Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor S. Butt, Councillor Shah and Councillor Georgiou (with Councillor Lorber attending as a substitute).

In addition, the Chair advised that apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Tatler (as Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth) and Alice Lester (as Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) who had been invited to attend the meeting in relation to the Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 Overview (Agenda Item 7).

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record.

-       Wednesday 04 September 2024

-       Wednesday 02 October 2024 (Call-in - Barham Park Trust Property matters)

It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the following previous meetings be approved as a correct record:

(a)        Wednesday 04 September 2024; and

(b)        Wednesday 02 October 2024 (Call-in - Barham Park Trust Property matters)

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

The Chair advised members that the membership of the Budget Scrutiny Task Group to consider the Council’s budget proposals for 2025-26 had been confirmed as follows - 2 members nominated by Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee (Councillors Conneely & Long); 2 members nominated by Community Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee (Councillors Afzal & Fraser) and 1 Opposition Group member nominated by the Conservative Group (Councillor Maurice).  At this stage, it was noted that no members had been nominated by the Liberal Democrats Group.

As a result, it was RESOLVED to confirm membership of the Budget Scrutiny Task Group, as detailed above.

To hear any deputations requested by members of the public in accordance with Standing Order 67.

No deputations were received at the meeting.

To provide an update on the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee’s work programme 2024-25.

The Committee received a report from the Deputy Director Democratic Services, which presented the 2024-25 work programme for the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

In considering the report, members were advised that the work programme had been developed to reflect a number of key changes, including the addition of a report on the ‘Findings of the Local Government Ombudsman regarding a failure to attach a condition to a 2012 planning consent’ due to be considered at the meeting along with an item on SCIL and Section 106, previously scheduled for April 2025.  Additionally, members were advised the Workforce Strategy had been renamed the People Strategy and would be reviewed in January 2025 instead of November 2024 with the ‘Employment and Skills’ item having also been rescheduled from November 2024 to February 2025 and the Complaints Annual Report Review from January  to April 2025.

The Chair noted that the work programme had also been developed to be flexible and responsive to needs.

Having reviewed the proposed work programmed it was RESOLVED to agree the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee work programme (as updated) for the 2024-25 Municipal Year.

The Chair agreed to vary the order of business on the agenda to enable the Q2 Financial Forecast 2024-25 (Agenda Item 8) to be considered as the first main item of business on the agenda. The minutes therefore reflect the order in which the items were dealt with at the meeting.

This report sets out the financial forecast for the General Fund revenue budget, the Housing Revenue Account, the Dedicated Schools Grant and the Capital Programme, as at Quarter 2 2024-25 for review by the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Mili Patel (Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources) was invited to introduce a report providing an overview of the Quarter 2 Financial Forecast 2024-25, which had been presented to Cabinet in October 2024. In presenting the report, members were advised that the information provided a comprehensive picture of the current financial situation and the Council's projected direction. It was highlighted that, since 2010, the Council had lost at least £210 million from its core budget. Furthermore, since the Quarter 1 Financial Forecast presented in July 2024, the financial position had become more challenging. For the upcoming financial year, the Council needed to identify £16 million in cuts to achieve financial sustainability. The executive summary of the report outlined the financial forecast for the General Fund revenue budget, the Housing Revenue Account, the Dedicated Schools Grant, and the Capital Programme, as at Quarter 2 2024/25.

Following Councillor Mili Patel’s introduction, Minesh Patel (Corporate Director of Finance and Resources) continued by noting that the final details on the Chancellors Autumn Financial Statement were now awaited, with the initial announcement having been made the previous week.  Whilst a member briefing would usually be provided on the Autumn Statement, the Committee was advised that as full details were currently awaited it had not yet been possible to fully assess the impact on Brent.  The Government had advised a new policy document would be released in November 2024 to enhance understanding and provide further details on specific allocations following which a briefing would be prepared and circulated to members. There were significant challenges ahead, and some difficult decisions that would need to be made for the 2025/26 financial year and beyond. It was noted that the draft budget for 2025/26 had been published the previous day and would be considered by Cabinet in November 2024.

Having thanked Councillor Mili Patel (Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources) and Minesh Patel (Corporate Director of Finance and Resources) for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee in relation to the Quarter 2 Financial Forecast 2024-25 report, with the following comments and issues discussed:

• As an initial query further details were sought around whether it would be effective to report on the Autumn Statement and the draft budget for 2025/26 at the Budget Scrutiny Task Group meetings, and whether the focus should be on the impact for the current year or if it would be more effective to consider the differences when the Quarter 3 report was presented for consideration early in 2025. In response, Minesh Patel (Corporate Director of Finance and Resources) explained that it was difficult to determine the impact as it largely depended on the details of the forthcoming policy document. The specific outcome would not be known until the settlement, which was typically announced in the second week of December. Even considering the most positive outcomes of the Autumn Statement and a favourable allocation, it might not meet Brent's specific needs. Regardless of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

This report details the outcome of a Local Government Ombudsman complaint relating to a planning application granted in May 2012 for the change of use of a site in Kingsbury Road to tyre fitting, storage and car wash, which the Ombudsman has recommended are reported to the relevant scrutiny committee (in this case Resources & Public Realm) for review.

Gerry Ansell (Director Inclusive Regeneration and Employment) introduced a report detailing the findings from a Local Government Ombudsman regarding a complaint in regarding the way in which the Council had dealt with a planning application in 2012 for the change on use of a site.  As a result of their investigation the Ombudsman had found fault in the way the Council had dealt with the matter involving the failure to include a condition which had been agreed within the original planning consent leading to a number of recommended actions to ensure that this was less likely to happen again in the future.  As part of this process the Ombudsman had recommended that the outcome and actions in response were reported to the relevant Scrutiny Committee.

The Committee was advised that the actions taken as a result of the Ombudsman findings in respect of the case had included a) an apology to the complainant for the disappointment and frustration caused by the fault and b) a review of the council’s practices and procedures which members were advised had been completed.  Details on the review of process and procedures along with the changes and improvements made as a result had been set out within the report which it was noted had been designed to minimise the risk of future error or oversight, such as through validation, consultation, and the issuance of decisions to establish further quality control measures.

In presenting the report to the Committee members noted that details of the action taken had also been circulated for review and comment in advance of the meeting.

Having thanked Gerry Ansell (Director Inclusive Regeneration and Employment) for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee in relation to the e Local Government Ombudsman findings and action taken in response, with the following comments and issues discussed:

·            As an initial query, the Chair sought details regarding whether the failure to attach a condition to the original planning consent had been an isolated incident or indicative of a broader issue affecting other planning applications.  In order to monitor the position and impact of the changes agreed in process and procedures as a result the Chair (as a request arising from the review) recommended an 18-month update to report on the full integration of any changes and to determine if similar issues had reoccurred or if all possible measures had been taken. In response, Gerry Ansell (Director of Inclusive Regeneration and Employment) expressed confidence that the processes had been implemented and were being kept under review. Members were informed that the Planning and Development Service regularly reviewed performance with any complaints received used to assist in assessing quality control measures and updated workflow processes as detailed in Appendix 1 of the committee report. Officers were keen to act swiftly to identify issues and improve processes with members also assured would be supported through the implementation of a new software system to enhance quality control measures.

·            In relation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the collection, allocation, and spend of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL) and Section 106Agreement contributions made pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (S106) over the last 10 years, including information on any unallocated funds and spending priorities.

Members are asked to note that the report does not consider the collection, allocation and spend of the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy, which is overseen by the Community Grants team in the Partnerships, Housing and Residents Services directorate.

Gerry Ansell (Director Inclusive Regeneration and Employment) was invited to introduce a report providing an update on the collection, allocation, and spend of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL) and Section 106 Agreement contributions made pursuant to the of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (S106) over the last 10 years which had been broken down by theme and by ward, including information on any unallocated funds and spending priorities.

In presenting the report, members were advised Brent used two key mechanisms to secure funding for infrastructure improvements and community benefits from new developments; S106 and CIL with both mechanisms essential in providing local infrastructure in response to the demands created by new development.  While both S106 and CIL were designed to ensure that developments contribute to infrastructure and community services, there were key differences in how they function in terms of:

·            S106 being negotiated on a case-by-case basis and focussing more on addressing specific impacts of individual developments, such as affordable housing.

·            CIL being a fixed charge that applied to most developments and was more broadly used to fund infrastructure improvements that support growth across the borough.

The Committee was advised of the strategy and governance arrangements established to manage the collection, allocation of SCIL and s106 funds based on the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and Local and Borough Plan with both often used in a complementary manner. For example, on larger developments S106 would be sought to address specific local impacts (e.g., affordable housing and site-specific infrastructure) and CIL contributing to broader borough-wide needs.

Having thanked Gerry Ansell (Director Inclusive Regeneration and Employment) for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee in relation to the overview provided , with the following comments and issues discussed:

·            As an initial query, further details were sought regarding the overarching strategy for the Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL), with a particular focus on how needs were identified and how spending was mapped to those needs, considering that some wards in the Borough collected significant amounts of SCIL but did not see commensurate spending. In response, Gerry Ansell outlined in more detail the role of the Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDF) in identifying and prioritising the range of infrastructure requirements across the Borough which included housing, employment and supporting facilities. This constituted the overall strategy for SCIL. Reference was also made to the objectives and priorities within the Borough Plan and growth areas identified within the Local Plan across the borough. Members were advised that SCIL had been allocated to 26 projects, as referenced in the committee report. It was noted that infrastructure projects often involved substantial capital investments that took time to plan and implement. It was further noted that there was a time lag, as SCIL collection was triggered when development commenced.  In terms of the schemes listed in the report, Reference was made to the Morland Gardens scheme included in the list of SCIL allocated projects, which confirmation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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

(Please note the agenda was republished to include this item on 1 November 2024)

The Committee noted the Scrutiny Recommendations Tracker report and update on key actions and information requests identified.

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

The opportunity was taken to advise members of the work being undertaken with Continental Landscape (as the Council’s Grounds Maintenance contractor) to seek Green Flag status for two parks in the borough.  In response to queries raised by Members in relation to the rationale behind selection of the parks and future plans to seek the same status for other parks linked to other priorities and needs identified within the Borough Plan it was agreed that this inquiry would be addressed at a subsequent meeting, with Chris Whyte (Director of Public Realm) present to respond.

No items of urgent business were identified.