Brent Tories: Disrespectful to site children's home in a conservation area - call-in meeting tonight

A special Scrutiny Committee tonight will discuss the call-in by Brent Conservatives of the Cabinet decision to site a children's home in the Barn Hill Conservation area. In their call-in the group say:

This area is in the Barn Hill Conservation area. It should be treated with respect.

Alternative course of action recommended.. To refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration in order to find a cheaper alternative property in a different area

The call-in is unfortunately timed when the Liberal Democrat group are opposing, with a petition, a potential proposal to double the number of councillors needed to request a call in from 5 to 10. At present there are 5 Tories and 3 Liberal Democrats. A requirement for 10 signatures means that neither Tories on their own nor the combined opposition could request a call-in without support from at least two Labour councillors.

Cllr Butt's argument would probably be that the increase would save money on meetings as   politically motivated call-ins would no longer take place.

Certainly Brent Labour moved speedily on social media to denounce the call-in.

 The call-in will be heard at 6pm tonight. Livestream HERE

Brent Tories do not exist on social media so I cannot post a response.

THE CABINET DECISON CALLED-IN

 

Cabinet (15 January 2024) received a report from the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources and Corporate Director of Children and Young People which, in line with the Brent Children’s Residential Home Business Case that had been approved by Cabinet in May 2023, sought approval for the acquisition of a property for renovation to deliver a four bedded children’s care home for young people by March 2025 which would provide four placements, three permanent and one emergency for the Council to deliver and operate a children’s residential home.

 

Having considered the report, Cabinet agreed to approve the acquisition with the minute recording the decision as follows:

 

Councillor Grahl (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools) introduced the report, which set out the Council’s plans to acquire a property as part of the Children’s Residential Home Project.

 

In considering the report Cabinet noted the way in which the proposed acquisition aligned with the objectives within the Brent Children’s Residential Home Business Case approved by Cabinet in May 2023. This included not only supporting the Council in seeking to address the increasing cost of child residential placements for looked after children, with the scheme projected to save the Council approx. £290,000 on an annual basis once operational, but also in delivering the benefits associated with the additional capacity to reduce the need for out of borough placements and enabling more children and young people to receive care closer to home with access to local services and support.

 

Members welcomed the way in which the insourcing of this scheme would enhance service delivery and in recognising the benefits that the proposal would bring to both young people and the Council, Cabinet RESOLVED:

 

(1) To approve the acquisition of the property (address detailed in the exempt appendix of the report) in Wembley HA9 with vacant possession to meet the needs of young people as outlined in the Brent Residential Home Business Case approved by Cabinet in May 2023.

 

(2) To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources, in consultation with the Corporate Director of Children and Young People, to agree the terms of the purchase and acquire the property subject to financial and legal due diligence, vacant possession and contract.

 

(3) To note that the completion of the property needs to take place by the end of January 2024 in order to allow sufficient time to renovate the property within the timescales permitted in the grant agreement with the Department for Education (DfE).

 

THE CONSERVATIVE GROUP CALL-IN

 

a) We are very concerned at the price being paid for this property which is over £1M. We feel that this is not the best use of the limited Council funds.

 

(b) This area is in the Barn Hill Conservation area. It should be treated with respect.

 

(c) There has been no consultation with the residents living in and around the site of the property or the Residents Association. This is preventing residents from voicing their opinions and objections. There has been absolutely no democracy or transparency in the matter, residents feel they have been railroaded into accepting any decision the Council makes.

 

(d) Neither of the two local ward councillors (Cllr Robert Johnson & Cllr Kathleen Fraser) received any notification of this until immediately prior to the Cabinet meeting on 15th January.

 

(e) It appears that no Planning Permission was applied for or granted. If this is the case, then what is the rationale taken as to why Planning Permission was not applied for? No statement appears to have been given.

 

(f) The Council is not acting in the interests of the residents in this matter. A similar care home was opened in Barn Hill which caused untold problems for those living in the area. It was only shut down when the local MP (Barry Gardiner) intervened. The residents do not want to have to deal with a similar occurrence.

 

Action Requested:

 

To refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration in order to find a cheaper alternative property in a different area.

Is Muhammed Butt's attempt at increasing the number of councillors required to call decisions in for scrutiny an abuse of democracy?

  

Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt: Limitting 'the voices of those who do not blindly agree with him'

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou has sent the following message to Debra Norman, Corporate Director of Governace at Brent Council, after changes proposed by Brent Council's Labour leader in the number of councillor's required to sign a call-in request. The number proposed by Cllr Butt would require some Labour councillors to join the Liberal Democract and Conservative opposition to achieve the revised required number.

 

As Labour councillors are tightly whipped this would be extremely unlikely and if they did their card is likely to be marked so that they are barred from committee places and standing again.

 

To Debra Norman,

 

At the meeting the Leader of the Council asked for you to look at increasing the number of required signatures (by Councillors) for a call-in to take place from 5 to somewhere around 10. 

 

 Cllr Butt is perfectly aware that if this change were to occur, call-in’s would no longer take place in Brent as the combined Opposition (the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Group) totals 8 elected members. Labour members under the current regime, wouldn’t dare to sign a call-in scrutinising decisions by the Cabinet, for fear of retribution by their Whip. You only have to look at what happened to the Labour members who signed a call-in last term (2018-2022), related to poorly implemented LTN’s. Not one is currently an elected Councillor in Brent.

 

  If the changes suggested by Cllr Butt are agreed to, it would be a total affront to democracy in our borough. Democratic scrutiny is the pillar of healthy and functioning governance. Seeking to stifle it in this way (which is how I view Cllr Butt’s request) sets a very dangerous precedent. It would also once again expose Brent as a place where scrutiny and inclusion of Opposition voice is not welcomed, rather it is frowned upon and limited. As you are aware, following the May 2022 local elections, Cllr Butt took it upon himself to banish Opposition Councillors from Vice-Chairing the two Scrutiny Committees in the borough. The move was seen by others in local government circles as a power grab. Frankly, it looked rather petty and insecure. It also took Officers by surprise, as the move had not been cleared with anyone (not even you?) beforehand.     

                         

 Cllr Butt’s latest attempt to stifle democratic scrutiny by limiting the ability for call-ins to take place is wrong and not in the interest of our residents, who want to see Council decisions challenged forcefully when required. After all, scrutiny leads to better outcomes. Residents are clearly very engaged in local democracy, take just the recent example of a petition on the Council website regarding the blue bag recycling system, which generated close to 3,500 signatures, a record for an e-Petition of this kind in Brent  - https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=267&RPID=0&HPID=0/. If Cllr Butt gets his way, decisions like this, which are clearly very unpopular with Council taxpayers, will likely be left unchallenged.

 

I want to make clear that if Officers agree to take Cllr Butt’s suggestion forward, the Liberal Democrat Group will robustly oppose the changes and will ensure residents are fully aware of the petty dictatorship that he leads.

 

I urge you to reject Cllr Butt’s suggestion and ensure that call-ins, an important form of scrutiny, in a borough with limited scrutiny already, can continue to take place, when they are required and legitimate.

 

I will be making this email public so a debate can begin about the Leader’s latest insecure attempt to limit the voices of those who do not blindly agree with him.

 

EDITOR: Brent Council Call-in Protocol LINK  (Irritatingly Council documents are often undated but I think this is the latest).

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.

 

 

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.

What is happening with the Bridge Park/Unisys redevelopment? Apparently, nothing.

 

Unisys House, Stonebridge

The death of Bridge Park fighter Leonard Johnson in November 2023 made me wonder where we were with redevelopment of the Bridge Park Leisure Centre and Unisys House. Unisys has been empty for decades and Brent Council made a deal with General Mediterranean Holdings to sell off its land as part of a scheme to redevelop the leisure centre and build housing and a hotel.

The community in Stonebridge waged a court battle over ownership of the Bridge Park Centre which had been set up by local black activists. The council won and seemed ready to go ahead. 

Questions were asked by Dan Filson, then chair of the Scrutiny Committee, about the wisom of dealing with GMH in the light of concerns over its owner and the companies Luxembourg registration. There was a concern about the effectivess of due diligence carried out by the Council and even Cllr Mike Pavey, then Deputy Leader of the Council,  had his doubts.

In an email in response to Philip Grant he said:

'I take your point on ethics and I for one am not comfortable dealing with companies registered in tax havens. Realistically though this is a much wider issue than this development. When you have companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Next routinely avoiding tax, it becomes difficult to hold this against any single company. We need national Government to lead a crackdown on legal tax avoidance and to insist on clearer transparency requirements. I don’t like dealing with companies registered in tax havens, but considering the size of the problem, I think the solution must come from the Government.’

 In September 2020 Ian Lunt, then the newly appointed Director of Regneration, signed off a Deed of Variation with Stonebridge Real Estate Development. LINK The Decision Form states that Shama Tatler. Cabinet Member for  Property, Planning and Regeneration was consulted

 Agreement to exchange a Deed of Variation to the Bridge Park Conditional Land Sale Agreement with “Stonebridge Real Estate Development” a UK-registered subsidiary company that has General Mediterranean Holdings SA as the parent company and Harborough InvestInc as the second guarantor.

The Decision Form states that Shama Tatler, Cabinet Member for  Property, Planning and Regeneration was consulted. However no details of the variation were released to the public:

Stonebridge Real Estate Development 2021 accounts have an interesting reference to its parent company GMH and its second guarantor Harborough Invest Inc LINK:

So it appears the Brent Council is in partnership with a subsidiary company that has doubts over its relationship with its guarantors: 'there can be no certainty that the support will continue to be available for the forseeable future.

This is GMH's account of the development and the agreement with Brent Council (undated) on its website LINK under the heading 'Land Development - UK':

Bridge Park Development

Known as Bridge Park, the 6.7 acre site area is located in easy walking distance from Stonebridge Park Station, in North West London. The development will have a Gross Development Value of circa £500 Million and will include more than 800 residential units, retail and a 198 room hotel, allied to a new leisure and community complex.

The development’s title ownership is divided between two parties, GMH Group, with the other being the London Borough of Brent (‘Council’). The GMH owned land includes a pair of imposing curvilinear office towers, one of which is ideally suited to conversion into a hotel and the other to residential, perhaps multi-family.

The Council ownership has an existing leisure and community centre and other commercial office buildings that are proposed to be demolished and replaced by a state of the art sports hall, swimming pool and other new community facilities, all of which are to be delivered by the Council at its expense.

GMH has exchanged contracts with the Council, subject to planning, to purchase the majority of the Council Land and develop both its ownership and the balance of the Bridge Park site into a new urban location with a range of much needed housing (including affordable), retail, a prominent hotel, as well a leisure and community facilities complex.

This important regeneration will bring jobs, homes and new community facilities, fully exploiting the great public transport links and general accessibility and prominence of the site.

The development seems a long way away now in 2024.

I asked Brent Council where the development was at present and they responded:

We don't any current planning applications. If that changes there will of course be public consultation.

Also there aren't any reports planned for Cabinet on the Forward Plan.

 

Morland Gardens – Brent Council ‘unable to make any commitments'

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Earlier this month I wrote “Morland Gardens – Report recommends Council does not proceed, but …”. The ‘but’ was because, although Brent cannot go ahead with its proposed redevelopment (as its planning consent has expired), it still has an outstanding “first stage” contract with Hill Group which includes the demolition of the Victorian villa “Altamira” (above).

 

At the end of my previous guest post I included the text of an open email I had sent to Brent’s Chief Executive, and other senior figures at the Civic Centre, seeking an assurance that this locally listed heritage asset would not be demolished, unless or until there was a legal requirement allowing for its demolition (which does not currently exist).

 

There was no mention of this at the Cabinet meeting on 11 December, when the Affordable Housing Supply update report (which recommended a review to come up with ‘an alternative site strategy’ for Morland Gardens) was dealt with. Last Friday afternoon I received this written response to my open email:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant 

 

RE: Morland Gardens and the Affordable Housing Supply (2023) Update Report  

 

Thank you for your open email dated 4th December 2023 addressed to Cllr Knight, the Council’s Chief Executive and the Council’s Corporate Director for Resident Services. Your enquiry has been forwarded to me to respond on their behalf.

 

The Council is unable to make any commitments or assurances either verbally or in writing on whether there will be demolition of the Altamira building or not, until such time the Council has considered its options for the site. As provided in previous correspondence, the Council will be reviewing the site options including the Altamira building, and will present these to Cabinet for consideration in due course.

 

Further information about the Councils procedures can be found on the Council's website: https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council

 

Kind regards

 

Head of Capital Programmes’

 

My concern, and that of other “Friends of Altamira”, is that someone at the Civic Centre will instruct Hill Group to carry out the demolition of the buildings on the site, under their existing contract, while the Council is still considering ‘its options for the site’. That is a risk, which could occur either by mistake, or deliberately out of vindictiveness (against the campaign which took advantage of the Council’s mistakes, in its fight to save this important heritage building).

 

 

There should not be any reason why Brent can’t give the assurance I’d requested. A similar one was given in June 2021, when the then Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment wrote to me (in response to me pointing out that Brent did not have the Stopping-up Order required before its proposed Morland Gardens development could take place): 

 

‘I confirm that the demolition of “Altamira” will not take place until all necessary legal pre-requisites are in place.’

 

The Strategic Director had been made aware that there would be objections to any proposed Order, and the reasons for it. Yet it was not until 28 April 2022 that valid notice of the proposed Stopping-up Order was given. That was just before Brent was finally ready to award a contract for the development. 

 

Given the uncertainty over whether the Council would obtain the legal right to build over the land outside 1 Morland Gardens, a group of Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors called-in his Key Decision to award the two-stage “Design and Build” contract. The minutes of the 9 June 2022 call-in meeting set out how he answered the reasons given by Cllr. Lorber and two members of the public about why the contract should not be awarded:

 

 

Mr Lunt’s argument was that “only” £1.1m was at risk (the estimated cost of stage one) if the contract was awarded, whereas the Council stood to lose £6.5m in GLA funding if the project did not go ahead. He gave the impression that the Stopping-up Order process would be over by the end of 2022. The minutes record his answer to a question from a Committee member:

 

‘It was confirmed that any objections to the stopping up order which were not withdrawn would be considered by the Mayor of London. Mr Lunt noted that in his experience, all stopping up orders had been confirmed.’

 

In fact, it was February 2023 before Brent supplied the GLA with all the information needed for the Mayor of London’s decision. When that decision came on 20 March, it did not confirm the Stopping-up Order. Instead, it said that the objections would need to be considered by a Public Inquiry, and Brent Council had still not arranged for that Inquiry to be held when its planning consent for the Morland Gardens development expired at the end of October!

 

The June 2022 call-in meeting of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee did agree that the contract should be awarded (although Mr Lunt had failed to tell them that he could not award it, as the “Contractor Framework” under which it was offered had expired at the end of May 2022!). A contract was actually awarded a couple of months later, under a different Framework, after a rushed decision by Brent’s Cabinet.

It is that contract which still poses a risk to the survival of the 150-year old beautiful and historic landmark building at 1 Morland Gardens. The Council has only to look at its own published words to know that it should not allow the unnecessary demolition of this heritage asset: 

 

From Brent’s May 2019 “Historic Environment Place-making Strategy”

 

I believe that Brent can and should make a commitment over “Altamira”, so I sent the following open email in reply to the response I’d received on 15 December:

 

‘Dear Mr Martin and Ms Wright,

 

Thank you for your email this afternoon, in response to my open email of 4 December. I have to say that I am disappointed by it.

 

I realise that the Council is carrying out a review to consider its options for the site at 1 Morland Gardens, and that recommendations will then be made to Brent's Cabinet. 

 

The assurance I requested does not need to wait for the outcome of those considerations, as it does not seek any commitment that there are no circumstances in which Brent Council would demolish the heritage building.

 

The assurance I am seeking is not an unreasonable one (given the Council's heritage assets policies and the fact that the flawed original consent, allowing the demolition of Altamira, has now expired). I will set out its terms again:

 

that there will be no demolition of the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, unless or until there are new plans in place for the site which would require the demolition of this heritage asset, and those plans have been properly consulted on, considered and given planning consent, and there are no outstanding legal requirements which need to be met before those new proposed development plans can go ahead.

 

I hope that, having reconsidered my request on a fair reading of the assurance I am seeking, Ms Wright can now give that assurance on behalf of Brent Council. Thank you. Best wishes, 

 

Philip Grant.’