Brent Council opens consultation on 2017-18 budget: including cuts and council tax rise

Brent Council has issued the following press release on its budget consultation - printed here unedited.

 Six years of cuts by central government to local authority budgets across the UK has meant Brent Council has needed to find new ways to maintain services, with some difficult decisions made along the way.

Despite growing demand for local services from an increasing and ageing population, the funding that Brent Council receives from the Government is set to fall even further.

Rather than cut vital services, which residents rely on, the council is conducting a ten-week consultation on its budget proposals which includes a rise in council tax by 3.99 percent to help plug the gap left by the government's cuts.

"Imagine your household bills went up every year, but your salary kept being cut. You would have to make some tough choices and find new ways to make your money go further," says Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council.

As well as showing how the council plans to raise income to balance the books the budget details spending plans for 2017/18.

Key areas include everything from investment in making Brent cleaner and safer, rubbish and recycling collection, boosting jobs and skills to protecting the vulnerable, increasing council housing, maintaining parks and open spaces and giving every child the best start in life.

"In recent years, we've taken steps to make sure that Brent Council is as efficient and cost-effective as possible. At the same time, we've worked hard to ensure the services that our residents rely on are protected.

"It is vital that the work we do as a Council reflects the priorities of our residents. That's we are asking the people of Brent to tell us what matters to them. I would encourage as many people as possible to visit the website, or join us at their local Brent Connects meetings taking place at the start of next year."

Have your say online by 1 February 2017 or come along to one of the Brent Connects public meetings in January or February 2017.

Views taken at the Willesden and the Kingsbury and Kenton Brent Connects meetings, after the consultation portal has closed, will be added as an appendix to the Cabinet report and considered on Monday 13 February 2017 at the Cabinet meeting.

Full Council will then make a decision on the final budget for 2017/18 on Monday 27 February 2017.

Tory turmoil is bad for Brent democracy

No, I am not remotely sympathetic to the Tory party.

However, I do believe that with 56 of Brent's 63 councillors being Labour we need an effective opposition to provide proper scrutiny of council policy and in particular its multi-million budget. Instead we have 6 Tories who currently have split into two opposing groups and an ineffective lone Lib Dem.

The Kilburn Times LINK reported this week on a claim by Brondesbury Park Tory John Warren that the three Kenton Tories have been de-selected and then followed that up with a claim by Warren's colleague, Joel Davidson, LINK that Warren had publicly sabotaged a deal that could have seen the two Tory groups come together again.

Doubtless Labour will make the most of this at Monday's Council meeting (you can see it from 7pm on livestreaming HERE)

Brent CEO Carolyn Downs  recently warned the Labout Group at an awayday that their internal squabbles were making it very difficult for Council officers to work effectively and there are reports that even within the Cabinet two camps are developing.

Disagreements are inevitable and a little 'creative tension' over policy can be beneficial but disputes in both camps seem to be more about personalities than policy - Brent residents deserve better.

The Cara Davani Saga - objections to Brent’s 2015/16 Accounts to be investigated

Guest blog by Philip Grant
 

In August 2016, Wembley Matters reported that Cllr. John Warren (as a local elector, not as a councillor) had asked Brent’s Auditor to make a Public Interest report about items of expenditure in the Council’s 2015/16 accounts relating to Cara Davani and the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case. LINK  I added a comment to that blog, saying that I had also exercised my right to object to those accounts, and I understand that there were four other Brent electors who objected, with five of the six objections relating to Brent’s £157,610 pay-off in June 2015 to its former HR Director, Cara Davani, and related matters.

I know that a number of interested readers may be wondering “what has happened about this?” Until a few days ago, the answer appeared to be “not very much”, but in the past few days I have received a letter from the Auditor at Messrs KPMG, so can now give you an update. The letter was marked “Private and Confidential”, so I will not attach a copy, but as some of the points are already in the public domain, and others are just an outline of procedure, I am happy that I can share the following information with you.

The Auditor wrote on 14 November to formally accept that my objection of 10 August was validly made under section 27 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. The letter confirmed that I had set out a case which could give grounds for the Auditor to apply to the Court for a declaration that Brent Council made unlawful payments during 2015/16 in respect of: 

a) A proportion of the total amount paid by the Council in the out-of-court settlement of the Rosemarie Clarke case, which should have been the personal liability of the second respondent in that case, Cara Davani (the Council’s former HR Director). 

b) A proportion of the Council’s legal costs (both external and internal) in the Rosemarie Clarke case which should have been recharged to, and paid by, Cara Davani personally, as a separate respondent in that case. 

c) The whole of the £157,610 “compensation for loss of office” paid to Cara Davani, and shown as part of the Senior Employees’ Remuneration to ‘Human Resources Director (to June 2015)’ at Note 30 to the Council’s draft accounts. 

d) The whole of any amount paid around June 2015 as an “Exit Package” to Andrew Potts, the Council’s former Principal Lawyer (Employment and Education) or similar title, which is included in the amounts for either ‘compulsory redundancies’ or ‘other departures agreed’ at Note 32 to the Council’s draft accounts.

The Auditor also accepted that, if his enquiries led him to the view that these payments were not unlawful, I had validly requested that he should issue a public interest report in relation to matters a) and c) above.

The Auditor’s letter also set out how his firm’s enquiries would proceed, in respect of my objection (and other valid objections) to Brent’s 2015/16 accounts, saying they would now:

■ ask the Council for their response to the objection;

■ ask the Council for documents relevant to the objection;

■ collect the documents that we think will help me make a decision about the objection; 

■ give you and the Council the opportunity to make further comments on the objection;

■ make any further enquiries we consider to be appropriate;

■ if appropriate, tell you and the Council our provisional findings and views; and

■ decide the objection.

The letter concludes by saying:

‘While this marks the start of the formal objection process, we encourage you and the Council to discuss the issues raised to see whether you can come to an agreement. Please also note that you are free to withdraw your objection at any time.’

Readers who have followed this saga will realise that I am unlikely to withdraw my objection without seeing convincing evidence that the payments involved were properly made. I would, however, be willing to discuss these issues with the Chief Executive / Chief Finance Officer of Brent Council, if they are willing to make available (“in confidence”, if necessary) the information and documents needed to ensure that any such discussion could be meaningful.

I am aware that Cllr. Warren has received a similar letter from the Auditor in respect of his objection, but I do not know whether any of the other three local electors who also sent objections to payments made by Brent to, or on behalf of, Cara Davani have also heard from Messrs KPMG. It would make sense if the local residents involved could co-ordinate their dealings with Brent Council (if there are to be discussions). If you are one of those objectors, please contact me (via Martin, if necessary, see email address under “Guest Blogs” in right-hand column), or at least put a comment with your views below. Thank you.

Philip Grant

Refinancing agreed for Quintain for further development of Wembley Park

From the Financial Times
 

London developer Quintain has agreed a new £800m corporate development facility following its acquisition by Lone Star Real Estate Fund IV in September last year.

Wells Fargo, AIG and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) three of the biggest global, institutional lenders, have agreed to provide a five-year corporate development facility to Quintain to support the transformation and further development of Wembley Park.

The loan also refinances the existing £425m facility provided by Wells Fargo to support the acquisition of Quintain by Lone Star.

The revolving senior loan, led by Wells Fargo as Agent, and AIG and Wells Fargo as Co-Arrangers, combined with a 36-month availability period under the junior facility, provided by CPPIB, is innovatively structured to offer operational flexibility for Quintain to recycle capital efficiently from non-core assets into the Wembley Park Masterplan.

The refinancing follows approval in May from Brent Council for a new Masterplan for Wembley Park, which aims to transform Wembley Park from a world class events destination into a thriving London neighbourhood, with an exciting combination of new homes, iconic venues, great shops, public spaces and workspaces. 

Quintain’s plans will deliver almost half of Brent Council’s target for new homes delivery as well as 1 million sq ft of new, high quality offices and workspaces which will create the opportunity for more than 7,000 new jobs. The development also features a significant upgrade to the famous Olympic Way (known as “Wembley Way” to football fans) and a new seven‐acre park, equivalent in size to four Wembley football pitches.

London MPs' Expenses revealed

Last minute deferral of Harrow School's application to build on Metropolitan Open Land

At yesterday's Harrow Planning Committee it at first appeared that the Harrow School's Planning Application to build on Metropolitan Open Land had been successful.

The Committee was tied 3-3 on a motion refusing the planning application and then the Chair, Keith Ferry, used his casting vote against the motion.  The Committee had received a petition from Harrow Hill Trust of 1,500 signatories against the proposal and a letter from Gareth Thomas MP.

Then in a surprise move Labour councillor Barry Kendler, who had opposed aspects of this particular build but was not against building on Metropolitan Open Land as such, moved a motion to defer.

Kendler had not liked the design and raised issues including the colour scheme of bricks, style, position (ie red brick, not grey slabs, on to brown site or slightly moved to see more of skyline views, etc).  The chair had indicated that would be a matter of negotiation later and not part of this decision.  Cllr Kendler said that if resolution of these planning aspects were not included in the planning decision he was not certain he could rely on Harrow School's goodwill.  He moved the motion to defer and all six councillors voted for it with the Chair against.

The Harrow School representatives, who were by far the biggest group at the meeting, conferred outside and were described by one onlooker as 'looking very serious'.

An opponent of the scheme said after the meeting:

So we live to partly fight another day, especially if Sadiq Khan makes more of the fact that Metropolitan Open Land (ie like green belt) is still allowed to be exchanged for a piece of school land they don't want to use!  The large new build will certainly make a major difference to the historic view of Harrow Church/School. 

A spokesperson for Harrow Hill Trust said:

The Harrow Hill Trust was not happy with the content of the planning officer's report on the scheme and they will continue to fight the case and to promote a brownfield option instead. Interested parties can go to www.harrowhilltrust.org.uk and click through to the petition where a wealth of information is provided including contact emails and phone numbers for the Labour Councillors who are all that is stopping this application from being refused. Lobbying would be appreciated.

Author's talk 'Are my roots showing?' Friday at Preston Community Library

Further response from Brent Council on Ealing Road Library consultation complaints

The proposed design

Alice Lester, Brent Council's Head of Planning, Transport and Licensing, Regeneration and Environment, has responded to the resident's request for wider consultation posted earlier LINK

I can see that this application is generating a lot of local interest. We do want people to have the chance to comment, so although we have already written to 35 properties around the library about the proposals, we will send out more letters to the streets outlined in your email. This date on the site notice has also been amended (although as I said, comments will be taken into account and reported to committee if they are received beforehand).

My colleagues who are responsible for submitting the planning application are going to arrange a local meeting to explain the proposals. A date is just being arranged; if the details aren’t included in the notification letter mentioned above, then you will be notified separately.

The impact of the proposal on parking/traffic will be part of the assessment of the application but clearly any comments you and others have on this as part of your responses will be helpful.