Barham Park Trustees approve original accounts in 7-1/2 minute meeting after refusing representations

 

The Barham Park Trust Committee, made up solely of members of the Brent Cabinet and chaired by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, took just 7 and a half minutes to deal with the CEO's 'High Level' review  report into the accounts and the Scrutiny Committee's Report made as a result of the Call-in of the Barham Trust accounts by backbench councillors.

That evening the CEO of Brent attending Scrutiny Commitete seemed reluctanmt (after a slight panic) to reflect on the content of the report when requested by Cllr Anton Georgiou.

 

 Councillor Butt was not paying much attention while the CEO was speaking!

Cllr Butt refused Cllr Georgiou's colleague, Cllr Paul Lorber's request to address the Trustee's at the Barham Park Trust Committee.

This triumph of open government and transparency resulted in the accounts as originally submitted being approved. There was a short reference to the need to collect rents - an issue that Cllr Lorber had first raised as the amounts shown in the accounts was much lesss than the rents due from the occupants of the Barham Park buildings.

The correspondence below speaks for itself - it all took place on January 23rd :

Philip Grant correspondence

This is the text of an email that I sent to Cllr. Muhammed Butt just before 5pm today. It was copied to the other four members of the Barham Park Trust Committee, to Brent's Chief Executive and Corporate Director of Governance, and to Cllr. Lorber:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

I have read online that you have refused a request from Councillor Paul Lorber to speak in respect of items 5 and 6 on the agenda for tomorrow morning's meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee. Is this true?

If it is true, I am writing to ask, as a citizen of Brent interested in the workings of democracy, that you change your mind on this, and let Cllr. Lorber know, without delay, that he will be permitted to speak to the committee.

What your Committee has to decide is whether to reconsider its acceptance of the Barham Park Trust Annual Report and Accounts, as it has been requested to do by the Council's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

Surely it is right that the Trust Committee hears all sides of this matter, before it makes its decision? That is the essence of openness and transparency in decision making which underpins our democracy.

Not to allow Cllr. Lorber to speak, as long as he does so respectfully, as required by the Members' Code of Conduct, would reflect very badly on Brent Council, and on yourself.

 

Within 15 minutes of sending the email in "FOR INFORMATION" above, I received the following reply from Cllr. Muhammed Butt:

'Dear Mr Grant

Thank you for the email and for trying to make the case.

I respectfully have to say the answer is no and will remain a firm no.

Regards

Muhammed

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council.'

 

I did not find that a satisfactory response to the points I had made, so I sent the following reply (copied to the same people as my first email) just after 6pm this evening:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my email.

As you acknowledge, I made a case for Cllr. Lorber to be allowed to speak at tomorrow's Trust Committee meeting.

You have said that 'the answer is no and will remain a firm no', but you have not explained your reasons for that.

I'm aware from watching previous Council meetings that there is "no love lost" between yourself and the former Lib Dem Leader of Brent Council. However, personal animosity should not influence your actions as Chair of the Trust Committee (if that is a factor in this case).

Have you taken advice from the Corporate Director for Governance over whether to block Cllr. Lorber's request to speak? Although you may have the power, as Chair, to refuse his request, it could be seen as an abuse of power.

Any councillor, and especially a Leader, is expected to demonstrate leadership by example. I have to say that this appears to me, as an independent observer, to set a poor example.

 

Yours,

Philip Grant.

 

Further to my two "FOR INFORMATION" comments above, I received the following email from Cllr. Butt at 7pm this evening:

'Thank you, Mr Grant.

I wouldn't describe the sharing of these exchanges to the Green Party blog to be either "independent" nor the definition of the public arena either - but what you do them with is your prerogative.

Cllr Lorber and I perfectly understand one and other, we have been colleagues on different sides of the council chamber for two decades and I am grateful as ever for his continued opinions on the matter, as is his right. It is also perfectly within mine to disagree.

I am clear there has been ample democratic opportunity and copious officer time and resource afforded to the matter. This item has been discussed at both the initial Barham Park meeting and at a subsequent scrutiny call-in meeting where there was repeat opportunity for all members and members of the public to contribute.

Given this is a reference back of a decision called in by Cllr Lorber the meeting will continue as planned.

Best wishes and thank you for your continued interest, please feel free to tune into the next meeting of the next Barham Park Trust meeting.

I wish you all the best and thank you for your continued interest.'


I sent the following reply to the Council Leader at 7.15pm:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your email, and fuller response.

The point I am trying to make is that, although the matter of the accounts has been looked at in various ways, the meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee tomorrow is meant to be reconsidering its original approval of the 2022/23 Annual Report and Accounts, on a referral back from a Scrutiny Committee.

If the Committee is not allowed to hear both sides of the case before making its decision (even though your own mind may already be made up?), that does not reflect well on Brent Council's democratic process. Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.'

 

This is the final exchange of emails between Cllr. Butt and myself this evening.

His email highlighted some of its text, and I will put that section in inverted commas:

'Dear Mr Grant

I think you have missed the point that I made to yourself, so I have highlighted it for you for clarity.

"I am clear there has been ample democratic opportunity and copious officer time and resource afforded to the matter. This item has been discussed at both the initial Barham Park meeting and at a subsequent scrutiny call-in meeting where there was repeat opportunity for all members and members of the public to contribute."

I wish you a good evening.'

This was my reply, shortly afterwards:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your email.

I had noted the point you have highlighted, but feel that you are also missing the point.

However, as our exchanges are, unfortunately, getting nowhere, I will also wish you a good evening. Yours,

Philip Grant.'

23 January 2024 at 19:46

 

Paul Lorber correspondence

 

In my discussions with the Brent Chief Executive and the Brent Director of Finance I made it clear that one of the beneficiaries of the mistakes made by the Trustees and Council Officers was a charity - Friends of Barham Library - of which I was a Trustee. I was urging them to correct their errors in the full knowledge that it will cost Friends of Barham Library money.

One of the material errors made by Council Officers, which the Trustees, including Cllr Butt, failed to spot was the failure to implement Rental reviews as set out om the various Leases between The Barham Park Trust and a number of the organisation (including friends of Barham Library) who rent premises in Barham Park.

What is wrong with the Barham park Trust 2022/23 Account No.5 deals with this point.

While throughout this process Cllr Butt and his fellow Trustees refused to accept that there was anything wrong at precisely 20.11p.m. (some Council Officers do work late) an officer from the Council's Property Department sent me an email to advise me that Friends of Barham Library will be subject to a rent review under the terms of our Lease backdated to October 2021.

I received this email just 36 hours before the Barham Park Trust Meeting due to start at 9:30am on Wednesday 24 January and after Cllr Butt refused my request to speak so that I could explain why the Accounts are wrong and what action was required to correct them.

Brent Council Officers have been charging the wrong rent to one of the tenants in Barham Park since 2019. Friends of Barham Library rent has been wrong since 2021. I have been pointing this out to the Trustees and to Council Officers for a very long time.

Assuming that the other tenant was sent a similar email and demand for back dated rent the Barham Park Trust will be better off by over £18,000.

To date neither Councillor Butt or the Council Officers have had the decency to admit that I was right or to acknowledge that as a result of my actions the Barham Park Trust is at last trying to retrieve some of the losses suffered as a result of their basic mistakes.

In contrast to the Accounts prepared by Council Officers for the Barham Park Trust which are wrong - the Accounts for Friends of Barham Library are correct. We knew what our correct rent should have been since 2021 and provided (accrued) for the extra rent due in our accounts for the last 2 years.

Councillor Butt may ignore the sensible contribution from Philip grant or silence me and others. He cannot hide the fact that he is WRONG and we are RIGHT.

Perseverance pays off (as the belated Council action about the rent reviews highlights) and the fight goes on.

 

 

Willesden Green councillors oppose the bank closures 'blight' on small businesses and the elderly

 

Wembley Matters published a letter LINK on January 12th setting out the impact of the closure of the Willesden Green branch of National Westminster Bank on the elderly, disabled and those without internet access.

 

It was good to hear thatWillesden Green councillors, Tom Miller, Janice Long and Saqlain Choudry had taken up the issue. with the banks

 

This is their letter in full:

 

We are writing to express our serious concern and disappointment over the announcement to close two bank branches – Lloyds and NatWest – in Willesden Green, both of which are due to close by the end of March this year. With uncertainty over the future of other branches looming, too, Willesden Green has now fallen victim to the surge of branch closures that is blighting local small businesses, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups. 

 

This is very disappointing news, especially given how NatWest has been rooted in the community; and there is real risk that cash provision and access to basic services will be severely affected. We have been contacted by several residents who have expressed their apprehension over this decision.

 

High street bank closures have become an epidemic in the last few years, with over half of bank branches in the UK shutting their doors in the eight years since the Conservatives came to government in 2015. There are now just 3,200 remaining in England – and Willesden Green and Brent are no exception to these dwindling numbers. The banks are a vital point for the community. These closures are yet another nail in the coffin for the UK’s high street banking infrastructure and will see some towns lose more than one bank within a matter of days or weeks – suggesting little thought has been given to the impact on the communities they serve. 

 

Many people, particularly older people and those with disabilities, need access to physical banking services which go much further than access to cash. It’s often about having a real person to talk to, especially for those individuals with serious financial concerns and who are unable to make the transition to an entirely digitised banking system. Trust is greatly enhanced by personal contact, and greatly reduced when there is none. Some services do require in-person verification, and safety concerns over potential financial abuse are often better spotted when customers are able to use these essential face-to-face services. Many local businesses also bank with NatWest, so the feeling of regularity and social interaction will be omitted in other branches. Do you plan to hold sessions for residents explaining the impact of the closure and advising customers further, especially on the more complex, in-person banking operations? Are both NatWest and Lloyds willing to meet with senior management, cabinet lead and local councillors at Brent Council to discuss the implications on residents? 

 

We, of course, understand that regular reviews are a necessary part of business operation, particularly as we move to a more digital world. But we are very disappointed in the lack of consultation with local councillors and residents on this closure. There has been a distinct lack of visibility and inclusion on surveys and feedback from both NatWest and Lloyds, and we have not seen any detailed data regarding the decision to close. Are NatWest and Lloyds willing to share with us any additional data or metrics they have collected that led to the decision to close? Were the views of local councillors or the local authority taken into account at all in this decision? 

 

Communication has been minimal, reasoning obscure, and not enough consideration given to alternative provisions. Residents have told us that they have been advised to use branches elsewhere – such as in Kilburn High Road, Golders Green, and Swiss Cottage – but longer travel times will make journeys more difficult or impossible for some. We are also concerned about a wave of potential job losses with these continued closures, and would welcome some reassurance on the future of your current team members in the Willesden Green branches. 

 

It is clear that, if these closures are unequivocally going ahead in Willesden Green as they are elsewhere in the UK, an alternative course is needed. The Social Market Foundation found that 7 million people, most of them older and poorer, do all their banking in their local high street branch. But it’s not just these groups: research from LINK has found that around a quarter of Britons still use cash at least once a week, and about 10% of the country use it daily. The latest figures from the British Retail Consortium also show that shopping with cash has risen for the first time in a decade, as household budgets are increasingly stretched and the cost-of-living crisis continues to bite. At the same time, over half of bank branches have closed, and the Conservatives’ rollout of banking hubs has been much delayed. 

 

The rollout has been painfully slow, leaving many communities to become banking deserts. This has become a particular problem in town centres and on high streets such as ours in Willesden Green. The current plans are totally inadequate for creating a much-needed national network of accessible services, and so we are pleased that the Labour Party have recently committed to accelerating the rollout of banking hubs where people can deposit and take out cash, as well as access wider banking services, as part of our Plan for Small Business. The hubs are designed to be shared by major banks, so customers from almost every bank will be able to use them. 

 

The weakness of the current banking hub system is its voluntary character. It arguably shows the weakness of the present regulation when banks are closing thousands of their branches all around the country, withdrawing services to their customers, and then promising banking hubs that they are under no obligation to introduce. The current protocol between lenders and the Government is toothless, and so we support the Shadow Chancellor’s calls for stronger additional powers for the FCA. When a local community demonstrates need and meets the relevant criteria, a banking hub ought to be guaranteed. Considering the shift Willesden Green is about to undergo, we believe that this will be the best course to steer for us as a community. 

 

We therefore will be submitting a formal request to LINK to undertake a review of Willesden Green in light of these branch closures, asking that they assess the viability of opening a banking hub to guarantee that local residents and independent businesses still have access to these essential services. As Labour councillors, we will continue to fight for our communities and ensure that no one is left behind. 

Some Great Library Events – but where can you find them online?

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

Brent Libraries What’s On leaflet for Spring 2024

 

I know that Brent Libraries have a good programme of free events, and I wanted to let you know about some of them, so I went to my usual online source, the Brent Culture Service Eventbrite site. As you can see, this ‘home of events from Brent Libraries’ has lots of followers, and has previously given access to nearly 500 events for local residents:

 

But when I scrolled down to find out what was on offer for the next few months, this is what I saw:

 

I knew that could not be right, because I am “booked” to give a free library talk myself in March! I contacted the Library Development Officers, who organise these events, to find out why there was nothing on Brent’s Eventbrite website, and was told that they have a new one. Instead of Brent Culture Service, it is now called Brent Libraries, Arts and Heritage, which I think is a much better description. But how many people know about it?

 

I tried “googling” that name, but did not get any “hits” for this new Eventbrite website! I got the address from my Brent Libraries contacts, so before I go any further, let me pass it on to you:

 https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/o/brent-libraries-arts-and-heritage-73407690863

 

You can now pick up a leaflet in your local Brent Library, setting out all the events on offer this Spring. However, it says it the orange sun at the top of the cover picture: ‘Advanced bookings required for most events.’ Those bookings have to be made on Eventbrite, and the leaflet does not give the website address that I’ve just given you above. It does provide a QR code, but if, like me, you are not yet able to use such things, that is little help.

 

It is a “What’s On” booklet, with the brent.gov.uk/whatson website address printed on the front cover, so surely you can get details of all the Brent Libraries events from that online source, can’t you? That site currently lists 212 events, but:

 

 

The events in the Brent Libraries, Arts and Heritage booklet are not on the Council’s main What’s On listings, but they must be in the Events section of the “Libraries” pages on the website, mustn’t they? After all, this is headed: 

 

‘Library Events - We have lots happening across all our libraries, from regular kids events to family learning. Find out what is happening near you.’ 

 

I’m afraid you would be disappointed, because all that appear there are the current (“Exploring grief and loss through art”) and next two exhibitions at The Gallery at Willesden Green.

 

Brent Libraries, Arts and Heritage management and Brent Communications really must sort out this lack of effective online publicity for the programme of free events at Brent Libraries! I know that a lot of effort, by Library Development Officers and others, has gone into providing this programme. It is unfair on the local community, as well as on those Libraries, Arts and Heritage staff members, if hundreds of people who could benefit from these events miss out on them because of the current lack of online information.

 

As well as giving the Eventbrite website address (see link above) I will mention a few events coming up soon which may be of interest to “Wembley Matters” readers.

 

Five Little Ducks story and craft workshop at Wembley Library

 

There are regular weekly Booktrust Story and Rhyme Time sessions for under 5s at all six Brent Libraries, but this coming Saturday and Sunday there is also a number of special events for National Storytelling Week at Wembley and Willesden Green Libraries.

 

Veganuary event at Kingsbury Library on 30 January

 

Next week’s coffee morning event at Kingsbury Library (Tuesday 30 January, 11.15am) is “Veganuary: Trust your gut!”, making healthy snacks with chef Nishma, of the award-winning vegan food business, Shambhu's.

 

Ealing Road Library hosts a regular STEM CLUB, providing science, technology, engineering and mathematics workshops for children aged 8-11. The same venue also provides Family Film Club events during half-term and school holidays – the next one is on 15 February, when “The Little Mermaid” is featured.

 

An author talk at Ealing Road Library on 12 March

 

Ealing Road Library also has a coffee morning event on Tuesday 12 March at 11am, where you can meet Brent-based author, Manoj Kerai, and find out what inspired him to write his novel, “The Burning Bride”. Kilburn Library has regular coffee morning events as well, the next one is on Wednesday 7 February, as does Harlesden Library, with its next coffee morning on Tuesday 20 February.

 

I hope this has inspired you to find out, from the Brent Libraries, Arts and Heritage Eventbrite site, what free events YOU can enjoy at Brent Libraries over the next few months. 

 

Philip Grant

 

P.S. I did mention my next free local history talk, at a Kingsbury Library coffee morning on Tuesday 26 March at 11am, didn’t I?

Road and lane closures etc Chalkhill Road, Bridge Road, Barn Hill in Wembley Park January-February for new water main installation

Information from Brent Council

Affinity Water have to install a new water main along Chalkhill Road and Bridge Road, Wembley, to increase water supply in the area. Unfortunately, to safely undertake these works road closures, lane closures and banned left turn will be required.

 

• 2^nd January – 23^rd February – Chalkhill Road will be closed to through traffic at the junction of Bridge Road, access for residents and businesses will be maintained with local agreement for the duration of the works. 

 

• 22^nd January – 28^th January – Two way temporary traffic lights will be installed on Bridge Road at the junction of Chalkhill Road to enable Affinity Water to cross Bridge Road and install around thirty metres of water main in the bus lane north towards Forty Avenue. 

 

• 29^th January – 23^rd February – A lane closure (Bus Lane) will be installed from outside Ark Academy to the junction of Forty Avenue, vehicles will be prohibited from turning left from Bridge Road into Forty Avenue and Barn Hill will also be closed at the junction of Forty Lane in both directions. This will enable the junction of Bridge Road, Forty Avenue and Forty Lane to be controlled with three way temporary traffic lights. Advanced warning signs will be placed at strategic locations advising motorists that there is no access to Forty Avenue and Barn Hill from Bridge Road for the duration of the works.

As the 20th anniversary of the South Kilburn regeneration approaches where do things stand?

The 'Gateway' to the new South Kilburn - a work with little progres so far 

The South Kilburn Tenants Steering Group met inDecember so that tenants could hear an update on the South Kilburn Regeneration that started almost 20 years ago with the launch of the Masterplan LINK and may take another decade to complete.

 Extract from the Masterplan

 

Like other council developments in Brent there is a possibility of tenure change, with more private sales, to ensure viability. There also appear to be problems with the deliverability of the planned new school that would replace Carlton Vale Infants and Kilburn Park Junion school buildings.

From January 9th on Wembley Matters

As previously reported the Council is consulting on ending the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord Offer) for new temporary accommodation households and the use of void properties on the South Kilburn Estate for temporary accommodation. At present the Council incurs a £0.6m charge on South Kilburn void properties.

The South Kilburn regeneration itself is threatened by a viability crisis:

Viability is a key challenge for the remaining developments within the South Kilburn programme. The Single Delivery Partner approach is being explored to help provide certainty for the programme and provide economies of scale for the delivery partner.

Negotiations are going on regarding the purchase of the Falcon and Queens Park car park pub site: LINK

The Council has announced a decision  for the Corporate Director for Comminities and Regeneration to make an offer to Londonnewcastle to acquire the Falcon pub site, previously seen as a key site forming a gateway to South Kilburn.  Its acquisition along with the car park opposite led to the HS2 vent being controversially located within the estate next to a primary school.

In the Minutes of TSG meeting below I have underlined the number of social homes expected although I suspect that figure may reduce and needs to be considered along with those being decanted from existing blocks.

The arithmetic does not look hopeful.

 

Quintain sell off two more Wembley Park Build to Rent blocks - 490 units in all

 

Alameda

 

Beton

490 families renting in Wembley Park will find themselves with a new landlord following Quintain's sale to KKR of two Wembley Park blocks, Alameda and Beton.  However, those tenants who have been complaining about the management of the blocks LINK will be stuck with Quintain Living as KKR have appointed them to manage both the retail and resident elements of both buildings.

The sale is part of Quintain's strategy to sell off blocks to use the cash to finance further building.

Quintain's Press Release

 KKR, a leading global investment firm, today announces the acquisition of two high-quality, purpose Build-to-Rent (BtR) multi-family buildings from Quintain, the developer and asset manager behind Wembley Park, for an undisclosed sum.

Alameda and Beton, completed in 2019 and 2020 respectively, comprise 490 BtR units across two buildings and circa 40,000 sq ft of retail and leisure space. The buildings hold BREEAM “Excellent” and WiredScore “Platinum” ratings.

KKR is making the investment through its European Core+ Real Estate strategy, which invests in high-quality, substantially stabilised assets with medium-term value growth potential. Residential is a thematic priority for KKR’s overall European real estate strategy, given its strong structural growth drivers, including population growth and urbanisation to support greater demand for rental housing. The transaction builds on KKR’s strong Real Estate platform in the UK and across Europe where the team also invests across logistics, industrial and commercial real estate through KKR’s platforms.

As part of the investment, KKR has appointed Quintain to manage both the residential and retail elements of both buildings, marking Quintain’s commitment to manage properties as a third-party manager for investors in BtR through its Quintain Living management platform.

The transaction forms part of Quintain’s wider strategy to dispose of stabilised, early-generation residential assets at Wembley Park, repay debt and to invest in ongoing development, with a focus on BtR, neighbourhood retail and placemaking.

Charles Tutt, Head of UK Real Estate at KKR, commented: “We are pleased to acquire two high-quality assets in Wembley Park, one of London’s most exciting residential neighbourhoods. This investment underscores our conviction that residential real estate will continue to benefit from structural growth drivers. Located within an established submarket with excellent connectivity to Central London, the assets are well positioned to benefit from the favourable dynamics of the London residential market.”

Ian Williamson, Head of Core+ Real Estate in Europe at KKR, added: “This acquisition expands on our European real estate strategy, which includes investing in high-quality residential assets. The Core+ sector is proving to be a strong strategy given its ability to structurally grow in areas where there is an imbalance in supply and demand, particularly as investors seek attractive risk adjusted returns in a dynamic macro-environment. KKR is well positioned in a competitive market given our global track record, the strength of the KKR platform and our sophisticated investment approach.”

James Saunders, Quintain CEO, said: “This deal underlines our commitment to recycling capital from non-core and stabilised assets to re-invest in new homes at Wembley Park, where we have two new buildings underway and on track to be delivered by 2025. We are also delighted that KKR has appointed Quintain Living to continue managing Alameda and Beton. This marks the first step in the roll-out of our Quintain Living management platform to third-party operators.” 

Cllr Lorber presses case on Barham Park Trust accounts despite CEO's 'high level' review

 Both the Barham Park Trust Committee and the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meet on Wednesday January 24th.  The former includes the 'High Level Review' of the Barham Park accounts promised by Kim Wright, Brent's new CEO at the special call-in Scrutiny Commitee held on October 26th  to consider issues around the accounts (Minutes of the meeting).

 

Extract from CEO's Report LINK:

 

I am satisfied that the objectives and scope which I set for the review have been met. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the review did not identify any material issues relating to the accuracy of the accounts. However, there have been areas identified where the accounts could be presented in a more clear and transparent way moving forward. This is particularly in the way rental income is presented and how the netting off of income and expenditure is shown.

 

3.9 There were also some helpful observations made regarding operational practices concerning the running of the Trust which could impair, or be perceived to impair, the Council’s arm’s length relationship with the Trust. In particular:

1. The trust not having its own bank account (up until recently);

2. The award and management of NCIL funds for park improvements being managed by the Council;

3. A lack of rent reviews undertaken by the Trust owing to the ongoing feasibility study commissioned by the Council;

4. Cash advances being paid to the Trust for rents overdue.

 

3.10 I have discussed these actions and observations with the appropriate officers, and all have agreed to implement the actions. In addition, whilst the rationale for the practices set out at 3.9 is clear existing practices are neither improper nor have any impact on the accuracy of the accounts, I have asked officers to review its management of the Trust to ensure that appropriate segregation and separation is in place where appropriate to clearly distinguish between activities of the Council and activities of the Trust,

 

Cllr Paul Lorber, one of the councillors instigating the Call-in is not satisfied and requested to speak at the Barham Park Trust meeting. The chair of the Trust, and leader of the Council, Muhammed Butt refused his request.

 

Cllr Lorber then wrote to all Brent councillors making his case:

 

Dear Colleagues

 

If you see mistakes and wrong doing you should never be afraid to speak up. You should also not allow yourself to be fobbed off.

 

At successive meetings of the Barham Park Trust I highlighted the errors in the presented 2022/23 Accounts. The 1st version of the accounts went to a meeting on 5 September and had to be withdrawn at the last minute. The revised accounts presented to a reconvened meeting on 26 September did not make much sense either.

 

At a subsequent meeting of the Scrutiny Meeting I made the point that those misleading and inaccurate accounts hide the truth of how the Barham Park Trust Charity financial affairs have been mismanaged - making the point that the mismanagement has cost the Charity around £100,000 - with on going losses going forward.

 

You will see from the Agenda of a reconvened Barham Park Trust Meeting that the Chief Executive commissioned a “high-level consultancy based review” relating to the concerns and issues raised.

 

The Chief Executive then explains that the review was NOT intended to do - it “was only ever limited to a narrow scope…”

 

The aim of “high level reviews” “of limited scope” should be obvious - not to uncover anything embarrassing and to protect senior Councillors and officers of the Council at all costs.

 

The Barham Park Trust Charity exists because 87 years ago a resident of Sudbury donated his home and gardens for the enjoyment of local people in our area.

 

He entrusted the management of his gift to the local Council - first Wembley BC and later it’s successor - Brent.

 

We all - Councillors and Officers - have a joint duty to look after and protect the bequest from Titus Barham.

 

I take my duty seriously and have tried to engage both with the Trust Committee and Council Officers to help to highlight the mistakes they made so that correct Accounts are prepared and ongoing losses being sustained by the Charity are stopped.

 

I requested the right to speak at the meeting on 24 January. The Chair has refused my request to speak.

 

Prior to that refusal I prepared a written submission to assist the Committee in their deliberations on the 24th and ask some searching questions of the officers.

 

Mistakes can happen. I will not criticise Councillors or Officers for making mistakes as long as they correct them when they are pointed out to them.

 

I will not however accept or tolerate mistakes which those in power and authority then try to cover up.

 

Cllr Lorber sent two documents with his email that are embedded below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 'community impact' levy on Wembley Stadium tickets and a 'green budget' to align climate emergency measure are among 11 recommendations from Brent Budget Task Force

 

 

There is likely to be little change in Brent Council's final budget compared with earlier drafts. Wednesday's meeting of Scrutiny Committee will hear a presentation on the Budget Task Group's recommendations.

A concern repeated from previous years is around accessibility, transparency and clarity. You may recall that they had argued for calling a cut a cut, rather than a saving last year.

In all there are 11 recommendations.  ACE Brent (Action on climate and ecological emergency Brent who have been advocating for more joined up cross-department work on the climate emergency will be pleased with Recommendation 3 on a 'green budget'.  Voluntary organisations will welcome Recommendation 4 that recognises if the Council signposts the sector to mitigate the impact of cuts it should first discuss with them how the mitigations will be delivered in practice.

There is similar common-sense in Recommendation 5 that advocates a strategic approach to income generation while warning of the dangers of over-commercialisation. It  emphasises the importance of complicance with current policies on empty properties and business rates. Recommendation 6 suggests the renting out of Council meeting rooms for external use. There is still a shortage of such spaces to hire in Brent.

Campaigners for the retention of the New Millenium Day Care Centre will be disappointed that  Reccommendation 9 advocates the retention of the building for community use but not as a Day Centre.

An imaginative flourish is Recommendation 10 that suggests a Community Impact Levy on Wembley Stadium tickets.

 FULL REPORT

The Budget Scrutiny Task Group makes the following recommendations to Cabinet. Budget Presentation and Communications

 

Recommendation 1 – Improvements to budget communications:

 

The Task Group acknowledge the improvements that have been made to the consultation and engagement process following the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24, but believes further work is still needed to better communicate to residents what the vision, mission, aims and priority protection areas of the upcoming Budget are. This also includes ensuring communications meet agreed accessibility standards, such as writing documents in plain English in line with the average Brent reading age. These revisions will help build a greater understanding of the priority areas safeguarded in the proposals and enable residents to provide more meaningful/influential consultation feedback. As an example the Task Group received evidence that there was only one proposal from the Housing portfolio as the Council had made a concerted effort to protect housing services and the most vulnerable; Although it could be assumed that an area not featured in the proposals would be protected, such information should be made clearer in the draft Budget for the lay person. The Task Group recommend that the Council includes a concise, summary page in the Budget (and in future budgets), adopting more accessible language which makes it clear what its vision, aims, and priority protection areas are.

 

Recommendation 2 – Developing clearer and concise proposals:

 

Some of the proposals are generally vague and lack clarity around the possible impact(s) on residents and partners (e.g. 2024-25 CR02, 2024-25 FR02, 2024-25 RS21, 2024-25 CHW03, 2025-26 CHW02 etc.) The Task Group recommend that the Council review the proposals ahead of publication of the final Budget to ensure that the final proposals and their possible impact(s) can be clearly understood and are accessible to all Brent residents. This review could be actioned collaboratively with a lay-panel (e.g. resident focus group) and in future years by including additional questions in the consultation. These suggestions could also help achieve recommendation 1.

 

Recommendation 3 - Alignment with climate action commitments in Borough Plan 2023-27:

 

Building on the recommendation made as part of the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24, there still needs to be greater alignment between the draft Budget and the Borough Plan 2023-27, particularly in relation to climate action. The Task Group appreciates changes being made to the corporate reporting template to include a ‘Climate Change and Environmental Considerations’ section - this good practice should also be applied in the budget setting process. The Task Group recommend that the Council adopt a ‘green budget’ which clearly outlines the climate and environment implications of each proposal. This will assist the Council in its urgent climate commitments, including  the goal to become Carbon Net Zero by 2030.

 

Stronger Partnership Working with the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS)

 

Recommendation 4 - Shared Outcomes Framework:

 

Although the Council has understandably prioritised protecting the VCS and frontline services over other areas in its proposed budget, there is scope for stronger partnership working with the sector. During the Stakeholder Session (please see section 3), VCS partners expressed concerns that mitigations proposed in the draft Budget were centred around signposting to the VCS, however there had been no discussion or collaboration around how these mitigations would be delivered or achieved in practice.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council explores a shared-outcomes framework with the voluntary sector for the benefit of residents/service users. As part of this work, the Council should urgently discuss and collaborate with the VCS in relation to budget proposals that involve them and/or may have an impact on their service provision.

 

This discussion could build on the Task Group’s recommendation from the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24 which suggested a collaborative strategy with the VCS to enable these organisations to identify and secure new income streams.

 

A shared-outcomes approach could avoid future service cuts, avoid service duplication and save the Council money long-term. Additionally, it would ensure that a consistent dialogue is maintained with the VCS throughout each financial year around issues like council budgets rather than the current approach which has meant budget discussions with the sector take place after proposals have already been drafted.

 

 

Income Generation

 

Recommendation 5 – Establishing a strategic approach to income generation:

 

The Task Group commend the Council’s creativity/efforts to generate additional income to bolster its finances, and particularly welcomes proposals such as 2024-25 FR01, 2024-25 RS13, and 2024-25 RS14. However, more could be done to generate even more income.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council develops a longer-term, strategic approach to income generation (accompanied with yearly action plans) rather than focusing on piecemeal proposals year to year. The strategy should include a robust monitoring process that enables holistic working across all departments to create synergies for income generation. Specifically, allocating a dedicated, cross-  departmental resource to work across the Council to investigate and identify additional opportunities for income generation e.g. compliance with mandatory HMO licensing, compliance with council tax on empty properties, and business rates evasion.

 

Establishing a longer-term approach will help the Council to be more resourceful and self-sufficient in the absence of large central government funding pots. Strategic interventionscould enable the Council to address areas of improvement in its operations and recoup income that would have been otherwise due, as well as identify new creative ways of generating income. The Task Group however recognise a balanced approach must be adopted that ensures the Council does not become over-commercialised and learns from local authorities that have experienced financial difficulties (i.e. entered s114 territory2) due to certain commercial choices.

 

Recommendation 6 – Renting out Civic Centre meeting rooms:

 

The Task Group acknowledge the efforts the Council has made to rent out spaces in the Civic Centre to generate additional income, however believes there are additional opportunities that can be realised. The Task Group recommend that additional space, specifically meeting rooms, in the Civic Centre are made available for external hire given that staff no longer work 5 days per week in the office. To complement this suggestion, some council meetings could be moved outside of the Civic Centre to be held in other community assets in the borough.

 

Not only could this recommendation generate additional income, but it could provide residents and businesses with office space and workspace solutions in the heart of the borough. It could also encourage members/officers to increase their use of other community facilities in the borough and spread the Council’s visibility more equally throughout the borough.

 

Recommendation 7 – Implementing additional shared service arrangements:

 

The Council’s efforts to generate additional income by offering shared services to other local authorities are welcomed. Notable examples include proposal 2025-26 CYP04 which intends to sell additional respite bed nights to other local authorities at the Ade Adepitan Short Break Centre. Another instance is the formation of the Shared Technology Services (STS), an IT shared service for the councils of Brent, Lewisham and Southwark, whereby Brent is the host borough for the service. The Task Group recommend that the Council explores further opportunities for shared service arrangements, learning lessons from its current arrangements and from good practice of the shared service models that already exist across the country.

 

It is acknowledged that there is not a single model that suits all councils, localities, or types of service provision, and that this recommendation will take time to scope out. However, if delivered effectively, the Council would be able to generate additional income, reduce duplication, potentially increase investment in services, and reimagine services to better meet the needs of residents.

 

Lobbying and Advocacy

 

Recommendation 8 - Housing Subsidy Loss:

 

Although the Task Group welcomes the increase to Local Housing Allowance rates via the Autumn Statement 2023, further pro-active work could still be carried out with neighbouring local authorities, London Councils, and the Local Government Association (LGA) to seek reform to the Housing Benefit Subsidy rules. The Task Group recommend that the Council works with the above mentioned associations to lobby for positive change to the Housing Benefit subsidy rules which currently caps the amount the Council can claim back from the Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) to 90% of the 2011 LHA rates per household for TA provided, and which places financially onerous restrictions on the types of TA the Council can provide to be eligible for housing benefit subsidy. Such reform would enable Brent to significantly reduce its overspends, and to have access to a wider pool of affordable temporary accommodation to deal with increased demand in homelessness.

 

Recommendation 9 – Retaining use of New Millennium Day Centre

 

The Task Group accept that alternative provision will be put in place to mitigate the impacts of ceasing use of the New Millennium Day Centre. It would nevertheless be disappointing to lose a vital space in the borough that brings local communities together and which allows the Council to achieve its 'Borough of Culture' legacy ambitions. The Task Group recommend that the Council explores options to retain the building for community use.

 

Recommendation 10 – Wembley Stadium: 'Community Impact' Ticket Levy:

 

The Task Group welcome the financial contributions made by Wembley Stadium towards the Council’s event day management costs (e.g. cleansing and waste management, highways management, enforcement etc.), however recognise that these contributions do not cover the full extent of the costs incurred by the Council for its operations on event days.

The Task group recommend that the Council explores options with the Stadium for a ticket levy, whereby the Council receives a proportion of each ticket sale in order to fully recover costs incurred or to provide for further enhancement of the Council’s event day operations.

 

Recommendation 11 - Delegation of budgets and decision making to Brent Integrated Care Partnership (ICP):

 

The Task Group note that the success of many of the proposals are dependent on effective partnership working with health partners (e.g. 2024-25 CHW01, 2024-25 CHW03, 2025-26 CHW03, 2025-26 CYP06 etc). It was heard that the established working arrangements and governance in the Brent ICP provide opportunities for closer working between the Council and NHS partners. These working arrangements have enabled health funding to be transferred to Adult Social Care to support residents and the local health and care system.

However, the Task Group understand that the centralisation of decisions on NHS budgets away from the borough to North West London Integrated Care Board (NWL ICB) has reduced the ability of the Brent ICP to address local needs and may have increased future demand on the system. For example, in accordance with ICB processes, the ICP has submitted robust business cases for paediatric continence services, nursing provision for children in special schools, and to manage pressures on CYP and adult mental health services. All of these business cases are still awaiting a decision after many months, while need continues to increase.

 

The Task Group recommend that the Council continues to advocate and make the case to NWL ICB for both a better alignment of NHS resources to population need and for an increased delegation of budgets and decision making to Brent ICP.

 

Not only would devolution to place allow for more effective collaboration between the Council and local health partners but it would also allow for implementation of service change at greater pace. Additionally, the Task Group is of the view that the ICP is better able than NWL to tailor services to the needs of Brent’s diverse communities with greater flexibility to respond to changing needs or circumstances.