Brent Council – We’re happy to give Labour Cabinet members publicity (except in the six weeks before the local elections)

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

A recent Brent Council tweet.

 

There have been several articles recently about the number of social media posts by Brent Council with photographs of Cabinet members in them, and “tagged” to their personal social media accounts. In one of these, Martin asked “Is Brent Council promoting candidates ahead of the local elections?”

 

In a comment under that post, I gave the text of an email I had sent to Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, raising my concerns over a Brent Council Instagram post. It appeared on my private Instagram account as “recommended” for me, because I follow Brent Culture Service. I wrote:

 

‘The Instagram post was about banner advertisements against litter dropping, on lamp posts in Ealing Road, near Alperton Station. The colourful banners had been designed by students at Alperton Community School, and the photograph quite rightly showed a group of students and their teacher, standing in front of one of these banner advertisements. 

 

However, also appearing in the group photograph were Cllr. Muhammed Butt and Cllr. Krupa Sheth. There is no reason why they were necessary to publicise this latest Brent Council "success", but it appears that Brent Council's official social media is giving them plenty of photo opportunities recently - even more than usual!

 

 

This incessant promotion of Labour councillors (albeit members of Brent's Cabinet) is wrong, especially close to Council elections, and I hope that it will be stopped immediately. It gives unfair publicity to one political party.’

 

 

I was particularly concerned, because the post was about Alperton, where the local election on 5 May is likely to be hotly contested, as the LibDems won a seat there from Labour in a 2020 by-election. Since his election, Cllr. Anton Georgiou has represented Alperton Ward residents, and has tried to hold the Council Leader and his Cabinet to account on a number of issues.

 

 

I have now received Brent’s reply to my email, from Debra Norman, the Council’s Legal Director. I will set it out here, in full, so that readers are aware of the official position on this:

 

 

‘The corporate communications team exists to communicate the policies and initiatives of the council and the positive impact they have on the borough and its communities.

 

 

The council operates a Leader and Cabinet model of governance in accordance with the Local Government Act 2000.  This means that most decisions about council services and activities are made by the Leader chosen by full council and the Cabinet he appoints, or by officers to whom they have delegated decision-making.  This group of councillors, therefore, has a different role in the council from other councillors and a particular responsibility to champion and explain to the community the activities and decisions of the council that fall within their respective portfolios. 

 

 

The council’s role description for the Leader includes the following:

 

 

·      To promote flagship projects of strategic significance to the borough.

·      To ensure the effective communication of policies and recommendations of the Cabinet.

·      To take a lead in forming partnerships with other local, public, private, voluntary and community organisations.

 

 

The role description for Cabinet Members includes the following:

 

·      To act as spokesperson within and outside the Council on those services.

·      To ensure effective communication of the decisions related to the portfolio responsibilities to the Council, the community and all appropriate agencies/bodies.

·      To take a lead on external partnership working in the relevant area of responsibility.

 

 

Cabinet Members are, therefore, properly and appropriately used as the official spokespeople for matters falling within their portfolios. 

 

 

Social media channels enable a quick and low cost way for the public to receive news and updates from the council. However simply following the council does not ensure that you will see every post. All of the three main platforms used by the council (Facebook, Instagram and Twitter) give preference to posts that contain images and video content, showing them to a wider audience. The communications team tailor their content accordingly, based on what performs best. Pictures with people usually do well.

 

 

The formal pre-election period begins from 24 March in Brent, when notice of the election will be posted. This is the date the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, issued by the government under s 4 of the Local Government 1986, identifies as the sensitive pre-election period during which local authorities should not publish publicity that identifies issues or views with individual members or groups of members. 

 

 

I can reassure you that the council and its communications team will be complying with the Code from 24 March.  Until then, it is business as usual and the council’s approach to communications, which reflects that members of the Cabinet act as representatives of the council for their portfolios and help to communicate the work of the council, continues. 

 

 

Specifically regarding the photo of the schoolchildren and the Cabinet Member for Environment and the Leader of the Council to which you refer, the high street banners and accompanying video have an important message about caring for our local environment. The message is more powerful because children from Alperton Community School were involved in the initiative. The timing of the photo call (and subsequent social media post) worked for the school and we wanted to ensure the news was shared well in advance of the local election on May 5 and two weeks ahead of the start of the sensitive pre-election period.’

 

 

This statement appears to confirm what I have observed for a long time – that Brent Council only puts out ‘positive’ stories. There is no “balance” in their output, and they are happy to use members of the Cabinet, who ‘help to communicate the work of the council’, in the photographs which they use to get the Council’s social media posts noticed. If you want a picture that conveys a story which isn’t “positive”, you have to produce it yourself!

 

 

My parody publicity picture for Brent’s Cecil Avenue Council housing development.

 

 

It is clear that Brent Council, and its Corporate Communications Team, have been happy to give photo opportunities and social (and other) media publicity, linking Labour Cabinet members to “positive” Council stories, for most of the past four years. They will only stop doing so six weeks before the local elections. Does that give the Labour Party and its candidates an unfair advantage in those elections?

 

 

Philip Grant.

 

Workers, Unions and the Cost of Living Crisis - video of panel discussion

 

From the Green Party Trade Union Group

The cost of living crisis engulfing the UK has the potential to define our politics. But what are the political implications of the rising cost of living? How can workers and trade unions respond? And how does the Green Party navigate the crisis? To discuss these and other questions, we welcomed an array of expert speakers, well-placed to offer insight into the crisis and its political impacts: - 

• Kate Bell, Head of Rights, International, Social & Economics at the Trades Union Congress (TUC) 
• James Meadway, Director of Progressive Economy Forum and former adviser to John McDonnell 
• Andy Beckett, journalist and author of 'When the Lights Went Out: Britain in the 70s' 
• Emiliano Mellino, organiser and labour journalist with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism
• Molly Scott Cato, Green Party spokesperson on Finance & Economy

 

Local Election Environmental Hustings on Zoom March 22nd 7pm

 

Brent Friends of the Earth will be hosting a virtual hustings on 22^nd March 2022, in advance of the local Council election on May 5^th

 

With (in alphabetical order):

• Councillor Muhammed Butt (Labour) - Currently Leader of Brent Council
• Councillor Anton Georgiou (Liberal Democrat) - Currently representing Alperton Ward (or possibly another LD candidate)
• David Stevens (Green Party) - Candidate for Welsh Harp Ward
• Plus a representative of the Conservative Party (to be confirmed)
  

 

Speakers will be given an opportunity to outline their Party’s policy, and answer questions from local people on environmental matters. The meeting will cover topics related to climate change, including questions on energy costs, housing, transport, the natural environment, air quality, waste and other matters of concern to local people.

 

There will be an opportunity to submit questions for candidates in advance, as well as raising questions at the meeting. If you have a question you would like to put to the panel, please email us with the text of your question, and let us know if you would like to ask it yourself or have it put to the candidates by the chair.

 

The meeting will be chaired by locally based barrister, broadcaster and author, Hashi Mohamed, who will put the questions and challenge candidates on their policies.

 

BOOK ON THIS LINK (FREE)

 

Celebrate Nowruz (Persian New Year) with children's activities at Sufra Saturday March 19th

 

LETTER: Response to Cllr Southwood's mollifying statement on the Kilburn Square development from silenced infuriated resident

 Dear Editor,

 

Thank you for publishing (LINK) the text of my Kilburn Square petition speech to Cabinet on February 7, with a brief summary of Cllr Southwood’s response. We residents of Kilburn Square have enormous respect for Cllr Southwood; and with two thirds of residents being Council tenants, we are acutely aware of the shortage of affordable housing and the Council’s housing targets.

 

But as Cllr Southwood is well aware of our concerns, and did have advance sight of my speech, I’m afraid we found her response deeply unsatisfying.   

 

Here is a full transcript of her statement; and, in italics, the comments I would have made if we had been allowed a dialogue.

 

Councillor Southwood response to Margaret von Stoll’s petition speech to Cabinet, Feb 7 2022

 

Thank you Margaret, for giving us a really helpful and detailed overview of some of the journey we have been on over the past year or so and outstanding residents’ concerns.  

 

Throughout the process and I guess starting with our initial commitment which was always to balance the need for and our response to the need for family sized, genuinely affordable homes with improvements that are made possible during a development programme, improvements that will benefit people already living on Kilburn Square. 

 

The balance needed all along has been between the acute housing need in the borough, which we recognise, and the human rights and wellbeing of the current – and for that matter incoming – residents of Kilburn Square.

 

It became clear last Summer when we’d done the sort of first round of engagement that residents did have several considerable concerns; 

 

My speech included the unambiguous conclusion from the resident survey by our independent advisors Source Partnership “There is very little demonstrable support for the Council’s proposals or trust in the consultation process “

 

one was certainly around the height of the proposed tower. I appreciate there was also concern about density and overcrowding and it was and has been throughout really clear that residents on and off the estate really value the green space that’s available

 

Our neighbours raised all three of our concerns, not just green space, in their emphatic rejection of the original scheme

 

and I sort of took that  informally to Cabinet colleagues around the table, that feedback; and we collectively agreed to extend the pre-consultation process 

 

We welcomed that, and you promised the re-design would be done in collaboration with estate residents. But in practice the project team continued dictating the rules just like in the previous phase; see this Letter to our local paper from a fellow resident:

 

The Kilburn Square re-think – a plea for meaningful collaboration

From the Brent and Kilburn Times Dec 16, 2021

Dear Editor. As a resident on the Kilburn Square Estate I’d like to register a protest at Brent Council’s approach to the re-think (LINK: https://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/housing/brent-council-rethinks-kilburn-square-8385078  ) on its oversized expansion project.

·       They promised a collaborative approach, but in reality it’s the project team who are making the rules – just like during the months spent discussing the original scheme.

·       At a first pair of Drop-Ins  - wrongly labelled Design Workshops - each visitor (12% of households turned up) was presented with five ways of distributing a reduction in scale of about 25%

·       A Newsletter then told us we had “chosen” two Approaches labelled A and E, each removing only 20% of the original scale, and neither fully addressing even one of our three main objections acknowledged by Brent: No second tower, preserve green space and trees, reduce density/overcrowding.

·       A would reduce the tower but still have ten storeys; E would remove one but not both of the satellite Blocks on the green space - and keep almost the full tower.

·       They quote outdated density ratios; but omit Amenity Space rules laid down in Brent’s own Plan.  On those, the Estate already has a serious shortfall; and either A or E would more than double that shortfall”. And Brent’s Climate Emergency strategy seeks to increase green space, not reduce it.

·       After two further Drop-Ins drew barely any residents, the project team has resorted to knocking on doors to seek “votes”. But they aren’t using our independent advisor, Source Partnership, whose neutrality gained our trust in the July survey that prompted the re-think.

·       And we are told throughout that these are the only options; asking to discuss a greater reduction is not allowed. An online questionnaire allows us to comment on the wider picture only after ‘voting’ for one or the other Approach.

·       We’ve seen scant details of the provision, or re-provision, of community facilities and services; and tenants complain that despite repeated promises they’re still awaiting details of priority access to the new homes referred to by Cllr Ketan Sheth, in his recent Times article.

Brent, you’ve said you “want a scheme that can work for everyone” and “will not force homes on anyone”. This is no way to honour those words!

 

Yours sincerely, Charlotte O’Sullivan. Further information   https://save-our-square.org

 

 

This obviously was a considerable change to the original plan and I tasked the architects with coming with several options, not worked up in detail obviously, we are  always resource constrained, which did in different and varying ways meet some of those concerns.  

 

And those options were then whittled down to two, A & E, on which we got residents’ feedback.  

 

Only 24% of our households were persuaded to “vote” and the majority of those chose the other Approach – see below for details  

 

I realise there will be remaining concerns and differing views about the extent of the process, about the extent to which residents meaningfully were able to engage. 

 

I think that is something that we will probably have to agree to disagree on.  What I am confident about having reviewed all the various engagement mechanisms is that the team have done their best to engage through this pre consultation process.

 

What the team consciously chose NOT to do in the re-design process was ask our trusted intermediary, Source Partnership, to provide a neutral channel for residents to express their honest views, with no fear of recrimination; or to engage residents in exploring what they value about the estate and what kind of designs and improvements could both meet the need for new units and address their objections, collaboratively.

 

We are not at the end; this was, if you like, an additional opportunity for consultation – rightly, in line with the Mayor’s guidance.    

 

GLA funding requires an engagement process which is “transparent, inclusive, responsive and meaningful“. We strongly argue those criteria have thus far NOT been met

 

And also our own commitment as a Council to make sure that residents are/have the opportunity to engage meaningfully when we have development plans like this……… which are significant and we accept that. The reduction in the height of the tower which you see in Option A I think does respond to concerns about the height of the tower.

 

But that (almost) responds to just one of our three key objections – which you have acknowledged

 

 I hear that there are outstanding concerns about density and overcrowding. Much of that rightly can be picked up through the planning process so I think there is absolutely scope for residents to continue to provide that feedback and to seek assurances. And obviously all the relevant reports will be appended to the planning application which demonstrate the density being in line with expectation in the area. 

 

Brent’s own “Amenity Space” rules already show a deficit on the current estate; Approach A would double the deficit. And it would add 68% more households vs 2019, on a smaller footprint  – how do you think that will not transform the character of what one of your Officers described to our MP as “a brilliant estate”?  

 

Since the Co-op was established 30 years ago, residents have worked hard to establish a peaceful, sociable and crime-free estate; we are concerned that this plan puts at risk our ability to sustain that

 

Just to clarify on allocations because there has been some talk of overcrowding:  obviously we made recent changes to our allocations scheme which means families who are overcrowded who live on the estate and who are eligible for housing transfer will be prioritised with new housing, just to make that absolutely clear. 

 

And the final thing to say is obviously  our number one commitment is to families living in temporary accommodation and have been doing so for many years in some cases,  in chronically unsuitable unaffordable homes and those residents, for lots of reasons don’t have much of a voice in these processes. And one of the things that, I think, I and the team have been careful to do throughout is to consider those residents as well.   

 

So I am enormously grateful to people on and off the estate who have given a massive amount of time and energy through the process and we are in a better place because of it that is absolutely unquestionable. 

 

It doesn’t feel like a better place, Councillor, when all you are offering, after well over a year of patient dialogue with you and your team, is a 40% reduction in a tower that never belonged in our local skyscape in the first place

 

We now move into a stage which is to put Option A into the planning process that residents will have opportunity to continue to provide feedback and comment on the Planning Application as we go into that formal phase 

 

This expansion is not even in the Local Plan!

 

We cannot for time reasons because we are committed to certain deadlines with the GLA for funding we cannot extend this process any further and I will be looking forward to working with you all as we move into the formal planning process which will also include work around the green space. It is quite clear that a lot of the green space on the estate… (?) so we’ll be focusing on that (Margaret interrupts, visibly unhappy)

 

I do appreciate that passions run high in this and that is the demonstration of how much people care about Kilburn Square and that is entirely as it should be.  

 

So we will be looking at how to make better use of the green space that does exist and also taking a look around the estate; and I can’t make clear commitments today, but Officers are looking at opportunities for other improvements we might be able to make locally and we will continue to work with everyone locally and to make those a reality through the planning process. 

 

It’s hard to imagine what those offsetting green space ideas might be – on or off estate. But also our collective unhappiness with Blocks C and D is not only about the green space and mature trees they would remove, important though that is; but also about their visual impact on the estate character and the local setting, and their contribution to the 68% increase in the estate population vs 2019  

 

We are asking you to drop those two Blocks as well as reducing the tower to the height of surrounding buildings - before preparing the scheme for a Planning Application

 

I think I’ll leave it there but I really do appreciate Margaret, you coming and expressing so eloquently the views of local residents. 

 

The outcome of the post-reset engagement process October to January 2021-2

 

The team has now published the results of its efforts to engage with KS residents (the views of the local community have been deemed irrelevant until after the scale and shape of the revised scheme is fixed) from October to January [https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16420115/kilburn-square-summary-and-feedback.pdf ]

 

Read the team’s commentary in conjunction with Charlotte’s letter above; and then look at the data:

 

Of the 270 households (including Sandwood, the 24-unit pre-phase of Infill, completed in 2020)

 

·      64 (24%) were persuaded to express a preference between Approaches A and E

·      10 (4%) said they wanted neither, even though that was not presented as an option

·      Of the 64, 26 (10%) said they favoured Approach A – which Brent now wants to take to a Planning Application

·      38 (14%) preferred Approach E – which would preserve some, though not all, of the green space and trees

 

In conclusion

 

Our message to Cllr Southwood, the Cabinet, the Leader and the senior Officers is this:

·      We’ve heard  your arguments for some further expansion on Kilburn Square

·      But we are still waiting for a scale and shape that “can work for everyone” as we’ve been promised

·      … and  please don’t try to tell us, the local electorate, or the GLA that Approach A has the support of residents and neighbours!

 

  Margaret von Stoll

 

LETTER: Only firm action will now stop the slaughter of innocent people

 Dear editor

At the start of the unjustified Russian attack on Ukraine you kindly published my views.

Sadly since then Russia has used its military might to murder thousands of innocent civilians, destroyed Ukrainian towns and threatened the rest of the world with its Nuclear arsenal.

Quite frankly the reaction from Nato and the West to the barbaric actions of the Russian Dictator has been pathetic. The UK response to the refugee crisis too has been miserly compared to the rest of Europe especially Poland, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Slovak Republic and others.

It would seem that we never learn from history.

In 1938 my parents tried to get out of Czechoslovakia to escape both from the Slovak and Hitlers Nazis. They were too late as the world was closing its borders to Jewish refugees. My parents were taken to Auschwitz and Sachenhausen Concentration Camps but luckily survived.

On the morning of 21 August 1968 I woke up to the shock of Russian tanks lining my street in Bratislava. Russians invaded to destroy Czechoslovak attempt to free themselves from communist oppression. Appeals to the West received warm words but no practical help. Czechoslovakia was overwhelmed by Russian military might within hours and there was very little bloodshed.

It took another 21 years of Russian oppression before Czechoslovakia was free.

My parents succeeded to get me and my brother out. We managed to get to the UK - but only because may mother had a sister here and we therefore had a family connection. Only 30,000 Czechoslovaks escaped in 1968 and very few were allowed to enter the UK.

In contrast Ukrainian civilians are been bombed and murdered in their thousands. Many millions have had to run for their lives already and many more will be forced to follow. Millioans are besieged in bunkers with no heat, water or food. Poland alone has taken over 1.2 million already and what does the UK do in contrast? Once again it imposes 'family restrictions' and has so far only issued a few hundred visas. In the face of this humanitarian tragedy the UK response has been pathetic and sadly typical.

Do your remember the words "We did not know"? That was response to the slaughter of millions of Jews and other people by the Nazis during the 2nd World War. It was the explanation/excuse why he World stood by and did not act.

Today we see what Putin's Russia is doing. We cannot say that "We did not know" as innocent civilians are being shelled and bombed and that thousands are being killed in front of our eyes. And yet our leaders express sympathy and ring their hands and claim that they "cannot get involved".

No one in their right mind wants a war. I never had any grandparents because of the last two World Wars. What is clear however is that we do NOT prevent wars or the killing of innocent people by appeasement of Dictators like Putin. He did not stop at Georgia, he did not stop at Crimea and he will not stop at Ukraine as long as he sees Western disunity and weakness.

In my view Nato and the Western powers should NOT sit idly by and watch Ukraine destroyed and taken over by the Russians. Fine words praising Ukrainian bravery are not enough.

It is time to call Putin's bluff - declare and establish a No Fly Zone across the whole of Ukraine, demand the end of all Russian bombing and the withdrawal of all Russian troops from the whole of Ukraine. Only firm action will now stop the slaughter of innocent people happening in front of our eyes every single day.

 

Paul Lorber

 

[Editor's Note: Letters are the opinion of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Wembley Matters]