Effusive praise for Cllr Tatler - a tale of two articles

We have a regular commenter on Wembley Matters who champions the Labour Council and s/he is so over the top that it often appears to be satire, actually serving to undermine the council. At other times it has been suggested it is written using an Artificial Intelligence program.

The latest missive is in response to Philip Grant's series of exchanges regarding what he sees as a political foreward by Cllr Shama Tatler to  Cabinet report about the Wembley Housing Zone development.

Out of curiosity I resorted to Artifical Intelligence and asked CHATGPT to:

Write in praise of Councillor Tatler's (London Borough of Brent) of the Labour Party efforts at regeneration calling into question Philip Grant's criticisms of her schemes and her alleged politicisation of the issue. Question Philip Grant's political neutrality and condemn his actions as enabling support for the Conservative Party

Here are the two pieces of writing. Can you identify similarities?

 

ARTICLE ONE 

Councillor Tatler's tireless efforts in the regeneration of the London Borough of Brent stand as a beacon of progress and community empowerment. With steadfast dedication, she has spearheaded initiatives aimed at revitalizing neighbourhoods, improving infrastructure, and enhancing the quality of life for residents. Her vision extends beyond mere development; it encompasses inclusivity, sustainability, and social cohesion.

Despite her commendable endeavours, Councillor Tatler has faced unwarranted criticism from individuals like Philip Grant, whose motives seem questionable at best. Grant's disparaging remarks and attempts to politicise the issue not only undermine the genuine progress being made but also reveal a disturbing lack of concern for the welfare of Brent's diverse populace.

Grant's purported neutrality crumbles under scrutiny, as his actions appear more aligned with partisan agendas than with the genuine interests of the community. By echoing critiques that serve to benefit the Conservative Party, he betrays a disregard for the fundamental principles of impartiality and integrity.

In contrast, Councillor Tatler's approach remains resolutely focused on the betterment of Brent, transcending party lines in pursuit of meaningful change. Her leadership exemplifies a commitment to serving the people above all else, fostering a sense of pride and optimism among constituents.

As we navigate the complexities of urban renewal, let us rally behind leaders like Councillor Tatler, whose passion, integrity, and unwavering dedication illuminate the path toward a brighter, more prosperous future for all residents of Brent. Grant's politicisation of the issue only serves to hinder progress and perpetuate divisiveness, making it imperative that we reject such divisive tactics and unite in support of genuine, community-driven regeneration efforts.

 

 ARTICLE TWO

As a passionate Labour supporter and an avid follower of Councillor Tatler's tireless dedication to our community, I must express my wholehearted support for her invaluable contributions to Brent Council. 

It's disheartening to see Philip Grant's attempts to undermine the vital role Councillor Tatler plays in providing clarity and context through their Cabinet Member Forewords.

Grant's narrow focus on political content overlooks the broader picture of Councillor Tatler's commitment to transparency, accountability, and inclusive governance. The Cabinet Member Forewords serve as a crucial bridge between policy decisions and the community, shedding light on the Labour Party's vision for a fairer, more equitable society.

Grant's insistence on dissecting every word of these forewords in search of supposed political bias misses the mark entirely. It's abundantly clear that Councillor Tatler's motivations lie in championing the interests of all Brent residents, regardless of political affiliation. Her unwavering dedication to serving the public interest is evident in every aspect of her work.

Furthermore, Grant's suggestion of reviewing the inclusion of Cabinet Member Forewords reeks of political manoeuvring rather than genuine concern for good governance. It's a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the Labour Party's influence and stifle progressive policies that aim to uplift the most vulnerable members of our community.

Residents need to stand in solidarity with Councillor Tatler and reject attempts to discredit their invaluable contributions. We must continue to champion transparency, accountability, and social justice in Brent Council, with Councillor Tatler leading the charge towards a brighter, more inclusive future for all. This is a really important year for Labour and you are either with us or Tory enablers. 

 

 

 

Complaint over party political content of a Council report – Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate for Brent?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

This is a continuation of the correspondence which you may have read last week, in a guest post headlined “Abuse of Power?”. One anonymous comment was glad that Brent Council were being held to account, to which I replied: ‘It is not an easy task, especially when Senior Council Officers seem determined that they have to defend what is sometimes the indefensible.’

 

If you read the previous emails, and feel interested enough to read this further exchange, you may see what I meant by that. I felt that, rather than dealing with the issues I’d raised, the Senior Officer was trying to create a smokescreen. I have tried to cut through that, politely I hope, with a view to seek a resolution of the points I thought it important enough to write to her about in the first place.

 

Email from Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance at 4.25pm on 12 April:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email and I have considered the points you raise.

 

I have also had a quick look at practice elsewhere.  The templates used by councils for reports to their Cabinet (or Executive) are varied.  In at least 8 councils reports are expressed to be from the Cabinet member(s) to the Cabinet, in others the reports are jointly from the Cabinet member(s) and relevant senior officer(s). The template used by at least 5 councils includes a cabinet member foreword or introduction, e.g. Haringey and Newham.

 

The new approach in Brent was adopted for the reasons I gave in my previous email and is not out of step with the approach elsewhere.  Having adopted this template, reports addressed to Cabinet for decision are prepared using the template.  The legislation then requires the council (subject to rules concerning exempt and confidential information) to publish those reports and permit the public and press to attend and observe the Cabinet meetings at which they are discussed.  The publishing of the reports is clearly undertaken in compliance with the Regulations i.e. in discharge of the council’s duties under them. 

 

I remain of the view that it’s perfectly clear from the heading of the Cabinet Member Foreword section of the report that the comments in that section are comments of the Cabinet member and not of the officer.

 

I note what you say about section 3., “Contribution to Borough Plan Priorities & Strategic Context” in the particular report.  On reviewing the other reports on that agenda and other recent agendas I have noted that there is an inconsistency in practice, with some reports including this additional heading and some not.  The template itself does not have two separate headings.

 

Thank you for drawing this to my attention and I have reminded the officers who sign off the report and also the Governance team of this.  I have also reminded them of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword as indicated in my previous email.

My response to that email at 4.45pm on 17 April:

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email of 12 April. 

 

I will make this response shorter than my email of 10 April, and will concentrate on the two main points.

 

1. Did Councillor Tatler’s Cabinet Member Foreword contain political material?

 

You appear to have overlooked that my original email of 5 April was a complaint, about political content in the Cabinet Member Foreword, and you have managed to avoid addressing this question in both of your replies to me (8 and 12 April). So that we can finalise this point, please let me have your straightforward answers to these two questions:

 

a) Do you accept that the Cabinet Member Foreword, in the SCIL Request Officer Report to the Cabinet meeting on 8 April, contained some political material, including at least one piece of Labour Party political material?

 

b) Do you agree that it is wrong for Officer Reports to Cabinet meetings to include material which ‘in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party’ (irrespective of whether or not its publication breaches Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986)?

 

2. Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate in Officer Reports to Brent’s Cabinet?

 

For ease of reference, this is the purpose of Cabinet Member Forewords given in your email of 8 April:

 

‘The purpose of the introduction of the Cabinet Member Foreword was to provide an opportunity for the council policy context of decisions to be made explicit in reports to Cabinet by the Cabinet Member who is accountable for initiating and implementing council policies within the relevant portfolio.’

 

You have not explained whose decision it was to adopt the practice of including such Forewords, or at whose request. Please provide that information.

 

You have brought in information about what some other local authorities do, but all that should concern us, as citizens, Officers or Council members of Brent, is what is appropriate for our borough.

 

I understand that it helps Officers drawing up reports for Cabinet meetings to have a template, and that template (or necessary variations of it) can be drawn up or amended as appropriate, when the question I have asked in the heading to this section is resolved.

 

I think the best way to resolve it would be through a review, as I suggested, overseen by yourself, as Corporate Director of Governance, but taking views from other Senior Officers, Cabinet members and, I would suggest, the Leaders of the other Party Groups on the Council, and perhaps also the Chairs of Scrutiny Committees.

 

I have already put forward my views, as a politically independent observer of local democracy in Brent, where I have lived for more than 40 years. To summarise my views:

 

·      Officer Reports should be written solely by Council Officers, as their role is to provide the Cabinet, impartially, with all the information they need to make key decisions, and to make recommendations based on that information.

 

·      Officers making and signing off those reports must be aware of the Borough Plan Priorities and other Council policies for the service area they are responsible for, and it makes sense for that to be included in one section of their reports.

 

·      If the Cabinet Lead member with the portfolio covered by the report wishes to add their own views on the policy context, they can do so when introducing the item at the meeting, and also by circulating their own briefing document to their colleagues, should they think it necessary.

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Tough questions from Byron Court parents at Brent Scrutiny Committee. Why did the Rapid Improvement Group fail?

 Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commitee: Byron Court presentation & responses

 

Two Byron Court Parents attended Scrutiny Committee thia evening to ask questions about what Brent Council had done to help the school when it was realised it was in difficulties, The Rapid Improvement Group (RIG) was set up in September 2022 more than a year before the Ofsted Inspection of November 2023.

Parents' Questions

Tanisha Phoenic: RIG history - we have put in an FOI request to help us understand how an Outstanding school with a teaching status in the borough has been left to languish, in the meantime, can the panel answer some of our questions:

 

Rig was put in place on Sept 2022, chaired by Shirley Parks. Why was RIG put in place? What issues were identified in 2022? Are some of these the same issues that Ofsted identified in their inspection?

 

What was achieved by the RIG between its inception and the Ofsted inspection in Nov 2023? How many meetings took place, what was the level of monitoring and support put in place?

 

Was it identified during the year that the RIG was in place that improvements were not being made? What interventions if any were made, were these issues escalated? If so, then where?

 

We understand that the support to the school via the RIG and SESS has not been as intensive as required i.e. meetings being frequently cancelled by Council officers. Has this in part led to the poor inspection rating?

 

Did the Council experience any barriers working effectively with the previous Headteacher and governing body?

 

We want to understand if a school mentioned in 3.3.2 that was rated “requires improvement” in 2022/2023  has had a RIG in place and been on “journey to good” - why has the RIG failed Byron Court?

 

Do the committee really believe that they have done all in their power to help the school and avoid what has now become a forced academy order?

 

 

Vina Vekria -  Assurances from now to academisation

 

Whilst we acknowledge that you are legally bound to comply with the academisation order, Gwen Grahl reaffirmed the council's commitment to supporting and improving the school and assured us additional leadership capacity would be in place after Easter. 

 

What if any guarantees can you give us that the council will be living up to its commitment to ‘protect/promote community schools’ as per the Labour manifesto? Will you commit to pushing for a reinspection?

 

We are campaigning for a reinspection of the school, what guarantees can you give that the RIG will do what is expected and required to achieve the rapid improvements needed?

 

What additional resources - mentioned by Cllr Grahl at the Cabinet meeting on 9 Apr - are being put into the school and when? Will this address the huge lack in capacity in the Senior Leadership Team?

 

Will the Scrutiny Committee agree to return to this item at their next meeting in order to provide details of actions put in place?

 

There was no specific reply to the RIG question or on resources as applied to Byron Court although it was claimed that RIGs were generally successful.   Cllr Grahl spoke about her letter to the Secretary of State and offered to meet with parents. Cllr Ketan Sheth (Chair) said the Committee would keep a watching brief and parents could submit questions to the Committee. Answering a councillor's question Brent officers said that they were confident that no other Brent school would suffer a similar fate to Byron Court.

This is the FoI request made to Brent Council:

Dear Brent Council,

I am writing to you on behalf of over 130 parents involved in the ‘Byron Court Parents’ Campaign group’. The group represents parents who are opposed to the forced academisation of the school following Ofsted’s report.

We urgently request under the Freedom of Information Act the following:

Date of the initiation of Rapid Improvement Group (RIG), details of reasons(or redacted) the RIG was requested/instigated
Date of RIG was put into place
RIG Lead and its members
Aims and Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) of the RIG
Minutes from RIG meetings
Details (or redacted) of improvements achieved

Harris Federation told to keep their hands off Byron Park Primary School

 

 

Representatives of the Harris Federation of Academy Schools could not have failed to hear the chants and shouts of campaigners when they visited Byron Court Primary School to speak to staff after school today.

 The quiet suburban streets echoed to 'Hands Off Our School', 'Whose School? - Our School!', 'Kids not Quids'(a reference to the half-million salary of the Harris boss), and 'Byron Court - Can't be bought.'

The recent  LINK letter to the DfE by Gwen Grahl Brent Council Lead Member for Schools, was welcomed  by many parents I spoke to as a stepping up of the Council's support for the camapign against the Harris takeover. Several councillors sent apologies for not being able to attend, Cllr Jumbo Chan sent a solidarity statement and Cllr Daniel Kennelly (Preston ward) used the megaphone to pledge support for the campaign aim to keep Byron Park as an academy overseen by the local authority.

The campaign demands are basic:

1. Give the new leadership team, helped by the local authority, a chance to demonstrate that they have addressed the issues raised by Ofsted.

2. Suspend the academisation process while that happens and then arrange an Ofsted re-inspection that will hopefully record an improvement and make academisation no longer necessary.

Meanwhile the NEU is conducting a strike ballot on the basis that academisation would change and worsen their conditions of service. Presently many Federation school union branches are in dispute with Harris over wages and conditions.

Several speakers expressed pride in the way staff and parents were united in the battle to Save Byron Court - and the children deserve a mention too. They were passionate in their support for the school and not afraid to shout it out loud and clear.

The bright yellow shirts of the campaigners were symbolic of the upbeat mood of the protesters - they are clearly refusing to be downhearted and will fight on.

LETTER: Dangerous scaffolding in high winds on a residential council building 'Not Brent's problem' according to the Council's Emergency Team

 

Queens Park was closed by the City of London Corporation today as a precaution in the high winds. Public Safety is of paramount importance. Meanwhile I received this letter today from just down the road in South Kilburn. 

Dear Editor, 

For months residents of Alpha House in South Kilburn and their representatives have been raising issues with Brent Council about scaffolding which has ben erected on a section (1/3rd) of Alpha House. Despite repeated promises from the Council that residents will be forewarned if scaffolding is to be erected on their block (a promise Brent has never kept), it took repeated complaints after the scaffolding was erected last November before any letter was sent to residents saying work needed to be done on the roof guttering. Since then, issues have been raised several times about the safety of the scaffolding and easy access to it. 

Questions have been asked about how long it is going to be there, particularly as people have only been seen working on it very few times. Moreover, people know that much of the costs of such work is offloaded on to leaseholders, and the longer the scaffolding remains (to what purpose?) the higher the charge to leaseholders.

This evening in the high winds, a board blew off the scaffolding and another looked as if it soon would. A call to Brent Council's emergency number got the response that it wasn't Brent's problem (on a Council block!) because the scaffolding doesn't belong to Brent..., The only suggestion was that it could be cordoned off (by who?), ignoring the fact that this would prevent residents getting to, or leaving, their flats.

So the Fire Brigade was called. They came promptly, but apparently they are not allowed to go on scaffolding (because it might be unsafe.....), but did suggest - and help with - knocking on doors and warning people of the problem and danger.

So much for Brent Council, both for its lack of willingness to deal with queries about the safety of the scaffolding in the first place, and then a completely offhand response to an emergency situation.

Pete Firmin, chair, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association

Council housing – Brent’s clarification on London Living Rent homes at Fulton and Fifth development

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

East elevation drawing and location plan for Fulton and Fifth development.
(From documents in planning application 22/3123)

 

When I wrote my guest post “Brent’s Council Housing – A Tale of Two Sites” last month, I gave some details of a type of “affordable” housing known as London Living Rent (“LLR”), which the Council will be using for a block of flats it is buying at the Fulton and Fifth development in Wembley Park. 

 

I used details of this type of tenancy given on the GLA website, that ‘it is designed to help people transition from renting to shared ownership.’ I sent a copy of my article to Cllr. Promise Knight, Brent’s Lead Member for Housing, and asked:

 

‘IF Brent goes ahead with letting tenancies at Fulton and Fifth as LLR, what length of LLR tenancy does it plan to award? 

 

What will happen to those LLR tenants when their LLR tenancy comes to an end, if they are unable or unwilling to convert it to a Shared Ownership lease?’

 

I have now received a reply from Brent to that query, and as it clarifies the position (thankfully, these Council homes will not be converted to Shared Ownership!) I am setting out that response here, so that the correct information is available:-

 

‘I’m responding to your email below on behalf of Councillor Knight.

 

Thanks for your questions, your article is based on the assumption the Council is delivering London Living Rent as described by the Greater London Authority.

 

On 06 February 2023, the Council published a Cabinet report outlining the plans for Fulton and Fifth.

 

In this report, we state that Local Authorities can request from the GLA to rent the properties in perpetuity. We can confirm that this permission has been sought and granted and so the London Living Rent homes will continue to be rented at London Living Rent levels rather than there being a requirement to convert to Shared Ownership. This means they are effectively Discount Market Rent homes but will use London Living Rent levels to dictate the levels of rent charged.

 

The Council agrees, social rent and London affordable rent will always be the preference and priority and the scheme includes 176 homes for London Affordable Rent.

 

Best wishes

 

Head of Affordable Housing & Partnerships’

 

 

Extract from the Report on the Fulton Road development to the 6 February 2023 Cabinet meeting.

 

Leaving aside the assurance at the end of the reply, that the Council regards Social Rent and London Affordable Rent homes as a ‘preference and priority’, and the claim in the February 2023 Report that the Fulton Road development will benefit meeting ‘current housing demand’ (the homes are expected to be ready by July 2026), 294 new Council homes for rent is to be welcomed. Here is the split of home sizes for the two blocks, and two rent levels:-

 

 

Extract from the Report on the Fulton Road development to the 6 February 2023 Cabinet meeting.

 

It is a pity that more of these homes could not be at the “genuinely affordable” LAR level, but they should, at least, be cheaper to rent than private rents for similarly sized accommodation. I included a chart in my earlier article, showing what the LLR rent levels are for different sized homes in each of the Wards in Brent. 

 

I will finish by comparing what tenants in each of the two “affordable” housing blocks would be paying in rent, if their tenancy began in April 2024. The figures will be different (higher) by 2026, and they do not include service charges or Council Tax.

 

In block E, they will be tenants of Brent Council, and 2024/25 LAR rents (converted to monthly figures, but with weekly rent shown in brackets) would be:

 

1-bedroom  -  £840  (£193.99 pw)
2-bedroom  -  £890  (£205.39 pw)
3-bedroom  -  £940  (£216.80 pw)

 

In similar sized flats next door in block D, where the tenancies would be from one of Brent Council’s wholly-owned companies (First Wave Housing or i4B Ltd), the 2024 LLR monthly rents would be:

 

1-bedroom  -  £1,080
2-bedroom  -  £1,200
3-bedroom  -  £1,320

 

In theory, the LLR homes are for people who have a higher income (household income of up to £60,000 a year), but it would be interesting to know how the Council will decide who gets offered block D, and who is offered block E. It makes quite a big difference!

 

Philip Grant.

Lead member for schools: Byron Court parents feel 'disenfranchised and distressed by speed and nature' of forced academisation

 Letter to Secretary of State

Stop the forced academisation of Byron Court Primary School, Monday 2.45pm