Brent Civic Centre Tours: By Appointment Only

Martin Francis and Shahrar Ali: A "Green" White Elephant is Still a White Elephant, outside Brent Civic Centre

Brent Civic Centre opened its doors this weekend to public tours, by appointment only. Brent Greens joined a demonstration outside the Civic Centre, in protest at the gross implausibility of the Council claim that money would be saved through building this new behemoth - that nobody wanted or needed - in a time of fiscal crisis. We have exposed the financial unsustainability of the project before now (history) - the financing of a £100m debt over 25 years, plus interest, at a time when essential public services are being cut, with local ratepayers losing their libraries and families facing eviction in the weeks to come.

Brent Civic Centre £102m over 25 years plus intersest

Despite the requirement to pre-book, I and others were surprised not to be allowed onto a tour, given that there were plenty of no shows. I was asked whether I had "tried to register" or whether "I was with them" (the staff pointing to the demonstration). This obstructive attitude compares rather unfavourably to the more reasonable treatment one would expect of public visits to buildings. I and others were recently admitted on to a tour of the Paddocks war bunker, featuring in the Brent Open House London season, due to no-shows on the day.

Willesden ACF: Brent Budget Presentations and Civic Centre Costs

Leader Ann John addresses the Willesden ACF, with Cllr Hirani chair (second from right) and Deputy Leader Cllr Muhammed Butt (right).

The latest of the area consultative forums took place in Willesden on 18 January 2012. The main item was presentation of the Council budget. This consisted of a double act by Leader Ann John and Deputy Cllr Muhammed Butt. Unfortunately, the attendance was poor. I counted 26 in the audience, including some ward councillors, with a few latecomers thereafter. Papers for the budget item could have been better distributed if placed alongside the agenda papers as people entered instead of tucked away on a display table.

Ann John is a formidable politician and her presentational pitch was nothing if not disarming. She spent a good while framing the cuts which her administration was implementing in terms of coalition government edicts – no surprise there, but added in a cocktail of other contextualisers, such as record high income ratio differentials nationally (neglecting to mention past Labour government policies), lamenting the prospect of multi-borough councils (along the lines of a West London Alliance, that Brent was already taking a lead on for other reasons) and the consolation of Diamond Jubilee celebrations on our doorstep in 2012 (Wembley Stadium). She has a straight-talking manner and one can easily warm to her. Somebody said to me afterwards, "How come she makes the worst decisions sound like they're so wonderful? Does anyone believe her?"

Cllr Butt, on the other hand, struck me as uncomfortable with his brief – which went into greater specifics about the figures. In this context, that's actually a compliment. I've heard him speak passionately and confidently in the previous administration, but now as a key front man he looks conflicted and nervous about what he's doing. I've not heard him speak from the heart lately, only with his calculating brain (eg. asking a question about legal licence at a key meeting in which the fate of local libraries was being sealed with his vote among others). I pity when I see politicians with a conscience risk losing it like that. I especially pity the people who have to forebear the consequences of bad decisions.

I raised a clarificatory question about the financing for the Civic Centre, which was heralded in the presentation of a revenue-raising venture. The Council's basic contention is that the co-location of 12 buildings, mostly with soon-to-expire leases, into one civic centre will cost the council less to run overall. We were told that "within 3 years it will be delivering £3.5m savings each year". However, this did not sit easily with previous assertions that the capital cost of the project would be paid back over 25 years – wouldn't these putative savings be used up in repayment of that debt, costing at least £4m year on year over 25 years? I was referred to an officer both at the meeting and invited to speak to him during the interval, which I took up. I was told that over and above these putative savings, another £3m per annum was already being offset against the cost of the debt repayment, although I couldn't be given the term of this repayment – it would have to be considerably more than 25 years. Nor could I be supplied with hard calculations since these were "confidential".

Ultimately, I don't see how we can have confidence in these savings assumptions without being able or allowed to scrutinise the devil of the details and assumptions behind them. Even if savings could have been expected through co-location, why then squander the larger part of them on repayment of a building, a large part of which is going to be allocated to private occupancy? Why not use the £20m expected to be raised through sale of the Town Hall on a more modest building? Even after such a sale, I was told, the debt will be £105m. How can the Council be counselling, and implementing, service cuts in the front line, such as local library provision, without this debt worsening the situation?

Moreover, even if were to rely upon the £3.5m per annum net savings figure from 2016 (3 years after opening), that means a net cost to us at least until then. Brent claims that it needs to make £100m of savings over the next four years – but surely this financial pressure is made worse by the civic centre costs in the interim?

Even on their own terms, the current costs associated with financing the debt is substantial (repayment plus interest). In answer to a recent FOI request about this cost, I was told:

“The actual monthly contract costs of the construction of the Civic Centre are now being published as part of Brent’s commitment to Open Data:

http://www.brent.gov.uk/opendata.nsf (a prize to anybody who can locate the relevant lines?)

The cost of financing the debt is published in the council’s Statement of Accounts as required by International Financial Reporting Standards. Prior to the introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards the interest paid on the debt was £67,496.75.” (FOI, 27 Sept 2011)

Finally, it’s hardly comparing like with like to calculate a net savings figure in 2016 using 2012 as a baseline, when Brent’s use of space would have significantly reduced by then due to redundancy and downsizing (much of which will be controversial). The correct comparison would surely be against how many of the 12 buildings would still have been required without co-locating?

At the Council Executive on Monday 16 January, two days earlier, we heard the Audit Commission present its annual audit of Brent Council. Unfortunately, we were advised, in understated yet authoritative tones, that Brent had had "difficulty" in presenting its accounts, which had been found "incomplete, inaccurate and untimely". This had necessitated payment of an additional fee of £50,000 to help bring in order. Improvements were said to be required in financial reporting and reserves. The annual Audit Commission letter is available here.

The final in the latest round of ACFs takes place in Kingsbury on 7 February 2012. (Oh dear, this date seems to be changing continually! It was advertised first as 8 February, then misadvertised for January (including by Ann John last night) and now I see it has changed yet again. At this rate, who will know?). My colleague, Martin Francis, reports on the Wembley ACF here.

PS. Here is a useful meetings diary, difficult to find on the site, but currently does not list the Kingsbury ACF at all.

Letter in Brent Times: Political Accountability and Civic Centre Unaffordability

Letter by Shahrar Ali in Brent Times, "Downsize civic centre proposals", 24 November 2011.

Brent Fightback, Brent Takeback: People's Assembly

Brent Fightback organised an excellent public meeting on 12 November 2011, pictured, at the Harlesden Methodist Church, Harlesden. Attendance picked up throughout the day, with elected representatives (ahem) the most patchy. We saw Cllr Butt and former MP Dawn Butler in the audience only at the beginning and Lee Jasper did not show for his billed contribution to the opening speeches.

The second hour was given over to a workshop, in which local people got a chance to introduce themselves to one another (split into two groups) and to voice their fears and (ocassionally) hopes. Alas mobilisation against savage cuts - whether the local libraries, forthcoming caps on housing benefit, the threat to local nurseries - were recurrent themes. In our workshop we had a good debate addressing questions such as 1. Were not the voters partly to blame for electing their councillors in the first place, even though they now felt betrayed by them? 2. Did local councillors really have their hands tied by the national coalition, as some councillors present were claiming? 3. What was the proper role of voluntary, grassroots-led initatives either as a means of redirecting political energy into something seemingly more fruitful or in its own right? Leroy Simpson, chair of Harlesden Town Team spoke eloquently about the need to engage youth, in particular, through a can-do attitude. Some voiced concerns about the danger of letting our elected off the hook by such means and I entered in a plea that the two approaches were not necessarily exclusive - and that we certainly must continue to challenge the politicians who failed us, and to mount political alternatives through that route. After all, we were being taxed, locally and nationally, not to have to pay for everything all over again, let alone to have our politicians frustrate our lifechances.

The closing session (pictured above) was a Question Time-style debate. The chair was flanked by two Labour councillors to one side, and two anti-cuts campaigners to the other. Janice Long (Harlesden), Jim Moher (Fryent) and Lesley Jones (substituting for Cllr Moher towards the end) were questioned on topics ranging from political accountability, libraries cuts, the unaffordability of the new civic centre, loss of a local community centre, loss of anticipated housing benefit leading to foricible eviction, and depletion of mental health services. Sarah Cox and Pete Firmin added their criticism, and sometimes disdain, to that of a well-informed audience.

To my own question, What is the cost of financing the debt on the £102.4m headquarters over 25 years?, Cllr Moher answered £25m. But how is that £25m going to be found, if not through cuts elsewhere, year on year? All this, in addition to the increased expenditure on a captial project, which could hardly be met by the savings of co-locating council buildings alone.

Cllr Long had a tough time persuading the masses that if they did not implement the cuts agenda (going so far as outlining the scenarios they were encouraged to plan for at away-days), then they would simply be imposed upon us by unelected bureaucrats. Was it as though the Labour administration had spent sleepness nights tormenting themselves over how they could not avoid axeing half of the borough's libraries? It didn't look like they could have acted any less responsibly, or done more to damage the lifechances of young and old of our community, had they tried.

Of course, one has to thank the councillors who did take the trouble to attempt to justify themselves. Yet the music that they faced was not as inveitable as they might like to suppose.

I was left reflecting on the concern of one delegate that the Brent anti-cuts campaign could have been called something more positive. Some already responded that nothing less affirmative than a fight was required, and that it was not of our choosing. I think this is right, but that does not mean that Brent Fightback is not other things besides. Brent Fightback is also: Brent Comeback. Brent Blowback. Brent Takeback. We need to take back what rightly belongs to us, including our local democracy. Take Ownership.

Other reports: Martin Francis on Wembley Matters.

Brent Library Campaigners March One Step Forward: Brent Council Two Steps Back

On Saturday 5 Nov 2011, I joined the library campaigners' march from South Kenton station to Preston library. This first pic shows us congregrating at the start.

Bringing up the rear along Carlton Avenue East.

Child donning placard "Labour isn't Learning".

"Los Indignados De Brent". Recognition of the movement in Spain before us.

Converging on Democracy Wall (as my colleague Martin Francis has dubbed it), or the Wall of Shame (as another has said), the march went on to Kingsbury library.

Still another 1.6 miles to the nearest local library (Kingsbury), says poster on Wall.

Brent Council is building a £102 million Civic Centre, £3m of which will go on a new library (below). Never mind the redundancies from six local libraries or the 25 years of debt this incurs.

Dr Shahrar Ali, Green Party GLA candidate for Brent and Harrow said: "Young and old, local and borough-wide, political and politicised came together this afternoon to march to Preston library and beyond. We were united in our abhorrence of these closures and defiant in our common goal to see them reinstated."

Further reporting on Wembley Matters.

Letter of the Week in Brent Times: The People of Brent will Prevail over Libraries

Letter by Shahrar Ali, "Councillors have lost the confidence of the People", Brent Times, 20 Oct 2011.

Important Notice: Brent Unapologetic about Work on Headquarters at Cost of £102,457,370.00

Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley. Projected Cost = £102,457,370.00. Green Party Freedom of Information Request, information supplied 27 September 2011. (Background)

Wembley Point, a conveniently located and cost-effective alternative for co-locating Council offices?

Letter in Brent Times: Civic Centre Sums Don't Add Up

8 September 2011 edition

Back-of-Envelope Civic Centre Finances Revealed

On 14 July 2001, I advertised that I had requested from Brent Council financial data for the civic centre project, under Freedom of Information law. Unfortunately, I find their response dated 9 August 2011 wholly inadequate. Here it is.
2011-08-10MrAliFOIInformationsupplied[1] To make matters worse, the covering letter to the response stated:

Brent Council: "Following careful consideration, [Brent Council] can inform you that we have decided not to disclose some of this information. [We] attach a copy of the information which can be disclosed in the form of a pdf file. The remainder of the information you requested is being withheld.

The exemption applied is Commercial Interests (public interest test) section 43. This exemption applies because it applies to trade secrets and to information which if disclosed would, or would likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person, including the authority holding it." (10 Aug 2011)

I have since written to the local papers, and replied to the Council themselves. Here is the gist of my follow-up to the Council:

SA: "Thank you for your FOI response. Unfortunately, I do have a number of follow-up questions, which I feel should have been covered in your original reply but have not been. Allow me to put them here:

- What is the cost of the Civic Centre? Remarkably this is not in there.
- What is the cost of financing the debt?
- What is "the most recent financial assessment of the project benefits"?
- How is the £89m figure quoted made up in terms of "reduction of operating costs" and "other efficiency savings"?
- On what basis has the "risk adjusted" figure of £2.85m per year over 25 years been arrived at?

I was looking for a response more akin to a balance sheet, showing income and expenditure over the lifetime of the project. Moreover, any reference to other documents should surely be referenced - and means of access to further data given, or hyperlinked where appropriate - and it not be assumed that the enquirer knows what is being referred to. Certainly, no prior knowledge should be assumed and the response should be self-contained and inclusive."

The good people of Brent await a High court ruling to have the Council's reckless decision to axe half the borough's libraries overturned. By such means the Council sought to save £1m. Since, on their own inadequate terms, Brent seeks to make savings of £2.85m per year over the next 25 years, to make the Civic Centre work, are we not entitled to know what further "efficiency savings" lie in store for us?

For an informative overview of the most recent Council budget, with reference to the Civic Centre, read my colleague Martin Francis. The full budget documents are still available as appendicies here. In particular, note that on page 3 of Appdx. B, the income line (red parentheses) is without evidential basis.

Previous Soapbox slot on why the Civic Centre is such a bad idea. Recent press letter, Harrow Times: How will this be paid for?.

Soapbox: Unaffordability and Undesirability of £100m Brent Civic Centre

Here is a recording of the soapbox I gave at the Kingsbury and Kenton Area Consultative Forum on 19 July 2011, entitled "The unaffordability and undesirability of the Civic Centre Behemoth". On the day that the people of Brent found it necessary to take Brent Council to the High Court for library closures, I was entitled to call a spade a spade:



In reply to me, Leader Ann John said that it was unremarkable for the savings figures to change on a monthly basis and that these figures were already in the public domain. Unfortunately, this assertion contradicts the statement made by the Asst Director for the project, Aktar Choudhury on 14 July 2011 that he could not release the figures due to "confidentiality". I await the result of my FOI request, which Brent has already acknowledged receipt of. Following the three-personed sales-pitch on the Civic Centre, two out of four residents who asked questions from the floor focussed on the same concern about unaffordability of this project.

Picture of S Ali by P Murry, taken at an earlier lobby of Council Executive on 11 April 2011.

Freedom of Information Fightback against Lips-are-Sealed Back-of-Envelope Costings

Last night I attended the Willesden Area Consultative Forum to give a soapbox on the unaffordability of the civic centre proposal - hot on the heels of the Wembley ACF the previous evening. In summary, I used my three minutes to point out that:

1. LACK OF CONSULTATION. Nobody but the political elite of Brent, in past executives, wanted this glass, steel and concrete behemoth, or thought they needed it. Moreover, none of the residents had ever been asked whether they wanted it, and it wasn’t just a case of them not realising yet that they had asked for it!

2. UNAFFORDABILITY. The Council’s maths just didn’t add up: to pay back a £100m loan from the government over 25 years using £4m annual savings from vacating the pre-existing portfolio of 14 office buildings. What about the certainty of the interest on today’s loan against the uncertainty of year on year savings? We were entitled to see the evidential basis for these back-of-the-envelope in-house calculations so that we could scrutinise them. Moreover, the latest assertions contradicted the conclusions of a £75k feasibility study, commissioned by the Council in 2003, which demonstrated that the project could not become cost-neutral for 25 years, meaning it would be more expensive year on year than the status quo until then. Try telling the thousands of residents set to be deprived of half of the boroughs libraries that this project was affordable!

3. ENERGY RATING. The Council boast that all would be forgiven when the energy efficiency rating of the new building is taken into account, failed to factor in the colossal “embodied” energy required in the extraction of raw materials, manufacture of steel, then their transportation and erection. For such reason the cost to the planet of new build over retrofit is generally much greater.

Finally, I called upon the Council to put its costings and savings balance sheet into the public domain – especially since it was caught out by ill-fated investment in Icesave. I implored the audience to have in the forefront of their minds, throughout the sales pitch to follow, the question: How are we going to afford all this at the current time, and how can it be right to forgo libraries in order to do so?

Mr Choudhury attempted to address my question after his presentation alongside the Skanska contractor. Firstly, he drew an analogy with mortgages, saying how the savings from expiring leases could be used to support the project, and explained how carbon reductions could also be achieved equivalent to taking 95 cars off the road per year. Unfortunately, the mortgages analogy failed to account for the prospect of negative equity. Moreover, a paper presented to the Executive in December 2010 identified risks relating to the early surrender of leases on outlying buildings. Regarding Mahatma Gandhi House, for example, the lease is not due to expire until Sept 2016 and the paper lists: “Legacy issues: 1) dilapidations; 2) costs of potential early surrender; 3) unlikely to be able to sublet for remaining three years of lease.” (See paper 10 here.)

Second, the aforementioned feasibility study was dismissed by Mr Choudhury as “out-of-date”. However, that flied in the face of the detailed case studies, appendices and work that went into the report, ostensibly future-oriented – none of which studies have been reproduced. If the feasibility study is suddenly out-of-date, then shouldn’t the Council be asking for £75k back – for a study that it commissioned for that specific purpose. To the contrary, isn’t it more probable that the Council is out-of-date, not just with the current economic reality, which compounds the negative recommendation of the original report, but also out-of-touch with the feeling of the residents it was elected to serve?

Third, when I pressed again to see Mr Choudhury’s calculations in detail, as opposed to back-of-the-envelope, we were advised that it would be in “breach of confidentiality clauses”.

This attempt at concealment, to which some responded with gasps, must not go unchallenged or uncorrected. With this aim in mind, I have now submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the Council demanding sight of the evidential basis for these costs and savings figures. If the information is going to continue to be withheld then we must be furnished with the reason, on public interest grounds, why we cannot see the sums for an unaffordable project that nobody but the Council wants.

Other attendees, notably Graham Durham, donning a Save Our Six libraries T-shirt, added their criticisms about the monstrous expense against the backdrop of lack of consultation and lack of political accountability. Mr Durham did a good job of challenging Mr Choudhury on the presumed carbon savings. Extending the cars-off-road-equivalent analogy, Mr Durham asked, But how many more actual cars are to be put on the road through increased use by residents and employees no longer able to visit one of the fourteen offices that used to be within walking distance of them? No answer was given.

Mr Choudhury came up to me at the interval, after an admittedly testy public exchange, to thank me for the spirit in which I put my questions, and I thanked him for his attempt to answer me; albeit I remained highly dissatisfied. I believe that it is our councillors and executive who primarily need to be put on the spot, ahead of officers.

NB. The Save Our Six libraries campaign is scheduled to challenge Brent Council in the High Court next Tuesday 19 July.

£100m Civic Centre Zero Cost: Go Figure

I left the Wembley ACF this evening feeling frustrated that a key question put by several members of the audience was not answered properly. How is the £100m civic centre being built by the Council going to be paid for?

We had just been treated to a three-personed sales pitch by Council Leader Ann John, a formidable local politician (pictured), Aktar Choudhury, Assistant Director of the project, and a representative of SKANSKA, the civic centre construction company. We were told first about the past cross-party support for the project (not including the Greens), the purported fact that a £100m loan from the Government had been secured by the Council "at no cost to us", the presumed energy excellence of the building (conveniently neglecting to mention the considerable embodied energy involved in mining raw materials, their transportation and erection), and a rather lengthy animation showing the phases of construction.

Unfortunately, the key question about funding was not properly addressed. The first questioner asked how the £100m was ultimately to be paid for if not by the Brent ratepayer? Another questioner put it to Cllr John, rhetorically, that she should "come clean" about the final bill being footed by Brent residents.

When I got a chance to address the floor, I tried to sharpen this question in order to solicit a proper response: How, even on Brent's own figures, was a saving of £4m per year from giving up the current portfolio of buildings going to meet the cost of a £100m loan today over 25 years, plus interest? I challenged the spokespeople to put their calculations in the public domain. Moreover, their latest, highly convenient assertions, flied in the face of their own specially commissioned independent business case into the costs associated with such a project. (For a precis of those conclusions see, including a catalogue of consultative misdemenaour over gaining public consent for the project.)

The commissioned report of 2003 had cost £75k and was independent, future-oriented. It said that the project could not become cost neutral for 25 years, and only then after "efficiency savings" - read, jobs cuts. The convenient assertions appear to be back-of-the envelope and in-house. They must be put in the public domain and properly scrutinised (by a Council which once invested in the ill-fated Icesave).

Even if the Civic centre project had been approved once, legitmately or illegitimately, it does not follow that it should not be revisited, or scaled down, in the current climate. Brent is the only London borough audacious enough to approve a plan to axe six of its local libraries (half of them), whilst in the same breath diegning to build a £100m behemoth that nobody but the political elite wants or think they need, and that we can ill-afford. (See Save our Six libraries campaign.)

If Cameron chooses to condemn an EU behemoth that would cost the entire UK less in proportionate terms, how could he counsel a loan to a Council at greater cost?

Miscellany: The ACF itself was without a pre-advertised on-line agenda, and no minutes of the previous meeting were available until mid-way, by which point approval of minutes had been passed and not returned to. We were also informed about proposals to make six wards into three twin-ward areas for Safer Neighbourhood Teams. I got a categorical assurance that their combined quota of PCSO's and sargeants would not be depleted (3 and 3, respectively, per ward). That's worth minuting.

PS. Interesting article criticising co-location of proposed Civic Centre with Wembley Stadium and Arena.

Work starts on new £100m Civic Centre as vital services are slashed

Taking note of Brent Notes instead of minutes? You couldn't make it up.

The first round of Brent Area Consultative Forums have begun since the new Council was elected. My local Kingsbury ACF took place on 21st July. The new chair, Cllr Kana Naheerathan (far right of picture, during presentation by transport officer) made a good impression by first moving that the minutes of the last meeting be approved. Ahem, did he say "minutes"?

Notwithstanding the prolonged difficulties faced by residents at this meeting to have material points accurately reported in the past, administrators of the forums have now decided that minutes will be called "notes" instead! Under insistence by local resident Robert Dunwell that the meeting be advised of the concealed reason for the change in nomenclature, Owen Thomson of the consultation team replied that "due to government cut-backs, and efficiency savings", it would be less expensive to take "notes" rather than "minutes".

But which came first, the presumed expense and inconvenience of correcting minutes that should have been accurate in the first place? Or the desire to find a pretext to avoid such embarrassment from occuring in future?

Six meetings, and twenty months after a fateful admission by the Civic Centre Project director in November 2008 that the Council hadn't consulted on the civic centre - and the mistaken follow-up notion that they didn't need to - the closest we have got to drawing a line under accuracy of minutes, sorry notes, is as follows:

"A concern regarding the accuracy of the recording of the discussion on the new civic centre, which had taken place at the Forum meeting held on 5th November 2008, was again raised and another request to amend the notes was made. In response to this request, Christine Collins explained the constitutional arrangements of the Area Forums. Following this, she stated that whilst the notes of the meeting, which were being disputed, would not be amended, the concerns of those present regarding this issue had been noted." [Minutes/Notes of 2 Feb 2010]

Translation of this Note into accurate Minute: whilst the notes [sic. minutes] of the meeting, which were being disputed [sic. challenged both inside and outside the meeting], would not be amended [sic. corrected], the concerns of those present regarding this issue had been noted [sic. ignored].

The consequences of pursuing an ill-conceived civic centre are warned against in my letter in the Wembley Observer. (15 July 2010)

The consequences of pursuing a strategy of systematically falsifying minutes, and lowering the expectation that accuracy is required in the first place, is to sabotage local democracy by concealing truth.

Accurate minutes cannot be "too expensive". They are indispensible in exposing the true cost of bad decision-making, when it occurs, and in allowing us to scrutinise politicians.

Labour late converts on Civic Centre

From Willesden and Brent Times April 22nd 2010

Brent Council Fails Civic Centre Consultation and FOI

Brent Greens have made a formal objection to the Planning Application for a new civic centre for Brent on grounds of inadequate consultation (application still on-line at time of this post).

We have been campaigning for local democratic input on this issue for 18 months. Here is a timeline:

2003: Council Executive commissions a £75k feasibility study. Completed in 2004 by Jonathan Edwards Consulting.

Mar 2008: Council Executive approves plan for Civic Centre and supported by other political parties.

Nov 2008: Anna Woda, Civic centre project director makes presentation to Kingsbury Area Consultative Forum. In response to a question, she makes the following honest admission: "On the subject of consultation, that's right, we haven't". See our press letter.

Dec 2008: Brent Greens make FOI request for feasibility study. First supplied with wrong document. On repeat request, Chief Executive apologises for error and supplies correct document minus some appendices.

Jan 2009: Kingsbury ACF. Residents ask for minutes to accurately reflect the honest admission of November 2008. Council circulates a paper at the meeting stating when they say consultation has occurred.

Apr 2009: Kingsbury ACF minutes still not accurate. Meeting unanimously agrees to wording to correct the omission of Nov 2008, assisted by the chair. Wording transcribed with all present and notes checked after meeting.

July 2009: Kingsbury ACF minutes contain false record of what was explicitly agreed at previous meeting - 8 words deleted and 28 substituted. Chair says that she cannot resolve the issue at the meeting because a resident is pursuing a formal complaint with the Council. However, Council said following day they had not received a formal complaint.

Aug 2009: Resident receives transcript from Council of minute taker's notes of Nov 2008 confirming what was already known about the omission in the published minutes.

Aug-Sept 2009: Extensive coverage of claims of falsification of minutes in local press. Example. Brent Greens organise residents' petition against the threat to Town Hall and the lack of consultation over civic centre proposal.

Oct 2009: Kingsbury ACF Chair refuses to address the question of accuracy of minutes claiming that a complaint was still being dealt with. However, this was neither relevant nor true.

Oct 2009: Brent Greens make FOI request for transcript of minute taker's notes of April 2009, in particular, the part relating to the wording agreed unanimously.

Oct 2009: Extensive coverage in local papers questioning economic feasibility of Civic centre proposal and threat to local jobs and council services, on basis of findings of the 2003 feasibility study itself. Brent Times story. Brent Times lead letter. Wembley Observer story.

Nov 2009: Brent Green and local resident meet with Council officials to discuss why they are not able to comply with the latest FOI request. Council says they no longer have the note in question. Council official says that this is not a conspiracy. Brent Green replies that let the facts speak for themselves.

Nov 2009: Letter in local paper calling for action against uneconomic plan.

2 Feb 2009 (tonight): 7pm, Kingsbury ACF. Minutes not on-line at time of posting.

Appendix. Extract from "BRENT COUNCIL NEW CIVIC CENTRE: OUTLINE FEASIBILITY STUDY 2003" [Obtained by repeat FOI request Dec 2008, italics added]

Page 15 "property costs" section: "Based on the assumptions made, a fair representation of future costs of retaining a dispersed portfolio is £127m in net present cost terms. By comparison a new civic centre shows a net present cost of £142m-£145m, an increase over 25 years of £16m-£18m. In other words, ignoring any benefits, a civic centre is likely to cost more than a dispersed portfolio [the status quo]."

Page 19: "The graph shows that over time the procurement of a new civic centre would cost the Council substantially more than the baseline situation. In fact, it would not become cheaper on an annual cost basis until around 2025/2026."

Centre Needs Debate Now - Wembley & Willesden Observer Nov 26th

Click to enlarge

GREEN PRESSURE ON COUNCIL'S CIVIC CENTRE SCHEME INCREASES

Wembley and Willesden Observer October 29th 2009

SHAHRAR ALI CLAIMS CIVIC CENTRE THREATENS JOBS (Willesden and Brent Times)

BRENT GREENS EXPOSE CIVIC CENTRE COSTS (Willesden and Brent Times)