Pinter Double Bill tickets still available for East Lane Theatre

 

 

 

CLICK HERE TO BOOK - TICKETS £14

Good Law Project considering appeal on Partygate legal challenge refusal

In response to the High Court's ruling today that a legal challenge brought by Good Law Project and former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Paddick, against the Met's handling of its Partygate investigation, will not be given permission to go ahead, Director of Good Law Project, Jo Maugham, said:
 

We are disappointed - but sadly not surprised. We think this decision ignores the quite proper questions that people have about what they understandably perceive to be differences of treatment between the powerful and the rest of us.

 
It can’t be one rule for those in power and another rule for us.

We are considering whether to appeal.

Pop Up Repairs Cafe, Church End, Saturday 25th February 10am-2pm

 From Brent Council

Brent Pop Up Repairs Cafe Brent’s first ever POP-UP Repairs Café will  take place on Saturday 25 February, 10am to 2pm at the Church End and Roundwood Unity Centre, 103 Church Road, NW10 9EG. We will be partnering with TRAID, the Restart Project and Dr Bike to help residents repair everyday items rather than throw them away. This FREE event will help connect residents with local organisations and businesses who champion repair, reuse and upcycling, and help us achieve our shared endeavours to live more sustainably. The Repairs Café is part of our Green Neighbourhoods Action Plan. Book here

Partygate hearing to be considered by High Court tomorrow

From reddit.com

 

 

 From Good Law Project

A legal challenge against the Metropolitan Police’s investigation into Boris Johnson’s attendance at lockdown parties could be given permission to proceed in a High Court hearing tomorrow (Wednesday 22nd February). The action is being brought by Good Law Project and a former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Paddick.

Boris Johnson was issued with a £50 Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN), after the Met Police’s probe concluded that he had unlawfully attended a birthday party thrown in his honour at Downing Street during the first lockdown. 

But this case focuses on the Met Police’s failure to even send questionnaires - their primary method of investigating Partygate events - to former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, regarding two other lockdown gatherings that he attended in November and December 2020. A number of civil servants and officials who took part in these events were sent questionnaires and ultimately fined.

In pre-action correspondence, the Met failed to explain why Mr Johnson was not sent the questionnaires, or how they concluded that his attendance - unlike that of other attendees - was lawful.

The High Court has ordered a permission hearing to determine if a judicial review into the police investigation can go ahead. A ruling could be made on the same day.

This is the second time that Good Law Project has taken legal action against the Metropolitan Police over Partygate. In January 2021, the Met did a u-turn on its initial decision not to investigate the parties held in No 10 Downing Street and Whitehall, after Good Law Project issued legal proceedings.

Jo Maugham, Director of Good Law Project, said:
 

We can't understand - and the Met won't disclose - how Boris Johnson dodged fines for going to parties that junior civil servants were fined for attending. But what it looks like is special treatment for the powerful.

I don't care about Johnson. And nor do I care about £100 fines. What I do care about is the rule of law. It must apply without fear or favour - or everything will fall into the sea.

Former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Paddick, said:
 

My sole motivation is to ensure everyone is treated fairly and equally under the law as a result of the police carrying out their duty without fear or favour.  Many fined for breaching lockdown rules will find this difficult to believe without further explanation from the Metropolitan Police.

Brent Councillors' allowances to rise by 4.04%

Thursday's Full Council meeting will consider increasing councillors' allowance by 4.04% in line with the National Joint Council  Government Services pay award.

 

Councillor's allowances are made up of 2 elements: a basic allowance for every councillor and an additional responsibility allowance when they take on a specific role (leadership, chair of committee etc). For the last couple of years only the basic allowance has been increased.

 

This year the proposal increases both as in the table below. In addition the second opposition group leader is given an annual allowance of £4,000 for the first time. (Click bottom right to enlarge)

 

 

The report on the proposal states:

The 2022, Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) for London Councils,  report recognises the importance of the role played by elected members not only in terms of their representational role but also given the increasing challenges and demands in managing the delivery of local services and on the allocation of financial resources. The report highlights the increasingly difficult and complex nature of choices and work faced by local councillors in terms of managing these challenges and increasing level of demand on services. In addition, reference is made to the growth in other public sector activities including community safety, increasing expectations for closer working with health services and the voluntary sector, as well the growing role of councillors acting as a point of information, advice and reassurance for local communities. The report also recognises the increasing expectations of the public in terms of access to their local councillors supported by the growth in digital connectivity, social media etc.

While conscious of the above, the review also takes account of the continuing
financial challenges faced by local authorities. Having taken account of adjustments made in accordance with annual local government pay settlements over previous years, this led to the recommendation of a Basic Allowance set at £12,014. The current basic allowance payable under Brent’s Members Allowance Scheme is already comparable at £12,484.

 

The report from the Independent Panel for the Remuneration of Councillors in London reiterated its previous recommendation that members’ allowances should be uplifted annually in line with the pay settlement for employees and are therefore recommending that boroughs also use the 4.04% uplift for their member allowances. It is, however, up to each borough to determine the allowances it pays to members. On this basis, members are therefore asked to consider (following consultation with the Constitution Working Group) applying an uplift of 4.04% across the Basic and Special Responsibility Allowances within the Members Allowance Scheme for 2023/24. If this were to be agreed, it would mean an increase in the Basic Allowance from £12,484 to £12,988 (a difference of £504 for each of the 57 councillors).

 

Overall the proposals  would increase the total councillors’ allowance costs by £46,143. This, however,  would be affected by any role changes made at the Annual Meeting of the Council. You will have read the Conservative budget proposal that the 4.04% rise should not be implemented and that the Cabinet should be reduced by two members and the roles redistributed to the remaining Cabinet members.

 

 

Brent Tories propose 2% Council Tax, deletion of 2 Cabinet members, ending of Landlord Incentive Scheme and Abolition of Resident Support Fund,

 The budget proposal from Labour Brent Council have previously been covered on Wembley Matters and last week I reported the Liberal Democrat Group's proposed amendment.

Today it is the turn of the Conservative Group with a considerable shorter document and a comment by Brent's Finance Director.

Their main proposals are to limit the rise in Council Tax to the ring-fenced Adult Social Care portion, delete 2 Cabinet positions, end the Landlord Incentive Scheme used to help landlords provide homes to homeless people and abolish the Resident Support Fund that is used to help people facing financial problems due to the cost of living crisis. They do not attempt to justify the latter.

Conservative Group Amendment to the Council’s Budget Proposals 2023/24

The Council is asked to consider the following alternative budget for 2023/24:
Propose to increase Council tax by 2% only, with the full amount ring fenced for Adult Social Care.

This proposal will generate income of £146.6m, compared to £150.8m generated with the planned increase of 4.99%, leaving a shortfall of £4.2m

The proposal means a Brent Council Tax of £1,447.83 at Band D for 2023/24
compared to the Labour proposal for £1,490.31.

The Council notes the following:

· The Conservatives have always been and still are the party of lower rates of
taxation through responsible policies and budgeting, meaning that people will
have more money in their pockets to spend and save as they wish.

 
· The Conservative have always proposed to tax the residents less leaving more
money in their pockets to spend and save as they wish.

 
· Council tax increased by 3.99% in 2016/17, 3.99% in 2017/18, 4.99% in 2018/19, 4.99% in 2019/20, 3.99% in 2020/21, 3.99% in 2021/22 and 2.99% in 2022/23.

Prior to this council tax was frozen. Therefore, since 2016, council tax has increased by over 40% (£431.37) overall.

Propose to remove the landlord incentive and save £1.1m.

The Council’s Landlords Incentive Scheme is designed to give money to Landlords as an incentive to rent their properties to people who have been evicted from their homes and who cannot ordinarily afford to live in the borough. There are many people who work hard, pay their bills and taxes but have to live outside Brent because they cannot afford to live in the borough. We feel that it is wrong to subsidise private landlords in this way. It also acts as an incentive to keep rents artificially high. It is therefore our proposal to scrap this scheme.

Propose to delete two Cabinet members, forego an annual increase in allowance
of 4.04% and save £0.08m.

It is proposed to delete two Cabinet members and re-distribute portfolios to existing Cabinet members. In addition it is proposed to not take forward a planned increase in members allowance of 4.04%. This would save approximately £0.08m.

Propose to discontinue the Resident Support Fund and save £3m.

Councillor Suresh Kansagra

Leader of the Conservative Group

 

Advice from the Director of Finance

Senior finance support has been provided to assist the Conservative Group to
formulate an alternative budget that reflects their policy priorities.

The Alternative Budget proposed by the Conservative Group would be a legal,
balanced budget for 2023/24, although it is recognised that this carries financial risk.

The potential implications for 2024/25 and beyond have not been considered as part of these proposals.

 

The table below sets out the proposed changes to the 2023/24 budget

 

 

The proposals that are considered material relate to Council Tax, landlord incentives and the Resident Support Fund.

It is proposed to increase Council Tax by 2% only in 2023/24, reflecting the Adult Social Care precept where the funding would be ring fenced for Adult Social Care.

Given the current Administration is proposing to increase Council Tax by the maximum amount allowed by the Government of 4.99%, this proposal would create a budget gap of £4.2m.

In order to close this gap, it is proposed to reduce expenditure planned in 2023/24 by removing the landlord incentives budget and discontinuing the Resident Support Fund.

The council currently spends approximately £1.1m per annum on landlord incentives.

The budget is used to procure properties to end the homeless duty, and so move
people out of temporary accommodation which is typically more expensive. It is also used to procure properties to prevent homelessness and therefore stop people going into temporary accommodation in the first instance. Consequently, reducing this budget may result in higher temporary accommodation costs if alternative housing cannot be secured outside of the borough. Therefore, this proposal carries some risk with regards to additional spend elsewhere in the Council’s budget and may require a short term use of reserves to contain additional spend on temporary accommodation.

 

The draft 2023/24 budget allocated a further £3m to continue the current Resident Support Fund. It is proposed to remove this budget and discontinue the scheme to save £3m. While this scheme is discretionary, it may have unintended consequences for residents who experience financial hardship under the current economic environment and cost of living crisis.

Minesh Patel

Director of Finance

 

How to challenge developers' viability claims - On-line Webinar March 21st 5.30-6.30

 

 

From Community Planning Alliance

Councillors and campaigners in Brent fighting for more truly affordable housing may be interested in attending this on-line webinar on Tuesday 21st March 17.30-18.30 RESERVE PLACE.

Viability in development proposals – let’s level the playing field!

We are all familiar with stories of developers claiming that their development is not able to provide promised infrastructure or affordable housing, using 'viability' as the excuse. Communities lose out: the housing is built, but without the benefits promised at the outset. Please join us to find out about one of the least understood areas of planning: viability appraisals.

This is one of the most important webinars to attend to if we are to redress the balance in the system between developers (who deliberately ensure the system is complex), and communities/councils (who need to scrutinize proposals to ensure best outcomes are delivered.)

We are delighted that viability expert Murray Lloyd has agreed to talk to us and to answer your questions. He will tell us how developers game the system (and they most definitely do) and what the tricks of the trade are. Murray will demystify viability appraisals and tell us what we can challenge and how best to do it.

About Murray Lloyd

Murray is an experienced property professional with a 30-year track record of successfully helping to deliver development projects of all types across the UK, ranging from housing, leisure, and logistic parks, through to major commercial and residential mixed-use developments, to complex regeneration schemes and transformational integrated development ventures.

Murray focuses on providing bespoke development management and viability advice to Local Authorities. He is a leading practitioner in viability and is currently undertaking a PhD specialising in this subject matter and regularly acts as an expert witness in planning appeal cases. He is a Director with property consultancy Continuum DM.

As always, the event is free, but donations are appreciated to help with the running costs of the Community Planning Alliance. Thank you

 

Pamela Fitzpatrick: 'Solidarity really is the most beautiful of words' - fighting for justice in today's Labour Party

 Post by Martin Francis in a personal capacity

 

 I left the Labour Party a very long time ago (c1965) but have kept up an interest in developments in the party from Wilson to Starmer.  Recently I have been dismayed by the way Labour Party friends have been treated under the Starmer regime. A lack of natural justice and a developing authoritarianism is evident in the disciplinary processes that I have observed from the outside.

It makes me anxious about the approach Labour would take as a government.

Pamela Fitzpatrick is a local example of such an unfair disciplinary process. This is her account below:

 

It is now 14 months since I lodged my appeal against my expulsion from the Labour Party. I was a long standing member of the Party and at the time of my expulsion I was Chair of the Harrow Labour Group, the Labour appointed Chair of the Planning Committee, a Labour councillor for almost 8 years, and a recent Labour Parliamentary Candidate. Throughout my time in the Party I also held a variety of CLP and Branch positions. 

 

Against this long history and work for the Party the sole reason I was expelled was that I had given an interview to the organisation Socialist Appeal in May 2020 and in doing so the Party judged me to be in breach of a rule it had created over a year later. I have contacted Labour several times over the past 14 months to ask for an update on my appeal, but I have had no response or acknowledgement. Reluctantly therefore I have instructed Solicitors who have now issued a letter before claim to the Labour Party. 

 

Labour has 28 days in which to respond and remedy this illegality. But if they fail to do so satisfactorily, we will have no choice but to commence proceedings in the High Court. This is not my desired outcome.

 

The letter before claim sets out the impact the unlawful treatment by Labour has had on me. It has resulted in my exclusion from any political positions associated with the Party and has had a profoundly damaging impact on my political career. Upon expulsion from the Party, I lost my position as a Labour Councillor, as Chair of the Harrow Planning Committee and as Chair of the Harrow Labour Group. I also lost my position on Labour’s National Women’s Committee. A position I had been elected to in June 2021 by Labour members, with a majority of over 100,000. This is a committee that is very close to my heart as I have experienced abuse within the Party and am aware of many other women who have also experienced similar abuse. The position was voluntary and lasted 2 years. 

 

I have not been able to exercise the role since my expulsion. I am unable to put myself forward for selection as a Parliamentary Candidate (having stood for Harrow East in the 2019 General Election).

 

I was an active member of my CLP but have been unable to participate in any Labour Party events or activities. This includes going to the Party Conference, any events that are organised, branch meetings, taking part in canvassing, fundraising events. These activities have taken up the majority of my time for many years, but I am no longer able to attend them. 

 

I have been shunned by people I previously considered to be colleagues, including other councillors who ignore me now if I meet them. This has all had a damaging impact on my professional and political reputation. It is uncontroversial that such treatment would have a negative impact on a person’s personal life and wellbeing, as it has had on me. But I know I am but one of so many treated this way. 

 

My heartfelt thanks to all those who have supported me. Solidarity really is the most beautiful of words.

 

Pamela's friends and supporters have launched a fundraiser to help her in her  Challenge to Labour's lack of fair procedures and natural justice. They say. 'At this first stage we are simply seeking an appeal hearing in Pamela’s case that is conducted in a fair, impartial and transparent way. We will also be looking at all legal avenues to achieve our goal. 

As of today the fundraiser stands at £11,438  against a target of £15,000 with eleven days to go.

Follow this LINK to the fundraiser which contains more details of the case.