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. 

 

 

 

Wembley Matters prints the Deputation on racism case that Brent Council banned

Mr Philip Grant was not allowed to make a deputation at yesterday's Scrutiny Committee on the subject of Brent Council's appeal on the Employment Trubinal case that found the Council guilty of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

In a terse statement at the beginning of the meeting Cllr Aslam Choudry said that deputations would not be heard, indicating that there was more than one, and almost as an aside said it was not on the agenda. In fact Deputations (if any) were Item 2 on the Agenda.

In the interests of democracy, a concept not currently being upheld by the members and officers of Brent Council, I publish below what Philip Grant would hace said, if he had been allowed to:

-->

“Deputation” for Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November 2014

I am speaking as an individual Brent resident, but I hope that the many people who have raised this matter online, in letters to local newspapers and at recent “Brent Connects” meetings, will feel that I am expressing their concerns as well.

I am here to formally request that Scrutiny Committee will agree to urgently scrutinise the decision, made in the name of Brent Council around 26 September, to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the case of Rosemarie Clarke v. London Borough of Brent and Cara Davani.

The Employment Tribunal found, on very clear evidence set out in its judgement, that Brent’s former Head of Learning and Development had been constructively dismissed by the Council in 2013, and that she had suffered victimisation and racial discrimination.

Although a Council statement has said that it took independent legal advice before deciding to appeal, I believe that the decision is likely to be an unsafe one,
and not in the best interests of Brent Council or the people of the borough.
Briefly stated, my reasons for that belief are these:

1.   Brent has already victimised Rosemarie Clarke, through her treatment after she first complained of being bullied and harassed by Cara Davani in late 2012, then through the ordeal of an Employment Tribunal to prove that she had been constructively dismissed. In taking the case to appeal, rather than apologising, and compensating her for the harm she has suffered, Brent is continuing that victimisation.

2.   As I explained to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, as soon as the decision to appeal was made public, Brent does not need to appeal in order to “clear its name” of racial discrimination in this case. It simply needs to tell the truth about why Council Officers decided to carry on with disciplinary proceedings against Rosemarie Clarke after she had ceased to be a Council employee, and ensure that the Officers involved face the consequences of their actions.

3.   Brent's decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement is likely to have been made by, or strongly influenced by, people involved in, the actions which gave rise to that judgement. They would also have had in mind a wish to see their own actions, or those of their associates, covered up, and their own positions and reputations protected. This probable conflict of interests makes the decision an unsafe one, and a possible abuse of their power and of the trust placed in them.

4.   The appeal will involve costs, perhaps considerable costs. If the legal action is being pursued in the interests of individual Senior Council Officers, rather than in the best interests of Brent Council, that is a misuse of Council Taxpayers’ money, at a time when “every penny counts”.

I am aware that you have been advised, by the Council’s Legal Director, Fiona Ledden, that this decision to appeal is not one which it is open to you to scrutinise, as it is an Officer decision not an Executive decision. As I have already indicated to you in writing, I believe that advice to be incorrect. Under your Committee’s terms of reference in Part 5 of Brent's Constitution, the functions which the ‘Scrutiny Committee shall perform’ include:

‘3. To review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive and to make reports or recommendations to the Council or the Cabinet in respect of such matters.'

You can scrutinise the decision to appeal against this Employment Tribunal judgement, I have set out why you should scrutinise it, and I hope that you will agree to do so, as a matter of urgency. Thank you.

Philip Grant,

3 November 2014

During the course of Philip Grant's correspondence with Cllr Choudry, and the latter's consultation with Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal, it has become clear that the decision to appeal was made by Brent Officers and not by councillors.

As Christine Gilbert, Fiona Ledden and Cara Davani are all Brent officers named in the Employment Tribunal case it becomes even more important for the public to know which officers made the decision to appeal, on what basis and what the cost implications are to Brent residents.

This decision follows on Fiona Ledden's previous ruling barring me for speaking at a Council Meeting on the issue of the recruitment of a permanent Chief Executive at Brent Council. Christine Gilbert occupies the interim position after councillors extended her term for a second time.

Philip Grant is doing democracy a service in Brent, as well as standing up for its residents, and deserves our support.

Philip Grant's victory at Scrutiny Committee a positive sign for the future?

Brent's new Scrutiny Committee got off to a promising start yesterday evening when it approved an amendment to the minutes of the last Commiteee Meeting that has been requested by Philip Grant. Philip had been denied the opportunity to speak at that meeting, the last of the old Committee, because he would not agree to the condition that he should not mention the findings of the Employment Tribunal which found Brent Council and Cara Davani had racially discrimination against an employee, victimised her and constructively dismissed her.

Despite officer advice from Peter Goss that the amendment would unbalance the Minutes, being a paragraph long, the Committee voted to accept the amendment:

Minutes of Scrutiny Committee on 30 April 2015 – a proposed amendment to item 2.

a) The minute as it appears in the draft minutes published on the Brent Council website on 8 June 2015:-

2. Deputations (if any) Minutes:  The Chair advised that a request to speak had been received from Mr Grant with respect to the Equalities and HR Policies and Practices Review and draft Action Plan. The committee was informed that in line with advice provided by Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, it would not be appropriate to discuss an ongoing legal case. Mr Grant advised that he would not be able to make his deputation under these terms. The committee subsequently agreed not to receive the deputation. Councillor Allie expressed the view that the deputation should be heard.  RESOLVED: That permission to address the committee be not granted, in accordance with legal advice provided.

b) Amendment requested by Philip Grant, the Brent resident who had given valid notice to speak as Deputation at that meeting:- 

Delete the sentence:

‘Mr Grant advised that he would not be able to make his deputation under these terms.’ ... and replace it with: 

‘Mr Grant advised that he could not accept the restriction which the Chief Legal Officer wished to impose, and went on to explain why. He said that Cllr. Pavey’s review had been set up to learn the lessons from that Employment Tribunal case, and one of the points he wished to make in his deputation was that an important lesson from it had not been learned. Reference to the case was also necessary to explain what he wished to say about the draft Action Plan, which Scrutiny Committee was being asked to give its views on. The case was relevant to the committee’s consideration of item 9 on its agenda, and could not be ignored. The Council lawyer present advised that the case was not fully concluded, so should not be referred to. Mr Grant responded that he would only be referring to findings of fact in the Tribunal’s Judgment of September 2014, which was not under appeal. Those findings were final, so he could not see how any reference to them would prejudice the position of any party to the remaining “remedy” hearing.’

It is good to see the Committee acting independently as well as Philip Grant's persistence paying off.

Brent Labour support gag on deputation on need for high standards in carrying out council business

 This is the deputation Philip Grant would have given at tonight's Full Brent Council Meeting if he had he not been forbidden to do so by Fiona Alderman,Brent Chief Legal Officer. Challenged to give her reasons for the ban she repeated the contents of an email she sent to Philip Grant last Wednesday.  He had replied to that response setting out the reasons his deputation should be allowed. He sent her a copy of the deputation so that she could see for herself that it was not a campaign and not a personal attack on individuals. She did not refer to this in her account to Full Council..

When Cllr Warren moved suspension of standing orders to hear Philip Grant's deputation only Brondesburty Park Conservatives voted for it. Most Labour  councillors voted against with Cllr Duffy and Crane and the Kenton Conservatives abstaining.

The importance of high standards of conduct in carrying out the functions of
Brent Council.

I am here as an individual, but I hope that the many Brent residents and staff who have raised similar concerns will feel that I am speaking for them as well.

I would like to welcome Carolyn Downs to Brent. She has a very important job as Brent’s new Chief Executive, and a key part of that role is in setting an example of the highest standards of conduct to the staff she leads. Those standards are summed-up by the principles of integrity, selflessness, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

I know that I am not the only Brent resident who feels that these high standards of conduct have been allowed to slip by some senior figures at Brent in recent years. I can illustrate what I mean through a recent example, where proper accountability and openness does not appear to have been shown by Ms Downs’ predecessor.

In June 2015 it was announced that Brent’s Director of HR was leaving the Council, to take a career break. Many were surprised that she had been allowed to stay in post, following findings of fact made against her a year ago by an Employment Tribunal. It found that she had victimised, and facilitated the constructive dismissal of, a fellow officer who had complained of being bullied by her.  

Rumours quickly emerged from the Civic Centre that the departing Director of HR was receiving a “pay off” from Brent. Serious concerns about this were raised, by me and others, from 12 June onwards. The original questions to the interim Chief Executive were dismissed on 8 July with the statement: 

‘I am advised that the Council cannot legally disclose any details of the arrangements relating to Ms Davani’s departure.’

On 9 July I asked the interim Chief Executive two simple questions which did not require the disclosure of any details of the arrangements. Those questions are still unanswered, despite reminders from me, and requests from a number of individual Labour councillors, and the leaders of both Conservative groups. 

I would ask the Council and its Officers for the honest answers to them now:

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

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

It is important that these questions should be answered. If you don’t, people will rightly ask: “what are they hiding, and WHY?” If either or both of the answers is “no”, councillors, staff and residents should be told who made the decisions over the “pay off”, and why it was considered to be justified.

All of you, as Brent’s councillors, have a duty to satisfy yourselves that any such “pay off” is not a mis-use of Council funds. 

·      Ask yourselves, why shouldn’t Brent respect the judgement of an independent Tribunal, if it decides that an award should be made against Ms Davani personally?
·      Why shouldn’t your Scrutiny Committee, meeting this Wednesday, use its power to scrutinise the decisions in this matter?
·      What will you say to your constituents, when you have to make further cuts to their services, and they ask why you turned a blind eye to the “pay off” to Ms Davani?

In a farewell message to the Council’s staff in September 2012, after he had ‘agreed with the political leadership to move on’, Gareth Daniel said:

‘I believe that personal integrity is the foundation for good governance, and without it everything else is lost.’

The ‘few months’ we were promised it would take to recruit a new Chief Executive has turned into three years, and the high standards he set have been allowed to slip. I would urge both councillors and Council Officers to make answering my two questions the first step in putting high standards of conduct at the heart of how our borough is run, under Carolyn Downs’ stewardship.

Thank you.

Philip Grant
7 September 2015

1 Morland Gardens – an Open Letter to Brent’s Chief Executive – it is time to pause and reflect

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

1 Morland Gardens behind a corner of the community garden, 26 June 2023.

 

It is nearly three months since my last guest post about 1 Morland Gardens [“Brent’s latest NON-development (and a planning complaint)”], but that doesn’t mean that nothing has been happening.

 

My blog on 4 April said that Brent Council had lost its £6.5m GLA grant funding because no “start on site” had taken place at Morland Gardens. I’ve since found out, from the GLA, that Brent Council claimed it had achieved a “start on site” in January 2023, as part of applying (successfully) for an increased grant for the affordable homes it was building there!

 

Following several Freedom of Information Act requests to the GLA and Brent Council, I can now say categorically that Brent’s Morland Gardens redevelopment DID NOT “start on site” (as defined in its funding agreement with the GLA) in January. Nor was the Victorian villa demolished in March 2023 (you can see it in the photo from last week above!) as Brent claimed in January that it would be.

 

There is still no Stopping-up Order for the highway land in front of 1 Morland Gardens, so with a continuing delay before Brent could actually start their development, and the serious risk that Brent could lose its GLA funding for the housing element of the scheme, I sent an open letter to Brent’s new Chief Executive, Kim Wright, on 26 June. I will ask Martin to attach a copy of my letter at the end of this article, so that is “in the public domain” for anyone to read should they want to.

 

As Ms Wright will not know the full story of this flawed project, I have set out the main points from its history. I have asked her ‘to cast fresh eyes over the project, with a view to initiating a “whole case review” of whether the Council should still press ahead with it.’ 

 

It is a long letter, so I will set out some “highlights” in this article. I will deal with the detail over why Brent have not achieved a “start on site” when I share a second open letter, to the Mayor of London, with you.

 

In the Affordable Housing Update Report to Brent’s Cabinet last November, Officers admitted that the Morland Gardens project was not viable. I wrote a guest post then, with an open email I’d sent to the Council Leader. My suggestion for an alternative way forward was ignored.

 

In January, Brent asked the GLA for increased funds (there was still spare money “in the kitty”, as some other schemes, e.g. Kilburn Square, would not be able to “start on site” before the deadline of 31 March 2023). The GLA asked (in black) for some information, and Brent added their answer (in red) in an email of 23 January – this is an extract from it:

 

The amount of Brent’s £43m budget for Morland Gardens already spent is redacted, but I would guess at between £3m and £4m (including at least £1.5m on moving the Brent Start college to a temporary home, which has blocked any work on the Council’s 67-home Twybridge Way housing scheme).

 

The GLA’s Affordable Housing Programme Review Board considered Brent’s application at the end of January, and agreed to replace the original funding of £6.5m (£100k for each of 65 proposed homes) with a larger new grant (amount unknown, because it was redacted) under a Project-by-Project agreement. But as this grant was also from the AHP 2016-2023 scheme, the Morland Gardens 2 project still needed to Start on Site (“SOS”) by 31 March 2023.

 

Brent had already claimed to have achieved that “milestone”, based on details set out (again in red) in an email response to GLA questions on 20 January:

 

 

The claims that work had already begun on the site, that demolition would take place in March and that the “main build” construction works would begin by the end of April were vital for showing that the project had not only started but would continue ‘without a fallow period’, which was another requirement for the funding. Those claims were confirmed when Brent Council Officers held their quarterly meeting with the GLA’s area housing team on 7 February. Here is the Morland Gardens entry from Brent’s minutes of that meeting:

 

And it was not just minor Brent Council officials supporting these (what turned out to be false) claims to the GLA. This is the list of attendees from that minutes document (with names redacted to protect their identities, though most could be named from their job titles!):

 

Although an answer in the 20 January email said the stopping-up order (still with GLA planners) ‘won’t delay the progression of SOS’, the 7 February minutes acknowledged that there were still ‘challenges with the stopping-up order objections’. Those challenges were about to increase, as although Brent had told the GLA planners that all of the objection points raised by the objectors had already been dealt with during the planning application process in 2020, the GLA planners, that same day, had asked for copies of the original objections, not just Brent’s summary of what they were!

 

Anyone who read my guest post, “1 Morland Gardens – is proposed Stopping-Up Order another mistake?”, on 28 April 2022 will know that the harmful effects of the proposed development on air quality for pedestrians was not considered as part of the planning process, and there was a whole section on that in the objection comments I submitted in May 2022. That failure to consider the increased exposure to air pollution which the stopping-up would cause was the main reason why the (Deputy) Mayor of London’s decision letter to Brent Council on 20 March said that an Inquiry was not unnecessary:

 

 

More than three months after that decision, I have still heard nothing about when an Inquiry will be held, or who will be conducting it. Council Officers have not replied to requests for information on this, so I’ve had to submit an FoI request just to find out those details. Ridiculous!

 

Brent’s long delays over the Stopping-up Order they would need for their proposed Morland Gardens development to go ahead, and attempts to mislead the GLA over “progress” on the project, have put their plans at serious risk of failure. My open letter to Kim Wright spells that out, but also suggests some alternatives. One of these could be to leave the Brent Start college, permanently, at the Twybridge Way site.

 

That site was supposed to be Phase 2 of Brent’s Stonebridge new homes scheme, and could have been nearing completion by now if Brent’s Cabinet, on the advice of Officers, had not agreed in January 2020 to use it as a temporary home (from August 2020 to August 2022!) for Brent Start while the Morland Gardens redevelopment took place.

 

The opening paragraph from “Your Brent News”, 5 May 2023.

 

There was no mention of Stonebridge Phase 2 when the Council Leader publicised his visit to some of the Phase 1 homes (recently completed by Higgins) with the Mayor of London two months ago. But perhaps there was a hint that Cllr. Butt might be ready to accept that his plans for Morland Gardens need to be reconsidered in this paragraph, further down in the same report:

 

‘While I was in Stonebridge, I also stopped by the new Brent Start Adult Education Centre on Hillside to see its new home, say hello to the Team and meet some of the students. New homes may be the foundation for families to build their lives upon, but skills and learning are the bricks that will make that foundation stronger and open up a wave of new opportunities for local people so I’m thrilled that Stonebridge residents have this new and improved centre right on their doorstep.’

 

Brent Council certainly needs to pause and reflect on its proposals for 1 Morland Gardens, and I hope they will take the opportunity to do that, and choose a more sensible path.

Philip Grant.

 

 

Barham Park Trustees approve original accounts in 7-1/2 minute meeting after refusing representations

 

The Barham Park Trust Committee, made up solely of members of the Brent Cabinet and chaired by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, took just 7 and a half minutes to deal with the CEO's 'High Level' review  report into the accounts and the Scrutiny Committee's Report made as a result of the Call-in of the Barham Trust accounts by backbench councillors.

That evening the CEO of Brent attending Scrutiny Commitete seemed reluctanmt (after a slight panic) to reflect on the content of the report when requested by Cllr Anton Georgiou.

 

 Councillor Butt was not paying much attention while the CEO was speaking!

Cllr Butt refused Cllr Georgiou's colleague, Cllr Paul Lorber's request to address the Trustee's at the Barham Park Trust Committee.

This triumph of open government and transparency resulted in the accounts as originally submitted being approved. There was a short reference to the need to collect rents - an issue that Cllr Lorber had first raised as the amounts shown in the accounts was much lesss than the rents due from the occupants of the Barham Park buildings.

The correspondence below speaks for itself - it all took place on January 23rd :

Philip Grant correspondence

This is the text of an email that I sent to Cllr. Muhammed Butt just before 5pm today. It was copied to the other four members of the Barham Park Trust Committee, to Brent's Chief Executive and Corporate Director of Governance, and to Cllr. Lorber:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

I have read online that you have refused a request from Councillor Paul Lorber to speak in respect of items 5 and 6 on the agenda for tomorrow morning's meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee. Is this true?

If it is true, I am writing to ask, as a citizen of Brent interested in the workings of democracy, that you change your mind on this, and let Cllr. Lorber know, without delay, that he will be permitted to speak to the committee.

What your Committee has to decide is whether to reconsider its acceptance of the Barham Park Trust Annual Report and Accounts, as it has been requested to do by the Council's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

Surely it is right that the Trust Committee hears all sides of this matter, before it makes its decision? That is the essence of openness and transparency in decision making which underpins our democracy.

Not to allow Cllr. Lorber to speak, as long as he does so respectfully, as required by the Members' Code of Conduct, would reflect very badly on Brent Council, and on yourself.

 

Within 15 minutes of sending the email in "FOR INFORMATION" above, I received the following reply from Cllr. Muhammed Butt:

'Dear Mr Grant

Thank you for the email and for trying to make the case.

I respectfully have to say the answer is no and will remain a firm no.

Regards

Muhammed

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council.'

 

I did not find that a satisfactory response to the points I had made, so I sent the following reply (copied to the same people as my first email) just after 6pm this evening:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my email.

As you acknowledge, I made a case for Cllr. Lorber to be allowed to speak at tomorrow's Trust Committee meeting.

You have said that 'the answer is no and will remain a firm no', but you have not explained your reasons for that.

I'm aware from watching previous Council meetings that there is "no love lost" between yourself and the former Lib Dem Leader of Brent Council. However, personal animosity should not influence your actions as Chair of the Trust Committee (if that is a factor in this case).

Have you taken advice from the Corporate Director for Governance over whether to block Cllr. Lorber's request to speak? Although you may have the power, as Chair, to refuse his request, it could be seen as an abuse of power.

Any councillor, and especially a Leader, is expected to demonstrate leadership by example. I have to say that this appears to me, as an independent observer, to set a poor example.

 

Yours,

Philip Grant.

 

Further to my two "FOR INFORMATION" comments above, I received the following email from Cllr. Butt at 7pm this evening:

'Thank you, Mr Grant.

I wouldn't describe the sharing of these exchanges to the Green Party blog to be either "independent" nor the definition of the public arena either - but what you do them with is your prerogative.

Cllr Lorber and I perfectly understand one and other, we have been colleagues on different sides of the council chamber for two decades and I am grateful as ever for his continued opinions on the matter, as is his right. It is also perfectly within mine to disagree.

I am clear there has been ample democratic opportunity and copious officer time and resource afforded to the matter. This item has been discussed at both the initial Barham Park meeting and at a subsequent scrutiny call-in meeting where there was repeat opportunity for all members and members of the public to contribute.

Given this is a reference back of a decision called in by Cllr Lorber the meeting will continue as planned.

Best wishes and thank you for your continued interest, please feel free to tune into the next meeting of the next Barham Park Trust meeting.

I wish you all the best and thank you for your continued interest.'


I sent the following reply to the Council Leader at 7.15pm:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your email, and fuller response.

The point I am trying to make is that, although the matter of the accounts has been looked at in various ways, the meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee tomorrow is meant to be reconsidering its original approval of the 2022/23 Annual Report and Accounts, on a referral back from a Scrutiny Committee.

If the Committee is not allowed to hear both sides of the case before making its decision (even though your own mind may already be made up?), that does not reflect well on Brent Council's democratic process. Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.'

 

This is the final exchange of emails between Cllr. Butt and myself this evening.

His email highlighted some of its text, and I will put that section in inverted commas:

'Dear Mr Grant

I think you have missed the point that I made to yourself, so I have highlighted it for you for clarity.

"I am clear there has been ample democratic opportunity and copious officer time and resource afforded to the matter. This item has been discussed at both the initial Barham Park meeting and at a subsequent scrutiny call-in meeting where there was repeat opportunity for all members and members of the public to contribute."

I wish you a good evening.'

This was my reply, shortly afterwards:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your email.

I had noted the point you have highlighted, but feel that you are also missing the point.

However, as our exchanges are, unfortunately, getting nowhere, I will also wish you a good evening. Yours,

Philip Grant.'

23 January 2024 at 19:46

 

Paul Lorber correspondence

 

In my discussions with the Brent Chief Executive and the Brent Director of Finance I made it clear that one of the beneficiaries of the mistakes made by the Trustees and Council Officers was a charity - Friends of Barham Library - of which I was a Trustee. I was urging them to correct their errors in the full knowledge that it will cost Friends of Barham Library money.

One of the material errors made by Council Officers, which the Trustees, including Cllr Butt, failed to spot was the failure to implement Rental reviews as set out om the various Leases between The Barham Park Trust and a number of the organisation (including friends of Barham Library) who rent premises in Barham Park.

What is wrong with the Barham park Trust 2022/23 Account No.5 deals with this point.

While throughout this process Cllr Butt and his fellow Trustees refused to accept that there was anything wrong at precisely 20.11p.m. (some Council Officers do work late) an officer from the Council's Property Department sent me an email to advise me that Friends of Barham Library will be subject to a rent review under the terms of our Lease backdated to October 2021.

I received this email just 36 hours before the Barham Park Trust Meeting due to start at 9:30am on Wednesday 24 January and after Cllr Butt refused my request to speak so that I could explain why the Accounts are wrong and what action was required to correct them.

Brent Council Officers have been charging the wrong rent to one of the tenants in Barham Park since 2019. Friends of Barham Library rent has been wrong since 2021. I have been pointing this out to the Trustees and to Council Officers for a very long time.

Assuming that the other tenant was sent a similar email and demand for back dated rent the Barham Park Trust will be better off by over £18,000.

To date neither Councillor Butt or the Council Officers have had the decency to admit that I was right or to acknowledge that as a result of my actions the Barham Park Trust is at last trying to retrieve some of the losses suffered as a result of their basic mistakes.

In contrast to the Accounts prepared by Council Officers for the Barham Park Trust which are wrong - the Accounts for Friends of Barham Library are correct. We knew what our correct rent should have been since 2021 and provided (accrued) for the extra rent due in our accounts for the last 2 years.

Councillor Butt may ignore the sensible contribution from Philip grant or silence me and others. He cannot hide the fact that he is WRONG and we are RIGHT.

Perseverance pays off (as the belated Council action about the rent reviews highlights) and the fight goes on.

 

 

The Barham Park Trust – there is another way to run it!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Minute of the previous Review of Future Governance, 7 March 2018.

 

Although it is not the headline item on the agenda for next Tuesday’s Barham Park Trust Committee meeting, the periodic review of the way in which the Trust is managed is still an important one. Brent Council is the sole Trustee, and all of the Trust’s decisions are currently made by a sub-committee of Brent’s Cabinet, whose members are appointed by Brent’s Cabinet, and can only be Cabinet members. 

 

In April this year, as part of an Open Letter to Brent’s Governance Chief, Debra Norman, about the implications of free fun fair tickets from George Irvin to Brent Councillors, I raised the suggested that the membership and voting rights for the Barham Park Trust Committee should be the subject of an independent review. I followed this up with further suggestions for including local people in the decision-making process.

 

I was pleased to see that a review of the Trust’s governance was on the agenda (item 9) for the 5 September meeting, but disappointed to see that it made no mention of the suggestions I’d made. In fact, the Report on this subject is virtually a “copy and paste” of that made in 2018, when the Committee voted for Option 1, to maintain the status quo (see minute above).

 

The description of Option 1, from the Report to the 5 September 2023 meeting.

 

As I think there is greater scope for involving the local community than that which I’ve highlighted in the current Report above, I wrote to the Committee’s Governance Officer, seeking an opportunity to have my ideas considered at Tuesday’s meeting:

 

‘Dear Ms Shinhmar,

 

I am writing to request that I be allowed to make a short statement to next Tuesday's (5 September) meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee. I am copying this email to Cllr. Muhammed Butt, the current Chair of the Committee, for his information, as you will probably wish to check with him before replying.

 

The item I would like to make a representation on, please, is item 9 on the agenda, the Review of Alternative Administration & Governance Models. 

 

Earlier this year, I wrote to the Corporate Director for Governance with some suggestions which would be relevant to the Committee's consideration of Option 2 (paras. 4.3 to 4.5 of the Report), but these do not appear to have been passed on to Chris Whyte and Bianca Robinson, the authors of the Report. 

 

I think it would be helpful if those ideas could be brought to the Committee's attention, before they decide on the recommendation at 2.2 in the Report.

 

Unfortunately, because of a prior appointment, I will not be able to attend the 10am meeting, either in person or online. I would therefore ask that I be allowed to submit a short written statement, which would be read to the Committee, by yourself or another Officer, at the start of item 9 on the agenda.

 

I understand that members of the public speaking at the meeting are normally allowed two minutes to make their presentation. I would make my statement no more than 250 words long, which is what I would expect to present if I were speaking.

 

I hope that this will be acceptable to you, and the Committee, and look forward to receiving your confirmation as early as possible. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.
(A Brent resident for 40 years).’

 

Option 2 (of five) was to “Appoint additional Trustees alongside the Council”. The Report appears to advise against that option, but I think it could be made to work (with “independent advisors”, rather than formal Trustees).

 

The disadvantages of Option 2, from the Report to the 5 September 2023 meeting.

 

After an initial holding reply, I received this response to my request on Friday 1 September:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant

 

Following on from our exchange of emails yesterday, if you can let me have a copy of the representations you wish to submit for consideration in relation to Item 9 on the Barham Park Trust Committee agenda (Review of Alternative Administration & Governance Models) I’d be happy to ensure these are circulated to the relevant officers and Trust Committee members in advance of next week’s meeting.

 

Having consulted with Councillor Butt, whilst advice will be taken from officers (as considered to be relevant) on the points included within any submission it has not been agreed that the submission should be read out in full at the meeting.

 

Although I know you’re unable to attend the meeting, you will be able to follow proceedings via the live webcast or to view the recording following the meeting via the following link: Home - Brent Council Webcasting (public-i.tv).

 

I hope this helps to clarify the position and look forward to receiving any representations you wish to make.

 

Kind regards,

Abby Shinhmar
Governance Officer’

 

It appears that Councillor Muhammed Butt does not want my views to be “on the record” at the meeting. My suggestion for a better way to run the Trust will only be mentioned if the Council Officers advising them consider them relevant!

 

Nevertheless, I sent Ms Shinmar my submission on Friday evening. I’ve had no acknowledgement from her, and as it may be Monday before she is able to deal with it, I sent copies of the document ‘to the relevant officers and Trust Committee members’ myself, on Saturday afternoon. I hoped it would give them the opportunity to consider my short submission, ‘(250 words, so it will only take a couple of minutes to read)’, in plenty of time before the meeting.

 

As my submission will not be made public by Brent Council, here it is, for anyone to read, and know the alternative to “maintain the status quo” which is available to the Trust Committee:

 

‘Thank you for agreeing to consider this submission.

 

Chris Whyte’s Report sets out five options for the future governance of the Trust. It does not include an idea I suggested to Brent’s Corporate Director for Governance earlier this year, which I believe would improve the present arrangements.

 

Option 2, to appoint additional independent trustees alongside the Council, is shown to have several advantages, such as allowing individuals to be selected for their particular skills or expertise. 

 

The Report seems to warn against this option in para. 4.5, but my suggestion does away with most of the disadvantages, by using a model which already works well at Brent - the pairing of the Audit and Standards Committee with its Advisory Committee. 

 

In this case, the existing Trust Committee would meet immediately following on from the Barham Park Trust Advisory Committee, of which they would be members, to take the formal decisions legally required to be made by the Council as Trustee.

 

The Advisory Committee would have an independent Chair (preferably someone with a parks background) and independent members, including some nominated by local community groups and Barham Park users.

 

This would provide both expertise and local knowledge among Advisory Committee members, who could easily be consulted by Council staff engaged in the day-to-day management of the park, whereas Trust Committee members must prioritise their Cabinet portfolio and Ward responsibilities.

 

Please recommend this version of Option 2 ‘for further consideration and consultation’ under para. 2.2 of the Report. Thank you.’

 

If you have a view on this, please feel free to put a comment below. 

 

But the Committee Report, when describing Option 1, states that: ‘members of the community have been accustomed to being consulted on decisions’. Has anyone been consulted about the decision the Trust Committee will be making about its future governance arrangements? Para. 5 of the Report answers that question:

 

Paragraph 5, from the Report to the 5 September 2023 meeting.

 

If, having read this post, you feel you would like to have been consulted, there may still be time (up to 5pm on Monday?) for you to let the Committee know your views.

 

For example, if you wanted to support the suggestion I have made, you could send a short (but polite, please) email to the Committee members (not Cllr. Mili Patel, as an “out of office” message I received says she is on maternity leave until Spring 2024), saying something along the lines of: 

 

I support the suggestion in Philip Grant’s submission on the future governance of the Barham Park Trust.

 

If you don’t have their email addresses handy, they are: 

cllr.muhammed.butt@brent.gov.uk ,
Cllr.Fleur.Donnelly-Jackson@brent.gov.uk ,
cllr.krupa.sheth@brent.gov.uk , and
cllr.shama.tatler@brent.gov.uk .

 

So that the key Council Officers know that you’ve shared your views on this, you could copy your email to:

The Director, Environment and Leisure, whose Report it is: Chris.Whyte@brent.gov.uk
Corporate Director – Governance: debra.norman@brent.gov.uk , and
Brent Council’s Chief Executive: Kim.Wright@brent.gov.uk .

Philip Grant.