Regeneration at Scrutiny meeting – The truth about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone land – two follow-up emails

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Cllr. Tatler (front right) on the Cecil Avenue site in March 2023.
(from a Brent Council press release announcing the WHZ development contract with Wates)

 

Following my guest post on 28 April, setting out the truth about the Council’s ownership of the Wembley Housing Zone site at Cecil Avenue, I added a comment below which shared the text of an open email I had sent to Councillor Shama Tatler.

 

Martin asked whether he could publish that email as a separate post, but I said it might be better to wait until I had also sent an email to the members of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, and publish both together. That is what this guest post does.

Open email to Councillor Shama Tatler, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Regeneration, on 29 May at 8.30am:

 

Subject: Incorrect statement on Wembley Housing Zone land at Scrutiny Committee on 23 April

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Councillor Tatler,

 

You may recall that I have been taking a close interest in the lack of genuinely affordable housing at Brent Council's Cecil Avenue development, which comes under your Wembley Housing Zone regeneration portfolio, since August 2021.

 

I was therefore interested when the subject came up when you were speaking to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting last Tuesday (23 April) when they were considering Regeneration.

 

You stated (and I have transcribed this from the webcast of the meeting): 'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. We had to purchase the land.'

 

That statement was untrue. 

 

Brent Council did own the freehold of the Cecil Avenue site (which will provide 237 of the 291 WHZ homes). That land, which for a time had passed to Copland Community School when it was a foundation school, had come back to Brent Council ownership, for nil consideration, under a land rationalisation agreed in 2014.

 

The only WHZ land which Brent Council had to purchase was Ujima House (the smaller site, providing only 54 of the 291 WHZ homes), acquired in 2016 for £4.8m, and funded out of the £8m initially provided to Brent by the GLA for the Wembley Housing Zone.

 

I'm sure that you are at least as aware of those facts as I am, and yet you appear to have chosen to mislead the Scrutiny Committee, as part of seeking to justify the impact on viability which has led to the poor number of genuinely affordable homes homes for rent to Council tenants at your Wembley Housing Zone scheme.

 

I am bringing this to your attention, and the fact that the true position is now in the public domain*, so that you can write to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee to correct the error in what you said above (and any other false information included in your statements to them on 23 April) and apologise for misleading them at their meeting.

 

I am copying this email to Councillor Conneely, the Committee Chair, for her information, and as it is an open email I will also include its text as a comment under the online blog post, which you can read via the "link" below. Yours sincerely,

 

Philip Grant.

 

* https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2024/04/regeneration-at-scrutiny-meeting-truth.html

 

[Thirty-six hours later, I have yet to receive any acknowledgement or response from Cllr. Tatler, and on past experience, I’m not sure that I will.]

 

Wembley Housing Zone location plan, with added description in key.
(Original version taken from a Report to Cabinet in August 2021)

 

As I have little confidence that Cllr. Tatler will take my advice, and bring the error I have pointed out to the attention of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, my second email was addressed to them.

 

Email to Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, on 30 May at 8.27pm:

 

Subject: Correction to information given to you on Wembley Housing Zone land at meeting on 23 April.

 

Dear Chair and members (including substitutes) of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, I was interested in item 6 on your 23 April agenda, Regeneration in Brent, and watched some of the meeting on the webcast.

 

You may remember that, in 2022, I was seeking to get your committee to scrutinise various aspects of the Council's delivery of affordable housing, and in particular the lamentably low proportion of genuinely affordable homes to rent which were proposed for the Cecil Avenue site of the Council's Wembley Housing Zone project. 

 

I was pleased to hear Councillor Conneely express your Committee's support for more genuinely affordable homes on Council schemes. However, I was astounded to hear what Councillor Tatler said about the Wembley Housing Zone scheme, which comes under her Regeneration portfolio. This is what I transcribed her saying, when I went back to check it on the webcast recording (with my bold type for emphasis):

 

'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. We had to purchase the land. That impacts viability as well.'

 

She was claiming that the Council could not provide more genuinely affordable homes than the 88 at London Affordable Rent (out of a total of 291 homes to be built, with 150 of those for private sale by Wates) because purchasing the land reduced the viability of the project.

 

But Brent Council did not have to purchase the land for the main part of the project, the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue, where 237 of the 291 homes will be built.

 

I double-checked that I was correct over Brent's ownership of that vacant brownfield site, before sharing the truth about this online. I also wrote to Councillor Tatler yesterday morning (29 April), and am appending the full text of that email below for your information (although I did copy the original to your Chair).

 

I am not confident that Councillor Tatler will write to correct the false statement she made to you on 23 April, so I decided to write to you as well. Please base any follow-up work you do on Regeneration, and any recommendations your Committee may make on the Wembley Housing Zone, on the true position over land ownership at Cecil Avenue. Thank you.

 

As set out in the online article which I provided a "link" to at the end of my email to Councillor Tatler below, effective scrutiny in holding the Cabinet to account relies on Cabinet members, and Council Officers, being honest in the information they provide to you. I hope that you will make that point clearly when dealing with this matter, because the work that you do is very important. 

 

Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

All power in the hands of Butt as, after 10 years as Brent Council leader, he anticipates another 4 years

Post by Martin Francis in a personal capacity

It may have escaped readers' attention that as well as local elections a Referendum is taking place in Bristol on May 5th.

What has this got to do with Brent?

The Referendum will consider whether to replace Bristol's Mayoral system, which centralises power in the hands of the Mayor, with a Committee system which spreads power across a number of key committees giving backbench councillors more power and encouraging  shared decision making and a more consensual approach to local politics.

In line with national policy Bristol Greens will be supporting the Committee option.

In August 2020 A Brent Labour Group Task Group on improving democracy and scrutiny chaired by Cllr Thomas Stephens rejected the Committee system but put forward many proposals. It is worth checking to see how many recommendations were actually implemented LINK .  A member of the Task Force, Cllr Kieron Gill, resigned becaus he felt the report was too soft.He pointed out that over the previous 10 years the number of elections held within the group, over the 4 year period of an administration, has gone from 48 to 8. Gill claimed that his call for more elections and term limits was answered by 'democracy causes arguments and disharmony' and that this sounded more like more like a North Korean apparatchik than any kind of Democrat.

He later resigned from his Brondesbury Park seat while Cllr Stephens joied the Cabinet.

Bristol and the West Momentum recognise the problem of a system based on the concentration of power in one person's hands:

Muhammed Butt will have been in power as leader of Brent Council for 10 years this month having replaced Ann John at the Labour Group election following the 2012 local election. This was not his first taste of power - he had been her deputy leader.

He is not Brent's Mayor, that is a mainly ceremonial position with the added role of chairing Council Meeting, but he heads the 8 person Cabinet.  In this role he has gradually gathered more power to himself. The number of posts elected by the Labour group has shrunk to just four: leader, deputy leader, and the two chairs of Scrutiny Committee.

Other posts are appointed by the leader and rubber stamped at the Council AGM.

Butt is so confident of Labour victory that he has asked for applications from Labour candidates for consideration for the various roles on offer (and their accompanying additional allowances) BEFORE the actual council election takes place. on Thursday.  The deadline for applications is tomorrow.

Readers will remember that Muhammed Butt also succeeded in changing the rules so that he could continue in office beyond the previous limit. The Task Group Report recommended 8 years.

This system puts the power of patronage in the Leader's hands and tomorrow's deadline restricts any internal moves over the political complexion of the administration.

The Cabinet system leaves most Labour backbenchers without any real power to affect decisions, limiting their role to rubber stamping Cabinet decisions at Full Council meetings. Other parties have even less of a role.  It assumes that backbenchers and opposition councillors have nothing of value to offer apart from being a conduit of residents' complaints to officers.  

It is a waste of potential talent and fresh views to the detriment of the common interest of residents that could be harnessed through a Committee system.

With no leadership challenge, attention will focus on the deputy leadership. Although there has been an assumption that this would go to a woman to maintain gender balance I understand that this is not a rule. Indeed Michael Pavey was Butt's deputy for a while before the two fell out.  

Mili Patel and Ellie Southwood have been mentioned as possible candidates. Shama Tatler is said to be concentrating on a possible parliamentary career in a Watford seat.  Daniel Kennelly has been mildly critical of the administration lately LINK and is a possible outsider candidate.

Given the almost one-party state in Brent the Scrutiny Committees are of key importance and need chairs and members able to take a robust approach. The Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee  is  currently chaired by Cllr Ketan  Sheth who has moved wards from Tokyngton to Wembley Central. The Resources and Public Realms Scrutiny Committee is currently chaired by Cllr Roxanne Mashari who is not standing in the council election.  It is no secret that she had a tough time in running that committee on the terms that she felt were appropriate and necessary. The Topical Issue agenda item that she introduced was not favoured by those in power.  The Joint Meeting of the two committees to discuss the Casey Review was suspended at one point because of problems in deciding who would chair the meeting.

At the recent Fairer Housing Hustings there was cross-party support for an over-hauling of the scrutiny system in Brent with housing  being so important that some felt it needed a scrutiny committee of its own.

A key appointment will be the Chair of the Planning Committee. At every meeting the chair reminds participants that this is 'a non-political quasi-judiciual committee' bound by various plans and policies.  There have, however, been concerns of indirect political influence on the committee with the most recent being the case of Abdi Abdirazak who allegedly was removed for voting the 'wrong way'. LINK The result is that Labour councillors tend to abstain, rather than vote against, problematic applications, with the lone Conservative councillor the only 'Against'. This means that multi-million applications that will change the face of Brent can go through on the vote of a handful of the 8 councillors on the committee.

It is not clear whether some external committees such as the nine-borough NW London Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee will have its Brent representative nominated by the appropriate Brent Committee or by the Leader himself.

An issue that has resurfaced in this election is that of the number of potential councillors from the extended Butt family. The persistent rumours  from a number of sources allege that 10 family members are standing. The response has been that there is no way to prove a connection, that shared family interests in politics is not unusual (eg the Johnson family), and that anyway each councillor is selected democratically by a ward panel and not by the council leader.

 Muhammed Butt's position as leader currently seems secure although there are a number of new councillors this time round who may prove to be rather more independent. A letter circulated last July to selected Labour colleagues, apparently from within the Labour Group, = criticising his personal qualities, behaviour and communication skills as Labour Group leader, appears to have gained little traction. It included the suggestion that there was little to distinguish him from a Tory or Liberal Democrat in terms of of his political beliefs and especially his failure to fight Government cuts.

Given the leadership's tight hold on Labour councillors and the fate of the handful who have demonstrated some independence,  it is important to elect councillors from other parties, or Independents, who will actively hold the Council to account. With the local newspaper a shadow of its former self there is a genuine democratic deficit in the borough.

Away from formal party politics there are a number of influential networks based on religion, shared heritage, residents' associations, voluntary organisations, campaigning organisations and trade unions that make an impact.  It is noteworthy for example that the Alperton Liberal Democrat candidate has been endorsed on his election literature by the former chair of the local residents' association.

 

 

Brent Labour set up a stall at Willesden Central Mosque

Labour is looking vulnerable to the Liberal Democrats  in Alperton and Sudbury and apparently are concerned about Barnhill, scene of the legal challenge to the previous by-election result. Conservatives have been piling in the leaflets there and have been desperately distancing themselves from national events around Boris Johnson. Greens are hoping for a strong showing and moving into second place in some wards, sending an important message to Labour that residents care about environmental and social justice.

Please vote and use it to improve local democracy.

 

Will Brent’s decision to appeal against the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal judgement be scrutinised? (… or will the attempted cover-up continue?)

This Guest Blog by Philip Grant raises further questions over the lack of scrutiny in Brent as well as the power waged by members of the Corporate Management Team.

-->

Most readers of Wembley Matters will be aware of the Employment Tribunal decision against Brent Council and its Director of Human Resources, Cara Davani. On 4 September, the Tribunal found that Brent’s former Head of Learning and Development, Rosemarie Clarke, had been constructively dismissed by the Council, and had suffered victimisation and racial discrimination at its hands. 

Given these findings, and the strong evidence set out in the detailed judgement to back them up, any reasonable person would think that the Council should be quick to apologise to Rosemarie for the harm done to her by Cara Davani, and by the other officers, up to and including its interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, who the Tribunal found had failed to protect her from this victimisation, as its procedures required that they should. However, on 26 September the Council issued a statement, saying among other things:

‘Following independent legal advice, we have decided to appeal as there appear to be legal errors in the Tribunal’s reasoning, in particular on the direct race discrimination and victimisation aspects of the judgement.’

I wrote straight away to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt to remind him that any appeal against the tribunal's decision could only be made on points of law. The facts found by the tribunal, based on clear and detailed evidence, could not be overturned by an appeal. The racial discrimination finding turned on whether Brent could show a valid reason why their treatment of Ms Clarke, by continuing action against her for alleged misconduct after she had ceased to be an employee of the Council, was different from that of a white male employee in the same situation. Brent completely failed to do that, which was why the tribunal was correct in law on that point.

I drew Cllr. Butt’s attention to paragraph 240 of the tribunal judgement, which recorded Brent’s (scarcely credible) evidence on who had made the crucial decision which led to the racial discrimination finding:

‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant [Ms Clarke], following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made. Indeed, by the evidence before the tribunal a decision was taken following a meeting between Ms Cleary [a Brent HR Manager] and Ms Ledden [Brent’s Legal Director]. In her oral evidence, Ms Ledden confirmed that Ms Cleary’s role at the meeting was an advisory one only, but also that she, Ms Ledden, had not made the decision either. Ms Ledden could not identify who had made the decision.’

The tribunal also recorded that, despite claiming not to know who had made such an important decision, Brent’s most senior legal officer, Fiona Ledden, had chaired the meeting on 31 July 2013 which implemented that decision, and found Rosemarie Clarke “guilty” of gross misconduct in her absence. I put it to the Council Leader that Brent did not need to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in order to clear its name of the finding of racial discrimination. It simply needed to tell the truth over the real reason why that decision to continue disciplinary proceedings was taken, and ensure that the Council Officers who had mistreated Rosemarie, and had tried to cover-up this wrongdoing at the tribunal, faced the consequences of their actions. 

I have not received any reply from Cllr. Butt on this matter. As it appeared that he was not prepared to take any action to stop the Council’s appeal from going ahead, I wrote to the Chairman of Brent Council’s Scrutiny Committee, Cllr. Aslam Choudry, with copies to the other committee members, on 8 October, asking that committee to consider urgently scrutinising the decision to appeal against this Employment Tribunal judgement. I set out the main facts and findings of the judgement, and gave my reasons why I believed ‘that the decision has not been made in the best interests of Brent Council, but in the interests of certain Council Officers who wish to see their own actions, or those of their associates, covered up, and their own positions and reputations protected.’

The Council statement on 26 September had only said ‘we have decided to appeal’, and in order to establish who exactly had taken that decision, and on whose advice, I had submitted a Freedom of Information Act request on 30 September. The response I received to this, from an interim Senior Employment lawyer in Ms Ledden’s department, was: ‘In our opinion all of the information and documents requested are covered by legal privilege.’ I challenged this ruling, as it is ridiculous to claim that the identity of the person who decided to appeal is covered by ‘legal privilege’. The matter is now the subject of an Internal Review, with a decision due to be given, by another lawyer in Ms Ledden’s department, in November.

Although two members of Brent’s Scrutiny Committee acknowledged receipt of my email of 8 October straight away, Cllr. Choudry did not reply until 22 October, and then only to say that he was seeking further information from Cllr. Pavey, and seeking a meeting with Cllr. Butt to discuss the matter, and that he hoped to respond to the request to scrutinise the appeal decision by the end of the week. When he had not replied, I wrote to ask him to list my request on the agenda for the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November. That agenda was posted on the Council’s website soon afterwards, without this item on it. On 25 October I wrote again to Cllr. Choudry, with copies to other members of the Scrutiny Committee, asking that one of them should give notice to the designated Council officer that they wished to add ‘a request received from a member of the public to scrutinise Brent's decision to appeal against a recent Employment Tribunal judgement’ as any item of ‘any other urgent business’ on the agenda for their meeting on 3 November.

Cllr.Choudry replied on Monday 27 October, saying that he had carefully noted my comments, and:

‘I have also taken advice from Council Solicitors - Fiona Leddon and, she has advised me with following response: 

"Dear Councillor , Further to our discussion earlier today I can confirm as I stated to you that the function of call in to support scrutiny is in relation to Executive decisions. The Executive function is taken by the Cabinet, the decision in relation to an appeal of an Employment Tribunal case is Not a member but an Officer decision." ’

As a result of this advice, Cllr. Choudry said that he would not be putting this matter on the Scrutiny Committee’s agenda. I replied later that day, saying:

‘In normal circumstances, I would accept the view that you have set out, but these are exceptional circumstances, and I would ask you to reconsider this matter for two very good reasons:

1.     I believe that the advice you have been given by Ms Ledden, as quoted to me in your email, is incorrect.

2.     Ms Ledden has a conflict of interests in this matter, as she is likely to have made, or to have been involved in advising on, the decision which I have requested should be scrutinised by your Committee, and she may well have personal reasons for wishing the Employment Tribunal decision to be kept "sub judice" as a result of the appeal against it.’

Although Ms Ledden’s advice did not say outright that Scrutiny Committee can only scrutinise decisions of the Cabinet, and cannot scrutinise decisions made by Council Officers, it gave that impression very strongly. I was able to show, by reference to Brent's Constitution, that among the functions that the ‘Scrutiny Committee shall perform’ (under its terms of reference at Part 5) are:

‘3. To review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive and to make reports or recommendations to the Council or the Cabinet in respect of such matters.'

I have given notice under Standing Order 69 that I wish to speak as a Deputation at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November about my request that they should urgently scrutinise Brent’s decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement. I have also again asked Cllr. Choudry, or any other member of the Scrutiny Committee, to give notice under Standing Order 64 that my request should be treated as ‘any other urgent business’ at that meeting, which can be done at any time prior to the commencement of the meeting on Monday. 

I will attend the Scrutiny Committee meeting (Monday 3 November at 7pm, at Brent Civic Centre) ready to speak, but I have yet to hear back from Cllr. Choudry whether I will be allowed to do so. I believe that the decision, in the name of Brent Council, to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke case is a bad decision, and that it should be properly scrutinised, particularly as it is likely to have been made by, or strongly influenced by, people involved in, and culpable in, the actions which gave rise to that judgement. If anyone else who feels the same is able to attend, I would welcome their moral support, although it is uncertain whether my views, and theirs, will get a hearing.

Philip Grant

Councillors move to improve Brent Council's scrutiny process

Scrutiny is more than just a band!

Following my article about failures in Brent Council scrutiny processes LINK local resident and Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant took up the issue with councillors. Concerns centred around the Council not meeting the standards outlined in the Centre for Public Scrutiny's  Good Scrutiny Guide.  Indeed the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee's Recommendation Tracker showed only ONE response from the Cabinet to the Committee's 18 reports for 2019-20 and that was merely to 'note' the committee's recommendations on the vital issue of air quality, rather than provide any responses and action commitments.

The Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee does not appear to have a Recommendation Tracker so it is difficult to assess the impact of its recommendations which are often made after very detailed questioning of officers and lead members. At the last meeting which I attended the committee members did not raise any issuers under 'Matters Arising' from the Minutes which would be one way of checking on any actions arising from recommendations.

These are the responses Philip  Grant has received which indicate that the matter is being considered by at least two councillors.

Philip writes:

Cllr. Miller  Lead Member for Community Safety and Engagement, responded to my email  but he did not say whether he was writing on behalf of the Council Leader and fellow Cabinet members, or just in a personal capacity.

Among the points in his email, I welcome his statement that:

'I wish to agree with the point that Scrutiny reports should not simply be ‘noted’. Often when there are 20+ recommendations etc it can be difficult to go into great detail in responding, but generally where an action or decision is requested I feel that the cabinet should record its response, if not its basic reasoning.'

He went on to say:

'... if cabinet disagrees with a scrutiny recommendation, then we should make an effort to say why. My officers will shortly report back to the Chair of the knife crime scrutiny task group, Cllr Kabir, on progress against her report recommendations, for this reason. I would like to see this embedded in our practice more officially.'

I have replied to Cllr. Miller, saying:

'I welcome your agreement that the Cabinet should do more than just "note" recommendations from Scrutiny Committees. The findings of those committees, who have the time to consider particular issues far more closely than the Cabinet can do, should be respected and implemented by the Leader and Cabinet, unless there are very good reasons why that should not be the case. Scrutiny is one of the important "checks and balances" which a well run Council democracy needs.'

Hopefully, the points raised by Councillors Nerva and Mashari at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 29 January, and Martin's highlighting of them , will see better treatment by Brent's Cabinet of recommendations by the Scrutiny Committees in future.

I have received the following email from Cllr. Matt Kelcher, Chair, Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, which suggests that Martin's efforts in highlighting this matter in his blog, and mine in sharing my concerns with councillors, may not have been a waste of time:

'Thanks for your continued interest in this matter:

I have had several meetings on the subject with the most senior officers in the last couple of weeks. I can assure you that it is something I take very seriously.

A new system will be in place for the next couple of meetings of my committee and I am sure you will see a significant improvement.'

Probity and Planning in Brent

 

With the far-reaching new Brent Local Plan now in place until 2041, Brent enters a new period of multi-million pound developments in its growth areas that will change the face of Brent, as well as the more routine planning applications that are often delegated to officers.

With its quasi-judicial role the Planning Committee is supposed to be free from any specific political interference although it operates within the Council's Local Plan and Planning Guidance.

There have been questions raised in the past about indirect political interference in Planning Committee, especially when Labour members who do not conform the expectations lose their position (and their additional allowance)  in one way or another.

It is important then that in order to ensure the public see the proceediungs as fair and above board that there is probity in the Planning Committee's structure and proceedings.

The Local Government Association has published advice on probity in planning HERE. They say:

Probity in planning is about ensuring that decisions on plan making and planning applications are undertaken, on behalf of communities, in a fair, impartial and transparent way.

What appears to be missing from this in the context of  a mainly one-party council is how the members of the committee are chosen.  In Brent the proportion of places allocated are on the basis of the local election outcome and there are seven Labour members of the Committee and one Opposition member.  Currently this is a Conservative. Cllr Michael Maurice. There is no Liberal Democrat although concern over new developments in the borough was one of their main campaigning  issues.

Labour members are appointed to the Committee by the leader, and perhaps deputy leader, rather than elected by the Labour Group.. 

It is important to note that there is no overt political whipping  of the Labour committee members on planning matters.

This adminstration's Planning Committee is listed above.  It is worth noting that the chair, Cllr Matt Kelcher, is the partner of the new Deputy Leader of the Council, Cllr Mili Patel.The  new Vice-chair is Cllr Saquib Butt, brother of Muhammed Butt, leader of the Council.  Both were on the previous Planning Committee.

New members of the Planning Committee include Cllr Ajmal Akram, who I understand is Muhammed Butt's brother-in-law, and Cllr Arshad Mahmood, widely alleged to be Cllr  M.Butt's cousin.

These connections, if true, would constitute half of the Committee, although they all, of course, may be fiercely independent with no family allegiance.

 

Cllr Saqib Butt

In addition to his position on the Planning Committee Cllr S. Butt has also been appointed to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee that has planning and regeneration as part of its remit. He is also a member of both the Audit and Standards Committee and its advisory body.

New Wembley Hill councillor  Ajmal Akram goes straight into office as a member of both the Planning Committee and Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee. New Kilburn councillor Rita Begum is on the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee as well as Planning.

Brent has two wholly-owned subsidiary housing companies First Wave Housing and I4B and Saqib Butt has been appointed the councillor director on both.

 

From First Wave Housing accounts

 

 

From I4B Holdings Accounts

 

Both companies report to the Audit and Standards Committee.

 

Brent’s Cecil Avenue Housing Scheme – Where is the Scrutiny?

 Guest post by Philip Grent in a personal capacity

If you have read my recent guest post, Deputation on Poverty Commission Housing Update – Brent finally responds! , and my Deputation to the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9 March, you may have noticed that something was missing. 

 

Information on the Committee from Brent Council’s website

 

The Council’s reply of 9 May completely failed to acknowledge or respond to this section of my Deputation:

 

‘One place where Brent could increase investment in social housing is the former Copland School site. It is vacant land, owned by the Council, which has had full planning permission to build 250 homes there for over a year.

 

I wrote to Cabinet members last August, when that item was on their agenda, urging them to fulfil their Poverty Commission promises, and make at least some of this development homes for social rent.

 

Instead, they approved a proposal which allows 152 of the new homes there to be sold privately. Of the 98 Council homes, 61 would be for shared ownership, and only 37 for London Affordable Rent.

 

Overall, the Wembley Housing Zone scheme claims to provide 50% “affordable housing”. But the balance of that is 54 flats at London Affordable Rent level on the Ujima House site, and only 8 of those would be family-sized homes.

 

There would be NO social rented homes. That’s the reality hidden in this Poverty Commission Update.

 

You, as a Scrutiny Committee, need to challenge that, and demand that Brent Council does better.

 

You can recommend that in meeting its Poverty Commission commitments, it should invest in more social rent housing as part of the New Council Homes programme, including at its Cecil Avenue development.’

 

The Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9 March was the last before the 5 May Brent Council elections, and the last with Cllr. Roxanne Mashari in the Chair before she stood down as a councillor. Chairing that committee must have been a frustrating role, trying to hold Cllr. Muhammed Butt’s Cabinet ‘publicly to account’.

 

I could see her frustration in emails she wrote, apologising to me for the continuing delay in getting a written response to my Deputation. It should have been provided within ten working days, and was initially expected from Cllr. Ellie Southwood, Lead Member for Housing, who had been the Cabinet member presenting the Poverty Commission Update report to the Scrutiny Committee. In her final email to me, on 5 May, Roxanne wrote: ‘I would finally like to thank you for your continued engagement with policy and practice at the council and for playing an active role in holding the council to account.’

 

From the Scrutiny section of Brent Council’s website.

 

I have certainly tried to hold the Council to account over the plans for Cecil Avenue in its Wembley Housing Zone. My initial approaches to Cabinet members from August 2021 got no response. I tried using a Public Question at last November’s Full Council meeting to get a proper explanation over why 152 of the 250 homes on a Council housing development should be for private sale, and only 37 at affordable rent for people on the Council’s waiting list, but without success. 

 

I even tried a satirical approach, using some of the Council’s own images of the three key Cabinet members involved (Cllrs. Butt, Tatler and Southwood), to show graphically how their Cecil Avenue proposals made a mockery of their “New Council Homes” promises. Still no real engagement on the issue from councillors or Council Officers!

 

Parody of a Brent publicity photo for its “1,000 New Council Homes” programme.

 

Brent’s website says that ‘Scrutiny … seeks to involve the public,’ and in January I wrote to the Chairs and Vice Chairs of both Scrutiny Committees. I sent them a copy of a guest blog I’d written about the Cecil Avenue proposals, saying ‘It looks bad. It looks wrong’, and asking: ‘Why are Brent’s Scrutiny Committees not asking for explanations?’ 

 

The (then) Vice Chair of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, Cllr. Suresh Kansagra, copied me into an email he’d sent, saying that he thought it should be an item on the agenda for their next meeting (9 February). The day before that meeting, a Scrutiny Officer at the Council wrote to me saying: ‘As the issue you have raised relates to housing, your request falls under the remit of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee.’ 

 

I queried this, and three days later she wrote again, saying: ‘It is correct that this is within the R & PR Committee remit and I am sorry for my misinterpretation of your request as a housing matter.’ Unfortunately, the agenda for the next (9 March) meeting was already full (that was the chaotic “joint” meeting which spent two hours considering Baroness Casey’s report on the Euros final at Wembley Stadium).

 

I had to resort to including my Cecil Avenue points in a Deputation on the Poverty Commission Update report. As you will have seen at the start of this blog article, those points were not answered. Brent’s Cabinet and Senior Council Officers do not want their Wembley Housing Zone proposals to be scrutinised. That makes me all the more convinced that they do need to be scrutinised, and soon!

 

Notice of an intended decision, posted on Brent Council’s website.

 

Last month I wrote a guest blog about a “hush hush” decision over the terms of a contract for the Wembley Housing Zone project. The actual decision was due to be made on 4 May (the day before a new Council was elected), but this doesn’t appear to have been confirmed yet (as of 12 May).

 

What has appeared, on the gov.uk “contracts finder” website on 30 April is an invitation to contractors to apply to be Brent’s “Delivery Partner” for the Wembley Housing Zone development. They must do so by 31 May 2022, with the construction contract expected to begin on 28 March 2023, and be completed by 31 March 2026. The advertisement had first been put online earlier that day, but was quickly taken down and replaced. 

 

The only change made, as far as I could see, was that the original start date was shown as 1 April 2023. My guess is that the additional funding of £5.5m, which the GLA agreed for Brent Council’s Wembley Housing Zone housing scheme last year, is only available if work begins “on site” by 31 March 2023!

 

Main contract details from the official public “Contracts finder” website.

 

Proposed Development details from the “Contracts finder” website.

 

From the published details, it appears that there has been no change in the proposals for Cecil Avenue from when the Cabinet approved them in August 2021. The 39% “affordable” would be 98 homes, with only 37 at London Affordable Rent and 61 for shared ownership (or intermediate rent level, which would be unaffordable to most Brent residents in housing need). The remaining 61%, that’s 152 (with 20 3-4 bed) of the 250 homes Brent Council will be building here, would be for its “Delivery Partner” to sell privately, for profit. How can that be right?

 

Proper scrutiny of the proposals for Cecil Avenue is needed urgently. Can Cabinet members and Senior Officers explain in detail how their plans are justified? If not, they should be told by a Scrutiny Committee that they must do better. Why can’t all of the 3- and 4-bedroom family-sized homes be for Council tenants, as that is meant to be a high priority for Brent? Even if only 98 of the 250 can be affordable, surely they should all be for “genuinely affordable” rents, as recommended by the Brent Poverty Commission?

 

As Brent Council’s website clearly states, Scrutiny is there ‘to ensure that decisions are made in line with council policy and in the public interest.’ We deserve to see this work in practice!

Philip Grant.