Thursday, 11 February 2021
Brent Trades Council Meeting: "Toward Zero Covid: a campaign to beat the pandemic in Brent" - Wednesday February 24th
Cladding: Help or Betrayal?
Before Robert Jenrick's announcement yesterday on cladding, local #EndOurCladdingScandal campaigner Lucie Gutfreund asked on Twitter whether it would be 'Help or betrayal?'
For many it looks like betrayal for those living in blocks of under 18 metres in height who will be faced with 50-60 year loans to pay for remedial works.
Lucie said on Twitter:
Apart from the cost not being affordable, what is important to also raise is that the £50/mth loan for 30-60 years will make their homes devalued and unsaleable and wipe out the leaseholders' equity if they need to sell their home, and many do need to!
She said she felt disgusted by Jenrick's treatment of leaseholders and his brazen claim that he understands the plight of leaseholders.
Cllr Shama Tatler, Brent Council Lead Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning tweeted:
The government announcement is simply not good enough. Leaseholders should not bear the costs.
The monies made available for higher blocks is only for cladding and not for the many other safety faults that have been found including lack of fire breaks, cavity wall insulation and of course the cost of waking watches.
The Fire Brigade general secretary Matt Wrack said:
From the very start, firefighters and residents have warned that the building safety crisis goes far beyond the flammable cladding that was on Grenfell Tower.
This funding falls far short of the estimated £15bn needed to end the crisis. The government’s piecemeal and patchwork approach – designed to shield itself from responsibility – is wreaking havoc on the lives of millions of innocent people.
The government has sent a clear message that it cares more about their friends and donors in the housing and construction industry than residents trapped in dangerous buildings below 18m or the tens of thousands more with other serious fire safety defects.
A number of new build residential blocks across Brent are affected along with student accommodation in Wembley Park. Forum House owners have been told by First Port that assessors have found it is eligible for funding for remediation work including render finishes and insulation layers as well as ACM cladding.
Quadrant Houseowners have been told that the report by an independent engineer found that the building can only be granted a B2 EWS form at present which would not satisfy mortgage lenders. Further remediation work may be needed on the external wall in order to gain a full EWS form acceptable to them. Meanwhile the engineer has said further fire alarm installations and a waking watch are not required.
Wednesday, 10 February 2021
Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals – a “dodgy deal” behind the scenes?
Guest blog, by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:
A year ago, I wrote a guest blog which urged readers to go and see three tile mural scenes at Olympic Way in Wembley Park while they still had the opportunity. This also highlighted the possibility, mentioned in an email I had received from Quintain, that the “footballers” mural scene in the subway might still be covered up on occasions.
The “footballers” mural last week (on my way to get
first Covid-19 jab!)
I raised that question in an email to Brent’s Chief Executive and Council Leader on 16 February 2020, saying:
‘This "footballers" mural was meant to have been put back on permanent public display last autumn. The prospect of it being covered over with adverts again, particularly when England are playing at Wembley Stadium during the UEFA 2020 tournament, should be unthinkable!
I hope that Brent Council will do all within its power to ensure that the "footballers" mural, which includes the plaque unveiled by Bobby Moore's widow in September 1993, remains uncovered, particularly during England's UEFA 2020 matches at the Stadium this summer.’
A letter from Carolyn Downs on 2 March told me that 'the lease does provide Wembley Park with the scope to cover the footballers mural with advertisement dressing at certain points during the year, should a commercial opportunity arise.' I responded by telling her that although the lease might say that, the 2019 advertising consent did not allow the footballers mural to be covered.
Ms Downs passed my reply to the Council’s Operational Director (Regeneration, Growth and Employment) to deal with. I explained in detail to this officer why the various planning and advertisement consent decisions did not allow adverts over the footballers mural. Her response was curt:
‘We have already set out our position on this. We disagree. I do not therefore intend to continue this dialogue.’
By that stage (23 March 2020) the country had just gone into its first Covid-19 pandemic “lockdown”. I decided not to raise a formal complaint, as Brent’s Chief Executive had more important things to deal with. I put this issue “on hold”, saying:
‘'I will not pursue the point in this correspondence now, but may return to it once we are through the current emergency.'
One of the reasons why I have been campaigning, with fellow Wembley History Society members and others, to get all of the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals put back on permanent public display is this. They are a colourful celebration of Wembley’s sporting and entertainment heritage, specially installed in 1993 as a work of public art welcoming visitors to Wembley Park.
2023 will mark the centenary of Wembley Stadium, and the 75th anniversary of the 1948 London Olympic Games, for which Olympic Way was constructed. What better way to mark those milestones than to let residents and visitors enjoy those murals again? After all, the Council had (finally!) recognised the importance of ‘the heritage tiles at Wembley Park’s Bobby Moore Bridge’ at the start of Brent’s year as London Borough of Culture 2020, saying:
‘The tiles, which show scenes from famous sports and entertainment events at Wembley Stadium and the SSE Arena, Wembley, are part of Brent’s rich heritage and date back to September 1993 when they were originally dedicated to the legendary footballer.’
Cllr. Butt, the Mayor and other
guests at the LBOC 2020 tile murals reveal, 18 January 2020.
[Photo by Francis Waddington]
I was hoping to persuade Brent’s Cabinet, when the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease came up for renewal later this year, to consider the option of only allowing advertising on the large display panels on the bridge parapets. This would give the opportunity to remove the light boxes currently covering most of the mural scenes in the subway, possibly using some of the CIL funds which the Council is sitting on to fund that work.
I wrote to Brent’s Chief Executive on 4 January, setting out my suggestions for how the Council could go about this, so that Cabinet members could be given a choice of options when the lease came up for renewal in 2021. You can imagine my surprise, and disappointment, when I received the this reply from Ms Downs the following day:
‘The lease for Bobby Moore Bridge was recommended for a three year extension from 30 August 2021 and expires on 30 August 2024. This was completed in November 2019 after market appraisal was carried out by an independent advertising consultant who recommended the lease extension on the basis of market conditions at the time and the leaseholder’s ambitions to refurbish the area and upgrade the panels to digital screens.’
It didn’t appear that the Cabinet had approved this, so how did it come about, who authorised the lease extension, and what authority did they have to do so? I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request, and while I have yet to receive all the items I asked for, I have received redacted copies of three documents.
One document is a “Delegated Authority Report”, prepared by Brent’s Property Services team. Addressed to the Operational Director (Property and Assets), it includes the claim:
‘The Borough Solicitor has confirmed that pursuant to the Council’s New Constitution Part 4, paragraph 4.3 you have the delegated authority to approve of this letting.’
[The Borough Solicitor? – Were they using a very old template?] I have yet to receive the supporting evidence for that claim, so cannot comment yet on whether the approval of the lease extension was valid. I would mention, however, that the section of Brent’s Constitution included in the Report to justify that authority begins with the words: ‘Only the Strategic Director Resources may acquire or dispose of an interest in land or buildings’!
The Deed of Variation itself raised the biggest concern, particularly one new clause which it added to the terms of the original lease. I apologise for the poor quality of this copy of it, but this is the best I could prepare from the document supplied to me:
The new clause 10.3 in the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease.
The “Tile Mural” that this clause applies to is ‘the 9.4 metre tile football mural on the east side of the walls under the Bridge’. In other words, the “footballers” mural that was supposed to be put back on permanent public display in 2019! Yet here in an agreement entered into by Brent Council they are saying that ‘the Tenant’ (Quintain’s Wembley Park Ltd subsidiary) is entitled to cover it up, on many “event days” during the year, up until August 2024.
I have written to Carolyn Downs, and Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, to tell them that this clause in the lease is unlawful.
‘It purports to entitle the Tenant to cover 'the Tile Mural' on a substantial number of days of each year.
However, on 28 November 2019, when the Deed was signed, it was already
the case that the Tenant's advertising consent did not include
consent to cover that "Footballers" mural scene with advertisements.
That clause is therefore invalid or void, because it purports to give an
entitlement which at the time was, and still is, unlawful.
Alternatively, if that clause is considered valid, it is inoperable, because the Tenant does not have the Necessary Consent, required by the lease, to cover that mural with advertisements.
This is a legal matter which needs to be resolved now, before the resumption of events at Wembley Stadium which may lead Quintain / Wembley Park Ltd to unlawfully arrange for advertising which covers that mural, in the false belief that the lease entitles them to do so.’
I will ask Martin to include my “legal argument” document at the end of this
article, if possible, so that it is in the public domain and anyone can read,
and refer to it, if they wish to do so. If
you are studying law, you might like to use it as a practical exercise, to see
what you think of the merits of Brent’s case and my answer to it. If you do
that, please feel free to give your “legal opinion” as a comment below!
I have issued my challenge to Brent over this issue (politely and respectfully, of course):
‘I would ask you, please, to ensure that the position I have set out in the attached document is examined promptly by the Council's legal officers; and that if I am wrong, they explain to me why that is so.
If I am correct, as I strongly believe that I am, then they should acknowledge this, and take action to ensure that Quintain / Wembley Park Ltd is informed that they are NOT entitled to display advertisements covering the "Footballers" mural on the east wall of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway.’
One positive variation of the lease, introduced by the November 2019 Deed, was
clause 10.4. This dealt with the “Tiling on East Wall” of Olympic Way, the
three mural scenes showing American Football, Rugby League and Ice Hockey which
were “revealed” for a few weeks in January and February 2020. It gave ‘the
Landlord’ (Brent Council) the right to request that these be revealed (that is,
put back on public display) for up to 21 days each calendar year.
The East Wall tile murals at Olympic Way, February 2020. [Photo by Mark Price]
I have written to ask whether Brent has made a request for these mural scenes to be “revealed” for three weeks during 2021, and if so, between which dates. You can be sure that if I get news of them being on public display, I will let you know!
For the moment, though, I want to make sure that the one mural scene our efforts over the past three years have managed to get put back on permanent public display, is not unlawfully covered up. And unlawfully covered up by a deal that was concealed from public scrutiny.
Philip Grant.
The Legal Argument (Click bottom right for full page version)
Tuesday, 9 February 2021
Northwick Park Pavilion Covid19 Test Centre opened today - for those with symptoms
A new walk-through coronavirus testing facility has opened for those with symptoms to book appointments at Northwick Park Pavilion in Brent, as part of the Government’s UK-wide drive to continue to improve the accessibility of coronavirus testing for local communities.
Testing at this site is only available for those with coronavirus symptoms – a high temperature, a new continuous cough, or a loss or change to your sense of smell or taste. Anyone with one or more of these symptoms should book a test at nhs.uk/coronavirus or by calling 119. The government is committed to continue expanding the capacity of the network of UK test sites and laboratories to make it even easier to get tested and reduce the time it takes to receive test results.
The new site is situated so it is easily accessible without a car. Those being tested will be required to follow public health measures, including social distancing, not travelling by taxi or public transport, practicing good personal hygiene and wearing a face covering throughout, including while travelling to and from the testing centre.
Anyone attending an appointment at a walk-through test site will be provided with guidance on getting to and from the test site safely, with additional support for vulnerable groups and people with disabilities.
Testing at the new site started today, Tuesday 9 February, with appointments made available each day.
Barnhill Election Petition goes to the High Court on February 19th
More than a year after the Barnhill ward by-election a court hearing in relation to the Election Petition submitted by Stefan Voloseniuc and Kanta Mistry (Conservative candidates) is listed to take place on the morning of February 19th at a time not before 10.30am at the Royal Courts of Justice, in the Strand,
Carolyn Downs, Brent Returning Officer, has applied to the Court to request that the Election Petition be determined by special case and to effectively approve the outcome of the by-election. The application will be considered by two High Court judges in the Queens Bench Division of the High Court on the morning of February 19th.
A recount of the by-election took place at the Royal Courts of Justice on July 16th 2020 and the provisional result of that recount cannot at present be divulged.
The Defendants in the case are Carolyn Downs (Returning Officer) and Mansoor Akram and Gaynor Lloyd the Labour candidates who were declared the winners of the by-election and are currently sitting as councillors for Barnhill ward, alongside Shafique Choudhary.
The by-election was caused by the resignations of Labour councillors Michael Pavey (former Deputy Leader) and Sarah Marquis (former Chair of the Planning Committee).
Declaration of interest I was one of the Green Party candidates in the by-election (the other was Peter Murry). We are not parties to the petition.
Monday, 8 February 2021
Brent Council Cabinet agrees Budget and Borough Plan
This morning's Brent Council Cabinet agreed the Budget which now goers forward for ratification at the Council Meeting on February 22nd.
The far-reaching Borough Plan was approved without any discussion other than an introduction. This will also go to Full Council on February 22nd.
The Draft Borough Plan is below (click bottom right for full page version):
Sunday, 7 February 2021
Only 10% of on-line respondents agree with Brent's budget proposals as Council Tax rises by 5.99%, but to be fair only 29 people responded!
A key table from the on-line consultation
Tomorrow morning's Cabinet meeting will approve the budget proposals set out earlier which includes an overall Council Tax rise of 5.99% and £15.1m cuts.
Council Tax
GLA Precept
In theory the budget is not approved until it goes to a full council meeting but in effect it will be approved tomorrow as Labour hold 94% of Brent Council seats and most Labour members won't say 'Boo to a butt.'
Usually the three person Conservative opposition fail to put forward anything like a fully costed alternative budget. This will be the first time the lone Liberal Democrat will have contibuted to a budget debate.
Often the debate turns into a fairly predictable political dogfight with initial grandstanding by the Council leader degenerating into political point scoring as if he is on the national stage - which is where he wants to be, of course.
The interests of residents get lost in the sound and fury.
Much will be made of the fact of consultation - a Scrutiny Task Force, Audit and Standards Committee, two virtual Brent Connects Meeting and an on-0nline consultation but the Report by Minish Patel, airily states:
Having considered the various comments made, including through the consultation, scrutiny and equalities processes, officers have been instructed to proceed with the budget proposals as previously set out.
It's not entirely clear who did the considering and who issued the instruction.
The fact that 59% of the on-line respondents disgreed with the budget proposals makes no difference and might explain why so few take part. Even if more did, the Council has things covered:
Comments and feedback on the budget consultation demonstrates a wide range of views, many common viewpoints and emphasises the fact that Brent residents are concerned over what the expenditure reductions mean not only for them but also for the wider community.
And anyway:
All of these consultation responses are important. Members need to have regard to them, but are not obliged to follow the suggestions made. It is relevant to note that the consultees are, statistically speaking, “self-selecting” and therefore not necessarily reflective of opinion in the borough as a whole, nor are they necessarily statistically significant.
Although...
On the other hand, the people who have responded have chosen to take the time to review the Council’s proposals and to contribute their thoughts, and often their views will be representative of the views of a much larger number of people.
Notice that individual councillors and backbenchers are not mentioned in the list of consultees - that would have happened at a Labour Group meeting behind closed doors with attendees instructed not to leak to blog writers.
Concern over the plight of residents faced with another increase in their Council Tax is addressed in this paragraph:
While it is acknowledged that increasing Council Tax will be difficult for some households, it should also be recognised that the Council continues to invest in the Council Tax Support scheme, which provides over £30m of support for around 28,000 households who are financially vulnerable. In addition, the Spending Review announced £670m of new funding in recognition of the increased costs of providing local council tax support. Brent’s share of this has been confirmed as £4m and will be used to support economically vulnerable people and households in the borough.
Suggestions are made each year that the Council should use some ots reserves to fund basic services rather than increase the Council Tax. Finance Officers address the issue of reserves in this section of the report:
Brent held total reserves of £398m as at 31 March 2020. On the face of it this would appear to be a high figure, but the following analysis shows that in practice the figure for all practical purposes is substantially lower. £264m (66%) of these reserves are for the funding of the Council’s ambitious capital programme. £30m (8%) is legally ring fenced for bodies such as our maintained schools and the Housing Revenue Account. £69m (17%) of reserves have been earmarked for a specific purpose or future expenditure commitment. This includes reserves managed by departments (for example unspent government grants with ring fenced commitments set aside to meet expenditure pressures) and reserves used to smooth out expenditure that by its nature will vary considerably from year to year and avoid uncontrollable under and over spends, for example insurance claims, PFI contracts, redundancy and pension costs. £21m (5%) are reserves that are earmarked to manage the future funding risks and it was primarily set aside to manage the potential impact of the Fair Funding Review. As a result of the impact of COVID-19, this reserve may be required to manage any one off pressures arising that cannot be met through the growth built into the budget, as set out in section 5.16. Finally, £15m (4%) is a general reserve which is held as a contingency against unforeseen events (for example unexpected in-year overspends, failure to identify sufficient savings to balance the budget in-year or future funding risks) and to ensure that the Council has sufficient funds available to meet its cash flow requirements. The general reserve is relatively low when compared to other London Boroughs and is only c5% of the Council’s net budget.
The Cabinet Meeting is on Monday February 8th at 10am and can be viewed via this LINK
Details of the savings (cuts?) and other documents can be found HERE