Will Brent Council decision on Scrutiny call-in disempower Labour backbenchers as well as opposition groups?

 

 The importance of scrutiny in a council with a massive one party majority was the subject of two debates at Brent Council Annual General Meeting last week.

In the first debate a bid to have at least the deputy chairs of Scrutiny Committees from opposition parties was defeated by the Labour majority with the Brent Council Labour leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt, arguing that their election mandate gave Labour the right to hold all the positions.

The second debate was over a Labour move to curtail the right of the opposition groups, and its own backbenchers, to refer Cabinet decisions or Key Decisions to Scrutiny Committee for further decisions.

There had been a Labour move earlier this year to increase the number of councillors required to sign a call-in from five to 10.(There are 8 Opposition councillors in all) This was dropped and replaced by a more subtle change that requires the five councillors to be from more than one political party.

As you will see from the video above Cllr Muhammed Butt made no attempt to justify the change, either in his moving the motion or responding to the Liberal Dem amendment. It sas more a case of 'we are doing it, because we can.'

 So what was behind the change?

It is well known that Cllr Butt is not all that keen on criticism but what infuriated him and his colleagues was a Conservative call-in opposing the siting of a children's home in a conservation area.  LINK They claimed this showed a 'lack of respect' for a conservation area. The move was not supported by the Liberal Democrats but with five councillors the Conservatives were able to do it on their own.

Under the new proposals they would need support from the Lib Dems or Labour backbenches for such a call-in.

That one unpleasant episode should not be the basis for a significant constitutional change but the officers' paper quoted Centre for Scrutiny and Governance advice that was not cited by Cllr Butt in the debate:

Guidance was issued by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) in March 2023 which comments, in respect of requirements in call-in thresholds that the councillors involved should represent different parties, that “This can help to ensure that call-in’s reflect matters on which there is crossparty

concern”.

However, the CfGS had said that a call-in review should happen after an election and change of political control:

The guidance from CfGS is that requirements on numbers/types of members, bodies or persons requesting call- in’s should be clearly justified and reviewed following each election and after a change in political control to ensure their ongoing fairness and applicability as endorsed by the authority.

The proposal was not made after an election and there has been no change of political control for a very long time. There has been a change of Chief Executive.

 The paper concludes:

Arrangements across London are very varied, especially once the effect of political balance is taken into account. A significant number have arrangements that mean more than one party group must be in support of the call-in request.

 

The possible introduction of this requirement in Brent was discussed at a recent meeting of the Constitutional Working Group (CWG) but a consensus was not reached. Full council is therefore requested to make a decision on this issue.

So the whipped Labour majority was used to defeat the Liberal Democrat amendment which had stipulated:

To maintain the objectives of effective democratic scrutiny, as intended by the Labour Government which introduced the current decision making process, we therefore propose, having taken account of the current review of arrangements for call-in:

(1) That any Cabinet decision which has implications for the whole or a large part of the borough can be called in by any three Councillors (for the avoidance of doubt these can be Councillors of one or more than one group).

(2) That any Cabinet decision which has implications for just one ward within the

borough can be called in by any one councillor.

In answer to criticism that this would substantially increase the number of call-ins it is argued that there are are already guidelines in place that would ensure call-ins were legitimate. A call-in in the past has been refused on that basis.  LINK

 As Cllr Kasangra pointed out. the new rule  requiring more that  one party submit a compliant call-in request, also means that Labour backbenchers, however many may support a call-in would not be able to do so with Opposition councillor support.

There was such a call-in previously over plans for the Granville Centre in Kilburn LINK:

The call-in of the proposal to build housing on the Granville-Carlton site on the South Kilburn estate will be heard by the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday. The Cabinet's decision was called in by required 5 non-executive councillors in this case Cllrs Abdi, Chan, Hector, Pavey and Hassan.

An example of a Liberal Democrat - Conservative call-in was Altamira in 2022 which was not well-received by Cllr Butt. LINK

The change effectively means that any call-in must now be supported by both Opposition groups and, given their widely differing political perspectives. can we expect fewer call-ins in the future?

Is this good for democracy?

 

Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease – the case for the tile mural

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The Olympic torch tile mural, and the torchbearer about to light the Olympic flame in 1948.

 

Brent’s Cabinet meeting on Tuesday 28 May will decide on the award of a new advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge, from 31 August 2024 for the next four years. They have two options to choose from, and Council Officers are recommending Option B for approval:-

 

Extract from the Officer Report for 28 May meeting. (Note that Officers can’t spell Bobby Moore!)

 

The Officer Report is heavily biased in favour of Option B, but I will have a chance to redress the balance. More than 100 people signed a petition calling on Brent Council and its Cabinet to only award a lease for advertising on the parapets of the bridge (Option A), so that the tile murals on the walls of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway, celebrating Wembley’s sports and entertainment history, can be put back on public display. This means that I can present that petition to the Cabinet meeting, before they consider the award of the advertising lease.

 

Most of the tile murals on the subway walls have been hidden behind adverts, or LED light panels which can be used for advertising, for more than ten years. They were installed as a public artwork, so it is important that Cabinet members can see pictures of at least some of the mural scenes their decision will affect. 

 

I asked to include a short powerpoint slide show as part of my presentation, but this was refused. Apparently, it is essential that all the screens show the digital clock, counting down the time remaining, when a member of the public speaking! I was offered the chance to provide my images in advance of the meeting, which I have done. This pdf document has been shared with Cabinet members, and I will ask Martin to attach a copy at the foot of this article, so that you can see it. 

 

This, for readers’ information, is an outline of what I hope to say during my five minute petition presentation at the Cabinet meeting:-

 

Today you’ll decide on the new advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge. The petition asks you to award the lease only for the bridge parapets – Option A – so that the tile murals on the subway walls can be put back on display

 

You’ll see, from the photos in my presentation, why those murals deserve to be seen again, permanently.

 

Brent commissioned this public artwork, and it was specially designed to welcome visitors, with colourful murals celebrating Wembley’s sports and entertainment history.

 

There are eleven mural scenes that have been hidden away since 2013, including the Olympic torchbearer and flag at the start of Olympic Way, an important reminder of Wembley’s 1948 Olympic Games.

 

Other hidden scenes cover a variety of subjects, including famous concerts at the Stadium, and the Horse of the Year Show, ice skating and Harlem Globetrotters at the Arena.

 

Wembley History Society has been campaigning to have the murals returned to public view since 2018. Its efforts saw the footballers mural, with its plaque unveiled by Bobby Moore’s widow in 1993, uncovered the following year.

 

We joined the Mayor and Council Leader in welcoming the temporary display of three mural scenes in Olympic Way, at the start of Borough of Culture year in 2020, when the Council acknowledged that ‘the tiles are part of Brent’s rich heritage.’

 

Quintain put those scenes, just outside the subway, back on permanent display in August 2022.

 

Option A is the opportunity to allow every resident, and visitor to Wembley Park, to enjoy all of the beautiful murals, as Brent originally intended.

 

The tile murals don’t have legal protection, but they are a heritage asset, with historic and artistic merit. Brent has a commitment to value heritage assets.

 

A paragraph from Brent’s 2019 Historic Environment Strategy.

 

Good lighting in the subway, and the safety of everyone using it, is very important.

 

When improvements were made to Olympic Way a few years ago, Brent gave £17.8m CIL money towards the work, but allowed Quintain to organise it. 

 

The lighting design for the subway was based on the LED advertising panels Quintain wanted to install, even though they knew those panels had to be removed when the lease expired.

 

There will need to be changes when the panels are removed. I’m sure the Council can work with Quintain and its lighting designer on those, though it may mean a short delay in taking down the LED panels, and possibly some extra CIL funding.

 

But using the advantage of reflected light, off of the ceramic tiles, could actually reduce energy consumption!

 

[Although I won’t have enough time to include this in my presentation, when Quintain’s Head of Masterplanning and its lighting designer came to a meeting of Wembley History Society in October 2018, to discuss their plans for the Bobby Moore Bridge subway, it was suggested to them that the tile murals could be lit in such a way that the reflected light would help to light the subway itself.]

 

Second half of the Leader Foreword from the Officer Report for 28 May meeting.

The social value benefits, mentioned in the Leader Foreword, will be provided by the supplier under the new lease, whichever Option you decide on.

 

A lease under Option A will guarantee the Council a minimum rent in excess of ninety thousand pounds a year.

 

Option B would pay slightly more, but the amount involved is a tiny part of Brent’s budget.

 

The financial difference would be less than the cultural, social, educational and heritage value of putting all the tile murals back on public display.

 

I commend Option A to you, and ask you to vote for it.

 

I think my presentation makes a strong case for putting all the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals back on display. Whether this is enough to persuade Cabinet members remains to be seen!

 

Philip Grant.

 

The webcast of the Cabinet Meeting can be viewed on Tuesday 10am HERE

Wembley Stadium bids for planning permission for up to 54 major events (each 60,000+ attendance) a year

Wembley National Stadium Ltd has applied for a change in the cap on the number of events held at the stadium annually:

The variation of Condition 1 will allow the use of the Stadium for up to 54 major events per calendar year (an additional 8 events), with a major event considered as one with an event capacity in excess of 60,000 people.

 

The variation proposed also includes other changes to modernise the Event Cap as set out below. This variation is required to the Event Cap to ensure it is fit for purpose in response to industry change and an increasingly competitive market. Whilst the revised Event Cap could be taken up in full, in practice WNSL are unlikely to host this number of major events, with the additional events sought principally to ensure sufficient ‘headroom’ is available to support the booking process for artistes.

 

An amendment to Condition 2 is sought to enable the implementation of temporary traffic measures for up to 54 major events.

Concerts earn more income than sporting events and the application is for the ability to hold more  of them.

The higher direct economic impact associated with non-sporting events was due to a range of factors, including longer dwell times in and around the stadium and greater number of long distance domestic and international visitors, resulting in longer trip durations and more overnight stays. In particular, average expenditure per head was 120% higher for accommodation (£22 compared to £10) and 50% higher for food and drink (£12 compared to £8).

The non-sporting event timetable:

You might be forgiven for thinking that WNSL assume the result of the application, which has to go to Brent Planning Committee, is a foregone conclusion:

       WNSL has conducted pre-application discussions with the Leader and Chief Executive of Brent Council where the proposals in this application were presented. Following that meeting it was agreed between the attendees that:

    “The proposals presented were positively received and WNSL were commended for their professional delivery of stadium event operations to date. It was recognised that the flexibility built into the application to provide a range of dates to promoters and artists is a necessary requirement for WNSL to continually deliver global event success and retain Wembley Stadium’s world class status as an iconic venue for the delivery of sporting and non-sporting events. The benefits of retaining high quality acts at the stadium also reap great rewards for the borough of Brent through the growth of the local community, businesses, economy and tourism.”

There is no mention in the Planning Statement of mitigation for the impact of an increased number of events on local people.  Residents' ability to move around the area, especially by public transport, is directly impacteded. Some bus routes are doverted and others, such as the 206 curtailed completely.

For several weeks running now there has been next to no 206 bus service between Brent Park and The Paddocks in Wembley at the weekend. Yesterday I found a 3 generation family waiting in vain for the 206 at The Paddocks to go to the Swaminarayan Temple in  Brentfield Roadm Neasden. They had to abandon their outing.

Local resident Peggy Wylie asked in November 2023 when full-working on event days would be restored for the 206 following earlier promises that this would happen once North End Road was connected with Bridge Road. This was completed several years ag but the 206 still doesn't run and the elderly and infirm on the Pilgrims Way estate are cut-off on event days.

The latest statement from Brent Council earlier this month gives some hope:

We have been working with TfL Buses and projects in the Wembley area including Two Way working phase 2 which includes the provision of bus stands and us driver facilities on Great Central Way and making First Way two way. The scheme is at detailed design stage and we envisage that it will be delivered later this financial year.

The North End Road / Bridge Road junction has been enabled for future signalisation, with ducts and chambers already constructed. However, highway work is required for providing tactile paving at pedestrian crossings, reconfiguring road markings, assisting TfL’s signals contractor in pulling cables etc. We are now awaiting a cost estimate and provisional programme date from our term contractors GW Highways. We anticipate the work to take approximately 2 weeks and when programming we will of course need to consider the events programme for Wembley Stadium to minimise any congestion and inconvenience.

Once we have a provisional programme date agreed, we will coordinate with Transport for London traffic signals team who will programme with their contractors.

So far there are only 3 residents' comments on the Planning Website (Ref 24/1329) all oppose the increased cap and two are from residents of new blocks close to the stadium.

The information on Statutory Consultees comments on the Brent Council site are remarkably uninformative.

WNSL claim to have consulted with the following bodies:

WNSL has continued to organise regular Business and Residents Liaison Committee meetings which provide an opportunity to discuss operations with a number of groups including:

1.     Cairnfield Residents Association

2. Wembley Park Traders Association

3. Chalkhill Residents Association

4.  Wembley Park Residents Association

5.   Princess Court Residents Association

6.    Barn Hill Residents Association

7.     Brentfield Community Group

8.   Danes/Empire Court Residents Association

9.   Eskdale & Loweswater Close Residents Association

10.  Metropolitan Police

11.  Chichester House Residents Association

12.  Wembley Champions Group

13.  Ealing Road Traders Association

14.  Wembley Central & Alperton Residents Association

  The application Reference is 24/1329 on the Council Website

Comment HERE

 

Fryent Way closed on Saturday June 1st for Champions League Final coach parking

 

I asked Brent Council about this notice as the number given was not responding. This is their information for residents:

On the 1st June Wembley stadium will be hosting the Champions League Final. There are two foreign teams in the final Dortmund and Real Madrid. UEFA have taken over all the official car parks for the event. Therefore, approximately 113 coaches will need to be parked on Fryent Way. Dortmund will park on Fryent Way, and to enable this to take place, the road will be closed to through traffic from around 23:00 on the 31st May to around 2am on the 2^nd June.* Traffic are to follow the diversion routes that will be signed. 

 

Fryent Way Car Park will be for staff parking only. All pre-booked.

 

* Note the timings given by the council for the beginning of the closure are different than those on the sign.  The closure of Fryent Way often results in long queues of traffic accessing Salmon Street through the restricted width entry point on the roundabout.

Philip Grant took this photograph 2011 when it was Barcelona that used Fryent Way for coach parking. Some came all the way from Spain while others picked up fans at the airport.

 

Was the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease bidding process fair?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

I’ve already written about my open letter to the Council Leader, seeking to ensure that voting on Brent’s award of a new advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge at next week’s Cabinet meeting is fair, between the two options that bids were sought for.

 

In this article, I will share my concerns over whether the way in which the Council carried out the process for awarding this contract gave a fair chance to advertising companies other than the existing “supplier”, Quintain Ltd (or its Wembley Park subsidiary).

 

The new lease was published as an open Invitation to Tender (“ITT”) on the Contracts Finder website on 15 February 2024, just as any other similar procurement opportunity would be. As the Officer Report to the 28 May Cabinet meeting shows, it produced 18 expressions of interest from organisations who might consider bidding:

 

 

The Report does not go on to say how many of the 18 organisations actually made a bid! This seemed odd, so I wrote to Brent’s Chief Executive, and the Corporate Director (Partnerships, Housing and Resident Services) who had signed off the Report, late on Friday afternoon, and asked them to let me know the number of bids received, saying this ‘is surely not "exempt information"!’

 

I received a reply, although not the answer, from the Corporate Director on Tuesday afternoon. In brief, it said:

 

‘On this occasion, the number of bidders and the sums bid are commercially sensitive and therefore cannot be disclosed. … Sharing the number of bids received regarding this tender process could risk prejudicing this particular procurement …. I apologise that on this occasion we cannot disclose more information.’

 

Ever since I obtained copies of the tender documents back in February, I have felt that the answer, the number of bids, might be just one (or only one which successfully made it through the vetting process which the Council had set out in those documents for bids received). It now seems that I will never know for sure.

 

The publicly available Report recommends that Cabinet: ‘Approve the award of a contract for Bobby More Bridge Advertising … to Quintain Ltd.’  As Quintain’s Wembley Park subsidiary already has the current advertising lease, and the advertising display screens in place, it was always unavoidable that they would have an advantage in the bidding process. But did the process reinforce their advantage, and if so, was that by accident or design?

 

I have taken a close interest in this matter, as I was the person who in early 2021 suggested to the Council Leader and then Chief Executive that when the advertising lease came up for renewal it should be by competitive tender. That should ensure the Council received the best possible income from advertising on its Bobby Moore Bridge asset, which in turn would make it possible to consider an option that would allow the heritage tile murals in the subway to be put back on public display. Carolyn Downs agreed my suggestion in March 2021.

 

I exchanged emails with Brent’s current Chief Executive earlier this year, to check that the competitive tender process agreed with her predecessor was going ahead. When she confirmed that was the case, I wrote:

 

‘Can I suggest, please, that the term of the lease for which bids are invited should be five years from 31 August 2024.

 

There are two reasons why I believe that this makes sense:

 

1. The existing advertisement consent (necessary to be able to advertise on the Bobby Moore Bridge) runs until 16 September 2029, so that five years from 31 August 2024 would be covered by that consent.

 

2. The reason why the four year lease to 30 August 2021, as approved by Cabinet, was extended by three years (at the request of the leaseholder, Wembley Park Ltd), was to allow five years use of the new advertising screens which the leaseholder installed in 2019. It was said that being assured those screens could be used for five years would make their installation commercially viable.

 

If any new advertising leaseholder needs to install their own new equipment, or purchase the existing equipment from the current leaseholder, a five year term would be more commercially attractive than a shorter term, and make it more worthwhile to offer a good price in the tender process.’

 

Kim Wright replied: ‘Thank you for your suggestion and we will consider this as part of our thinking.’ But when the ITT documents were published, this is what they said about how long the advertising lease would be for:

 

 

One of my concerns is that the Council Officer(s) who handled this bidding process were the same ones who handled the “secret” 2019 lease extension, using the commercial need for five years use of the LED advertising screens that Quintain installed as justification for changing the August 2021 end date, on the lease which Brent’s Cabinet had approved, to August 2024! They would understand the importance of that fifth year to potential bidders, and yet ….

 

When my enquiries in 2021 uncovered this lease extension, and some “very dodgy” features of it (especially over “proving” that the rent to be paid was best value), I complained to the then Chief Executive that there appeared to be “too cosy” a relationship between Quintain and the Council Officers involved. Were their actions here affected by that cosiness?

 

If potential bidders were not put off by only having four years to generate a profit from advertising on the Bobby Moore Bridge, after paying Brent a guaranteed minimum annual rent, they faced completing a number of detailed forms, and doing so within a tight time frame (by noon on 18 March). One of the most complex was the Quality Statement, with separate forms to be submitted for each of the two options. This was the introduction and first question on the Option A sheet:

 

 

 

 When you had worked your way down the form, this is what you would find at Question 5:

 

 

Quintain would definitely have an advantage in answering this question, as they had already installed this infrastructure in 2019. New bidders would have to do site visits, and research about local electricity supply, before they could start to prepare this detailed implementation plan. Yet all six of the questions had to be answered, and all of the other forms completed as well, otherwise your bid would be invalid (not a ‘compliant Tender response’). And then your answers would be evaluated, by Council Officers.

 

I was surprised when I saw the weighting which was being applied to the various aspects of the bids:

 

 

As the Council was supposed to be seeking the best economic return from advertising on its Bobby Moore Bridge asset, only giving the amount offered 35% of the overall score seemed rather low (although I don’t claim to be an expert on procurement!). As indicated above, Quintain’s prior experience of installing and operating advertising at the site would appear to give it a big advantage in the Quality/Technical section, which accounted for more than half the total score. And even though Social Value only counted for 10% of the weighting, this included features such as local employment (I’m sure you can guess where Wembley Park Ltd’s employees work).

 

I asked in my title: ‘Was the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease bidding process fair?’ I still can’t answer that question, but you will understand that I have my doubts about it.

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

On the third strike day Byron Court strikers and supporters are in good heart and voice

 

Outside theBrent Civic Centre...

 and inside

Byron Court strikers and their parent and community supporters took their protest from the picket line to Brent Civic Centre this morning. Their energery remains undiminished on the third strike day against forced academisation and determinations has, if anything, increased.

Daniel Kebede, NEU General Secretary joined the picket line and congratulated the campign on their 'push back' on forced academisation that would stand as an example to others:

 

 

Buoyed by the support, including that of three Brent councillors, the strikers and supporters were in good voice on the picket line and at the Civic Centre. 

 

 

 

Yesterday one of the Byron Court NEU representatives, Alice Butterton, told Wembley Matters about the impact of the Ofsted judgement on staff and parents. (The Byron Court girls cricket team won their cricket tournament!) 

 

Brent Council Cabinet and Committee appointments for 2024-2025

 Brent Council Cabinet and Committee appointments have been published ahead of the AGM tomorrow evening where Cllr Tariq Dar will be installed as Mayor.

Cabinet and other appointments/nominations are all made by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt. Note that on the Barham Trust Committee the Cabinet have to approve their own appointment!

The two Scrutiny Committees are important to ensure there is careful consideration of Cabinet decisions and initiatives. I do not know if there is any significance in the word 'Scrutiny' missing from Resources and Public Realm. Note that chairs and vice chairs of both committees are from the Labour Party. This will change if the Liberal Democrat constitutional amendment is passed.

Given the amount of development in Brent the 'non-political' Planning Committee is of particular significance. Again Chair and Vice Chair are Labour nominations.

 There are several fairly independent Labour councillors on the Audit and Standards Committee:

 

Other Committee appointments are Labour only. Note the appointment of Cllr Saqib Butt, Vice Chair of Planning and brother of Muhammed Butt the Council Leader, To the First Wave Housing Board, 14B Board and deputy to Cllr Kelcher (Chair of Planning) on Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation Planning Committee.

For other appointments see LINK.