Helen Carr speaks out against 'draconian' PSPO extension in Chichele Road

A proposal to extend the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) in Chichele Road and the surrounding area in Mapesbury ward has drawn opposition from Brent's lone Liberal Democrat councillor,  Helen Carr.

The PSPO makes it an offence for any resident or small business to pick up casual labourers within the restricted area, and aims to remove the need for people to congregate outside B&Q and similar areas.

The Community Safety Team are looking to extend the PSPO which expires on March 20th to December 20th 'to allow us to continue enforcement'.

 A 6 week consultation began on January 28th. 

More information can be found HERE and the consultation can be found HERE 

  

Helen Carr wrote:

I oppose this extension on the following grounds: 

This is a draconian measure not originally intended as a response to the complaints of, what I understand it, are a handful of people, albeit they have clocked up more than 400 complaints in a year. This does not mean people should not complain - I myself continually alert the Transport police to Romanian beggars on the underground (a losing battle ..) who when challenged in Romanian, can become aggressive. 

The measure was not successful: at 7am, when I usually set out for work and pass through the Broadway, it did not take long for the small groups of men hoping to gain casual labour, had resumed unchallenged. The measure ensured they congregated elsewhere and in cafes etc. As I understand it, this is an historical issue and originates long before the arrival of Romanians, who are, as I understand it, the new Irish in terms of no skilled and low skilled casual labour. 

I appreciate and agree with residents who claim the police are unable to implement the measure - they have more serious issues to attend to. But this sets a very bad precedent. In the UK, policing is by consent. Servants not masters. In Romania, as in other new democracies of E&C Europe  I have lived and worked in which are only recently free of totalitarian rule, the police are a generally viewed as bodies to be feared. They operate by  a mixture of dazzle, bribery and intimidation: coercion not persuasion and consensus. We need to use these measures sparingly if the tolerance and co operation of our own police are not to be considered weaknesses and vulnerabilities to be exploited. 

Would we be quite so happy to introduce these measures if we called these men 'blacks' not 'migrants'? I think not. 
Many of these men are exploited physically and financially, and to be pitied, not despised.  
Cllr Dr Helen Carr

Contrary birds and squatting squirrels in the Big Garden Birdwatch

I settled down for the Big Garden Birdwatch yesterday with pen and paper and a cup of coffee and achieved meagre results on a wet and windy grey morning. When I tried again later in the day a grey squirrel decided it had squatter's rights on the feeder and kept most birds away,  apart from a brave pair of great spotted woodpeckers.

I have up.

But today, while writing at my computer,  in a short space of about 15 minutes (rather than yesterday's hour) I glimpsed  8 long-tailed tits, loads of great tits and blue, tits,  a pair of nuthatches, robin, dunnock, blackbird, magpie, great spotted woodpecker, wood pigeon and jay.

You can blame them for any typos on today's posts.

There's a lesson to be learnt here...

Big Garden Birdwatch

More of a jungle than a garden - but nature friendly

Where do Fryent councillors stand on Council Tax Support Scheme Review?

There's a Brent Connects meeting in Willesden tonight where there will be a 'consultation' on the Brent Council budget despite the fact that the budget proposals going to Cabinet have already been written and appear on its agenda.

We now know that this proposes a Council Tax increase increase of 3.99% year on year for 3 years.

Cllr Duffy appeared to be very much in the minority in wanting to raise Council Tax by 1.99%  in 2015 but I notice on the Fryent Councillors' blog that they now claim to have argued for an increase: LINK:

Brent Council tax has been frozen for the last 6 years - no increase since 2009.

Your Fryent Councillors have argued for an increase in previous years because our base budget is years out of date. The Government has given the Council 1% in the past to freeze Council tax but this has not kept pace with funding additional or even existing services.

This is not an easy decision, we realise that it will impact some residents adversely. The Council will have to review its Council Tax support scheme to protect the most vulnerable residents. The Council will still have to make cuts and make huge savings because of continued Government austerity measures.

So why should Council Tax increase? Any public service has to be paid for - if the Government reduces the grant it previously gave to the Council the money has to come from somewhere. Brent has cut £145 million from its budget - this is money the government has taken away from Brent residents over the last 4/5 years. Brent has made efficiencies, transformed services, shared services with other boroughs, cut jobs and some services and increased and added new charges, the payment for collecting Green waste , is an example. The cuts are so severe that the Council is now faced with cutting services which will adversely affect people lives, particularly the elderly housebound, residents with a disability, and environmental services such as street cleaning and repairing pot holes.

I didn't notice them arguing for an increase last year and seem to remember a passionate speech by Cllr Tatler on the impact an increase would make on the poorest pupils in her school.  

In the second paragraph they imply that the Council will have to review the Council Tax Support Scheme if they put up Council Tax but their leader Muhammed Butt told me at the Civic Centre Consultation that this would not be possible for the 2016-17 financial year.

Scrutiny Committee had argued both for an Council tax increase and for a review of the Council Tax Support Scheme to protect those on lowest incomes.

There are no proposals for a review in the Cabinet papers although improvements in the scheme would address the issues Cllr Tatler raised last year.

Where do the Fryent councillors stand on this?

House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee hearing on Housing tomorrow

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee will tomorrow take evidence from the leaders of major housing associations and the Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation as it continues its inquiry into the UK housing market.

On Tuesday 2 February at 4:35pm in Committee Room 1 of the House of Lords the Committee will take evidence from:

 David Orr, Chief Executive, National Housing Federation

 David Montague, Chair, L&Q, G15

 Ian McDermott, Chief Operating Officer, Sanctuary Housing Association

Areas the Committee will explore with the witnesses include:

 How ‘affordable housing’ should be defined?

 The potential impact of Government’s plan to reduce social rents paid to housing associations and other landlords.

 How many homes can housing associations realistically contribute to the Government’s target of one million new homes by 2020?

 Are the housing associations confident that their properties sold under the extended Right to Buy scheme will be replaced on a one for one basis?

 Are housing associations making changes to their housing stocks to reflect the increase in the number of elderly households?


1. The evidence session is open to the public. If you wish to attend you should go to Parliament’s Cromwell Green Entrance and allow time for security screening.

2. You can watch the session live on the internet at www.parliamentlive.tv

3. You can follow the Economic Affairs Committee on Twitter @LordsEconCom

4. The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee is Chaired by Lord Hollick.

Brent Council to share procurement with Harrow and Buckinghamshire

A proposal is being put to Brent Cabinet to share procurement of services with the London Borough of Harrow and Buckinghamshire County Council.

Harrow will be the lead borough and in the first phase Brent staff will transfer to them. The report is pretty opaque but it looks likely there will redundancies in the second phase. Brent argues that the proposals will enable them to cut the procurement budget by £272,000 in 2016-17.

The proposal aims to 'deliver in five key areas':

·      contribute to the Council’s savings target, in particular enabling the delivery of savings to the procurement service; 

·      enable the Council to take a strategic view of procurement activity 

·      provide new approaches to the delivery of Social Value benefits in Brent contracts 

·      enable the potential generation of additional income by selling procurement services, as opportunities to do this currently have been limited due to the size of the current team; 

·      ensure that there is resilience built into Procurement activities; and 

·      maximise the opportunities for collaboration. 


Creating a Procurement Shared Service (PSS) from the three councils will help assuage cuts to budgets and bring together best practice, knowledge, skills and resources. LB Brent has a savings target of £272k in 2016/17 and without a form of transformation LB Brent will only be able to provide a largely transactional procurement service. By joining this initiative LB Brent will be in a good position to deliver the savings target whilst also guaranteeing a level of resilience in its procurement activities. 


By becoming one of the founder organisations LB Brent will avoid having to reduce the current procurement service from a team of 11 to a team of 6, with 5 staff being forced to take redundancy. This reduction would mean that LB Brent’s ability to provide procurement services would be significantly impacted. However by entering into the Shared Service arrangement, the impact of the reductions will be mitigated allowing LB Brent to continue to receive a good level of procurement support
 
The second paragraph is particular is confusing. After several readings I think it means  that Brent itself won't have to make people redundant but redundancies will happen in the new shared service - but I am open to corrections or alternative explanations.

The proposal has further consequences in terms of Brent residents' ability to lobby over ethical procurement (eg Veolia). Councils’ability to make decisions based on ethical standards is already under attack from the Conservative government.  It is also unclear what powers Brent councillors will have in the new situation.

Details HERE

UPDATE: Brent Visitor Parking Debacle - Duffy does it again!

I understand that Cllr John Duffy, who last year claimed he stepped in to stop a flawed policy that would let Veolia pocket large sums in the multi million Public Realm contract, LINK, has now intervened on the Visitor Car Parking  consultation which at the very least would have left Brent Council with egg all over its face.

He was not popular with the Council leadership over the Veolia affair, claiming that they snubbed him for acting on behalf of residents, but this time his colleagues are admitting that he has a point. 

Sources in the Labour Group say  Duffy appealed to Carolyn Downes, Chief Executive, over a report that according to him had flaws that 'are devastating and have damaged our case of proving our competency. The costing variations were all over the place and the report itself quotes the obvious and often contradicts itself.'

The flaws had not been picked up by the Cabinet, other Labour councillors or the Opposition., although Scrutiny Committeee submitted comments. Cllr Duffy told the Labour Group, 'We should be concerned about is how such a bad report was given wings by the Cabinet and was only stopped at the last minute.'

The Cabinet Minutes November 16th 2015 Item 11 can be found HERE
 
Apparently Cllr Southwood, lead member for the Environment, defended the report up to the last minute before being forced to withdraw it.

Making the best of a bad job she wrote to all Labour Councillors:

Dear Colleagues

Over the past few weeks I have been reflecting on the proposals in front of Cabinet to increase visitor parking charges to address pressures on parking spaces across the borough. 

As with any proposed increase in charges this has been a contested and hotly debated subject. 
I have listened to many views, spoken to many residents, consulted with officers, looked at best practice elsewhere and of course heard from Labour Group colleagues.

I have been struck by the complexity of the issues and the many differing needs and requirements that we are trying to balance. We are fortunate in having two strategies which are a good foundation for our discussions: the Parking Strategy and the recently agreed Long Term Transport Strategy and aligning our actions with these will help to deliver our vision for a better borough for residents. 

I have come to the view that the visitor parking charges proposal needs to be set in the context of a wider review of our parking offer. Current arrangements have been developed over time in response to circumstances and events and whilst our policies are sound, they are also complex and not easily understood. I believe that we will get a better, and fairer outcome for local people, their visitors and local businesses if we look at the wider parking offer at the same time as the visitor parking permits. 

Our parking offer was already planned for review. I am now proposing to accelerate this work so that we can take a more holistic decision and have a really meaningful dialogue with residents about the best solutions. I will therefore delay the consultation on visitor permit parking charges until this wider work has been completed and intend to bring a report to March's cabinet.  

I'm sure you will agree that it is important that we get the strategy and policies right. I will, of course, arrange a session for Labour Group members to shape the proposals and I hope that you will be able to participate.

Thank you to everyone who has shared their views so far. Your continued support and involvement will ensure we get the right outcomes for residents, visitors and businesses.

I am, of course, very happy to meet with any of you to discuss this further.

 It is to be hoped that the 'wider work' will be thoroughly researched and costed and that this time it won't be left to Cllr Duffy to blow the whistle. Meanwhile perhaps he is owed some dulia by his colleagues.

Since publication I have been sent this comment  (Feb 4th)  which was  longer than the word limit in the usual comment box.

"All credit to Cllr John Duffy for his part in causing a rethink on the planned increase in visitor parking charges and to Cllr Ellie Southwood for being big enough to respond to reasoned concerns from affected residents. However Queen's Park Area Residents Association also held a session with Cllr Southwood and officials on these proposals and on 24 January wrote:

Dear Councillors and Officers,

QPARA discussed the Cabinet report on proposed increase in visitor parking charges at its January meeting, and this prompted a wider review of local parking congestion. The association would like following perspectives to be considered before final consultation on increased charges.

QPARA supports a general policy direction of increasing reliance on public transport, cycling and walking rather than on private cars, for environmental and public health reasons. Nevertheless there needs to be a balance between this and the very large proposed increases in daily charges for visitor parking. While there may be a case for a modest increase QPARA is concerned at the scale of this from £1.50 to £4.50. Charges are almost invariably paid by residents not visitors and the percentage increase is well beyond inflation. As an example a resident with 30 daily visitors a year will in future pay £135 for visitors rather than the current £45. This will be a particular pressure on residents on lower incomes.

The Council's case for the increase centres on high demand for parking in Controlled Parking Zones which leads to overcrowding, and that 'evidence also suggests that some households are using daily visitor permits to book parking on behalf of commuters'. However, we note that there is no general study of why parking overcrowding occurs in particular zones, and no attempt is made in the Cabinet report to form proposals for a wider range of solutions which could address this, nor its more general environmental impact. In the absence of this the Council identifies only one solution which will have at best a modest impact on overcrowding and is associated with an assumed increase in income of £795,000 in 2016/17 (para 6.1 of the report). It is hard to avoid a conclusion that this increase is driven more by the Council's need to increase income substantially rather than resolve overall parking congestion issues.

Accordingly QPARA proposes that Brent conducts a wider study of the impact of a range of factors leading to overcrowding within the ward before proceeding with such large increases. This study should include parking related to schools, business parking permits, under-used car club bays, bays used for builders' materials, and patchy parking enforcement (better enforcement alone could increase the Council's income substantially). For example the teacher permit regime is full of anomalies, with permits given to schools as a prize for having gold travel plans, without regard to pressure points in the overall parking system nor the impact on residents. Notwithstanding, if permits are awarded, these could at least be restricted to a nominated street only, such as by the Park away from streets which are 'parking congested.' Members have also commented that even small businesses can have three permits, and it would be straightforward to limit these to perhaps one to help address overcrowding, yet the Report does not explore this.

In a summary document the Council advises that 'for many visitors who need to park for only a short time, the availability of pay and display bays may better meet their needs than pre-booking a visitor permit' and refers to charges of £1 for 30 minutes or £2 for up to an hour when booked by mobile phone. This suggestion does not take account of the lack of availability of pay and display bays in large parts of QPARA's area, which is mainly residential, so this is not a solution for many (or most) residents. Moreover, where such bays do exist near to busy shopping areas they are often fully occupied and cannot be relied on. So while a partial solution may lie in creating more P & D or mixed use bays, and could be pursued, this is clearly only possible in streets where there is spare capacity.

The summary document refers also to the option of purchasing an annual visitor household permit for £110 (to increase to £165 during 2016). It does not make clear that the Council's Cabinet decided in 2012 to withdraw these permits, and while this is on hold because the Adult Social Care department has yet to find capacity to determine a resident's eligibility for a proposed 'cared-for' permit, it remains policy. While this annual permit may be an option for the present it does not provide a solution in the longer term.

Considering the range of proposed daily visitor charges from £3 to £4.50, many residents have commented that there needs to be a lower charge than £3 for shorter stays than 3 hours (a frequent requirement). Where meters are available (and if unoccupied) then these provide some solution, but as above these simply do not exist in large parts of QPARA's area. We propose therefore that a charge of £1.50 for visitor parking in residents' bays be retained for short stays of up to an hour, to provide equity for QPARA residents with parts of the borough where meters are more generally available.

Make no mistake, HOUSING is THE issue in London elections

'Prudent' Brent budget still has some risks of under delivery including Public Health and Youth Service

The Chief Finance Officer's Assessment of Brent Council's proposed budget asserts that it contains the right mixture of risk and prudence. However he highlights some areas where the risk of under-delivery is more signifcant.

The full list of cuts and savings can be found HERE

In the extract below in italics is the Chief Finance Officer's statement and below an extract from the savings document,  I was particularly concerned about the proposals on Public Health (PH3) following the removal of the ring-fence, especially after the report to the Cabinet at their last meeting LINK  We need to know exactly what is being cut and what the impact is as well as what needs should be met that may not have been met hithertoo. Brent Council only took on responsibility for the Public Health of Under 5s a few months ago.

There were warnings last year about the deliverability of the changes in the Youth Service and this remains an issue.

Soem of the other proposals seem vague at best.

I am sorry about the problems with the formatting. There are often problems transferring text from PDFs on to this blog.

 

a.     Proposal CYP3, which requires savings of £0.9m from a complex reorganisation of youth services 


Reduce management and infrastructure costs in 2015/16, and establish a new delivery model by 2016. Savings of £100k include in 2015/16.

b.     Proposal R&G1,which requires a further reduction in TA costs of £0.5m in 2016/17 and a further £0.5m in 2017/18. This reflects the complex demographic and legislative pressures in this area. 


Savings of £1.3m were included for 2015/16 based on underspending in 2013/14 and reflecting the expectation that service demand would be less than anticipated in the original model . A  further £1.0m saving was included for 2016/17 and 2017/18

c.      R&G25f, which requires a surplus, over time, of £0.35m p.a. from the Lettings Agency, although none of this is budgeted for in 2016/17 


BHP will be establishing a lettings agency in 2014. The business plan projects completed additional surpluses of £350k per annum bein generated from year five (2018/19). The saving represents increased income from the provision property and tenancy management services to private sector properties

d.     ACE2, which plans to reduce the council’s contribution to the London Boroughs Grant Committee by £0.34m in 2017/18, which cannot be achieved without securing a two-thirds majority in London Councils

Review of grant funding to London Councils

The Council cannot withdraw from, or unilaterally reduce its funding to, the Grants Programme. On the contrary, s.48(7) Local Government Act 1985 provides that a grants scheme such as this one, once agreed by the majority of the London borough councils, may be binding upon a dissenting London Borough council in the absence of its agreement. We have explored the legislative scope for this. Section 48 of the Local Government Act 1985, which established the London Councils grant scheme, stipulates that councils can only vary their contribution to the grant scheme with the agreement of at least two thirds of London Boroughs. The time available to implement any agreed change would significantly limit the level of savings achieved in 2015/2016. The Council could start conversations now with leaders of other councils with a view to introducing a reduction in funding to London Councils at the end of this cycle of projects i.e. April 2017.

e.     HR1 & L&P1, which collectively require further savings of £1.6m in the council’s legal services and human resources department.

HR1It is proposed to carry out a major reconfiguration of the HR service in 2015/16 saving £1.4m by 2016/17. This will result in the merging of some areas in order to reduce the number of managers required in the new structure. It is the intention to devolve responsibility for some existing activities undertaken by the Learning and Development team to HR Managers. Other activities will be accommodated by a new performance team with a broader remit which will include resourcing, workforce development, policy and projects. In addition it is proposed to cap the existing trade union facilties time allocation awarded to GMB and Unison to a maximium of 1 x PO1 post per trade union, to move the occupational health service inhouse saving £60k and reduce the learning and development budget by £67k. In year 2016/17 further reductions in staffing can be potentially achieved through shared service arrangements within payroll, pensions, HR management information and recruitment. Savings of £696k included in 2015/16.

L&P1 Different options of service delivery – outsourcing – private legal firm / buying from local authority that sells legal services and also London Wide work of setting up a shared service. Proposal to enter a shared service for legal. Savings of £400k have been brought forward from future years to 2016/17. Savings of £458k included in 2015/16.

f.      PH3, where savings of £1m against the public health grant are required 


 

Agreed that efficiencies would be made within public health once the grant ceased to be ring fenced and further opportunities sought to use grant to deliver across Council functions

g.     R&G32,where  savings of £1.5m are required through implementation of 
the customer access strategy. 


Implementation of new customer access strategy with a specific aim to reduce the current costs of contact handling by migrating custome contact on line, improve the efficiencies of telephone handling arrangements and optimising use of shared data to reduce the nee for customers to have to contact multiple services with the same

information. There is a £1.5m of savings which will be achieved across the Council and held as a central saving in 2016/17