Recycling and street cleansing call-in refused by Brent CE0

 The 'call-in' of Cabinet decisions by Labour backbenchers and opposition councillors is one of the few ways that the powerful Cabinet can be held to account. Opposition councillors called-in the decision on the award of the new recycling, waste collection and street cleansings to Veolia for further consideration LINK but this was refused by Carolyn Downs, the out-going CEO in this email:

As you are aware, in accordance with the Constitution the call-in request in respect of the Cabinet decision to award the Integrated Street Cleansing, Waste Collections and Winter Maintenance Services Contract has been sent to me to decide if its valid.  As required by the Constitution I have consulted with the council’s statutory Scrutiny Officer and the Monitoring Officer in considering this issue

 

One criterion for validity of a call-in request is as follows:

 

Have the reasons for calling in the decision already been discussed by the Scrutiny Committee?  If the reasons for calling in the decision have been discussed by the Scrutiny Committee prior to the decision being made the call-in will not be valid,

 

The Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee met on 15 December 2022 to consider and discuss a report called Redefining Local Services: Update on the Integrated Street Cleansing, Waste Collections and Winter Maintenance Services Contract Procurement.  This was the only substantive item on the agenda for the meeting which lasted 3 hours and so there was extensive discussion by the committee in respect of procurement including the specification and the consultation undertaken, both the process and outcome.

 

The minutes of the meeting reflect specific discussion in relation to use of sacks for some recyclable materials and the “intelligence led” street cleaning service through which any ‘headers’ issues can be mitigated) with which the call-in request is particularly concerned.   Indeed, this is also reflected in the call-in request itself.  The minutes also reflect discussion of the consultation undertaken.

 

While Cabinet is not obliged to accept recommendations from Scrutiny Committee, it is worth noting that Cabinet did agree to investigate further the use of sacks and possible alternatives. 

 

The call-in request also refers to the structure of the procurement (whether the contract could have been split into smaller areas) which was not part of the Scrutiny Committee discussions.  However, there is no proposal for alternative action that could now be implemented put forward in the request.  This does not meet the requirement that a valid call-in request must:

 

• include the member’s suggested alternative proposals, action, or resolution of the matter

 

In view of the above, I am afraid I am not able to accept your request as a valid call-in.

 

 

More than 110 UK academics have signed an open letter calling on the Government to exit the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), a little-known legal pact that could hamper climate ambition.

 

More than 110 UK academics have signed an open letter calling on the Government to exit the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), a little-known legal pact that could hamper climate ambition. 

Currently, the ECT allows companies to sue governments directly for policies that could affect their profits, and the number of cases being brought under the treaty against climate measures has been increasing. UK company Rockhopper was awarded £210m against Italy when the country banned the exploitation of oil and gas along its coastline, while German companies Uniper and RWE threatened to take the Netherlands to court for its phase-out of coal-fired power stations.

The letter comes at a moment of crisis for the ECT, when members increasingly view it as incompatible with their climate goals. The European Commission signalled on Wednesday that it intended to withdraw as a block from the treaty, and previously seven European countries - including France, Germany and the Netherlands - had already stated that they would withdraw.

110 academics signatories* warn of “very limited time to undertake a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions”, and note that “continued membership of the ECT will harm our prospects of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees because it will prolong the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels and impede the transition to renewable energy”. This echoes warnings by the IPCC in 2022 that the ECT risks blocking the phase-out of fossil fuels.

By staying in the treaty, estimates suggest the UK could end up exposed to around £5.3bn in claims. However, despite clear climate concerns and mounting international pressure, the Government has remained silent on the issue. The letter explains that now is the time to withdraw - given the conclusion of COP27, the recent end to the UK’s COP26 presidency, and the ECT modernisation meeting proposed for early April.

The letter, sent to energy secretary Grant Shapps on 9 February 2023, is available to read in full at https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/research/centres/chrp/governance/energycharter/ 

Help the Heron signs posted on Barn Hill pond

 

Local photographer Amanda Rose has designed posters to display on Barn Hill pond today. The pond was frozen over this morning and the heron had not appeared.

Obviously the heron has to be at the pond to be given help so there are phone numbers on the notice to alert agencies.  The public are advised NOT to approach the heron to help themselves - they could be injured or could injure the heron.

 

GLA statement regarding fire safety and tall buildings - second staircases

 This statement will have an impact on high-rise developments in the pipeline across London.

You will no doubt be aware that the government have published their consultation document shortly before the Christmas holiday on proposed changes to the Building Regulations, which includes mandatory second staircases in buildings over 30 metres in height. LINK

The Mayor has consistently expressed concerns that the fire safety requirements in the national Building Regulations are not fit for purpose, so the proposed strengthened requirements and clear direction at the national level are strongly supported. This consultation envisages a very short transition period with new developments being encouraged to prepare for this change now. In light of this – and given the requirements of London Plan policy D12 that all developments should achieve the highest standards of fire safety – we are clear that, with immediate effect, all planning applications which involve residential buildings over 30 metres in height will need to be designed to provide two staircases before they are referred to us at Stage 2 for the Mayor’s decision. We recognise that the earlier statement by the NFCC referenced over 18 metres but, to be clear, our requirement for two staircases applies to residential buildings over 30m in line with the national position.

 

The GLA’s Planning team is working with the Boroughs to progress schemes which are currently in the pipeline to ensure they include two staircases where necessary before any Stage 2 referral. We are all working hard to look at feasible options to secure this and try to meet key timescales, particularly given the impact planning delays may have on affordable housing grant funding. The GLA Housing and Land team are working alongside us with applicants and providers to achieve delivery of the current 16-23 Affordable Housing Programme. Investment partners should contact their Head of Area within Housing and Land to discuss the impact on AHP projects. The position of our Housing and Land colleagues is that any projects which were eligible for their funding, taking account of all criteria, and had full planning consents at all stages prior to the 23rd of December 2022 (when the government consultation was released) would remain eligible for funding subject to all other eligibility criteria still being met; but as mentioned, we still urge you to contact your relevant Heads of Area.

 

The Planning team would be happy to discuss specific applications you have that are affected by this so please get in touch via the relevant case officer. We are keen to work with you and partners to look at how we can progress these cases through to decision in a co-ordinated and pragmatic way.

 

Jules Pipe

Deputy Mayor, Planning, Regeneration and Skills

 

Tom Copley

Deputy Mayor, Housing and Residential Development

 

UPDATE: After 6 days the stricken and weakening Barn Hill heron is still awaiting rescue

 

 

Photo Credit: Amanda Rose

I could not make it to Barn Hill pond today to check on the heron that has its beak constricted by material,  as I am social isolating with Covid.

 

So far despite calls to various agencies, no official rescue operation has been undertaken to help the heron and it is inadvisable for the public to try – the heron’s beak could produce a very nasty wound.

 

 Local professional photographer Amanda Rose has been taking a keen interest in the heron's light and produced some stunning images of the heron’s plight. (Please respect her copyright).

 

Many thanks to Amanda for this update:

 

 Photo credit: Amanda Rose

 

I spent an hour and a half with the heron this afternoon, at times there were three other people who have all contacted various authorities over the past week to try and get help. We were relieved to see it today as there were no sightings yesterday.

 

The heron let us all approach closer than ever before, presumably too weak to fly, conserving its energy, or too hungry to care. Most surprisingly, it didn't flinch while a dog was running around the water’s edge, thankfully the owner kept the dog out the water.

 

 Photo credit: Amanda Rose

The heron caught a small fish and a newt but dropped both back into the pond and wasn't able to eat either. Someone produced a bag of scrap fish for the heron, and drove to the top of Barn Rise to give it to me, but by the time I'd walked to the roadside to collect it and walked back to the pond, the heron had flown away.

Kilburn Square – Brent must come clean on affordable housing!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

From JLL’s Affordable Housing Statement for Kilburn Square, published 28 November 2022.

 

There are many reasons for objecting to Brent’s “infill” housing application (22/3669) for the Kilburn Square estate, but when I submitted my objection at the weekend, it was just about affordable housing.

 

Why would I object, when an updated and “Final” Affordable Housing Statement submitted by the Council’s planning agent, JLL, in late November clearly promised that for the 99 proposed “general needs” units ‘all proposed homes will be let at London Affordable Rent by Brent Council’? My reasons are set out in detail in an illustrated objection comments document, which I hope can be attached at the end of this post, for anyone to read if they wish to.

 

Two weeks before that Affordable Housing Statement was published, Brent’s Cabinet had approved a Report which proposed the conversion of homes, originally promised to be for rent at the genuinely affordable London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) level, to shared ownership (or even open market sale). Kilburn Square and Windmill Court were among the schemes where this would happen, but the actual numbers of LAR homes to be converted at each site were hidden away in an “exempt” Appendix.

 

Paragraphs about Kilburn Square from the Report to the 14 November 2022 Cabinet meeting.

 

Despite Brent’s New Council Homes team having known for at least three months now that they would not be delivering all 99 of their proposed “general needs” homes at Kilburn Square at LAR, no updated information on this has been supplied to Brent’s Planning Department. That information could make a difference between the application meeting Brent’s Local Plan affordable housing policy, BH5, or not meeting it.

 

The policy states that the “tenure split” for affordable housing should be 70% Social Rent or LAR and 30% ‘intermediate products’. Forty of the proposed 139 homes at Kilburn Square are for extra care accommodation, charged at Local Housing Allowance rent level, which is an ‘intermediate product’. This means that the split shown by the application (by unit) is 71.2% LAR and 28.8% intermediate, which would comply with Brent’s planning policy.

However, if the homes converted from LAR to shared ownership (which is also an ‘intermediate product’) were to be split proportionately between Kilburn Square and Windmill Court (the other two schemes would only involve two “conversions”), the split by unit for Kilburn Square would become 43.9% LAR and 56.1% intermediate. This would fail the BH5 policy test, and make it difficult for Planning Officers to recommend the Kilburn Square application for approval on the basis of its “public benefits”.

 

Conclusions from the Officer Report to Planning Committee on Windmill Court, March 2022.

 

When Brent’s Windmill Court planning application (21/4690) went to Planning Committee in March 2022, the fact that all of the proposed new homes would be for Social Rent (for existing tenants re-housed) or LAR was cited as a ‘substantial benefit’. This was used to justify several failures to comply with planning policy, which were 'considered acceptable' after taking into account that benefit.

 

Now some of those LAR homes will be converted to shared ownership (as has already happened at Watling Gardens). But that was because problems with viability only arose (or so it was claimed) after planning consent had been given. The situation over the proposed conversion of LAR homes to shared ownership at Kilburn Square is very different!

 

I will end this “introduction” to my objection comments with two paragraphs from them, setting out my views on the Kilburn Square position to Brent’s Planning Officers:

 

4.4 It currently appears that the applicant is knowingly withholding important information from the Local Planning Authority, in the hope that it can get its application approved on the basis that all of the 99 “general needs” homes proposed will be for rent at LAR level. It would then submit an application to vary the affordable housing condition in the consent given on that basis.

It would undermine the integrity of Brent’s Planning System, and reflect badly on the integrity of Brent’s Planning Officers and Planning Committee members, if such a blatant abuse of that system were allowed to occur.

4.5 I would argue strongly that, having been made fully aware of this situation, Brent’s Planning Case Officer should advise JLL that its client, the applicant, must submit its revised proposals for the tenure split of the proposed 139 homes at Kilburn Square, and that no decision on application 22/3669 can be made until that has been done.

 

We will have to wait and see whether any notice is taken of my affordable housing objection comments!

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

Barn Hill heron still awaiting assistance after at least 4 days with bag/material wrapped around its beak

 

The heron managed to catch a small fish (Photo: Amanda Rose)

For the last four days locals have been seeking help for a heron that has been seen with material (or perhaps rubber ballon or plastic bag) wrapped around its beak.  The heron has been seen often on Barn Hill Pond, Wembley. It had not been seen yesterday so there was relief today that it was still alive.

By the time I saw it today it appeared to have weakened, allowing people to approach close rather than flying away.  During the half hour I observed it was scooping water up from the pond but it only appeared to catch anything once.  Later, local professional photographer Amanda Rose, photographed it catching a small fish.  It appears that the constricted beak would not open wide enough for anything bigger.

Please send a link to this article to any organisation that you think might be able to help catch the heron and unwrap the material. 

 

 Photo: Amanda Rose

This magnificient bird's plight should help people stop and think before discarding litter on Barn Hill.

S.O.S. goes out to Labour backbenchers as debate threatens to rock the sleepy Brent Cabinet

 Let's face it, we all know Brent Cabinet is a rubber-stamping body whose calm waters are seldom disturbed by so much as a ripple of discussion, or (Lord Preserve Us!), dissent.

All the decisions are  made at a private pre-meeting of officers and Cabinet members (See LINK) so the meeting, despite an often huge agenda, is over in half an hour or so.   The format after the preliminaries is the Lead Member, in an address often written by their officers, reads out a short introduction to an agenda item. Another Cabinet member then says a few words of praise for a great policy, hard work etc.  Cllr Butt as Chair then says what a wonderful job Labour ia doing for Brent and it is approved.

There is no debate.

The meetings are held at 10am on a Monday morning which prevents working local residents (and working backbenchers) from attending.   A move to have Cabinet meetings out in community centres to enable more public participation was quietly dropped long ago.

But word has gone out that some opposition members have dared to give notice that they are to enter the mutual grooming sanctuary and actually disagree.

Despite Labour's massive majority this has appeared to have freaked out the Labour leadership. 

I understand that  a message has gone out urgently to backbenchers from the Deputy Leader of the Council that some opposition members have requested to a speak on the Council's (fait accompli) Budget Proposal for 2023-24.  Labour Group members are asked to contact 'Mo' (Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council) if they would like to speak to 'balance the debate and 'particularly to highlight the impact of austerity started by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on council finances.'

Just to let you know what Mo knows!

Watch the Cabinet meeting HERE