Still time to respond to Brent Council's proposed service cuts and fees increases

 Brent Council is running a consultation on its Draft Budget that includes some increases in charges as well as service cutbacks. Council Tax is to be increased by 4.99% and Council Tax Support for the vulnerable reduced.

The Council's website explains:

Councils across London are facing a series of unprecedented financial challenges, caused by a perfect storm of continued high inflation, rapidly increasing demand for services and reduced government funding since 2010. 

Across all budgets and service areas, London Councils estimates that boroughs will overspend on their original budget plans by over £600m in 2024/25. 

Brent is not immune to these pressures, with an expensive adult social care bill getting more so every year because of an ageing population as well as soaring levels of homelessness, with around 150 new families presenting as homeless most weeks. 

On top of £222m of cuts made since 2010, a further £16 million must be saved in 2025-26 to balance the books.  

The council has pulled together budget proposals which aim to protect the services residents rely on most as far as possible and protect the organisation’s longstanding healthy financial position. It is now asking for local people’s views on these proposals. 

Proposals in the draft budget include: 

• Increase charge for bulky waste collection from £40 to £55 
• Increase garden waste annual subscription from £65 to £69 
• A 4.99% increase in council tax, with 2% ring-fenced for adult social care 
• Changes to our Council Tax Support Scheme: https://www.brent.gov.uk/news-in-brent/2024/october/council-tax-support-scheme-consultation-gets-the-green-light

View draft budget proposals: Issue - items at meetings - Draft Budget 2025/26

 

BUDGET CONSULTATION ONLINE SESSIONS
THE WEBSITE SAYS CONSULTATION WILL RUN UNTIL DECEMBER 15TH BUT AS YOU CAN SEE THE WILLESDEN EVENT IS IN JANUARY!

Harlesden Connects Online November 26^th 6pm to 7pm

Kingsbury and Kenton Connects Online December 2^nd 6pm-7pm

Kilburn Connects Online December 12^th 6pm-7pm

Willesden Connects Online January 9^th 6pm-7pm

The Wembley Connects took place last week attended by 5 people.

Apart from the charges above there are other charges in the proposal including charging the elderly monthly  for Telecare services (they vary widely across councils) and increases for mortuary and bereavement services.  A £1m cut is based on wider use of reablement services to keep people from reliance on long-term care services and additional respite capacity for individuals with learning disabilities and reduce reliance on residential respite placements.

Care leavers aso suffer  with proposals to halve the number of weekends offered at Gordon Brown Centre for courses to support their independence and a reduction in spend on the SafeBase that supports the health and wellbeing of care leavers in higher education. Given the concerns about the vulnerability of care leavers this seems short-sighted.

 Apart from the Environment Services fee rise above there is a proposal for a £5 delivery charge for new or replacement binsand a proposal to cease the subscription to the online Recylopedia  resource which recieves 12,000 clicks a month.

A staffing and structural review of Public Realm posts results in the deletion of 3-4 posts which apparently will lead to 'local solutions for local problems.'  I hope Scrutiny Committee will explore what that means.

It is proposed to use an agency for occupational health service:

It is anticipated that a saving £100,000 could be delivered through the outsourcing of the OH contract.  By switching to an external provider, we would only pay the costs for our actual usage. We also pay high agency rates as OH specialists are hard to recruit and there is a national skills shortag. There is a downside in the Risk Assessment:Reduced service and longer waiting times to be seen by an OH professional as the service won’t be inhouse and bespoke. This will be mitigated as far as possible through close monitoring of performance. 

The deletion of 5 posts in Finance and Resorces is mitigated by 'automation'.

Check the list in Appendix below for the proposals  and if you want more details note the reference number and go to Appendix B. Click bottom right corner for full page.

 

 Appendix B - detailed proposals with risk assessments.

 

 

 

Comments invited on Old Oak-Park Royal Regeneration community involvement proposals

 

The OPDC boundaries

This is a message I have received from Old Oak and Park Royal Development  Corporation (OPDC). 

 Dear All,

Please find attached the first e-newsletter from OPDC – this will evolve over time and the aim is to keep local businesses, residents and groups up to date with latest information about Old Oak and Park Royal proposals as well as highlight opportunities to get involved in shaping the development. Please help us to make it useful and tell us what you would like to see featured.

Also, our draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) is now out for consultation along with our draft Community Charter. The SCI aims to set out how stakeholders will be involved in the planning process and the Community Charter sets out how OPDC’s commitment to community engagement in all aspects of the regeneration in Old Oak and Park Royal.

We would like your comments on these documents, please follow the link to find out how to get involved in the consultation on the draft Statement of Community Involvement and draft Community Charter.

Kind Regards,

Alex Day
OPDC

Powney calls for councillors to give themselves time to discuss Scrutiny proposals - and not accept a fait accompli

It is good to see James Powney LINK responding to the 'clarification' of Scrutiny proposals which I published from a source very close to Brent Labour earlier LINK

Like me he can see no reference to this detail in the Officer's Report going before Full Council tomorrow and remarks:

If Martin's source is knowledgeable, I wonder whether these are last minute changes to mitigate the apparent intention of removing the operations of the Council from effective scrutiny.  It all seems a very hole-in-the-corner way of doing things.

He says that the requirement that questions to Cabinet members at Full Council be submitted in advance, and without follow-up questions allowed,  will mean that officers will write the answers and they will be read out by the lead members'

He goes on:

All this strikes me as a far cry from how things should be done.  I have suggested that there are three objectives Scrutiny should aim at.  The Welsh National Audit Office has recently gone through a more elaborate analysis.  What the balance between is is an area where I can imagine lots of different points of view, but it is essentially a matter for political value judgements, not simply a technical issue.  Therefore, it should be the subject of a proper debate and decision by councillors, not simply presented to them as a fait accompli within a fortnight of election.

The elected members of the Council should give themselves time to discuss how they want Scrutiny to function, and what they decide should be laid out clearly, not anonymously communicated to Martin Francis. 

I agree completely that a proper report, detailing the proposals and setting out how lay committee members would be recruited is essential for proper consideration of the Scrutiny proposals. Far reaching Scrutiny proposals approved without proper scrutiny would open the Council up to ridicule.

I hope backbench Labour  councillors and the opposition take note and speak up tomorrow.

If you need any persuasion of the confusing aspects of the Scrutiny changes and perhaps evidence of the haste in which they have been prepared see the Supplementary Agenda LINK. Particularly important noteworthy are pages 30 and 48.

If you wish to attend the Full Council on Wednesday as a member of the public you are advised to let Anne Reid of Democratic Services know, as the number of seats is limited:  anne.reid@brent.gov.uk