Brent Council public consultation on 'Brutal' cuts on January 13th

Brent Council's Borough Plan puts much emphasis on working with the voluntary sector to deliver services in an era of cut backs.

At Scrutiny Committee last night Cllr Mary Daly asked if any figures had been put on what was expected from the sector.

Deputy Brent Council leader Michael Pavey responding said:

To be perfectly honest I don't know how much the voluntary sector can absorb. Cuts of £54 million will be brutal. We will just have to do what we can. We are working hand in glove with the voluntary sector to ameliorate the impact of cuts.

Pavey welcomed the Budget Scrutiny Task Group's report and its emphasis on equality but said:

 But I have to be candid. There will be a disproportionate impact on the less well off. That is the reality.

He felt the Task Group had been harsh to question the limited choice in the budget options. The Group had said:

The range and extent of public consultation, both with regard to the draft Borough Plan and the council budget options was welcomed by the scrutiny task group. However, given the severity of the financial reductions the group was concerned that the degree of ;choice; between various options was still limited and this needed to be clearly set out during the consultation events planned for January 2015.

Cllr Eleanor Southwold remarked that residents who had put much effort into responding to the consultation on the Borough Plan had been disappointed with the draft Plan and felt that it did not reflect what they had said.  Cllr Dan Filson said that although the suggested cuts of £54m was exceeded by the budget proposals which totalled £60m, giving some leeway in terms of the final decision, £35m still had to be cut in the first year.  He said that efficiency savings were much easier to find in a 'steady state' authority than one facing such drastic changes.

Cllr James Allie was keen to find out more about improving returns on Brent investments. He was concerned about always having to look at cuts and wanted to look at income:

If it is just about cuts I have to ask myself, what is the point of being elected?

Cllr Pavey replied that reserves were lower and investing for a higher return would be a risk and Brent Council already had experience of that (a reference to the Icelandic banks).

Michael Bowden, Operational Director of Finance, said that the budget proposals contained no assumptions about the level of  Council Tax or changes in the Council Tax Support scheme. Responding to Cllr Cowill he said that the Council Tax base had increased by 4% as the result of new build which was about £3.8m. The return on investments was average for comparable London boroughs. Any long term borrowing by the Council would currently be at an interest rate of 4.5%.

The Council will be holding two consultation events on the budget on Tuesday January 13th and these will be followed by consultations at the Brent Connects meetings. The paper on savings/cuts that went to Cabinet on December 15th can be found here LINK

The Council is expecting a high attendance at the January 13th meetings with media in attendance. It is likely that much discussion will centre around what services can be 'saved' given the £6m that can be clawed back from the £60m worth of cuts proposed. This could lead to a sort of bidding process between proponents of different services and leave the whole issue of whether the council should be implementing Coalition cuts to one side.

This is what appears on the Brent Council website:

Budget consultation event

13 January 2015, 2pm to 4pm, Brent Civic Centre

13 January 2015, 7pm to 9pm, Brent Civic Centre

See events in: Civic centre events, Public consultations

We have to make £54 million worth of savings over the next two years and we want to hear your views about this.
Over the last few years we have already made a number of savings but, with around a 50 per cent reduction in central government funding between now and 2018 coming we have to do more.
Our budget plans so far include the further streamlining of our senior management, renegotiating contracts with suppliers to get a better deal and focusing the biggest cuts on back office services such as IT, Finance and HR.
Despite these steps, significant and wide-ranging cuts to frontline services are 'inevitable' the Leader of the Council has warned.
Come along to have your say as we look to make further cuts to our budget.

Former Executive member Cllr James Powney makes some interesting comments on the complexity of budget consultation and whether some of the proposed cuts are realistic, or indeed legal, on his blog: LINK

Build a stronger, healthier Chalkhill - job vacancy

Michael Stuart, who has done a terrific job on Chalkhill Estate as Well London Co-ordinator, is finishing in March  and the job is now being advertised.

I hope to publish an interview with Michael soon about the work he has done, but meanwhile here are the job details:

Well London Coordinator – £18,000 3 days a week (pro rata £30,000) fixed term one year post, with extension subject to available funding.

Well London is an exciting and ambitious programme that builds stronger local communities by getting people working together to improve their neighbourhoods, health and well-being. We have been working in Chalkhill since August 2012 and are looking for a co-ordinator to further develop the project.

The co-ordinator will be based in Chalkhill and will use community development, project management and volunteer management skills to sustain and develop current activities, increase the capacity of the local community and build relationships with local and statutory organisations. Key areas of work contributing to the Well London health and wellbeing outcomes include:

·         healthy eating

·         physical activities

·         volunteering, employment and training

·         emotional health

·         social and community activities.

It is important to build the skills, confidence and capacity of residents’ groups and activities to be independent and sustainable and to ensure all sections of the local community are involved.

How to apply:  download the Application Form and Job Description/Person Specification from the link below or email m.stuart@cvsbrent.org.uk. Closing date for applications is Sunday 1^st February (midnight), with interviews on Wednesday 11th February. Please return completed applications to m.stuart@cvsbrent.org.uk. For an informal discussion about the post please contact the existing postholder, Michael Stuart, on 0756 8575 580.

Application Form

http://www.cvsbrent.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Well-London-Chalkhill-Application-form.doc

Job Description / Person Specification

http://www.cvsbrent.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Well-London-JD-and-PS-2015.doc

Advert

http://www.cvsbrent.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/WLC-Advert.docx

Bid to Open Children's Library and Study Space in Barham Park building

From Friends of Barham Library

Friends of Barham Library have identified a second empty building in Barham Park as suitable for much needed community use.

A few weeks ago the Barham Volunteers made a bid to the Barham Park Charity to be allowed to take over the empty Cardroom building in Barham Park so that they could reopen a Library in the area. They have now made a bid for a 2nd empty space within the Barham Park Buildings for the opening of a separate Children Library and Study Space for children and young people of Sudbury & Wembley.

The 2nd space used to be the Council's Parks Department Reception area but has been empty for at least 5 years. According to Francis Henry of Daniels Estate Agents, who is acting as the Property Manager for Friends of Barham Library on a volunteer basis, the room which is around 30 sq metres in size would be ideal for a standalone Children Library for the area.

The room is accessed from the main Harrow Road and is clearly visible. It is also close to the bus stops for numerous local buses serving the area and a short walk from the Barham Park play area and small car park.

According to Paul Lorber, a former Councillor for the area, the biggest losers of the closure of Barham Park Library were children and young people and a replacement library is much needed.
While the Barham Volunteers continue to run two volunteer libraries and second hand bookshops from temporary premises in Sudbury Town Underground Station and 428 High Road Wembley what they need is permanent premises within Barham Park so that they can expand their activities and provide a full blown library service that the local area needs.

Paul Lorber said:

We have fantastic local support which has enabled us to keep going and to run two volunteer Libraries for around 3 years. We have shown our ability to get things done and we now want to make the best possible use of the empty parts of the Barham Park buildings to expand our library and educational service to the local community.

Besides running the book lending and selling service from their two temporary premises the Barham Volunteers also run English Conversation Classes, an Arts & Crafts Club and Chess Club for Children and let their space out to an elders Bridge Club and for advice sessions to young people.

The decision to allow Friends of Barham Library access to the empty parts of the Barham Buildings lies with four Labour Councillors who currently act as Trustees of the Barham Park Charity. The Trustees are due to meet at the end of January when it is hoped that they will finally agree to let local people to open a Volunteers run Library in Barham Park.

Anyone wishing to support the "We want to get back to Barham Park volunteer library campaign" should visit the existing Friends of Barham Library premises in Sudbury Town Underground Statio open on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from 3:30pm to 6:30pm. or 428 High Road Wembley (near Daniels Estate Agents & KFC) open on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays from 12pm to 5pm.
 

Developers and affordable housing, can Brent learn from Islington?

The issue of regeneration and development in London caused much controversey in London last year as property prices and rents soared and much new development was bought up by overseas investors.  In Brent the Willesden Green Library development was a prime example as the development was sold on twice and the price of a one bedroomed flat rose to £450,000. In Barnet West Hendon social housing tenants are being moved out to make for high rise luxury developments on the bank of the Welsh Harp.

In a widely quoted Guardian article LINK Oliver Wainwright wrote:

Across the country – and especially in superheated London, where stratospheric land values beget accordingly bloated developments – authorities are allowing planning policies to be continually flouted, affordable housing quotas to be waived, height limits breached, the interests of residents endlessly trampled. Places are becoming ever meaner and more divided, as public assets are relentlessly sold off, entire council estates flattened to make room for silos of luxury safe-deposit boxes in the sky. We are replacing homes with investment units, to be sold overseas and never inhabited, substituting community for vacancy. The more we build, the more our cities are emptied, producing dead swathes of zombie town where the lights might never even be switched on.

Islington Council moved to fine 'buy-to-leave' investors up to £60,000 for leaving house units empty LINK and decided LINK to clamp down on developers making 'artifically pessemistic' assessments of the viability of affordable housing schemes:

The council last week launched a consultation on supplementary planning guidance that would require all viability studies to be supported by ‘robust evidence’. This will include details of arrangements between landowners and developers, and information provided by the developer to banks.

Viability studies are commissioned by developers to assess how much affordable housing a scheme could provide while remaining financially viable.

Islington said it has received a ‘significant number’ of viability studies that do not provide underlying methodology and modelling.

These studies are ‘unsupported by robust evidence’ and create ‘an artificially pessimistic outcome’, leading to what the council calls ‘super-profit’.

The council proposes that viability studies that lack ‘all relevant information required’ to have a reduced weight in terms of decision making.

Speaking at a Communities and Local Government committee meeting on 10 September, James Murray, executive member for housing and development at Islington, said: ‘The modelling is often not shared with the council, so we have to try to extrapolate from that. We need national action.

London Councils, the body that represents local authorities in London, said it is ‘aware of concerns from a number of councils’ about viability studies and transparency.

Richard Lemon, associate director of planning at property consultancy CBRE, said: ‘One can be as transparent as you like, but you need skills in-house to be able to properly scrutinise viability.’

In October Isling Council took steps to ensure that there was hoising at social rents at the soon to be developed Clerkenwell Firer Station which had been closed by Boris Johnson. LINK

Another issue is around Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy, 'planning gain' monies paid by developers to Councils to provide infrastructure for projects.  The regulations for CIL in Brent can be found HERE and there is a process by which developers can claim exceptional relief.

In 2013 Quintain, developer of the area around Wembey Stadium, last year challenged Brent Council over Section 106 obligations LINK

WEM36 and WEM38 set out requirements that major new development provides new open space and food growing facilities. Such exceptional provision, which also includes the provision of play space in WEM40 and wildlife enhancements inWEM41, will have an impact on viability and thus will have an impact on Section 106 obligations, after CIL.

I said in that article report that Quintain seemed to want to build dense and build high. It appears from the recent application to build high rise flats on land behind the Civic Centre  LINK that Quintain has overcome Brent Council's earlier reluctance to approve high density, high rise housing units in the area due to their concerns about open space, loss of light and concealing views of the stadium.

Open space, play space and food growing areas do not seem to be priorities at present.

Blocks up to 20 storeys high are planned for the Quintain site

Last year's Localis Report on local authorities and development was reported by Public Finance  said that they were now acting more like developers themselves:

Councils across England will redevelop £13.5bn worth of land and assets over the next five years as part of local plans to turn underused land into a source of revenue, an examination by Localis has found.

A survey of local authorities by the think-tank found many were reacting to ongoing austerity by acting more like property developers.

Instead of deciding to sell buildings and land for one-off capital receipts, authorities were looking to redevelop assets to derive revenue income from them that they can use to help support public services.

To help further develop this process, today’s Public Land, Public Good report called for councils to come together to establish a ‘hit squad’ of highly experienced council officers who could provide advice on maximising returns on council assets. The report suggested that if they could deliver a 5% increase on the £13.5bn assets, this would produce almost £700m of extra revenue.

Certainly the Corporate Risk Register being considered by the Audit Committee this week makes no bones about Brent Council's role. Addressing the risk of lack of external investment in the borough the risk reduction strategy is:

De-risking  by assisting with planning permissions etc. on behalf of developers; Maintaining dialogue with investors / developers. Reviewing other sources of capital finance.

This reflects what Andy Donald, head of Brent Regeneration and Growth, said at a MIPIM Round Table discussion back in April 2010:

What I’ve learned is, when times are good, the big scale projects work well, but when times are not so good, it is best to try and present projects to politicians in a more chunked-up way, where they can generate momentum. Once things have started and momentum builds up it is really difficult to stop it, for funders to walk away. So as local authorities we try and take more responsibility to get things started, which might mean acting as a developer, to take things through planning ourselves, which builds confidence

The Regeneration and Growth department covers both development and planning and I have discussed before whether there is a conflict in these two roles. Planning Officers write reports for the statutorily independent  planning committee on developments that their department have helped instigate.  The experience in Brent seems to be that this approach of smoothing the way for developers leaves out the local community. The default position is in favour of development and a close relationshiop with developers. The public become an irritant when the public oppose developments which change the nature of the neighbourhood or seem aimed at overseas investors rather than local people in need of affordable housing.  The Willesden Green Library development, advertised overseas as having the unique selling point of no affordable or key worker housing on site is a case in point.

That irritation is evident in another section of the Regeneration and Growth section of the Corporate Risk Register when this risk is recorded.

Political pressure from local community/ groups affect abiility to deliver the  new Willesden Green Cultural Centre to budget and time.

That pressure, I presume, is about the new Cultural Centre fulfilling the promises made as a result of consultation and the 'gain' embodied in it for the local community at the cost of a development that has no affordable housing and removes a public open space. 

I think the question that should be asked is whether being 'hand in glove' with developers is preventing  Brent Council from adopting the much more robust approach we see in Labour Islington? Certainly Scrutiny Committee needs to examine the 'deal' that it is getting from Brent's approach as far as 'planning gain' and returns on council assets are concerned.

Dave Hill has written more fully on  Islington's approach HERE

Will privatisation of Brent Council's Library Management damage the service?

There are so many proposals to cut and out-source services under consideration by Brent Council that it is all too easy to miss some important issues.

Labour Brent Council has closed six of the borough's 12 libraries. Now, as well as proposing to cut the amount spent on library stock the Council is also considering out-sourcing the management of the library service as a way of saving on rates. This is the proposal (ENS18) in the documentation that went to Cabinet last month LINK

To change the management of the library service to a trust arrangement. The exact arrangement will need to be determined. Within London, five authorities deliver their services in conjunction with other authorities, one delivers through a charitable trust established by the Council which also delivers other services such as leisure centres and seven have outsourced delivery to a social enterprise or a private sector provider. Elsewhere in the country, some library services have been outsourced to a staff-managed mutual or social enterprise, and larger library services have been commissioned to run smaller ones.  Charitable organisations are eligible for an 80% rebate on NNDR. Changes to rules on business rates in 2013 mean that 70% of the cost of this rebate is borne by Central Government with the remainder being covered by the local authority. Therefore the saving to the Council on business rates of transferring a library service to the charitable sector is 56% of the total rates bill - in Brent this amounts to a saving of approximately £160K. The exact level of savings would depend on the tenders received.

It will take approximately 12 months to complete this work and switch to a new management arrangement.

How would this affect users of this service?

• There would have to be public consultation and a full impact assessment before proceeding.

• There would be no direct impact on service users as there will be no reduction or significant change in service levels or quality.

The  last bullet point is likely to be challenged during the consultation. On his blog  LINK Public Libraries campaigner and member of Voices for the Library, Alan Wylie, explored the issue:

Only a year after being awarded the accolade of the 2017 'City of Culture' Hull City Council are proposing to set up a "leisure company" to take over the running of their leisure facilities, libraries, museums, park ranger and catering services. Now one thing strikes me straight away about this; why are libraries part of the bundle, after all they are statutory and they aren't in my opinion solely a leisure service? 

The answer to the above question probably lies in the fact that most councils place their library services in 'Culure & Leisure' directorates, that someone including the LGA has been perpetrating the myth that libraries are non-statutory, that we have a government and a Secretary of State who fail to intervene to stop library cuts and closures and that we have a chasm in the leadership and promotion of the national service. Libraries have become easy to offload.
So what is a 'leisure company' or 'leisure trust' and what are some of the issues with this model of privatisation?

"What a Leisure Trust means in practice:

• Leisure services are outsourced to a separate organisation/company. 
• The Council retains ownership of the facilities, which are leased to the Trust.
• Virtually all the savings come from rate reductions and VAT savings, which are much smaller initially because of the high set up costs. 
• Direct democratic control of the service will cease - elected member representation on a trust is limited to less than 20% of the board.
• Company law requires that Board members must put the interests of the leisure trust before those of the local authority. 
• After a year the Trust will usually cease to use council services and will be responsible its own procurement and contracting or corporate and other services."

LINK

Unison Scotland have also raised concerns;

"UNISON is concerned that large sections of public service delivery are being shifted off to arms length bodies with very little research into the effectiveness of such change."

LINK

Recently in Renfrewshire there have been protests against plans to pass the running of similar services to Renfrewshire Leisure Limited (RLL).

LINK

And there are similar plans being proposed by Angus Council and Unison have yet again raised concerns; LINK

 “Unison is not convinced that farming out leisure facilities to arm’s-length trusts improves the service for the public or the staff.

“They are not an alternative means of community ownership of public assets. In fact the policy tends to be used to save local authorities tax.

 
“Our experience so far is some trusts perform satisfactorily after the initial separation but the promised savings, extra funding and other benefits tend not to materialise. 
 
“There is no evidence the public see an improvement in the service nor will the trust see a higher rate of private donations, which are often the reasons put forward.”
 
For more on leisure trusts see LINK

I hope that the Scrutiny Committee and Unison will look at some of these issues in detail and make representations before the Council adopts a move that has the disadvantages outlined above.

Planning Officers recommend consent for Welsh School in King Edward VII Park

London Welsh School children at their Stonebridge site last year

Brent Planning Officers' report to be presented to the Planning Committee on January 13th  recommends that consent be granted for change of use of the Bowling Green Pavilion in King Edward VII Park as a school, construction of an additional one storey classroom and a land swap with the lawned area adjacent to Collins Lodge.

The report can be seen HERE

Earlier coverage on Wembley Matters is HERE

It goes to Planning Committee on January 13th (Civic Centre 7pm) and the committee will make a site visit at about 9.35am on Saturday January 10th. You can ask to speak on the application (2 minutes)  at the committee meeting by contacting : 

Joe Kwateng, Democratic Services Officer  020 8937 1354, Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk 

Wembley Central ward councillor Sam Stopp  is speaking on the issue at Planning Committee and is asking for residents' views. Contact cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk

Scrutinising Brent's devastating budget cuts

As regular readers will know there was concern when Brent Council changed its Scrutiny structure after the 2014 local elections so that there was just one Scrutiny Committee. In the face of criticism it was argued that the Committee would set up task groups to do more detailed work.

On Tuesday the Budget Scrutiny Task Group will present its Interim Feedback on the 2015-17 budget proposals.

I leave you to decide whether this report measures up to the task of robustly and independently  scrutinising a budget that will have a drastic impact on services and thus on local residents, especially the most vulnerable.

Brent Council Risk Register reveals potential impact of the cuts

The Corporate Risk Register is an important document that highlights the risks of Council services not being delivered effectively and the actions taken to overcome that risk.

As the budget is reduced and cuts in staffing take place, as well as out-sourcing of services, it is important to keep an eye on the Register which flags up potential issues.

The full document is available HERE but below I have set out some of the main areas. The wording is from the original, except for the correction of some typos and spelling mistakes, with my comments in red.

Under each heading the risk is set out, the impact, and (in italics)  the most recent action undertaken to reduce the risk: