Brent Cabinet amend Tenterden Pavilion community asset transfer

Following representations from residents the Brent Cabinet amended the proposal on the community asset transfer of Tenterden Pavilion and playing fields to Wembley Education Charitable Trust (Lycee  International des Londres Winston Churchill).

The amendment made the granting of the 30 year lease to the WECT subject to them entering an agreement with Forest United (1973) Youth FC, a local charitable football club for its use of the pavilion and grounds during periods when it is not in use by the WECT.

Members noted 'the additional opportunity for community access by other groups, in what will be a significant new local sporting facility.'

Members delegated authority to the Director of Resources to finalise and agree terms of leasehold and associated licence disposal to WECT in consultation with the Operational Director of Environment Services.

Speaking on the proposal Cllr Roxanne Mashari made it clear that if WECT did not reach an agreement with Forest United the proposal would come back to Cabinet.

Welcoming the amendment Cllr Michael Pavey, (Barnhill ward in which the Lycee is situated) said that the Lycee were not good neighbours- overgrown grass on frontage and refusing use as a polling station - while Forest United were good neighbours and had been responsible for kicking off the CAT process.

He pointed out that WECT was based at the French Embassy, not in Wembley.

Residents had asked for the original  proposal to be deferred or rejected. In a letter to the Council written in May, Forest United had asked  that their original bid remained on the table as a viable proposal.  They asked that a project with WECT be 'an entirely joint venture from the start with both parties having an equal say in the process and subsequent build.'  They said that 'security of access to facilities is vital to the long-term growth and sustainability of Forest united.

The amendment did not meet these demands entirely and it is clear that much will depend on the negotiations carried out by Council officers with both parties.

Green Party and Brent Council reactions to EU Referendum result

My view last night

I have just returned from a 'screen-free' holiday in Transylvania - no TV,  ipad or mobile phone so I am still catching up with the Referendum result and its repercussions. Some of my party could not resist finding out the news and the mood on Friday morning at breakfast was one of shock, consternation and fearfulness about a Gove-Boris Johnson administration.  This was despite the group coming from all areas of the country, rural and city, although predominantly middle class with varying degrees of enthusiasm for Remain.  It was an 'eco' walking holiday so that was also a self-selecting factor.

Also interesting was the consternation of some of the Romanian people we met on Friday, as well as a zech national who joined us on holiday,  who were genuinely concerned about the impact of Brexit on the former communist countries of Eastern Europe and in particular on their relationship with Putin.

These are the immediate reactions of the Green Party and Brent Council:

REACTING to the news that the UK has voted to leave the EU, Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said:

“People in Britain are angry – and they’ve expressed that anger today by voting to leave the EU. The most important task at hand now is unifying our divided communities.

“Our party will now mobilise alongside the Trade Unions, environmental groups and others to defend our hard-won rights at work and environmental protections.

“If this referendum has shown one thing to be clear it is that the old political party system is not representing people’s views. Politics in the UK is synthetically bound to the Tories and Labour – that’s clearly failing. We’re calling on all sides to come together to fix our democracy here in Britain – starting with electoral reform for the House of Commons. The democratic deficit will not be fixed by leaving the EU – we need to look closer to home too.

“What worries us now is the fate of the many Europeans living here. The Leave campaign said they will be able to stay – and we expect them to honour that. But what about people who have made plans to come here to join family, or British people who have saved up for a lifetime to move to Spain? The prospect of shutting down the right to free movement is frightening, as are the consequences of a campaign that has at times pitted neighbours against one another, whipped up fear and allowed lies and myths to take the place of truth. Britain deserves better and I am pledging anew to fight against division on behalf of my constituents.”

 Natalie Bennett, Green Party Leader, said:

"We cannot hide our disappointment at this result having campaigned strongly for a vote to Remain. But, we have to listen to the expressed view of the British people.

"We must now turn our attention to the task at hand: unifying our divided communities after an extraordinarily bitter period in British politics.

"The level of alienation against our mainstream politics is evident in this vote. The public have today rejected the views of the parties represented by 98% of our MPs in Westminster.

"There is a very clear division in the results, with very different votes in different parts of Britain. We need to listen to the generally more economically disadvantaged communities who have voted to leave, and take real action to improve their conditions as soon as possible.

"And with our sister party in Scotland launching a petition (1) for a reconsideration of Scotland's relationship with the EU, we need to acknowledge that the vote there was very different to that in England and Wales."

Brent Council Statement 

The Leader of Brent Council has moved to reassure European Union Citizens, local businesses and investors in West London following the referendum result which was announced earlier today (June 24).

Across the UK nearly 52 per cent of people voted to leave the European Union (EU) while in London and Brent the majority wanted to remain. 72,523 Brent residents voted for the UK to remain in the EU, while 48,881 voted to leave.

The vote to leave has caused turbulence in stock markets across the world and raised fears of what a 'Brexit' could mean - in particular for workers and families from Europe.

Brent Council has vowed to work closely with local businesses, public sector partners and local communities following the nationwide result.

Councillor Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said the consequences of the result will be discussed at a meeting of the West London Alliance (WLA) on Monday. He said: 

"Brent is the most diverse place in the UK and a place where people from all over the world come together to work, live and play. This is one of the things I am most proud of about Brent and one of our key strengths.

"My message to our neighbours and co-workers who are EU citizens and also to investors and employers in West London is not to panic. Nothing will change instantly overnight.

"European nationals will continue to enjoy the same rights as they have now and any changes will be publicised well in advance."

Cllr Roxanne Mashari, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills, said: 

"The council has received many calls from EU citizens concerned about the possible impact of the referendum result and about their right to stay in the UK.

"The council's message is clear: Brent is open for business and investment. We value the hard work of EU citizens and the positive contribution they make to Brent. In the short-term the UK remains a member of the EU with existing laws and treaty obligations in place. Rules on tariffs, movement of goods and individuals will not change until any renegotiation is complete. We will work hard with other local councils, local business leaders and the West London Alliance to provide the information and support needed at this time."

Andrew Dakers, Chief Executive of West London Business, said:

 "West London remains one of the best places in the world to do business. West London is exceptionally well connected by air, road and rail. We have a highly skilled workforce that is the most productive in London. We are also home to some of the UK's leading entrepreneurs and Higher Education institutions.

"In the weeks ahead we will work with the local business community and our West London Alliance partner local authorities to ensure that the specific business implications arising from Brexit, and any support needed, is fully understood to ensure long term economic growth is sustained."

The Kilburn Times LINK reports Cllr John Warren (Conservative, Brondesbury Park) as saying:

"It’s a very bad day. I can’t believe it’s a good day for Brent in terms of the national decision but that’s not Brent’s fault.

“All the experts say that the economy will suffer. Clearly Brent has a lot of members of the community at the lower end and they are bound to suffer eventually.

“If the economy suffers, money coming to the government suffers and it has a knock on effect.

“Brent did very well out of the EU, it’s a bad day for the residents of Brent.”

THE OFFICIAL BRENT RESULT

60 per cent of Brent residents have voted for the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union in yesterday’s referendum.

72,523 residents voted for the United Kingdom to remain in the EU, whereas 48,881 voted to leave, with 267 spoilt ballots.

The turnout was 65 per cent.

Pavey challenges Butt for Brent Labour Group leadership

There has been little rest for Brent Labour councillors over the weekend following the news of likely contests for leadership at Saturday's Labour Group AGM.

Michael Pavey will be challenging Muhammed Butt for the leadership.  So far no job has emerged for Butt from Sadiq Khan, but intriguingly Butt's relatives seem to be pushing him as a possible successor in Khan's Tooting constituency.  George Galloway has hinted that he may stand in Tooting - what a combo!

Senior councillors rejected Butt's suggestion for deputy and I understand that a pliable pudding is standing.  Hopefully someone with more credibility will throw their hat into the ring

Sarah Marquis has been a well-informed and independent Chair of Planning, presiding over a committee of lesser talents. As Butt is a champion of Quintain and all its deeds he may push for someone more pliable in that role too.

Ruth Moher has been a low profile lead member for children and families and has frustrated many by her failure to take a firm position on forced academies.  Both Cllr Shama Tatler and Cllr 'Jumbo' Chan as teachers have a keen interest in education although there has been no confirmation either will challenge Moher for the role.

Cllr Eleanor Southwood has had to deal with Cllr Duffy's revelations over alleged Council incompetence at Environment and a contest between the two of them would be interesting.

Regeneration and housing are key areas,  particularly in the light of the GLA campaign and recent controversial regeneration projects, including South Kilburn, and there may be a challenge to Cllr Margaret McLennan based on a failure to stand up to developers on affordable housing provision.

There are a number of others who may come forward including the ambitious Cllr Roxanne Mashari and Cllr Sam Stopp. Stopp has recently made critical comments on the planning consultation procedures in the borough and called for more open and transparent dealings with residents. Matt Kelcher has probably been chair of Scrutiny for too short a period to face a challenge.

Overall however with 56 councillors, the majority of whom as far as the public are concerned are faceless, and because they don't speak at council meetings have little political form (apart from putting their hands up on command), it is hard to know how close Butt's critics are to garnering sufficient votes. 

Ex Cllr James Powney gives his account of the process on his blog LINK

Process in the Labour Group

It may be worth noting the due process in Group meetings, as they appear to have escaped Cllr Butt and possibly others.  Votes are held of all the paid up Labour councillors and no one else.  The vote is by secret ballot, and follows the rules known as "exhaustive ballot".  This means that where there are multiple candidates (as I imagine there would be if Cllr Pavey becomes leader as far as the Deputy Leader post goes), the candidate with the lowest number is elimated and a new vote taken, until somebody get 50% plus one of the votes.

The Group officers (such as Leader and Deputy Leader) are voted on by the whole group, as should other positions such as the Planning Chair and the members of the Executive.  This also applies to the new Deputy Mayor, but the Mayor post is normally taken by whoever was last year's deputy without an election. 

The Scrutiny positions are voted on by the non Executive members (i.e. excluding the Leader, Deputy Leader, Executive and (I think) the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

Since all these votes are by secret ballot, they can be expected to take a long time and be unpredictable.  My past experience of such elections is that many councillors promise their votes to multiple candidates.  I take it from Cllr Butt's attempts to suspend one of his critics and other rumours I have heard, that he is far from confident of victory.

Powney is not alone as questions raised over Flytipping Report

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

Spot the difference:

Chief Executive's Report LINK

The Task Group Report LINK

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

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

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

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

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

Public enjoy Birchen Grove Allotment Fair

Briefing the judges

Prize sweet peas

Best dressed vegetables

Some on the competition entries

The first Allotment Fair at Birchen Grove Allotments, Kingsbury went off well today with many members of the public touring the site and chatting to the gardeners about their produce. Many enjoyed sampling my mulberries.

There were not that many entries for the competition and it wasn't taken as seriously as on some allotments where there is intense rivalry and accusations of skulduggery. This was a relaxed affair with tongues firmly in cheeks for most of the time and plenty of humour.

The only controversey reported by Cllr Roxanne Mashari, one of the judges, was whether you could measure around the bend of a runner bean to establish its length or just measure a straight line from top to tail. I can't remember what the ruling was but modesty prevents me from telling you the winner!

Cabinet approves Tudor Gardens changes despite impassioned plea by relatives and carers of vulnerable residents

The speech by Ken Knight on behalf of relatives and carers of Tudor Gardens residents
 
The deregistration of the Tudor Gardens Residential Home was the most emotional issue discussed at yesterday's Cabinet. The proposals were covered in an earlier posting HERE.

There was a calm but passionate presentation by Ken Knight whose sister is a resident at Tudor Gardens.  He sought to demonstrate that an original Equality impact assessment which had found a negative impact on residents of the proposed changes had been changed to a positive one, with the original not made available to Cabinet.

He said the change went well beyond 'updating' as a result of further consultations, although that was contested by Phil Porter, Strategic Director of Adult Social Care, and suggested the documentation had been 'doctored'.

In a briefing pack  supplied by Knight he contrasted: The policy will have a positive impact on residents because it will promote independence and give choice and control how they live their lives. to the original 'This policy will have a negative impact on clients who have no capacity to make decision.

Knight noted, 'Relatives and carers don't believe any resident has this capacity, Aga Ambroziak thinks some might. We want high quality, objective, functional asessmewnts (like the WHO ICF), carried out by an independent clinical psychologist, to settle matters before anything else happens.

Knight said that  the residents who had the mental capacity of a 3 to 4 year old, did not need to be given any more 'choice' than they had in the home already: they needed safeguarding and the 24-7 care that they had already.

He said the manager of Tudor Gardens had already left because as a result of the changes she would have lost £20,000 in salary. Other care workers stood to lose £10,000. Protection through TUPE regulations did not apply as  most workers were on fixed term contracts. The proposed new contractor had boasted that their staff were on zero hours contracts.

Cllr Mashari said that she was concerned about the Equality Impact assessment and asked if it was usual for them to go from a negative to positive impact in the public domain.  Christine Gilbert said that there were attempts to mitigate the negatives revealed at the first stage of the assessment but did not know about a move from negative to positive.

Cllr Hirani, lead member for Adult Care said that savings were on housing costs, residents would be entitled to Housing Benefits under the new arrangements, and not on care. He recognised the importance of safeguarding.  He said that the Council needed to reduce spending and at the same time cater for more people. The Council would help the residents apply for allowances that could give them £4,000 more income annually. They would also have security of tenure.

Cllr Southwood asked for reassurance around the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and was told that there would be a team to monitor the required standards and that the changes should have no impact on the quality of care.

Cllr Mashari appeared to still have doubts. She asked if there was a detailed record of the 'journey from negative to positive' and suggested that in the light of the issues involved the item should be revisited.

Cllr Pavey said he did not think that was necessary and that officers would supply a note on the Equality Impact Assessment changes.

Cllr Mashari asked for an update on progress in six months time.

Ken Knight summed up the relatives' and carers' case to the Cabinet:

Right at the beginning of this process relatives and carers said they were opposed to supported living and wanted the residential care home to stay as it is BUT that if change was forced upon us we would do our best to ensure the best possible future for the residents of Tudor Gardens. this remains the case. in return officers promised transparency, openness, honesty and that we would be working together. I leave you to judge if this has been delivered.

At the very least, and before you vote on it, can this process be paused for internationally recognised functional assessments to be done by an independent clinical psychologist, with full involvement of relatives, cares and Tudor Gardens staff.

Voting for supported living now means paying people to make decisions for residents who can't do it for themselves by virtue of their lack of mental capacity. It obviously won't give them 'more independence, choice and control' - it'll just hand it over to different people. Those who exercise this power now on their behalf have proved themselves care, trustworthy, altruistic, reliable and competent. That's why we want to keep them. There are no guarantees we will if supported living goes ahead.

It seemed very clear from last night's discussion and a conversation with the Tudor Gardens Unison representative that the retention of staff trusted by residents and their relatives and carers is unlikely.

The Cabinet approved the proposal.

Anger as thriving Preston Community Library faces curtailment

Preston Library campaigners went to Cabinet last night to raise concerns over the School Expansion report which will mean the Preston Library Community Hub restricting its activities to weekends from September.  The Council has decided that the former library building is needed for primary classes from Wembley High School as building work there is behind schedule.

Philip Bromberg from the campaign told the Cabinet that he was not convinced that there was no alternative buildings available (the report lists the former Anansi Nursery as available from July 2016 until July 2018 but states 'this building is no longer required').

He told the Cabinet about all the activities that are available at the Hub, including a cinema, with visitor numbers doubling. He said that the Community library was doing things that the Council had pulled out of and 'doing them very well'.  He told the Cabinet that if the Council could not succeed in cooperating with a large and successful group such as the Community Library and Hub, he could not see its strategy succeeding elsewhere.

After an optimistic letter from Cllr Mashari about joint design of the new facility in April little had happened with the promised collaborative approach and now the use by Wembley High was being discussed just 3-4 days before their licence ended, with no direct word to the Library from the Council.

A local film maker told the council about the sucecss of the cinema which had been funded with a £4000 grant from the council and had become a vital part of the local community with all showings at capacity. The grant would be a waste of money if the Library did not  continue.  He invited councillors and the governors of Wembley High School to visit the Community Hub. Campaigners were keen to establish as positive a relationship with Wembley High as they'd had with Preston Park Primary but this had not happened yet.

Michael Pavey agreed to amend the term 'pop up' used in the report about the library when a speaker said that it was a fully fledged community library with 663 visits in June.

Cllr Margaret McLennan, responding to the delegation, said the Council had always made it clear that the priority needs of the borough were school places and housing. These came ahead of the policy to bring buildings back to life. She substituted a new paragraph for one in the report which would now say that there was no prospect of disposal of the Preston library building until 2017-18 and options would be looked at for commercial or community disposal in August 2017 at the earliest.

To protests from campaigners Cllr Mashari said that she did not appreciate Philip Bromberg's claim that the council had reneged on a deal and had not responded to campaigners. She said that they had made it 'extremely clear' before the election that school places were a priority and the building had never been promised to one particular group. She concluded that the library supported 'fantastic community activities - but don't misquote us'.

Philip Bromberg asked for a right of reply to what he saw as a personal attack but Cllr Pavey refused.

Cllr Ruth Moher, lead member for Children and Families, said that places were needed so that schools had a 5% vacancy rate as required by the government. At present the soare capacity in Brent schools was only 2.3%. She was not expecting things to get any better in the near future but would eventually like to see buildings used as the community desires.

This is a relatively new requirement (I am not sure of its statutory basis) which is claimed to enhance parents' choice but also has the knock-on effect of increased pupil mobility, particularly in less popular schools, making it harder for them to improve.

Cabinet warned over 'dealing with a convicted fraudster' in Bridge Park development

Cllr Dan Filson, Chair of Scrutiny,  made a dramatic intervention in the discussion of the Bridge Park redevelopment at last night's Cabinet meeting.

He drew attention to a paragraph in the report about the Council's development partners:

General Mediterranean Holdings SA and Harborough Invest Inc are both in overseas ownership and not registered at Companies House, As such the process for carrying out financial checks on these companies cannot be completed in the normal manner and the required financial information in an appropriate format is awaited. Finalisation of negotiations and entering into Heads of Terms with these companies will be subject to confirmation of satisfactory financial standing.

 Filson pointed out that the companies were not registered at Companies House but instead were overseas registered, a Luxembourg Holding Company and the British Virgin islands. This meant that the usual financial checks could not be carried out.

The founder and chairman of General Mediterranean Holdings is Sir Nadhmi Shakir Auchi. In 2003 LINK Auchi was convicted of fraud following his involvement in a $504 million corruption scandal centred on the French oil company Elf Aquitaine which Wikipedia says was described as 'the biggest political and corporate sleaze scandal to hit a western democracy since the second world war.'

Auchi was given a $2.8 million fine and a 15 month suspended jail sentence. Filson warned that the council is dealing with a 'convicted fraudster'.

Earlier Philip Grant had posted this comment on an earlier blog LINK:

As Martin suggests, this article did attract my interest.

When offshore companies are involved, that will always raise suspicions about who is really behind them, and whether tax avoidance may be involved, although in this case you can read a little about GMH on Wikipedia:-

'The General Mediterranean Holding (GMH) is a financial holding company established in 1979 in Luxembourg City, in southern Luxembourg, founded by Anglo-Iraqi businessman Nadhmi Auchi.

GMH is a diverse business group with activities in Banking & Finance, Real Estate & Construction, Hotel & Leisure, Industrial, Trading & Pharmaceuticals, Communications & IT and Aviation.'

The (publicly available) details do not say in which overseas territory Harborough Invest Inc. is incorporated, or resident for tax purposes.

By chance, I have come across GMH's "agent", Nick Shattock, before, when I was an Inspector of Taxes, and he was a director of Quintain Estates and Developments Plc (having previously been a partner in a firm of City solicitors). That information is on public record, and (of course) I cannot disclose anything which happened when I was responsible for dealing with the Quintain group's company tax affairs, because of Civil Service confidentiality.

As a (past) director of Quintain (the developer behind Wembley Park), it is likely that Mr Shattock has already had dealings with Brent's Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth, Andy Donald. The report to Cabinet proposes that negotiations over the "deal" between Brent and GMH should be left in the hands of Mr Donald (as the "deal" with Galliford Try over the Willesden Green Library Centre redevelopment was).

I have written before about Andy Donald's philosophy LINK but it is worth bearing in mind this particular comment of his:

The decision makers are never going to read all that text. There is a massive disconnect between the decision makers and the officers.

Andy Donald was unwell yesterday but the decision makers, the Cabinet, went ahead and approved the Bridge Park report.

I had pointed out in my earlier posting that the Officer's report made the Appendix on the sliding scale of affordable housing restricted so that the public are unable to see it. Cllr Margaret McClennan said that the developers had offered 10%  (50 homess out of the 500 planned) against the Council's target of 50%. She said that Brent Council wanted at least 30%. Cllr Pavey said the despite the gain of a leisure centre and swimming pool officers should be pushing for a greater amount of affordable housing.

Cllr Mashari said that the Cabinet should not get so caught up in the detail of affordable housing that 'we forget the marvellous facility that Brent would get through the development.'

Questioned about the fear that the housing would be sold abroad as had  happened at the Willesden Green Library development Cllr McClennan said that the Council would demand that the homes be first marketed locally.

The Recommendations adopted by the Cabinet 'delegate authority to the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth (Andy Donald) in consulation with the Chief Finance Officer and Chief Operarating Officer to enter into negotiations, finalise and enter into a land sale agreement with General Meditteranean Holdings SA and Harborough Invest Inc.'

Asked about how any issues that might arise from the negotiations and financial checks would be dealt with the Cabinet were told that the lead member, Margaret McClennan, would be consulted.

The fear that several members of the public were left with was that, given the overseas status of the companies involved,  Brent might be able to do little to persuade them on the proportion of affordable housing and marketing front.

Complacency at Cabinet as controversy swept under the carpet

Preston Community Library representatives spoke at Cabinet tonight on the issue of Brent Council's new Property and Asset Strategy.   They were concerned that the community library they now have up and running in the building, which provides many services to the local community apart from lending books,  should not be affected by the strategy which states:

Fundamentally the strategy moves away from a presumption to dispose outright of property towards one of retaining and acquiring assets with a view to maximising revenue potential.

Muhammed Butt, leader of the council said that the  council also recognised the importance of social value of property, rather than just monetary value.

Several Cabinet members praised the campaign which had been promised the Preston library building at a peppercorn rent.  However Cllr Moher indicated that discussions were taking place on the use of part of the building to provide additional school places.

Clearly there will be some difficult decisions when weighing up any conflict between monetary and social values in a period of budgetary cuts.

Ex councillor James Powney wrote on his blog:

The new strategy has two apparently contradictory aims.  One is to maximise value through renting property.  The second is maximise "social value" through renting below market rates to worthy causes.  Of course this all takes place in an environment where the Council's income from fees & charges, Council Tax and government grant will all be in decline.  Inevitably, this locks Brent Council into cutting public services to the maximum extent possible, which I suspect is not a policy that the majority of those who voted in May 2014 would support (although it is very much what the newly elected Tory government supports).

There are likely to be a number of Community Asset Transfers with voluntary organisations running services from former Brent buildings. 

Cabinet approved the Strategy Report's recommendations which Cllr Pavey claimed marked a 'massive' change in Council policy - but he does tend to suffer from superlative inflation.

They went on to approve authority to tender for a Direct Payments Service contract for adult and children's social care. Cllr Hirani argued that this would enable better working conditions and wages as it would do away with the profit requirement of agency providers.

The Council is expecting an increase of 400 people on Direct Payments over the next three years, a total of 1,127.

Cabinet approved the award of the Local HealthWatch Service contract to CommUNITY Barnet, Cllr Pavey remarked that the current HealthWatch has been well-intentioned but ineffective. It had not been successful in getting community engagement and representing patients.

There were similar remarks about the youth service when the Cabinet discussed the £1m cut it is making which will result in further demands on the voluntary and faith sectors.  In answer to Cllr Mashari who asked if this represented a move away from a universal youth service, Cllr Ruth Moher said she doubted if Brent had such a service at present and that the present service was not coherent, it had developed rather than was planned.  She remarked that that there was no point in providing a service if what it provided was not what young people wanted, so they would be consulted. She went on to say that the Coucil had never done a proper mapping of the services that were already offered acxross the borough by the council, voluntary organisations and faith groups.

Cllr Moher referred to the paragraph about the dangers for the Roundwood Centre if the strategy was not successful. Cllr Mashari said that there were many groups just waiting to get into the centre and she looked forward to it being better used and more dynamic.

There seemed little recognition of what could be read between the lines of the report and was pixcked up by the Kilburn Times - this could mark the end of youth provision in Brent.

I was shocked that there was no delegation at the council from the youth service or its users,  or the Youth Parliament which is, after all, supposed to represent young people.  Cabinet were told that their had been a question from the former chair of Brent Youth Parliament asking what a youth worker attached to the BYP would actually do - the answer was value to say the least.  However, the BYP, kept on at a cost of £60,000 may have to watch out as Cllr Moher said that they would be looking at 'different ways' of delivering that service.

Ruth Moher also presented the report on the Expansion of Stonebridge School and was equally complacent saying that most of the respondents to the consultation had been concerned about the future of Stonebridge Adventure Playground, swallowed up by the school expansion and accompanying regeneration. Referring to the 700 letters  received against the proposal she said that these had all been the same so didn't mean much and went on to say, about a 1,000 plus petition calling for the saving of the adventure playground, 'as we know you can get anyone to sign a petition.

Dear reader, I was moved to protest at this disparagement from a councillor who had never once visited the playground!

Cllr Pavey then jumped in to tell us all how big schools were great (he is chair of governors at the BIG Wembley Primary), the bigger the better ('massive' 'bigger the better' - is there a theme emerging here?) and suggested that Quintain with its BIG profits could be persuaded to add another form of entry or two at its proposed primary school.

Cllr Butt followed this with his usual statement. The provision of school places was a statutory responsibility and the Council owes it to residents and children to provide places: 'We will not shy away from making difficult decisions'.

So, we have to admire Brent Council for making the 'difficult' decision to close a children's playground, even though it, as well as the school,  served families and children in one of the poorest parts of London. Campaigners were never persuaded that the Council had considered the possibility of an alternative design for the  expansion of the school that kept the playground or had even tried to find it an alternative site.

And wasn't Stonebridge Adventure Playground a community asset?

The meeting concluded with a refreshingly eloquent presentation by Cllr Eleanor Southwood, the new lead member for the environment. It was not about her portfolio but a report from a Scrutiny Committee task group that she led on the pupil premium and how it is used in Brent schools.

Cllr Southwood  said that the group had looked at case studies and talked to pupils not just about the impact on attainment but on enjoyment of school and the broadening of horizons.

The good practice described in the report will be shared with the Brent Schools Partnership.

Sufra Foodbank call for support for #FoodParcelChallenge

From Sufra North West London

If you’ve been feasting with family and friends over the Bank holiday weekend, have some pity on the 20 or so volunteers who started the #FoodParcelChallenge yesterday.

Last Sunday, Councillor Roxanne Mashari, Brent Council’s Lead Member for Employment & Skills, turned up at the food bank, alongside 22 other families in need and many volunteers, to pick up a food parcel for the start of the challenge. Together, we’re pledging to live on a typical food parcel for 5 days to raise awareness of food poverty in Brent and fundraise for Sufra NW London’s food bank.

The last financial year witnessed a 62% increase in the number of food parcels delivered, serving 3,858 people of whom more than two-thirds were unique users.

You can check out Councillor Roxanne Mashari’s daily blog on her experiences of taking part in the #FoodParcelChallenge here. Although I’m not sure I agree with her comments on Pea & Mint Soup!

The #FoodParcelChallenge seems easier that it looks. But it only hits you when you’re rummaging through the bags to see what’s for dinner. Yesterday, I had black coffee for breakfast and a biscuit, a can of baked beans for lunch and boiled rice for dinner with a tin of chick peas. And there wasn’t much of it either. You can follow our pangs of hunger and unrepentant rant on Twitter and Facebook.

But we need your help, to keep serving families in poverty and provide them with wholesome, healthy food during their time of crisis. Please support the team and sponsor us here.

The #FoodParcelChallenge will end with The Big Lunch on St. Raphael’s Estate, sponsored by Halifax and Daniel’s Estate Agents, on Saturday 30 May 2015. They’ll be a free barbecue, snacks and milkshakes, plus lots of entertainment. My mouth is watering just thinking about it!

£1,000 FOR YOUR VOTE

Yes, you have until Saturday, to help us win £1,000 from the Aviva Community Fund to set up a food growing project on St. Raphael’s Estate. This will help us provide fresh fruit and vegetables at the food bank and provide new volunteering and learning opportunities for the local community.

I’m not one to keep to my 5 a day, but now that I’m doing the #FoodParcelChallenge, I would die for a carrot. Even a tomato, and I hate tomatoes.

All you have to do is click here, create a login, and give us 10 votes. Now that’s not too much to ask for, is it? We need 5,000 votes, and we’re only half-way there.

Deadline is Saturday. Do it now.

Discovering local democracy on-line, the Brent Council way

Guest blog by Philip Grant
 

Although Martin has shared his experience of Monday evening’s Brent Council meeting with you in his blog on “The death of Brent Council”, I am writing to share some personal thoughts, and images, of following part of the same meeting on-line.

At 6.50pm that evening I went onto Brent Council's website to watch the Full Council meeting, so that I could see and hear what (if anything) Cllr. Butt had to say about the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision to reject the Council's appeal in the Rosemarie Clarke case, and hoping that he would finally make a public apology to Rosemarie, on behalf of Brent, for the harm she had suffered at the hands of Cara Davani and other senior Council officers. I was in for a disappointment, as the “Live Streaming” web page showed:

I have never followed social media before, but it seemed that #BrentLive was my only option, so I spent the next half-hour or more watching a column at the right hand side of the screen. The first tweet to appear was from Cllr. Matthew Kelcher (one of the new Labour intake in May 2014), just before the meeting began, to say that he might be making his maiden speech. Thereafter a slow succession of #BrentLive tweets, all apparently from people at the meeting, began to scroll down the column. 

The on screen details said that councillors would ‘be able to reply to tweets’, but it appeared that Cllr. Kelcher had a whole list of tweets ready to issue, each one praising a positive story announced by the successive Cabinet Lead Members who presented their reports to Council. Cllr. Roxanne Mashari even re-tweeted his comment on her positive story! 

One “tweeter” at the meeting commented that although many councillors appeared to be busy on their tablet ‘phones, very few of them seemed to be involved in posting tweets on #BrentLive. An exchange of tweets with another “tweeter” wondered whether they were sending DM’s to each other (perhaps someone will add a comment to let me know what a DM is!). The other replied that they might be playing Candy Crush, which I think is probably a reference to the actions of a Westminster MP, but again I am ignorant of such social media or on-line games terms.

 

Not all “tweeters” were convinced by the views put out on social media by Cllr. Kelcher, especially when it came to the report by the Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt. With all of the # and @ references in Matthew Kelcher’s tweets, I got the impression that he must have prepared them in advance, but perhaps he really is a social media whizz-kid (as opposed to my social media dinosaur), and can compose them far more quickly than I can write emails. 

 

Pukkah Punjabi showed that she is not just an anti-Labour “tweeter”, with her comments about the response from the opposition Conservatives. I seem to remember something about a cure for insomnia.

By this time I was finding #BrentLive a bit slow, without the live pictures and sound from the Council Chamber to let me hear exactly what my elected representatives were saying about important issues. Perhaps it would have been better if I had made the effort to be there in person. But then again, perhaps not, if the final tweet I read was a fair reflection of proceedings.

And I never did find out if Cllr. Kelcher made his maiden speech.

Philip Grant

DM equals Direct Message. Tweeters who follow each other can send each other private direct messages.

£3,000 prize opportunity for effective anti-poverty project

From the All Party Political Group on Poverty

The APPG on Poverty is honoured to announce the Paul Goggins Memorial Prize. Paul Goggins MP was the Secretary of the APPG Poverty and a strong voice for the anti poverty campaign in and outside of Parliament.

The prize will be awarded to the best civil society initiative that can demonstrate that it has reduced poverty in a tangible way.

The prize, worth £3000, will be given jointly by the APPG on Poverty and the Webb Memorial Trust.

We welcome nominations on behalf of local community projects and are looking for innovative and engaging ideas that have worked effectively in and with local communities.

Submissions can take any form, and creative ways of expression are particularly encouraged.  Photographs, videos and other visual supporting evidence will be welcomed.

To enter, the organisation or project will need their local MP to nominate them before 5^th October 2014. MPs of shortlisted projects will be invited to present the proposals in parliament in the autumn, at an awards ceremony to be hosted by the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

You can find out who your local MP is by following this link and typing in your postcode: http://www.parliament.uk/about/contacting/mp/

 

MPs should submit their nominations to Roxanne Mashari at  info@appgpoverty.org.uk

Brent Labour's new cabinet announced

The new Cabinet

A challenge to Cllr Muhammed Butt's leadership by Cllr Neil Nerva was beaten at today's Labour AGM when Butt won 75% of the votes.

Cllr Michael Pavey narrowly beat Cllr Ruth Moher for the Deputy Leadership. Pavey told Labour councillors that he would devote all his energy to supporting Cllr Butt's reforms, freeing the leader to 'lead from the front'. His precise brief in addition to being deputy has not been decided but a source said that he was likely to be a 'more political' deputy.

Cllr James Denselow beat Cllr Aslam Choudry  by three votes for the Stronger Communities portfolio. This will make him responsible for community and voluntary sector engagement, libraries  and crime reduction.

Cllr George Crane stood down from the Executive and Cllr Margaret McLennan will take on regeneration policy, Crane's former portfolio,  as well as housing.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari will take on a new portfolio for Employment and Skills  and newly elected Cllr Keith Perrin will become lead member for the Environment.

Cllr Krupesh Hirani will continue as lead member for Adults, Health and Wellbeing and Cllr Ruth Moher will take over Michael Pavey's position as Lead Member for the renamed Children and Young People portfolio.

The Cabinet will consist of 8 members compared with 10 on the previous Executive.

Cllr Pat Harrison continues as Labour Group chair and Cllr Sandra Kabir replaces Cllr Shafique Choudhary as Labour Chief Whip.

Cllr Kana Naheerathan will be Labour's nomination for Mayor and Cllr Lesley Jones deputy,

The proposal that the Labour leader should only face re-election every four years, instead of annually, will be decided later. It has proved controversial with Cllr Butt  apparently claiming that he cannot keep looking over his shoulder every year.

Chairs of Scrutiny, Planning and other committees will be decided on Monday.

Cllr Mashari offers Preston Library Campaign volunteer library possibility

A crowded  public meeting of the Preston Library Campaign heard speakers from Brent Labour, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Greens and TUSC on the future of the closed Brent libraries. A full account of the meeting can be found HERE on my colleague Shahrar Ali's blog.

At the end of the meeting a show of hands clearly demonstrated support for a professionally staffed and publicly funded library with a slightly lower number in favour of a volunteer run library. However, afterwards some indicated if a voluntary run library was the only solution they would reluctantly support that.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari, lead member for environment, was clear that no budget existed for a re-opening of the library due to central government cuts in local authority funding. She cited her negotiations with the Friends of Kensal Rise Library as a precedent for Preston.

She said that when the ex-Preston Library building was no longer required by Preston Park Primary School in a year's time, the Council would be willing to rent it out to a voluntary group at a peppercorn rent. The Council would also be prepared to give the building ACV (Asset of Community Value) status. All this would be conditional on a robust business plan for the project.

Why Friends of Kensal Rise Library accepted developer's offer of space

In this guest blog the Trustees of  Friends of Kensal Rise Library explain why they they decided to accept the developer's offer of space in the building.

Many of you know that the FKRL Trustees recently decided to support the community (D1) aspect of the library building's re-development. We signed an agreement in good faith with All Souls College and the developer to this effect, trusting this would strengthen our position as future operators of the library and community space.

The proposal provides approximately two thirds (186m2) of the ground floor for community use, with FKRL as the 'preferred' tenants. The London Evening Standard called this: 'a landmark agreement with developers that could save Kensal Rise Library' (25th March 2014).

We feel you should know how we came to make this momentous decision and the factors that we were obliged to take into account.

Throughout almost four years of campaigning and negotiating, initially with Brent Council, and more recently with All Souls College and the developer, FKRL's objectives has been, and will remain, to re-establish a library and community space in the building. We trust and hope that our decision offers the community the best chance of this.

The decision is not without risk. However, there were risks involved in the other options open to us which we ultimately rejected. These included the following:

1. HOLDING OUT FOR MORE SPACE

• The provision of rent-free space is an important factor for the sustainability of a community library. The current proposal is for rent-free community space, as this forms part of the agreement between All Souls College and the developer. Even if further space were to be available for community use, there is no guarantee that it would be rent-free.
• Although the upstairs parts of the library were used for archive and staff purposes until the library closed, the ground floor is the only part of the library that has been accessible to the public in recent years, and planning officers noted and remarked on this when we met them in October 2013.

2. TRUSTING IN ACV

• FKRL worked hard to persuade the Council to protect the entire building as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) in 2012. Just before the Council designated it as an ACV the College and the developer entered into a binding agreement that meant the moratorium period of six months that we might have used to prepare a bid for the building could not apply.
• We may have prepared a bid to buy the building, but there would have been no obligation on the College to accept our bid.
• If change of use from community to part-residential/part-community use was refused and the whole building remained in D1 (community) use as an ACV, the developer could rent it out for other community uses: for example, as a religious place of worship, doctor's surgery, or school. The planning process cannot dictate that the community space must be used as a library.
• There is no guarantee that any of the space will be used for a library or for anything that this community might want or need, nor who will be able to use the space.
• ACV does not determine ownership. The owner remains the same. The community does not own the building.

3.  HOPING THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS REJECTED

• If the most recent planning application is rejected, the developer could go to Appeal or submit another planning application. This could continue for years, during which there would probably not be any community access to the building.

4. HOPING THE DEVELOPER SELLS THE BUILDING

• If the developer decided to sell the building, substantial seven figure sums would be needed not only to purchase but also to refurbish. The developer would be under no obligation to sell it to FKRL or to the community.
• There is no guarantee that any new purchaser would be obliged to grant a rent free space space to the community.

FKRL made their decision after very carefully analysing the risk of losing the space proposed in the latest planning application, We have always endeavoured to act fairly, honestly and openly in our negotiations with the other parties and have entered into this agreement in good faith.

Kensal Rise Library's last librarian - before it was closed - said of FKRL's achievement and of the space currently on offer:

I'm sorry you weren't able to get as much space as you wanted, obviously the more the better. I think though that you've still got enough space to have a really good community library. There are certainly nice libraries that are smaller than the area you've got.

You have done a fantastic job in my opinion in saving the library. I really hope that as a group you don't let any disappointment about not getting everything you wanted overshadow what you have achieved. The odds were stacked against you and the people running Brent Libraries were determined Kensal should close. I'm sure that you will make a success of running the library. It really will be valued by local people after the fight that has been put up to save it.

Karl Hemsley (25 March 2014).

We are encouraged by the support of the Lead Member for Libraries at Brent Council, Cllr Roxanne Tessa Awe, Mashari, and by the present and future backing of Ms Tessa Awe, CEO of Brent CVS (Community, Voluntary Sector). There is tremendous community support for the library and the campaign to save it, and we know local people will embrace a new community library if, as we hope, we are given the opportunity to run it.

(FKRL have not been asked to comment on the whole of the planing application, only on the space proposed for D1 (community) use in the redevelopment. The Council is consulting the local community about the planning application in the usual way and everyone is free to comment on all aspects of the proposal.)

WE TRUST THAT THE ABOVE WILL GIVE ALL OUR SUPPORTERS AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASONING BEHIND OUR ADOPTING THIS POSITION AND WE VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO OPERATING A COMMUNITY LIBRARY FROM THE D1 SPACE IN DUE COURSE.

Trustees of Friends of Kensal Rise Library

Brent’s approach to consultation – has anything changed?

Acknowledgement: http://myhome.iolfree.ie/~lightbulb/Research.html

Four years ago, in the infancy of this blog, I published an article entitled 'Is consultation a con?'  LINK which suggested a series of possible definitions so that the purpose and limits of consultation was transparent. Since then we have had many 'consultations' in Brent and the problem remains as this 'Case Study' Guest Blog by Philip Grant as well as the earlier posting by 'Malinowski'  shows.

1. Introduction: In 2011 we witnessed a disastrously mishandled consultation process over Brent’s Libraries Transformation Project, when Council Officers treated the views expressed by local residents with contempt, yet still managed to get the Executive to rubber-stamp their plans. The repercussions of that episode still continue today. Brent Council has moved on, and now has enshrined in Article 10 of its Constitution the following commitments:

1.  The Council is committed to involving the community through effective consultation and two-way communication.

2.  The Council recognises that meaningful participation can only take place:

• in an environment where people are better informed about local services;

• where community spirit is fostered so that people care enough to want to take part, and are encouraged to do so; and

• where council decisions can be seen to reflect the views and concerns of local residents.

That is very good, but has anyone told Council Officers about this? Let me share with you a genuine “Case Study”, which has happened during the past three weeks.

2. Case Study: I am one of those people who ‘care enough to want to take part’, and along with five other members from local history societies accepted the invitation to take part in a stakeholder consultation meeting at the Civic Centre to help develop a new Museum and Archives Strategy. It was chaired by Neil Davies (Strategy and Service Development) [“ND”], who told us that the draft strategy would be prepared in time to go out for consultation at “Brent Connects” in January 2014, with the Council deciding on the new strategy in the Spring. He had already received views from “internal stakeholders”, and our views would be among several inputs into the draft strategy by “external stakeholders”.

Although most of the meeting was positive, with plenty of participation and many sensible ideas put forward, it got off to a bad start. One of the first points raised by us was why a staff restructuring exercise was taking place now at the Museum and Archives, when surely the time to do this would be after the new Strategy had been consulted on and decided, which would still give plenty of time before the new facilities open at Willesden Green in Spring 2015. ND did not appear to know about the restructuring. Sue McKenzie (Head of Libraries, Arts and Heritage) [“SMc”] was also at the meeting, but she refused to discuss her staff restructuring plans, as these were ‘an internal matter’.

I had already heard a little of what the staff restructuring plans were, and emailed that evening (16 October) to Sue Harper (Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services) [“SH”] to express my concern about the consultation process being undermined. It appeared that SMc was trying to push through a restructuring by December 2013, based on her own view of what a new Museum and Archives Strategy should be, while the consultation process was actually in progress which should decide that strategy. I also explained that if the experienced existing staff lost their jobs, which seemed a likely result of SMc’s proposals, it would seriously damage the delivery of Brent’s Heritage Services.

I received a “reply” from Jenny Isaac (Operational Director, Neighbourhoods) [“JI”] on 18 October, which did not answer either of the points I had raised. Instead it explained that SMc couldn’t discuss the restructuring plans in public, because ‘the impact on our teams is something for Sue to manage carefully, sensitively and supportively with those individuals who are affected.’ (My reply to this point was: ‘I suggest that you visit RK and MBB in the cramped basement storeroom at George Furness House where they currently have to work, and ask them, face-to-face, whether the proposed restructuring which they have been faced with since 18 September has been managed 'carefully, sensitively and supportively.' – to the best of my knowledge, no such visit has yet been made.)

The rest of JI’s long email to me was a justification of the restructuring exercise, including several quotations from reports by national bodies, most of which I have later discovered was “copied and pasted” from a document written by SMc, topped off with the claim that: ‘the proposals have been discussed with The National Archive who are supportive of the proposals’. In my reply (19 October) I pointed out that the quotations merely gave good reasons why a review of Museum and Archives Strategy should be taking place, that consultation on this was taking place, and that ND had told us at our stakeholder meeting that the “discussions” she was putting forward as support for SMc’s restructuring proposals were actually one of the inputs into his consultation on the new strategy.

My reply to JI also restated, without any room for doubt, what were the two issues which needed to be resolved, that the restructuring should not be taking place now because it went against Brent’s commitments on consultation, and that if the restructuring did take place now it would seriously damage the delivery of Brent’s Heritage services. As before, her “reply” (23 October) ignored both of these points, again defending the staff restructuring and saying it was: ‘an internal matter, and Sue Mckenzie is fully complying with proper HR processes and procedures. The views of the affected staff will be carefully considered when the final decision on the future structure of the museum and archive is made.’ (We will return to those ‘proper HR processes’ later.)

JI’s email also said that: ‘The staff restructure will ensure flexibility to deliver the new museum and archive strategy’ (which turned out to be another “copy and paste” from SMc). My response (also 23 October) was:

‘How can you be sure, when that strategy is still not even in draft form? SMc has submitted her ideas to ND, as an internal stakeholder, but if his consultation exercise on the Museum and Archives Strategy is to have any credibility, she should not be implementing a staff restructuring in Museum and Archives, presumably based on her own view of the future staff needs of Museum and Archives, until after the Strategy has been properly decided. That is the key point of principle here, and that is why the Museum and Archives staff restructuring must be halted.’

I don’t know about you, but I thought that was a pretty convincing argument. Whether JI was convinced I will never know, because she did not attempt to counter it, replying on 24 October (please note the date):

‘The position is unchanged.  I reiterate, the new team will be sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of the new strategy and ensure that the new museum and archive provides a service that is relevant to a wider group of our residents. You will be consulted on the museum and archive strategy as appropriate. The Council will not enter into further correspondence on the staff restructure.’

Now, I thought that on 16 October I had raised an important point with a Council Director which needed to be considered and resolved. In several exchanges of emails I had put that point, and the reasons supporting the view I was taking. In return, the Senior Council Officer I was dealing with side-stepped the key issue, did not try to resolve anything and then refused to discuss the matter further. What could I do? Well, I don’t give up if I feel I have an important and valid point, and ‘the Council is committed to involving the community through effective consultation and two-way communication’, so I went back to the top.

I wrote straight away, jointly to SH and Cllr. Roxanne Mashari [“RM”, who has been copied in on all of the correspondence, but has not contacted me at all], saying that the issue I had raised did need to be resolved, and drawing attention to JI’s references to a “new team”:

‘As SMc and JI are apparently already determined that there will be a "new team", what chance is there of any genuine consideration being given to the alternative proposals which I understand the existing Archives team (the Museum Curator having left last month) intend to put forward?

The implementation now of a staff restructuring by SMc raises similar concerns over how genuine the consultation exercise on the Museum and Archives Strategy will be. I am sure that ND will do a conscientious job in producing a new Strategy document, but behind his back SMc will already have put in place the "new team" that she has chosen. Until the new Strategy has been properly consulted on and decided, how can anyone really know whether the existing team, or at least some members of it, could deliver Brent's future Museum and Archives Strategy as well as, if not better than, any "new team"?’

Having asked some important questions, what answers did I get to them from SH on 28 October? None!

‘Thank you for your email of 24 October.  In recognition of the fact that you have a number of concerns outstanding, in line with our complaints procedure, I have asked the Council’s Complaints Manager, Phillip Mears, to undertake a first stage complaints investigation on my behalf.  Once Mr Mears has completed his investigation I will write to you with my decision.’

I responded that I had not actually made a complaint, and that although there might be some serious concerns which could be looked at to see whether they could have been handled better, the key point was to put any staff restructuring “on hold” until after the new Museum and Archives strategy had been properly consulted on and decided. I heard nothing further until SH replied on 4 November, saying:

‘As you know, I have asked Philip Mears to investigate your concerns as part of the Council’s complaint procedure and he will reply to you shortly. I am not prepared to get into further correspondence on the subject whilst this investigation is underway as in my experience it is likely to confuse the issue.’

So, yet again, no attempt by a Senior Council Officer to resolve an important point raised by a concerned participant in what was supposed to be a genuine Brent consultation exercise. By the time it was sent, SMc had issued her Final Decision Paper (“FDP”) on her staff restructuring proposals. It turned out that much of JI’s email to me of 18 October, and parts of some others, had been “copied and pasted” from the FDP, most of which had been written before SMc received the comments and alternative proposals from the staff she was supposedly consulting. And as for ‘the views of the affected staff will be carefully considered’, the thoughtful and sensible alternatives, which would ensure a good front-line service for the public and be delivered with a slightly larger cost saving, were rejected. The reason was because they did not meet the future service requirements (SMc’s own vision of what the new Strategy should be) set out in her consultation document. 

How a consultation which only allows you to give the answer that the person “consulting” with you wants can be treated as ‘fully complying with proper HR processes and procedures’, I fail to understand. It was a sham, and because of it, the existing team at Brent Archives will have their jobs “deleted”. They will be able to apply for “new posts” (several grades above the level they are currently employed at) which they are unlikely to get, especially with SMc also dismissing their request that she should not be on the panel interviewing them, because of her conflict of interests in the matter. 

What could I do about it? Well, I have made a detailed formal complaint to Brent’s Interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, against the actions of three Senior Brent Council Officers. She has refused to put the staff restructuring “on hold”, so even if my complaint is eventually upheld, it will probably be too late to save the jobs of the staff who will be key to delivering the sort of front-line Archives service that “external stakeholders” would like to see as part of the new Museum and Archives Strategy.

3. Conclusion. You may think I am naive (you would probably be right) but I believe that much more positive results can be achieved for our community by local people, Council Officers and Councillors working together. That is what I try to do in practice, but it needs to be seen to work, and at the moment it is not working.

My experience here is that Senior Officers have not learned the proper lessons from the way that they and, on their advice, Brent’s Executive mishandled the Libraries Transformation Project consultation exercise in 2011. Instead, the lesson they seem to have taken from it is that as they “got away with it” then, they can do the same again. For things to improve, Senior Officers need to set an example, and embrace the Council’s commitments on consultation. They should not, as in this case study, undermine or ignore proper consultation procedures. They should treat with respect, and seek to work together with, Councillors, staff and Brent’s citizens, in an open, transparent and reasonable manner. If they cannot, or will not, they should seek employment elsewhere.

If you have any comments or experiences to share, either for or against the views I have set out, please “post” them below, but no abuse, please. If any of the Officers I have mentioned wish to have a right of reply, I hope that Martin will allow it to them. A big “Thank You” to Martin for giving me the chance to write this “guest blog”, and thanks to you for reading it.

Philip Grant.

Postscript from Hitchhikers Guide to the Planet on Planning Consultations

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy