Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease - Brent’s response to complaint. Have you had experience of trying to complain to Brent Council?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Extract from Brent Council’s website on Complaints and Feedback.

 

On 2 September, Martin published an open letter of complaint that I had sent to Brent’s Chief Executive, Kim Wright, on 30 August, objecting to the undisclosed conflict of interests and bias in the Report and recommendation for the award of the new advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge. I received the Council’s response on 9 September from Brent’s Corporate Director Finance and Resources, ‘(Covering for the Chief Executive)’, and in the interests of transparency and fair play I have asked Martin to publish that response in full below.

 

The response tells me that everything was done ‘in accordance with the council’s standard practices’, so that the process ‘was open and fair and that the award of the contract will therefore stand, as formally agreed by Cabinet.’

 

Have you ever made a complaint to Brent Council? If so, have they ever admitted that they made a mistake or did something wrong? I’d be interested to receive your feedback on this in the comments section.

 

My own feeling on the response below is that has been composed in a way that the Council can claim that they’ve answered all the points I raised, without directly answering any of them! If you feel inclined to read on, you can judge for yourself.

 

‘Dear Mr Grant,

 

In response to your letter dated 30 August 2024, I can confirm that the report was drafted and agreed in accordance with the council’s standard practices.

 

The information regarding the tiles was supplied by the council’s Heritage Officer. He noted that the tiled murals under the Bobby Moore Bridge and on the adjoining retaining walls, which depict various scenes of sports and entertainment events, have historic and artistic merit. They are considered a non-designated heritage asset within the meaning in the National Planning Policy Framework. The tiles are not statutory listed, but none-the-less the council will continue to ensure they are protected regardless of this fact during the contract period. The tile mural with plaque will remain on permanent display during the contract period. The tiled flank walls outside the underpass are also on display.

 

As you are aware, council officers did not make the final decision for this contract as their role was to make a recommendation. The final award decision was made solely by Cabinet and, despite your concerns, I am satisfied that the report was a fair representation of the facts, including the details of your petition.

 

Financial information is always provided in council reports to ensure Cabinet has the full information available to make rounded decisions. In the current national and local context, where council budgets are stretched like never before it is perfectly rational for the council to seek to generate external income where it can. There were also other, non-financial, benefits which the report outlined regarding the option which was agreed by the Cabinet.

 

Officers routinely and properly make recommendations about matters which are the responsibility of services they manage, or which may impact on those services financially or operationally. To suggest that officers should be precluded from involvement in such matters is unrealistic and unreasonable and would often prevent members from receiving advice from those best placed to give it. It is of course proper for an officer dealing with a contract award to set out any impact on the service budget of different options and to recommend that members take that into account in making their decision. The council’s communications service budget is used to support the delivery of essential services including ensuring residents are informed and engaged about issues that affect them and know how to access the services they need.

 

It should also be noted that Service Heads routinely work with officers to generate reports where income is allocated into their budget. In this case, there were many officers involved, besides the two officers stated in the Cabinet Report. This includes procurement officers, the heritage officer, highways officers, sales and marketing officer, finance officer, governance officers and colleagues from legal. The report was also agreed by the Corporate Director, Partnerships, Housing & Resident Services before it was presented to Cabinet. The two officers named in the report also made additional efforts to work with you in advance of the tender given your interest in the tiles.

 

In summary, I am confident that this procurement was open and fair and that the award of the contract will therefore stand, as formally agreed by Cabinet.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Minesh Patel (Covering for the Chief Executive)

 

Corporate Director Finance and Resources
Finance and Resources
Brent Council’

 

Extract from the “How your complaint will be dealt with” section of Brent’s website

 

My open letter to Brent’s Chief Executive was headed: “Formal complaint over the award of the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease.’ You may have noticed that the response from Brent does not mention the word “complaint”, and the email subject line was simply ‘CRM:00000000488000000021’! And it does not inform me of my right to request a final review (or of my right to involve the Local Government Ombudsman if I am dissatisfied with the way my complaint was dealt with). Is Brent Council now dealing with complaints by not even treating them as complaints?

 

Philip Grant.

UPDATE, WEMBLEY EXTRA EVENTS APPLICATION APPROVED Quintain's comments on extra major stadium events application and officers' conclusion on the application to be decided tonight

UPDATE

BRENT PLANNING COMMITTEE APPROVED THE EXTRA EVENTS APPLICATION WITH JUST ONE VOTE AGAINST. MINUTES WILL GO TO PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF WIDER ISSUES RAISED.

The application by Wembley National Stadium Ltd (WNSL) for additional major events at the stadium will be heard at 6pm tonight. The officer's report to the Planning Committee can be read HERE. The public can attend the meeting in person at the Civic Centre or watch online HERE.

While the full report can be read on the link above I print below two significant extracts. Quintain Ltd is the owner of  some land within the planning application area and their developments around the stadium now has a large number of residents, many of whom have become restive over the impact of Wembley events on their lives:

 

QUINTAIN COMMENTS 

 

The proposal is supported subject to the following conditions:

 

From reviewing the representations submitted by local residents, it is clear that event day management, and in particular stewarding and post-event cleaning, are areas of significant concern. Therefore, WNSL should commit to paying all the operational and management costs associated with the additional events and/or any event that exceeds the existing caps of 22 sporting events and 24 non -sporting events in a calendar year.

 

WNSL have highlighted the success of the triparty ‘Best in Class’ initiative between WNSL, Quintain and Brent, which currently manages the impacts of event days upon the local area and state this will be implemented for the additional events. Whilst we agree that the ‘Best in Class’ principles covering stewarding, parking enforcement, traffic management, toilets and street cleaning should apply to the additional events, the increased costs associated with delivering these should be borne wholly by WNSL.

 

To ensure residents’ amenity is adequately protected, WNSL should commit to the following restrictions on events: a cap on the maximum number of consecutive non -sporting events; a cap on the maximum number of non-sporting events per week; and a cap on the maximum number of weeks in any calendar year where the maximum number of consecutive non -sporting events or maximum number of non-sporting events in a week can be held.

 

The above conditions should be included in the s.106 Agreement (Deed of Variation).

 

Should they not be secured, Quintain reserve the right to make further representations. As a participant in the Best in Class initiative, and owner of land within the planning application boundary where many of these measures will take place, Quintain would expect to be consulted on the Deed of Variation before it is completed

 

We would also request that WNSL, TfL and Brent work closely on mitigating the impact Stadium events have upon existing bus routes and services to ensure residents are able to carry on their daily lives and move around the area on event days with the minimum of disruption.

 

 

THE OFFICER REPORT CONCLUSIONS (original report paragraph numbers)

 

 

144. The objections received indicate that there is a level of impact currently experienced by local residents as a result of events at the Stadium, with concerns predominantly focussed on anti-social behaviour, transport issues, air quality and noise. Some impacts are to be expected, given the size of the Stadium and its siting in a location surrounded by residential properties and businesses, within a dense urban area, although it must be remembered that a Stadium has been in situ for over 100 years.

 

145. The original cap on events was imposed to manage the impacts until such time as specific transport improvements had been made. Whilst most of these have taken place, not all of them have been realised. Circumstances have changed since the original planning permission in 2002, which suggest that the final piece of transport infrastructure (i.e., the Stadium Access Corridor) will not be provided in its originally envisaged form, but other changes to the road network have now taken place. Therefore, the Council considers that the cap remains relevant.

 

146. Clearly, to increase the number of higher capacity events to accommodate up to 8 additional major non-sporting events per calendar year would imply an increase in the impact. However, a wide range of mitigation measures have previously been secured and would continue to do so to help mitigate these impacts. There are ongoing efforts to reduce the number of vehicles on an event day, including additional parking enforcement capacity and an updated Spectator Travel Plan to promote sustainable travel patterns. WNSL and public transport operators work closely to promote sustainable transport solutions and maximise the efficiency of the network. This in turn contributes to reducing noise and air quality issues.

 

147. Infrastructure works including two-way working in the area to the east of the Stadium and the opening of a link between the western end of North End Road and Bridge Road to provide an east-west route past the Stadium that is capable of being kept open at all times before and after Stadium events has improved traffic flow in the area and assist residents’ movements on event days.

 

148. The Trusted Parking Scheme aims to ensure authorised car parks are responsibly run in a way that would limit their impact on neighbouring residents and reduce local congestion, whilst the Private Hire Management Scheme would reduce the number of vehicles in the area around the Stadium after events have finished.

 

149. Employment and Training benefits for Brent residents would also be secured by the proposed scheme.

 

150. With regard to antisocial behaviour, a financial contribution would be paid by the Stadium to Brent Council per additional major non-sporting event. This would go towards mitigation measures as agreed between WNSL and the Council which may cover measures to address anti-social behaviour.

 

151. Whilst it is appreciated that local residents face challenges on event days, the direct economic benefits for the local Brent economy of Stadium events are also recognised, including spending on accommodation, food, drink and other ancillary items within the Wembley area. The uplift in the event cap would also create additional event day steward and catering positions. Whilst some types of business would suffer on event days, many would benefit from the influx of people to the area.

 

152. In summary, it is recognised that there is a level of impact associated with major events now, and that this would increase with an increase in the number of high capacity major events. However, the measures proposed would ensure that this is moderated as much as is reasonably achievable. All are considered necessary to mitigate the increased number of major events which this application proposes.

 

153. A further consideration is that the Stadium can already be used for events up to 51,000 without restriction. Existing mitigation measures would be extended to cover this increase. Measures including the training and employment opportunities would apply more broadly to Stadium events, not just the additional major non-sporting events for which permission is sought under this application and would therefore provide wider benefits to local people and the local economy more generally.

 

154. The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, having regard to material planning considerations. While there will inevitably be some additional impacts associated with an increase in the number of higher capacity non-sporting events, a range of mitigation measures are proposed and some benefits are also anticipated. The proposal is, on balance, recommended for approval.

 

Reading the report, although TfL mention the rail and tube routes they pay little attention to bus routes and their diversion and curtailment that impacts on residents.

Despite several protests over the curtailment of the 206 bus at Brent Park, affecting workers travelling to the industrial estates south of the stadium and school pupils when events are held on weekdays, no proposals are contained enabling the route to use the North End Road link.

Barham Park Trust accounts withdrawn for second year. Cllr Lorber claims 'accounts wrong and misleading'.

Speakers were not allowed at the Barham Park Trust meeting yesterday, once again limiting the scrutiny of Trustees who are all Brent Cabinet members. Yesterday the accounts had to be withdrawn. Cllr Paul Lorber today write to Brent Council's Chief Executive:

 

Last year I challenged the accuracy of the 2022-23 Barham Park Trust Accounts (the Charity)

I pointed out that they were wrong because:

1.  They were wrong on the basis they were prepared and presented. They did not show correct information in a clear and transparent way.
2. They were wrong because they did not reflect the correct rent due to the Charity.
3. They were wrong because they did not show the Service Charges due to the Charity.
4. They were wrong because they did not show the correct service charges due to the Charity.
5. They were wrong because around £20,000 of architects charges that were authorised to be paid by the Council were charged to the Charity without authority.
6. They are wrong because insufficient interest was paid to the Charity by Brent Council for use of the Charity’s Cash balance.
7. They were wrong because expenditures incurred on behalf of the Charity by the Council were not shown in the Accounts.
8. They were wrong in many other aspects too many to list here.

My concerns were discussed at a meeting with you and the Director of Finance.

I did not accept the explanations and justifications given as I consider them to be wrong and flawed.

The 2022-23 Accounts were withdrawn from the Barham Trust Meeting in September 2023 and only represented in January 2024. In my view they were still wrong.

You asked for a “top level review” of those accounts without ever being willing to confirm who undertook the review or whether they were qualified in the field of Charity accounts to undertake it. 

The conclusion you reported to the Trust was that there was nothing wrong with the accounts but that the presentation of the Accounts could be “more clear and transparent”.

Just over a week ago the 2023-24 Accounts were published as part of the papers for the Barham Park Trust meeting on 10 September 2024.

I challenged those accounts because they were neither “clear or transparent” and because as in the previous year they were wrong. I advised the Director of Finance and other officers of my concerns and pointed out many errors and discrepancies, requesting replies before the meeting.

I did not receive any substantive replies. 

The Accounts are once again wrong and misleading.

You are not an accountant and rely on advice of others who are. I did however point out to you the importance of accurate and clear accounts. Without accuracy and clarity decision makers cannot make the right decisions. Wrong decisions have major consequences as they have for the Barham Park Trust for many years - money is wasted and wrong decisions are made.

Without any explanations from the Director of Finance or any questions from the Trustees the 2023-24 Accounts for the Charity were once again pulled from the Agenda at the last minute.

That is the 2nd time in 2 years. Why - because they are wrong and misleading. I am right and your finance officers are wrong.

This has now turned into a major credibility issue for:

You

Director of Finance and his Team

Leader of Brent Council and all the other Trustees

The Independent Examiner 

Brent Council

If something as simple as the Accounts for a small Barham Park  Trust Charity are wrong and have to be withdrawn two years running how can anyone have confidence in Brent Council’s own accounts. How much in failed income collections or inappropriate expenditure do those accounts hide?

I, Scrutiny Committee and the whole Council were fobbed off last year by the so called ‘Top Level Review’.

That cannot happen again.

The Barham Park Trust accounts must be produced and presented on the accruals basis (the same as is done for Brent Council’s accounts) so that they show clearly and in sufficient detail and clarity the Income and Expenditure of the Charity and  its Assets and Liabilities. The accounts should show clearly the income from rents due (receivable) by the Charity in any one year in its Income and Expenditure Account and any amounts due to its debtors within the balance sheet. They should also show clearly the cost of services incurred and donated by the Council to support the Charity. Only then will a reader of those accounts see the true picture.

It is clear to me that the Brent Finance Department  do not understand and lack the experience of producing Charity Accounts. The task should be handed over to a competent person with the necessary skills and knowledge to do so.

Many wrong decisions were made at the meeting on 10 September 2024 partly as a result of the failure to fully understand the financial position of the Charity. This is partly due to the wrong accounts and lack of understanding of the true position of the Charity. Those decisions will be challenged and they should be reviewed.

As I care about Barham Park and believe that its affairs need to be managed properly I am happy to provide my services and accounting experience and advice free of charge.

I look forward to your early reply as to how this mess will be sorted.

Regards

Paul

PS. For the avoidance of doubt Friends of Braham Library pay their rent and are not one of the current tenants who owe any rent to the Charity. 

Brent Cabinet rejects residents' petition calling for wider discussion of the impact of additional Wembley Stadium events. Planning Committee decision tomorrow.

 

The petition calling on Brent Council to hold a wider consultation on Wembley Stadium's application to hold more large events was presented to the Cabinet yesterday. Presenting the petition Cllr Paul Lorber first declared an interest in having received tickets for events at the stadium that he had then passed on to residents. At the beginning of the meeting Cllr Muhammed Butt asked his Cabinet colleagues if they had any interests to declare and they remained silent - as did he.

 The petition has been added to the end of this post. It points out the impact of events on residents and asks for a public meeting where residents can express their views and the Council respond accordingly. Cllr Lorber pointed out that two representations at tomorrow's decision making Planning Committee, of only a few minutes each, was not sufficient to represent the widespread concerns.

There was no direct response to that request from the Cabinet.

Cllr Shama Tatler, lead member for Planning and Regeneration was  circumspect in her answer, acknowledging the potential for a contribution to be seen as predetermination of the application. She spoke of the need to balance the interests of residents with the economic drive that the stadium gives to Wembley. She said she did not want to comment any further as the planning application is live.

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt showed no such inhibitions:

The stadium has been here longer than all of us have been born and makes a significant contribution, not just to Wembley but to the UK. The various events adds to the value of what we plan to do with working with the stadium, for it to be the great stadium it is, and also to make sure we keep our commitment and support for our residents as well.

The applications goes to Planning Committee tomorrow (Wednesday) at 6pm. Apart from the 274 signature petition there are 166 objections and just six in support. However, planning officers recommend that the Committee approve the application alongside various mitigations LINK:

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, having regard to material planning considerations. While there will inevitably be some additional impacts associated withan increase in the number of higher capacity non-sporting events, a range of mitigation measures are proposed and some benefits are also anticipated. The proposal is, on balance, recommended for approval

THE PETITION

We the undersigned petition the council to Consult and to Listen to concerns of local residents and businesses about the impact of increasing the number of "Large" Events at Wembley Stadium

 

Plans for the new Wembley Stadium were approved in 1999 with a limit of 37 Large Events per year. A few years later Brent Council allowed an increase to 46 Large Events per year. The Stadium owners have now applied for planning permission to increase this by another 8 to 54 Large Events per year.

 

Large Events at the Stadium have a major impact on the lives of local people and business - especially when as many as three events are held on 3 successive days.

 

We call on Brent Council (jointly with representatives of the FA) to carry out an extensive public consultation with Brent residents and local businesses on the social and economic impacts of Wembley Stadium Large scale events before the Planning Application is considered by the Brent Council's Planning Committee.

 

We believe that local people and businesses have the right to be properly consulted and informed about these possible changes and for their views to be assessed and documented before any decision is made.

 

Mega re-development site for South Kilburn to maximise site capacity

 From Brent Council

 

Blake Court

 

Austen House and Blake Court

We are excited to announce the proposed integration of the Austen and Blake sites with the neighbouring MWD site (Masefield House, Wordsworth House, Dickens House, Kilburn Open Space, and Carlton Vale Infant School), a pivotal step in maximizing site capacity and enhancing project viability.

Initially conceived as separate schemes, these sites are now being considered as a single, cohesive redevelopment effort aimed at delivering a transformative impact on the local community.

Project Vision

This combined redevelopment aims to create a vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive community. The proposed plans will introduce:

• mix of new residential units
• Community facilities
• Green spaces, fostering a dynamic urban environment that caters to the needs of existing and future residents.

Design and Sustainability

Leading architectural firm Karakusevic Carson Architects along with the London Borough of Brent are spearheading the design efforts. The integration of Austen and Blake with the MWD site will ensure a seamless blend of modern architecture, sustainable practices, and community-oriented spaces.

Key design elements include:

• Diverse mix of housing tenures, including affordable units, to accommodate South Kilburn residents.
• Thoughtfully designed public spaces and green areas that encourage social interaction and foster a sense of community.
• Preservation of mature trees and implementation of green building practices to minimize environmental impact.

The redevelopment will also include the construction of a replacement primary school, providing state-of-the-art educational facilities for children aged 3-11. The school will feature provisions for a nursery and support for children with special educational needs, ensuring an inclusive learning environment.

Community Engagement

We are committed to involving the local community throughout the redevelopment process. Regular consultations and feedback sessions will be held in due course to ensure that the project aligns with the aspirations and needs of the residents.

Timescales

The planning application for the combined Austen and Blake and MWD site redevelopment is anticipated to be submitted in the first quarter of 2025. The development will be phased, with the first phase expected to be completed by late 2028.

Stay tuned for more updates as we embark on this exciting journey together.

 

A South Kilburn resident notes:

Over a 100 tenants are still living in the 5 buildings  and are waiting to be decanted. The council cannot develop the scheme until every building is empty.

Currently the demolition notice for Blake Court is due to expire by June 2025 so I assume the Council will need to rehouse the  remaining tenants as soon as possible in order to demolish it.

The replacement school for Kilburn Park Junior and Carlton Vale Infants, as a primary school, may prove controversial, particularly in terms of viable pupil numbers.

Barham Park Trust Committee moves to revise charitable purposes to allow for income boosting activities

 

Barham Park Studios - ACAVA

 

The Barham Park Trust Committee (made up solely of Brent Labour Cabinet Members) will approach the Charity Commission to widen the Trust's purposes. A report to the Committee that meets on Tuesday September 10th LINK  states:

The Trust's charitable purposes, primarily to serve public recreation, restrict broader activities that can generate revenue, limiting potential income.

Earlier proposals for the park buildings that included a boutique hotel and a small supermarket aroused local opposition as did the building of four houses on the site inside the park, currently occupied by two park workers' houses.

The Trust has realised that it cannot get full vacant possesion of the park properties, let to voluntary groups, until 2031 so is opting for a new strategy. This involves introducing service charges for all current occupants of the buildings, revising rents and leases and adopting a tougher approach to those in debt to the council:

Discussions are ongoing to establish a repayment plan with tenants who have fallen into arrears. However, the Trust Committee should be aware that proactive measures, including forfeiture or legal action, may be necessary for tenants who fail to comply with payment plans or do not settle their arrears. The delegated officer (Director of Property and Assets) will actively enforce contractual obligations. The total debt is approximately £62,3551 as of Q2 2024/25 financial year.

Given that Trust income is insufficient to carry out the necessary maintenance of the site one wonders why the arrears have been allowed to mount to this level. One debtor owed £44,500 so Brent Council gave the Trust this sum as a cash advance to aid the Trusts' cash flow position. The council is paying the Trust interest on the advance...

Two lease renewals are due and Brent Council will issue Section 25 notices (See our recent story on Brent Property Strategy LINK)

Lease Renewals for Unit 1 (Tamu Samaj UK), Unit 2 (Veterans’ Club

(Wembley), and Unit 8 (Brent Council - Children Centre)

Tenants currently occupying these units on expired leases are to be offered the opportunity to renew their leases. Officers will commission independent valuations and issue Section 25 notices to ensure lease renewals occur within statutory time limits, with independent valuations guiding negotiations. These renewals will align with strategic objectives, ensuring leases terminate before the anticipated redevelopment in 2031. They will include appropriate breakclauses and exclusion from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to obtain vacant possession at the proper time.

Whether the current occupants will be able to afford the new rates remains to be seen.

 The Officers' Report states:

The recommendation is that the Trust Committee defers the investment options proposed by RLB [boutique hotel etc] until vacant possession of the whole building can be acquired in 2031 (due to existing fixed-term leases with the longest one expiring in October 2031) at the latest and seeks to implement the vision in a phased approach, starting with regularising leases, carrying out urgent repairs and, subject to Charity Commission approval, expanding the permitted uses to attract a broader range of tenants to improve cash flow. This phased and incremental investment approach addresses immediate concerns and sets the stage for sustainable long-term growth and success. It is the most responsible, pragmatic and strategic path forward for the future vision of Barham Park.

Clearly there is much that the public and current occupants of the buildings would like to question but such contributions have been barely tolerated recently.  Most importantly, do the Brent public support the moves to change the charity purpose to allow for more development, probably commercial, to boost income? 

Will they be asked their views?