Why Scrutiny needed a Task Force on the South Kilburn Regeneration

The following letter was sent to members of Brent Scrutiny Committee and Cllr Conneely by Pete Firmin on January 28th.  None of the Committee have acknowledged receipt.  It was a follow up to the December Scrutiny Committee discussion of the South Kilburn Regeneration which is on the agenda of the Cabinet tonight:
 

Firstly, thank you for allowing me to express our concerns with regard to the regeneration of South Kilburn at the Scrutiny Committee meeting of 2^nd December, we often feel that residents of South Kilburn are not listened to. Thank you too for asking searching questions of the lead member and officer presenting the report.

There are a few issues which arose in your discussion which I would like to clarify or correct, and which may help you decide how to proceed:

* Councillor McLennan insisted that she had responded to the concerns raised by our TRA in its motion of July 2014 (which I attach again for your interest). Unfortunately this is not the case. The walkabout which Councillor McLennan referred to was about day-to-day issues rather than the more general issues we raised in the resolution. You do not have to take my word for this, if Councillor McLennan is correct that she has responded to those concerns, I’m sure she will gladly provided you with a copy of correspondence from her on the matter. This is not of minor importance; it goes to the heart of how our concerns have been ignored.

* Richard Barrett referred to the proposal to site the HS2 vent shaft at Canterbury Works as a success. He did not even acknowledge the concerns of residents about another heavy construction project being sited next to a junior school and in the middle of a residential area. Local residents and parents of children at the school feel much betrayed by Brent in pushing for the vent shaft to be sited there. There has been no serious attempt to engage with them over the issue, even though our objections are known. It is very hard to find a local resident not appalled by this, as evidenced by the fact that several petitions of hundreds of signatures are now with parliament spelling out those concerns. Even if you believe that LBB has been right to argue for the vent shaft to be sited at Canterbury Works, I would hope that you realise that the way it has gone about it can only serve to alienate residents.

* Richard Barrett said that Coventry Close is not within the area of the regeneration. This after having said that regeneration reaches as far as Kilburn High Road. Part of the Catalyst site is on Coventry Close, and one of their site entrances which caused many problems, is on Coventry Close. Yet no-one seems to believe they have any responsibility for a road which is badly in need of work.

* Asked about additional capacity at the proposed health Centre, we are told that, at least in the immediate term, this will merely bring 3 existing GP practices under the same roof. Yet, although Cllr McLennan and Mr Barrett could not provide figures, the population of South Kilburn is increasing considerably with regeneration (possibly doubling). While it was said that the new centre will `have scope’ for additional GPs, there appeared to be no real push for that, leaving it up to whether NHS England decide to act. Yet I can say from personal experience that existing practices are already having difficulty coping.

* When asked about a pharmacy for the health centre, Richard Barrett mentioned the one at Queens Park station and said the next was Boots on the Kilburn High Road. I had to point out that there is a pharmacy at Kilburn Park tube station, in fact the only one actually in South Kilburn. Mr Barrett said one of the two he mentioned should be approached to run the pharmacy in the new health centre, yet the one at Kilburn park should possibly be given first refusal, since it is likely to lose all its trade when the new centre is built, being currently opposite Kilburn Park Medical Centre,  the largest of those due to go into the Peel precinct centre.

* Again on infrastructure, it was clear from Mr Barrett’s response that the suggested amalgamation of Carlton Vale Infant  and Kilburn Park Junior schools is going nowhere, but no plan B is forthcoming to cope with the increased population.

* Councillor McLennan claimed we were in the masterplan but chose not to be. In actual fact, though we had objections to the masterplan, we were eventually excluded through lack of finance, not primarily because of our objections (we also objected to the destruction of some other entirely sound low rise blocks, to no avail). The implication here is that the problems we have suffered with regeneration are self-inflicted. But surely, even if it were the case that we were left out of regeneration because of our protests, that would not excuse the treatment we have had at the hands of Wilmott Dixon/catalyst.

* Richard Barrett said that he had had regular meetings with the developers at Kilburn Park and raised problems of their behaviour towards us with them. All we can say is that if that is the case Wilmott Dixon/Catalyst have ignored such admonishments. The catalogue of problems which I distributed to you at the scrutiny committee meeting (and attached again here) is only a summary, but should give you a strong indication of those problems. They are continuing right up until the end of the development (now more than a year overrun). A recent Freedom of Information request got the response that, actually, Mr Barrett has passed on very few of our complaints to other relevant parts of the Council. Problems are now continuing way beyond the “completion” of construction in the Kilburn Park. Wilmott Dixon/Catalyst have made various commitments about things they will do at completion, none of which has yet been done. As an example, I cite the fact that on many occasions they promised our windows would be cleaned on completion of the site. We are still waiting.

* On the regeneration more generally, Richard Barrett said that part of the success story of regeneration is that property values in the area have increased. What an amazing statement! We would see that as more of a problem than a “success”. Unfortunately, SK regeneration has not provided any additional social housing in the area to what existed, only unaffordable properties.

* Again on the issue of involvement/engagement, Mr Barrett said that he regularly attends meetings of the Tenant s Steering Group. Those not in the know will not realise that this is a body only for those being moved with regeneration, not for all SK tenants. Rather, when 2 members of our TRA went to a meeting of the TSG they were told they were not supposed to be there but could stay as long as they did not say anything. Similarly, South Kilburn Trust is repeatedly said to work across all the SK area. It does not. The only issue on which we have managed to get SK Trust to work with us is on the hoped-for access to St Mary’s school MUGA (an issue which has now dragged on for 10 years or more). When, for instance, the SK Trust expressed its view on the siting of the HS2 vent shaft in South Kilburn, they made no attempt at all to find out the views of those living close to the proposed site.

There is much more I could say, but will stop there. We would hope that these comments, together with your views expressed at the scrutiny committee meeting, would encourage you to urgently establish a task force to look closer at the regeneration of South Kilburn and the problems it has thrown up. As an organisation of residents, we would be more than happy to assist with, even serve on, such a task force.

Pete Firmin

Chair, on behalf of Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association.

Marylebone Boys Free School 'land grab' condemned as open space fenced in

As well as causing ripples with its planning application for a temporary school in Queens Park LINK, Marylebone Free Boys School, has upset residents near its present site at the former College of North West London Building in Priory Road, Kilburn.

Wednesday's Planning Committee will hear an application LINK to erect a 2.4m fence around the open space in front of the building to provide a play area for the free school's pupils.

The space was the subject of a right of way application by Brent Eleven Streets Residents Association  (BEST) which the officer's report say did not progress due to lack of information submitted. The report states that BEST are not going to pursue the application and that anyway a decision on the planning application would not prejudice a future right of way application.

Residents report that a fence has gone up anyway without permission and some see this as private acquisition of public land.

Officers make the following comment to the Planning Committe:

Your officers agree in principle that this area can be enclosed by fencing: it is not a public space and it
does not serve any particular purpose as an area of visual amenity

The following resident's comment is listed on the Planning Portal:

-->

Is this consultation a scam? Temporary or not - there is a fence going up today 20th Feb 2015 at the Marylebone Boys School/North west London College ?Surely they don’t have permission for this as this consultation is in progress ??? The link area /road /walk through, is a well established right of way and has been for many years going back to at least the early 70s, even before. 

Evidence in the form of plans and drawing sent electronically and hard copy to John Fletcher Team Leader - Development Control proves this clearly. The right of way was well established prior to the new North West London College building being erected (2005) and has always been used by local residents. The right of way is clearly shown on the sales information on page 4 of the Knight Frank sales information that handled sale of this property to the now Marylebone Boys school. The existence of the link road /path area was considered in the planning application to this building and it was considered important to ensure an open view.

 This right of way was always and still is considered as very important to stop crime. The Terrace becoming a narrow passage that is closed in without an open perspective, will leave it vulnerable to crime and the fear of crime (muggings, drug use and rubbish dumping, making The Terrace and walkway between St Julian’s Road and Kilburn High Road a no go area. 

I , alongside residents of Brent Eleven Streets local Residents wish to add that over the last 7-8 years, the residents of Priory Mansions (a homeless hostel) have established a use of Link Road as an open space for children’s play and as a much needed recreation area for families who are housed in cramped conditions in the hostel. For me personally it is a joy to see them playing in this open space and I feel for the families housed in this building who have no immediate space in which their children can play that is close by to keep an eye on them. This use of this important open community space happened over the entire year particularly in the summer months, weekends, evenings and school holidays. With the arrival of the fence they have lost this space and have no voice to gain it back as children never get asked what they need or want. This space has been removed from all of us also .

 The images sent hard copy to John Fletcher Team Leader - Development Control show people using the area as a right of way. Original plans for the college clearly show that the public were not to be kept out. The bike racks were always open for general use. The Knight Frank link to the sale information of the premises clearly shows that the freehold sold did not include the link land. See page 4 the white red and black map where the boundary line clearly shows a path through to the terrace that does not belong to this property http://www.inst.knightfrank.com/documents/fetch/4064 This route through has always been there in our memory and in that of many others who have lived in this area for over 25 years and more. 

Residents very much object to this land grab away from local residents and we strongly object to the fence that has been erected by Marylebone Boys school taking over this space we feel without legal permission to do so. This area is not suitable for a school . It is suitable for a sixth form or FE College such as North west London College where no PRIVATE illegal exclusion zone area is needed . This open design will then fit all as was its intended purpose. Please give back this buildings use to adult education as was intended and as agreed with local residents . This building was a useful resource to community now its just a private no entry, high walled castle for people that are not even local or living in Brent.

South Kilburn residents vent their opposition on HS2 - next stop Parliament!

Select Commitee Visit Photo: Arantxa Arranz

Guest blog by Pete Firmin, chair, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association

Bad news for those who hoped that opposition to the HS2 LINK vent shaft being sited in the middle of a residential area and next to a primary school in South Kilburn would go away once Brent Council had persuaded HS2 of the wisdom of this.

On the contrary, campaigners turned out to lobby the parliamentary select committee when they visited the proposed site on Monday 9th November. Although it was meant to be a flying (5 minute!) visit, the visitors were persuaded to stop and briefly listen to us spelling out the problems with the site, LINK some of them also engaging in one-to-one conversations as well. One of the Brent Councillors and a lead officer looked none to pleased at this. Campaigners in many other places on the proposed  HS2 route also turned out to lobby at proposed sites.

A stark illustration of the problem was given to the select committee when they got stuck in traffic on Albert Road, the route down which they want to send 80 heavy lorries a day! But such irony is probably lost on Brent Council which the same week chose to announce that work was starting on Woodhouse Urban park on the same road. No doubt a highly relaxing place with lorries going past every few minutes.

Before and after the visit, local campaigners were out collecting signatures against the siting of the vent shaft here, from residents, parents of children at the school and a local business. It was impossible to find anyone in favour of the vent shaft being sited here, something which the Council has steered clear of mentioning. Indeed, while the Council website says “we are in dialogue with HS2, the school and local residents to discuss the proposed change and suitable mitigation measures”, a Freedom of Information request as to what this dialogue consists of has been refused.

Petitions had to be submitted to parliament by Friday 13th November, and on the day before our MP, Tulip Siddiq, brought all her staff to the area to assist in ensuring the petitions were in order, not an easy task. At least 6 different petitions have gone in, together with hundreds of signatures. Incidentally, in Camden the Council put council facilities at the service of petitioners. Brent, of course, has done the opposite.

What happens now? We will get letters from the select committee in the next few weeks responding to the points raised in the petitions, after which, if we are not satisfied – highly unlikely – we will get the opportunity to address them at a hearing in Westminster. Watch this space.

HS2 and South Kilburn – stitched up by Brent, but fighting back

The leaflet distributed outside the school

Guest blog by Pete Firmin, chair, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association

On Monday 12th October, HS2 – the proposed London to Birmingham high speed rail link – deposited “additional provisions” with parliament with the proposed siting of a vent shaft at Canterbury Works in South Kilburn. LINK

Originally, HS2 proposed that this be on the car park next to Queens Park station, but under pressure from Brent Council it proposes to build on this new site. The  issues involved have previously been spelt out on Wembley Matters.

The Canterbury Works site is next to a junior school (St Mary's) and close to many homes.

Throughout this process neither HS2 or Brent Council has attempted to consult with those who would be most affected by the decision.

HS2 sent residents letters several years ago saying their property might be subject to a Compulsory Purchase Order, but this was only in relation to the fact that HS2 will go under or close to our flats. The only meeting HS2 has attended with residents was a “Brent Connect” forum several years ago when this issue was raised with them. They have never followed up on the inadequate response given at the time.

But all that was well before the issue of the moving of the proposed vent shaft arose. Since then, one letter from HS2 about an “information event” (see below), nothing else.

While HS2 has failed to consult in any way, Brent claims to have done so, although this does not stand up to serious scrutiny, and in fact stinks of hypocrisy and duplicity.

Unlike HS2, Brent has never sent information round to all residents in the area about HS2.

While Council Officers have held meetings with Councillors and the (Hampstead and Kilburn) MP, they have never held meetings with either representatives of local residents or parents of children at the school, let alone open meetings which all could attend.

On the contrary, they have put out misinformation implying there has been consultation where there has been none.

So Council Officers have circulated a letter which says that the headteacher of the school and the Diocese are not opposed to the siting of the vent shaft next to the school. Not surprisingly, this fails to mention that this (new) headteacher refuses to consult with parents on the issue. Under the previous head teacher (replaced over the summer) the board of governors were opposed, the head was opposed, and they worked with parents to show their opposition. All this is well known to Council Officers, but they choose to pretend it never happened. Conveniently for Brent Council the board of governors has been scrapped in favour of an Interim Executive Board. The new head says she is only interested in the education of the children and not what is happening around the school. Clearly the welfare of pupils is low on her agenda and that of the Diocese.

The South Kilburn Trust is also reported as being neutral on the issue. While the Trust is reported in many Council documents as “representing the interests of all South Kilburn residents”, the only contact it has with us is over use by residents of a school playing area. It has certainly never asked our views about the vent shaft.

In the same letter Council Officers say that Peter Jones, chair of the Tenants Steering Group, is not opposed to the siting of the vent shaft in South Kilburn. Those not in the know (like HS2 and most Brent Councillors) reading that will think it means local residents have been consulted. Far from it. The Tenants Steering Group is a forum for those tenants being rehoused under regeneration. That does not include most of those closest to the proposed vent shaft site (including in our 3 blocks). In fact when 2 members of our TRA found their way to a meeting of the Tenants Steering Group they were told the meeting was not for them but they could stay as long as they did not say anything! There is no pretence that the chair of this group (who does not live near to the proposed site) even consulted the forum he is chair of, let alone anyone living close to the vent shaft.

What is known to Council Officers is that our TRA passed a motion unanimously opposing this proposed siting of the vent shaft. Mysteriously, this information has not been passed on.

Worse, when Brent Council considered the issue of HS2 and the siting of the vent shaft at full Council in March 2014, our TRA was refused the right to address the Council on our concerns. We were told that these would be taken into account. They weren’t. And Brent has made no effort to inform residents of developments since, even though it has been pushing at every opportunity to change the proposed siting of the vent shaft.

Latest development – on Thursday 8th and Monday 12th October, Brent, together with HS2, held an `information event’ in South Kilburn studios. Such events have been likened to car salesrooms, at which you are given glossy leaflets and surrounded by people keen to sell your their wares. If this was meant as some kind of `consultation’, then it has to be asked why it was planned to submit the proposals to parliament on the Monday when this event was still going on. Clearly there was no intention to take the responses of residents into account.

To reassure us, we have been told there would be proper monitoring of vehicle movements to and from the site, times of working etc. By who? Brent Council, precisely the people who have failed to do anything about the abuses by developers on neighbouring sites for the last 4 years and a big reason why we are opposed to the siting of the vent shaft here. Very reassuring.

At the Thursday of this event, one residents’ representative asked why no Brent Councillors were present to justify their decision, rather than leaving it entirely to Brent and HS2 employees. Subsequently, all Brent Labour Councillors were written to, asking them to attend. Only 5 of the 50 even bothered to reply. Whether this shows an unwillingness to justify something they voted for, or a total ignorance of the issues, I will leave readers of Wembley Matters to decided. It does rather reinforce the view that it is senior Council officers who make the decisions, not Councillors.

When leafleting residents and parents of the children at the school against the proposal we have yet to find anyone who thinks it a good idea. Though the headteacher did come out and shout at us about “lies” in our leaflet, an allegation which she was not able to sustain. Incidentally, the head is so acquainted with the area that she had to be told where SK studios is, even though it is less than 3 minutes walk from the school gates.

A Council officer has now apparently said he will organise a meeting with school parents, though he seems to think he can do this through the school head who is totally uninterested. If such a meeting should take pace, it will be to report a fait accompli rather than take the views of parents into consideration.

It will be reported that not many residents (around 100 in total) visited the `information event’. Could this be because they feel the decision has been taken and there is not a lot they can do about it?

Residents and parents of children at the school have until 13th November to petition parliament against this proposal, and we will be out trying to get as much support as possible. I’m pleased to say we have the support of our 2 active Kilburn Councillors in this, and our MP, Tulip Siddiq, has raised our concerns in parliament.
 

Brent Labour support gag on deputation on need for high standards in carrying out council business

 This is the deputation Philip Grant would have given at tonight's Full Brent Council Meeting if he had he not been forbidden to do so by Fiona Alderman,Brent Chief Legal Officer. Challenged to give her reasons for the ban she repeated the contents of an email she sent to Philip Grant last Wednesday.  He had replied to that response setting out the reasons his deputation should be allowed. He sent her a copy of the deputation so that she could see for herself that it was not a campaign and not a personal attack on individuals. She did not refer to this in her account to Full Council..

When Cllr Warren moved suspension of standing orders to hear Philip Grant's deputation only Brondesburty Park Conservatives voted for it. Most Labour  councillors voted against with Cllr Duffy and Crane and the Kenton Conservatives abstaining.

The importance of high standards of conduct in carrying out the functions of
Brent Council.

I am here as an individual, but I hope that the many Brent residents and staff who have raised similar concerns will feel that I am speaking for them as well.

I would like to welcome Carolyn Downs to Brent. She has a very important job as Brent’s new Chief Executive, and a key part of that role is in setting an example of the highest standards of conduct to the staff she leads. Those standards are summed-up by the principles of integrity, selflessness, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

I know that I am not the only Brent resident who feels that these high standards of conduct have been allowed to slip by some senior figures at Brent in recent years. I can illustrate what I mean through a recent example, where proper accountability and openness does not appear to have been shown by Ms Downs’ predecessor.

In June 2015 it was announced that Brent’s Director of HR was leaving the Council, to take a career break. Many were surprised that she had been allowed to stay in post, following findings of fact made against her a year ago by an Employment Tribunal. It found that she had victimised, and facilitated the constructive dismissal of, a fellow officer who had complained of being bullied by her.  

Rumours quickly emerged from the Civic Centre that the departing Director of HR was receiving a “pay off” from Brent. Serious concerns about this were raised, by me and others, from 12 June onwards. The original questions to the interim Chief Executive were dismissed on 8 July with the statement: 

‘I am advised that the Council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure.’

On 9 July I asked the interim Chief Executive two simple questions which did not require the disclosure of any details of the arrangements. Those questions are still unanswered, despite reminders from me, and requests from a number of individual Labour councillors, and the leaders of both Conservative groups. 

I would ask the Council and its Officers for the honest answers to them now:

1. Can Brent Council confirm that there has not been, and that there will not be, any financial payment by the Council to Cara Davani in connection with her leaving the Council’s employment as Director of HR and Administration, other than her normal salary payment up to 30 June 2015?  YES or NO.

2. Can Brent Council confirm that it has not agreed, and will not agree, to pay any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally, as a separately named respondent from Brent Council, in any Employment Tribunal or other legal proceedings in which she and the Council are named parties?   YES or NO.

It is important that these questions should be answered. If you don’t, people will rightly ask: “what are they hiding, and WHY?” If either or both of the answers is “no”, councillors, staff and residents should be told who made the decisions over the “pay off”, and why it was considered to be justified.

All of you, as Brent’s councillors, have a duty to satisfy yourselves that any such “pay off” is not a mis-use of Council funds. 

·      Ask yourselves, why shouldn’t Brent respect the judgement of an independent Tribunal, if it decides that an award should be made against Ms Davani personally?
·      Why shouldn’t your Scrutiny Committee, meeting this Wednesday, use its power to scrutinise the decisions in this matter?
·      What will you say to your constituents, when you have to make further cuts to their services, and they ask why you turned a blind eye to the “pay off” to Ms Davani?

In a farewell message to the Council’s staff in September 2012, after he had ‘agreed with the political leadership to move on’, Gareth Daniel said:

‘I believe that personal integrity is the foundation for good governance, and without it everything else is lost.’

The ‘few months’ we were promised it would take to recruit a new Chief Executive has turned into three years, and the high standards he set have been allowed to slip. I would urge both councillors and Council Officers to make answering my two questions the first step in putting high standards of conduct at the heart of how our borough is run, under Carolyn Downs’ stewardship.

Thank you.

Philip Grant
7 September 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cabinet approved the proposal.

Setting out Scrutiny Committee's role for 2015-16

The Scrutiny Committee will be setting out its aims as well as a draft work programme at its meeting on Tuesday July 14th.

This extract from the report to be considered at the meeting gives details of the Committee's approach:
 

3.1       Scrutiny activities will be led and co-ordinated by the Scrutiny Committee. This Committee will meet up to 10 times during the year.  The Committee consists of fourteen members comprising eight Councillors, four voting education co-opted members and two non-voting co-opted members. The voting co-opted members only have voting rights in relation to education functions.

3.2  The Scrutiny Committee will:

• hold the Cabinet to account for its decisions.

•contribute to strategy development through scrutiny of key policy documents and make comments on these to the Cabinet.

•support policy development through commissioning Member-led investigations of issues affecting the community or borough.

• provide scrutiny of external public bodies and services, including education,

health and other partners as specified by the Localism Act, 2011

• coordinate activities with other local bodies charged with scrutiny functions , for example, Healthwatch, tenant scrutiny, Brent’s Safe r Neighbourhood Board and the regional Joint Health and Overview Scrutiny Committee.

• review and monitor performance to ensure continuous improvement.

• receive call-in of Cabinet decisions, public petitions and community calls to action.

3.3       The Council has a number of statutory responsibilities with regard to scrutiny of local bodies which will be built into the work programme of the committee during the year, particularly concerning health and police services.

Appendix A sets out the terms of reference for the Scrutiny Committee, these are set out in the constitution of the council. 

3.4       The Committee will be able to establish time limited task and finish groups which will focus on particular topics or issues of local concern. Through these time-limited reviews of local issues and services, scrutiny activities will not be limited to the members of the Committee. Rather all non-cabinet M embers can and should participate. These scrutiny reviews will also create opportunities for a broad range of organisations, stakeholders and the public in Brent to get involved in the work of scrutiny. 

3.5       The Scrutiny Committee may undertake external scrutiny of other organisations that provide local services such as education. The council has a statutory power to scrutinise local health provision and also crime and disorder functions. This can be achieved by requesting information from other public  agencies or by asking them to attend a meeting of the Committee for questions. M embers can also investigate any issue that is affecting local communities or the borough. External scrutiny is an area in which real value can be added, enabling Members to explore issues of public concern and take the lead on behalf of their community. 

3.6       The Scrutiny Committee will therefore: 

• develop an annual work programme based on genuine public participation and feed back from elected Members on local priorities.

• work closely with other local bodies and groups charged with scrutiny functions

• monitor and challenge performance and the use of resources both internally and externally

• make evidence-based recommendations to improve the work of the Council and other partner organisations

•scrutinise decisions and develop policy both in respect of the Council and external organisations

• scrutinise the Council’s budget, particularly at the pre-decision stage

• deal with call-in and pre-decision scrutiny

•commission in-depth reviews to be carried out by task and finish groups and to be brought back to the Committee for consideration

• produce an annual report on its work showing, in particular, the impact of the work of the Committee in improving outcomes for local people

• bring different agencies together to broker solutions to seemingly intractable problems.

Effective scrutiny

3.7       Scrutiny provides councillors with the opportunity to question Cabinet Members, officers and others in order to gain knowledge around an issue and make effective, evidenced-based recommendations. It also enables Members to capture the views of their constituents to provide community leadership. 

The principles of effective scrutiny are: 

•  being Member-led

The Scrutiny Committee determines its own work programme and decides what evidence to seek. Members take an active role in t he scrutiny process, for example by going on visits, taking part in consultation activities with service users, residents and discussions with local organisations. 

• a consensual approach

Effective scrutiny works towards developing a consensus-based view of the service or issue under consideration, focused on the needs of service users and residents.

• it is evidence based

Scrutiny should take evidence from a wide and balanced range of sources in order to develop a rounded view of the issues under consideration. 

Recommendations made by scrutiny should be firmly supported by the evidence gathered. 

• provide constructive challenge

Good scrutiny should foster a style of constructive challenge with officers and other witnesses, enabling sharing of views in an open and positive manner.

2015-16 Work Programme LINK

2014-15 Key Comments, Recommendations and Actions LINK