Friday, 13 August 2021

Will Brent Cabinet decide to set up its own review of Euro2020 Final disturbances and security breaches?

 

A month ago Brent Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee decided to recommend that the Brent Cabinet set up an internal inquiry, open to the public, into the disturbances and security breaches at the Euro2020 Final at Wembley Stadium. LINK  (The precise working is not available  as the Minutes of the meeting have not yet been published.)

The recommendation was not tabled at the subsequent Cabinet meeting but references from the Council's Scrutiny Committees are on the agenda for Monday's 10am Cabinet meeting. No reports are attached to the item.

The Brent CEO made a statement shortly after the Final but Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt was silent until the Football Association set up its own review. He welcomed the review in a statement on the Council website but did not mention any independent Brent Council review:

We welcome the independent review, announced by the FA, to get to the bottom of the scenes we saw at the EURO 2020 Final. It is important that a full and thorough review takes place and that any lessons that can be taken from the events of the England v Italy game are learnt.

The council will be fully participating in that review and will take on board any recommendations Baroness Casey has for activities under our remit.

Clearly there is a difference between participating in another organisation's review and carrying out your own. Cllr Roxanne Mashari, chair of the Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, recognised this in her own tweet after the FA's announcement:

Promising to see the FA announce an independently chaired review of security breaches at Wembley Stadium. Essential that this review includes Brent Council who have yet to commit to reviewing their own actions and producing a report on lessons learned.

Community Raphs' welcome decision not to redevelop the estate


 

The group St Rapahels Estate Community (Community Raphs')  have welcome Brent Council's decision not to redevelop the St Raphael's estate which is situated between the River Brent and Norfth Circular Road:

 

We at Community Raph’s are delighted with the news that Brent Council has decided to back down on the redevelopment options for St Raphael estate.

 

 We are privileged & thankful to be working with Ash (Architects For Social Housing) from 2019 to this present day, together we have helped produced a detailed report to highlight that infill with refurbishment is financially viable, socially beneficial & environmentally sustainable. This report was sent to the Chief Executive, Brent councilors, Mayor’s office and relevant parties.

 

We believe this report to have an impact on this announcement.

 

We at Community Raphs are proud to have helped support some quarters of the estate mental wellbeing, created by the lack of transparency, honesty, respect by the official bodies of brent, & more so the thought of losing their homes & community.

 

We have worked hard to highlight our plight to outside bodies like Ash and the wider community.

 

Moving on we must have proper engagement, transparency and clarity at every stage of this infill + (refurbishment) project. Despite this announcement our work is not done, we feel there are a few things that needs to be ironed out.


Thursday, 12 August 2021

1 Morland Gardens – when (if ever) will Brent’s redevelopment happen?

 

The Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, currently the “Brent Start” college. (Photo by Irina Porter)

 

Guest post by Philip Grant (in a personal capacity)

 

Over the past eighteen months, I’ve written a number of guest posts about Brent’s plans to demolish “Altamira”, this beautiful locally listed Victorian villa in Stonebridge, in order to redevelop the site. In June, I reported that their plans had been delayed, because Council officers had not carried out legal requirements, to build out over the highway and community garden in front of the property, which they’d been advised (in December 2018!) were necessary.

 

On 11 August 2021, notice was given of a Key Decision, made by the Strategic Director (Regeneration and Environment). Authority was given (subject to call-in) to re-tender for the Design & Build Contract for 1 Morland Gardens. 

 

I’m not sure what the “design” side of this is about, as it was a very detailed design which was approved by Brent’s Planning Committee (despite strong grounds for objection to the proposed scheme) a year ago! The design, by architects Curl la Tourelle Head, even won an award in September 2020 (after being nominated for it by Brent Council).

 

The award-winning design for the new 1 Morland Gardens building (with an added observation).

 

The Report on which the Key Decision was based makes interesting reading. The reason why Brent’s Property and Assets team need authority to re-tender for the contract is because they received no bids, after they invited tenders in February 2021 (via a one-stage mini-competition under the Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) Contractor Framework agreement). Following feedback from potential contractors, they have now recommended ‘re-use of the existing NHG framework and re-tender under a two-stage D&B contract.’

 

The first stage would be a Pre-Construction Services Agreement (“PCSA”), under which the contractor would design the project, and at the same time come up with an overall fixed price for which they would carry out the whole construction project. If that price is within the Council’s budget for the project, the second (build) stage would be awarded to them, to carry out the work.

 

This approach does come with some risks. The report doesn’t mention the risk that none of the contractors invited to bid might decline to do so. It does say: ‘The main risk of a two-stage D&B process is that the contractor may not stay within the budget so the Council has to re-procure an alternative contractor.’ But if the first contractor can’t build what the Council wants for the price they are prepared to pay, what chance is there of finding another contractor who will?

 

How much is the budget? The Report says: ‘The Morland Gardens project budget was approved by Cabinet on 14 January 2020. The total project budget is £43m of which £41.5m was assigned for the redevelopment of the Morland Gardens site…. The pre-tender estimate for the redevelopment works of £39,820,380 is within this budget.’

 

But when Cabinet approved the scheme in January 2020, the Report to that meeting said: ‘Current estimates of build cost (excluding decant) are up to £42m.’ Have building costs gone down, not up in the past 20 months?*

 

One indication is that the estimated cost (in the January 2020 Report to Cabinet) of the building work needed at the Stonebridge Annexe, to prepare it as a temporary home for Brent Start while the redevelopment is carried out, was £500k. When the contract for that work was awarded towards the end of 2020, the cost had risen to £1.2m.

 

When Brent’s Cabinet approved the 1 Morland Gardens project in January 2020, they were told that work was likely to begin on site in September 2020, and that work should be completed by July 2022. Now, IF any acceptable bid is received under the re-tender exercise, the first stage of a contract is due to begin in November 2021. 

 

If that goes successfully, and a price within budget is proposed by May 2022, work on site is expected to begin in July 2022, and take two years to complete. So, that’s when Brent’s redevelopment might happen. 

 

Although, given Brent’s history of errors over this project since 2018, it might not.

 

Philip Grant.

 

*[Forecasts published by the RICS suggest a rise in tender prices of around 6.5% between the first quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2022.]

 

Wembley High Road/Ealing Road closure after fire - AVOID AREA

 From Brent Police

 Please be aware there are road closures in WEMBLEY HIGH ROAD / EALING ROAD due to a fire, there are no serious casualties, road closures will likely be in place till 7PM tonight while we make the area safe, please avoid the area as there will be an increase of traffic.


 

Will Brent Council Council's vital services to residents be improved by these proposals going to Cabinet on Monday?

 

A process with major repercussions for the future of basic services provided to residents and worth millions of pounds will be discussed at Brent Cabinet on Monday.

Brent Council synchronised the end dates of various Public Realm contracts so as to enable the Council to consider ways of Redefining Local Services (RSL). Of the contracts above the Veolia contract is the most costly.

Following an initial consultation over the provision of local servives the Council proposes to adopt a 'specialist contracts delivery model with low to moderate levels of insourcing [the council providing the service rather than external contractors].' 

This is a lower level of insourcing that some Labour councillors hoped for. Insourcing would involve TUPE from existing providers.


 The objectives of RSL are listed:

The Final RLS Delivery Model will aim to achieve the following overarching objectives: 

 
· A neighbourhood approach to managing local issues to meet the needs of local areas
· A borough-wide approach to managing our assets and infrastructure (e.g. highways, street lighting) to ensure investment is spent well
· A specialist contracts approach for outsourced services
· Improved contract management and monitoring for contracted services
· An intelligence-led approach to the deployment of resources
· Integrated deployment of environmental enforcement services across public realm
· Greater responsiveness to addressing issues and problems in the public realm
· Better digital customer interface with real-time information and issue reporting
· Additional council capacity for continuous service improvement and innovation
· Focusing specialist officers where they can add the greatest value, with more triaging between generalist and specialist roles
· Deliver improved Social Value outcomes via our Social and Ethical Procurement Policy, including: striving for carbon neutrality by 2030 and enhancing nature and biodiversity; the number of local jobs created (where appropriate for the contract), including focus on disadvantaged groups; and the number of SMEs and third sector organisations that benefit from the procurement exercises.

 The service benefits are set out:

The Final RLS Delivery Model offers the following service benefits:


· Ongoing funding for the highways reactive maintenance gang based at the Depot, tasked with 20% of reactive highways repairs which arise from customer reports, in order to provide a more flexible and responsive service than the current highways services contract. No additional cost as this has already been funded from within R & E budgets). 


· Insourcing the Education, Communication and Outreach (ECO) team (6 staff) would give the Council direct responsibility for communication, education and outreach to help address our considerable waste, climate emergency and circular economy objectives and challenges. 3 of these staff are already on LGPS with the additional cost of insourcing estimated at £52k per annum. 


· Insourcing the Head Park Warden and 4 Park Wardens would enable better integration of education and enforcement across the whole public realm in Brent. It would also enable a more strategic and holistic approach to stakeholder management and community engagement of park interest groups and park users and help to increase participation and volunteering in parks. All these staff are on existing LGPS via an Admission Agreement with the Council but there would be additional cost estimated at £26k per annum to cover Brent’s higher employers’ pension contribution (35% compared to Veolia’s 20%). 


· The Pre-Notice to Owner (NTO) Correspondence work-stream (informal parking appeals) could be incorporated back into the larger Parking back-office Notice Processing Team (formal parking appeals). The addition of these two individuals would be absorbed within the structure without any need to change either structure or management capacity. The additional cost of insourcing is estimated at £32k per annum. There has historically been discomfort that outsourcing this function results in a situation where the contractor is in effect "marking its own homework” as it is issuing the PCNs and then answering the challenges to those same PCNs. Moving this service back in house could provide: 


‒ Greater transparency on the activities of the contractor
‒ More control on how policy is applied to the cancellation of PCNs
‒ Improved quality of Pre-NTO correspondence
‒ Greater consistency between Pre and Post NTO communications with
customers
‒ Greater flexibility across the wider PCN correspondence team to deal with
surges in workload 


· In-sourcing the Tree Surveying function, tree database and the raising of
tree works orders would provide the Council with greater strategic and
financial control of the Arboriculture Services contract, improved planning
and completion of works and achieve better value for money from our tree
maintenance budget. This is estimated to cost an additional £30k per
annum, comprising £20k in staff costs and up to £10k in annual tree
database license costs. Staff time required to maintain the database would
be covered from existing resources, and/or as an element of the TUPE
transfer to the Council of the existing surveyor post. 


· Creating a stronger highways inspection regime - 1 additional highways
inspector post would significantly address the lack of resource for highways
inspections noted in section 4 of this report. Total cost £43k per annum.

 

Street cleaning, litter, fly-tipping, waste collection and recycling are one of the main concerns of residents so dealt with in my detail here.

One of the proposals is for an 'Integrated Street Cleaning and Waste Contract' that combines street cleansing and waste collection but separates waste collection from recycling. A discussion with potential providers was in favour of such a separation. The Cabinet paper outlines the main requirements:

Street Cleansing Services 

 
· Provide comprehensive, seven-day cleansing services that deliver high performance standards across all land use types and which maximise the amount of waste segregated for reuse, recycling, composting and recovery
· Provide a ‘Clear All’ service on designated roads ensuring the removal of all waste in these areas, regardless of the source material
· Provide and manage receptacles, including litter bins, ensuring that they never become full or overflowing
· Provide a fly tipping removal service which proactively reduced the amount of fly tipped waste and delivers the highest possible performance standards
· Provide a graffiti and fly posting removal service that meets EPA standards

 

 Waste and Recycling Collections 

 
· Provide a scheduled residual, recycled, food and garden waste collection service that maximises the amount of waste segregated for reuse, recycling and composting, while minimising contamination of target materials to improve the quality of the separately collected waste streams
· Provide an assisted collection service to meet the needs of those households who are unable to present household waste and recyclables at standard collection points
· Provide a special collections service for bulky household waste that maximises the amount of waste segregated for reuse, recycling and recovery

 

Winter Maintenance 

 
· Provide an effective winter service which ensures that safe passage along all main highways, priority routes and other relevant land use types is not endangered by ice and/or snow during the designated Winter Service Period
· Provide and manage all salt bins, ensuring that they are stocked and available for use during the designated Winter Service Period to reduce risk to residents



Other Services 

 
· Emergency and out of hours response
· Waste container management and delivery
· Customer care and satisfaction, including response to service requests and complaints.

The potential for further insourcing in the future is noted:

Under the Final RLS Delivery Model, there would be potential to insource further functions from the proposed Integrated Street Cleansing & Waste Contract during the main contract term, as detailed in paragraph 6.12 of this report, and to insource the full grounds maintenance service after the next contract ends in 2027/28, should the council’s finances improve. There was broad support for such further insourcing in the best value duty consultation response.The council would also retain an interest in considering insourcing the full street cleansing service at the end of the main contract term of the proposed Integrated Street Cleansing & Waste contract


The Timetable:


The full report can be found HERE


Redevelopment no longer an option for St Raphel's Estate Brent Council announces

 Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, yesterday informed residents of St Raphael's Estate that redevelopment of the estate was no long an option. This had appeared to be inevitable once funding  no longer seemed likely due to changed criteria, although the Council continued talks to try and achieve funding.

The change means that there will no longer be private housing built on the estate and there will be no demolitions. Instead there will be infill new housing on parts of the estate and the council promises to 'invest in existing council homes' and carry out improvements on the estate.

The two options for the estate: infill and redevelopment, both had the support of sections of the community. LINK  A ballot would have been held which would have established the true extent of support for either. Now the council has announced the infill decision no ballot will be held.

Controversy is likely to continue, as it has on other estates, on exacly what infill will take place and where, and the impact on residents' amenity.

This is the letter sent to residents.


The Council has also issued a Newsletter outlining potential estate improvements that could be possible over the next 5 years.