Does Brent's Development Management Plan adequately address residents' concerns?

Thusday's Planning Committee LINK is rather different than usual because it addresses the context within which planning decisions are made and reflects members' concerns over some of the wider issues to do with regeneration, development and provision of affordable housing and making reference to such matters as the proliferation of betting shops and takeaways and the protection of pubs. This is the first in a number of blogs on the issues addressed.

The first item on the agenda is the Brent Development Management Policies Local Plan LINK which summarises reponses to the consultation. The Draft Plan dated August 2015 can be found HERE :

.        Summary of Issues Raised 


.         

.        3.8  Length of the document: A number of respondents identified that the document was too long. This has been addressed through significant amendment, removing that which is dealt with sufficiently in NPPF, NPPG and London Plan and its associated SPGs 


.        3.9  Town centres: Policies to prevent an overconcentration of takeaways, pay day loan shops, betting shop and Shish Cafes and takeaways and shisha cafes in proximity to schools received significant support from residents. However, Planware objected to the proposal to limit the number and location of takeaways on the basis they do not feel there is adequate justification for this policy. These policies have essentially been retained largely unchanged as it is considered evidence supports their retention. 

UPDATE Brent Labour MPs 2-1 against Welfare Reform Bill

Dawn Butler (Brent Central) and Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead & Kilburn) defied the Labour whip last night and joined 46 other Labour MPs in voting against the Welfare Reform Bill. Liberal Democrat MPs also voted against.

Tulip Siddiq had signalled her intention in a Channel 4 News interview earlier that evening.  Renowned local Tweeter Pukkah Punjabi revised her Storify posting in  the light of Siddiq's stance. LINK

As far as I know ultra loyalist Barry Gardiner (Brent North) obeyed the whip. Gardiner's one attempt at rebellion was against Gordon Brown and unfortunately was ill-timed - just a few days before Big G 'Saved the World' during the economic crisis.

UPDATE Barry Gardiner has told the KILBURN TIMES that Tulip Siddiq and Dawn Butler fell into a Government trap by voting against the Bill:

He explained: “Either we voted for the bill because we supported those of our policies that they’d incorporated into it but in so doing we voted for unacceptable changes to the benefits system such as three million families that are going to lose £1000 or impact on carers from the benefit cap. Or we voted against those regressive policies in the bill but in so doing voted against our own on apprenticeships.

“It was meant to trap us. It was a false choice designed to force us into either opposing our own policies or supporting the evil policies they were putting forward. I’ve always considered that if you’re asked to choose two unacceptable positions the sensible position is to refuse both. That is why I abstained."

The revolt perhaps gives some indication of the core support Jeremy Corbyn may command in the Parliamentary Labour Party. Labour Mayoral candidates Diane Abbot, Sadiq Khan and David Lammy also voted against the Bill.

Ahead of the vote Green MP, Caroline Lucas, said: 

“The Tories are attempting to dismantle our welfare state, and cut back on support given to those who need it the most.

“The bill will slash support for people with ill health including many with mental health problems – new claimants of Employment Support Allowance in the Work Related Activity Group, will see payments cut by almost £30 a week. This is very harmful for people with long-term fluctuating mental ill-health.  It will lock in child poverty for those born into larger families and it will leave Ministers significantly less accountable for their policies by scrapping the current legally binding child poverty targets.  

“It’s also deeply concerning that the bill includes a clause which would allow the Government to further lower the cap on benefits without properly consulting Parliament - thus potentially plunging more children into poverty without MPs even having a debate on the issue.

“It's now down to MPs from all parties to look beyond the politics of today’s debate and focus instead on the devastating impact that this piece of legislation will have on people up and down the country. 
"Our crumbling social security system is on the brink – now is the time to take a stand.

“George Osborne is playing politics with poverty. Failing to stand up to this regressive Welfare Bill would be an utter betrayal of the principle which says that those in need deserve support.  I’ll be joining many MPs from across the parties in voting against the Government’s Bill and making a stand for our welfare state.”

Lucas has spoken of the need for a 'Progressive Alliance' to challenge neoliberalism and austerity and yesterday's vote  gives some indication of the potential extent of that alliance in Parliament. 

Before the vote Owen Jones released a video making the case for voting against the Bill.

Biodiversity check in Masons Field, Kingsbury

The Big Butterly Count started yesterday and I walked in Masons Field this afternoon to see how the creation of a wildflower habitat and the re-establishing of a Green Lane were affecting the number of butterflies.

The number of butterflies and other insects is of course a clue to the healthiness of our biodiversity as well as a way of assessing the impact of climate change.

I was pleased to see significant numbers on the Green Lane, although they are quite hard to see in the video. Masons Field was one of only two arable fields in the area, the rest are pasture, and having been recorded as long ago as the 15th century it had latterly been partly used for housing and the remainder as a Sports Ground. Much more about its history can be found HERE

It is pleasing that the hard work of Brent Council and the Barn Hill Conservation Group seems to be paying off and the field is well worth a visit. Enter via Fryent Country Park or Larkspur Close.

To contribute to the Big Butterly Count and for identification charts  and a free App click HERE

Brent Equalities Committee: Michael Pavey responds to Philip Grant's Open Letter

Last week, Martin published as a “guest blog” an open letter which I had sent to the members of Brent Council’s new Equalities Committee, ahead of their meeting on 13 July. LINK  

The day after their meeting, the chair of that committee, Cllr. Michael Pavey, wrote to me in reply to my open letter. With his permission, I am setting out the main text of his reply, so that “Wembley Matters” readers can consider the points he has made, as part of a balanced discussion:-

‘The Committee met for the first time last night and as part of our discussions on the implementation of my Review, we decided to remove the "success criteria" relating to successfully defended ETs. We opted to remove the clause entirely, rather than to replace it. This was a unanimous decision. 

Your suggestion that the Council withdraw from the Race for Opportunity awards was not raised. 

My understanding is that this particular award relates to the collection of equalities data. Whatever your view of the Council's current performance, the Committee will only be able to drive up standards by referring to reliable and challenging data. 

The Council Equalities Team have put a tremendous amount of work into improving internal data collection and analysis. I have no problem with this work being recognised through nomination for an award. 

I don't feel that objecting to Council Officers receiving legitimate praise for their hard work is the right way to address ongoing grievances about an Employment Tribunal. The Officers who put in the hard work to collect this data had nothing at all to do with that Tribunal. 

I think it would be far more constructive for us to acknowledge the good work of those particular Officers and focus on using this data to improve the Council's performance on Equalities issues, as per my Review. The new Committee has an important role to play in this and we made an encouraging start last night, challenging Officers in a constructive but robust way.’ 

I believe I am on record as saying this before, but it is worth repeating, that I welcome Michael Pavey’s openness in actually replying to serious points put to him (unlike his colleague, the Leader of the Council). We do not agree on everything, but I have confirmed to Cllr. Pavey that I know there are many officers at the Council who do an excellent job (even though they have been let down by some very senior ones!). My open letter was not all criticism, but in reply to Cllr. Pavey’s response above, I have reminded him that its key message was that the Equalites Committee (and Brent Council generally) needs to acknowledge and deal with the “negatives”, as well as celebrating the “positives”.

Philip Grant

The Benefit Cap, Tulip Siddiq and Election Promises

Brent Health Partners Forum July 22nd at Sudbury Primary School

Still time to book for Sunday's Fundraising Garden Party in Willesden Green

Book at EVENTBRITE

Open Letter to Christine Gilbert over rumoured “pay off” to Cara Davani, 16 July 2015

Guest blog by Philip Grant. Christine Gilbert is the current Chief Executive of Brent Council who is due to leave after the summer.

Dear Ms Gilbert,

Further to our recent email correspondence, to which I have still to receive a satisfactory reply, either from you or on your behalf, I regret that I have had to resort to sending a letter to the editor of the “Brent & Kilburn Times”, which was published today, and to writing this open letter to you, which I will be copying to all elected members of Brent Council, and making available to anyone who wishes to publish it.

In case you have not seen the letter in our local newspaper, here is a copy of it:-

This is a matter of genuine public concern. You may feel that it is “none of my business”, but it is my business if money which I have contributed to through my Council Tax, and which should be used for providing local services, is being secretly paid to a former senior officer. Cara Davani left the Council at the end of June 2015, but should have resigned in September 2014 when the findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case were made public. When she did not resign, it was your responsibility as interim Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service to take the appropriate action, which any other person on those facts would have seen as using the Council’s disciplinary procedures against her for the gross misconduct which the Tribunal had highlighted.

As a first step in dealing with this mess, which you have allowed to develop through trying to “sweep it under the carpet”, I believe it is reasonable to ask you again to reply, openly and honestly, to Council staff, elected councillors and publicly to Brent’s residents, to the two simple “yes” or “no” questions I put to you a week ago:

1. Can Brent Council confirm that there has not been, and that there will not be, any financial payment by the Council to Cara Davani in connection with her leaving the Council's employment as Director of HR and Administration, other than her normal salary payment up to 30 June 2015?   YES or NO.

2. Can Brent Council confirm that it has not agreed, and will not agree, to pay any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally, as a separately named respondent from Brent Council, in any Employment Tribunal or other legal proceedings in which she and the Council are named parties?   YES or NO.

You know the answers to these questions, and I think it is unfair of you to have passed the matter to Brent’s Chief Legal Officer to respond to on your behalf (which she has not yet done).

As I said to you last week, if the honest answers to both of these questions is "yes", then that will be the end of the matter, and it is difficult to understand why you have delayed saying so.

If the answer to one or both of these questions is “no”, then I believe that you have a duty to disclose, particularly to elected councillors, what financial arrangements (other than her basic salary payment to 30 June 2015) have been made or agreed in Brent Council’s name for Ms Davani’s benefit, who made or agreed those arrangements, and what is considered to be the justification for them. You have tried to put off my enquiries about this matter by saying that the Council cannot ‘legally disclose’ any details, and when I hoped to raise this matter at Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday evening it was claimed (at short notice by the Head of Executive and Member Services) that it would be ‘inappropriate’ for me to raise this subject at the meeting, because of the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (which “provisions” has still not been disclosed). Whatever the legal excuses, it is surely in the public interest that councillors, staff and residents can be assured that any payments were properly and fairly due.

The way that this matter has been handled by you and other senior officers gives the impression of a “cover-up”, even if the rumours of a “pay off” to Ms Davani prove to have been false. What is needed, on this and any similar issues, is transparency and accountability. I realise that you only have a short time left as Brent’s interim Chief Executive, but please act promptly to resolve this matter on a reasonable basis, so that you do not leave the borough even further in disrepute. Thank you.

 

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant