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:

13.1  Councillor Anderson thanked Councillor Kelcher (as Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning) for the written response to her question seeking further detail regarding the investment in roof and fascia replacement works at Donnington Park School.  In welcoming the investment as evidence of the Council's commitment to maintaining and improving existing school buildings alongside the focus on new build and recognising the inadequate level of funding provided by previous Governments, she asked the Cabinet Member, as a supplementary question, whether the investment identified reflected the Council’s approach towards a more proactive rather than reactive programme of maintenance.

In response, Councillor Kelcher thanked Councillor Anderson for her advocacy on behalf of the school and wider community within her ward.  Recognising the schools importance to the local community, he felt the investment had demonstrated the Council’s commitment to supporting educational facilities within the area.  Reflecting on his own educational experience under previous Conservative Governments he highlighted the impact which the underinvestment in schools and their facilities had had on pupils learning environments and wellbeing.  The change under subsequent Labour Government’s was therefore welcomed with investment in schools increased and educational conditions improved.  Despite these improvements, funding pressures had re-emerged during the Coalition Government and subsequent years of austerity with, he felt, the subsequent reductions in public spending having led to significant problems across the education sector.  These had directly impacted on school building estates, safety and maintenance which he highlighted as evidence of the long-term consequences of underinvestment and cumulative impact of austerity policies and delayed investment.

In contrast, Councillor Kelcher felt that the investment in Donnington Park School, represented the beginning of a process to reverse the decline outlined.  In reminding members that the investment had been made possible as a result of increased funding for school repairs and maintenance provided through the current Labour Government via the Department for Education, it was felt this represented a significant step towards addressing longstanding issues, improving educational facilities, and ensuring that pupils and staff retained access to a safe and suitable learning environment.

13.2  Councillor Hack thanked Councillor Rubin (as Cabinet member for Children’s Services, Employment and Climate Action) for the response to his original question regarding the use of SCIL to support development of the new College of North West London campus on Olympic Way, Wembley.  As a supplementary question the Cabinet Member was asked to confirm whether he felt the project could be seen as demonstrating a strategic and transparent use of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to unlock growth, and whether it illustrated the wider type of social impact and return that SCIL funding could deliver not just in relation to infrastructure but also to unlock the provision of skills, training and educational opportunities.

In response, Councillor Rubin referred to a recent visit he had undertaken with the Mayor and Leader of the Council to the College of North West London awards ceremony, highlighting the achievements celebrated among lifelong learners, young people and students with SEND.  As such, the SCIL investment to support the provision of a new campus was welcomed with its use to support education, as well as public realm and other infrastructure priorities identified as appropriate and equally important in terms of the wider social value provided.

13.3  In noting the written response provided to his question regarding the enforcement of School Street schemes and associated signage Councillor Maurice, as a supplementary question, asked Councillor Knight (as Cabinet Member for Cleaner Streets, Transport & Public Realm) whether any assessment had been undertaken on the impact of School Street schemes in terms of the displacement of traffic and parking on surrounding streets.  Given concerns raised about the high level of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) being issued relating to enforcement of the schemes, details were also sought as to whether the Council would review the visibility of signage, including the use of eye-level signs and larger advance warning notices to ensure motorists were aware of each scheme and the hours of operation.

In responding, Councillor Knight confirmed that school street signage was governed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, and that whilst the suggestion of eye-level signage was noted, the Council could not introduce signage that fell outside of the relevant statutory requirements. In highlighting the benefits of School Streets in creating a safer travel environment in the immediate area surrounding each school it was recognised that not all areas of the borough were the same with each scheme therefore needing to be assessed on a case by case basis working closely with local stakeholders and taking account of resident and school feedback.  It was, however, felt important to recognise the objective of each scheme in seeking to maintain safer environments outside school gates and encouraging more sustainable and active modes of travel to school with the priority to ensure decisions made regarding their introduction and operation were based on evidence, local experience and what worked best for each community.

13.4  In noting the written response provided to his question regarding operation of Wembley event day parking enforcement and restrictions Councillor Lorber, as a supplementary question, asked Councillor Knight (as Cabinet Member for Cabinet Member for Cleaner Streets, Transport & Public Realm) why, despite concerns highlighted at the time the Council was considering the application from Tottenham Hotspur Football Club to host matches at Wembley Stadium concerns highlighted in relation to effective signage and hours of operation for event day parking & traffic restrictions and subsequent undertakings to provide effective digital signage had not been implemented.

In responding, Councillor Knight began by expressing her disappointment at what she felt to be the negative focus by members of the Liberal Democrats Group on the events she felt Brent was privileged to be able to host through the Stadium and wider Wembley complex.  At the same time, however, the impact on local residents was acknowledged, with Councillor Knight providing an assurance that she would continue to do everything possible to mitigate against and reduce disruption and ensure local people received a fairer deal.  Highlighting the historic nature of Wembley as an asset to be celebrated within the borough this was also compared to Councillor Lorber’s length of service on the Council, which due to the perceived nature and appropriateness of the comment led to a request (raised as a Point of Order) by Councillor Georgiou and supported by Councillor Brown for the reference to be withdrawn.

Having ruled that he was not minded to accept the issue raised as a Point of Order, the Mayor invited Councillor Knight to continue with her response who took the opportunity to clarify that her comment had not been intended to offend Councillor Lorber and merely to draw a comparison with Wembley Stadium and Wembley Arena as long-standing assets valued by the borough.  In concluding her response Councillor Knight highlighted what she felt was the need to celebrate the profile, economic and cultural benefits generated for the borough as a result of the range of world class events hosted at Wembley.

13.5  In thanking Councillor Kelcher (as Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning) for the written response provided on the process for selecting a single delivery partner for the South Kilburn Regeneration programme Councillor Ryan (having referred to the deputations received earlier in the meeting) sought further assurance as a supplementary question on whether the cost of any rectification works or repairs identified once the contract was in place would rest exclusively and explicitly with the contractor responsible. As additional context reference was made to the ongoing issues with rectification works and costs arising from the Granville new Homes development.  As a separate issue he then followed up by seeking a further commitment (following a recent decision to enable the sale of 143 new build units in South Kilburn to a US based private equity firm) that any further sales of units in South Kilburn to private equity firms would not be permitted.

In responding, Councillor Kelcher advised of ongoing work in relation to the appointment of the single delivery partner for the South Kilburn Regeneration Programme, assuring members that that social value considerations remained a key element of the process.  Recognising the basis of the approach to date, it was confirmed that any appointed partner would be required to demonstrate relevant expertise and a commitment to investment in South Kilburn with the requirements in relation to social value included as a material term and backed up through key performance indicators.  Members were further assured that under the arrangements sites would be released to the delivery partner on a phased basis to ensure that necessary works were complete to a satisfactory standard prior to any subsequent sites being released.  Recognising the importance and interest in the process, members were also advised of work being undertaken to arrange a cross-party briefing on the process for appointing the single delivery partner, with Councillor Kelcher ending by advising that he would also be willing to engage further with members on the issues highlighted outside of the meeting.

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 Mulaisho who whilst welcoming the aim behind School Street schemes sought views from Councillor Knight (as Cabinet Member for Cleaner Streets, Transport & Public Realm) on the detrimental health impact being created for local residents in terms of air quality and pollution by the displacement of traffic to surrounding residential streets where schemes had been introduced in some areas of the borough and how the outcomes for one group were assessed against the needs of another.

In response, Councillor Knight confirmed that a range of evidence was considered when reviewing proposals for the introduction of school street schemes, which included the potential impact on traffic volume, displacement and compliance trends along with site visits in order to carefully assess and balance the benefits of any proposal against the wider impact on the surrounding area.  As an example of the success identified, however, reference was made as an example to a 70% reduction in traffic on Okehampton Road (covering Manor School) during operating hours for that School Street scheme.

(ii)    Councillor Choudry seeking an update from Councillor Kelcher (as Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Planning) on the key takeaways from the recent Willesden Green Delivery Workshop and inviting him to join a walkabout with local businesses and multi-faith groups to review the current High Street.

In response, Councillor Kelcher confirmed his main takeaway had been the strength of community feeling across Willesden in support of the High Street and wider area, with the Council now seeking to develop a more holistic High Street Strategy designed to support and enhance the health of the borough’s High Streets.  The opportunity was also taken to welcome the pre decision scrutiny in relation to development of the Strategy due to be undertaken at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, with confirmation provided that he would also be willing to join ward walkabouts in any High Street or town centre.

(iii)    Councillor Brown seeking details from Councillor Knight (as Cabinet Member for Cleaner Streets, Transport & Public Realm) as to the reason no school street scheme was in place to cover schools located on Chamberlayne Road, given its location within an area ranked amongst the top 50 poorest locations for air quality in London and recorded level of traffic collisions a.  In addition, the Cabinet Member was asked to confirm whether there were any plans to reinstate the Public Transport Liaison Meeting discontinued in 2020.

In response, Councillor Knight whilst highlighting that Manor School was accessed directly via Chamberlayne Road recognised the impact of any scheme in that area given the levels of traffic compared to other quieter residential areas.  Whilst willing to review the issues highlighted outside of the meeting, members were again reminded of the approach taken in assessing the introduction of schemes on a case by case basis.

(iv)   Councillor Jayanti Patel, highlighting concerns and seeking an update from Councillor Knight (as Cabinet Member for Cleaner Streets, Transport & Public Realm) regarding the increasing number of abandoned supermarket trolleys across Queensbury which he described as a source of environmental blight and felt represented a visible indication of neglect. Despite the frequency with which residents reported dumped trolleys through the Council's reporting portal and the Trolleywise application, he pointed many remained unattended for extended periods. Concerns were also expressed regarding the financial burden placed on local taxpayers, noting that some local authorities operated recovery charge schemes requiring supermarkets to contribute towards removal costs. He therefore asked what oversight arrangements existed in relation to supermarkets, why a charging scheme had not been introduced in Brent, and whether consideration would be given to undertaking public consultation on enhanced measures to address the issue.

In response, Councillor Knight acknowledged the concerns being raised by local residents. Whilst advising that Council enforcement teams already worked in partnership with supermarkets to tackle trolley abandonment and associated littering issues, Councillor Knight advised she would be willing to follow up on the specific issues highlighted outside of the meeting in order to review whether additional measures could be introduced to address the problem more effectively.

(v)    Councillor Clinton seeking clarification from Councillor Grahl (as Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources) regarding the allocation of Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) funding. Reference was made to practices adopted by a number of other local authorities where ward councillors were directly involved in determining local spending priorities. In light of the SCIL motion approved earlier in the meeting and the Council's commitment to community involvement, Councillor Clinton asked it the Deputy Leader would support a review of NCIL allocation arrangements in order to ensure councillors had greater influence over investment decisions within their wards going forward.

In response, Councillor Grahl confirmed that the NCIL programme for the forthcoming year would include direct involvement from local ward councillors, with each ward due to receive an NCIL funding allocation which had been designed to provide local ward councillors with an opportunity to contribute towards decisions regarding how funding was prioritised and spent within their local communities.

(vi)   Councillor H. Patel querying the effectiveness of the School Street initiative, particularly in relation to the stated objective of improving road safety, reducing child casualties and enhancing air quality. Expressing concern that the written response provided to the question submitted by Councillor Maurice had not included evidence demonstrating achievement of the objectives outlined and with significant emphasis instead placed on the number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued (citing the example the Preston Manor School scheme) additional concern was also raised regarding the adequacy of advance warning signage.  As a result, he asked Councillor Knight (as Cabinet Member for Cleaner Streets, Transport & Public Realm) to comment on whether the schemes had become more focused on penalising residents than achieving their original transport and environmental objectives.

In response, Councillor Knight rejected any suggestion that School Street schemes operated as revenue-generating mechanisms and advised members that schemes were subject to trial periods and ward member engagement prior to implementation. Whilst reiterating her willingness to review concerns relating to individual School Street locations on a case-by-case basis, she emphasised that there were no numerical targets associated with the issuing of PCNs and that enforcement activity was not driving decision-making regarding the schemes.

(vii)   Councillor Chadha seeking further details from Councillor Knight (Cabinet Member for Cleaner Streets, Transport & Public Realm) regarding reference to a review of the School Street initiative which had included reference to a light touch review of 22 pilot schemes and requesting clarification on when a full review would be published containing detailed evidence and performance data.

In response, Councillor Knight confirmed that the original 22 School Streets had been subject to review as pilot schemes with the programme having subsequently expanded to 32 locations and on which a comprehensive review would be provided in due course to assist members in assessing the overall effectiveness of the programme.

(viii)  Councillor Jansali highlighting concerns regarding the frequency of roadworks affecting key routes across Wembley Central, particularly Wembley High Road and Ealing Road. Attention was drawn to the considerable congestion, delays and disruption experienced by residents, together with concerns over insufficient notice being provided when works commenced.  As a result, he asked Councillor Knight (as Cabinet Member for Cleaner Streets, Transport & Public Realm) what measures the Council was taking to improve coordination between utility companies, Transport for London and other delivery partners in order to minimise the disruption from these roadworks and ensure residents and ward councillors were kept appropriately informed.

In response, Councillor Knight felt it important to begin by highlighting that the roadworks identified often arose from reactive repairs undertaken by utility providers on which it was not always possible to provide advance notification to the Council.  Whilst outlining the efforts made to manage and mitigate against the resulting disruption through traffic management measures, the concerns outlined were acknowledged with members advised that discussions were planned with major utility providers, including Thames Water, to highlight the issues and seek to improve coordination arrangements going forward.

(ix)   As a final question, Councillor Blackman referred to recent engagement undertaken with young people and youth organisations across the borough. Highlighting feedback that young people often engaged with services based on trust in individuals rather than organisational branding, he asked Councillor Dixon (Cabinet Member for Community Safety & Public Health) how trust and community credibility were being incorporated into the Council's approach towards procuring and commissioning organisations to work with young people, particularly in light of recent incidents affecting communities across Brent.

In response, Councillor Dixon began by taking the opportunity to extend condolences to the family of Jamal Ringrose, acknowledging the impact of his recent tragic death on the community.  In terms of the specific question, Councillor Dixon advised that she had recognised the need for continued action to address challenges including knife crime, community safety concerns, gang violence, grooming and youth vulnerability. Trust was described as a critical component of effective youth engagement and intervention work with reference made, as an example of the type of initiatives being developed in response, to programmes such as I Am Brent, together with wider substance misuse and multi-agency initiatives, which had been designed to build trusted relationships with communities and young people. Whilst stressing the importance of partnership working, she ended by recognising the need for direct engagement and the development of trusted local relationships as fundamental to the Council's approach.

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.