Variation of Brent's Veolia contract at Scrutiny on Wednesday. Full review of Veolia's performance sought.

 

A fly-tip on Birchen Grove, Kingsbury. Part of the Capital Ring Walk Route

 

Wednesday's Public Realm and Resources Scrutiny Committee will consider a call-in request by Liberal Democrat and a Green Party councillor regarding the decision to add additional functions to the Council's waste contract with Veolia at a  12 month cost of £1.54m. LINK

The councillors a full review of the contract involving members of the Council before any variation of the contract,

   

Decision called in

 

Authority to vary the contract for Integrated Street Cleaning, Waste Collection and Winter Maintenance Service with Veolia Environmental Services (UK) Limited See LINK

 

 

Reasons for Call-in

 

The contract should not be varied at this stage, before Members of the Council and the Scrutiny Committee have had a full opportunity to review the operation and performance of the existing contract and to recommend improvements in response to concerns raised by local residents.

 

This is particularly important given that the report states that no consultation has taken place with ward Councillors, other than the newly appointed Lead Member.

 

Comments from residents, together with Councillors’ own observations, indicate that many streets across Brent remain dirty and that the current approach of “intelligence-led cleaning” is not delivering the standard of service that local people deserve.

 

There is also a significant concern that too much litter and waste is ending up in landfill, while too little is being recycled, with Brent lagging behind comparable authorities.

 

Additional funding should therefore not be added to the existing contract until its current performance has been properly reviewed, its failings and shortcomings identified, and  potential improvements fully considered.

 

Alternative Action

 

That the decision be referred back to the Cabinet Member for reconsideration on the basis that prior to any additional funding or changes to the contract being agreed, Members should have a full opportunity to scrutinise the existing service, consider the concerns raised by residents and councillors, assess its current performance against the specific term of the contract and determine what improvements are required.

 

Areas that should be reviewed include:

 

1. Frequency of cleaning: Review the frequency of cleaning in shopping areas and on the side roads serving those areas.

2. Sweeping standards: Ensure that the service provides genuine mechanical or manual sweeping where required, rather than relying primarily on litter picking.

3. Waste collection and pick-up arrangements: Review how waste found on streets is  dealt with. This should clarify whether contractors only collect waste that has been specifically ordered or reported, whether they are expected to collect waste they encounter during their rounds, and how both reported and unreported fly-tipping or dumped waste is addressed.

4. Unregistered land: Set out clearly the process for collecting waste from unregistered land. The Council should also explain how the register of unregistered land will be maintained, documented and made available for inspection.

5. Housing Revenue Account: Confirm that item (g) in the original decision will be charged to the Housing Revenue Account and not the General Fund.

6. Night-time cleaning: Fully review and, where appropriate, extend the areas receiving night-time cleaning.

7. Jet washing: Review the frequency of pavement jet washing in busy areas, with a view to carrying it out more regularly rather than concentrating activity immediately before local elections.

8. Financial implications: Fully review the financial implications for both the 2026/27 and Variation of the Veolia waste contrcat 2027/28 financial years, including the allocation of costs between the General Fund and the Housing Revenue Account.

 

It is clear that the current service does not meet the clear specification in our contract including for example keeping street litter bins clean, for litter bins not to be over flowing and treating weeds on pavements as litter. The prime objective should therefore be to ensure that any variation to the contract, and any additional expenditure associated with it, delivers real, measurable and visible improvements in the cleanliness of streets and public areas across Brent.

 

Another Scrutiny Call-in over Barham Park Trust Commitee decisions - scheduled for Thursday April 3rd, 2025

Persistence is the name of the game regarding the much-questioned decisions of the Barham Park Trust following the meeting on Monday 24th February where applications by councillors and public to speak were refused.

Now a combination of opposition councillors has submitted a detailed Call-in for an additional meeting of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee that has been approved. It covers the restricted covenants of 776 and 778 Harrow Road that the Trust is seeking to remove after a payment by developer and funfair owner,  George Irvin, as well as other operational issues.

The meeting will take place at 6pm on Thursday April 3rd in the Grand Hall at Brent Civic Centre.   

The Call-in Details:

 

 

UPDATED with proposal for better Governance that Cllr Butt refused to be heard by Trustees. 'Barham Park? Nothing to see here. Carry on.' - Scrutiny Committee verdict

 Funfair owner and developer George Irvin was the elephant in the room that popped up now and again at yesterday's Scrutiny Committee. He first emerged  when Cllr Paul Lorber mentioned him as a lobbyist in his declaration of interests when setting out the reasons for the Call-in of the Strategic and Operational aspects of the Barham Park Trustees performance.

Irvin came up again in ex-Labour councillor Gaynor Lloyd'a presentation when she focused on Trustees' plans to remove 'restrictive aspects' of the covenant on commercial development of the Barham Park park and buildings.

Removal would enable George Irvin to go ahead with the development of the two park workers' houses in the park that he purchased some time ago LINK as well as enable the Trustees to convert some of the park buildings for commercial use.

Gaynor Lloyd said:

Barham Park, its buildings, and these valuable covenants are all ASSETS of  a charity. Charity Commission consent is needed for any change in the restrictive covenants. There is a process to get that consent but Trustees must comply with  requirements of charity law  to get to a decision. To quote  from the  Charity commission website,  Trustees must be able to show they have based their decisions on enough relevant information; they are expected to think about the impact and risks of the decision, including on  their charity’s property or reputation, the costs  involved, whether the decision may be controversial. Trustees must  get professional advice and consult beneficiaries : in this case, the residents of Wembley.

 See Gaynor Lloyd's guest blog post on this issue in 2021 LINK.

George Irvin had written to a local residents' association saying that he had bought the houses to protect the park from overdevelopment that  would affect his two annual funfairs.

 

All a little strange with the developer and Trustees both having an interest in doing away with the covenant for different reasons, but both with a commercial interest.

 

Gaynor Lloyd pointed out that the Trustee beneficiaries, the people of Wembley, had not been consulted but were clearly opposed to development along with four councillors and the local MP.  

 

 Paul Lorber reiterated his case about mismanagement of the Trust by Trustees and misleading or wrong advice from officers who now have delegated responsibility for the relevant matters. See Call-in notice HERE

There were presentations from current voluntary groups making use of the Barham Park buildings who face increases in rents and imposition of service charges that had not been collected previously. The Memory Lounge, Gurkha's  Group and Veterans' Club all gave moving accounts of their work and the impact on users if the property could no longer be afforded.

When Trust Chair and Council Leader Muhammed Butt said how good it was to get the views of users, Cllr Geogiou made a fierce intervention pointing out that Cllr Butt had not allowed representations from users, particularly Barham Library, at the two recent Trustees meetings.

Butt said that they would be consulted once the basic proposal outline had been approved and management of the various projects would be at liberty to meet with their members ahead of any meetings with officers. There was a determination to talk with each group separately 'as their needs were different' (thus opening the way to divide and rule?).  Cllr Geogiou asked again why they had not been allowed to address the Trustees' meeting. When Cllr Butt started repeating his earlier statement about future consultation Georgiou said it was not worth him going on as he was not answering the question.

Cllr Janice Long (extract on video above)  suggested that the Barham Park buildings were a millstone around the Council's neck. Cllr Butt expressed some sympathy with her views.

Cllr Mary Mitchell disagreed strongly  and underlined the importance of social value of such facilities during a funding crisis. She then asked some  pertinent questions about the financial risk involved in the move to remove the covenant, the £20,000 spent on the architects' report in 2023 for a project that not would happen until 2031 (the £20k was first going to be paid by the Council but would now be paid for by the Trustees), and no business case had been developed. She remarked that under Climate Change implications the report said 'Nil' and wondered if that was true.

An officer in response to a question about the claw-back of Sure Start funds for the Children's Centre that was no longer operating in one of the buildings, said that Brent Council would have to meet the cost which was currently £93,000 but would reduce over time.

Another empty building on the site' known as Unit 7, that had been earmarked for a Dementia Advice Unit after Friends of Barham Library had secured funding, had been delayed for 6 years officers said while a strategic plan was formulated to 'better understand' how it would fit in with the estate.

Officers and Cllr Butt pointed out that the Gold and Silver options would have meant more commercialisation and would have undermined the aims of the Trust. They claimed the Bronze option balanced the need to generate income with the maintenance of the Trust's responsibilities to fulfil its aims.

Cllr Mitchell asked about Governance and why the Trust had delegated powers to officers rather than recruiting new Trustees. Debra Norman, Head of Governance, said Governance reviews had taken  place regularly. Cllr Butt said that this came up every year and he had looked around for alternatives but he had struggled to find anything better.

The Scrutiny Committee voted against sending the items back for further consideration. Cllr Georgiou voted for, stating that issues had not be sufficiently addressed (rent arrears, failure to collect service charges, unit 7 six lost years etc). He did not have confidence  in  the Trustees or in the officers' advice.

Cllr Mary Mitchell and Cllr Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam abstained.

UPDATE

Philip Grant has commented below regarding a proposal he put to the Barham Park Trust (or wanted brought to their attention) in early 2023. He writes:

 Early in 2023, I had suggested what I believe would be a better and workable alternative governance arrangement for the Barham Park Trust. This was not mentioned in the governance report that went to the September 2023 Trust Committee meeting, so I wanted to bring it to their attention.

I was not able to attend that meeting, but I had requested that I could "speak" for two minutes through a short statement read out on my behalf. the Chair of the Committee, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, refused to agree, so my suggestion was not voiced at the meeting, and not reflected in any official record of it.

This is the proposal:

Lib Dems make AGM bid for Scrutiny changes to ensure 'healthy and functioning' governance

 Brent Liberal Democrats are making an attempt to enhance scrutiny in Brent Council with a raft of constitutional amendments to be put to the Annual General General Meeting of the Council on Wednesday.

Their first amendment to Item 7 sets out their case for Opposition chairs of Scrutiny:

Democratic scrutiny is a pillar of healthy and functioning governance. To ensure it is effective there should be a clear separation between Councillors who lead Scrutiny Committees and the governing party in the borough.

Changes made by the current Labour Administration in Brent to the way the two Scrutiny Committees are chaired and Vice-Chairs are appointed have effectively locked Opposition Groups from having a meaningful say in the way scrutiny is led.  This includes in the setting of the work programme for each of the Committees.

 

To ensure renewed confidence in the scrutiny process in the borough it is important that the two Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees in the borough are appointed from the Opposition Groups.

 

To safeguard the effectiveness and independence of Brent’s Scrutiny Committees we therefore propose the following change to Standing Order 49 relating to the appointment of Chairs for the scrutiny function:

 

(1)    Standing Order 49 (ii) be amended to require that the Chairs of the existing Scrutiny Committees are Opposition Group appointments (in order to emphasise the independence of Scrutiny from the Executive).

 

(2)    That Standing Order 4 in Part 1 of the Constitution be waived in order to enable the above changes to come into immediate effect during the meeting.

 If that amendment is not approved they propose that Vice-Chairs are members of the Opposition Groups:

 

(1)    Standing Order 49 (ii) be amended to require that the Vice-Chairs of the existing Scrutiny Committees are Opposition Group appointments (reverting to the previous arrangements for appointments to these positions)

 

(2)    That Standing Order 4 in Part 1 of the Constitution be waived in order to enable the above changes to come into immediate effect during the meeting.

 

 Under Item 11 Review of Call-in Arrangements where the Labour Group want to make any call-in subject to a rule that call-ins must be made by 5 councillors of more than one political group (See LINK for explanation) they submit the motion below:

 

Review of Call-In Arrangements

 

The replacement of the Committee System of decision making by Local Councils with a Cabinet/ Executive system was made by the Blair Labour Government.

 

The then Labour Government recognised that handing decision making power to a small group of councillors had to be balanced by a strong and effective scrutiny function.  As part of this there had to be a meaningful ability of any councillor or Political Group to call-in decisions for review.

 

To ensure effective democratic practices in the London Borough of Brent it is essential to ensure that:

 

1.         The Cabinet can make decisions based on sound information and advice; and

 

2.         That Cabinet and their decisions can be held to account through an effective scrutiny process.

 

To maintain the objectives of effective democratic scrutiny, as intended by the Labour Government which introduced the current decision making process, we therefore propose, having taken account of the current review of arrangements for call-in:

 

(1)    That any Cabinet decision which has implications for the whole or a large part of the borough can be called in by any three Councillors (for the avoidance of doubt these can be Councillors of one or more than one group).

 

(2)    That any Cabinet decision which has implications for just one ward within the borough can be called in by any one councillor.

 

(3)    That’s subject to the approval of (1) and (2) above the necessary amendments are made to Standing Order 14 (Call In of Cabinet, Cabinet Committees and Officer Decisions) to reflect the change in arrangements.

 

(4)       To confirm, the current arrangements for review by officers of any call-in to ensure that it is relevant and justified will remain in place.

Cost of new SEND school in London Road, Wembley Central, rises by a third (£7.4m)

 The second stage of the 150 pupil Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND) school in London Road, Wembley Central, has risen from an inital cost anaylsis of £14.8m to £22m.

The Key Decision Report says that the reasons for the rise in cost are set out in an Appendix but that is restricted and not open to public viewing.

The report states:

The two alternative options available to the recommended option in this report would be to seek a re-procurement of the main works contract or not deliver the project at all. Within the alternative option to seek a re-procurement, the Council would have the following sub-options:
 

a. Seek tenders from alternative Modular Contractors – this has been discounted as the school has been designed by a specific Modular Contractor to their module sizes so any new contractor would need to
undertake a redesign which would lead to an increase in cost and time.
 

b. Seek tenders from alternative main contractors – this has been discounted as the school has been designed by a Modular Contractor. Any Main Contractor would add their own Overheads and Profit to subcontract the scheme. Alternatively, they could seek to amend the design to a traditional build method. Either way, these options would require a redesign which would lead to increased cost and time.

 The option not to deliver the school build has been discounted as the 150 SEND places to be provided at London Road would not be delivered. The Council would therefore continue to transport SEND pupils out of borough for school places and this would put further revenue pressure on the High Needs Block.

The school will be run by an Academy Trust. The officers' report states that the rise in cost is affordale within the available budget:

As set out in the SEND Programme approved by Cabinet, the project is funded by Basic Need, High Needs Capital Grant and Special Provision Funding all from the DfE.

The programme budget was £44.2m. At the time of drafting this report, £7m has been spent, leaving £37.2m. Therefore, there is enough funding in the programme to award the works contract. Further, any additional costs to the project or programme can be funded via the unallocated 2021 High Needs Capital Grant £3.65m and the recently provided 2024 High Needs Capital Grant of £7.4m from the DfE.

This is a Key Decision and therefore subject to call-in for further scrutiny. The deadline for call-in is tomorrow (May 23rd). If the new call-in conditions are approved at tonight's AGM any call-in would require both opposition parties to support call-in or Labour backbenchersto join in.

 

Brent Labour move to limit Opposition groups' call-in powers

Having apparently dropped plans to increase the number of councillors required to call-in Key and Cabinet decision for further scrutiny from 5 to 10 LINK, Brent Labour has come up with another proposal to be tabled at the Council AGM on May 22nd.

This time the proposal is that the number remains at five but must consist of members of more than one political group. As there are five members of the Conservative Group this means that a call-in will only be successful if also supported by the Liberal Democrats, or (very unlikely given whipping), some Labour councillors. The Liberal Democrats currently have three councillors so will not be able to call-in anything on their own.

As the Tories and Lib Dem differ on many aspects of policy it is likely that there will be fewer call-ins in the coming municipal year. It appears to be a deliberate political act as there are already safeguards in place to ensure the validity of call-ins.

The words in red below are the proposed changes.

I expect Brent Labour to again resist calls for opposition groups to be given a chance to chair or vice chair either of the Scrtutiny Committees.

Call-in hearing over Morland Gardens development takes place on Thursday June 9th at 6.30pm

 The first meeting of the new administration's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee takes place on Thursday June 9th, chaired bt Cllr Rita Conneely. 

The call-in by Opposition councillors will consider the decision of the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment on the  award of the Design and Build Contract for the Morland Gardens (Altamira) development in Stonebridge.

Full details of the basis of the call-in have been published HERE

The Officer's report LINK gives three possible outcomes of the Committee's deliberations:

Recommendation

2.1 That the Committee considers the call-in and agrees to one of the following outcomes:

2.1.1 The Committee does not wish to refer the matter back to the decision maker or to Council, at which point the decision is deemed to be confirmed and takes effect immediately following the meeting; or

2.1.2 The Committee decides to ask the Strategic Director – Regeneration & Environment to reconsider the decision, in light of any observations of the Committee; or

2.1.3 Having had regard to the advice of the Director of Legal and HR Services or Director of Finance, the Committee considers the decision is contrary to the Council’s Budget or Policy Framework, at which point it refers the matter to the next practicable meeting of the Council, subject to the provisions of Standing Orders.

  The meeting can be watched live HERE

Morland Gardens update – Opposition parties combine to call-in decision

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

The Morland Gardens site, from Google streetview.

 

On 17 May, Martin kindly published an open email I had sent to Alan Lunt, Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment, setting out why Brent should not go ahead with the award of a contract for its proposed development at Morland Gardens in Stonebridge. Despite my advice, the Strategic Director made his Key Decision to award the contract (to Hill Partnerships Ltd, for a total sum of £37,933,491) on 20 May 2022.

 

The main reason why this c.£38 million contract would be a big financial risk for the Council to enter into is that they don’t have the legal right to build over an area of land at the eastern end of the development site. This is currently public highway and the Harlesden City Challenge Community Garden. 

 

Although they could have dealt with the stopping-up of the highway at any time after planning consent was given for the development in October 2020, the Council only gave notice of the proposed Stopping-up Order in April this year. The period for objections to the proposed order ran out on 26 May, and I explained the reasons for my own objection (there have been others) in a guest blog on 28 April. It may take many months before this matter is resolved, and there is no certainty that an order will be approved.

 

Luckily, it appears that some Brent councillors are “Wembley Matters” readers! I’ve been sent a copy of an email received by the three Lib Dem members and two Conservative councillors, from a senior Governance Officer at Brent Council. This is the main part of that email:

 

‘Hi Councillors Lorber, Georgiou, Matin, Maurice & Hirani 

 

I [am] emailing with an update on the call-in request you’ve submitted regarding the decision taken by the Strategic Director, Regeneration & Environment to award a design and build contract for Morland Gardens.

 

Following my email yesterday I can now confirm that we’ve received the required number of requests for the call-in to be submitted.  As required under the call-in protocol, the reasons and outline of alternative action being sought under the call-in have been considered by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Director of Legal, HR, Audit & Investigations and Head of Strategy & Partnerships, and as a result have been confirmed as meeting the requirements within the protocol and therefore accepted (on the basis of the attached form) to proceed for consideration as a call-in by the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

 

Having consulted with the Chair of the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, I’m able to confirm that the scrutiny meeting to consider this call-in has been scheduled for 6:30pm on Thursday 9^th June 22 with the meeting to take place in person in the Conference Hall, Brent Civic Centre.  As usual the meeting will also be lived streamed for members of the public to follow online.’

 

I will ask Martin to include a copy of the ‘attached form’ at the end of this blog, so that readers who are interested can see what is involved in requesting a call-in.

 

Morland Gardens site plan, from the call-in form

 

I think it is encouraging that councillors in the two opposition parties, including several who were newly elected on 5 May, are willing to work together to ensure that potentially questionable decisions are given close scrutiny. I understand that Councillor Paul Lorber is taking the lead on this call-in.

 

Call-in by itself will not mean any change in this Key Decision, but it will give Scrutiny Committee members the chance to consider reasons for and against the decision, and to question the Lead Member and Council Officers responsible for it. At the end of the meeting on 9 June, they will either decide to refer the matter back to the decision maker, with recommendations, or that they do not object to the decision, so that it can go ahead.

 

It will be interesting to see how the new Chair of this Scrutiny Committee, and the majority Labour councillors, deal with the call-in. You can watch the meeting yourself, either in person or online, to see how our “new” Council operates in practice. Hopefully, this important piece of scrutiny will be dealt with on its merits, and not on party political lines!

Philip Grant

 

 

Councillors call in the Stonebridge Annexe Works contract connected with 1 Morland Gardens development

Councillors Abdirazak Abdi, Chan, Perrin, Lloyd and Kennelly have called in the decision to place a contract for Stonebridge Annexe works occasioned by the need to decant Brent Start facilities when the controversial new build takes place on the 1 Morland Gardens site in which the landmark Italianate will be demolished.

 

The call-in will be heard by the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee on September 23rd. I understand that its new chair Cllr Roxanne Mashari will not be able to attend.

 

Decision: Authority to Award Contract for Appointment of Engie Regeneration UK & Ireland as Works Main Contractor under a JCT Intermediate Building Contract with Contractor's Design 2016 Edition for Stonebridge Annexe, Stonebridge, NW10  0ST Date of decision(or date of public notice for officer decisions): 26 August 2020

 

[Editor’s note: In correspondence Brent Council noted that the decision was actually signed off by Nick Ljustina (as Operational Director – Property & Assets) but this was on behalf of the Strategic Director, Regeneration & Environment, which they say is permitted under the Council’s Officer Scheme of Delegation.]

 

The group of councillors gave the following reasons for calling-in the decision.

 

1.The above decision relates to the placing of a Contract for the works of refurbishment to Stonebridge Annexe ("Enabling Works") enabling the decanting of the Brent Start facilities from 1 Morland Gardens, NW6, preparatory to the demolition of the existing buildings on that site, and the erection of new mixed use buildings under planning application number 20/0345 (the"1 Morland Gardens Application").

 

2.The tender for the Enabling Works was concluded on or around 9 July, and, according to the Report leading to the Decision, dates (described in the Report as "anticipated")are set out for a Letter of Intent (14 August), a Letter of Award of Contract to Engie Regeneration UK & Ireland (31 August), with a view to Contract Start on Site on 14 September.

 

3.Having today enquired of officers in Planning and Employment and Skill, I have been informed that this Contract for the Enabling Works would not be placed, if the development under the 1 Morland Gardens Application does not proceed.

 

4.Issues have come to light regarding the 1 Morland Gardens Planning Application:

 

·Consent to the 1 Morland Gardens Application is awaited from the GLA;

·Notwithstanding the clear recommendations in paragraph R1 of the Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment dated February 2019 by Middlemarch Environmental ("Middlemarch Report") - based on a survey made in December 2018 (and repeated in paragraph 206 of the Planning Report) that at least 3 emergence/re-entry surveys be carried out during the period May-September, no evidence has been supplied that any such surveys have been carried out.

 

There are no surveys amongst the planning papers. Enquiry of officers today has not so far revealed any surveys were undertaken.

 

Condition 13 of the draft Planning Consent for the 1 Morland Gardens Application includes a requirement for adherence to the recommendations of the Middlemarch Report; however, if no surveys have been carried out, works under the 1 Morland Gardens Application must be deferred until after those surveys have been undertaken, results available and appropriate response formulated and actioned to ensure no criminal offence is committed. This would appear potentially to be in autumn 2021.

 

Appendix 1 to the Middlemarch Report sets out the legislative background; Regulation 41 of the Habitats Regulations 2017 states that a person "commits an offence if they...deliberately disturb bats; or damage or destroy a bat roost (breeding site or resting place)." If the surveys have not been carried out - then the whole process must be delayed until autumn 2021 to avoid the Council's committing a criminal offence.

 

5.I understand the Enabling Works relating to this Decision do not need planning consent. However, the provisions of the 2017 Regulations would still apply if any part of those works had the potential to disturb, or damage or destroy bats and their habitat in the Stonebridge Annexe as referred to above.

 

The Stonebridge Annexe is a building constructed in or around the 1930s, with a substantial area of trees surrounding it, and with strong potential for bat roosts and potentially on a Bat Corridor to the Welsh Harp and with Green and Blue Corridors in the other direction.

 

Accordingly, the Enabling Works may have the potential to disturb bats, and/or damage or destroy their habitats, if any are present. However, no preliminary bat roost assessment was commissioned, which should be undertaken prior to the Contract. There is no evidence that such assessment forms part of the Enabling Works. Indeed, with the timetable referred to in the Report, the programme outlined gives no time for such assessment to be undertaken, let alone any time for any action which may be requisite to comply with statute, should evidence of bats/roosts be present.

 

6.We understand that it has been agreed by the Chief Executive that an investigation should be undertaken by the Strategic Director following the raising of what I am told are serious concerns by a member of the public about the Morland Gardens Application. This investigation is ongoing and could impact on the Planning Consent for the 1 Morland Gardens Application.

 

7.The award of the Enabling Works Contract is premature, as there is still no certainty that the scheme envisaged by the 1 Morland Gardens Application will go ahead. Nonetheless, having regard to the importance of the project, I have spoken to officers as to the requirement for an urgent placing of the Contract for the Enabling Works in context of the project. In context of those conversations, I do not understand the reason for the urgency. Unfortunately, the Decision gives an impression of pre-emptive action. It will commit the Council to expenditure which may be wasted. It is at least possible to anticipate that, if delays in the development under the 1 Morland Gardens Application were to arise as a result of one of the factors referred to above, alternative proposals may result.

 

8.There is no compelling urgency to place the Enabling Works Contract before the above matters are resolved. By contrast, unless the Decision is called in, the Contract will be placed, and the Council will have irrevocably incurred an expenditure of £1.2m, which may be wasted – hence the reason for this carefully considered action.

 

When a decision is called-in the councillors signing the call-in are required to put forward an alternative proposal. This is their statement.

 

 

The decision should 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.

 

Scrutiny Committee will agree to one of the following outcomes:

 

1. The Committee does not wish to refer the matter back to the decision maker or to Council, at which point the decision is deemed to be confirmed and takes effect immediately following the meeting; or

2. The Committee decides to ask the Strategic Director – Regeneration & Environment to reconsider their decision, in light of any observations of the Committee; or

3. Having had regard to the advice of the Director of Legal and HR Services or Chief Finance Officer, the Committee considers the decision is contrary to the Council’s Budget or Policy Framework, at which point it refers the matter to the next practicable meeting of the Council, subject to the provisions of Standing Orders

 

The investigation referred to in 6 above is that instigated by indefatigable Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant who has requested to speak to the Committee.