Turmoil as Butt and Pavey refuse to accept Labour Group vote for Council Tax rise

The Brent Council Labour Group is in turmoil after Deputy Leader Cllr Michael Pavey refused to accept a vote by his Labour councillor colleagues at Labour Group in favour of a 1.99% rise in Council Tax.  The Group saw that as one way of saving some services from the proposed deep cuts.

Pavey argued that they could not go to the March 2nd Full Council with a list of cuts based on a frozen Council Tax and then raise the Tax.

There were some suggestions that a review of the proposed cuts could be held after the budget was approved on March 2nd.

There is anger amongst backbench councillors about what is seen as a denial of basic internal democracy and a letter of complaint has been sent to the Constitutional Officer of the Labour Party by a backbench councillor. I understand from my source that the author of the complaint is Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn).

I am writing to you as an elected Labour Party Councillor in Brent, we have over the past few weeks been discussing setting the budget. It has become clear that the budget making process is not a democratic process but a decision made by the leader (Cllr Butt) and the Deputy Leader(Cllr Pavey) without the endorsement of the Labour Group.

My complaint is not  about the different versions or opinions around the budget setting, that is a matter for democratic debate. What I wish you to investigate and give a constitutional decision is the rights or wrong of being forced to support a decision that did not follow the internal processes of the Labour party.

The leader and deputy leader have refused point blank to allow the group to vote on their Budget.However during a Labour group meeting another member forced a discussion and vote (in which the leadership took part and voted) which was overwhelmingly agreed by the full Labour Group to put up the council tax by 2% to safeguard services.The leadership refused to accept this vote and the Chair of the meeting refused to count the votes, following that meeting the Leader and Deputy Leader chose to completely ignore the vote and said they would only consider it a straw poll.

The issue I wish to investigate and give a constitutional decision on, is what I believe is an affront to democracy which is taking place in the  Brent Labour Group. The Labour group chief whip has indicated even though Labour group members have been deprived of a vote. I must vote for this budget which i believe is merely a dictate impose from the Leader and Deputy Leader without any democratic mandate.I have made it clear at all points of the budget process that I am more than willing to vote for and accept the whip if we follow the democratic process and have a vote.However unfortunately the Leader and Deputy Leader have denied me and others that right. 

I wonder will you confirm whether the chief whip is right when she says that I have to vote  for the budget that has not been agreed and voted on by the Labour Group and I would face disciplinary action from the Labour party (which I would of course appeal to NEC) if I did not support the Leader's and Deputy Leaders additional and unnecessary cuts package. 

I have a number of years experience as a councillor and have been part of the leadership on many occasions,I have also contacted sitting Labour party colleagues in  Islington,Harrow,Camden and Barnet to discuss the lack of democratic accountability and we are all in disbelief at the actions of the Leader and his Deputy. I believe unless you intervene with a ruling the Leadership of Brent's Labour group will bring the council in disrepute.Where the public and party will ridiculed  the Labour party for acting like the characters from Animals Farm": every vote is equal but some are more equal than others"  and all votes you don't like can be dismissed as a straw polls.

One Labour councillor pointed out angrily that Muhammed Butt had been boasting about freezing Council Tax and remarked, 'He is out-Pickling Pickles!'

Why I am standing for the Greens in the Kenton by-election

Michaela Lichten

Brent Green Party has selected Michaela Lichten to contest the Kenton by-election

Michaela said:

I have been a Kenton resident for 19 years (and a Brent resident for 38).

Having raised my children in local schools and taught basic literacy skills to adults, I am particularly interested in education within the borough and advocating equal educational opportunities for all.

I am at present time a carer for my husband who has Alzheimer’s and so have an interest in elderly care delivery which at present is, worryingly, earmarked for cuts. Many of the people who will be affected by these cuts are in the difficult position of increasingly needing help whilst being decreasingly able to access that help.

Being lucky enough to live in  Brent with the wonderful resource of our many parks and Fryent Country Park, I’d like to focus on the issue of fly tipping and litter which affects everyone's enjoyment of these open spaces and blights the streets where we live. This can only get worse with the introduction of selective payment for rubbish removal and proposed cuts in residential street sweeping.  The cost of removing illegally dumped rubbish will far exceed the revenue raised and makes no sense.

As a Brent parent I’m anxious to see opportunities for young people to get into employment. New approaches have to be made to help them, we have to see that it is an asset to us all for our children to make the transition from education to the workplace as productively as possible. Apprenticeships, continuing education and help to set up their own businesses are ways in which this can be achieved.

I support the building of affordable homes which are truly affordable. I would like to see the estimated 3000 empty houses in Brent brought back into use and and an end of the Right to Buy scheme which further depletes the housing stock.

As we all become more budget conscious under austerity most of us are becoming greener through necessity, but being green has a relevance to our lives in the wider world and it’s my understanding that it is only The Green Party that has put the individual at the centre of their policies and is committed to a fairer society.  That is why I’m standing as The Green Party candidate in this by-election.

Brent Council puts the clock back

The return of the refurbished Jubilee Clock to a new position in Harlesden High Street was celebrated today.

I couldn't resist a cry of 'Save Stonebridge Adventure Playground' during a lull in the public relations to cheers from some of the onlokkers and pursed lips and 'inappropriate' from some of the Labour councillors.

There was a good reception from local people to Brent Fightback leaflets advertising the 'Brent Fight Backs Against the Cuts' meeting that will take place at the Tavistock Hall, Tavistock Road, of the High Street on Tuesday evening. The cutting of school crossing patrols and the ending of funding to Stonebridge Adventure Playground  were particularly unpopular.

The Clock was decorated with a large bow tie:

Brent Fights Back Against the Cuts - Join us on Tuesday

Audley Harrison condemns Brent Council's decision to stop funding Stonebridge Adventure Playground

Boxer Audley Harrrison has just left this message on Instagram about the decision to cease finding Stonebridge Adventure Playground:

My comments on Stonebridge Adventure Playground. Worth a read 🔥 The people in power fail to understand that people in the rougher, tougher neighborhoods in England, lose their way as it's difficult to stay motivated when surrounded by crime, unemployment, & lack of opportunities to better oneself. 

Without hope, without options, many choose the easy Road & start following the crowd and start the bad boy business. A shining light In my community for over thirty years, Stonebridge Adventure Playground (SAP) lost its funding today.

 I'm scratching my head as this senseless decision, when SAP was the one place in the community that was a safe haven for the troubled youths. Makes no sense... Seriously, this will affect the community in such a negative way, these elected official don't even know. #FBF me as a youngster in SAP ... Wishing for brighter days in #NW10 🇬🇧😩👊

Brent Council: those who survived the axe (for now) and the victims

The cuts recommended to the Cabinet have now been published LINK. As expected the gap between the cuts of £54m required over two years and the £60m actually tabled during the consultation enables the Council to claim to have saved some services.

Despite recent moves by some backbench councillors to propose a rise in Council Tax of 1.99% to save some services, Council Tax is frozen for the 6th year. The councillors' move may have been too late to meet statutory deadlines.

The Budget Report itself does not refer to the petition from Stonebridge Adventure Playground in detail or, as far as I can see on first perusal, does not mention the number of signatories, and instead the future of its funding is dealt with in a separate report which ties the funding into the issue of the expansion of Stonebridge Primary School, which serves to complicate the matter.

It refers to alternative provision with a complete lack  od evidence or detail and it is hard to see how they could make up for what the playground provides (from their report):

The SAP enables children and young people to take part in a range of outdoor and indoor play experiences. Outdoor activities at the SAP include: outdoor adventure play, go-karting, gardening, and sports.

Indoor activities at the SAP include: games, arts and crafts, a ball pond, Wii games, and cooking. Other linked activities include trips, access and use of a narrow boat.

The scheduled opening hours are:

• Monday – Friday term-time, 2-7pm;

• Saturdays, 11am-4pm;

• School holidays (summer, Christmas, Easter, and during the three School half-term breaks), 7am-6pm.

Some of the services which appear in the above list as 'not agreed' have other actions which will still impact on services.  Despite concersn about the capacity of the voluntart sector to take over Council functions this is a strategy adopted by the Council.

For example both CYP16 (Closing 10 children's centres) and CYP17 (Closing youth services) have agreed options (CYP1 and CYP3) that will out-source them to the voluntary sector and have the potential to reduce provision by the back door.

The proposal to transfer the management of the library services to a trust (ENS18) is to go ahead.

Energy Solutions will be expected to become self-financing but will receive a cushioning grant of £50,000 for 2015-16  during the transition,

It is worth looking at the rather contradictory statements in the Cabinet report on supporting people, that appear to doubt the capacity of the voluntary sector to provide the service but nonetheless recommend the cuts:

Proposal R&G27a would reduce the supporting people budget by £1m in 2016/17. This would be in addition to proposal R&G27, which would reduce the budget by £1.8m over two years. The current budget is £7.1m.

6.75    This additional saving would mean a significant reduction or selective cessation of services to provide supported housing and floating support of vulnerable individuals and families to assist them to maximise their independence and prevent homelessness. The service provides support to individuals with mental health needs, homeless families, ex-offenders, victims of domestic violence, young people at risk and isolated older people.

6.76    However, these services are not statutory requirements. There may be potential for VCS organisations to take on a greater burden of support for these client groups but it is very doubtful that there is capacity to do so to the extent implied by this saving in addition o the significant savings identified elsewhere in this area.

6.77    Supporting People services is a catch-all term for a variety of housing support services aimed at people who do not meet the council’s eligibility threshold for social care services. The services provided are intended to prevent clients developing greater caneeds by addressing housing issues. No significant comment has been received from the general public on this proposal, although  this may be because the term ‘supporting people’ is not well understood

6.78    Taking all of this into account leading Members have requested that officers prepare the budget on the basis that proposals R&G27 and R&G27a are agreed

The bulky waste original proposal has been modified to one free collection a year and  £25 for each additional collection.

Despite petitions opposing the cutting of school crossing patrols (ENS21) the Cabinet are recommended to approve it with schools expected to pay for the patrols themselves if they wish to retain the service. The fact that school budgets have not been reduced is cited to justify this.

The report outlines the devastating impact of the cuts on particularly groups but also argues that some have no equality implications as they affect all equally:

-->

The proposals for budgetary savings are extensive and will affect everyone living and working in Brent. The Council h as already made extensive efficiencies and is now at a point where it is not possible to achieve the level of savings required without impacting on service delivery. It is inevitable that there will be a significant impact on those vulnerable people who are the greatest users of council services, particularly older people, disabled people and children. Many of the proposals would also have some negative differentia l impacts in relation to ethnicity or gender; one or two proposals would have a severe impact on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and in relation to pregnancy and maternity. The collective set of proposals will only have minimal impacts in relation to religion o r belief.

 Some of the proposals will have a negative impact on large numbers of people, regardless of their equality characteristics. Although these proposals will be unwelcome and are likely to attract significant public reaction, they are not considered to be problematic from an equalities perspective as they will not unfairly impact on any equality group

This is necessarily only a summary of a complex document but I hope that readers will feel moved to attend the 'Brent Fight Backs' meeting on Tuesday February 17th 7pm, at Tavistock Hall, off Harlesden High Street where people affected by the cuts will have a chance to speak out.

Lastly it is worth noting the very low number of individual written responses which totalled 37 but because some covered several topics have been counted altogether as 54. Day Centres and Adult Social Care (12), School Crossing Patrols (6) and Council Tax (5) were the highest.

Stonebridge Adventure Playground remains defiant -the fight goes on despite being presented with a fait accompli

A Valentine's Day from Stonebridge chidlren to Brent Council

The Cabinet will be finalising the budget and cuts package at its meeting on February 23rd and it will then go to Full Council on March 2nd. Well, that's the theory but it appears that things have already been decided with Muhammed Butt, at his Leader's Briefing, saying that the cuts will go ahead.  In addition Stonebridge Adventure Playground have been told that their funding will definitely stop.

This is a letter from one of Stonebridge ward councillors posted on the Adventure Playgrounnd's Facebook Page LINK:

Dear Glynis,

It was unfortunate that all efforts to keep our cherished Adventure playground open was unsuccessful with the decision of withdrawal of the funding. It will be a devastating news to the Stonebridge community and environs who use this facility.

Regarding your concerns and some information you requested,I'll email you later today for those request and also enquire if their will be room for time to sort out the Staff that work in the Adventure playground instead of March 31st deadline.

Kind regards,
Ernest
Cllr. Ernest Ezeajughi
Stonebridge Ward

Clearly the hope is that the campaign will accept this but the struggle will carry on until the last Stonebridge kid whizzes down the zip wire crying out 'Stonebridge will Stay Forever!'.

I wrote a message on the Facebook page amongst the messages of sadness:

We should not accept that funding is to be stopped until we have exhausted all campaigning opportunities and lobbied all councillors, MPs, candates etc Exactly as you have been doing so well. The Cabinet does not offically decide its recommendations until February 23rd and then they have to be approved by Full Council on March 2nd. Muhammed Butt may have decided funding will cease but are we saying that the rest of the process is therefore meaningless? It doesn't say much for local democracy if so. Let's not give up yet - look at the Kilburn Times fron page today.

The Kilburn Times story is about a rise in youth cautions in the borough and includes a quote from Colin Hunter, a playground worker:

Without youth services it's far too easy for young people to be swayed by peer pressure and get involved with gangs and go down the criminality route, so the figure will rise.

And Doug Lee wrote a message of defiance on the Facebook page:

IT IS NOT OVER We will fight on and even harder for JUSTICE . The gloves are off now and we at Bridge know how to fight and WIN There are at least three rounds to go .Come on everyone lets finish the job and finish it well We are not some walkover We stand our ground and always will . Bless all our supporters .

South Kilburn residents face barely affordable rents hike - (if our sums are right)

South Kilburn resident Pete Firmin has been giving himself a headache trying to work out what Brent Council's 'affordable rent' policy really means. In this Guest Blog, after studying Council documents, he give it his best shot. We would be happy to hear from anyone who can show the conclusion is wrong (with workings!).

-->

At the Council Cabinet meeting on 26th January, a report from the “Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth” headed “South Kilburn regeneration Programme” was adopted. This concerned the approvals needed for the the next stages of redevelopment and regeneration. LINK

One of the recommendations in the document is:

“2.1. That the Cabinet agree to set rent levels for the affordable homes at Gloucester House and Durham Court once complete, at a rent equivalent to the Homes and Communities Agency Target Rent levels.”

The Gloucester House and Durham Court redevelopment involves:

“3.1 The redevelopment of Gloucester House and Durham Court site involves: a. the demolition of Gloucester and Durham and the development of 236 new homes for a mix of market sale (134 new homes) and affordable social rented (102 new homes) accommodation;”

On the rents:

“Target Rents

3.5 On 18 July 2011 the Executive agreed to adopt a rent equivalent to the HCA Target Rent levels for affordable developments in South Kilburn until Borough wide rent levels were reviewed. The 18 July 2011 Executive report set out the background to the rent level change and concluded that setting HCA Target Rent levels on phases 2 and 3 and subsequent phases is the only realistic way of affording the South Kilburn regeneration

programme and avoiding the requirement for large amounts of grant that would not in themselves be certain of being awarded and, if awarded, would require rents to be increased to the new 'affordable rent' levels.

3.6 The Target Rent regime controls rent levels in the social sector. Target Rents are calculated by a formula, the basis of which is set out below. Increases in Target Rent levels are also pegged to inflation and subject to an overall cap.

• 30% of a property’s Target Rent is based on relative property values compared to the national average

• 70% of a property’s Target Rent is based on relative local earnings compared to the national average

• A bedroom factor is then applied so that, other things being equal, smaller properties have lower rents”

“3.7 Between 2010/11 and 2014/15 increases in Target Rent levels and caps have been linked to RPI as set out in the tables below:”

[for tables on caps you will need to refer to the document via above link]

“Last year Government introduced a new rent policy, and for the ten years 2015/16 – 2024/25, increases in rents in the social sector will be limited to CPI +1% and increases in rent caps will be limited to CPI + 1.5%.”

BUT

“3.8 It should be noted that new social rented properties being developed in South Kilburn have a higher capital value than existing Council properties and therefore will attract a higher Target Rent under the formula outlined. Inflationary rent increases on these newproperties, whilst governed by the same rent policy and same CPI +1% limit, will therefore also be higher in monetary terms (i.e. in pounds sterling). This is because 1) inflation will be applied to a higher base Target Rent and 2) the Council will sometimes (and more commonly than the Registered Providers managing the new properties in South Kilburn) not apply a full inflationary increase to rents across its own housing stock.

3.9 In line with the Council's commitment to maintaining current HCA Target Rent levels in regeneration areas it is recommended that the Cabinet agree to set the rent levels for the affordable units at Gloucester House and Durham Court and the Post Office Plus Site once complete, at rents equivalent to the HCA Target Rent levels.”

Problem is, of course, that this is fairly impenetrable for those who want to know what this actually means in terms of real rent levels for the “affordable” new flats.

A Councillor helpfully enquired what this actually means and got this response from a Council officer:

“Your enquiry regarding affordable rents has been forwarded to me for reply. I have provided a brief explanation of the position below but please let me know if you would like any additional information or technical detail.

Target rent levels relate to Social Rented Housing, whether owned by a Council or by a Housing Association. These are based on a national formula that takes account of the capital value of the property and a factor for regional (London) earnings. They do not directly reference private rented sector rents. Target rents therefore vary across properties and boroughs. In Brent, as in many authorities current rents are below target rents but have been gradually moved towards them recent years under the government’s rent restructuring formula.

Current average rents for Brent’s council properties (which for larger properties are below target rents) are:

Bedsit - £93.91 / week

1 bed - £107.07

2 bed - £119.43

3 bed - £130.80

4 bed - £141.63

New affordable housing development is typically at Affordable Rents. These are directly based on market rents and are the lower of the maximum Local Housing Allowance (Housing Benefit) rate and 80% of the market rent (including service charge). Brent Council has a published Tenancy Strategy, that housing associations are required to have regard to, which provides guidance on maximum Affordable Rents. These set lower limits in order to support affordability, particularly for households who may be affected by the Overall Benefit Cap. The guideline limits are as follows:

1 bed – 70% market rent

2 bed – 60% market rent

3 and 4 beds – 50% of market rent”

Still with me? So what are local market rents?

This is where an internet search comes in.

To be as fair as possible (?) to Brent Council I’ve restricted myself to flats actually in South Kilburn, i.e. not even Kilburn High Road, Camden Kilburn or Brent Kilburn North of the Watford line and definitely not Queens Park.

Some results:

1 bed flat, Malvern Road (described by Estate Agents as Queens Park, but then they do that all the time) £260 pw

2 bed flat, Cambridge avenue, £425 pw

2 bed flat, Malvern Road, £385 pw

2 bed flat, Cambridge Gardens, £425 pw,

2 bed flat, Cambridge Avenue, £400 pw

3 bed, Chichester Road, £475 pw

2 bed flat, Canterbury Road, £375 pw,

1 bed flat, Malvern Road, £295pw,

enough, my brain hurts.

Anyway it should be clear from this search of just a small part of one estate agents website what the range of “market rents” is in the area.

Even taking the lowest market rent for each size of flat. this would give the following

1 bed flat Target rent (70% of market) £182pw. current average Brent council rent £107.07

2 bed flat Target rent (60% of market) £225pw, current average Brent Council rent £119.43

3 bed flat Target rent (50% of market rent) £237.50 pw, current average Brent Council rent £130.80

So, it appears that Brent Council aims to charge new tenants double or nearly double current rents. As well as new tenants, these will also apply to those previously in Council accommodation moved in to new properties.

Brent Council has always denied that regeneration amounts to social cleansing, but surely this proves the opposite.:

In addition to the fact that well over half of the new properties are for market sale (and a new 3 bed flat in South Kilburn was recently on sale for £850,000!) this amounts to a massive hike barely affordable for those currently living here.