Some vital additional information on South Kilburn for Brent Cabinet

The South Kilburn Regeneration is on the Cabinet agenda tonight and members are updated on progress. They are given an officer's report that went to Scrutiny Committee but not a report from Scrutiny Committee itself.

So that they can be informed I print below the Minutes of that meeting including points made by Pete Firm for the residents and tenants and the Committee's request for further information.

Readers may be interested to hear that another report reveals that the South Kilburn Trust has c£6m in its coffers LINK  

The Chair invited Pete Firmin, Chair of the Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association to address the committee.  He referred to the circulated report and stated that whilst it updated the committee there was no reference to some of the problems that had arisen from the redevelopment of the area.  There was a need to critically appraise the project, review the balance between the provision of private and social housing and the implications of the delays to the project.  He stated that the experience of contractors working with local people had not been all good.  A new health centre was being provided but this was needed for the existing population before it increased from the new housing being provided.  Pete Firmin also referred to a lack of consultation on the changes resulting from HS2.  He felt that as the regeneration project moved forward there needed to be a new commitment to work with local residents.  In response Richard Barrett (Operational Director, Property and Projects) replied that the report before the committee provided a broad outline of activity.  He acknowledged that there was now a need to engage local people in the review of the South Kilburn masterplan.  Councillor McLennan (Lead Member for Housing and Development) reminded the committee that the remit of the South Kilburn regeneration programme was to provide new housing with every secure tenant being offered housing within the redeveloped scheme.  She responded to the suggestion that there was a lack of consultation and assured the committee that there was engagement with the local community and the regeneration scheme was giving hope to people that things would get better. 

Questions were asked regarding how many units of social housing were being provided as compared to private housing.  Councillor McLennan undertook to provide this figure.  It was pointed out that successive schemes within the project appeared to result in the provision of less social housing. Concern was expressed that as budgets got tighter less social housing would be provided.  Richard Barrett clarified that the target was to provide 50% social housing within the regeneration scheme overall. 

Members enquired about the slippage to the programme and how local residents were informed of this.  Richard Barrett stated that he attended a tenants steering group every 2-3 months to keep them up to date.  He agreed that the delays were unwelcome and led to longer periods of disruption for local people.  However, the scheme still offered local people the best opportunity for moving into better accommodation.   

Reference was made to complaints received from residents about the behaviour of some contractors.  It was explained that it was the responsibility of Brent Housing Partnership or the housing associations to work with the contractors. It was recognised that the Catalyst scheme had been the worst managed scheme and this had been raised with the developer and lessons learnt from it. 

Questions were asked about employment opportunities within the area created by the regeneration programme.  In answer to a question about Coventry Close, Richard Barratt explained that this was outside the regeneration area but the opportunity was being taken to try to influence the improvement of the area. The Committee heard how work with the police attempted to design out trouble spots within the new redevelopments.  Members were interested in receiving more information on this. 

Members were also concerned that the planned expansion of local schools would provide sufficient places for local children.  Richard Barrett explained the plans for the expansion of Carlton Vale Infants and Kilburn Park Junior schools.  He explained that discussions were ongoing to get agreement to an arrangement that both schools supported but that it was at an early stage.

Members expressed their continuing concern over the need to provide better outcomes for local people and not just provide new housing.  At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Conneely addressed the committee and stated that local people were very concerned about the way they were being decanted and moved back into the area.  There was concern that local communities were being split up and the implication of this particularly for older people.  She wanted to see the process completed on time and people treated fairly.  Richard Barrett replied that every tenant was visited to assess their needs for the property they were moving in to.  In partnership with the housing service, decanted flats were being used for temporary accommodation.  Members asked for more detail on how this arrangement was working. 

The Chair thanked Councillor McLennan and Richard Barrett for their attendance.  

Requests for information:

·         accurate figures on the number of social housing units existing pre redevelopment and the number post redevelopment compared to the number of private units provided.

·         members to be provided with a schedule of rents for the area including a comparison with the pre redevelopment level of rents.

·         a population profile for the area showing how the number of people was projected to rise.

·         information on employment in the area so that it could be seen if the regeneration of the area was leading to a rising employment rate.

·         more information on how the plans for the area attempted to design out potential crime and the involvement of the police in this.

·         more information on the use of decanted units to house homeless people, including the number involved, the timeframes involved and the financial considerations.

Will 'Social Value' procurement take into account ethical standards?

Brent Council's strategy for Social Value in procurement will be discussed at Cabinet tonight. The documents do not mention ethical procurement except with reference to sourcing practices:

Ethical sourcing practices: Ensuring compliance with UK, EU and international standards, promoting fair trade and fair pricing policies, tackling corruption, child labour and similar social issues.

However this does not appear again in the council's glossy publication on Social Value LINK

During the controversy over Veolia's bid for the Public Realm contract there were promises by the council to look at developing an ethical procurement policy.  Veolia was opposed because at the time it provided infrastuctural support for  illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Campaigners through the public money should not be used to support such practices by awarding the company a multi-million contract.

Recently the government has moved to ban councils and other public bodies from making procurement decisions that take into account ethical issues.

Cllr Tom Miller was among signatories of an attempt  by councillors to challenge this (see below)  and other organisations, including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, have campaigned on the issue:

 

Letter from councillors regarding attacks on local democracy

Proposed regulations would give central government powers to veto investment decisions made by democratically elected local councils if it believes that local decisions conflict with the views of Westminster politicians.

Scores of councils have in recent years taken steps such as adopting fair trade principles or excluding fossil fuel, tobacco and arms companies from their investment portfolios, following campaigns by pension fund members and local citizens.

Many councils have passed motions stating they will not procure services from companies that avoid tax, aid and abet Israeli violations of international law or from construction companies that blacklist trade union members.

The Government now aims to undermine the right of councils to make democratic decisions reflecting local public opinion and the views of local authority pension fund members, who under current proposals would have less rights to influence pension fund investment decisions than those investing in personal pensions.

These proposals fatally undermine the government’s stated commitment to transfer power to local government and communities and represent a serious attack on local democracy.

We urge the government to reconsider

London rises up against the Housing Bill

Today Londoners came out to reclaim their city from developers and the Housing Bill. They demand homes for people not profit, building of council housing, an end to social cleansing and much more. The pictures on the continuation page tell the whole story.

Standards at Brent Council – Will Standards Committee set a good example?

This guest blog by Philip Grant continues his attempt to ensure Brent Council displays high standards of conduct in public life.
 

In a blog article of 2 January 2016 LINK I referred to the Annual Report which Brent Council’s Monitoring Officer was presenting to its Standards Committee the following week, and some matters of concern which it raised. I was not able to attend the meeting, so was interested to read what the minutes of the committee meeting on 7 January would have to say about that Report. This is the text of the draft minute for that item, which appeared on the Council’s website last Friday:

‘5. Annual Report to the Standards Committee 2014 - 2015

The committee considered the circulated report of the Monitoring Officer which updated members on conduct issues and the work of the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer for the period December 2014 to December 2015.

The committee was informed that the process of recruiting Independent Persons would begin later in January. Councillor Warren enquired about the Council’s existing arrangements. He proposed that the Independent Person should be given a higher profile in order to give the role greater credibility by bringing forward their role in the process of considering complaints. Concern was expressed that this could potentially undermine the position of the Monitoring Officer and that such an arrangement was not followed in other boroughs.

RESOLVED:

(i)            that the Monitoring Officer’s Annual report 2014/15 be noted;

(ii)          that the procedure for dealing with complaints be considered at the next meeting of the Standards Committee.’

While I am glad to see that Standards Committee did more than simply ‘note’ the Annual Report, which is what the Monitoring Officer had recommended they should do, the brevity of this minute raises more questions than it gives answers to.

1.     What was Cllr. Warren’s enquiry ‘about the Council’s existing arrangements’ (for Independent Persons?), and what was he told in reply to his enquiry?

2.     Which other committee members raised enquiries on, or made comments about, the Annual Report; what points did they raise and what answers were they given?

3.     Was Cllr.Warren’s proposal ‘that the Independent Person should be given a higher profile’ put as a formal motion, and what discussion (and vote?) took place on this proposal?

4.     Who was it that expressed concern ‘that this could potentially undermine the position of the Monitoring Officer’, and what reasons were put forward in support of that concern?

5.     Who put forward the resolution (not referred to in the Annual Report itself) ‘that the procedure for dealing with complaints be considered at the next meeting of Standards Committee’, and what views were expressed “for” or “against” this proposal?

The minutes of the meeting at which the previous Annual Report was presented (9 December 2014) give details of a number of questions raised and comments made by committee members; these are followed by a 17-line paragraph beginning: ‘In reply to the issues raised, Kathy Robinson advised that …’ which gives answers to the points raised. [For information: Kathy Robinson was the Council solicitor deputising for the then Monitoring Officer, Fiona Ledden.] Why was that precedent, and the good practice it showed of properly recording in the minutes what happened, not followed for the meeting on 7 January 2016? And how can the draft minute for item 5, quoted above, ‘be approved as an accurate record of the meeting’?

The purpose of Standards Committee, as set out on the Council’s website, is:

‘To promote high standards of conduct by councillors, to receive allegations that councillors may have failed to comply with the Council’s code of conduct and hold hearings into allegations of misconduct.’

At the heart of those high standards of conduct are the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership (see footnote below for an explanation of what these principles should mean in practice), which all members must comply with whenever they are conducting any business of the Council.

I hope that the members of Standards Committee (to whom I am sending a copy of this blog article) will show openness and accountability, by amending the draft minutes for item 5, so that they record properly the actions of those who took part in the discussions on the Annual Report and the reasons given for those actions, so that the public can hold them to account. The amended minutes for the meeting on 7 January should then be posted on the Council’s website, in place of the draft minutes, as soon as possible after 21 March.

By amending the draft minutes, Standards Committee would demonstrate leadership, in promoting high standards of conduct. It would also avoid the integrity and honesty of committee members being called into question, which could be the case if it appeared that the minutes were deliberately being kept vague, as part of ‘a culture of covering up uncomfortable truths’. Failure to amend the draft minutes would provide further evidence for the criticisms I made about Brent Council in my open letter to its Chief Executive on 27 November 2015 LINK

So, please come on, Standards Committee, and set a good example over standards of conduct to other members, to encourage public confidence in Brent Council.

Philip Grant,
13 March 2016

Footnote:

Brent’s Members’ Code of Conduct says:

‘You must maintain a high standard of conduct, and comply with the following general conduct principles:

The General Principles

Selflessness – you should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.

Integrity – you should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.

Objectivity – you should make decisions on merit, including when making appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits.

Accountability – you should be accountable to the public for your actions and the manner in which you carry out your responsibilities, and should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to your particular office.

Openness – you should be as open as possible about your actions and those of their authority, and should be prepared to give reasons for those actions.

Honesty – you should be truthful in your council work and avoid creating situations where your honesty may be called into question.

Leadership – you should promote and support these principles by leadership, and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.

Observer reopens the mystery of the Mary Fedden paintings, the deputy and the council

The Observer today  LINK asks some pertinent questions about  the paintings by Mary Fedden that were given to Copland High School (now Ark Elvin) and then, according to Brent Council, retrieved by them from the school, which was hit by a financial scandal, and 'returned to the Portland Gallery on Tuesday 13th May 2014.' The Council went on to say, 'It is a matter for the estate of the late Mrs Fedden to decide where the paintings are displayed, not the council.'

A former art teacher ar Copland, Jenny Williams, is reported by the Observer as commenting, 'If Mary Fedden wanted the children in Wembley to have these paintings, that is where they should be. It is very sad if after all that has happened at the school they are simply sold off to a private collector.'

The issue of whether Fedden wanted children to have the paintings is critical. Regular readers may recall previous coverage on Wembley Matters of this issue. I reprint some of comments below:

Seeing 'millions' and Copland School in the same article should ring a bell with Mr Butt and Mr Pavey and have them both sticking a post-it Note to Self on their fridges as follows:

'1. Find out progress of the 'pursuit of costs through the civil courts' which we promised when we told the gobsmacked judge in the dodgy headmaster Davies case that we weren't applying for costs.

2. Find out progress in the pursuit of the overpaid 'bonuses' to Davies and chums in same case.

3. Find out what really happened to the Mary Fedden paintings

4. Try really really really hard to tell Cara that we need to have a word today.
Or maybe leave it til Monday ..................or December .............'

Reply

Alison Hopkins24 October 2014 at 18:22

What were the Mary Fedden paintings? I mean, I know who she was, but were there some in Brent's possession?

Martin Francis24 October 2014 at 18:25
This appeared as a comment on WM in October 2013:
You refer to the tricking of the aged artist Mary Fedden into 'donating' expensive paintings supposedly for a 'gallery' at the school to inspire 'deprived' youngsters. Evans (deputy head)  paid a number of visits to her house taking young pupils with him as 'leverage'. These children were witnesses to his eagerness to get his hands on the artwork.. The paintings were then sold at Sothebys by Evans. Others have supplied the police with evidence corroborating this. Why no prosecution yet?

See http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/jun/07/tory-deputy-head-paintings-mary-fedden



Anonymous24 October 2014 at 19:42
Another comment somewhere 'had it on authority' that some of the paintings came into the possession of Brent Council. The assumption seemed to be that the paintings Evans hadn't yet managed to flog, he claimed were, of course, given to the school and, as he was by this time suspended or resigned, he handed them over to their 'rightful owner' (or the Council as Copland's ultimate authority). 

Given the Council's feeble efforts in the whole saga, they probably returned them to him!

Anonymous24 October 2014 at 19:47
I know for a fact that the police have been in contact with witnesses within the last 12 months. No action though.

Brent Momentum debuts with frank open debate & a little political torsion

Interestingly it was not criticism of his attitude to cuts that made Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt fly into a rage at yesterday's Brent Momentum meeting but a challenge on the implementation of the Prevent Strategy in the borough.

Butt had been asked to make a public statement on Prevent to the people of Brent by Humera Khan of the long-established An Nisa Society.  Butt stood up and visibly shaking, shouted over Humera and jabbed his fingers at her yelling, 'You always do this..'   Eventually, when he had been forced to stop and calm down by the chair of the session, Faduma Hassan, Humera was able to complete her question. She recognised that there were statutory constraints on the Council about their duty to implement the Strategy but wanted a clear statement from Butt about its shortcomings. In particular she wanted the Council to commit to tackling Islamophobia and inequalities that impacted on the Muslim community.

Cllr Butt said that he had been critical of Prevent in a Channel 4 programme but that the Council was taking a different approach to the Strategy by working with communities and placing it in a broader safeguarding context which would not stigmatise the Muslim community. He would be speaking in Cambridge about his criticisms of the Strategy. He confirmed  'I don't like Prevent' and thought the current strategy was 'pernicious'.

Humera said that she wanted a statement made to the community in Brent - not in Cambridge or on Channel 4. The question of which community groups Brent Council was engaging with and how they had been selected remained in the air.

On the issue of cuts Michael Calderbank called on Cllr Butt to show more political  leadership, 'all we hear from you is managerialism.' Asked to join with other councils in funding an attempt to get a Judicial Review of the 'Shaping a Healthier Future' proposals on local health services, based on the findings of the Mansfield Report, Butt would make no commitment pending legal advice.

The day had begun with an emollient address by Cllr Michael Pavey where he admitted that the Council had made mistakes in the way they engaged with people and presented cuts. The library closures and Stonebridge Adventure Playground were such cases. He claimed that having a Labour Council had lessened the impact of austerity on local people.  He wanted to move away from a 'stale debate' with the left over not implementing cuts, needs budgets etc and work with them in challenging austerity and  government cuts to local authority funding.  He cited 'Red Lines' LINK where Labour councillors were standing up to defend Londoners.  He wanted to work with council trade unions on these issues.

In earlier commentary I had raised the issue of inviting Butt and Pavey to a 'Brent Uncut' event when they had implemented cuts in Brent but organisers justified on the basis that it would open the dialogue between the community and Labour councils that Jeremy Corbyn had advocated. This was bound to result in some friction but there was much constructive work, especially in the workshops on issues such as health, education, welfare, environment and housing where I hope some of the proposals will be published by Brent Momentum. Framed as helping to build a 'Better Brent' (an old slogan) they could produce a unity beyond the normal activists.

Kilburn Labour Party member and Brent TUC Secretary Pete Firmin said in his introduction that we all know what the government is doing but the question for the day was how to oppose these measures and in some cases, work from against them from within. It was no use just shouting at councillors for implementing cuts but adopting alternative policies, learning from other councils, (such as Islington on housing) and admitting that the council had failed to win the hearts and minds of local people.

A number of themes emerged from the workshops which didn't always avoid reiterating the awful things that are going on rather than suggesting ways to oppose and transform:

• councillors managing cuts rather than adopting a political response
• privatisation in health, education and council services
• council's attitude to free schools & academies when they are not allowed to build new schools
• protecting paid jobs  but at the same time need volunteers to keep services going
• need to train volunteers in order to recognise that jobs can't be done by just anyone
• unpicking language around benefits so as not to reinforce stereotypes
• address the issue of digital inclusion by improving Council and CCG websites and catering for those without access
• use Goverment Accessible Information Standard  in publications and communications
• in council reports include the impact of policies on the 30,000 people with disabilities alongside that on other groups
• the need for some form of Basic Income
• proactive measures council could take on environment including insulation, microgeneration, climate jobs 
• school funding changes impact on local authority education services including school improvement and special educational needs
• need for key worker housing if we are to stem loss of teachers, nurses and other public service workers
• challenge developers on amount of affordable social  housing in regeneration schemes
• support community unionism on the model of the Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group
• develop a culture of passion to help service users in council  officers when they are bound by an inflexible scripted response
• linked with that build links between councillors, activists and the community for a united response to government policies

About 40 people attended the conference including in addition to Cllrs Butt and Pavey, Cllr Perrin and Southwood. Cllr Margaret McLennan, lead member for Housing and Development, was due to take part in the housing workshop but did not turn up.

'Angry & disappointed' Barry Gardiner refers Byron Court planning decision to Secretary of State

Following the Brent Planning Committee's decision to approve the expansion of Byron Court Primary School to accommodate more than 1,000 children, Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP for Brent North, has asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to call in their decision and recommends its overturn on the grounds that it sets a dangerous precedent for planning applications for similar sized schools and that the application has not been made in compliance with the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF).

The Planning Committee is statutorily independent of the Council but Gardiner's decision marks a significant moment in his relationship with the Council.

Below you will find Gardiner's letter to residents and his letter to the Secretary of State.

Will Momentum cause some friction at church today?

The conference at Neasden Methodist Church today organised by Brent Momentum, Brent Trades Council and Brent Fightback will be a test of the extent to which the recently formed Momentum Group is able to reach out to local grass roots campaigns and non-Labour activists.

Originally billed as 'Is a better Brent possible?' it is now 'Brent Uncut', which as I've pointed out before is a bit of a joke given the swathe of cuts Labour Brent Council has made. The leaders of the council are listed as speakers.

Momentum is responding to a challenge to his followers by Jeremy Corbyn to have a dialogue with councillors on how they can challenge austerity and local government cuts - although remaining 'legal' of course.

Today's programme is ambitious and it will interesting to see how many people turn up on a grey Saturday morning in Neasden.  I will be raising the Green Flag.

The venue is a walk from Neasden station via the underpass at Neasden Shopping Centre or 182, 232, 245,  297 or 302 bus.