How can Brent Standards be upheld without properly apppinted 'Independent Persons?

Philip Grant has decided that he cannot continue his personal campaigning against what he sees as wrongs at Brent Council, because of the strain it has put on him and his family. In a final guest blog on the subject, he gives some thoughts on a report which will be going before Brent’s Standards Committee at its meeting on Thursday 7 January 2016.

High Standards of Conduct at Brent Council?

A press release issued by the Council on 11 December 2015 stated: ‘Brent Council is committed to the highest ethical standards in the work of its elected councillors and co-opted members, embodying the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.’ But how true is this in practice?

In her Annual Report for 2015 to Brent’s Standards Committee LINK the Monitoring Officer says that she received SIXTEEN complaints against councillors for breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct during the year (nine from members of the public, two from Council employees and five from other councillors). One of the main purposes of the Standards Committee is to ‘hear allegations of misconduct against members’, but NONE of these complaints were actually referred to the committee in 2015, so that it could consider whether they should be investigated.

I was one of the local residents who made a complaint during the year against a leading councillor, which alleged multiple breaches (covering all seven of the conduct principles) of the Code which members are supposed to follow. My complaint must be among the EIGHT which the report claims ‘did not disclose a potential breach of the code’, as the reason why it was not brought to the attention of the Standards Committee. The Monitoring Officer has the authority not to consider a complaint, but only if it is not against a named member and/or is not ‘in relation to an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct’.

As anyone who has read my open letter of 27 November 2015 to Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs LINK , will know, the allegations in my complaint to the Monitoring Officer against Cllr. Muhammed Butt disclosed a number of potential breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct, which should have been referred to Standards Committee. How can Brent’s people have confidence that high standards of conduct are being maintained by the Council, when genuine complaints of misconduct are covered up in this way?

In explaining how complaints about members are dealt with, the Annual Report says (at 3.7): 

‘There are clear parameters for this and these are set out in the procedure LINK that was adopted by this Committee in January 2013’.   

If the complaint is one which should be considered, the procedure states (at 4.5):

‘The Monitoring Officer will consult with the Independent Person to determine the course of action to be taken.   This decision will normally be taken within 14 days of receipt of the complaint.’

It was only after I challenged the Monitoring Officer’s decision, made three months after my complaint had been received, not to refer my complaint to Standards Committee that a possible review by ‘the Independent Person under the Localism Act 2011’ was suggested.

Who is that Independent Person? According to the Monitoring Officer’s Annual Report (at 3.3):

‘The Council is in the process of recruiting Independent Persons to fulfil the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 …. The recruitment process will start in January 2016.’ *

The Council did appoint two Independent Persons under the Act’s transitional provisions, John Mann and Sola Afuape (who had both been independent members of Standards Committee under its old format). Those appointments ended in May 2014, and these two persons were not eligible to act as Independent Persons thereafter. Minutes of Council meetings show that there have been “vacancies” for Independent Persons for Standards purposes since then, and that NO ONE has been properly appointed to fill that role. It would appear that, for more than eighteen months, Brent Council has not had “an Independent Person under the Localism Act 2011”. In that case, how can Brent’s Standards procedures have been properly applied?

Standards Committee meets at the Civic Centre on Thursday 7 January to consider the Annual Report. The meeting starts at 7pm, and is open to the public. I hope that the committee members will ask the Monitoring Officer to explain why she is not allowing them to carry out the important work of hearing ‘allegations of misconduct against members’ which they were elected to do. Unless there is openness and accountability over standards, Brent, like Rotherham in an Inspector’s report last February, will show itself to be a council which ‘goes to some length to cover up information and to silence whistle-blowers.’

* NOTE:

Wembley Matters readers may like to consider whether they could help to improve standards of conduct at Brent Council by applying to be an Independent Person. The role should be advertised later this month, but from a previous “candidate pack” (issued by the then Monitoring Officer, Fiona Ledden, in April 2014) the main requirements are:

·      to be committed to the need for high standards in public life and be aware of the views of the local community in relation to standards;

·      to have the ability to be objective, independent and impartial;

·      to have a demonstrable interest in local issues and desire to serve the local community and uphold democracy; and,

·      to be of good standing in the community.

There is one main bar to appointment as an Independent Person:

‘A person cannot be appointed as an Independent Person if they have been a member of any political party within the last five years or are actively engaged in party political activity.’ 

Sadiq Khan exposes Mo Butt's short-sightedness

Muhammed Butt retweeted Sadiq Khan, Labour candidate for Mayor on New Year's Eve,  not realising perhaps that in his Independent article Khan advocated exactly the sort of playground that Cllr Butt had bull-dozed in Stonebridge.

Khan's position chimes with Save Stonebridge campaign's argument that the playground brought the community together, aided social cohesion and reduced crime.

Planning Committee and officers in tussle over Lycee swimming pool and Red House

The proposed swimming pool building - the bus stop is currently in front of the rectangular proposed entrance

The planning application by Lycee International De Londres Winston Churchill to build a basement swimming pool on the Grade Two listed former Brent Town Hall site is coming up again at Brent Planning Committee on January 13th. LINK

In a surprise move the Planning Committee turned down the application  at its last meeting but must now give reasons for its decision that could withstand appeal to the Planning Committee. Planning Officers stand by their decision and warn:

In making this resolution [minded to refuse permission], Members raised concerns about the development related to reasons highlighted below. No additional material or information has been submitted by the applicant for Officers to comment on. Members are reminded that any appeals are assessed by the Planning Inspectorate and that appeal performance is a planning ‘quality’ indicator. Appeals also involve costs in terms of staff time and legal advice and the appellant’s costs can be awarded if an Inspector considers that a reason for refusal to be unreasonable. The test of unreasonableness is different from not agreeing with the Council’s decision.

The Committee is reminded that both Heritage England and the 20th Century Society were consulted about the plans before officers recommended approval. Officers stand by their original recommendation to grant planning permission but give a formulation to justify refusal if the Committee decides to maintain their position.

The Committee refused planning permission on two counts - one regarding the impact on the view of the building and the other on the impact of repositioning of the bus stop that is currently adjacent to the steps up to the building.

These would be examined by the Planning Inspectorate if the application goes to appeal:

The proposed pool building, by reason of its design, size and siting and, in particular, its location within the principal frontage of the Grade II listed former Brent Town Hall, results in a detrimental impact on the setting of a Grade II listed building, reducing the visibility of the listed building when viewed from the immediate frontage of the property. This is contrary to Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (consolidated with further alterations since 2011) and the National Planning Policy Framework. 

In the absence of specific details of the proposed relocation of the bus stop and shelter, the proposal is likely to result in conditions prejudicial to the free and safe flow of traffic on a distributor road in terms of the proximity of the bus cage to the traffic signals. This is contrary to saved policies TRN3 and TRN4 of the Brent Unitary Development Plan 2004. 

The Planning Committee's less publicised rejection of the much higher value Red House planning application is subject to the same process.  This is the former Wembley Conservative Party Club close to Wembley Stadium station which was sold off  by the Tories and currently occupied by a commercial play facility. LINK

Situated between the station and the London Designer Outlet this is clearly a valuable plot and the Conservatives may be kicking themselves over the original disposal. The plans are for two buildings, one yet another hotel, 13 storeys with 312 beds, restaurant, bar, gym and offices and another of 4 storeys for A1-4 and D2 use. The development would involve realignment of the route between South Way and the Wembley Park Boulevard.

The Officers again maintain their original recommendation to approve the application, warn about the risks attached to it going to the Planning Inspectorate but give possible reasons for refusal:

-->

1) Design,siting, scale and massing in relation to adjoining buildings

The report and supplementary discussed the relationship to existing buildings, the current masterplan and proposed future changes. Officers consider that the siting and scale issues are generally appropriate to development within the wider growth area and recognise the change in the applicant's ownership. However, if Members are minded to refuse on similar grounds then the following is a possible reason for refusal which concentrates on design issues and the corner location:

The proposal provides an unacceptable response in terms of its design, detailing (including materials) and siting to its prominent corner location and to its relationship to the primary pedestrian route from the High Road, including the legibility of the London Designer Outlet centre, and in the context of the wider masterplan and other development proposals. The proposal is accordingly detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to saved policies BE2, BE3, BE7, BE9, BE10 of the Brent Unitary Development Plan 2004, policy CP5 of the Brent LDF Core Strategy 2010 and Policies WEM1, WEM2, WEM5 of the Wembley Area Action Plan 2015.

(2) Impact on Wembley Park Boulevard in terms of its width during construction and its future alignment to Stadium Station Square

The report explained the reasons for the realignment of the original route of the "boulevard" to link with Stadium Station Square to the south of South Way. Amendments were sought to the layout of the building to respond to this change and, on balance, the principle issue is the legibility of the route and its attractiveness and design for the function intended. If Members are minded to refuse on this ground then the following is a possible reason for refusal;

The proposal, by reason of the reduced width of the interim “boulevard” during construction, fails to demonstrate that the proposal will not result in conditions prejudicial to pedestrian safety during Major Events at Wembley Stadium. This is contrary to saved policy TRN10 of the Brent Unitary Development Plan 2004.

 As often stated here the Planning Committee has statutory independence from the Council and it is interesting to see how that will be maintained, particularly in the new era following the departure of Andy Donald, previously in charge of planning along with regeneration and major projects.

A New Year greeting to Wembley Matters readers, from a contributor

Extreme weather: where are the flood risk areas in Brent?

Dark blue 1/100 year chance  light blue 1/1000 years

Satellite view of same area showing housing, other buildings, road and rail in potential flood area

Tokyngton/Monks Park and River Brent

Satellite view

As a young teacher in Fulham in the late 70s I experienced flood practice as well as fire practice. It included tying down the lids of lavatories to stop sewage rising in the event of the Thames flooding. One member of staff was designated the contact person for the Council which as I remember included wading down to the council offices in the event of loss of telephone contact to update them on the latest situation.

That was all rendered obsolete when the Thames barrier came into operation in 1982.

In Brent the danger is not from the Thames but from the Silkstream and the River Brent and numerous brooks (Wealdstone, Wembley, Mitchell etc) some of which are underground in conduits but emerge at times of flood in places such as Brentfield Road.

The Brent itself has flooded in the past but culverts and flood plains have been created and the river 'naturalised' in places such as Tokyngton Park where underground storage tanks for excess water have been installed. Similar plans have been made for the Wealdstone Brook as it flows past Wembley Park Station and into the development area near Wembley Stadium, eventually meeting up with the Brent, but there has been little news on the proposals since they were first suggested. Meanwhile the amount of development in the area, including where there used to be a boating lake, has increased rapidly with much of the area paved over. In February 2014 Brent Council announced a programme of work aimed at flood prevention in the borough LINK.

There is no immediate threat of flooding in Brent but with increased severe weather events making nonsense of '1 in 100 years' flooding assessments, it is well to be aware of the areas that could be affected if we experience what the North West of the country has over the holiday.

In 1841 the Welsh Harp (Brent Reservoir) overflowed and water gushed down stream causing a number of fatalities. The dam was subsequently heightened and strengthened. In 1976 following the storms that ended the hottest and driest summer for years the sluice gates had to be opened at the Welsh Harp and there was flooding downstream involving the evacuation of many families from their homes.

One would hope that Brent Council has contingency plans in place after recent extreme weather events.

Meanwhile here is a more benign view of the River Brent from John Betjeman

 Gentle Brent, I used to know you
Wandering Wembley-wards at will,
Now what change your waters show you
In the meadowlands you fill!
Recollect the elm-trees misty
And the footpaths climbing twisty
Under cedar-shaded palings,
Low laburnum-leaned-on railings
Out of Northolt on and upward to the heights of Harrow hill.

This is the Environment Agency website. You can submit your postcode to see any flood warnings in your area:  LINK

LRC calls for a 'New Politics in Local Democracy'

In the light of previous postings on the question of Labour councillors implementing cuts and the Corbyn/McDonnell statement on setting legal budgets, this statement by the Labour Representation Committee throws light on the internal Labour debate.

LRC Executive Committee Statement:

Bring a New Politics into Local Democracy -

On the basis of a hasty and highly selective reading of the letter sent to Labour councils by Jeremy Corbyn, together with John McDonnell and Jon Trickett, some right-wingers are claiming that the leadership has endorsed their existing strategy towards implementing the cuts. Likewise some sectarian elements on the left have already begun to accuse the leadership of having made a demoralising climb-down on the issue.

In fact, it is a mistake to see this letter as closing down the debate. Instead, it represents an implicit critique of the failure of the previous leadership – under then Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary Hilary Benn – for failing to ensure that Labour councils across the country engaged “community campaigners, council staff who are under duress as a result of Tory spending cuts, local citizens and others in defending local services”. The letter opens up the whole question of introducing a new and more overtly political approach instead.

It is simply a matter of fact that in the absence of such a mass campaign any attempt to introduce an illegal budget would be liable to be overturned, with councillors debarred from office and spending decisions taken over by the council officers or the Secretary of State. But the letter precisely goes on to advocate building such a mass campaign. The role of the LRC and the Labour left is to pressure our local councils through CLPs and wider campaigning groups including Momentum, to make sure that the call for such a mass campaign is made into a reality, and develops to an extent which makes a bolder course of action possible.

The election of a radical left leadership, with an overwhelming mandate from members of supporters of the Party, has changed the situation which the LRC faces. We are now not only defending the rights of individual councillors to raise the need for no-cuts budgets, and supporting them in the face of disciplinary measures – which we will continue to do. Rather, we now have the chance to develop and implement a strategy for the whole of Labour’s local government base to resist the cuts in practice. But only by mobilising significant sections of our communities will this become a practical option.

In no sense should the existing legal situation be used as an excuse to implement Tory cuts. If Labour’s new commitment to being an “anti-austerity” party is to be credible, we need to be demonstrating at a local level that we are willing in practice to challenge the imposition of these cuts.
It does not automatically follow that setting a legal budget means simply passing on the cuts to our communities. Since they have a disproportionate impact on women, disabled people and minority ethnic communities, cuts which would further widen existing inequalities must not be passed on. The LRC calls on councils to exhaust all available avenues under the law, including extensive drawing-down of reserves and use of prudential borrowing powers, to forestall the latest round of cuts while an effective mass campaign of resistance is built.

In the spirit of the decision to respect the genuine difference between MPs by giving them a free vote over the bombing of Syria, we also call for a radical overhaul of the Councillors’ Contract to ensure that individual councillors have the freedom to express their views over issues much closer to home. If the Party can relax the whip on issues of life and death, surely it might be relaxed on questions like cuts to essential social care?

At the same time we recognise the dangers of council leaders and officers interpreting the leadership’s letter as a green light for continuing with the cuts. Some Labour councillors appear to need reminding that they are political representatives and not just competent and compassionate administrators. If Labour fails to respond to the challenge of building a mass campaign of resistance to Tory-driven austerity at a local level, the whole question of our credibility as an “anti-austerity” party will be undermined. We will look like the kind of party who makes promises in opposition but fails to deliver on them in power. Worse, if we fail to build a mass campaign against these Tory cuts, we will have failed to create the political basis in public opinion for throwing out this government and getting a radical Corbyn-led Labour government elected.

We cannot stress enough the urgency of building a broad, united campaign against the Tory cuts which actively mobilises our communities behind mass resistance. This would open up new possibilities, including expanding and democratising the whole budget-setting process by introducing forms of community participation and deliberation over the needs of their own communities. This is not the end of the debate, it’s only the beginning. It’s high time that Labour brought a new politics into local democracy.

WEEE collection at the Tricycle from Monday

From the Tricycle Theatre blog

Mobile phones, digital cameras, tablets, TVs and battery-operated toys – are all likely to figure high on wish lists this Christmas.

As a large proportion of those shiny, new gadgets will be replacing yesterday’s unwanted or broken models, the question facing their owners is what to do with the old ones?

We’ve teamed up with The Waste Minimisation Team at West London Waste Authority to host another free recycling bin for small Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, or WEEE., from Monday 4 January until Sunday 10 January 2016.

This event will provide local residents and visitors to the theatre with an opportunity to declutter their homes of broken or unwanted small electrical items such as alarm clocks, toys, kettles and hair dryers and dispose of them at a convenient location.

James Foran, our Operations Manager at the Tricycle Theatre said:

‘At the Tricycle we’re committed to becoming a more environmentally sustainable theatre, reducing our energy emissions and establishing green initiatives that reduce our carbon footprint.

This is a wonderful opportunity to work with West London Waste and the local community in Brent on an initiative which only takes a little effort for each individual but can have a real impact for all of us.’

Landfilling of WEEE can be particularly dangerous as it contains hazardous substances such as mercury, lead, beryllium and cadmium. Recycling these items means fewer raw materials need to be used in the manufacture of new goods and precious metals are used again.

So when you enjoy entertainment at the Tricycle Theatre in the New Year, take along your unwanted small electrical or electronic items to ensure it gets recycled and doesn’t end up in landfill!

Contact The Waste Minimisation Team at West London Waste Authority on 0208 825 9468, or info@westlondonwaste.gov.uk.

Engineering to combat climate change - predictions for 2016

I get a lot of press releases sent to me, few of which I use as the basis for articles.  In the context of the Paris talks and the current focus on climate change as a consequence of the floods, I thought this was worth publishing (unedited). Perhaps particularly pertinent in the light of the Quintain developments around Wembley Stadium.
 

A team of experts at leading environmental engineering firm Max Fordham have compiled a list of their predictions for the coming year, with a focus on reducing energy consumption and ensuring that building designers put the health and wellbeing of the people who use that building first.

The full list of Max Fordham’s predictions is as follows:

Infrastructure-scale solutions to climate change

Governments will be forced to tackle the problems caused by climate change by introducing infrastructure-scale solutions. Hopefully these will give way to exciting examples of urban design, such as the $335 million scheme to upgrade Lower Manhattan’s storm defences.

A “Trip Advisor” for buildings

The development of a ‘Trip Advisor’ for buildings and building comfort. Users will be able to rate office, retail and hospitality buildings on a number of criteria such as temperature, daylight, acoustics and ventilation that will then be fed back into the building management systems for efficiency based on big data. Enabling consumer pressure to drive improved performance.

More plants on buildings

The increased use of living roofs on commercial and domestic buildings, and an increased awareness of the role buildings can play in maintaining biodiversity.

Global harm tax on fossil fuels

The introduction of a global harm tax on both the extraction and use of fossil fuels which makes visible the damage caused by these sources of energy and also encourages the development of alternative forms of energy production.

Population control

The need for action on global population growth will be addressed by ensuring universal access to contraception. This will provide positive impacts in terms of both economic growth and public health.

Wider awareness of carbon impact of construction

In design and client teams, we’ll see a wider appreciation and understanding of embodied energy and the total carbon impact of the construction process.

In-building energy storage

The development of In-building energy storage systems or daily heat stores to spread the peak energy demand of a building over a day.

Energy Performance Contracts become the norm

Energy Performance Contracts become expected for more new builds. Better prediction of actual energy consumption and then having to deliver on this in practice. It will put a much better focus on the way we design and the way we build.

Death of “tick box” sustainability

The death of BREEAM and ‘tick-box’ sustainability with a move to a more appropriate choice. We will see an even greater rise in the employment of sustainability matrices such as the one developed by Max Fordham.

Greater recognition of the impact buildings have on health

Comfort, health and well-being will become a much larger part of considerations when designing and building non-residential, commercial lettings.

The predictions were assembled by the team including engineers Thomas Greenhill and John Gunstone, sustainability consultant Elinor Huggett, and Phil Armitage and Guy Nevill, both Senior Partners at the Practice.

The predictions include the development of a kind of “Trip Advisor” for buildings, where users rate how comfortable they are in terms of temperature and acoustics, which is then fed back into the building management system.

Large scale infrastructure projects will become necessary to combat the effects of climate change and to avoid a repeat of the flooding recently seen in the north of the country.

A global “harm tax” should be introduced on both the extraction and use of fossil fuels to make visible the damage caused by these sources of energy and also encourage the development of alternative forms of energy production.

Earlier in December this year, leaders from every country agreed to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2C. Currently, around half of the UK’s energy consumption is used in the heating of buildings and so developing more sophisticated and efficient insulation systems and reducing the amount of energy used in construction could play a key role in ensuring the UK meets its targets.  

Guy Nevill, said: “While the COP21 agreement is a tremendously positive step, we still have lots of work to do in terms of reducing our carbon emissions, as well as building schemes to protect ourselves from the inevitable consequences of climate change. Engineering is crucial to ensuring we are able to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and minimise the effects of the damage we have already done to the planet.”

Other predictions include the use of in-building energy storage systems, wider appreciation and understanding of embodied energy and the total carbon impact of the construction process and the widespread use of Energy Performance Contracts.

Phil Armitage, Senior Partner at Max Fordham said: “Some of our predictions are quite optimistic, but they are intended to highlight the problems we face and some of the ways engineering can be used to help solve them.”