Philip Grant’s Deputation for Scrutiny Committee: item 9 – Poverty Commission Update

Philip Grant's presentation to Scrutiny Committee was abandoned due to poor internet connections.  Here it is: 

The Poverty Commission Update report asks you to ‘Note progress on implementation of the Poverty Commission recommendations as agreed by Cabinet.’

You are a Scrutiny Committee, and you should be questioning this report, not just noting it. Please look at paragraph 3.7, on Housing. What progress has been made on that?

Lord Best’s Poverty Commission identified the cost of housing as a major contributor to poverty in Brent, and recommended a substantial increase in investment in social housing.

Brent’s Cabinet agreed Recommendation 4, which said: ‘We recommend that in pursuing its strategic target to secure 50% of new homes as affordable, Brent gives special consideration to achieving more social rented homes.’

Yet you look at “Housing” in the Update report, and there is not a single mention of social rented homes!

The Update report says that the Council is making great progress with its New Council Homes programme, but how many of those homes are genuinely new homes for people on the housing waiting list?

Of the 655 homes already delivered, 209 at Gloucester & Durham in South Kilburn are actually replacement homes for tenants whose flats were demolished to make way for that development.

Of the homes delivered or ‘onsite’, 92 at Knowles House are for temporary accommodation, not permanent Council homes.

At Grand Union in Alperton, the figures include 23 for shared ownership. The 92 rented Council homes there will be for London Affordable Rent, which is higher than social rent levels.

If you ask how many of the New Council Homes Brent says it can deliver by 2024 will be at social rent levels, I think you’ll find the answer is “none”.

One place where Brent could increase investment in social housing is the former Copland School site. It is vacant land, owned by the Council, which has had full planning permission to build 250 homes there for over a year.

I wrote to Cabinet members last August, when that item was on their agenda, urging them to fulfil their Poverty Commission promises, and make at least some of this development homes for social rent.

Instead, they approved a proposal which allows 152 of the new homes there to be sold privately. Of the 98 Council homes, 61 would be for shared ownership, and only 37 for London Affordable Rent.

Overall, the Wembley Housing Zone scheme claims to provide 50% “affordable housing”. But the balance of that is 54 flats at London Affordable Rent level on the Ujima House site, and only 8 of those would be family-sized homes.

There would be NO social rented homes. That’s the reality hidden in this Poverty Commission Update.

You, as a Scrutiny Committee, need to challenge that, and demand that Brent Council does better.

You can recommend that in meeting its Poverty Commission commitments, it should invest in more social rent housing as part of the New Council Homes programme, including at its Cecil Avenue development.

Thank you for listening to me. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

Joint Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday to consider the Casey Review into disturbances at UEFA 2020 Final in Wembley

 

The Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee (Chair Cllr Ketan Sheth) and Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee (Chair Cllr Roxanne Mashari) will meet in the Conference Hall at Brent Civic Centre on Wednesday 9th March at 6pm to consider a shared item on the Casey Review. The latter Committee will move on to consider other items on their agenda.

The Casey Review investigated the issues around the disturbances at Wembley Stadium at the Euro 2020 Final and made a series of recommendations. 

Recommendations pertaining to street drinking and licensed premises were implemented last weekend for the Carabao Cup Final. LINK

After the event Brent Coucill hailed the action as a success:

The drink-free zone around Wembley Stadium created a friendly and enjoyable atmosphere for those attending the Carabao Cup Final on Sunday (Feb 27).

Working with the police and The FA, the council used its powers under the existing borough-wide Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to crack down on street drinking ahead of the final, between Liverpool and Chelsea, in a bid to limit anti-social behaviour.

3,000 bottles or cans of alcohol were confiscated from the small minority of rule breakers on Olympic Way and the surrounding streets.

Councillor Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said: “Yesterday we saw 90,000 football fans from across the country come to Wembley for the first full-capacity event held at the Stadium since the start of the pandemic.

“When we welcome fans, as we have done for decades, we feel like we’re welcoming them into our home so residents really want visitors to treat the local area with respect. It was wonderful to see the vast majority of fans do just that and I would like to thank everyone who followed the rules by not drinking on the street. Not only did this mean local pubs, bars, fan zones and restaurants were all buzzing with excitement, it also reduced the amount of litter on the streets and created a more enjoyable family-friendly experience all-around.

“I also want to thank the council’s enforcement officers, the police, Wembley Park and The FA. By working together and having a visible presence in the area, these keyworkers made a real difference in cracking down quickly on the small minority of fans who chose not to follow the rules.

“Finally, thanks also go to the local off licenses and retailers who stopped selling alcohol to fans before the game. This new approach will be rolled out for all future matches in Wembley as we look forward to welcoming more fans back to the historic Stadium over the coming months.”

The item on the Agenda states:

Baroness Casey review of events surrounding the UEFA Euro 2020 Final 'Euro Sunday' at Wembley

To discuss the Baroness Casey review of events surrounding the UEFA

Euro 2020 Final ‘Euro Sunday’ at Wembley, alongside the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee

There is no accompanying report tabled at present.

Euro2020 generated a 'significant risk to public health' across the UK even when England played overseas. Public Disorder meant Covid19 checks were suspended at the Wembley Final.

 

The UK Government Events Research Programme has published a report on the Public Health Impact of mass cultural and sporting events on the prevalence of Covid 19. LINK

The report covers Euro 2020 matches including the final at Wembley Stadium on July 12th and will feed into various inquiries, hopefully including the two internal inquiries agreed by Brent Council. LINK

The disorder and stadium invasion at Wembley Stadium on July 11th when England played Italy  probably had an impact as did the nature of football crowds and pre-match socialising and drinking.

I reprint the substance of the report blow. A full version with footnotes can be found on the link above.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The increasing number of reported cases across all events reflects the increasing community prevalence of COVID-19 during that period. Both the EURO 2020 matches at Wembley and the All England Lawn Tennis Championships were mass spectator sporting events taking place on multiple days within a short period of time at an outdoor stadium in Greater London. There were similar numbers of spectators and high capacity in the stadia, reaching 75% for the later EURO 2020 matches and 100% on Centre Court at the Wimbledon final. Both required evidence of vaccination or negative LFD or natural immunity as a condition of entry. There are very markedly different numbers of positive cases reported as associated with these events, with those associated with the Wimbledon event more comparable with those reported from the other ERP events running concurrently, and with the numbers testing positive within the wider community at that time. This suggests that the EURO 2020 matches generated a level of COVID -19 transmission over and above that which would be more commonly associated with large crowds attending an outdoor sporting event with measures in place to mitigate transmission.

The number of potentially infected persons attending Wembley stadium increased as the tournament progressed, reaching more than 2,000 at the EURO 2020 final despite event goers requiring a COVID pass for entry; this was in contrast with much lower infectious cases detected at other events occurring in the same month. This raises questions on the utility of individuals self-reporting tests in reducing the prevalence of COVID infection at rare or special occasion events and the longer term deliverability of self-testing as an option to mitigate disease transmission.

Research teams present at each of these events have verbally reported stark differences in crowd and spectator behaviour (personal communication from Dr Aoife Hunt, formal report in preparation). Whilst attendees at Wimbledon were reported to be largely compliant with the crowd management measures in place, at the Wembley stadium the concourse areas became densely populated with shouting, chanting and boisterous behaviour with close contact in these areas before and during the semi-final and final matches.

 

At both venues alcohol was served, but at Wembley attendees were not allowed to take this into the seated accommodation. At both venues the compliance with risk mitigation measures was variable. However, the initial reports from research teams indicate that the Wembley spectators became less compliant with mitigation such as face coverings as the tournament progressed. In addition to this, the carbon dioxide levels reported from the concourse areas were higher than those recorded at other high risk settings in the ERP events, including the densely crowded areas at the Download music festival, and will have compounded the risk associated with the high numbers of spectators potentially infectious at the event itself (personal communication from Dr Liora Malki-Epshtein UCL, formal report in preparation).

 

Finally, the public disorder offences occurring at EURO 2020 have been widely reported, including an undefined number of ticketless fans who gained entry to the stadium. Public disorder in and around the stadium meant that COVID-19 status checks were suspended for the Final.

 

The EURO 2020 events had an increasing impact on a national scale which was not observed for other events within the ERP, suggesting that there were additional factors associated with these events and that the risk of COVID transmission was not mitigated by the control measures in place for entry to the event itself. There was increasing national interest as the tournament progressed, as this was the first time an English team were in an international final for 55 years generating a sense of the final stages being a ‘once in a generation’ occasion. This will not be replicated for all sport tournaments taking place over the winter, nor for all football matches. However, previous crowd behaviours associated with football fans has underpinned the methods used to manage these crowds including the legislation in place governing alcohol consumption within football stadia. In general terms, this has the effect of concentrating people into as few areas as possible while crowd management strategies often hold groups until they can be moved en-masse in a controlled manner. To mitigate the risk of transmission of COVID-19 it would be preferable to dissipate the crowds across as wide an area as possible and manage the movement over long periods of time, as happened at other events including the Wimbledon tennis championships. Further analysis of movement strategies will be reported as part of ERP phase 3 reports.

In addition to the cases associated directly with Wembley stadium, there was a noticeable national impact on COVID-19 case rates for key games including the Ukraine versus England quarter-final (3 July in Rome), for the England versus Denmark semi-final (7 July) and for the England versus Italy final (11 July), reflecting that in the later stages of the EURO 2020 tournament people came together across the country to watch the games and celebrate. There are higher proportions of events coded as pubs or bars on each of these dates compared to other dates for COVID-19 cases in England.

The case numbers associated with the events were detected using the routine reporting systems and were mainly from individuals who were symptomatic. As high proportions of cases, especially in young healthy individuals are asymptomatic, this is likely to be an underestimate of the full impact of these events. In addition, contact tracing is only undertaken for PCR test results and supervised LFD test results (those who are positive on home LFDs are requested to undertake an immediate PCR test) and recall bias of those contacted will vary. While there is no detailed age and sex breakdown for those who attended, it is highly likely that certain sports events (for example, football, golf) were more likely to have higher male and younger demographic attending. The age distribution also likely reflects the impact of vaccination; by 11 July 2021, more than 80% of those over 50 years were fully vaccinated and less than 30% of those under 40 years were fully vaccinated.

Contact tracing information can indicate events or locations individuals have attended while at risk of transmitting COVID-19 or places where transmission may have occurred.

It is not possible to say with certainty how many individuals transmitted COVID-19 at an event or venue, nor exactly where an individual contracted the virus. The Euro Final match did not take place until 8pm, meaning that those attending may have been engaging in social activities during their journey to the match, and prior to entering the stadium itself. Transmission of infection may have occurred at the event itself or during any of the other reported activities associated with the event, of which attending a pub or
restaurant is the most frequently reported.

Neither full vaccination nor a negative LFD test will completely eliminate the possibility of an infectious individual attending an event, but it should reduce the likelihood of someone transmitting highly infectious amounts of virus to a large number of individuals attending the event.  

 

CONCLUSION

 

The EURO2020 tournament and England’s progress to the EURO final generated a significant risk to public health across the UK even when England played overseas. This risk arose not just from individuals attending the event itself, but included activities undertaken during travel and associated social activities. For the final and semi-final games at Wembley, risk mitigation measures in place were less effective in controlling COVID transmission than was the case for other mass spectator sports events.

EURO2020-related transmissions have also been documented in Scotland where 2,632 individuals self-reported attending a EURO2020 event in the UK; and Finland, where 947 new SARS-CoV-2-positive cases were linked to travel to Moscow, Russia.

Whilst some of this may be attributed to a set of circumstances which are unlikely to be replicated for the forthcoming sporting season, other aspects may be important to consider including mitigations for spectators to consider such as face coverings when travelling to and from events and minimising crowding in poorly ventilated indoors spaces such as bars and pubs where people may congregate to watch events. It is also important that individuals are informed to reduce the risk of transmission from aerosol exposure related to shouting and chanting in large groups by improving ventilation in enclosed spaces.

Other risk mitigation measures at high community prevalence include reducing the number of persons entering events or venues who are potentially infectious or at risk of severe disease or hospitalisation by promoting attendance by fully vaccinated individuals will be important. Promoting vaccination and the wearing of face coverings for those attending events will also reduce the risk of transmission associated with the journey to and from the event and associated social activities. Finally, event organisers should consider measures to manage the density of crowds in areas such as hospitality and concessions on the concourses, and entry and exit points to the event.

 

Cllr Butt turns down public review into Brent Council’s actions taken before, during and after the Euro 2020 Final to establish the lessons learnt

 

In the aftermath of the disturbances at the Euro202 Final at Wembley Stadium the Council’s Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee added an emergency item to its agenda and discussed what had happened with council officers before agreeing a recommendation to be made to the Cabinet.

 

Cllr Roxanne Mashari presented that recommendation yesterday. She said that there was public concern in Brent about the disturbances and resulting injuries as well as concern over the public health implications of what had been called the Wembley Covid Variant. The Committee had been disappointed with the lack of detail coming from officers.

 

Cllr Mashari thanked Brent CEO Carolyn Downs for sharing an incident report with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee as well as the Chair of the Community and Well Being Scrutiny Committee but was concerned at the lack of publicly available information regarding the Council’s activities and responsibilities on the day.

 

The Scrutiny Committee resolved that the Council should hold a public  review into its actions before, during and after the Final to establish lessons learnt.

 

Responding the Leader of the Council, Cllr Butt, said that there were live cases going through the courts at present and no one from the Council or anyone else would be making any public statement about what had happened on that day.

 

He said that the Council would cooperate fully with the Casey Inquiry and went on to thank council officers for the work that they had done ‘going above and beyond what was actually required’ – work that had been in preparation over 3 years.

 

Cllr Butt reiterated that it would be wrong to make any comment or to assert any wrongdoing from anyone until investigations had concluded. He thanked everyone for ensuring that the event place in very difficult and challenging circumstances.  He added that the Government had recommended that the number of people attending the matches should be staggered slowly and that was exactly what had happened. The Council had played its full part in making sure that that everyone who needed testing and support had it. Every single service in the Council absolutely played its part and would continue to do so.

 

No other Cabinet member spoke, and no vote was taken on the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation.

 

Will Brent Cabinet decide to set up its own review of Euro2020 Final disturbances and security breaches?

 

A month ago Brent Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee decided to recommend that the Brent Cabinet set up an internal inquiry, open to the public, into the disturbances and security breaches at the Euro2020 Final at Wembley Stadium. LINK  (The precise working is not available  as the Minutes of the meeting have not yet been published.)

The recommendation was not tabled at the subsequent Cabinet meeting but references from the Council's Scrutiny Committees are on the agenda for Monday's 10am Cabinet meeting. No reports are attached to the item.

The Brent CEO made a statement shortly after the Final but Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt was silent until the Football Association set up its own review. He welcomed the review in a statement on the Council website but did not mention any independent Brent Council review:

We welcome the independent review, announced by the FA, to get to the bottom of the scenes we saw at the EURO 2020 Final. It is important that a full and thorough review takes place and that any lessons that can be taken from the events of the England v Italy game are learnt.

The council will be fully participating in that review and will take on board any recommendations Baroness Casey has for activities under our remit.

Clearly there is a difference between participating in another organisation's review and carrying out your own. Cllr Roxanne Mashari, chair of the Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, recognised this in her own tweet after the FA's announcement:

Promising to see the FA announce an independently chaired review of security breaches at Wembley Stadium. Essential that this review includes Brent Council who have yet to commit to reviewing their own actions and producing a report on lessons learned.

FA's Independent Review of July 11th Euro2020 welcomed by Brent's Scrutiny chairs

The chairs of both Brent Scrutiny Committee have welcomed the Football Associations decision to set up an independently review of events at the July 11th Euro2020 Final at Wembley Stadium,

 Cllr Roxanne Mashari, chair of the Resources and Public Health Scrutiny Committee, tweeted:

Promising to see the FA announce an independently chaired review of security breaches at Wembley Stadium. Essential that this review includes Brent Council who have yet to commit to reviewing their own actions and producing a report on lessons learned.

Cllr Ketan Sheth, chair of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee also tweeted:

Good to see Baroness Casey will lead the Football Association review of security breaches with depth, integrity to ensure the facts and the circumstances are reported, understood and are 'never able to be repeated'.

I was expecting the Brent Council Cabinet today to receive and discuss the recommendation from the Scrutiny Committee that they set up an independent review  of events on the Euro2020 Final at Wembley Stadium on July 11th.

It was not included on the Agenda itself or under Other Urgent Business and the incidents were not referred to by Council Leader  Muhammed Butt, who chairs the Cabinet.

This means it will not be discussed until the next Cabinet meeting on August 16th.  One would  think that riotous and potentially dangerous behavour threatening residents safety and wellbeing would merit some attention from the local council, partially responsible for overseeing the event, when UEFA, Metropolitan Police and now the FA have all reacted.

 

 

UPDATED: Brent Scrutiny recommend to Brent Council Cabinet that they undertake a public review of lessons learnt from Sunday's incidents at Wembley Stadium

 

Shortly after UEFA announced an investigation into Sunday's events at the Euro2020 match at Wembley, Brent Scrutiny Committee attempted to find out whether Brent Council was going to hold a review of its own responsibilities in the matter.

Brent Council is responsible for scrutinising all the public safety arrangements at the Stadium and for issuing the safety licence. The Council also chairs the Wembley Stadium Advisory Group.

 

Recording of yesterday's meeting

Committee Chair, Roxanne Mashari, had to repeatedly remind officers that the Committee had a right and a duty to scrutinise these issues in the light of the seriousness of what had taken place. Residents need to be reassured that concerns were addressed and that similar events would not happen again.

In response officers said it was too soon after the event to consider these issues and wanted to wait until Tuesday's meeting with partners in the SafetyAdvisory Group for information that would be forthcoming. The Advisory Group includes the Council, Police, Wembley Stadium and the Football Association. It was evident that Chris Bryant, representing the FA, had been taken by surprise by the UEFA announcement.

Chris Whyte for Brent Council outlined the Council's role and particularly the activities of the Council's two Public Safety Officers who were present before, during and after events to check arrangements both inside and outside the stadium. Such arrangements included how the checking of tickets at turnstiles was managed; management of licensed premises inside the stadium; management of the seating arrangements once the match started; crowd management outside the stadium including the enforcement of Public Space Prohibition Orders over illegal trading, advertising, ticket touting; and working with partners via the Stadium Control Room bringing any incidents to their attention. No councillor questioned whether two Public Safety Officers were sufficient for such a large stadium with 60,000 plus attending.

Whyte clarified it was only the Council's operation alplan that he was responsible for signing off, and not those covering policing and stewarding. The plan was forwarded to the CEO and Council Leader. The police and Wembley Stadium made their own risk assessments for specific events and subsequent deployment decisions.

Cllr Hassan wanted to know the terms of reference for any inquiry and what it would cover and whether the Council deployed different numbers for different events. Chris Whyte said it was too early to discuss terms of reference for an inquiry and the Council should wait for the meeting with other stakeholders. The level of resources that the Council had deployed recognised the importance of Euro2020 ands was well in excess of the number that would be deployed at a Spice Girls concert.

Cllr Mashari was frustrated at not being able to get a clear commitment to a public review by the Council itself and her suggestion that the Committee recommend that Tuesday's stakeholders meeting should be held in public was rejected. Cllr Janice Long suggested that this  demand amounted to grandstanding and Mashari should not believe everything she read in the papers. Cllr Mashari said the allegation of grandstanding diminished the seriousness of the incident where people were injured and a tragedy could have happened.

 

 

Video Evidence in Tos Atkins' BBC  Report HERE

After further discussion when most members agreed to wait for more information, the Committee agreed that information from the Safety Advisory Group, including the Minutes, should be brought to the next Scrutiny Committee meeting and made a recommendation that the Cabinet undertake a public review of lessons learnt from Sunday's incidents.

The leader of the Council, Muhammed Butt, was present latterly during the discussion but did not take part.

Another informative article worth reading revealing there were advance plans for fans to 'jib' into the stadium- points to a failure in pre-match intelligence:  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/euro-2020-wembley-security-failings-b1884231.html

Chair of Scrutiny calls on Brent Council & Wembley Stadium staff to appear at tomorrow's meeting to address 'serious security and safety concerns' after yesterday's incidents

Following yesterday's breach of security at the England-Italy match at Wembley Stadium, Cllr Roxanne Mashari, Chair of Brent Council Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committe,  has requested relevant staff to appear at tomorrow's public Scrutiny Meeting.

In a tweet Cllr Mashari said  that she wanted Brent Council and Wembley Stadium staff to answer questions regarding serious security and safety concerns at the stadium.

Guardian's account HERE

 

Imperative that Brent Scrutiny Committee seeks answers on US takeover of Brent GP surgeries at Wednesday's meeting

 

 

The main agenda items tabled for Wednesday's meeting

This blog has reported the huge concerns of local councillors, Barry Gardiner MP, Brent Patient Voice  and Patient Participation Groups over the takeover of two GP surgeries in Brent by a US company. The concerns have been echoed across London in a joint letter by London borough chiefs to Matt Hancock.

One of the main issues is the alleged lack of due diligence by Brent CCG in coming to the apparent decision to back that takeover and the fact that the decision (it it wasa decision) being made in a private session.

Surely then it is incomprehensible that the only vehicle that the Council has to holding the Brent CCG to account, the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, does not have  this as an item on its Agenda (above).

One can only hope that councillors will put such an item on the Agenda under Any Other Business in accordance with Standing Order 60.  

Many questions were left unanswered or unsatisfactorily answered at  Wednesday's meeting of the PPPG LINK this is a chance for Scrutiny to really do its job.

Brent Scrutiny examines the vital area of new council homes at 4pm today - let's hope they have lots of questions

The Brent Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee meets at the earlier time of 4pm today, which is unfortunate as many residents with a direct interest in the issue  under discussion will still be at work. The Committee is usually held at 6pm.

You can watch the meeting at 4pm HERE

The Committee will examine a report on the New Council Homes Project (NCHP) and reports on the two arms length council organisations that provide housing by various routes. This article concentrates on the former.

 Brent has a very long housing list and the report covers the two most needy categories: (December 2020)  1924 homeless households in temporary accommodation and 971 homeseekers defined by the allocations policy as in acute need. This is the accommodation needed:

 1bed–464

2bed–770

3 bed – 1167

4bed–424

5bed–64

 6bed–7  

 

      The table below (Table 1) sets out the projected number of new homes including all of those included in the NCHP based on known development sites and opportunities identified to date as at November 2020. It breaks delivery down by the different types of accommodation:

·  TA: Temporary Accommodation

·  S106: Homes delivered due to a s106 obligation

·  DLP: Developer Led Project

·  SSU: Supported Specialised Units

·  NAIL: New Accommodation for Independent Living

 

UPDATE: In answer to a query from Wembley Matters about the table above Brent Council said all rented properties developed by the council and counted in Table 1, will be let at London Affordable Rent levels or less.
 

The large anount of shared ownership housing  will be a concern to many given the recent comment by planning officers on the Willesden development that 95% of intermediate products (such as shared ownership) are not affordable to 95% of Brent residents LINK.

Shared ownership is currently in the news over large bills for repairs post Grenfell that fall on the leaseholders rather than the freeholder and big hikes in service charges.  Which? LINK lists the pros and cons:

Committee members will hopefully also explore the definition of 'affordable' rent which range from 80% of market rent to social rent. 

The report  states that the current position in terms of delivery of the NCHP can be summarised as follows:

·  231 new homes have been built and let

·  610 homes are currently on site and being built

·  332 homes have been given planning consent and are now going through procurement to identify a building contractor. 

·  566 homes currently being assessed for feasibility.

The council''s ambition is to deliver 1,000 homes at 'genuinely affordable' rents. Table 2 below, shows some of the sites that are currently being explored. The pipeline consists of four elements.

Sites with building underway (on-site)

Sites with planning permission awaiting start on site

 

Sites deemed feasible submitted for Planning Permission

 

Sites currently being assessed for feasibility and financial viability.

The report describes plans to be delivered by Network Homes for 99 London Affordable Rent homes at Church End and 'new affordable rent' homes (definition?) totalling 370 on existing estates at Watling Gardens, Windmill Court and Kilburn Square.

A decision has to be made between redevelopment and infill on St Raphael's Estate. The redevelopment option would deliver 2,065 new homes a net increase of 550 'affordable' (definition?) rented homes, while the infill proposes to deliver 370 'new homes' (tenure details?)

Regarding South Kilburn the report says:

Officers continue to explore opportunities in South Kilburn to deliver an increased number of Council homes while still ensuring a sensible balance between different housing tenures, as required in the Master Plan. (What's a 'sensible balance?) 

 

New housing provided by Registered Providers and funded by the GLA is also planned over the next two years. (No mention of tenure):

 

 

 

Scrutinising Brent Council's Climate Emergency Strategy

 

 

The above recording is from the December 1st Scrutiny Committee. The recommendation to invest targeted  'new money' into the Strategy is clearly important and it was good to see a firmer commitment to investing the Council's pension fund into sustainable energy production rather than fossil fuels.  The concern with energy efficiency in the many new builds currently taking place in Brent made me wonder if it would be useful to have Scrutiny Committee investigate this area along with the environmental cost of  new build itself.

The issue of the whole Brent Council estate - council housing and council owned buildings, including most of our primary schools - and how they could contribute to emissions reduction and alternative energy production, was not discussed.

The consultation on the Climate Emergency Strategy ends on January 15th 2021 so do consider contributing as an individual or through organisations such as Brent Friends of the Earth.

Direct link to the Council consultation

Council overview of the consultation

Brent Friends of the Earth are working on their response. You can contact them at info@brentfoe.com

 

Battle for the bats (and our heritage) at Brent Scrutiny

The call-in of the Stonebridge Annexe contract resulted in officers agreeing to take forward the three actions recommended by the 5 councillors who signed the call-in.  These were that the implementation of the refurbishment contract be deferred until:

1.It is certain that the proposals for 1 Morland Gardens comprised in the 1 Morland Gardens Application have received all necessary consents, including GLA consent; and

2.The legislatively required minimum of three bat emergence/re-entry surveys between May and September in one year have been undertaken, consequent assessments undertaken, the results considered and appropriate response actioned; and

3.The potential requirement of bat surveys for the Stonebridge Annexe considered and (if necessary) dealt with as above

 Much discussion revolved around the lack of legally compliant bats surveys.  Two were added to the agenda but did not cover the period required by law and so there will be delays until compliant surveys are conduction at 1 Morland Gardens.  The Committee has asked that the legal advice given to the Council be published.

Cllr Perrin suggested that the Council were in grave danger of breaking the law on protected species, a criminal offence and Cllr Lloyd pointed out that obtaining a licence regarding development where there were bat roosts was a two stage process with the initial 3 stage process having to be completed before a licence application could be made.

There was concern that the initial Cabinet decision on 1 Morland Gardens had been made without councillors given sight of a report  on protected species. 

Councillors also considered that changes in the Council's constitution should be considered regarding delegated decision making by officers. It had been established that the officer who had made the recommendation that a contract for the Stonebridge Annexe be awarded was also the delegated officer who made the decision to award the contract. Alan Lunt, Strategic Director of Regeneration, said that he had been on leave but would have made the same decision himself. This did not satisfy Cllr Perrin who said it was important that there should be separation of powers in this regard.

 Lunt emphasisied that no contract had been awarded and that this would wait until all the planning processes for 1 Morland Gardens had been completed.

 A lone voice in the wilderness was Cllr Shafique Choudhary who in the wake of Covid19 held no brief for the protection of bats. 

The complaint made by local historian Philip Grant about the planning process for 1 Morland Gardens has still to be resolved.

I recommend you read the tweets by @MaryDuffinator for a blow by blow account of the meeting.

Muhammed Butt to be challenged for Labour Group leadership

In 2012 I got into trouble with then councillor Jim Moher in quoting a report about his part in the ousting of Ann John, then leader of Brent Council, and her replacement by her deputy, Muhammed Butt. LINK Moher said that he and his wife Ruth Moher, who became deputy leader, were engaged  openly in a democratic process.  Butt won the leadership by a narrow margin.

I am sure that Cllr Butt then will welcome the democratic process that will happen at the 2 stage virtual AGM. The first stage is on September 2nd and the second on September 5th   The AGM takes place after the publication of a report aimed at improving democracy in the Labour Group and more widely. LINK

Councillor Abdirazak Abdi (Kilburn) in an apparent attempt to reinforce the principle that democratic challenge is legitimate, is standing for many of the  positions, including the leadership,  according to the nomination list circulated recently.

Cllr Liz Dixon (Dollis Hill) is bidding to continue as Chair while Cllr Ihtesham Afzal  (Preston) challenges incumbent Vice Chair  Cllr Abdi Aden (Stonebridge).  Cllr Neil Nerva (Queens Park) is not standing again as Treasurer and the post will be contested by  Abdirazak Abdi, Cllr Shafique Choudhary (Barnhill) and Cllr  Keiron Gill (Brondesbury Park) a critic of the democracy report. Cllr Promise Knight (Stonebridge) is not continuing as Secretary and Councillor Sonia Shah (Wembley Central) has thrown her hat into the ring.

Cllr Sandra Kabir (Queensbury)wishes to remain Chief Whip but is challenged by Cllr Abdi.

Cllr Thomas Stephens (Sudbury) author of the democracy report, Cllr Promise Knight, Cllr Robert Johnson (Northwick Park),  and Nerva (a former leadership challenger to Butt) have all submitted an interest in joining the Cabinet.

One of the more interesting contests will be for the chairs of the two Scrutiny Committees. The group has recently agreed that one of the committees should be chaired by a  woman. Currently they are both chaired by men, Matt Kelcher and Cllr Ketan Sheth (Tokyngton).  They are standing again  and Cllr Roxanne Mashari (Welsh Harp and a former leadership challenger LINK), Cllr Fleur Donnelly-Jackson (Willesden Green) and Cllr Robert Johnson  are all candidates. It will be interesting, as I tweeted yesterday, to see if the positions are filled by people with the essential independence and integrity when the council is dominated by a single party and much power is concentrated in the Cabinet.

Sources suggest that Cllr James Denselow (Queens Park) is currently out of favour. He voted against the 1 Morland Gardens planning application recently, although it appears that falling out of favour pre-dated this.  Clearly his position as Chair of Planning Committee is a key one and given Cllr Butt's great interest in planning, a loyalist is likely to be appointed.  Kelcher and Johnson have been suggested as possibilities.

One issue that rankles with some is an unanswered question about how many councillors are members of Councillor Butt's extended family. On the one hand that should not matter as anyone is entitled to stand and if someone is a brother, brother-in-law or uncle, the relationship does not denote shared views. On the other hand, is this a matter of public interest when several of them (it has been suggested there are five altogether) could be on the same committee as members or substitutes?

Some Labour Group members are concerned that an election for Deputy Mayor will not take place at the AGM.