Join in Welsh Harp Conservation Day tomorrow

UPDATE: Should the Council reveal more about proposed Ujima House acquisition?

Ujima House, recently taken off the market by vendors

 

Plan of the present site

Monday's Brent Cabinet is due to approve the purchase of Ujima House on Wembley High Road, as one of a number of acquisitions to implement the Wembley Housing Zone. No details are available as yet for their plans for the site although a high rise development, in the light of the Twin Towers, seems possible.

The report LINK states:

-->

The Wembley Housing Zone was designated by the GLA last year with the aim to accelerate housing and affordable housing development and to promote regeneration. In July 2015 Cabinet approved the approach which is to bring forward a programme of acquisition and development of a number of sites between Wembley town centre and the regeneration underway on the Stadium lands, including the council-owned site due to be released through the construction of the new Ark Elvin Academy. Cabinet also approved entering into a legal agreement with the GLA to secure their funding support and this has been concluded. 


Discussions are underway with the owners of a number of identified sites in order to establish the development programme. This report seeks the approval of Cabinet to the terms for the acquisition of a first of these identified sites, that of Ujima House and its car park in order to progress the implementation of the Wembley Housing Zone and agreement to enter into a contract with the Greater London Authority to fund the acquisition of the property. 


 Importantly officers say that redevelopment will be in the form of a partnership with the Council:

--> The Ujima site is suitable for development on its own but discussions are continuing with neighbouring land-owners and if these are successful it is intended that this site would form part of a larger programme of redevelopment. It is expected that this programme will be taken forward by the council in partnership with a development partner and a further report will be made to Cabinet on the proposed delivery approach and the selection of the development partner Details regarding the financial aspects of the deal are not available to the public. The Council, as usual cites Para 3, Part 1, Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 claiming that the public interest in disclosing the information is out-weighed by the public interest in disclosing it.

By Virtue of Paragraph 3 

Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

Condition:

Information is not exempt if it is required to be registered under-

• The Companies Act 1985
• The Friendly Societies Act 1974
• The Friendly Societies Act 1992
• The Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1965 to 1978
• The Building Societies Act 1986 (recorded in the public file of any building society, within the meaning of the Act)
• The Charities Act 1993

Information is exempt to the extent that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

However the Act goes on to state:

Information is not exempt if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town & Country Planning General Regulations 1992(a).

 If the Council is going to act as a redevelopment partner surely the above caveat applies? I asked Brent Council and got this reponse:

The qualification you refer to applies only when the council is exercising its planning functions, i.e. when it is acting in its capacity as local planning authority and deciding whether or not to grant itself planning permission. Whereas the purpose of Cabinet report you refer to is to seek approval to enter into a contract to purchase land. If the purchase is approved and an application for planning permission is submitted, it will of course be dealt with by the Planning Committee as an entirely separate matter and in accordance with planning law and policy and the information access rules you refer to.

Task Group: Brent needs to rethink its partnerships with housing associations

Top 10 providers by housing association

Last night's Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commitee considered the Task Group on Brent Housing Association's Report LINK. The task group was led by Cllr Tom Miller.

Executive Summary and key recommendations:
 

-->

The task group looked at the effects of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 in five key areas: Right to Buy, social housing supply, 1% social rent cut, a voluntary Pay to Stay, and partnerships with the council.

This task group supports increasing home ownership and is not opposed to the principle of giving tenants the opportunity to buy their own home; however, that can only work if homes sold under the Right to Buy are replaced at least one-for-one in Brent and that social and genuinely affordable housing still continues to be provided across all tenures in the borough.

Although the task group does not believe Right to Buy will be taken up in significant numbers, it could exacerbate the borough’s existing housing crisis by further reducing social housing stock. Even if social housing is replaced, there is uncertainty about the type of product that would replace it and there could be a time lag between loss and replacement. This will be made worse if already scarce housing stock is sold. Therefore, the local authority should insist on explicit exemptions of four-bedroom family-sized homes, supported housing and specially adapted housing which if it is sold under the extended Right to Buy will be extremely difficult to replace.

Brent Council also needs to consider other supply-side measures it can take such as joint development with registered providers which maximises the amount of social housing retained in the borough, and stimulating growth in other models of social housing in Brent such as housing co-operatives, community housing, self and custom build and community land trusts.

The demands of the legislation means Brent Council will also need to rethink its existing partnerships with housing associations, and the relationships between them. More of the knowledge and expertise which the local authority has could be shared as a way of building more effective partnerships. Similarly, the expertise which large housing associations have accumulated could be shared with the smaller registered providers in the borough.

The task group believes it may no longer be realistic for one local authority to be able to negotiate on equal terms with such large organisations. Therefore, the task group calls for far greater cross-London working as a counter-balance, and for a recognition of the important niche services that smaller housing associations offer to tenants and residents in Brent.

Finally, the importance of tenants’ voices and listening to their concerns needs to be remembered and this important perspective should be better integrated into partnership working.

Theme 1: Right to Buy 

1. Strategic Director Community Wellbeing convenes a working party dedicated to Right to Buy with registered providers which meets to monitor the impact of the policy in Brent and helps to mitigate any potential problems which are caused.
2. Cabinet Member for Housing sets out a common position to all registered providers operating in Brent that the local authority would like homes of four bedrooms or more, specially adapted housing, and older people’s housing exempted from the Right to Buy.
3. Strategic Director Community Wellbeing and Cabinet Member for Housing develop agreements with housing associations and the Greater London Authority which maximise the number homes replaced in Brent, including four-bedroom properties, as well as homes for social rent.
4. Strategic Director Community Wellbeing invites housing associations operating in Brent to fund jointly an anti-fraud investigator for a time-limited period to help housing associations’ investigations into Right to Buy fraud and offer free training for staff on fraud and speculative buying practices.
5. Director of Policy, Performance and Partnership to consider integrating Right to Buy into Brent’s financial inclusion strategy so that tenants are better informed about interest rates, mortgages, cost of major works, responsibility for repairs, and the operation of companies who encourage purchasing of homes under Right to Buy.
6. Cabinet Member for Housing requests that housing associations advise tenants of their financial options, and inform them of the wider responsibilities of becoming a leaseholder as part of the purchasing process for Right to Buy.
7. Cabinet Member for Housing ensures a working party of registered providers convened around the Right to Buy extension shares information and expertise about properties going into the private rented sector. 

Theme 2: Social housing supply
8. The Strategic Director Community Wellbeing and Lead Member for Housing to initiate further discussions with other London local authorities about collaborative arrangements for the provision of social housing in the future.
9. Brent’s Cabinet Member for Housing to consider setting up a forum for smaller housing associations to be able to gain expertise and knowledge in business planning and other areas from the larger registered providers operating in Brent.

10. Cabinet Member for Housing and Strategic Director Community Wellbeing put in place mechanisms to signpost residents to information about the Community Land Trust Network and Federation Confederation of Cooperative Housing and self and custom-build networks and organises a one-off event to stimulate interest in developing other social housing models.
11. The Strategic Director for Community Wellbeing commissions a feasibility study about developing affordable self-build on marginal areas of council owned-land which is not suitable for its own house building programme.
12. Brent Council to update its Housing Strategy 2014-19 to weight available council- owned land not intended for the council’s own house-building programme towards housing association or partnership developments which house social tenants and vulnerable people in line with the council’s political commitments. 

Theme 3: Social rent reduction
13. Brent Council to continue to work closely with social landlords in the borough to evaluate the effects of welfare reform, in particular the overall benefit cap, and to develop appropriate processes and procedures that facilitate the achievement of this. 

Theme 4: Pay to Stay
14. Cabinet Member for Housing to request that housing associations operating in Brent report regularly to the council outlining any progress they are considering in implementing Pay to Stay. 

Theme 5: Partnerships
15. Cabinet Member for Housing organises more frequent forums around specific issues such as rents, welfare reform and employment as well as linking with London- wide housing groups so there can be a useful exchange of information and expertise.
16. The Strategic Director of Community Wellbeing organises a housing summit each year to bring together all the registered providers in the borough in addition to the regular quarterly forum meetings.
17. In collaboration with housing associations, Brent Council develops mechanisms that will enable housing association tenants to share their concerns and service priorities.
18. Cabinet Member for Housing to write to housing associations to encourage tenants’ representation at the board level of housing associations by bottom-up elections.

19. Cabinet Member for Housing to develop a partnership model which is more weighted towards those providing in-demand tenures and housing.

Green MEP raises alarm about UK ‘joining front of the queue on dodgy trade deals’

Deals beyond TTIP

A Green MEP, who has long campaigned against the controversial TTIP trade deal between the EU and US, has warned that with the deal looking increasingly fragile, the UK may seek to enter into its own even more damaging agreement with the US. TTIP was cited by some on the Left as a good reason to leave the EU, but it now looks likely that Germany’s coalition government will veto the deal.

Molly Scott Cato, the Green MEP for the South West, argued before the referendum that the EU was the right place to fight TTIP and that the Tories would readily create alternative trade deals with the US and other nations if we left. She said:

I always said that a UK outside the EU, governed by the Tories, would lead to even further trade liberalisation, even more damaging trade deals and a deregulated corporate free-for-all. That is exactly what we are now in danger of witnessing. Obama famously said that were Britain to leave the EU it would go to the ‘back of the queue' on trade deals. With TTIP in free fall, the post Brexit reality is that Tory minsters are desperately trying to move us to the front of the queue. There is now a real danger this will result in a race to the bottom on workers’ rights, consumer protection and environmental and animal welfare standards.

Molly Scott Cato is also keen to highlight the huge costs involved in negotiating trade deals. The costs of TTIP to date amount to over €2.5 million. The figures were unearthed following a question she put to the EU Commission about the costs of the TTIP negotiations. She said:

We should not be under any illusion that leaving the negotiation processes of the EU will save us money. Any trade negotiations with the US or any other nation will be less efficient than 28 nations sharing the costs and will be a huge drain on the public purse.

Raft of South Kilburn proposals on agenda at Monday's Cabinet Meeting

Reprinted from the Cabinet agenda papers for the benefit of South Kilburn residents.  Deputations to speak at the meeting can be requested. Apply to Anne.Reid@brent.gov.uk  0208 937 1359

	Carlton & Granville Centres, Granville Road, NW6 5RA - redevelopment and investment proposals PDF 2 MB View the background to item 8. This report updates members on proposals to deliver a new Enterprise Hub and proposes the re-development of the Carlton and Granville Centres as a location for the Enterprise Hub and deliver 95 new home with additional community space.
	South Kilburn Regeneration Programme - phase 3A PDF 310 KB View the background to item 9. This report relates to Hereford House and Exeter Court (being part of ‘Phase 3A’ of the South Kilburn regeneration programme and as shown edged red on Appendix 1). This report seeks the Cabinet’s approval of a procurement strategy for an architecturally led multidisciplinary design team for the comprehensive redevelopment of Hereford House and Exeter Court, being part of Phase 3A of the South Kilburn regeneration programme.  Additional documents: reg-south-kilburn-ph3-app1 , item 9. PDF 251 KB reg-south-kilburn-ph3-app2 , item 9. PDF 17 KB
	South Kilburn Regeneration Programme - Site 18 encompassing Salusbury Road Car Park, Cullen House and adjoining land PDF 134 KB View the background to item 10. This report sets out the approvals required by the Cabinet to further progress this project originally within Phase 2b of the regeneration programme. This report sets out proposals for Salusbury Road Car Park, Cullen House and adjoining land comprising of the spur road, Keniston Press, TfL offices at Premier House and the Falcon Public House (together defined as "Site 18"),  which forms part of Phase 2b of the South Kilburn regeneration programme and as shown edged red on Plan A at Appendix 1. This development has been stalled since 2012 due to safeguarding of the site by High Speed Two Ltd (HS2) for a proposed ventilation shaft and auto transformer. The Council has recently successfully secured the release of this site from HS2.

 

Brent Council and the Cara Davani “pay-off” – questions that still need to be answered

I commented on Martin’s 11 July blog about “Labour abstentions on Tory Davani motion”  LINK , that I might need to write a guest blog for what I would like to say, as a “comment” did not allow enough space. This is that guest blog:-

I was not at the Council meeting on 11 July, but I have watched the debate on the “Webcast” page of the Council’s website. The first thing it clarifies is that Brent Council was misleading us when it stated in June 2015 that Cara Davani was leaving ‘to take a career break.’ From the statements made in the debate by Cllr. McLennan, and particularly by Cllr. Colwill, it now appears that Ms Davani was made redundant, and that, it is claimed, the £157k she received was Brent’s “normal” redundancy pay-off of one year’s salary plus a further three months in lieu of notice.

However, if this was a redundancy, it was not a “normal” one. It was not the result of a staff restructuring, where her post had been done away with, like the two senior management reorganisations she brought in during her time in charge of Brent’s HR (with large redundancy pay-offs to the Assistant Chief Executive and Legal Director, among others, at the end of 2014, and to a whole raft of senior officers in March 2013). So (1) what was the reason for Cara Davani being made redundant, who decided that she should be made redundant, and why then, in June 2015?
  
 Had she become too much of an embarrassment to Brent Council, or was it part of an “exit strategy” she had worked out herself with her close associate and then interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, before the newly appointed Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, took over?

Cllr. McLennan, in response to Cllr. Warren’s motion, argued that Brent had to make this pay-off on the basis of external legal advice, and that if it had not done so, Cara Davani could have claimed against the Council for constructive dismissal. I welcome the news that Cllr. Warren has apparently made an FoI request for this legal advice to be made public LINK . If that legal advice was only sought around June 2015, it might have been correct, but only because Brent had failed to take timely disciplinary action against Ms Davani, in September 2014, for her misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case.

I have written a great deal about that case, and this article would be far too long if I went into the details again now, but I will refer to some earlier blogs, and provide links to them for anyone who wishes to follow up the points I will make. On 21 September 2014 I wrote jointly to Christine Gilbert and Fiona Ledden (then Brent’s Legal Director), referring to the Tribunal’s judgement, and to comments made by “Wembley Matters” readers on blogs about it LINK, before saying:

‘… I believe that the most important matter, before you consider your own futures, is that you must insist on the immediate resignation of Cara Davani (if she has not already left Brent's employment permanently). Any thoughts of wasting further money (including my own Council Tax payments) on an appeal in this matter should be dropped, as the Tribunal has made the findings of fact which make this such a damning judgement of Brent's actions against this employee, and no legal arguments can undo those findings.’

On the same day I wrote a similar email to Cllr. Muhammed Butt, with copy to my Fryent Ward councillors, saying: 

‘What should you do, on Monday morning if it has not already been done before? If Ms Davani has not already resigned or been suspended, you should ensure that the Chief Executive, or the person deputising for her if she is not available, speaks to Ms Davani and insists on her immediate resignation, in the light of the findings of the Tribunal about her actions. While this would treat her misconduct more leniently than she has treated that alleged of others, it would allow her to go immediately, but with payment from Brent for her period of notice, and at least show that the Council is taking the judgement seriously. If Ms Davani refuses to resign, formal misconduct proceedings (including her suspension) would be required, with care being taken that the correct procedures are properly carried out (unlike in Ms Clarke's case).’

As we now know, no disciplinary action was taken then, and I believe there would have been no grounds on which Ms Davani could have claimed “constructive dismissal” if it had been. So (2) why was no disciplinary action taken against Cara Davani in September 2014, when there was clear evidence and findings of fact in the Employment Tribunal judgement to show gross misconduct by her, and who decided that no such action should be taken?

In opposing the motion at Full Council, Cllr. McLennan used Cllr. Pavey’s HR Review and press statements made by the Council that it would not tolerate the sort of behaviour shown by the Rosemarie Clarke case to support her views. Between November 2014 and September 2015 I made a number of attempts to get issues arising from this Employment Tribunal case “on the agenda” at meetings of Scrutiny Committee and Full Council, so that councillors could discuss them openly.

One example was a deputation that I had asked to present to Scrutiny Committee in April 2015, when it was considering the report on Cllr Pavey’s Review, and the draft action plan arising from it. What I hoped to say, so that committee members could question the interim Chief Executive and HR Director (who were present to speak on the report) about it if they wished to, included the following:

·      that the Review was set up to ensure that lessons were learned from the Rosemarie Clarke case;

·      that Cllr. Pavey could not consider that case, as his terms of reference would not allow him to; and,

·      as a result, the Review ignored an important lesson which should have been learned:

‘that even the best HR policies and practices are of little use if they are ignored by the officers who are supposed to follow them.’ 

After referring to guidance issued by Brent’s HR Director, that ‘bullying and harassment will not be tolerated’, and evidence from the Tribunal’s judgement of misconduct by Ms Davani and a total failure by Christine Gilbert to follow Brent’s HR procedures when dismissing a grievance raised by Ms Clarke, my deputation asked:

‘If the Senior Officers responsible for such findings ignore Brent’s HR policies, what example is that setting to the Council’s other staff? The Action Plan is totally undermined, because why should managers bother to put the policies into practice, when those at the top ignore them and get away with it? Even if disciplinary action was taken against more junior staff for policy breaches, they could argue at any hearing that it would be unfair to penalise them, when no action was taken against Brent’s Director of HR for far worse misconduct.’

Scrutiny Committee would not allow me to present that deputation LINK . I think the presence of Cllr. Butt, sitting beside Cara Davani opposite the committee members, may have intimidated them into reaching that decision, but the official reason was advice from the Chief Legal Officer that I should not be allowed to refer to the Rosemarie Clarke case in speaking to the committee, as it ‘had not been fully concluded’.

Although that case was still not fully concluded, Cllr. Muhammed Butt was allowed to issue a statement about it at the end of July 2015. It claimed that he was giving the facts of the Rosemarie Clarke judgement, because of ‘untruths’ that had been written about it, but I responded to him LINK  pointing out that HE was the person trying to misrepresent the Tribunal’s findings. This was another example of him seeking to “protect” Cara Davani, and I invited him to respond to these charges, which he has always tried to ignore LINK . So I ask the Council Leader again (3) why was Cllr. Butt “protecting” Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert when he had known about their misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke case since at least September 2014?

Although we now know, a year later, that Brent paid Cara Davani £157,610, we still do not know the answer to a second point which I tried to raise when rumours of a pay-off emerged in June 2015 LINK . Cara Davani was a separately named respondent in the Employment Tribunal case, and would have been personally liable to pay some of the compensation, damages and costs which the Tribunal was due to award to Rosemarie Clarke. So my final question, to Brent Council, is (4) whether the out-of-court settlement made to settle Rosemarie Clarke's Employment Tribunal claim in September 2015 included any contribution from Ms Davani, or whether Brent Council paid the full amount including any compensation, damages and costs which the Tribunal could have awarded against Ms Davani personally?

I will send a copy of this guest blog to Cllr. Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, and the Council’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs. I will also copy it to the three councillors who spoke in the debate on the motion at Full Council, the Deputy Leader, Margaret McLennan, and the Leaders of the two Conservative groups, John Warren and Reg Colwill. I hope that they will, together, realise that the questions I have highlighted above do still need to be answered, openly and honestly, so that Brent can finally put the Rosemarie Clarke case behind it, and that they, or one of Cllr. Butt or Ms Downs on the Council’s behalf, will issue a public statement answering those questions.

Philip Grant.

Video: Green Party Leader & Deputy Leader Hustings

Voting will be from July 25th until August 25th. All members of the Green Party can vote.
Join or renew membership by July 24th to vote in the leadership elections LINK

10 attempts by minister but still no consistent or coherent UK government definiton of extremism

From Peter Tatchell Foundation

“The government’s planned Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs) are so vague and ill-defined that they are a potential threat to free speech and dissenting opinions. When questioned by the UK parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) on 29 June, the then counter extremism minister, Karen Bradley MP, offered ten different definitions of extremism in just over 60 minutes. The government wants to penalise extremism before it has even agreed what it is. This renders EDOs both anti-democratic and ineffectual. They are not consistent with human rights law,” said Anastasia Kyriacou, the advocacy officer of the Peter Tatchell Foundation.

Watch the video  above of the government minister trying but failing ten times to offer a clear and consistent definition of extremism:

The government has belatedly agreed with demands by the Defend Free Speech campaign for a public consultation on EDOs – although a date and timetable has not yet been set.

Below is a summary of the current state of play on EDOs by Simon Calvert, Campaign Director of the Defend Free Speech campaign.

The Defend Free Speech campaign website: http://defendfreespeech.org.uk

The campaign for free speech human rights is supported by a diverse cross-section of organisations, such as the National Secular Society, Christian Institute, Peter Tatchell Foundation, Big Brother Watch, Index On Censorship, Freedom Association, English Pen, Manifesto Club and Article 19.

Prominent individual supporters include: Caroline Lucas MP, Lord Dear, Mohammed Amin, David Davis MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, Prof Timothy Garton Ash, Fiona Bruce MP and Baroness Jones of Moulescoomb.

Simon Calvert, Campaign Director of the Defend Free Speech campaign, writes:

It was with considerable alarm that we watched the recent evidence session of the then counter extremism minister, Karen Bradley, before Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR).

In a little over an hour, Mrs Bradley put forward no fewer than ten possible definitions of ‘extremism’, including: “The public promotion of an ideology that can lead to greater harms” and “publicly promoting an ideology where the activity they are undertaking is not criminal and does not go beyond reasonable doubt but we know that that activity leads to a hate crime, a terrorist activity, or maybe FGM” (female genital mutilation).

We wrote to the minister to set out our fears. Here’s what we said:

The Defend Free Speech campaign, and many of the groups associated with it, are greatly concerned that the proposed 'civil orders regime' will damage both security and civil liberties. They risk distracting the authorities away from terrorism and violence and into monitoring and punishing legitimate expressions of opinion.

Finding terrorists and their enablers is like finding a needle in a haystack. Forcing the police and security services to operate at the much lower threshold of 'non-violent extremism' will massively increase the range of people and ideas under investigation, thereby making the haystack considerably bigger. Placing millions more people under suspicion is more likely to mask the activities of terrorists than to highlight them.

Your difficulty in articulating a clear, consistent definition of the kind of activity the Government aims to punish via civil orders was very concerning. The Home Office has been working on the issue for well over a year and yet the impression was given that the Government still has no clear idea how to legislate for what it wants to achieve.

Harriet Harman summed up the situation accurately when she told the Committee:

‘Still we don’t know what civil orders are being talked about, we don’t know what the sanctions are likely to be, we don’t know what the definitions are, we have no specificity about the timetable in terms of when the consultation will start, how long it will be. We know there won’t be a draft Bill, but we really are none the wiser about anything else’.

We were grateful that you confirmed that there would be a public consultation. But for the consultation to have any value, and for stakeholders to have a meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome, it must include precise statutory definitions that can then be subjected to scrutiny.

As members of the Committee pointed out, a consultation will be worthless if it does not give the actual wording with which the Government intends to resolve the tension between security and liberty. As it is, the planned consultation looks more a fishing expedition, carried out in the hope that somebody somewhere has a good idea of how this legislation could be drafted.

We concluded our letter by requesting an urgent meeting with the minister, and reassurances of a further consultation when the Home Office can tell the public how it actually plans to legislate in this incredibly sensitive and important area.

As we said quite clearly to the minister, when the matters at stake include terrorism and the fundamental civil liberties of millions, the Home Office cannot simply shrug its shoulders and say ‘we’re not sure what we’re doing’.

The groups backing Defend Free speech wrote to the Home Office back in January requesting a consultation on Extremism Disruption Orders. Having failed to respond for five months, the Government finally conceded the need for such a consultation in the Queen’s Speech in May.