UPDATE: Disabled South Kilburn pensioner still has no Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan from Brent Council

After I published John Healy’s personal account of his fears as a disabled pensioner, living on the 5^th floor of a South Kilburn council block with no fire alarm system, of succumbing to a fire in the wake of Grenfell LINK as no Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) was in place LINK, Brent Council issued this statement:

 

Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP) are essential for anyone who may need assistance in the unlikely event of being advised to leave a building because of fire. We're concerned that something seems to have gone wrong here and have contacted Mr Healy to put it right.

Last year, we proactively reached out to all tenants, asking anyone who needed assistance to complete a PEEP. We don't seem to have received a PEEP from Mr Healy and will be investigating what has gone wrong here, along with Mr Healy's comments about not being able to reach us.

 

Three weeks later and 7 months since John first completed his PEEP application form the PEEP is not yet in place and the assurance he needs that his hearing and mobility disabilities would be catered for in the event of a fire has not been provided – Brent Council is failing in its duty of care to one of its vulnerable tenants.

 

John told Wembley Matters on March 31^st:

 

After 26 emails and numerous phone calls during the whole of March, they annoyed me yesterday by asking me "to clarify why I need a PEEP?".

 

In the previous 26 emails, I have given several council officers and councillors all the information they asked me for, as to why I need a PEEP but none of it seems to have been understood by any of them.

 

I now know how those Grenfell residents must have felt when they tried to inform Kensington and Chelsea council and their TMO.  To be honest I expected more from Brent Council but they have shown me that they are no better than any other council in London.

 

The council say they only became aware of my situation when I completed a new PEEP application online on the 19th March 2021 and entered it on their PEEP database on the 22nd March 2021.  All my previous emails and phone calls over the previous 6 months have no bearing on my new application,  says my Buildings officer.  In other words, he never even saw the article in Wembley Matters as it was published on the 12th March 2021, or anything else that I sent since early Sept. 2020, after returning my first PEEP application form.

 

 I made a first stage complaint, but I sent it before hearing from the council, that my application only began on the 19th March 2021. After sending in my complaint, I did receive an apology from the Lead Officer for Housing, Neighbourhoods and Community Wellbeing, which I assumed was in connection with the complaint but the officer never actually mentioned the word 'complaint' in her email.

 

Mr Healy is ready to give up and resign himself to sleepless nights over his fears for himself and other residents caught in this bureaucratic nightmare.

Surely Brent Council, which has been awarded ‘Disability Confident Leader Status’ as a provider, commissioner of services and an employer LINK, should be doing better?

 

 

 

 

UPDATE Brent Council's 'Vanity' road - it's enough to make you crack up

 UPDATE: A Brent Council source has said that the stripping below is for the installation of Hostile Vehicle Mitigation measures and not due to the state of the road. There is no word on whether the reinstated surface will be block paving or tarmac.

When Brent Council's £100m Civic Centre was built it was decided that a building of such distinction required an equally distinctive road surface so £852,000 was spent on block paving. Given that it was a route for heavy construction lorries it soon deteriorated although Brent Council also blamed severe weather.

Further money has been spent on ongoing repairs but observers have now seen that a section of Engineers Way outside the Civic Centre  has been stripped:

 

Engineers Way yesterday

 Former Brent Liberal Democrat leader Paul Lorber, has written to the Council to ask if the road is going to replaced  by asphalt as in other parts of the borough and why similar remedial action cannot be taken at Station Approach in Sudbury.

It looked yesterday from the stack of blocks visible on the site as if the block paving is going to be replaced. I think we need to know the additional costs involved.

Meanwhile with Engineers Way closed while work continues on the controversial , Fulton Road is the main access road to the stadium area. Residents of the new build have been complaining about the traffic jams caused by huge trucks accessing building sites with considerable difficulty and the damage caused when they have to mount the pavements.

 

At the other end of Olympic Way work is continuing on the linking of North End Road to Bridge Road with considerable incovenience to pedestrians. An initial justification given for the link was that  buses could use North End Road as a detour on event days and maintain a better bus service to residents. The 206 to the Paddocks was curtailed on event days. It now appears that there may have to be a weight limit on the new link which might affect these plans.

 

Holding feet to the fire: Peabody tenants confront unaccountable heating and housing management

Tenants of some local  'Build to Rent' schemes have found themselves trapped in the freeholder's contracts with utility and broadband suppliers, with no ability to switch accounts.  Fuel Poverty Action reveal similar problems in a new build development in Tower Hamlets.

Fuel Poverty Action is today publishing a remarkable exposé showing how families have been left in the cold because their unaffordable heat network and their social housing tenancies have created a legal limbo. For their heating, they are tied to one supplier, but they have no control of prices, no contract, no legal rights, and no one to complain to. This crisis has been created by a toxic - but increasingly common - mix of unaccountable housing and unaccountable heating. The tenants have led a long fight for affordable warmth and against the odds, have won major price reductions.  

Phoenix Works is a new build development in Tower Hamlets with 28 ”affordable rent” tenants housed by Peabody housing association(1). When they moved in, tenants “couldn’t believe” what their prepayment meters were consuming. Many simply could not pay the up to £250 a month required to keep warm. Some had to move out and stay with relatives, some got ill, some went deeply into debt. Meanwhile their landlord and heat provider passed the buck to each other, displaying a sense of impunity, and dazzling incompetence. 

The tenants’ heat is provided by a “Heat Network”. Heat networks are like central heating for a whole estate, and are being heavily promoted and subsidised by the government on the grounds that they offer a low-carbon alternative(2). Customers of a Heat Network cannot switch, nor is there any price cap or, as yet, any regulation. Assessed as eligible for “affordable housing”, the ex-council tenants had no warning of the extra costs, and no heat contract. They could not even find out who was responsible for their heating and tariffs: the estate management, KFH, or their social landlord, Peabody?  

Ms Lewis, who has led the fight for affordable heating at Phoenix Works says,

“Peabody can’t escape responsibility for allowing tenants to suffer. Some have had to choose between heating homes and feeding families during winter months, all because of the lack of information and accountability from the very beginning.  Do we have to just put up and shut up with whatever charges KFH decide to throw at us?  We would never have chosen to live this way had we been given the choice.”

Ruth London from FPA says, 

“Cold kills. 10,000 people die each winter in the UK because they can’t afford to heat their homes.  And that was the number before a respiratory pandemic! 

Heat Networks are supposed to provide low carbon, low cost, reliable heat. But FPA work with residents in many such estates who are fighting huge bills, constant heating breakdowns, or both.The sheer unaccountability of both heating and housing management has never been more blatant than at Phoenix Works.” 

With Fuel Poverty Action(3), tenants are calling for a public inquiry to uncover what has happened and what structural and legal changes are needed to prevent it happening anywhere again. 

Tenants from Phoenix Works are available for interview.  Also available are residents from other heat network estates in Tower Hamlets and all over London who are suffering from high prices or frequent outages, both of which can leave households without either heat or hot water.  

As well as Fuel Poverty Action, the Phoenix Works tenants have won support from SHAC, who contributed to the dossier, from the Heat Networks team at BEIS  (heatnetworks@beis.gov.uk), and from their MP, Apsana Begum. 

The Dossier is published HERE on our website or you can download a PDF here. 

For substantial coverage in The Times see HERE.

NOTES 

1. New developments are required to set aside a proportion of flats for “affordable housing”. Rents in these lower standard apartments are up to 80% of market rates, which in some places, like London, can be extremely high, and tenants may face lower standards and “poor doors”. Most of the other residents are leaseholders. 

2. Heat networks pipe heat into homes from a communal gas boiler. Also known as “District Heating”, this system are said to save carbon emissions by being more efficient than gas boilers, by producing electricity at the same time as heat if using a central “Combined Heat and Power” boiler, and because they have the potential to use renewable or waste heat sources instead of combustion. But where systems are badly designed, installed, or maintained, residents can go cold, and carbon savings in practice can be nil. 

3. Fuel Poverty Action is a grassroots organisation started in 2011, which since 2017 has been supporting residents all over London who are organising for reliable and affordable heat from their heat networks. In 2017 we published Not Fit For Purpose, a report on the heat network on Myatts Field North, which is now being pressed into service again by residents there. Our many consultation responses on the issue can be found here.

 

Employment Tribunal finds against Imam Abdul Sattar's claim of unfair dismissal by the Wembley Central Mosque

 

Happier days

Employment Judge Nebeau of the Employment Tribunals last month issued his Reserved Judgment in the case of Imam Abdul Sattar versus Wembley Central Mosque. Sattar was claiming unfair dismissal. The Judgment stated: 'The unfair dismissal claim is not well founded and is dismissed.'

The Judge said that although the case was about Sattar's dismissal the evidence showed tht there was in existence a fissure that became apparent three years prior to the claimant's dismissal. 

The Mosque was closed for three weeks early last year over the dispute between the Mosque Committee and worshipper allies of Imam Abdul Sattar. LINK

 

 Wembley Central Mosque, Ealing Road

More than 600 pages of documents were considerd by the telephone hearing last Autumn and the Judgment itself is 39 pages long.

Among the issues covered perhaps the most important was that of Speakers' engagement,  and risk assessments of speakers about which the Charity Commission had expressed concern.

Other issues considered including the issue and stamping of Nikah (Muslim marriage) certificates and Nikah fees,  selling of CDs at the Mosque, leafleting protests inside and outside the Mosque, unauthorised access to the Imam's office and the role of the religious sect Tablighi Jamaat. LINK

The Judgment gives an account of the attempt by the Imam of the Monks Park Mosque to mediate.

Judge Nebeau concludes his Judgment:

It must be borne in mind that the situation in 2018 and 2019 was getting beyond control. There were regular protests outside of the Masjid involving the police. The Masjid was split between those who followed the claimant and those who supported management committee. Based on the evidence before me there was also a serious breakdown in the employee employer relationship which seemed to be irretrievable. Under those circumstances, it is difficult to see a way forward as attempts at trying to resolve matters informally had been rejected. At the end of the day management committee had to manage the Masjid. Even if the three reasons found at the appeal stage in support of the claimant’s dismissal, did not apply, the apparent irretrievable breakdown in the relationship between the claimant and the management committee, would inevitably have necessitated the claimant’s dismissal.

Accordingly, I have come to the that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim is not well-founded and is dismissed. Any hearing listed remedy is hereby vacated.

The full Judgment can be read HERE

 

Greens call for investment, strategic planning and transparency from Harrow Council - guest post by Emma Wallace (Green Party candidate for Brent and Harrow GLA)

 Guest post by Emma Wallace, Green Party candidate for the GLA Brent and Harrow Constituency

 

Harrow Council’s Cuts to Environmental Services and Lack of Action on the Climate Emergency Part 2

 

Greens call for investment, strategic planning and transparency from Harrow Council  

 

 

We have to get serious about the climate emergency

 

Our council tax in Harrow is going up by 5.8% from the 1^st April, moving our borough from the third highest council tax rate in London to second, just behind Kingston which takes the top spot  LINK .  Whilst you would hope this would mean, if not an increase to our public services, at least protection of the ones we already have, this is unfortunately not to be the case.  The Council has been put under huge constraints by the decimation of local authority funding from central government and having to ringfence a large percentage of the budget to meet statutory duties such as adult social care LINK .  This has resulted in ever dwindling amounts of money to cover the multitude of other essential services the Council should be providing.  One council department that is bearing the brunt of our shrinking local authority budgets is the Environmental Services department, seeing its staffing budget cut by £250 000 from April 2021 LINK .  At a time when we are facing an unprecedented climate emergency, coupled with an increase in population and demand on many of our services, including our local parks and reserves due to the pandemic, this cut seems to be incredibly short-sighted.  The resultant negative consequences for our borough’s environment, its residents and the Council’s ability to meet its own climate and ecological emergency targets cannot be underestimated.

 

A Climate Emergency

 

The council declared a climate emergency in July 2019, resolving to “make the London Borough of Harrow carbon neutral by 2030, taking into account both production and consumption of emissions”. LINK     The council created a related strategy to meet its carbon neutral goals, committing to working towards 100% renewable energy in the borough, making homes, schools and commercial buildings more energy efficient, to decarbonise vehicles and move to sustainable travel, to minimise waste and support recycling, to protect and restore the biodiversity we have and to engage communities to become eco literate  LINK.  More recently, the Council reiterated in its 2021/22 budget that one of its key priorities is “Improving the environment and addressing climate change”  LINK .  Indeed, the council has made a number of public announcements, formed a ‘Climate & Sustainability Partnership’ with other organisations including local environmental groups and produced a ‘London Borough of Harrow Climate Change Strategy’ 2019-2024  LINK.   This most recent climate change strategy has not made it to the Council’s ‘Climate Change - Environment and Parks’ out-of-date webpages though LINK . 

 

Harrow Council’s public commitment to fighting climate change is commendable and urgent if we are to stay within the projected 1.5 degrees of warming in the next ten years and avoid the worst predictions of environmental breakdown.  The reality is though, that these goals are completely untenable unless the Council fully invests in meeting these goals, allocates ongoing budgets, devises an actionable, joined-up strategy and recruits a strong in-house team to works towards achieving its targets.  Unfortunately, as we can see from the most recent Environmental Services staffing cuts this does not appear to be happening.   In May 2020, ‘The Student View’ charity made a Freedom of Information request asking if the council had discussed the costs of climate change adaption to enable it to meet its climate and ecological emergency targets.  It emerged it had not: “the issue of budget and additional resources for delivering the council’s pledge to be carbon neutral by 2030 hasn’t yet been discussed in detail through the Council’s Climate Change steering group meetings with the Cabinet members.” LINK     Last year, the council stated it was spending “£150,000 on tackling the climate emergency, covering staff costs as well as external support and advice on how to reduce carbon emissions”  LINK .  It is not clear exactly what this money was spent on or if a similar amount has been allocated to address the climate emergency this financial year.  

 

The Environmental Services Team and Transparency

 

Harrow Council’s Environmental Services department is responsible for a multitude of areas, including our parks, open spaces and nature reserves, street trees, allotments, verge maintenance, street cleaning, fly tipping and general waste management amongst other things, and it has already suffered from years of cut backs.  These areas all have a significant role to play in the Council meeting its 2019-2023 climate change strategy.  Trying to establish the roles that make up the Environmental Services team though and what ones have been cut is incredibly difficult.  Whilst there is an ‘Environmental and Parks’ area on Harrow Council’s website, it is hard to find who is exactly responsible for the many different areas.  At a Harrow VCS Forum ‘Environment & Sustainability Subgroup’ meeting in November 2017, a request was made to Graham Henson, now Leader of the Council, asking for a list of key environmental services council officers to liaise with and how best to contact them for a speedy response.  Mr Henson’s answer was that, basically, there isn’t a list available and it’s best to make contact with the Head of Service, Dave Corby LINK.  This raises the issue that as council tax paying residents, should we not expect to easily find out what roles people hold, what they do and how we can make contact with them in the council?  Should we not also expect timely replies from the council officers and councillors that represent us?  This frequently does not appear to be the case.  It is imperative that our Council is transparent and accountable to members of the public so they can effectively support the community it serves. 

 

Department Re-shuffle

 

Dave Corby who has been ‘Head of Community Engagement’ for many years has now retired, taking with him a breadth of knowledge on our parks and local environment that will be a real loss to Harrow.  It is unclear if he is being directly replaced, but the Environmental Services department has recently undergone a reshuffle, with Rebecca Johnson now the new Head of Environment and Waste Strategy and Desiree Mahoney acting as the Community Engagement Officer.  Mark Richardson is the Green Team Manager and Ray Fox the Parks Manager; Rebecca Farrar is the Tree Protection Officer and Steve Whitbread is Biodiversity Officer.  There has been a recent advert for ‘Head of Transport and Environmental Operations’ at the Council,  LINK , stating that the role is within the newly formed Environmental Services Directorate and that the “post holder will be responsible for fleet management of over 300 vehicles, Special Needs Transport Service, Waste and Recycling collections, Trade Waste Collections, Street Cleansing and Ancillary Services, Parks and Open spaces and other associated support services.  The post holder will be responsible the management of a revenue budget of £25 million and a capital budget of £8 million.”   LINK

 

 This is a huge range of responsibilities for one person, especially in light of the fact that the Environmental Services team has recently been reduced (which roles, is still unclear).  This advert does reveal the department’s budget figure though, something that is almost impossible to establish otherwise or the individual spending and allocations within the department.  The remaining roles (and other unestablished ones) within the Environmental Services team are integral to ensuring our local environment is healthy, sustainable, green and biodiverse.  With the latest round of staffing cuts, it can only be seen that this will be detrimental to our local environment and make it even harder for the council to meet its climate targets.

 

 

Greens call for Action, Investment and Transparency

 

Whilst we are dealing with an onslaught of problems brought on by ten years of austerity, coupled with the economic, social and health difficulties as a result of the pandemic, the climate emergency is not going away and must be addressed.  As the UN Environment Programme Head warned in August 2020 “There is no vaccine for climate change. We must embed sustainability into COVID-19 recovery” .  Unfortunately, at the moment, Harrow Council appears to lack the vision, financial investment and staffing to fully realise its aims of reducing the borough’s carbon emissions and become carbon neutral.  Harrow residents deserve a council who leads on action to mitigate the worse effects of climate change, being accountable and transparent every step of the way.  It is imperative that the council takes urgent action on the climate emergency to avoid the impending ecosystem collapse we potentially face.      

 

A council in London who are also tackling the climate and ecological emergency head on is the West London Borough of Hounslow, who are currently advertising a wide range two year fixed posts to deliver a Green recovery.  The team will include a Programme Director (Climate Change and Green Recovery), and Project Manager (Climate Emergency and Environmental Strategy) to deliver Hounslow's Climate Emergency Action Plan and Green Recovery Strategy.  There will also be three Project Manager's (Green Recovery) to develop and implement "strategies to improve the quality of the environment in Hounslow, with a focus on low carbon neighbourhoods, low carbon economy or green growth and 21st century mobility".   There will be two Sustainability Officer's to "deliver a variety of projects and initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions, and environmental and socio-environmental impacts across Hounslow" and two Green Recovery Officer's to improve the environent in Hounslow.  The total budget for this environmental team is up to £482 275, showing Hounslow Council is putting its money where its mouth is and really investing in dealing with the climate emergency

 

In my next blog…I’ll be taking a look at how Harrow’s parks and green spaces have been impacted by ten years of council cuts and how these rich, biodiverse spaces are an excellent way for the council to move towards meeting their climate change targets.  I will also be shining a light on the many amazing volunteer environmental organisations we have in Harrow and how they are leading the way in maintaining and improving our green spaces.  

Planning consigns Brent & Harrow Cyclists to the sweet bye and bye over Northwick Park development

 

 

Following my report on the Northwick Park Planning Application hearing I was curious to know more about the submission of Brent and Harrow Cyclists. Cllr Saqib Butt, admitting that he hadn't seen the submission, asked planning officers about it. Without his intervention it is unlikely that it would have been discussed at all. You can hear the response in the above clip. If you read the submission you can see how the officer's summary does not do it justice.

Having declared a climate emergency I thought Brent Council would be proactive in searching for ways of reducing motor traffic and finding ways of making streets more friendly for pedestrians and cyclists in this massive development.  Instead, apart from the offer from the Highways Officer towards the end of the discussion the proposals (apparently unseen by the Committee) were pretty well consigned to the sweet bye and bye*.

I have now seen the detailed proposals made by the cycling campaigners and it is clear that a lot of research and thought had gone into their submission. Here is one of the illustrations:

 

 

Brent and Harrow Cyclists introduced  their submission:

This is the joint response from Brent Cycling Campaign and Harrow Cyclists, two local groups of London Cycling Campaign, to the committee report for case number 20/0700, development of ‘Land adjacent to Northwick Park Avenue, London, HA1’ . We represent over 300 supporters and attempt to represent the interests of all who cycle or would like to cycle in NW London. We have some concerns about the planned development and have suggested some potential improvements, which we would be grateful if the council could consider.

I am not convinced that their proposals have been properly considered.

You can read the full submission on Brent Cyclists website HERE

 * I prefer the Joe Hill version of the Sweet Bye and Bye

Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals – Brent’s VERY “dodgy deal” exposed!

Guest blog  by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:

Last month I wrote about these heritage murals, and my surprise at discovering that Council Officers had agreed a three-year extension to the lease which allows Quintain to use the Bobby Moore Bridge at Wembley Park for advertising purposes. The initial response to a Freedom of Information Act request I had made suggested that this might be a “dodgy deal”. Further details extracted from Brent Council under that FoI, and two further information requests, now mean that I can set out what happened over the lease extension, and there were some very “dodgy” aspects to it!

 

The Bobby Moore Bridge from Olympic Way, March 2020.

 

Although the lease extension only became public knowledge in January this year, the events leading up to it started more than two years ago, so let me set the scene. Council Officers had first given Quintain a four-year lease over the bridge and subway in 2013, and this was renewed for a further four years, to August 2021, by a Brent Cabinet decision in January 2018.

 

By 2017, Brent and Quintain were proposing major public realm improvements to Olympic Way. In July 2017 Brent’s Cabinet agreed to give Quintain £17.8m of Community Infrastructure Levy money to help pay for these (mainly, but not exclusively, towards the cost of replacing the “pedway” to the Stadium with steps). One of Quintain’s proposed “improvements” was upgraded advertising panels on the Bobby Moore Bridge.

 

Tile mural scenes on the east wall of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway (when they were visible!).

 

During 2018, Wembley History Society had called on Brent and Quintain to put the heritage tile murals, on the walls of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway, back on permanent public display, rather hide them with adverts. Following discussions with the Society,  Quintain agreed to put the large “footballers / twin towers stadium” mural, on the east wall, back on display, and to periodically uncover some murals on a wall in Olympic Way, just outside the subway.

 

Because it was “investing” money in buying new advertising screens, Quintain’s Wembley Park company wanted to be sure that it could use them for at least five years. This seems to have been what caused one of its managers to approach Brent Council about extending the advertising lease beyond August 2021. As I have sent a report on my findings to the Council’s Audit & Investigations team, I will not give the names of any of the individuals involved. I will simply refer to this Quintain employee as “WPmanager”.

 

Although leases of Council land or buildings are the responsibility of Brent’s Property & Assets team, WPmanager instead approached the head of another department he had dealings with (who I will refer to as “Head”). A meeting was arranged for 19 December 2018 with Head’s line manager (who I will refer to as “Director”). 

 

Director has confirmed to me (in response to an FoI) that he met with WPmanager and Head at the Civic Centre on that date. I had asked for a copy of the minutes of that meeting, but his reply was: ‘I confirm there were no notes taken of the meeting to my knowledge save for the email [Head] subsequently sent to [WPmanager] that I believe you already have.’

 

I had been sent copies of some email correspondence, by Head, in response to an earlier FoI request. In fact, WPmanager had sent an email to Head within an hour of the meeting. The redactions in black, about the figures involved, were made by Brent before the copy emails were sent to me. I have used blue to hide the names of the individuals involved (who were clearly on first name terms).

 

The email from WPmanager to Head on 19 December 2018, confirming the offer made at the meeting.

 

The final sentence in the email above suggests that WPmanager had left his meeting with Director and Head at the Civic Centre confident that the offer he was making on Quintain’s behalf would be accepted. 

 

This was confirmed, subject to certain conditions, when Head replied to him on 4 January 2019. Although the lease extension was not formally signed until November 2019, the basic “deal” had already been agreed in principle by early January, and apparently without any involvement by the Council’s Property & Assets team! Although the figures agreed were blacked out, when I “copied and pasted” some of the text into another document, it showed that the basic annual rent would be £XXX,XXX, plus a 50:50 split of any advertising revenue over £XXXk each year.

 

Head’s email to WPmanager of 4 January 2019, copied to two Brent employees.

 

As well as copying his email to a Brent property lawyer, who could start liaising with Quintain’s property lawyer over the legal documents, Head also copied it to a more junior officer (who I will call “Officer”) in his department. WPmanager was told that she would ‘be able to help facilitate early conversations with property/highways and planning ….’

 

Further email correspondence during the first half of 2019 made clear that no formal agreement to extend the advertising lease could be put in place until Quintain had planning and advertising consent for the new screens that they wanted to install, on the parapets of the Bobby Moore Bridge and the walls of the subway. It was April before Quintain put in the applications.

 

Advertising at the Bobby Moore Bridge, and the proposed screens from a planning application drawing.

 

Readers may remember the battle over those applications, with over 320 people signing a petition against them. I was one of two objectors who spoke against Quintain’s Bobby Moore Bridge applications at the Planning Committee meeting on 16 July 2019. The opening paragraph of my presentation was:

 

‘You’re being recommended to grant consent to these applications by Reports that are flawed. They’re inaccurate, ignore or misrepresent valid planning points made by objectors, and give misleading legal advice.’

 

We did have some success, persuading two councillors to vote against, but five committee members accepted the Officers’ Recommendations, and the planning and advertisement applications were approved. What we didn’t know then was that the Council would get increased rental income if those applications were approved. I can’t help wondering whether Brent’s planning officers had been made aware of that.

 

Although Head had agreed terms with WPmanager in January 2019, he wrote to him on 6 June saying: ‘Once we have an agreement in principle I’ll also need to get final sign off from [Director].’ I asked for information and documents on this “sign off” in an FoI request to Director, and his reply was:

 

‘No I did not sign off the lease that was done by the Director of Property Services. [Head] was referring to my verbal agreement as his line manager so he could proceed to work with Legal and Property Services to extend the lease.’  and; 

 

‘There was no approval process relating to me. As set out above that that all resides with our Property Service.’

 

But Brent’s Property Service had not been involved in the discussions over this lease extension at all, so how could they know whether it should be approved? It all came down to a Delegated Authority Report, prepared by Officer in October 2019. This provided the information on which the top officer in the Property team (who I will call “ODPA”) authorised Brent’s Legal officers to sign the “Deed of Variation” (prepared by Quintain’s property lawyers!) that sealed the “deal”.

 

A redacted copy of that Delegated Authority Report was one of the first documents I received under my first FoI request. In my 10 February blog, I mentioned this claim in it:

 

‘The Borough Solicitor has confirmed that pursuant to the Council’s New Constitution Part 4, paragraph 4.3 you have the delegated authority to approve of this letting.’

 

It’s many years since Brent’s top legal officer was known as the “Borough Solicitor”. The extract from Part 4 of the Constitution, included in the Report, showed that: ‘Only the Strategic Director Resources may acquire or dispose of an interest in land or buildings.’ It also said that he could not agree leases if ‘the annual rental value … exceeds £50k’, which this one clearly did!

 

My FoI had asked for all the communications in respect of the authority for the lease extension, so I pressed for the documents I had not been sent. Among the further items I received was a copy of Part 3 of Brent’s Constitution. The rules about interests in land had been in Part 3 (not Part 4) since at least May 2018, with the limit on ‘annual rental value’ increased to £250k. 

 

Head had still not provided the documents under which Officer had sought and obtained confirmation from “the Borough Solicitor” that ODPA had ‘the delegated authority to approve this letting’. I pressed again and, at the third time of asking, was told: ‘there are no further emails or correspondence relating to [ODPA]’s authority to approve this lease extension.’ The statement in the Report about confirmation of that authority was a lie!

 

The ODPA had either not read the section of the Report that quoted “Part 4”, or ignored it because it was out of date. As the Council is hiding the figures involved, I don’t know whether the ODPA did have the delegated authority to approve the lease extension. One of the restrictions, in Part 3, on that power is: ‘where any leasehold interest has an annual value over £100k or below £250k, he or she shall consult with the Lead Member.’ No evidence has been supplied to show that the Lead Member (for Regeneration?) was consulted in this case.

 

Part 3 also sets out another very important responsibility for the person authorising the lease:

 

’11.6 The Strategic Director Regeneration and Environment [or ODPA] may not sell or grant any lease … or otherwise dispose of any land or buildings unless the consideration received, as confirmed by them is the best that can reasonably be obtained.’

 

 

As the ODPA had not been involved in discussing the terms for the lease extension, how could he confirm that the rent paid would be the best value that the Council could obtain for the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising rights? He appears to have relied on the Delegated Authority Report. And that Report relied on what Brent’s Chief Executive advised me (in good faith, I believe) was a ‘market appraisal … carried out by an independent advertising consultant who recommended the lease extension.’

 

 

Extract from the “market appraisal” letter dated 15 October 2019.

 

Again, although I had been sent this document, I had not received the emails etc. associated with it. I had been told that it had been requested by ‘phone, but how did the advertising consultant (who I will call “Consultant”) obtain the details about the proposed deal on which to base his appraisal? Having pressed further, Head supplied me with an email thread which is worth close examination.

There were just three emails, in a space of less than 24 hours, headed ‘Delegated Authority Report on Bobby Moore Bridge’. On 17 October, Officer sent Consultant a copy of that Report (which she’d signed off that day) with the brief message: ‘This is background information as discussed.’ Her Report had referred to a market appraisal: 

 

‘conducted by an independent outdoor advertising consultant, [Consultant] from Fortuna, who has recommended lease extension for three years on the basis of current market conditions.’

 

 

The October 2019 exchange of emails about the market appraisal for the lease extension.

 

 

On 18 October, Consultant sent Officer his market appraisal letter (see above). His email was copied to Head, who the letter was addressed to. The email offers to “tweak” the appraisal letter, if required (which is hardly what you would expect from an independent consultant!). But Officer was happy with the letter as it stood: ‘Thanks [Consultant], this perfect.’ 

 

 

Brent Council’s online “Transparency - Our Spending” records for this quarter show a payment to Fortuna Associates of £1,123-48 on 18 October 2019, under the cost heading “Advertising”. I’m sure all of the businesses that supply Brent would love to receive such prompt payment!

You may have noticed that the Fortuna letter was dated 15 October, as if it had been written before the Delegated Authority Report. It appears that it may well have been written after Officer sent the Report to Consultant, using what she had said to justify approval for the lease extension as the basis for the “Advice Note” relied on as evidence for that recommendation. If that was the case, the “market appraisal” was a false document, and the actions of those involved with its creation potentially fraudulent.

 

 

A closer look at the FoI responses I received in 2018, over the renewal of the original lease until August 2021, showed a very similar situation. Consultant had provided an Advice Note in September 2017 for a Delegated Authority Report, but it was found that the rental value was too high for it to be approved by a Council Officer. 

 

 

When it went for a Cabinet decision, the tile murals were not even mentioned. Members were told that bids had been sought from four advertising companies, and that: ‘Wembley City Estate Management submitted the best value bid, details of which are set out in the confidential appendix.’ In fact, no other companies had been invited to bid, and the only offer was that from the Quintain subsidiary. The Officer Report in January 2018 misled Brent’s Cabinet 

.

 

A week ago, I sent a formal letter of complaint to Brent’s Chief Executive (see below), along with a detailed report that also went to the Council’s Audit & Investigations team. As well as the alleged misconduct over the lease extension, I complained about the general attitude of council officers over the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals, ever since 2013. They have been too willing to give Quintain and its subsidiaries what they want, without regard to the cultural and heritage value of those murals, and without any competitive tender for the advertising rights. The Council’s relationship with Quintain has been far too “cosy”.

 

 

 

The 1948 Olympic torch relay mural, currently hidden, and the Wembley heritage it celebrates.

 

 

I have asked for an assurance that the actions of council officers over the lease extension will be properly investigated. Nothing can be done to end the advertising lease before August 2024, but I am seeking a commitment from Brent Council now:- that any new lease will be open to competition, that it will include an option to advertise only on the bridge parapets, and not covering the tile murals, and that it should be considered and decided openly at a meeting of Brent’s Cabinet. That is the least we deserve!

 

Philip Grant.

 

Postscript: After submitting this blog article to Martin, I received a reply from Brent's Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, which included these responses to my letter of 24 March:-

 

'Firstly, I can give you assurance that the circumstances around the approval of the lease will be investigated by our Audit and Investigations team and that any appropriate action necessary will take place as a result.'

 

'I agree that the Council will undertake the renewal of the advertising rights as you outline.

 Can I thank you for the time and effort you have put into this matter.'

 

Philip Grant's Letter of Complaint (Click bottom right for full page)