Why Brent should divest its pension fund from fossil fuels

These are notes of the presentation made by Simon Erskine, of the Divest Brent campaign to the Council's Pension Sub-Committee. The comments in small print are there to assist - they were not delivered as part of the presentation.:

1.       INTRODUCTION 

Many thanks for this opportunity to comment, on behalf of Divest Brent, on the Council’s paper on Responsible Investment, with particular reference to climate change. 

2.       COMMENTS ON PROPOSED ACTION: 

In principle we welcome the analysis of the carbon footprint of the Pension Fund portfolio proposed in the Responsible investment paper but have two concerns about this:

·         Firstly there is a danger that this analysis will simply delay any action on protecting the Fund from the inherent risk of fossil fuel investment at a time of transition to a low carbon economy. We think it is therefore crucial that any proposed action should be time-limited – with the shortest possible time-scale.

·         Secondly it needs to be followed up with concrete action. I will argue that engagement is not enough – and the analysis should be a precursor to deciding how best to divest from the investments with the highest carbon footprint.

3.       ENGAGEMENT ISN’T WORKING: 

·         The Council’s policy of “engaging” with fossil fuel companies isn’t working. It has no meaningful benchmarks or timelines, little to show in the way of achievements and no clear escalation strategies for companies that fail to respond.

·         Despite many years of “engagement” not a single major oil company has re-aligned its business model with a 2ºC world. Moreover, there are no precedents for a company changing its core business model following pressure from shareholders.

·         We can provide a more detailed briefing on why engagement does not work for fossil fuel companies.  

4.       OTHER LONDON BOROUGHS WHICH ARE DIVESTING: 

There was talk in the paper of fiduciary duty and the policy of engagement with its fund managers rather than a policy of exclusion or divestment. With regard to climate change, this does not reflect the law or pension regulations as is clear from the number of London Boroughs that have already made a firm commitment to divestment – their pension officers will be as familiar with LGPS and pension fund rules as those in Brent. 

·         Lambeth

·         Southwark

·         Islington

·         Hackney

·         and Tower Hamlets

have all committed to fully divest – a number of other Councils have made partial commitments. All the Councils mentioned have started to divest their funds except for Lambeth which is waiting for the CIV to introduce suitable fossil-free funds to which it can transfer its investments.

5.       POLITICAL BACKGROUND

We understand that the Committee’s main priority is to protect the financial security of the Pension Fund. But particularly given that all the indications are that fossil fuel investments do not provide that security, as I will discuss shortly, I was disappointed that a paper largely about the Pension Fund and climate change should be completely silent on 3 points:

1.       The Council’s 2018 manifesto commitment to divest. (“At every opportunity, redirect our investments into renewable energy projects and carbon-free or carbon neutral technologies” – although this is perhaps ambiguous, Deputy Leader Cllr McLennan confirmed in an email to me of 18.9.18 “we have Divestment as a Manifesto Pledge and we intend to meet all our pledges”)

2.       The recent declaration by the full Council of a Climate and Ecological Emergency which re-iterated this commitment.

3.       Divest Brent has so far amassed well over 1,000 signatures in favour of divestment including those of the Leader of the Council, the Environment Lead and numerous other councillors.

6.       FINANCIAL RISK

As mentioned earlier, we understand that the Committee’s principal concern, quite rightly, is to safeguard the financial security of the Pension Fund in order to protect the pensions of Council staff. The Responsible Investment paper suggests that this means that the Fund should continue to hold on to fossil fuel investments. Our view is the opposite. There are plenty of recent indications that fossil fuel investments have become too risky to safely hold – not only because of the danger of action by governments to reduce burning fossil fuels but also the exponential increase in electric vehicles and renewable energy will seriously impact the market for them. I can provide plenty of evidence for this but time only allows one example now: The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has warned that investors face 'potentially huge' losses from climate change action that could make vast reserves of oil, coal and gas 'literally unburnable'. [East Sussex Briefing for Council on divestment]

7.       CONCLUSION  

In conclusion

·         The Sub-committee should urgently explore, working with other boroughs which have already made a firm commitment to divest, how to set about divesting the Pension Fund for the following reasons:

1.       As I have indicated, the Council’s current preferred option of engagement simply does not work in the context of fossil fuel companies.

2.       There is a body of legal opinion that considers trustees are at risk of being found in breach of their fiduciary duties by notdivesting when the financial risks are clear.

3.       The Council is committed to divestment and, as discussed, this will, if anything, improve the risk-adjusted financial position. The CIV currently has no appropriate funds which can deliver divestment but all the indications are that they are prioritising work to offer such funds so that they can meet the requirements of the boroughs which have already committed to divest as well as the significant number of boroughs which are considering divestment. 

·         While the Council is waiting for appropriate CIV funds to which existing funds can be moved, it should carry out the analysis suggested in the Responsible Investment paper – but an early agreed deadline should be set to ensure that it does not unduly hold back on divestment.

·         In the meantime, if the Council wishes to continue its policy of engagement, pending full divestment, it should set agreed goals for this engagement, as well as deadlines for the action required.

Kicking the 'Culture' out of the London Borough of Culture 2020 - Delipod Hub to close as charges renegotiation fails

 When Brent Council decided to demolish the 1980s Willesden Green Library and sell the car park to a private developer  they renamed its sucessor a 'Library and  Cultural Centre.' In the course of the redevelopment they closed the cinema and denied any space to the well-loved and well-used Willesden Bookshop. The bookshop could not afford the high rent and overheads that would have been demanded by Brent Council even if an adequate space had been made available. The cultural offer was limited by a closure time of 8pm and a demand that any event going on after that time should pay an additional sum for security.

Now the Delipod Hub cafe, on the ground floor of the building, which has been attracting a local following, especially for its Friday night music sessions, has thrown in the towel in after a valiant attempt to keep going.

This is their announcement:

 "With huge regret, next Friday will be our last live music event after which Delipod Hub will be closing, the last day of trading will be Saturday 26th Oct. After rates (which came in much higher than anticipated), rent and service charge there’s not much left and after over a year of trying to renegotiate them, we’ve been unsuccessful. We’d love to go out with a BANG so please come and celebrate our last evening of live music with the fabulous RumBand. Thank you for your custom and support, over the period we’ve been open.

Peter (Billy) & Serena"

24 storey tower at Stonebridge Park station given the go ahead

Still catching up after my break I thought readers would want to know the fate of the application for a 24 storey block to replace the modest 2 storey Argenta House building at Stonebridge station LINK

The plans were passed by a Planning Committee which had an unusual number of substitutions. There was one presentation against the plans by a local resident concerned about residential tower blocks post-Grenfell and in particular evacuation  plans for people with a disability as well as the fact that the station lacked disabled access. There was also concern about the capacity of Stonebridge Station to cope with extra traffic from the Argenta House block along with the nearby Northfields development,

Planning officers made much of the landmark nature of the proposed block and the relationship with the existing high rise Wembley Point and the even higher block planned for Northfields.

 

James Saunders to become top man at Wembley Park developer Quintain

James Saunders

Press release from Quintain (unedited so you can relish the hype!)

Quintain Limited has appointed James Saunders as Chief Executive Officer effective October 21^st, 2019, succeeding Angus Dodd, who is stepping down after serving as CEO since June 2016.

Under Angus’ leadership, Quintain has become a leading vertically integrated developer, operator and owner of BtR (Build to Rent) and mixed-use assets and is responsible for the ongoing transformation of Wembley Park in north-west London.  James, who has served as Chief Operating Officer for the last eight of his twelve years at Quintain, has led on the repositioning of Wembley Park from an event destination to an exciting cultural neighbourhood for London, and takes up his role as the company explores further growth opportunities.

 Olivier Brahin, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Quintain Limited, said:

“On behalf of the board, I would like to thank Angus for leading the transformation of Quintain since he moved from Lone Star in 2016. Thanks to him and the team he has built, the 85-acre site surrounding Wembley Stadium has become one of the largest urban regeneration projects in Europe with over £2 billion invested to date and another £1 billion expected by 2022. 

“I would also like to congratulate James on succeeding Angus.  James has the right mix of experience – both inside and outside the property sector – to continue building on Quintain’s success to date and effect a truly seamless transition.  A former consumer marketing executive, as Quintain COO James created the strategic direction for marketing, communications and place making that has led to dramatic reconsideration of the Wembley Park area.  We look forward to his leadership as Quintain accelerates its development of operating subsidiaries, Tipi, the company’s build-to-rent platform, and Wembley Park, its estate and asset management vehicle.”

Angus Dodd, out-going Chief Executive of Quintain Limited, said:

“I’m very proud of everything we’ve achieved during my time as CEO and I’m pleased that the Board has appointed James, who has played an instrumental role in establishing the firm as a vertically integrated developer operator, to succeed me.  With Quintain poised to accelerate the development of our operating businesses, in addition to our development and regeneration arm, the Board and I have every confidence that James will continue to extend our track record as one of the most innovative real estate developers and operators in the UK.  I wish him and the Quintain team all the best.”

James Saunders, incoming Chief Executive of Quintain Limited, said:

“This is an exciting moment in Quintain’s growth trajectory, and, even more importantly, in the transformation of London.  The most rewarding part of our work is the creation of great places to live, work and visit and the communities we have helped kick start in Wembley Park and beyond as we work hard to expand the range and quality of housing options in the areas where we operate.  I want to thank Angus and the Board for the opportunities to date and I am very excited about working with our great team to realise the growth opportunities ahead.”

ABOUT JAMES SAUNDERS

James has served as a main board director of Quintain Ltd since 2017 and is responsible for place making and estate management at Wembley Park, commercial partnerships, group marketing, IT, and health and safety.

In his role as Chief Operating Officer, James led the repositioning of Wembley Park from an event destination to an exciting new neighbourhood for London. He created the strategic direction for marketing and place making that has led to dramatic reconsideration of the area as an exciting location to live and as a destination for a myriad of leisure and retail outlets. 

Alongside overseeing the Wembley Park estate operations team with responsibility for management of The SSE Arena, Wembley and London Designer Outlet, he also managed key stakeholder and commercial partner relationships including with the GLA, the London Borough of Brent, Wembley Stadium, the FA, AEG and Realm.

Prior to joining Quintain, James was the Chief Marketing Officer at The Cloud Networks, a consultant to Vodafone Europe and Brand Director at Coca-Cola Great Britain.  He holds a Sloan Masters from London Business School and a Law Degree from Cambridge University and is a barrister-at-law. 

Roasting marshmallows & making bug hotels at Welsh Harp Centre October 23rd and 24th

From Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre

Join us at the Welsh Harp Education Centre for a wonderful morning in the woodland roasting marshmallows, making a bug hotel and exploring the woods.

10am-12pm, Wednesday 23^rd and Thursday 24^th October.
£4 per child per activity session.
Limited spaces so book now!

What you need to know for this activity:
 
An adult must attend & supervise children throughout activities.

Places are limited and booking is essential, please contact us to book and also let us know if you need to cancel your booking.

Marshmallows (regular and Halal) and skewers are provided. Please bring vegetarian marshmallows if you wish.

Please pay in cash on the day. £4 per child per activity session.

Activities suitable for children aged 5-11 years. Children aged 4 and under who are not participating in activities are free of charge.

Children and adults should wear comfortable outdoor clothing that may get dirty.
To book, contact Deb Frankiewicz on:
Phone: 07711 701 694
Email: welshharpcentre@thames21.org.uk

Celebrating 100 years of Council housing in Brent

Drawing of new Council houses in a Close, from a 1921 Willesden Council booklet.
[Source: Brent Archives]

Guest post by Philip Grant

Last month, a Brent press release announced that work had begun on 149 new Council homes in Harlesden. It was welcome news, but a drop in the ocean compared with the need for affordable social housing for local people to rent.

Almost a year ago, I added a comment to a blog about the Council’s plans for the St Raphael’s Estate LINK, saying that Brent’s officers did not know their history, as they said that the estate was mainly built between 1967 and 1982. I can now share some more information about that history.

This year is the centenary of the 1919 Housing & Town Planning Act, seen by many as the start of Council housing in this country. In following up a local history enquiry on the subject*, I revisited a document I had seen in the Brent Archives collection a dozen years ago. And yes, Council housing in what is now Brent did begin 100 years ago.

In fact, Willesden Urban District Council had been considering building some homes for rent before the outbreak of the First World War. By November 1918, it had prepared plans for an estate at Stonebridge, an idea which had already been approved by the government under the 1890 Housing of the Working Classes Act.

Although there was the promise of Government subsidies towards the cost of building these homes, the Council had to borrow money first. It asked the Norwich Union Life Assurance company, but they would not make loans for Council housing schemes. In fact, it was a loan of £20,000 from the National Union of Railwaymen which got their first estate started!

The site for “Brent’s” first Council housing estate, at Stonebridge Farm.
[Reproduced from the 1914 edition of the Ordnance Survey 25” to one mile map of Middlesex, Sheet XVI.1]

Work should have begun on the Brentfield Estate (so called after an ancient field name) in 1919. Interference by various government departments, and the need to redraw the plans after it was decided that the proposed North Circular Road would run right through the site, delayed the start until the following year. The Council’s own workforce began building the roads and sewers in February 1920, and the contract for the first phase of the planned 591 houses was signed in May, with work underway by July 1920.

All of the houses on the estate had three bedrooms, and every one included a bath (the larger ones in a separate bathroom!). They each had a garden, and each kitchen was fitted with a cooking range (chosen by a sub-committee of the three women on Willesden’s Housing Committee). Were the rents affordable? After a dispute between the Council (which wanted to charge less) and the London Housing Board, a compromise figure of 12/6 (twelve shillings and sixpence) was agreed.

You can read about the building of the estate, including plans and some pictures, online in a facsimile edition of a Willesden U.D.C. booklet, with an introductory note, “Homes fit for Heroes – Willesden Council’s Brentfield Housing Scheme, at the Brent Archives website LINK . 

The booklet was written for the official handover of the first 65 homes in June 1921. 32 families (chosen from more than 1,000 who had applied) had already moved into the first street to be completed. Priority was given to Willesden ex-servicemen, with families living in the most overcrowded conditions. The handover celebrations took place in the grassy square at the centre of the street, which was pictured in the booklet:-

Drawing of new Council houses in Square, from a 1921 Willesden Council booklet.
[Source: Brent Archives]

It is almost 100 years since local people moved into these first Council homes in what is now Brent. They were designed as good family homes, or as the slogan for the 1919 Housing Act proclaimed “Homes fit for Heroes”. Using information from the time, I have located these first homes, in Mead Plat, and they are still providing decent homes for families today:-

These original houses, in Mead Plat and Garden Way, are now part of the St Raphael’s Estate (the name for the Council housing on the west side of the North Circular Road comes from a Church of England  “mission church”, which opened in Garden Way in 1926). Let’s hope that as many as possible of Brent’s new Council homes will be family houses, with gardens, which will provide decent affordable housing for another century!

Philip Grant

* The local history enquiry that prompted my research came from Cllr. Janice Long, who has a real interest in Council housing. I was able to tell her that the first Council homes in the north of Brent had been Kingsbury U.D.C.’s High Meadow Crescent estate in 1924/25, and Wembley U.D.C.’s Christchurch / Lyon Park estate in the early 1930’s.

Brent Cabinet closes Strathcona School and six Children's Centres

I have been away for a week in Edinbugh and catching up on Monday's Cabinet meeting which I missed. As I feared the Cabinet rejected the Scrutiny Committee's recomendations and rubber-stamped the closure decision - certainly no attempt to move heaven and earth to stop the closure of a great local school.

The Harrow Times reports Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, as repeating his confusion of local government funding cuts with the Direct Schools Grant. It states: 'He criticised cuts from central Government - suggesting that these have forced the council's hand..' Any savings on the DSG expenditure in Brent will be redistibuted to schools (a very small amount per school) and can't be used to fund other council services threatened with cuts.

'TREATED WITH DISDAIN'

Jenny Cooper, joint secretary of Brent NEU said:

It was a sad day for democracy. The council cabinet ignored speakers and our members from Roe Green Strathcona and voted to go ahead and close the school anyway. The school gave rousing, dignified, eloquent and well researched speeches, presenting their arguments and suggestions. It was clear they were the experts in the room. They voiced their utter disgust for the lack of democracy and engagement from the council. The head looked at the councillors and, in a raised voice, sarcastically said "Forward together", underlining the irony of the council's strapline. Community supporters left after the vote to shouts of "nonsense!" and "shame on you, Brent!". Our members and the school have been treated with absolute disdain. Now the fight begins to protect jobs.

-->
At the same meeting the Cabinet approved what amounts to the closure of nearly  half its Children's Centres disguised as the creation of Family Hubs:

Although Mount Stewart, Treetops, Wembley Primary, Welcome/Barham Park, Wykeham and Harmony sites may be used by neighbouring schools or privation/voluntary  provision the unique and essential services offered by Children's Centres will be lost.

Brent Council plans for accommodating higher secondary pupil numbers via academy expansion

It is one of the ironies of Government policy that Labour Brent Council has the duty to provide school places in  the borough but not the means to do so through building its own schools. The bulge that has been moving through primary schools in now entering the secondary sector. Secondary rolls will rise as primary rolls fall.

All Brent secondary schools are now either academies or faith schools, with none under the direct control of the local authority so the Council has to negotiate with them to provide extra places or rely on additional free school provision.

Projected Numbers and Shortfall

The report going to Monday's Cabinet admits that projections are subject to external factors (such as the impact of Brexit) and so plans have some flexibility built in.

It is expected that 6 of the 10 forms of entry required for 2023/24 will be provided by the North Brent School, a free school which will be part of the Wembley Multi-Academy Trust with Wembley High Technology College. The North Brent School will open in September 2020 with four forms of entry on the Wembley High site but will increase to 6 forms of entry when it moves to the former Chancel House site in Neasden Lane in September 2022.

Due to fears that the new school will have a negative impact on other secondary schools in the Neasden area the North Brent School will have a proportion of its admission numbers allocated via proximity to Wembley High.

This leaves a four forms of entry gap for 2023-24 and the report puts forward two unnamed secondary academies for consideration to provide two additional forms of entry.  Four forms of entry at one site is rejected as too risky for one school. Temporary bulge classes, a solution in the primary sector, is rejected as not suitable to the different curriculum provision in secondary schools - pupils move to different specialist rooms rather than being in one classroom. The report claims that the temporary bulge classes would be as expensive to provide as additional permanent expansion.

So who will pay for the expansion? Extract from report LINK

5.0  Financial Implications

5.1  This report includes provision of additional mainstream and SEND secondary school places and approval to allocate capital funding is sought for both. There are two sources of grant funding available for mainstream and SEND school places.

5.2  The estimated cost of the mainstream school places is £31.3m and the SEND school places is £3.8m, making a combined estimated cost for the Secondary School Expansion Programme of £35.1m.

5.3  Capital investment is sought for the whole secondary school programme at £35.1m, noting that the Director of Finance will approve the allocation of capital from this total to individual projects within the programme on production of further detailed information. It is anticipated that this is a maximum total forecast cost, which could be reduced as the programme develops.

5.4  There are two sources of grant funding available for mainstream and SEND school places; Basic Need Capital Grant and Special Provision Capital Grant. Both are provided by Central Government for the provision of school places.

5.5  For the period 2011-2020 the Council has been allocated a total of £164.1m Basic Need Capital. After taking account of actual spend to date and current commitments, there is a balance available to allocate of £27.9m.

5.6  The local authority was allocated a total of £2.8m from the Special Provision Capital Grant specifically for the provision of SEND school places. £1.1m of this funding has been spent and/or committed. The remaining £1.7m is available to be allocated to this programme.

5.7  A total of £29.6m of secured capital grant funding is available. Based on the total estimated cost for this programme this leaves a funding gap of £5.5m.

5.8  In addition to work to reduce the estimated cost, officers have looked at potential additional sources of capital funding. In addition to the secured £29.6m, a further £11.8m may become available through other identified sources. These are capital contributions from council development projects where a portion of the capital receipt must be allocated for education purposes; those sums were previously allocated to school projects but have not yet been secured. Also from a commercial settlement on a live school expansion project. The council may also be allocated additional Basic Need capital from 2021 onwards but this is not confirmed. In the event that costs cannot be reduced and/or additional funding secured, the council would need to fund up to £5.5m.

5.9  It is proposed that all remaining unallocated capital grant is used to fund this programme. It is already known that there will be a requirement for further capital expenditure to provide SEND school places as detailed in the School Place Planning Strategy 2019-23 approved in November 2018. A feasibility study is currently underway for an additional SEND project. Proposals will be brought to Cabinet in the new year which will include proposed funding arrangements. Should requirements in the mainstream primary or secondary sectors change and require capital expenditure this would also create a funding pressure.

5.10  The revenue costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the expanded school buildings once completed will be the responsibility of each school, as will the additional staff and running costs. Mainstream schools are funded from the Schools Block of the DSG via the funding formula, which allocates funds on the basis of the prior year’s pupil numbers so there is a time lag and the Schools Forum may recommend top slicing the block to allocate more funding to support expanding schools. New in-borough SEND places will be funded from the High Needs Block of the DSG, but at lower cost than the likely alternative independent out of borough provisions.

'Various sources' is the answer with quite a lot of uncertainties involved. I am awaiting a reply from Brent Council to the following question:

As these schools are academies and not under local authority control with land and buildings on a long lease to the respective trusts, does capital funding by the authority, coming out of the Council’s budget, mean that the Council will now have a proportional capital interest in the school?  Or is it just added to the Trust’s assets?

Further is there any possibility that the DfE itself could contribute to the capital costs via the EFA?

-->