How Section 106 monies have been spent in Stonebridge and Wembley

Residents have often asked what Section 106 (Planning gain from new developments) has been spent on. Glynis Lee asked  Brent Council this Freedom of Information question:

I would like to know how much money has been paid through section106 (planning gain) for the development of Stonebridge estate, (Hyde Housing) and Wembley (Quintain Estates) and I would like to know details of what this money has been spent on.

Brent Council's Answer: LINK

I can confirm that the information requested is held by Brent Council. I have detailed  below the information that is being released to you.

Funds received are either spent, commissioned (committed to a project for futue
spend) or uncommissioned (not yet committed to a project). 

Total funds received under S106 agreements with Hyde Housing in the Stonebridge  Estate are £315,766.36 of which £135,000 has been commissioned to fund
expansion of Stonebridge Primary School. The remainder is uncommissioned.  

Total funds received under S106 agreements with Quintain Estates in Wembley are  £749,715.63 of which spent and £353.266.68 commissioned to the following
projects: 

£116,199.19 spent on provision of public lavatory on Wembley Hill Road
£116,199.18 spent on improvements to Wembley Central Station
£130,634.48 spent and £213,408.22 commissioned to local employment & training  programmes
£14,627.99 spent and £372.01 commissioned to tree planting in vicinity of York
House
£10,000 commissioned to fund energy efficient street lights in the borough
£50,000 commissioned to fund expansion of Preston Park Primary School
£37,232.26 commissioned to fund improvements to King Edwards Park
£17,254.19 commissioned to fund public realm improvements at junction of
Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road
£25,000 commissioned to fund highway improvements to junctions along Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road 

Stonebridge Adventure Playground campaigners will be especially interested in the c£180,000 uncommissioned funds from Hyde Housing Section 106 monies. 

Council Tax increase of 1.99% would raise £1.4m over two years and add £21 to Band D residences

The debate on a possible Council Tax rise of 1.99% may be helped by the following figures I have obtained from Brent Council:

A council tax increase of 1.99% would provide £1.7m (gross) and £0.7m (minus the freeze grant) in each year. 

Therefore the council's ongoing resources would be £1.4m higher after two years of council tax increases. This assumes the freeze grant would continue to be added as permanent funding by the government in subsequent years (which is the current arrangement).

A 1.99% increase would be equal to a £21 increase for Band D residents.

Readers can see the full range of proposed cuts HERE but it may be useful to see the value of a few key cuts in relation to that £700k achieved each year from a Council Tax increase:

Adult Home Care: The proposals are to cut home visit times from 30 minutes to 15 minutes saving £600k

Stonebridge Adventure Playgroun : Proposed ceasing funding to save £118k

Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre: Closure to save £13k

Energy Solutions: Cease grant to save £50k

Closure of Leisure Centre:  saving £400k

Reduction in Street Cleansing (inc no litter clearance in Zone 5 residential roads): saving £400k

Brent Odds-On for Private Eye Awards 2015

Local bookies braced for surge in betting          

                                                

Guest blog by I.L.Wager

Brent Staff Achievement Awards are not the only annual awards likely to prove a continuing embarrassment to Brent Council’s Butt, Gilbert and Davani over the coming months. The Brent Leadership’s attempt to figure in Private Eye magazine’s regular Rotten Borough Awards ( given to local councils who have demonstrated particular talents in the areas of corruption, greed, stupidity or cronyism) failed last year as they left their trump card ( the Rotten Boroughs article on the racist bullying verdict, jobs-for-the-girls, inflated salaries, romance in high places etc) too late in the year to overtake boroughs like Tower Hamlets and Rotherham who had made the most impressive early running. Not wanting to make the same mistake again, Brent have put down an early marker for the 2015 Cash for Cronyism category by getting the following article onto the Rotten Boroughs page of this week’s edition of Private Eye:

‘A heartfelt welcome back to Lorraine Langham, newly-appointed £140k ‘chief operating officer’ at the London borough of Brent. Ms Langham made frequent appearances in Rotten Boroughs in the Noughties, thanks to the umbilical link she appeared to have with her chum Christine Gilbert, wife of disgraced former Labour minister Tony ‘Second Home’ McNulty.

In the early Noughties, when Gilbert was chief executive of Tower Hamlets council, Langham was its communications supremo. Then in 2006, Gilbert became the boss of Ofsted and Langham was appointed director of corporate services. Now Lorraine has joined senior management at Brent following a ‘restructuring’ overseen by (amazing coincidence) the council’s ‘interim’ chief executive…….Christine Gilbert.   Small world!’ 

An unflashy, solid start from Team Brent but timing is all, and with the Failed-Rosemarie-Clarke- Appeal-Waste-of-Money story soon to come, and who knows what else up the sleeves of Butt/Gilbert/Davani/Langham, the smart money is beginning to take Mo’s girls’ chances for silverware in 2015  Very Seriously Indeed.

                                                                      Go Team Brent!

Two important questions for Cllr. Butt to answer

Guest blog by Philip Grant
 

This week’s “Brent & Kilburn Times” carries an article, “Council to revamp its equalities policies” on page 5. I am glad to see that, rather than simply repeating Brent’s press release about Cllr. Pavey’s review, the article also reminds readers about the Employment Tribunal case which gave rise to it, referring to ‘the treatment endured by Ms Clarke from her line manager, HR director Ms Davani’, and concluding:

‘Brent Council has refused to disclose if any disciplinary action would be taken against Ms Davani.’

After reading Cllr. Pavey’s report last weekend, I sent an email letter to the editor of our local newspaper, which I hoped would be published in the same issue as any story about the results of his review. Unfortunately, the “Brent & Kilburn Times” did not have room for it in this week’s edition, carrying instead (on page 15) two very good letters about vital services threatened by the Council’s proposed budget cuts. My letter included two important questions addressed to the Leader of Brent Council, Cllr. Butt, and as I believe these questions should be put to him publicly, I have asked Martin if he would “publish” my letter here. I know that Cllr. Butt may not be a “Wembley Matters” reader, but I will ensure that he, and his colleagues, receive a copy of this letter.

Dear Editor,

A lesson not learned by Brent's HR review

In September 2014 an Employment Tribunal found that former Brent Council employee, Rosemarie Clarke, had been constructively dismissed, directly discriminated against because of her race, and victimised by both the Council and its Director of HR, Cara Davani.

Brent Council responded by appealing against the Employment Tribunal judgement, and by asking its Deputy Leader, Cllr. Michael Pavey, to review its HR policies and practice ‘to ensure that we learn lessons from this case’.

In December 2014, a judge threw out the Council’s appeal as it had ‘no reasonable prospect of success’, because ‘none of the grounds disclose any reasonable ground of appeal’. The report on Cllr. Pavey’s review was presented to the Council’s General Purposes Committee last week. Although it shows that a great deal of effort has gone in to suggesting improvements to Brent’s HR and Equalities policies, the report does nothing about the key lesson which should have been learned from this case: that even the best HR policies and practices are of little use if the officers who should follow them are allowed to ignore them.

The detailed evidence in the Employment Tribunal judgement showed that the victimisation began after Rosemarie had the courage to complain about the bullying and harassment she felt she was suffering from her line manager, Ms Davani. It also showed that the victimisation continued over a number of months, and that interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, failed to stop the victimisation when it was brought to her attention, or to follow the Council’s own grievance procedures, so that Brent was found guilty of breaching its employment contract with Ms Clarke.

The actions of these two senior officers have brought the Council into disrepute, as well as leaving it liable to massive compensation, damages and costs, but no action appears to have been taken against them. The Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, does not appear to have made any public statement about the case, and has not replied to several emails I have written to him about it. When he became Leader in May 2012 he told your newspaper that under him the Council would be ‘more open and transparent’.

I hope that Cllr. Butt will honour that promise, and give Brent’s staff and residents his answers to the following questions:-

     1.  How can staff have confidence in the Council’s latest round of job cuts, when it is being presided over by two senior officers responsible for victimisation, racial discrimination and failing to follow the Council’s HR procedures?

2.    Why is Cllr. Butt still “protecting” these two senior officers, when he has known about their misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case since at least September 2014?

Yours faithfully,

Philip Grant.

Last chance to have a say on the Welsh School plans in King Edward VII's Park

The Planning Application by the Welsh School to take over the Bowling Green Pavilion in King Edward VII Park, Wembley as a school and to build an additional classroom, lay a playground and remove 4 category B trees (a Monterey Cypress and 3 Irish Yew Trees) was deferred at the Planning Committee to allow for wider consultation and to consider alternative sites within the park for a land-swap. That consultation is now taking place. This  Guest Blog from Denise Cheong addresses some of the issues involved.

Dear Wembley Matters Readers

Re-consultation has begun for planning application no. 14/4208 for the London Welsh School in  King Eddie’s Park.

The London Welsh School has submitted 3 additional supporting documents.

The document titled “Additional Statement” uploaded on 26/1/2015 states in the introduction that:

”This additional statement was produced by the Welsh School in conjunction with Brent’s Property and Projects, and Sports and Parks Service.”

Point 2) refers to the Brent wards the park is located within and borders.

The additional statement incorrectly states that:

”This park is located in Preston ward but its boundaries border Wembley Central and Tokyngton Ward.”

A Brent borough ward map shows that King Eddie’s park is actually located in both Wembley Central and Preston Wards, bordering Tokyngton Ward.

Annotated London Borough of Brent Ward Boundary Map Showing Locations of Bowls Pavilion and Bowls Greens, Wembley Central, Preston and Tokynton Wards © Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey 100025260

- The bowls pavilion and both bowls greens are located in Wembley Central Ward.

- Collin’s Lodge (the mock tutor house beside Park Lane), the derelict yard (assigned to Veolia as a depot) and the steep bank proposed for the land swap are within Preston Ward.

Wembley Central Ward Councillors are: Cllr Sam Stopp, Cllr Krupa Sheth, Cllr Wilhemina Mitchell-Murray

Preston Ward Councillors are: Cllr Matthew Bradley, Cllr Patricia Harrison, Cllr Jean Hossain

Tokyngton Ward Councillors are: Cllr Muhammed Butt, Cllr Orleen Hylton, Cllr Ketan Sheth

(as listed on Brent Council website on 04/2/2015)

The case officer has said that she will accept comments up to and including Wednesday 18^th February 2015.

With Martin’s extensive coverage of this planning application you will all be aware of the background to this proposal by now.

We urge all Wembley Matters readers, if you have any thoughts whatsoever on this scheme, to make formal comment either via the council website or via written correspondence with the case officer, Victoria McDonagh, planning application no. 14/4208  LINK

Now is the time for your voices to be heard.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Denise Cheong

Your Wembley Central Resident Neighbour

Member, Princes Court & Keswick Garden Residents Association

Chair & Blog Editor, Friends of King Eddie's Park: Friendsofkingeddies.blogspot.com

Blog Editor, Wembley Champions: Wembleychampions.blogspot.com

Steering Group Volunteer Member & Communications Editor, Big Local Wembley Central: http://www.biglocalwembleycentral.org/

Team Member, Wembley Crime Prevention: http://www.wembleycrimeprevention.org/

Possible Council Tax rise emerges as an option on eve of Budget Consultation deadline

I understand that at last night's Labour group meeting the possibility of a Council Tax increase came back into play with a potential rise of 1.99% for 2015-2016 looked upon favourably by a majority of the group. A straw poll indicated 24 in favour of a Council Tax increase and 6 against.  This would be an annual increase of £30 for Band D residents.

Although Cllr Muhammed Butt opposed an increase at the Civic Centre Public Budget Consultation  that this would hit people already suffering from Coalition cuts the counter-argument is that in terms of social solidarity sharing the burden (with those in higher rated property paying more) would enable the most extreme of the proposed cuts to be avoided.  This would preserve some vital threatened services  to the benefit of poorer residents andwould be better for the Council's long-term stability.

Since 2011 the Council has avoided Council Tax increases, accepting the Government's grant for freezing the tax. Indeed Muhammed Butt has made virtue out of what he sees as necessity by boasting to residents that he has frozen the tax.

However there is an argument that long-term freezing of the Council Tax undermines the Council's revenue base.

This is what Clive Heaphy's Report stated in the First Reading Debate in November 2011 LINK

On 3 October 2011 the government announced a further one-off grant, for 2012-13 only, of £2.6m predicated on the basis that the council does not increase council tax for 2012-13. Each 1% in Council tax equates to approximately £1m of Council spending and members should note that the failure to increase Council tax over a number of years will erode the Council’s underlying revenue position in the longer term.

By January 2012 Ann John had ruled out a rise in the Council Tax as reported by the Brent and Kilburn Times LINK

As I stated at the time: LINK

The [Heaphy] report said that a rise of 2.5% in council tax would close the budget gap as follows:

2012-13 £4.4m
2013-14 £1.1m
2014-15 £19.7m
2015-16 £13.1m

In other words a rise of 2.5% in council tax this year would result in a net gain when the loss of the £2.5m grant is taken into consideration. Some councils are considering this option and some Labour councillors in Brent thought it worthy of debate. However that option appears to have been ruled out in advance of both consultation and decision making.

In November 2012 Assistant Director Finance presented a Budget Report that assumed a 3.5% Council Tax increase (above that triggered a referendum at the time). However the trigger was reduced to 2% (still current).

As I stated on my blog in January 2013 LINK

I understand that there has been discussion in the Brent Executive as to whether to raise Council Tax with the benefit marginal after grant losses and  a reduced collection rate are taken into account. A rise above 2% would have incurred the cost of a local referendum.  It would of course have been another additional cost for people already suffering from benefit cuts and low or frozen wages. An alternative view is that calling the Coalition's bluff and triggering a referendum could result in a proper political debate about the need to adequately fund  local services and the iniquities of the Coalition's grant reduction to local authorities. Only a very small percentage of local government revenue comes from council taxes and charges.

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has confirmed via a Facebook interchange with me that there will not be a 2% rise this year. Asked about a possible lower rise he said that the Council was looking at the settlement figures as part of the budgetary process and considering the offer of the freeze grant.

In January 2014 Muhammed Butt said that there were 'no plans' to change policy from freezing Council Tax in the 2014-15 Budget. LINK

I wrote on this blog:

Reflecting on Muhammed Butt's declaration yesterday that there were 'no plans to change course' on freezing council tax for the 2014-15 budget, I wonder what his plans are for 2015-16. In October the Council forecast a deficit for that year of  £34m (see below) a huge amount that on the council's own reckoning will put essential services at risk.

As political parties are deciding their manifestos for the May local elections surely they should be saying something about this crisis waiting for them in their first year of office.

In that respect a manifesto pledge to have a referendum on increasing council tax would make sense. Rank and file Labour party members and the wider public could than have a say and it could provide a launch pad for similar moves by other local authorities.  I do not think increases in council tax are the answer to the huge cuts in local authority funding, that of course requires the restoration of adequate funding, but a national debate post May 2014 leading up to the General Election in 2015 could feed into that demand. It will certainly put the future of local government on the General Election agenda.

Unfortunately despite some efforts at raising the issue and confronting the Coalition with the impact of the cuts, no real movement has emerged and no Referendum challenge..

Brent Council is left with the weakened revenue base that Clive Heaphy warned them about and deeply damaging unpalatable cuts.

It is noteworthy that in the above examples it has been Ann John and Muhammed Butt who appear to have made the decision about a Council Tax rise, although formally of course it is the Full council Meeting.

Where this leaves the Labour Group's support for a modest 1.99% rise, just below the Referendum threshold remains to be seen. Clearly the Cabinet should be taking note of the virews of its own councillors as well as the support shown for services by residents in consultations and in the campaigns that have sprung up to defend services.

If you wish to put your view there is still time to submit a  comment to Brent Council's budget consultation. The deadline is tomorrow, Wednesday February 4th :consultation@brent.gov.uk


 

Pavey Review won't lance Brent's boil but points to future improvements

 

The Pavey Review which was published last week has this key sentence:

0. It is important to note that the review was not a review of our HR department. It is about the role each person has to play in making Brent Council the best possible place to work. There are clear recommendations in relation to employment policies and practice, and these require the action of the entire organisation and crucially managers at all levels.
   

This limitation is why Brent Green Party and others called for an independent investigation into Brent Council, not only in the racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal that an Employment Tribunal found against first respondent Brent Council and second respondent Cara Davani, but into the previous working connections of senior staff. The latest example of the latter is the appointment of Lorraine Langham as Brent's Chief Operating Officer who like Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani previously worked for both Ofsted and Tower Hamlets Council. LINK

In any other organisation disciplinary action would have been taken against a manager found guilty of such conduct. Muhammed Butt, when challenged by members of staff on the issue at Brent Connects said the council had to follow 'due process' and make an Appeal.

Some Councillors suggested to me that disciplinary action could only take place when the Appeal process had been exhausted. A Judge found that the Council had no grounds for an Appeal but still no action was taken. Two legitimate opportunities to lance the boil missed.

Some have claimed that disciplinary action in itself would amount to victimisation or even a 'witch hunt',  or would be to succomb to political pressure. This is  a red herring. The Council owes a duty of care towards its employees and this includes ensuring that they are treated fairly in their day to day employment regardless of race, gender etc. Brent Council should have confidence that their own disciplinary procedures are robust enough to withstand such pressures.

Now the Council is in the position of having someone in charge of HR who has been found guilty of the above offences but is nevertheless in charge of recruitment and redundancies policies. Long term mprovements in processes and procedures does not address immediate issue.

Michael Pavey has done a thorough job within his limited remit, consulting widely with staff and apparently winning their confidence. One glaring ommission is consulting with the staff who have left the Council and examining any gagging clauses that were imposed. They, after all, are possible victims of poor employment and practice.

However, given the comments I have received on this blog regarding working conditions at Brent Council (many unpublished so as not to reveal identity or due to gagging clauses) as well as emails and telephone calls, soemtimes distraught,  the following comment seems emollient:

This review finds that Brent is generally a happy and inclusive place to work. But there is plenty we can do better.

Although Cllr Pavey recognises that Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) statistics in Brent are better than some other London local authorities, he says they are far from satisfactory.  What is missing from his report is the connection between those statistics and the operation of the HR department (Proportion of BAME employees in Brent is 62%, Female employees 65%):

Both show higher proportions in the lower grade and I assume that BAME and Female would be higher still at tScale 3 to P2, and lower at the Hay grade.

Im terms of HR practice the reasons for leaving are also important and for both BAME and Females dismissals are higher (second column)

These are perhaps some of the most important recommendations:

-->

Finding: Generally, feedback from staff themselves suggests that practice is good; however, improvements can and should be made to employee management practice to achieve a more collaborative and inclusive culture. 


Engagement with staff suggests inconsistent application of policies and procedures, including as regards flexible working. There has clearly been great progress in implementing good management practice, but the Council should also seek to ensure that internal communication explain expected practice, underpinned by a clear explication of staff and manager competencies and behaviours.

·      At present, there are few reported incidents of bullying and harassment. The Council has an emphasis on informal resolution: according to the LGA this represents good practice. Consideration should be given to ensuring consistency, support and follow up within the informal resolution framework. 


·      The Council lacks a systematic Council-wide approach to learning from HR and legal processes when complaints are raised; whilst this is not uncommon, we have an opportunity to make improvements. In addition, this may give rise to inconsistent management responses. Thus, though HR takes the lead, individual managers are responsible for learning from ETs and grievances, and reviews take place with HR and within departments. Improvements should be made in terms of cross-organisational learning, peer review and Council-wide improvements. 


·      The Code of Conduct does not at present adequately articulate the behaviours and practice expected of managers and staff. Such behaviours should be clearly articulated, communicated and reflected in: 


·      recruitment and selection processes


·      ongoing team and line management

·      
appraisal processes

·      learning development processes and interventions.

Addressing this presents an opportunity to emphasise the significant priority the Council attaches to valuing diversity.

·      Evaluation of practice and understanding of staff experience should be regular and Council-wide. 


·      Internal communications should be strengthened to become a two-way flow of information. It is critical for senior management to be able to communicate values and good practice to the wider workforce. But it is equally important that communications enables the wider workforce to articulate their experiences to senior management. In two staff focus groups, more than half had not seen a copy of their service or team plan and participants suggested that improvements could be made to internal communications, including the ability for greater staff engagement and management visibility, for example through senior managers attending team meetings. This is increasingly important given the scale and pace of change. Managers themselves need to be supported to communicate effectively, but must also play the key role in staff engagement. Given the current and future constraints on funding, it is important that central advice and strategy is complemented by good practice within departments. 


The Full Report can be found  HERE

Brent Council environment cuts break 'cleaner and greener' pledge

I reproduce below Brent Friends of the Earth's comprehensive response to the current Budget Consultation. I am sure that similar responses could be written on other areas of the proposed cuts making it clear that the level of cuts  now required is unacceptable and making no long-term economic or social sense.

Response to Brent Council Budget Consultation from Brent Friends of the Earth

Our members are concerned about the cuts to Council services overall, in particular cuts to vital front line services.  Whilst we recognise that Brent's income has been severely reduced, we do not wish to see vital welfare services axed, especially those for children. The vision of what will remain is stark and in some cases unrecognisable from the provision residents have come to know and expect as Council services.  However our comments as a group focus on the impact of proposed cuts to environmental services. We also question whether some of the cuts proposed will actually save money in the long run: