of quality and hygiene standards, and wanted confirmation that the new service would not longer provide puddings.
 
Calderbank said he couldn't believe that the Council was going ahead on the basis of such a small pilot project with one provider. This was not a strong basis for a major change. He asked what sanctions would be applied to providers who dropped out.

Durham said that he has spoken to the minister at Harlesden Methodist Church which had operated the pilot and found that the only person to be employed was a 0.7 cook, all the rest delivering the service would be volunteers. This was not a partnership with the voluntary sector but reliance on unpaid volunteers. The Council was creating no jobs and guilty of creating unemployment when it was already at 8.4%

Through the NHS Patients group he had heard complaints about food being undercooked, the lack of puddings and food put into one container like baby food.

He said with disparate providers there was a need for strong contract compliance to ensure  continuity of quality of food and reliability of delivery. The real motive seemed to be the £300,000 of 'savings' - where was the Council's much vaunted London Living Wage?

Phil Porter, Acting Director of Adult Social Services, responded rather than Cllr Krupesh Hirani, lead member for Adult Social Care, who was absent from the Executive Meeting. Porter said the changes had been drivem by better service and increasing cost and control, not by cuts. The previous provider had provided only one option from their base in Leicester. The new range of suppliers would give more choice. The Council had been honest in publishing negative comments from service users but the 8 in the pilot had been 'very happy. (In fact the pilot numbers were reduced to six with one dissatisfied and seeking alternatives and 'very happy' doesn't really describe some of the other users' comments),

He said there would be no change of service for vulnerable individuals without a review of their needs carried out by social workers to understand their capacity and support network- managing risk was part of the review.

There was no contract compliance because the Council had a new role facilitating the market rather than establishing a contractual relationship. This was part of a broader move which the Council was undertaking. It created a challenge and removed the comfort blanket of a single provider.

Porter said the Council couldn't make the providers commit to the London Living Wage  - they could only encourage them t pay it. It was fundamental to give power to the provider and all the support required to make sure the provision is also safe, The scheme would deliver savings and a better service.

He said 5 or 6* people employed by Apetito in Brent would be affected by redundancy. He could make no undertaking that jobs would be created because some providers would be able to provide within their existing infrastructure and others may not. 

Cllr Roxanne Mashari intervened to say that she had been concerned about nutritional standards being maintained in the new arrangements and had visited Cricklewood Homeless Concern to see their provision. As a result she thought it was a fantastic move and should have been made earlier. The food was fresh meat and fish, fruits such as avocado, not baby food, and was served in ceramic type containers. Cricklewood Homeless Concern were able to build on their existing relationships with their clients.

To protests from the audience that their questions had not all been answered, the Executive went on to approve the new arrangements.

* Please note earlier version because of a typographical error rendered this figure as 506. My apologies.

Brent Council legal team to investigate fraud allegations over Kensal Rise Library development

The Friends of Kensal Rise Library have sent a preliminary list to Brent Council of what it claims are fraudulent statements of support for the proposal of developer Andrew Gillick of Kensal Properties Ltd to put seven dwellings and a small space for community use into the former Kensal Rise Library.

The campaigners believe that the addresses of residents have been used without their consent and empty buildings and invented addresses have been used in order to influence and mislead the public and the planning committee of Brent Council who will decide if the proposal is to go ahead.

The ‘Friends’ intend to follow up this list later this week with another tranche of, what they believe, are fraudulent statements of support.

A number of residents have already sent complaints to the council.

Faye Bradbury, a local resident commented:

It is an outrage support has been listed in my name. I've always supported the Save Kensal Rise Library campaign.

Brent Council has reacted promptly with the Lead Member for the Environment, Roxanne Mashari sending the list to the head of Brent’s legal department with a request for an investigation and report as soon as possible.

It is understood that the list has also been sent to Boris Johnson the Mayor of London.

Margaret Bailey Chair of the Trustees of the Friends said:

We have taken advice from the Metropolitan Police and they advised in the first instance that we lodge a complaint with the council. We have done this and the council will investigate and produce a report as soon as possible. This is a very serious matter as fraud is illegal under the Fraud Act 2006. Naturally we hope any investigation by Brent Council or potentially the police will show who has lodged these statements of support.

All Souls College, who are still the legal owners of the building and who have entered an agreement with the developer Andrew Gillick of Kensal Properties to sell the property, have been notified of the suspicious statements of support.

Local investigations will continue.

Similar allegations were made in the planning consultation for the Willesden Green Library development as the commenter blow has reminded us LINK

Pickles to be urged by Brent Council to call-in Welsh Harp development

The development site

The motion below is being put to tonight's full Council meeting by Cllr Roxanne Mashari. I understand it will have Liberal Democrat support but I don't know the position of Conservative councillors:

West Hendon development

This Council opposes the West Hendon Development plans which have recently been approved by Barnet Council and the Mayor of London.

Members note that the Welsh Harp Reservoir and Nature Reserve is the only site of special scientific interest (SSSI) in Brent or Barnet and has London wide and national ecological significance.

Members note that Barratt Homes has failed to address concerns raised by Brent Officers, community groups and wildlife organisations who have opposed these plans, which will lead to 6000 new residents moving into tower blocks up to 29 storeys high and the construction of foot bridges leading directly from the site into the SSSI. Members agree that the scale and design of this development amount to an act of environmental vandalism.

This Council notes that the scale and design of the proposed development contravenes official guidance in both the Barnet and London plans.

This Council wishes to reaffirm the value of our Welsh Harp Nature Reserve and reservoir and its belief that this site must be preserved for future generations.

This Council therefore urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to call in this decision with the utmost urgency. This is in light of the numerous and grave concerns raised by a number of professional and community bodies which remain unaddressed.

Brent politicians' positions on Syria debate

Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather joined Labour colleagues Barry Gardiner and Glenda Jackson in voting against the government motion on Syria last night. Barry Gardiner made an effective intervention when Nick Clegg was summing up, asking if the US mounted an attack over the weekend whether the UK would offer 'indirect' support (the use of UK bases for example). Clegg failed to answer fully and his avoidance was followed up by other MPs, contributing to doubts over the Coalition's position.

Gardiner had strongly supported Tony Blair's Iraq war.

Following the Government defeat and David Cameron's declaration that there would be no direct UK intervention the issue of whether there will be indirect support remains unanswered. The Labour Party meanwhile hasn't clarified whether their position is still that set out in its motion, support for intervention if conditions are met, or whether it is now opposed to any military intervention.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari made here position clear this morning in a Tweet:

Horrified and outraged by scenes in Syria. Fail to understand anyone who categorically rules out military intervention to help these people.

At 6pm yesterday  Sarah Teather posted a full statement on her position:

Everyone will agree that the use of chemical weapons is an abhorrent and unjustifiable act. The horrifying pictures that emerged after last week's attack were devastating to see and all will want action to prevent this from reoccurring.

However, I do not believe that the case for military action to prevent further attacks has been made successfully, either practically or ethically.

I am not opposed to military action in all situations. I do accept that military intervention is sometimes necessary, for example as part of an international peacekeeping mission, as an urgent response to prevent an immediate imminent humanitarian disaster such as genocide, or as an act of self-defence. When used in such circumstances, military action must be a last resort, have some reasonable chance of success and be proportionate to its context. I am not convinced that the proposed action in this situation meets those objectives.

First, it falls into none of the categories described above (peacekeeping, prevention of genocide, self-defence). Instead it seeks to punish a country for an action it has already taken. We have repeatedly heard politicians speak of a 'slapped wrist' or of making clear that Assad's actions 'must be seen to have consequences'. I am troubled that military action on this basis - which would inevitably involve further loss of life - may not have an adequate moral or legal foundation to justify it.

Politicians in the UK have subsequently shifted their rhetoric to argue that it is intended to be a deterrent rather than a punishment. But it is not clear how it would succeed in acting as a deterrent and yet meet the test for proportionality. Certainly it seems to have limited chance of success in meeting an objective of preventing further use of chemical weapons. Strikes against chemical weapon stores would be incredibly dangerous and would risk civilian casualties. An alternative course of strikes against minor targets would do little to dissuade Assad and instead could result in him escalating the already bloody civil war that is raging in Syria. We simply cannot know what Assad's response to any attack would be.

Stronger military action would also not accomplish the stated aim. Weakening Assad's military capabilities would tip the balance in favour of regime change - something the Government has steered clear from. The situation in Syria is extremely complicated and is not simply a case of Assad's regime versus the Syrian people. The Syrian opposition is not a homogenous group, but is rather a mix of factions and sub-groups where in many cases the shared value is opposition to Assad. As a result, it is extremely unlikely that the sudden toppling of Assad will end the civil war. Instead it is much more likely to result in the conflict spreading beyond the borders of Syria, further destabilising the region. I therefore do not believe that any military action will achieve the asserted aim of preventing further chemical attacks.

There is no easy answer to the current situation in Syria but I fear that military action can only make matters worse. And if we do intervene and the situation continues to escalate, what then? It would be almost unavoidable for the UK not to be drawn into further and more intensive military action.

In our understandable desire to do something in the face of such appalling atrocities we are in danger of arriving at a contradictory position: attempting to uphold international law by flouting international law ourselves and attempting to make a statement about our disapproval of violence by perpetrating further violence.

Some people have argued were we not to take military action, we would be washing our hands of the situation and doing nothing. However, the choice between military action and doing nothing is a false one. It is not clear to me that the only way to uphold international law is via military force. Certainly any military force would clearly need to be a last resort, having exhausted all other options.

Any solution to the current crisis in Syria needs to be political rather than military if long-term peace is to be found. That is why the UK must increase its attempts to work with international partners and provide full support for the Geneva II process in order to secure global cooperation in finding a peaceful resolution. There must also be full provision in place to provide international humanitarian support and aid for the nearly 2 million refugees that have left Syria - half of whom are children - who are fleeing into neighbouring countries.

For these reasons, and given the current circumstances, I do not support military intervention in Syria. I also feel that, while I welcome the work done by Nick Clegg in ensuring that the Government does not rush into military action, tonight's motion paves the way for a future commitment. As such, I shall this evening be voting against the motion

'You can go to hell!!!' Brent councillor tells correspondent

This is a fuller version of the story first published under this heading.

A seemingly innocuous request to a local councillor last week escalated quickly into an exchange where the councillor told his correspondent to 'Go to hell!!!'

The correspondence begun thus:

 Dear Labour councillors

Are statutory declarations and Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreements no longer considered legal documents? 

https://forms.brent.gov.uk/servlet/ep.ext?extId=126153&Other1=607142&Other2=1

This is the final stages of the correspondence:

CC: cllr.roxanne.mashari@brent.gov.uk; cllr.harbhajan.singh@brent.gov.uk
From: dhirajkataria@hotmail.co.uk
Subject: Re: 67 Church Lane, London, NW9 8ED
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 20:39:58 +0100
To: rendallmallakee@hotmail.com

I am not prepared to answer any question from you. You can go to hell!!!
Cllr Dhiraj Kataria

Welsh Harp councillor

On 17 Aug 2013, at 20:35, "Rendall Mallakee" <rendallmallakee@hotmail.com> wrote: 

Your not in favour of "Illegal" residential structures in gardens? Firstly, If it were "illegal" it would be a criminal offence, and its not. The criminal offence is breaching the enforcement notice if one is issued within 4 years. Imagine if Brent Council charged council tax on such buildings your not in favour of that contributed to your "basic" wage. http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/brent_has_collected_more_than_100_000_in_council_tax_from_illegal_beds_in_sheds_1_1978139 

I'm concerned you don't understand planning legislation, yet you're on the planning committee that pockets you an extra £2,113 on top of your "basic" £7,947 wage. http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/councillors_in_brent_paid_the_lowest_basic_allowance_in_london_1_1501249 

Anyway, back to the question you keep avoiding, that I still require answering. 

Please confirm statutory declarations and Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreements are no longer considered legal documents by Brent Council. If you don't know, just say you don't know. Or maybe, if you're interested in finding out, you could contact the planning department - your time would be better spent by asking the Fiona Ledden in the legal department.

I understand it must be annoying for you when a Brent resident knows a little and can't be bullied into going away. Close more libraries so people like me can't read planning books.  

Rendall Mallakee said:

 I'm not the applicant, I was just questioning the incompetence of Brent planners not knowing what a legal document was. The debate then spilled over when Cllr Dhiraj Kataria (who sits on the planning committee) gave his "personal" view on a planning matter, rather than approach it from a planning point of view. Makes me question how they think when it comes to the Willesden library, the Queensbury etc. Planning merits or personal opinion. 

Brent residents should be able to question Brent councillors without being told to go to hell.

 In response Cllr Kataria said:

I answered several emails  from  Rendall about his problem via email.  I had adequately answered his question that legal documentation submitted to the Council in support of his application should be something which can be verified independently. He was clearly not satisfied with this answer and pursued with more emails. 

When he made his rather rude comment that I did not understand Planning laws, I felt that he was going too far. The fact of the matter is that he has put in a residential unit in his garden. Normally, this is against the Planning law. The fact that his breach of the law was not discovered for four years, he is now seeking to exploit it by seeking a Certificate of Lawfulness, which the Council has already dealt with by rejecting his application.

There is clearly a discrepancy here in that Cllr Kataria thinks Rendall Mallakee is responsible for the building at 67 Church Lane and Mallakee says he is not the applicant. He does not appear on the 2009 electoral register at that address but I cannot find him anywhere else in the borough either.

When I put this to Cllr Kataria he said:

I have not met him and I am not sure of his identity. I dealt with his enquiry by responding to him three times .As a councillor, when people write to me attaching Council reply, I have to take them at face value. Councillors get lots of email and have to take these in good faith.

Responding to a complaint from Mallakee about being told to 'Go to Hell!!!', Cllr Roxanne Mashari, also a Welsh Harp Labour Councillor, wrote:

Unfortunately I do not have control over what Mr Kataria says and does, I can only answer for my own conduct.

I have reported Mr Kataria's comments to our leader and chief whip for investigation.

I will await the response from our officers on your query but please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss this or any other matter in more detail.

Earlier Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt had also replied to Rendall Mallakee:

Dear Rendell

Thank you for bring this matter to my attention. 

I am on leave at the moment but will be asking the officers to explain the case to myself and will respond to your points about statutory declarations and short hold tenancy agreements. 

I sincerely apologise that you feel that one my Councillors conduct was not up to expectation. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me for anything else. 

Kind regards

Muhammed 

Brent project seeks to reduce fuel poverty and carbon emissions

The Brent Campaign Against Climate Change, of which I am chair, has had preliminary discussions with Cllr Roxanne Mashari, lead member for the Environment, on the possibility of setting up a Low Carbon Zone in the borough after our Secretary, Ken Montague, made a presentation to the Brent Executive.

That is selecting an area where a concerted programme of measures aimed at reducing energy consumption through structural changes (roof and wall insulation, double glazing, micro-generation) and educational initiatives. It would include housing, businesses, schools and public buildings in the area. The LCZ would serve as an exemplar, that after valuation could be rolled out across the borough in due course.

We pointed out that  money was available through the ECO (Energy Company Obligation) which is designed to tackle fuel poverty, affordable warmth and carbon emissions at zero cost to those in highest need.

I therefore welcome a report that goes before Monday's Executive which sets out a tender process to find a project partner to deliver an ECO programme in Brent. LINK

The report sets out the project aims:

The project’s key objectives are to:-

• Improve the energy efficiency of properties and reduce energy consumption

• Reduce carbon emissions,

• Reduce consumer energy costs and alleviate fuel poverty; and,

• Safeguard and create employment opportunities.

As the project’s primary requirement is to deliver the required improvements to domestic properties, the delivery partner will be required to treat domestic properties as the service priority, i.e. marketing its services, facilitating customers, explaining and securing the sign-up and installation of appropriate energy efficiency improvements across the Borough. 

It is envisaged that a significant portion of the market and therefore a key target for the project will be ‘hard to treat’ domestic properties i.e. those that cannot accommodate cost-effective measures and may therefore have missed out on previous energy improvements. These properties will have the potential to access ECO funding. Given the priority to be attributed to domestic interventions over non-domestic the balance of the finance, scope and value of the opportunity will favour the former. It is likely that any scheme will include the HRA stock as a priority but it should be stressed that fuel poverty and energy efficiency issues affect the growing private sector and there is an expectation that any scheme will seek to address these issues. 

Furthermore, in order to achieve long term investment in the Borough’s supply chain and employment opportunities, some form of confidence in the longevity of this market locally is required. Consequently a 5 year contract (with up to a two year extension if necessary) is sought, with a break clause included at the end of the first phase of ECO to safeguard against any major changes in legislation/obligations.

The report recognises, as with the LCZ, that an area by area approach may be beneficial:

The ECO is measured in terms of meeting carbon reduction targets; different types of energy efficiency works therefore attract different levels of funding. In addition, the situation of the existing tenant or homeowner can influence the level of funding given. A commercial partner may be likely to seek to meet its ECO obligations in the cheapest and most efficient way, for example by carrying out work on an estate or area basis to achieve economies of scale. Any commercial imperative will need to be balanced against the council’s own priorities in terms of the greatest benefit to low income households. 

There will be occasions whereby an area by area approach is the most appropriate and could offer wider regeneration opportunities and it is likely that stock within the HRA will fit this model. The position may be complicated by the presence of leasehold homes within a block - for example, if in a low- rise block of flats, external ECO funding was available to cover all of the social housing properties but within the block, 5% of flats were privately owned and considered ‘able to pay’. The position of leaseholders varies according to the terms of the lease: in some cases, the council is entitled to re-charge for improvements while in others this option may not be available. Since the expenditure in this case is not incurred by the council, it is envisaged that any re-charge would be waived. Additional staff resources may also be required to support the project and contract manage the partner. The specification will include an expectation that any requirement for this will be funded by the partner. Any other costs, which will include officer time, will be met from existing budgets.  

The Council has an existing long-standing SLA arrangement in place with ‘Energy Solutions’ and their role in this project in terms of stock analysis, encouraging take up and identifying our most vulnerable residents who require assistance needs to be formalised. 

Barnet Council approve ruination of the Welsh Harp

Outside Hendon Towen Hall

Barnet Planning Committee tonight passed the planning application for the West Hendon Development on the banks of the Welsh Harp by 5 votes to 4 after a sometimes rancorous debate.

The presentation by a planning officer of his report on the development provoked protests from Andrew Dismore AM for Barnet and Camden who said that he had never heard such a biased officers' report in 30 years involvement in politics. He said the officer was acting as a advocate for the developers rather than as someone presenting a balanced view on which the Planning Committee could make a decision.

Dismore asked why there had not been a ballot of residents of the West Hendon Estate and presented his own findings (see posting below). He said the luxury tower blocks would be for Russian oligarchs rather than local people.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari (Labour -Welsh Harp)  told the chair of the Committee that she would be writing to Barnet Council to record her concerns about the officer's presentation which amounted to a 'hard sell'. The length and veracity of the presentation had not been used for any other application.

Cllr Mashari said that when she visited the developers they had not even be aware of Brent Council's objections. She spoke about growing up near the Welsh Harp and what a much loved and  valued resource it was.  The 29 storey buildings would be an imposing and inappropriate presence looming over the reservoir.

Navin Shah AM for Brent and Harrow told the committee that the Welsh Harp was an exceptional site of tremendous value. The enormous scale of the development and its density was unsustainable.  The amount of affordable housing should have been at the target of 40% rather than the 25% in the application.

Cllr Javaid Ashraf (Liberal Democrat - Dollis Hill) told the committee that he was a former chair of the Welsh Harp JCC), He had three main concerns: density, damage to the SSSI and traffic congestion. He said he was not against redevelopment. He was supportive of 'a' scheme but not 'this' scheme.

The public loudly supported this last point. The officer's presentation had implied that the scheme should be supported because it was better than a previous scheme that had been agreed by the Planning Committee and that no other scheme was viable as it would not provide enough of a return to the developer to enable the social housing to be redeveloped.

Objectors will continue their campaign at the London Mayoral level.

The Stunner slips out of Brent. Mission accomplished?

Jack 'The Hair!' Stenner, Muhammed Butt's political adviser, is off to pastures new. Stenner has been busy since he left university in 2009 working for the Yes To Fairer Votes campaign, joining Ed Miliband's leadership campaign team, working for Barry Gardiner as Communications and Campaign Officer and managing Labour's Brent North General Election campaign. His association with Gardiner led him to become Director of Labour Friends of India.

Stenner became Muhammed Butt's political adviser, heading up the Leader's Office, just a month after Butt ousted Ann John as leader in May 2012.

His job appeared to be to remove Brent Labour's toxic image after the library closures under the Ann John administration which caused concern in senior Labour circles nationally.  A new approach was developed which promised dialogue with the community and  campaign groups but with the Labour Group committed to a 'No ifs, no buts; we must make cuts!' position very little actually changed except the mood music.

Butt, who is not a great public speaker, began,  as a result of Stenner's role as both minder and mentor, to make more coherent set piece speeches, although these were often derailed when he lost his cool during opposition interventions. Labour's public relations was improved by the appointment of James Denselow to head up communications for the party.

The group around Ann John, which included some experienced Executive members, continued to be a threat as Butt had only won by the narrowest of margins. In early 2013 there was a flurry of activity as Stenner found himself in a central role in Brent's version of the Thick of It as the John faction appeared to be ready to move a vote of no confidence in Butt's leadership. This failed to materialise when it became clear the votes didn't add up and instead an anodyne motion committing the factions to be nice to each other was adopted.

By the time of the May 2013 Annual General Meeting of the Labour Group plans were well advanced for a number of challenges to some of the Executive and Cllr James Powney, deeply unpopular over library closures was defeated along with Janice Long, Lesley Jones and Mary Arnold. A very new, but ambitious councillor, Michael Pavey joined the Executive along with Roxanne Mashari and James Denselow.

Perhaps rather insensitively this was spun to the local press as the victory of the young, dynamic, energetic and talented, perhaps by a young, dynamic, energetic and talented political adviser!

Some further tidying up is nearly complete over Labour candidates for the 2014 local elections and of course the selection, from an extremely crowded field, of a Labour candidate for Brent Central has still to take place, but Jack Stenner will perhaps be leaving Brent claiming 'mission accomplished'.

If that mission was to make Brent Labour more electable, and to bury the Ann John toxic waste so deep underground that the public will forget about it, we will only be able to judge in May 2014.

Meanwhile Barry Gardiner may well be feeling rather contented with what The Stunner has accomplished.

A political slant on Gladstonbury Festival

The only time these politicians are popular

Cllrs Butt, Mashari and Hirani do the rounds

A run up to pelt Cameron with wet sponges

An unnatural political relationship

Get down to Kensal Green on Tuesday to help save the library

A message from the Save Kensal Rise Library Campaign

Public Meeting Reminder!
 

A reminder that we are holding a public meeting at 7.30pm on Tuesday 21st May in St Martin’s Church, Mortimer Rd, Kensal Green (first street on the right from Kensal Green Tube as you walk up College Rd, about 1 minute walk).

 

The Leader of Brent Council Cllr Muhammed Butt will be there and local councillors and we hope that Roxanne Mashari, the new Lead Member on the Executive responsible for Libraries will be able to make the meeting.

 

Roxanne came to a meeting of SOS Brent Libraries (the umbrella group of the campaigns attached to the closed libraries in Brent) on Sunday and stated most strongly that she wanted to have a dialogue with us and envisioned a partnership between the council and our community.

 

It is really important to let both the Leader of the Council and Cllr Mashari know how strongly this community feels about the loss of our library and the importance of the Kensal Rise Library building as a library and community space, a space that we will lose if the building is turned into flats.

 

To achieve this we really do need as many of you as possible to come to the public meeting.

 

We are still fighting after nearly three years and they need to know what we are fighting for and what we value in this community.

New look for Brent Council Executive after AGM

Muhammed Butt was elected leader of the Labour Group on Brent Council unopposed today at the AGM. Contenders for the various contested positions were all elected changing the age profile and ethnic composition of the Executive to younger and more diverse.
 

Cllr Powney was defeated by Roxanne Mashari for Environment and Neighbourhoods;  Lesley Jones by James Denselow for Customers and Citizens; Janice Long by Margaret McLennan for Housing and Mary Arnold by Michael Pavey for Children and Families.

Aslam Choudry took the Crime and Public Safety post defeating Wilhelmina Mitchell-Murray for the position vacated by Lincoln Beswick.

The first meeting of the new Executive will be on Monday May 20th 7pm Brent Town Hall.  The agenda can be found HERE

Margaret McLennan - Housing

Roxanne Mashari - Environment

James Denselow - Customers

Michael Pavey - Children

Aslam Choudry-Crime

Frontrunners emerge in Labour battle for Brent Central nomination

Patrick Vernon and Catherine West are emerging as front runners in the contest for Labour's selection of a candidate to challenge Sarah Teather in Brent Central at the 2015 General Election.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari who was mentioned in early speculation confirmed this morning that she will not be standing. Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala, butt of frequent teasing about his job at an investment bank in the City but with excellent local credentials, has yet to reveal his hand. Sabina Khan is also holding back but promises a different,  if not unique, campaign. Amina Ali is due to address a Labour meeting soon and Dawn Butler has arranged a private Brent Central viewing of Ken Loach's Spirit of 45 in Harlesden on April 29th sponsored by the GMB and LFC.

Catherine West's address  to the Kensal Green ward meeting impressed a number of Labour Party members of different tendencies who are usually at loggerheads.  It was her record as a 'doer' with the policy giving free school meals to all Islingon Primary children a real winner, that convinced some of the audience that she had sufficient weight to take on Teather.

Her approach can be seen from this extract from her address to the Labour Local Government Conference:

If Labour are to return to power in 2015, I don’t think any of us are naïve enough to believe spending will return to pre-2010 levels. In the short term the next Labour government need to reverse the Tory policy of hitting the poorest areas hardest.

However, a message we all need to be communicating as local authority representatives is that the current model of local government needs to change. The financial model does not work anymore. We need a new relationship between central and local government that recognises WE are the people who know our own areas best and we are the people who should lead them. Going forward this means three things:

First, it is vital that the future way of funding social care is decided quickly with defined financial responsibilities for the individual, the NHS and local government. Without this, all Councils will be bankrupt within a decade. Thankfully Andy Burnham has already announced that Local Government will play a role in integrating social care and acute care and Liz Kendall is in conversation with us as local leaders about the exact design of that commissioning.

Second, recognise the limitations of national employment programmes and devolve the budgets and responsibilities to local councils either individually or as part of a consortium such as the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities or Central London Forward. Once again local government’s intimate knowledge of our areas and their jobs market makes us well placed to lead on getting local people into work.

Third, generate economic growth through much needed housing and infrastructure projects. But crucially, to allow more flexibility than the last Labour Government over the procurement of this work so all of the contracts don’t go to the usual same few major construction companies and myriad sub-contractors that leach money and jobs out of local areas.

Communication matters. Our experience shows that when we focus on the issues that resonate in our communities and we communicate a clear alternative to the governments slash and burn approach we can win the support of local people. This will help pave the way for a Labour government in 2015.