Brent Council attempts to address the Strategic Risks ahead and introduces new risk areas

Strategic Risk Areas - red equals highest risk and highest impact (5/5)

Tomorrow's Brent Audit and Standards Advisory Committee (6pm) LINK will be discussing the Strategic Risks Register compiled by the Council.

 

 

The following new risk areas have been added to the Strategic Risk Register:

 

Cost of living crisis

The cost of living crisis caused by rising rates of inflation and fuel/energy costs, may result in more families and households to fall into unemployment and poverty, which may lead to increased level of service demand on the Council and place additional pressure on front-line services.

Recruitment and retention

Failure to recruit and retain sufficient permanent staff to a significant number of posts, including senior managers, leaves services without sufficient and/or sufficiently qualified staff leading to services being impaired and an overreliance on agency/interim staff.

Increased demand from migration and people movement

There is a risk that a sustained increase in migration and movement of
people could result in increased demand on the Council's critical front-line services (including housing, education and looked after children), which may result in service deterioration, financial pressures and also impact on the wider cohesion of the community.

 

NEU Video on the Cost of Living Crisis calling for support for June 18th demonstration

 

The full report is available HERE. It is important for the reader to assess whether the Action Plans adequately address the risks in the various areas. I include two extracts below.

 

The Cost of Living Crisis is clearly important in Brent. The Risk Register states: 

COST OF LIVING CRISIS (A)

 

RISK SUMMARY

 

The cost of living crisis caused by rising rates of inflation, National Insurance, and fuel/energy costs, may result in more families and households to fall into poverty and unemployment, which may lead to increased level of service demand on the Council and place additional pressure on front-line services.

 

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, PROGESS AND CONCERNS

 

The Brent Resident Support Fund (RSF) is a discretionary support fund available to Brent residents who are in financial difficulties, for example struggling with food, utility bills and other household essentials. For 2021/22, the RSF budget was £3million.

The government announcement of 3 February 2022 regarding Energy Bills Rebate included provision for most properties in council tax bands A to D to receive a £150 rebate payment. It is estimated that the total amount paid could be up to £14.5m at full take-up.

The announcement also made provision for local authorities to create a fuel rebate discretionary scheme to support some properties in bands E to H. The government have provided funding of £1,933,800 allowing the Council to establish a scheme to support bill payers not eligible under the main scheme for properties in bands A to D.

A cross-Council Cost of Living Crisis Group has been set-up to look at the impact of the crisis across all services and to ensure a joined-up approach.

A Food and Fuel Poverty Toolkit has been prepared which contains links and signposts to various organisations to support residents. Staff and Members have been briefed and trained on this and it has been presented at departmental management teams and relevant services.

A Financial Inclusion Dashboard is in place which draws together data from across various datasets, including council tax support and benefits. This is used to identify residents who may need targeted supports (i.e. in arrears). It also provides a strategic oversight for senior management.

 

ACTION PLAN

 

1. Further enhance the Financial Inclusion Dashboard by introducing additional datasets to help identify residents in need of targeted support.
2. To use the Food and Fuel Poverty Toolkit to prepare a leaflet to be sent to all residents signposting them to various organisations that can provide support.
3. To continue to roll-out training regarding the Food and Fuel Poverty Toolkit crisis toolkit to partners and the third-sector.
4. A report will be taken to Cabinet for approval in June 2022, outlining all the measures currently in place and other planned actions to be taken by the Council. The report will also seeks approval for additional funding for RSF for three years from 22/23

The need for truly affordable housing, including Council housing, has been a major theme of this blog. In this section I was looking for an action concerning the issue particularly in the light of the concerns raised by Philip Grant over the Cecil Avenute development. 

 

During the  election campaign candidates at the Housing Hustings were concerned about developers 'getting away' with low levels of truly affordable housing and there were suggestions that the Council should engage its own in-house experts in Viability Assessments, rather than external providers. Developers use Viability Assessments to demonstrate that a development is not financially viable, or does not provide an adequate return if they provide the amount of afforable housing that the Council expects.  There was also support for a separate Housing Scrutiny Committee. These issues are not addressed: 

 

LACK OF SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE ACCOMMODATION (D)

 

RISK SUMMARY

 

There is a risk that as a result of the limited supply of affordable accommodation, in the Private Rented Sector , settled Temporary Accommodation (TA) and Social Housing, progress made towards increasing the sufficient supply of accommodation to meet the demand from homeless households could be reversed. This could lead to greater reliance on emergency temporary accommodation, which would have impacts on the wellbeing and quality of life for residents, and also provide an additional burden.

 

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, PROGRESS AND CONCERNS

 

In 2012, Brent had 3,176 homeless households living in TA, which was the largest number in the country. By 2018, this number had reduced to 2,450 and it now stands at 1,584. With progress being made on the New Council Homes programme, we believe we will meet the need for 1-3 bedroom properties. The picture is more limited for families in need of a 4+ bed accommodation, where will believe a significant shortfall will remain.

The recent economic downturn related to the Covid pandemic and the cost of living crisis has resulted in many households facing the risk of homeless. Some of these households are affected by the Overall Benefit Cap, which makes finding alternative private rented accommodation in the borough extra difficult. This means that the families are unable to afford Private Rented Accommodation (at the LHA rate) or settled temporary accommodation, in TA leasing schemes.

The greatest control we can exert on the model is building new Council-owned supply, and encouraging RSLs to build what we need. We can also exert control through social housing re-lets/voids, private rented sector offers, and new build social housing. The Team are also working with the affected families to support them to secure work, and so be exempt from the cap, as well as identifying households who are accruing debt, in order to proactively make contact and offer assistance at an earlier stage, to prevent homelessness.

The Housing Needs Service are working with Notting Hill Genesis HA, who supply TA through the HAL scheme, to procure more property in the North of Brent, where LHA rates are lower.

 

ACTION PLAN

 

1. To continue delivering the NCHP at pace, with a focus on large family homes.
2. To continue to look at additional purchases of street properties that meet specific needs.
3. To continue review and explore options for the building of a new temporary accommodation scheme that would provide an additional 100 units of temporary accommodation.

The highest risk/impact area is the increase in the Dedicated Schools Grant High Needs Block Deficit. (C) This is the funding need for special needs pupils who have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) which was in deficit by £10.5m in 2020/21.  This has is being addressed by putting in early support to reduce the need for EHCPs, creating more places for such children within the borough and ensuring that costs are collected other local authorities that have children in Brent schools.  In addition to these actions there is a short statement on lobbying central government. An action that could of course be applied to the funding of local government in general.

Deputation on Poverty Commission Housing Update – Brent finally responds!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Brent Council’s written response to my Deputation to the 9 March meeting of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee was finally received on 9 May! 

 

Opening paragraph from the Housing section of the Poverty Commission Update report.

 

The response was meant to be from Cllr. Eleanor Southwood, then Lead Member for Housing, as my Deputation had sought proper scrutiny of the housing section in the Poverty Commission Update report to the 9 March meeting. The response has eventually come from a Council Officer, the Head of Affordable Housing and Partnerships.

 

The Brent Poverty Commission housing recommendation on which progress was meant to be reported.

 

Before you read the response below, I would invite you to read my Deputation of 9 March (it should not take more than five minutes – the time allowed for members of the public to present a deputation to a Council meeting).

 

This is the full text of the Brent Council written response, as sent to me on 9 May. I have simply added, in square brackets, the full name of two items where abbreviations were used:

 

‘In reply to the presentation made by Philip Grant to the Scrutiny Committee I wish to make the following comments on behalf of the Affordable Homes & Partnership Department.

 

Firstly, to answer the comments made on the 655 homes already delivered and their tenure, taking each development in the order Mr Grant listed them. 

 

•         Gloucester & Durham in South Kilburn forms part of the Council’s Regeneration Programme. The regeneration of South Kilburn is an ongoing total regeneration of the area as a whole and the homes are actually replacements homes for tenants whose homes where demolished to make way for the development. 

 

•         Knowles House was purpose built as temporary accommodation to meet homeless needs it is not for permanent Council Homes.

 

•         Grand Union in Alperton, includes 23 Shared Ownership and 92 London Affordable Rent 

 

The above is a snap shot of some of the ways the Council meets its statutory duties to provide a number of different homes and tenures to suit its different legal responsibilities. 

 

The Council received £65.6m in GLA [Greater London Authority] grant within its 2016 – 2021 programme to provide 817 homes at LAR [London Affordable Rent]. 

 

LAR was the recommended GLA rental advice for many years and provided by Brent in earlier developments, following research by Brent Council on level of rental affordability within the Borough, the decision taken by the Council was to provide as much Social rented housing as was possibly viable on all future developments. 

 

In 2021, following discussions with the GLA the council received £111m of GLA grant, this falls within the 2021 – 2028 programme and will allow the council to build 701 Social rented homes, which are currently in development and feasibility stages. 

 

Delivering social rented homes remains a major priority of the council.

 

However with raising build costs it may be the case that in the future to achieve as many Social rented homes as possible the Council will need look at other forms of tenure, to cross subsidise the social rented.’

 

I asked the Council Officer who sent this to me to confirm ‘that a copy of this response will be supplied to members of the new Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, once that has been appointed at the Council's Annual Meeting later this month, and before the next meeting of that Committee’. That has now been confirmed.

 

Please feel free to add any comments on this response below. These could include suggested points that members of the new Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee might like to raise, under matters arising from the minutes of the 9 March meeting (which have yet to be published).

Philip Grant.

Deputation on Brent’s Poverty Commission Update – why no response?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

At the end of a guest blog about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone on 15 April, I mentioned that I was waiting for the written response from the Council to a deputation of 9 March, on a report to a Scrutiny Committee about its progress on implementing the recommendations of the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report. I’m still waiting!

 

I was meant to present my deputation via zoom to a meeting of the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, near the end of a meeting which went on for over three hours. However, not long into my presentation, the sound from me started to break up, and the Chair, Cllr. Roxanne Mashari, decided that they would have to cut me off. She asked me to send a written copy of my deputation, so that a written response could be sent. I was then immediately removed from the zoom link.

 

Martin, to whom I’d already sent a copy for information, published the text of my deputation straight away on “Wembley Matters”, and I sent an email to Cllr. Mashari, her committee members and its Governance Officer with a pdf copy of my deputation. The following morning, Martin sent me a screenshot of Cllr. Mashari’s “like” of his “tweet” sharing the link to that blog.

 

 

Two weeks later, as I’d heard nothing further, I emailed Cllr. Mashari, and Cllr. Eleanor Southwood, who I understood would be dealing with the Council’s response, as my deputation concentrated on the Housing section of the Poverty Commission Update. I attached another pdf copy of my deputation, and asked one of them, or the Governance Officer to whom it was copied, to let me have the response, or the date I could expect it, if it wasn’t ready then. 

 

At first, they denied having previously had a copy of my deputation. Then Cllr. Mashari told me, on 23 March, that she would seek to ensure I got 'a full response as soon as possible, at the latest within the next ten working days.' After further “chasing” I was told on 11 April that ‘a written response is being prepared [and] will be with you as soon as possible.’ Still nothing!

 

On 26 April, in response to yet another email, the Governance Officer wrote: ‘I can confirm that a response on the issues raised within your deputation is currently being prepared and will be shared with you as soon as it has been finalised.’ He also added that it was having to be prepared from ‘a copy of the version posted online’, as they had not received a document copy from me (despite these being sent on 9 and 23 March!).

 

You would have thought that Cllr. Southwood and Senior Council Officers would have wanted to answer the serious concerns I had raised about the Poverty Commission Update report (signed off by the Assistant Chief Executive). These had been publicised widely online, and they had been promised a “right of reply”, with their response also published on “Wembley Matters”. It now seems they are determined NOT to reply before the elections on 5 May. WHY?

 

Brent Poverty Commission recommendation on social rented homes.

 

The Poverty Commission’s key recommendation on housing, which Brent’s Cabinet accepted in 2020, was that the Council should invest more in building homes for letting at social rent levels. But the report (which recommended that Scrutiny Committee should simply “note” the progress made) did not mention the words “social rent” at all in its Housing section!

 

Instead, it repeated the Council’s claims of the great progress made with its New Council Homes programme. My deputation challenged that, using information from the excellent “Life in Kilburn” blog from September 2021, which exposed the reality of Brent’s claim to be building “1,000 New Council Homes” by 2024. [The Cabinet has since agreed to buy a couple of blocks of leasehold flats from developers, but that is not quite the same thing!]

 

My deputation also alleged that this concentration on the New Homes programme was an attempt to hide from Scrutiny that, so far, NO new Council homes had been built for letting at social rent levels. I will be very interested to read the Council’s response on that point, because Cllr. Southwood must have heard at least some of my zoom presentation on 9 March. When I went to Brent’s online webcast library to find out what had been said at the meeting after I was “thrown out” from it, she appeared to give an answer.

 

Cllr. Southwood appeared to say: ‘all of our housing is at social rents.’ I believe that statement to be, at the least, misleading! You’d think that someone who has been Lead Member for Housing for several years would know what the different types of homes which fall within the definition of “affordable housing” are. Here is part of a chart from the GLA website which explains them:

 

GLA Source LINK

 As the chart shows, “social rent” ‘is the only housing type really affordable to lower income Londoners’, that is why the Brent Poverty Commission recommended that it was the type of housing the Council should invest in for its new homes. One of the Poverty Commission’s key findings was that: ‘no family with two children (whether couple or lone parent) can afford any rent that is more expensive than LB Brent social rents.’

 

But most of the new homes Brent Council is building will be for London Affordable Rent (sometimes referred to ‘as “social rent”, which it is not’). That is higher than “social rent” levels. And some of the New Council Homes will be at “Intermediate” rent levels, or for Shared Ownership, which although these are still described as “affordable”, would not be for most Brent families in housing need. On the Council’s Cecil Avenue development, the proposed split of the 250 homes to be built is 37 for London Affordable Rent, 61 at Intermediate Rent or Shared Ownership, 152 for private sale by a developer partner and zero for social rent!

 

That is why my deputation called on the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee to challenge the failure to comply with the Commission’s recommendation over social rented homes, and demand that Brent Council does better. I look forward to hearing how they will do that, but how much longer I will have to wait for their written response is an open question.

Philip Grant.

Wembley Housing Zone – Brent’s “hush hush” contract decision

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

It may be a coincidence, but two days after I had posted a comment about Brent’s failure to start work on its Cecil Avenue (former Copland School site) housing development, a decision to start work on a tender contract appeared on the Council’s website. My comment referred to this vacant Council-owned site having had planning permission for 250 homes since February 2021, and how Brent proposed to let a developer sell 152 of these privately, and only have 37 for affordable rent (with none at social rent levels). [If you are wondering how 37 (14.8%) relates to the 39% so-called affordable in the image below, the balance is 61 homes for shared ownership or intermediate rent level, unaffordable for most Brent families in housing need!]

 

Extract from “Soft Market Testing” details for prospective developers, April 2021.

The timing of this decision is of some concern. Part of the purpose of notifying intended decisions in advance is so that members of Brent’s two main Scrutiny Committees can see whether there are points which they wish to consider before a decision is actually made. But those two Committees had their last meetings of the current Council in March, and the details on the Council’s website show that the final Officer decision is scheduled to be made on 4 May, the day before the elections for the new Brent Council. This will effectively prevent any detailed Scrutiny of the decision, as the new committees will not be formed until the Council’s Annual Meeting on 18 May.

 

Details of the proposed decision from Brent Council’s website.

 

Of course, it could be argued that this decision is being made under delegated authority, given by Brent’s Cabinet in August 2021. However, as I showed in a recent guest blog (are Cabinet meetings a Charade?), the decision to include a private developer as part of the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) housing development goes back much further than that. And it involves meetings of the “off-public record” Policy Co-ordination Group (“PCG”) of Cabinet members and Senior Officers.

 

In another guest post, in January, I showed how the “soft market testing” of the present proposals, was put to five developers in April 2021. Their support for the opportunity has been used to justify allowing a developer to profit from the sale of 152 homes (which could have been used to house local people in housing need). That market testing was so “soft” that it was always going to appeal to them. 

 

It then turned out, from a report to a PCG meeting in July 2020 (which I obtained under FoI), that a previous WHZ proposal had also been “market tested” in February 2020. But that only found favour with 2 out of 5 developers it was put to. Council Officers and the key Cabinet members involved do seem determined to allow a developer to profit from this Brent Council housing scheme!

 

Extract from the WHZ report to Brent’s Policy Co-ordination Group, 16 July 2020.

 

I have been trying since August last year to find out why Brent isn’t building all 250 of the homes at Cecil Avenue for rent to Council tenants, with as many of them as possible at social rent levels, which was the priority recommended by the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission. In a written answer to a Public Question for the November 2021 Full Council meeting, Cllr. Shama Tatler said: ‘it is not financially viable to deliver all 250 homes at Cecil Avenue as socially rented housing.’ 

 

No evidence has been made public to justify this claim over financial viability; but how could it NOT be viable to make all of the homes Council housing, even if they might not all be at social rents? In a local newspaper article the same month, seeking to justify Brent’s plans for “infill housing” on land at Kilburn Square, Cllr. Ketan Sheth wrote: 

 

‘The value and cost of land in London is at an all time high: therefore, building on land already owned by the council means the building costs are lower and all of the new homes can be let at genuinely affordable rents.'

Cllr. Ketan Sheth’s article in the “Brent & Kilburn Times”, 18 November 2021.

 

If that is true for green spaces on existing Council estates, why isn’t it true for the vacant “brownfield” Council-owned former Copland School land? Residents in Wembley Central, where the Cecil Avenue development will be built and where he is standing as a Labour candidate for the 5 May local elections, may wish to ask Ketan Sheth that question!

 

I have tried since January to get one of Brent’s Scrutiny Committees to examine the Council’s alleged justification for allowing a private developer to sell 152 of the 250 homes to be built at Cecil Avenue, without success. I did manage (after a struggle) to be allowed to present a deputation to the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9 March, on the housing aspects of the “Poverty Commission Update” report which was on the agenda. 

 

The Report tried to conceal the fact that Brent had, so far, not invested in social housing, as recommended by the Commission. My presentation to the meeting (which had to be submitted in writing because of [unexplained!] technical problems) included this plea to the councillors: 

 

‘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.’

 

I was promised a written response to my deputation from the Lead Member for Housing, Cllr. Eleanor Southwood. I am still waiting for that, despite two reminders. I mentioned that in the comment I posted on 10 April (see opening sentence). By coincidence (?) the following day I received an apology for the delay from Scrutiny Chair Cllr. Roxanne Mashari, who told me: ‘A written response is being prepared [and] will be with you as soon as possible.’

 

My parody Brent publicity photo for the Council’s Cecil Avenue housing development.

 

When, or if, I finally receive it, I will ask Martin to share it with you. Cecil Avenue, though a housing scheme, is not directly Cllr. Southwood’s responsibility. The Lead Member for Regeneration, Cllr. Shama Tatler, is the one working on this, along with Senior Officers (and, no doubt, the Council Leader). You can see all three portrayed in my image above.

 

Everything about this Cecil Avenue development, and the way it is being progressed without proper scrutiny, of decisions made behind closed doors by a small number of Cabinet members and Senior Officers, highlights the need for a more balanced Council. Only then will potentially “dodgy” decisions be challenged, and decision-makers properly held to account. 

 

The people of Brent have the chance to vote, for change for the better, on 5 May. I hope that you, and as many of our fellow citizens as possible, will vote, and vote wisely.

Philip Grant.