Boundary changes mean a fond farewell to Mapesbury and Dollis Hill

The proposals for redrawn wards in Brent have now been published and have already caused controversy. The aim is to even out the population:councillor ratio and in doing so 9 2 member wards have been created and 13 3 member wards. There will be 57 councillors instead of the present 63.

The two member wards will be Barnhill, Brondesbury Park, Cricklewood, Kingsbury, Northwick Park, Preston North, Sudbury, Tokyngton and Wembley Central.

The new Wembley Park ward basically covers the Quintain development around Wembley Stadium and perhaps should have been named Quintain ward. We may well see Brent  council leader Muhammed Butt moving to represent that ward rather than Tokyngton, which previously covered Quintain's tower blocks, given that he is an exceptionally keen supporter of Quintain. The voting population of Wembley Park is expected to rise from 4477 to 8674 with new developments in the pipeline but given that Tokyngton had the lowest turnout at the local election at 29% it is unclear how many of the new 'lifestyle' residents will actually vote.

To many of its residents chagrin Mapesbury, which has a strong self identity, aided by an active Residents' Association, will be split between Dudden Hill and Cricklewood. Dollis Hill which also has a strong local identity backed up by an active Facebook group (The View from Dollis Hill) and former Liberal Democrat councillor Alison Hopkins will disappear, succeeded by Gladstone and Cricklewood.  The change will mean that the confusion between Dollis Hill and Dudden Hill wards will disappear - Dollis Hill tube station is in Dudden Hill.

The consultation will consider proposals for changing the names of the proposed wards as well as the actual boundaries, Preston South and Wembley Hill feels clumsy although historians may enjoy the revival of the name Wembley Hill which was associated with a secondary school of that name which was bombed out during the second world war.

The document below summarises the proposals (click bottom left corner for full size version) and an interactive map and consultation details can be found HERE.  The consultation closes on April 19th 2019.

Is the Old Oak Common project in jeopardy?

 The vision in 2016

The Evening Standard reported yesterday LINK that the biggest landowner of London's largest regeneration project at Old Oak Common, Cargiant, has axed the £5bn proposal to develop its site.

The Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) was set up by Boris Johnson when London Mayor and Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt is a member of the board. LINK

Tony Mendes, managing director of Cargiant said the project had been made unviable by the actions of the OPDC:

Old Oak Common is fast becoming known as Old Oak Cock-up. The area was supposed to hep meet the housing crisis in London with 25,000 new homes, but it is going to fail to deliver all but a fraction of that number, at an outrageously high cost to the public purse.

Mendes called for the OPDC bid for £250m government funding for infrastructure to be  'paused' while the Government investigates the £30m of government money already spent and the bid to be properly scrutinised by the London Assembly and MPs.

A commenter on the Evening Standard website  says:

This is a reaction from Cargiant to the Compulsory Purchase Order for their land that the OPDC wants to obtain. Under a CPO, Cargiant will receive just the value of the current undeveloped land, plus the standard sweetener, which means Cargiant makes much less money from the site. On the other hand, the OPDC wants to build at a super-high density of 600 homes per hectare. Cargiant probably thinks that is far too high to sell the homes on the open market. At that density, the danger is that they might be bought just as investments largely from abroad, often with no one living in them.

A spokesperson for current London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, expressed disappointment that Mendes was 'looking to frustrate the project' and said that the OPDC had made a business case to the Government  for Housing Infrastructure Funding that would 'unlock the scheme' with a decision to be made in due course.

We are bound to hear more on this and I hope Brent councillors will play their part in scrutinising the project as one of the interested parties.

Rare chance to hear from 'Veterans for Peace' Monday February 11th at Brent Mencap

Brent Stop the War has held meetings and demonstrations about the cost of war in terms of victims' deaths, infrastructure destruction, environmental disaster and creation of refugees as well as the financial cost to the economy.

Monday's meeting will be a little different.  We will hear first-hand from an American and a British soldier, who are members of Veterans for Peace (UK), about the personal cost to them and their families, friends and neighbours of participation in these wars.  Their voices are not heard as much as they should be and BStW has organised this special meeting so that Brent residents can hear directly from veterans about what war has meant for them, the conclusions they have drawn from their experience and their resultant activism.

The meeting is on Monday February 11th 7.30pm to 9.15pm at Brent Mencap, 379-381 High Road, Willesden, London NW10 2JR  Nearest tube Dollis Hill (Jubilee line) and 260, 266, 297 bus routes.

Speakers: 

Julio Torres, Veterans for Peace (UK) New York born Torres was a member of the U.S.  Army for 11 years 2005-2016, including a year in Iraq, with the rank of Staff Sergeant.

Ben Griffin. Ben is an ex Paratrooper, SAS soldier and founder of  Veterans for Peace UK. He served in Northern Ireland, Macedonia, Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2005 he was released from army service after refusing to continue serving under American command in Iraq. Ben served as as national coordinator for VfP until 2018 and remains an active member.
 

'Terrorist danger' leads to wider road closures around Wembley Event Days

Local residents are used to local roads being closed for several hours on Wembley Event Days with bus routes curtailed or diverted but Brent Council has now issued a Temporary Traffic Prohibition Order that could closed them from 10pm the day before an Event Day until 8am the day after the event. It is anticipated that the prohibition would not be in place throughout those hours but only as 'required by the police' according to the Council's statutory notice below so we must adopt and wait and see the practical impact of the order which will run initially from February 16th to December 31st 2019

The Order is on the recommendation of the Metropolitan Police and due to 'purposes  relating to damage or danger connected with terrorism.'

There are already concrete barriers at strategic points around the area and a multi-agency committee meets regularly to monitor safety issues including the danger posed by potential terrorism incidents when there are such large crowds in the vicinity of the Stadium and Arena.

 

Brent Momentum: 'Dismay' over Labour Council's failure to implement national policy

Brent Momentum's first bulletin issued today hits the nail on the head as far as a critique of the  Labour Council goes - I would have added more on planning and the Council's failure to secure sufficient truly affordable housing in new developments and the Council's proposal for a further reduction in Council Tax Support.

Drop in on St Raphael's redevelopment proposal this Saturday - Public Meeting February 27th

Brent Housing are to hold two more meetings with residents of St Raphael's Estate. One of the recent meetings was overflowing.  A drop in is being held in a marquee in a car park on the estate on Saturday  rather than in the Children's Centre of the nearby school. Let's hope the gales do not sweep it away. An additional public meeting will be held at the Civic Centre on February 27th.

We want to listen to residents’ ideas, encourage you to get involved and address any concerns. We have arranged four informal drop-in sessions on the estate. The drop-in sessions will be a chance for you to have one-to-one or small group discussions with senior council officers and councillors.

The drop-ins will take place on the following dates:

• Saturday 9 February from 12pm–2pm: Open car park space (Marquee) next to the Living Room, 65-80 Besant Way, NW10 0TY

Public Meeting

We would also like to continue to encourage public debate and have arranged another public meeting:

Wednesday 27 February from 6.30pm-8pm: Conference Hall (3rd Floor) Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ

Stonebridge councillors have  put out a video on Twitter assuring residents that they are interested in hearing their views. See the Twitter post with video here LINK

tps://twitter.com/Brent_Housing/status/1093536872561868806

Brent Council seeks £3.3m cut in Council Tax Support scheme with 'potential risk of a disproportionate impact' on disabled people, ethnic groups and (possibly) gender

Brent Council is to consult on proposals that would cut the current Council Tax Support scheme by £3.3m. The proposals are for three potential options  1) an increase of 19% claimant contribution (the percentage of the full Council Tax that the resident actually pays) for all working age claimants including the vulnerable who are currently exempt; 2)  current exempt remain protected but working age non-exempt will pay 51% of the Council Tax;  3) taper off entitlement as income rises so that the number claiming is reduced.

The Council is set to increase Council Tax by 5.99% in the financial year 2019-20. These proposals would take effect in 2020-21 with consultation on the changes taking place between June and September 2019 and going to Full Council in December 2019.

It is worth noting that the report to Monday's Cabinet commits to an equitable scheme but notes under Equality Impact Screening that:

...That said, there is a potential risk of a disproportionate impact in certain groups, in particular disabled people, ethnic groups and (possibly) gender.

Extract from the Report to Cabinet

£3.3M net saving (£3.96M gross)

i.                Additional 19% claimant contribution for all working age claimants. Current exempt (“vulnerable”) claimants pay 19%; non-exempt claimants pay 39%;

     Or:

ii.              Current exempt claimants remain protected; additional 31% claimant contribution for all non-exempt working age; i.e. Non-exempt claimants pay minimum 51% of Council Tax liability.

      Or:

iii.             Introduce mechanisms to taper off entitlement more steeply as income rises, therefore making the saving from reduced caseload volumes, rather than the rebates that the remaining claimants receive.

The above options all represent extremes which are unlikely to exactly represent the eventual scheme design, which will be more nuanced, with many aspects – in particular those claimants treated as “exempt” - under review and likely to be changed. However they illustrate the difficulty in maintaining the current size of caseload while attempting to protect the most financially vulnerable. The new scheme is therefore most likely to incorporate option (iii) to either fully or partially meet the saving while allowing the scheme still to protect the most financially vulnerable within it.

Key risks and mitigations

The Council must be able to show that meaningful consideration has been given to meeting the saving from alternative measures, e.g. increasing Council Tax, cutting other services, etc., and why it is proposing to meet the saving by changing the CTS scheme. If it cannot show this, it leaves itself open to significant legal challenge.

·      Ensure that consultation includes meaningful consideration of the of alternative funding methods to meet the saving 


·      Ensure that Cabinet and Full Council reports explore the alternative funding methods in sufficient detail and evidence that that Members have actively considered these 
Financial hardship for residents – 


·      the scheme will be designed to protect the most vulnerable, but will 
necessarily will overall be harsher than the current scheme 


·      consideration of a discretionary hardship fund within the scheme 


·      consideration of transitional protection for the most impacted claimants 


Council Tax collection decreases –
- review Council Tax collection processes to enable greater engagement with CTS claimants before enforcement action commences

Scheme is not agreed by Full Council by the deadline – - robust project management

IT systems unable to provide the desired solution (on time) –
- early engagement with IT providers and strong project management

Scheme is subject to legal challenge –

·      robust scheme modelling 


·      engagement with stakeholders 


·      sufficient time taken over drafting the formal scheme with Legal Services input 
Revised scheme does not deliver sufficient savings and / or further cuts required in following year

·      model alternative schemes including one providing a larger cut 


·      design a scheme with further changes for Year 2 built into it

 Equality impact screening


The proposed scheme has not been designed yet and there are several options, so it is not possible to be precise at this stage, however one of the design principles is to build a scheme that is equitable and proportionate across protected groups (and other claimants), so specific impacts will be tested in due course and any inequities reviewed accordingly. That said, there is a potential risk of a disproportionate impact in certain groups, in particular disabled people, ethnic groups and (possibly) gender. There is considered to be a much lower risk in the other protected groups, as no potential scheme designs will feature these factors explicitly, and the chance of an unintended consequence is thought to be low – although all aspects will be considered in the EIA.