Agenda item
Questions from the Opposition and other Non- Executive Members
Questions will be put to the Executive.
Minutes:
Councillor Beck asked what mechanisms would be put in place to prepare for the repatriation of monies from London Councils for funding voluntary organisations. Councillor R Moher replied that she had attended a meeting at London Councils at which it looked as if at least half the monies from the London Boroughs Grants scheme would be repatriated. She stated that consultations would take place with the larger organisations in receipt of these monies to ensure a cohesive approach was adopted that would mean they worked together across borough boundaries to deliver their services. Councillor Beck wondered how much money was involved and whether this would be ring-fenced to provide for additional voluntary sector funding, to which Councillor Moher responded that this would be a decision for the Executive.
Councillor Colwill asked if the Executive considered it right to force people to give up their allotments at Elms Gardens and have to travel by car to alternative sites, He added that people should be encouraged to grow their own vegetables. Councillor Crane answered that it was not. He pointed out that the Elms Gardens site was derelict and had not been used as allotments for a number of years. It had been earmarked for sale by the previous administration and it had been decided to continue with the sale to Notting Hill Housing. It was considered necessary to sell the site in order to provide housing for decanting from the Barham Park estate to allow for its redevelopment and alternative allotment provision existed in Gladstone Park Gardens. Councillor Colwill responded that it had not previously been agreed to sell the site and residents had attended the Executive to object to the sale so he was amazed at the suggestion that the site was not used.
Councillor Shaw asked a question on behalf of Councillor Green. She asked if organisations which already received funding from the Council could also apply for funding from neighbourhood funding. In Councillor Green’s ward a scheme had been agreed but there was a lack of clarity over how it could be approved. Councillor Jones replied that there was no bidding process involved. It was for the three ward councillors to decide how they wanted it spent. Councillor Shaw responded by asking for the Executive to intervene in getting funding agreed to support a bid by Brent Private Tenants Rights Group but Councillor Jones made it clear that it was not for the Executive to intervene.
Councillor Van Kawala referred to the abolition of the Future Jobs Fund and asked if the Executive agreed that apprenticeship schemes provided people with valuable work experience. Councillor Arnold replied that the Council was doing quite well on providing apprenticeships and outlined the current provision within the Council. There were gaps in the areas of health and social care which needed to be addressed but in such difficult times she was pleased to confirm that the Council still retained some apprentices.
Councillor Hunter asked the Executive, if it was decided to close libraries, would residents be given some re-assurance that efforts would be made to re-open the Belle Vue cinema in Willesden. Councillor Powney replied that it had been agreed to consult on the library proposals but Willesden Green library was not one that had been suggested might close. The Council had some early conceptual plans on the redevelopment of the Willesden Green centre. The provision of a cinema could not be guaranteed but he undertook to ask officers to bear in mind any possibilities for the co-location of a cinema. Councillor Hunter responded by stating that the next Willesden area consultative committee would be discussing the plans for the future of the library service and residents would want to know what was planned for the Willesden Green site. She stated that residents needed more information on what was proposed. Councillor Powney added that at the moment there were no options to put forward.
Councillor CJ Patel stated that the last residents satisfaction survey showed that 86% of residents were satisfied with the waste collection service and asked why therefore were there proposals to change it. Councillor Powney replied that he hoped the new arrangements would lead to an increase in resident satisfaction by increasing recycling and extending it to include materials not currently recycled. Councillor Patel responded by saying that a lot of time had been spent by the previous administration to improve the service and he hoped this would not be wasted by the present administration.
Councillor Hirani asked for an update on the Aimhigher scheme that had followed the gifted and talented scheme run by the previous government. Councillor Arnold replied that the various parts of the Aimhigher scheme would be ending in March and so money currently used to support children with disabilities would be lost. She added that the route into university was being made more difficult for young people as such schemes were closed and tuition fees raised. Councillor Hirani stated that it was shameful what the Liberal Democrats were doing to young people aspiring to go to university by burdening them with debt when there had been a previous undertaking not to increase fees.
Councillor Sneddon asked why it was considered that neither Bridge Park nor the Council’s training centre were suitable for Executive members and officers to meet together and instead expensive conference venues outside Brent were used. Councillor John replied that it was cheaper for Executive members and the officer management team to meet outside the borough and such arrangements contributed to more coherent decision making. If Bridge Park was used there was a danger that attention would be diverted and attendance interrupted. Councillor Sneddon responded that it was not necessary to choose venues in the borough that were more expensive when the Council had its own facilities. He saw no reason why coherent decision making could not be achieved by using facilities in Brent as had been the case during the last four years. Councillor John stated that many organisations such as the council took its top people away to create a effective working relations. The venue used had not been an expensive hotel but a training centre. She stated that it was a measure of how difficult it was for the opposition to find something to oppose when this issue was all that could be discussed.
Councillor Long referred to the Council’s Placemaking guide and asked what equality assessment had been carried out on it. Councillor Powney replied that this was a matter for the planning service. The guide was subject to the usual process of consultation and this included consulting disability groups. Councillor Long responded by saying that she was concerned about proposals for shared use of space and made reference to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s decision to drop plans for a fully shared surface on Exhibition Road following pressure from disability campaigners. She was not aware of any consultation being carried out and therefore question at what level this was being done.