Agenda item

For questions to be put to members of the Cabinet by Opposition and Non-Cabinet Members in accordance with Standing Order 35.

Five advance notice questions have been received under this item, which have been attached along with the written responses provided.

Members are asked to note that this session will also include an opportunity (within the time available) for other Non-Cabinet members and the Opposition to ask questions of Cabinet Members without the need for advance notice.

Before moving on to consider the questions submitted by non-Cabinet members, the Mayor reminded Members that a total of 30 minutes had been set aside for this item, which would begin with consideration of the written questions submitted in advance of the meeting along with any supplementary questions. Once these had been dealt with, the remaining time available would then be opened up for any other non-Cabinet members to question Cabinet Members (without the need for advance notice) on matters relating to their portfolio.

The Mayor advised that five written questions had been submitted in advance of the meeting for response by the relevant Cabinet Member and the written responses circulated within the agenda were noted. The Mayor then invited supplementary questions on the responses provided:

12.1   Councillor Kelcher thanked Councillor Krupa Sheth as Cabinet Member for Environment & Enforcement) for the written response regarding the effectiveness of Brent’s School Streets programme in reducing emissions and in terms of encouraging more active modes of travel and wider public health, community and safety benefits.  As a supplementary question details were sought regarding plans to further expand the programme to cover all schools across the borough in recognition of the associated benefits.

In response, Councillor Krupa Sheth confirmed that the roll out of School Streets remained a priority for the Council aligned with the Climate Emergency Strategy to reduce air pollution across the Borough. The Brent School Streets programme was in high demand, and the Council would continue to seek funding from TfL to ensure the programme could be implemented where there was a demand, thereby improving the lives of young children across Brent.

12.2Councillor Choudry thanked Councillor Krupa Sheth, as Cabinet Member for Environment and Enforcement, for the written response to his question seeking an update on the negotiations with Lime regarding the future operation of their dockless e bike scheme within Brent.  As a supplementary question, details were sought on the plans being developed to continue holding Lime to account for the operation of the scheme in Brent (with specific concerns outlined in relation to issues being experienced across Willesden).  Confirmation was also sought on the arrangements being made to host the first Resident Forum with the suggestion also made that a dedicated page should be established on the Council’s website including responses to FAQs on the scheme and how to report to issues of concern.

In response, Councillor Krupa Sheth  assured members of the Council’s commitment to continue holding Lime to account for their performance in Brent with concerns raised (including those identified within Willesden) continuing to be addressed directly though the revised KPIs and regular operational meetings now established.  The Council was in the process of scheduling the first Resident Forum, aiming for early January or February 2025, and was also working on creating a dedicated page on the Council’s website for Lime’s FAQs to facilitate easier navigation for residents.

12.3Having thanked Councillor Mili Patel, as Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources, for her written response on the steps being taken by the Council to ensure residents were aware of the significant changes to the voting rights of EU citizens living in the UK introduced by the Elections Act 2022.  In recognising the way in which the measures outlined in the response would assist in encouraging the fullest participation in future elections Councillor Benea, as a supplementary question, asked whether the Council would consider writing to the Minister of State for Local Government to request that the right to vote and stand as a candidate at local elections be extended to all residents in England and Northern Ireland?

In response, Councillor Mili Patel felt it important to recognise how the function of a successful democracy depended on citizens' engagement in politics with concern expressed at the decline in democratic participation in elections over recent years and increasing complexity of the franchise arrangements post-Brexit.  Whilst trust and engagement in local government remained significantly higher than in many any other public sector institutions, the need to ensure residents were able to continue playing an active role was also recognised as key, particularly in terms of combating the rise of populism and extremism over recent years.  As a result, Councillor Mili Patel confirmed that the Council would write (as requested) to the new Labour government presenting the case for electoral reform in advocating for greater, not lesser, resident involvement.

12.4Whilst noting the written response provided by Councillor Muhammed Butt, as Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration, Planning & Growth, to her question regarding funding of the Private Sector Landlord Selective Licensing Scheme Councillor Hirani highlighted concerns regarding the forward planning for delivery and funding of the scheme.  As a supplementary question, details were therefore sought on the figures provided as the basis for the schemes financing, availability of audited accounts and how members would be advised of any losses incurred through the scheme recognising the current economic challenges within the private rented sector.

In response, Councillor Muhammed Butt reiterated that the initial written response circulated with the agenda indicated the scheme was self-financing, with funding details having been provided in the response.  In reminding members how the scheme was designed to protect and ensure the provision of high-quality, safe and secure accommodation for the increasing number of residents relying on the private rented sector across the borough the Leader also felt it important to outline the way in which responsible landlords were being engaged and rogue landlords held to account through the scheme in seeking to ensure that the quality of their accommodation met the highest standards.

12.5   Following on from the written response provided by Councillor Krupa Sheth, as Cabinet Member for Environment and Enforcement, regarding the progress in delivery of step free access at Alperton tube station Councillor Matin, as a supplementary question, sought further assurance regarding the Council’s commitment to provide match funding for the scheme and anticipated timeline for its implementation.  These concerns were highlighted given the ongoing scale of development in the area and lack of specific commitment towards match funding within the response provided to date.

In response, Councillor Krupa Sheth advised that any decision regarding the Council’s financial commitment towards the scheme would need to be taken once the current design stage of the scheme had been completed by TfL, which was currently scheduled for Summer 2025.  The Council were continuing to engage with TfL on the project and whilst committed to the scheme Councillor Krupa Sheth advised that the match funding element for any provision would need to be reviewed once clarity had been obtained on the final project costs.

Having thanked members for their written questions and Cabinet Members for the responses provided to the supplementary questions, the Mayor advised that he intended to move on with the remainder of time available being used for an open question time session to the Cabinet.  Questions relating to the following issues were raised and responses provided, as set out below:

(i)     Councillor Kansagra in referring to the Leader of the Council’s response on the written and supplementary question regarding the Council’s Private Sector Landlord Selective Licensing Scheme sought further clarification on the scheme having been introduced on a self-financing basis.  Given concerns relating to the impact on local landlords creating a potential disincentive in them seeking to make properties available and adding to current pressure on housing supply, he asked if the Council would re consider the self-funding approach.

In response, Councillor Muhammed Butt as Leader & Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration, Planning & Growth felt it important to highlight in response that the use and introduction of Selective Licensing Schemes had been supported by the previous Conservative Government.  In restating the Council’s commitment towards the schemes use in seeking to safeguarding residents, improve the standard and quality of housing in Brent and hold rogue landlords to account he advised there were no plans to therefore change the nature or self-funding status of the scheme.

(ii)    In noting the Leader’s response to the previous question on holding rogue landlords to account, Councillor Georgiou queried whether similar measures were being taken against rogue developers. Concerns were expressed that developers, housing management companies, and housing associations were continually failing residents in terms of the standard and quality of accommodation provided, with views therefore sought on whether those bodies responsible for continued failings should continue to be granted approval for future development within the Borough.

In response to Councillor Muhammed Butt, as Leader & Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration, Planning & Growth, seeking to clarify the basis on which the question had been asked, Councillor Georgiou felt his position had been made clear with a response being sought on the issues raised.  In terms of a response, Councillor Muhammed Butt then confirmed how the Council was continuing to hold landlords to account including regular meetings being held between the Council, housing associations and developers.  Members were advised that, where notified, the Leader would be willing to ensure issues highlighted continued to be raised at these meetings in an effort to seek appropriate resolution.

(iii)    Councillor Johnson regarding the significant challenges being created by the current pressures in relation to the delivery of social care and approach being adopted to ensure the Council was able to continue monitoring and addressing levels of need across the borough.

In response Councillor Nerva, as Cabinet Member for Community Health and Wellbeing, assured members of the focus in relation to delivery of social care across the borough. As an example, he reported that he recently joined members and a number of adult social care professionals at Chalkhill Community Centre, where Brent was piloting one of the first community assessment days in the country. The event was felt to demonstrate the Council’s ongoing commitment to adopting a proactive approach towards addressing the pressures identified involving collaboration with social workers, occupational therapists, Brent Health Matters, Citizens Advice Bureau, and the Sure Trust to provide a one-stop service, which had been well received by residents who were eager to utilise the service. Occupational Therapists had also been present on-site to offer assessments with Artificial Intelligence having also been successfully used to assist the process.  Lessons learnt were now being assessed by officers in preparation for further roll out of the initiative with the next assessment day scheduled in South Kilburn for December 2024.

(iv)   Councillor Jayanti Patel seeking further details on the frequency and adequacy of eligibility reviews for those currently claiming Single Person Council Tax Discounts, number of single persons claiming the benefit and removed from the scheme where identified as ineligible.  In addition, details were also sought on the number of empty properties currently being charged in Brent with the request made for these details to be provided on a ward by ward breakdown to assist local ward councillors.

In response Councillor Muhammed Butt, as Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration, Planning, and Growth, advised that if further details could be supplied he would arrange a detailed response on the figures being sought following the meeting.  Whilst recognising the benefits of support being provided in assisting residents living alone, members were advised of the wider review being undertaken in relation to the Council Tax Support Scheme which would incorporate all elements of the discounts currently available as part of the overall budget process.  In terms of empty properties, the opportunity was taken to remind members of the work being undertaken by the Council in seeking to encourage property owners and landlords to bring empty properties back into use with the impact of probate also identified as an issue in this respect.  Members were also being encouraged to identify any empty properties within their wards to ensure appropriate checks and measures were undertaken, with the Council having also approved changes in Council Tax charges on empty properties to act as a further incentive to bring them back into use.

(v)    Councillor Lorber relating to a former retail property located along Ealing Road (Alperton) on which planning permission for a housing developed had lapsed but was now being used for late night music and entertainment related activities without any subsequent change in use being approved.  In noting that the activities referred to had been subject to the necessary licensing approval and acknowledging the distinction between planning and licensing regulations, concerns were highlighted in terms of venue safety and risk assessment and fact that events had been allowed to proceed without the applicant or user of the premises obtaining what was felt to be relevant planning permission. This was considered an anomaly in the legislation, prompting questions around whether this issue could be reviewed and addressed, given that licenses were being granted to applicants who had not secured relevant planning permission beforehand.

In response Councillor Muhammed Butt as Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration, Planning, and Growth, felt it important to recognise (as had been acknowledged within the question) the distinction between the planning and licensing regimes and regulations.  In terms of a more detailed response relating to the position regarding the specific premises, guidance would need to be sought from officers although the Leader advised he would support the move towards a more joined up system.  It would not, however, be possible to comment in any more detail on the specific site to avoid the potential for predetermination should any further relevant applications subsequently come forward for consideration.

(vi)   Councillor Kansagra relating to concerns being raised by local residents about significant delays continuing to be experienced in seeking the necessary supporting assessments from GPs as part of the blue badge scheme application process and requesting a review of the procedure moving forward.

Whilst initially addressed to Councillor Nerva, as Cabinet member for Community Health & Wellbeing members were advised that the blue badge scheme actually fell within the Customer Service remit.  In seeking to respond, however, Councillor Nerva advised that the blue badge scheme was a national programme with the application process and requirements therefore outside the direct control of the Council.  The concerns relating to GP access were, however, acknowledged with the opportunity therefore extended for Councillor Kansagra to meet with both himself and officers involved in administering the scheme to consider how best to address the issues highlighted.

(vii)   Whilst not treated as a formal question for response, clarification was provided in response to query raised by Councillor Mahmood on the position regarding the list of petitions which had been presented and noted under the Mayor’s Announcements.

(viii)  Councillor Mistry highlighting a number of concerns relating to implementation of the “Don’t Mess with Brent” initiative across Queensbury ward given the level of fly tipping, litter and poor state of repair of the pavements and grass verges across the area along with concerns relating to the impact of pann spitting and pigeon droppings particularly in the area adjacent to Kingsbury Underground station.  Clarification was also sought on the engagement of a consultancy company to support development of the Kingsbury Green project.

In response Councillor Krupa Sheth, as Cabinet Member for Environment and Enforcement, advised that she would be willing to arrange a comprehensive response on the issues raised if details were provided following the meeting.  As part of a more general update, members were advised of the efforts being made to increase the level of enforcement activity across Brent in support of the Don’t Mess with Brent campaign with fly-tipping recognised as an issue affecting not only Brent but London and the UK as a whole that required a concerted effort to address.  In ending her response, Councillor Krupa Sheth encouraged members to continue reporting defects or areas of concern and advised that she would be willing to visit the area with local ward councillors as an opportunity to focus these discussions and review any action required.

At this stage in the proceedings, the Mayor advised that the time available for the open question session had expired. The Mayor therefore thanked all members for their contributions and advised that the meeting would now move on to the next item.