Agenda and minutes

Councillor Conneely (as Chair) welcomed members of the Scrutiny Committee to the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Shah and Lesley Smith.

Apologies were also recorded from Councillor Maurice during the meeting.

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary or personal interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

There were no declarations of interest made during the meeting.

To hear any deputations received from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 67.

No deputations were received at the meeting.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday 4 November 2025 as a correct record.

It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meetings held on Tuesday 4 November 2025 be approved as a correct record.

To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting.

There were no matters arising raised at the meeting.

To provide an update on the changes to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee’s work programme.

The Chair began by reporting that Councillor Moeen (Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Cohesion) had been appointed Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Cohesion, taking over from Councillor Farah and replacing the previous Safer Communities, Jobs and Skills portfolio.

The Chair confirmed that Councillor Mitchell had stepped aside as Chair in favour of Councillor Molloy in relation to the Kerbside Management Scrutiny Task Group. It was also noted that the agenda item titled ‘Kerbside Management Scrutiny Task Group Findings’ had been rescheduled from the meeting on 21 January 2026 to the meeting on 2 April 2026.

The Chair additionally reported that the agenda item titled ‘Community Engagement and Consultation’ had been rescheduled from the meeting on 21 January 2026 to the meeting on 2 April 2026.

It was further highlighted that all changes were highlighted within the Work Programme report and corresponding Appendix.

Having reviewed the work programme report, it was RESOLVED to note the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee work programme for the 2025/26 Municipal Year.

This report presents the scrutiny recommendations tracker for review by the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

The Chair advised the Committee of several key changes reflected within the Scrutiny Recommendations Tracker and confirmed that the Committee had now received long outstanding information previously requested in relation to I4B and First Wave Housing, as well as the information concerning the Green Skills Centre. The Chair further reported that the Committee had received the update on the Quarter 2 financial forecast, together with the information that the Committee had requested on a previous agenda item concerning the Voluntary Sector in Brent, Social Value and Procurement.

The Chair, however, highlighted that several requests remained outstanding from the Committee’s meeting in February 2025 relating to Commissioning and Procurement, and Community Wealth Building and Social Value. The Chair further explained that a number of items continued to be outstanding from the Voluntary Sector in Brent, and Social Value and Procurement discussions held in November 2025. The Chair expressed concern that there had been significant delays in receiving responses to a number of these matters.

Having introduced the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee in relation to the Scrutiny Recommendation’s Tracker, with the following comments and issues discussed:

• As an initial query, the Chair questioned what the key barriers had been to the Committee receiving requested information in a timely manner and how the department and the Committee might work together more effectively in order to prevent further delays. In offering his apologies for the delays in the Committee’s receipt of the information requested, Rhodri Rowlands (Director of Strategic Commissioning Capacity Building and Engagement) stated that the February 2025 recommendations would be addressed in detail at a later date. Regarding the recommendations from the November 2025 meeting, shared with the department in writing, he explained that had been a misunderstanding of the timeframes and stated that he was not entirely clear which recommendations and information requests remained outstanding at this time. It was highlighted that a number of key initiatives discussed extensively in November 2025, including the Procurement Strategy, the Social Value Policy and the implementation of both, were designed to address the recommendations and areas for improvement.
• Details were sought on which areas of concern were the most significant in relation to the outstanding recommendations identified. In response, Rhodri Rowlands (Director of Strategic Commissioning Capacity Building and Engagement) clarified that the principal concerns related to the February 2025 recommendations. It was stated that the initial delays were attributable to himself and the service and stemmed from an underestimation of the scale of data cleansing and data analysis required to present the information in the format requested by the Committee. Rhodri Rowlands reflected that there were lessons to be learned regarding operational viability and communication at the outset of the information gathering and information sharing process associated with the Committee’s recommendations. It was explained that, in some cases, the service’s systems had not stored data in a format that was readily accessible. Reference was made to updates previously provided to the Committee in February  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The purpose of this report is to provide a detailed account of the scale, nature, and management of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the borough, enabling the Committee to assess performance, understand key responsibilities and identify areas for improvement.

Councillor Moeen (Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Cohesion) was invited to introduce the report relating to Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) in Brent, which provided a detailed account of the scale, nature, and management of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the borough, enabling the Committee to assess performance, understand key responsibilities and identify areas for improvement. In presenting the report, the strong progress that had been made in tackling antisocial behaviour across Brent and the significant challenges that the service continued to manage were highlighted. Members were advised that the report demonstrated the increased use of antisocial behaviour tools and powers in responding to perpetrators who often presented with complex needs. It was observed that this reflected the issues most frequently raised by residents, namely repeat antisocial behaviour offenders within neighbourhoods who were frequently vulnerable individuals experiencing housing insecurity, mental health difficulties, and drug and alcohol dependency. It was emphasised that the report detailed the clear and effective network of partnerships that the Council had utilised in order to address residents’ safety concerns while ensuring that offenders received the support necessary to rebuild their lives. It was explained that the effective use of statutory powers enabled housing services, environmental health, community safety, safeguarding, youth services and the police to work collaboratively to address both the immediate impact of antisocial behaviour on residents and the underlying causes that contributed to such behaviour. It was further stated that strong multi-agency partnerships remained central to the Council’s approach to reducing antisocial behaviour and protecting local communities. The report also highlighted the detrimental impact that antisocial behaviour had upon communities. It was noted that antisocial behaviour caused residents to feel unsafe and could lead to further criminality. It was further stated that antisocial behaviour created an environment of fear, which was particularly felt by women and girls. Attention was then drawn to the successful bid for Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) funding that would enable the commissioning of patrol officers to support efforts to reduce antisocial behaviour occurring during night time hours. It was additionally stated that this would strengthen the Council’s presence on the ground and enhance its ability to respond swiftly to matters as they arose. It was confirmed that the new patrol officers were expected to become operational by early next month.

In continuing the presentation, Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children Young People and Community Development) stated that antisocial behaviour remained a major issue for local residents and represented a significant concern that affected their daily lives. Hope was expressed that the Committee would recognise, through the report, that the increase in the number of fixed penalty notices and closure orders provided clear evidence of the impact of the ASB team’s work. It was emphasised that, in relation to vulnerable residents who required both support and intervention, the report demonstrated how risk had been effectively managed and how the lives of residents had been improved as a result of the interventions undertaken.

Kibibi Octave (Director Community Development) further added that the report highlighted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To present the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Findings report for adoption by the Committee.

The Chair opened the discussion by expressing gratitude to all Members who had contributed to the work of the Budget Scrutiny Task Group. In introducing the report, the Chair stated that, although some progress had been made as a result of the three-year settlement and certain improvements to core funding, these developments represented only an initial step. The Chair emphasised that such measures remained insufficient to compensate for the significant reductions in service funding experienced over many years and decades. The Council therefore continued to operate in an extremely difficult financial environment. The Chair noted that the budget had been presented in a revised format, which placed an increased responsibility upon the Committee to reconsider its approach to budget scrutiny in order to maintain best practice. The revised approach, in the Chair’s view, provided an opportunity to address organisational silos and to support more strategic cross departmental working than had previously been undertaken. The Chair commended the work of the Children and Young People service, which had achieved a significant reduction in the use of agency staff, lowering related expenditure by half within a two-year period, and had developed new proposals to counter the effects of privatisation within contracts. The Chair expressed the hope that similar approaches would be adopted more widely across the organisation. Early indications of comparable developments in Adult Social Care had been referenced, and further analysis was expected as part of the Quarter 3 Finance Report in February 2026. The Chair stressed that it was essential for the Committee to maintain a very close focus on the impact of financial decisions upon residents. The quarterly finance reports scheduled before May 2026, and thereafter, would be integral to this monitoring process.

Having introduced the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee in relation to the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Findings Report, with the following comments and issues discussed:

• As an initial point, members stated that the report had been both fair and reasonable and commented that the conclusions had been particularly well summarised.

• A Member expressed the view that the Committee had not achieved meaningful scrutiny outcomes, stating that the Committee had not been provided with the appropriate information required to contribute effectively. The Member noted that, in response to the current year’s overspend, Cabinet had approved a recommendation to halt non-essential expenditure. The Member stated that the Committee had not been given any opportunity to scrutinise what constituted non-essential expenditure, nor whether such expenditure reductions represented genuine savings or simply deferrals into the next financial year. The Member further stated that the Committee had not been able to scrutinise the overall change in spending arrangements or the use of strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL) funding. Additionally, the Member noted that the spending power of the Council had been presented as increasing by 9.9%. The Member questioned the accuracy of this figure, observing that it included an assumption that the Council would adopt the Government’s recommended 5% increase in Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Deputy Director of Democratic and Corporate Governance or their representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

No items of urgent business were identified.