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  No supplementary question was raised by Councillor Kennelly with the written response provided by Councillor Grahl (as Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Schools) on the protection of vulnerable children noted, as circulated with the agenda.

12.2  No supplementary question was raised by Councillor Choudry with the written response provided jointly by Councillor Krupa Sheth (as Cabinet Member for Public Realm & Enforcement) and Councillor Farah (as Cabinet Member for Safer Communities, Jobs & Skills) on the provision of additional CCTV enhancements via SCIL investment noted, as circulated with the agenda.

12.3  Councillor Kabir thanked Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (as Cabinet Member for Housing) for the written response to her question seeking an update on the impact of the Housing Benefit subsidy gap and in welcoming what she felt to be Brent’s innovative approach towards tackling homelessness and addressing the pressures on temporary accommodation asked if a detailed breakdown on the numbers of families and single people who had presented as homeless to the Council could be provided from 2021 onwards to highlight the ongoing challenges being faced.

In response, Councillor Donnelly-Jackson advised that she would be able to provide a detailed breakdown on the figures following the meeting and in response to the ongoing pressures and challenges highlighted, took the opportunity to outline a number of initiatives currently being pursued.  These included consultation being undertaken on a new Homelessness & Rough Sleepers Strategy which had been developed in partnership with Crisis, who it was pointed out also chaired the Homelessness Forum and had recently been shortlisted for a London Homelessness Award for their work with refugees facing homelessness.  Reference was also made to development of the Build for Zero approach, which used real-time data to respond to the needs of homeless people alongside the Council’s Radical Place Leadership pilot focussed on how the Council could develop and work more effectively with partners in the delivery of more joined up services.  The provision of access to the GLA’s Council Homes Acquisition Grants Programme (CHAPS) was also welcomed in supporting the delivery of new temporary accommodation units, as a further way in assisting to reduce subsidy loss.  Finally, all those involved in delivery of homelessness services being provided through the New Horizons Centre and Turning Point were commended for the real difference being made and opportunity provided to ensure that those facing homelessness were treated with dignity and received the support needed.

12.4  In noting the written response provided to his question regarding the strategy to close the funding gap and prioritise footway repairs, Councillor Jayanti Patel as a supplementary question, asked Councillor Krupa Sheth (as Cabinet Member for Public Realm & Enforcement) for a detailed breakdown of the planned £11m footway maintenance spend referred to within her response, which he understood was being funded from the £15m additional investment in maintenance provided as part of the three-year programme running from 2023 to 2026.  In order to support transparency and ensure residents were kept informed of progress, details were also sought on a breakdown of total spend for 2023, 2024 and to date during 2025 along with the remaining balance allocated for 2026 with Councillor Jayanti Patel expressing disappointment that it appeared in total only seven miles were scheduled for reconstruction during 2025 and 2026, which he pointed out comprised less than 1.5% of Brent’s total network.  With 88% of pedestrian injury claims linked to footway defects, he also ended by seeking confirmation as to whether the Council would publish an annual Accessibility Impact Statement identifying high risk areas for disabled residents and parents with young children.

In response, Councillor Krupa Sheth advised that due to the detailed nature of the information being sought she would need to liaise with officers to arrange a response on the available information following the meeting.

12.5  In noting the response provided by Councillor Krupa Sheth (as Cabinet Member for Public Realm and Enforcement) to his written response regarding the use of SCIL to fund local infrastructure and Public Realm projects, Councillor Lorber felt it important to recognise that this had been an approach recommended by the Liberal Democrats Group over previous years as part of their alternative budget proposals but which had been rejected on a consistent basis as not allowed and financially irresponsible.  The initial question raised had therefore sought clarification about the basis on which this decision had been made, given the previous advice received.  Whilst the decision to invest SCIL funding in the areas identified was welcomed, it was pointed out this had also come as no surprise during an election year.  In observing a pattern where significant investment programmes continued to be announced in advance of local elections Councillor Lorber, as a supplementary question, asked whether the Cabinet Member would be willing to lobby for annual local elections as a means of providing a more consistent programme of investment for the benefit of local residents.

In response, Councillor Krupa Sheth acknowledged the support expressed for the programme of investment identified, which it was pointed out would also directly benefit residents in Sudbury as well as across the remainder of the borough in terms of addressing key priorities and public realm need.

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)     As a member of the Brent Pension Fund Sub Committee Councillor Ahmadi Moghaddam, referring to further advice received in relation to the Council’s Pension Fund obligations regarding divestment from companies linked to the ongoing conflict and alleged human right violations in Gaza and queries from residents seeking urgent action on this issue, sought an update on the progress being made by the Council towards meeting its commitment to divest and in taking steps towards pursuing more ethical investments.  In support of the strength of feeling on this issue, members were also reminded of the petition which had been presented to Council during the previous year seeking a commitment towards divestment and follow up deputations presented to the Council’s Pension Fund Sub Committee highlighting the need for urgent action to be taken.

In response, Councillor Mili Patel (as Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources) thanked Councillor Ahmadi Moghaddam for his question and advised that the Council was mindful of the additional legal notice recently circulated to all LGPS administering authorities, and of the strength of feeling locally.  In continuing to support the stance taken by the government that the remaining hostages needed to be released and in seeking a clear pathway towards an enduring peace in relation to the conflict in Gaza, Councillor Mili Patel advised that the Council had also recognised the growing documentation of human rights violations in Palestine and echoed the international consensus that the status-quo could not continue to hold.  In terms of the position adopted by Brent in relation to divestment, the opportunity was taken to remind members of the balance needing to be achieved in terms of the fiduciary duty to the 22,000 members of the Pension Fund and wider social and ethical responsibilities.  As a result, officers were carefully reviewing the position paper supplied by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) and working with the LGPS Scheme Advisory Board (SAB), who were seeking further guidance from the Government, with the Council continuing to draw on the SAB’s advice, legal counsel and best practice from other local authorities.

In addition, members attention was also drawn to the implications arising from the government’s “Fit for the Future” reforms, requiring all Pension Fund assets to be managed through the London CIV by March 2026.  As Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources, Councillor Mili Patel advised she would also, therefore, be writing to the LCIV to call for a more robust framework that would enable future the exclusion of investments linked to conflict, military occupation or genocide.  In providing further assurance, confirmation was also provided of the Council’s commitment to responsible investment, with all Pension Fund investment managers signatories to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) considerations also integral to the overall investment strategy and approach.  Over the coming months work would also continue with fund managers to disclose pension fund investments in companies listed by the United Nations OHCHR.

In ending her response, members were advised that the Leader & Deputy Leader had also formally requested the preparation of a plan to explore practical and legally sound options to advance divestment, so that, following the May 2026 local elections, the next Administration would be in the strongest possible position to take a clear, robust, and legally watertight decision that would not only safeguard the financial interests of the Fund’s members but would also provide a firm commitment towards ethical divestment.  Whilst this work continued, it was also pointed out that Brent Labour were also exploring the inclusion of a codified election pledge in their forthcoming manifesto to pursue options to divest from companies implicated in breaches of either international law or worldwide human rights with the pledge also made to ensure members were kept updated on progress as the work outlined continued.

(ii)    Councillor Mitchell seeking further details on how the allocation of SCIL and NCIL funding was being used to assist in tackling the climate emergency and addressing climate change in Brent.

In response, Councillor Rubin (as Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Community Power) provided a brief explanation of the way in which NCIL was generated through receipts from developers linked to developments across the borough which could then be reinvested to support a range of community and infrastructure projects.  In addition to a range of cost of living support, he pointed out that Cabinet had also recently approved an ambitious and extensive programme of NCIL investment designed to respond to priorities identified by residents in relation to the public realm, including a range of measures focussed around addressing the climate emergency.  These included the introduction of four new school streets designed to reduce pollution and encourage more active modes of travel around schools, the planting of 1,500 new trees, the provision of funding to deliver green corridors in Church End and Kingsbury making those areas some of the greenest and climate friendly areas in Brent.  In addition, funding had been provided to support a habitat bank to rewild the borough, new rain gardens, park upgrades and community planting schemes along with the provision of four new repair cafes and investment in walking and cycling routes again to encourage more sustainable modes of transport.  Taken together, it was felt this investment would significantly contribute to the Council’s net zero climate goals while saving residents money and also improving their quality of life.

(iii)    Councillor Long seeking further details on the design of Cycleway 23 between Wembley and Willesden junction, as a result of safety concerns regarding the layout (adjacent to the North Circular Road section) requiring those needing to access buses to cross the cycle land before doing so.  As a result, clarification was sought as to whether the design plans would be presented to the Disability Forum, Pensioners Forum and the Willesden, Harlesden and Wembley Brent Connects Forums with details also sought as to when the next Lime Bike Forum was due to be held.

In response Councillor Krupa Sheth (as Cabinet Member for Public Realm & Enforcement) advised that the date for the Lime Bike Forum had now been arranged, on which members would be advised and details publicised shortly.  In relation to the cycleway, members were advised that discussions were currently ongoing with TfL to finalise the design and once available these would be shared with the relevant Brent Connect and other Forums.

(iv)   Councillor Kennelly, who in expressing concern at the recent decision of the London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust to close the hydrotherapy pool at Northwick Park Hospital, sought further detail on any engagement with the Council by the Trust regarding the rationale in support of the decision, consultation with stakeholders and alternative provision noting the concern and disappointed which had been expressed by local residents.    Whilst appreciating that the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Public Health & Leisure (who also chaired the Health & Wellbeing Board) had written to the Hospital Trust to highlight the concerns being expressed locally, details were also sought on what further action it was felt could be taken in seeking to get the Trust to review their decision and ensure proper consultation was undertaken with residents around future decision on service provision.

In response, Councillor Nerva (as Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Public Health & Leisure and Chair of the Health & Wellbeing Board) confirmed that he had written to the Chief Executive of London Northwest University Healthcare NHS Trust seeking clarification on the rationale behind the decision to close the service, decision-making process and consultation undertaken along with plans for any alternative provision.  Whilst advising that the response provided had been disappointing and reminding members that the Council held no direct Executive responsibility for the provision of NHS services he reminded members of the powers available to the Council’s scrutiny function and suggested this may also be an to issue they identified for review.

(v)    Councillor Mistry, highlighting concerns regarding the regular upkeep and maintenance of Eton Grove Open Space in Queensbury.  Highlighting the work being undertaken by a volunteer to maintain the green space, including the clearing of grass verges and litter, pruning of bushes and branches and clearance of weeds it was felt the green space was being neglected by the Council despite these issues having been previously highlighted.  Details were therefore sought on when the Council planned to address the concerns identified and undertake the necessary clearance and maintenance of the open space.

In response, Councillor Krupa Sheth (as Cabinet Member for Public Realm & Enforcement) advised that if details of the issues highlighted could be sent direct to her following the meeting she would arrange for officers to follow up and investigate any action required.

(vi)   Councillor Kansagra seeking further details on the Council’s approach to the provision of support for local business as part of the wider regeneration of the borough’s high streets.  Drawing on his personal experience as a small business owner the opportunity was taken to highlight concerns being raised by local shop owners in relation to safety, shoplifting and also local parking restrictions.  Highlighting the impact of these issues on the sustainability of local high street businesses and wider economic prosperity of the borough he therefore asked what the Council’s plans were to address them as investment priorities.

In response, Councillor Muhammed Butt (as the Leader of the Council) felt it important to remind members of the recent £14.5m programme of SCIL investment which had been agreed by Cabinet to revitalise Brent’s roads, parks and public safety infrastructure alongside the £8m programme of NCIL investment made with a focus on local neighbourhoods in direct response to residents priorities.  In addition, he highlighted how the Council continued to work in collaboration with the GLA and Camden to ensure businesses in the south of the borough, including Kilburn, received support.  As an overall package of measures, he felt this demonstrated how Brent was investing and working to support existing and encourage new businesses into the borough to ensure the borough remained open for business both now and in the future.

(vii)   As a final question Councillor Lorber who, in highlighting concerns regarding the impact and disturbance being created for local residents by roadworks taking place across the borough, sought details on whether detailed information could be published about when and for how long major roadworks were scheduled across the borough for the next 18 months.  As specific examples of the difficulties being caused for local residents, reference was made to the congestion caused by recent roadworks undertaken by Affinity Water to repair a burst water pipe on East Lane when combined with roadworks in the vicinity of Northwick Park Hospital, Alperton and Wembley Central due to construction linked to redevelopment schemes in those areas.

In response, Councillor Krupa Sheth (as Cabinet Member for Public Realm & Enforcement) reminded members that they should already be receiving details as part of the Members Bulletin on all current works on the public highway scheduled across the borough, with details of all approved permitted planned utilities works on the public highway already available via the One. Network website. Causeway one.network.  It was, however, pointed out that notice of emergency works would be more difficult to provide in advance due to their nature.

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