Since May 2022, your Councillors have been increasingly concerned by the quality consultations and governance across the Labour-run Council.
In Marylebone, this has been demonstrated by a council department requesting to use £1.25m of the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure (NCIL) fund for Seymour Leisure Centre. The total NCIL fund is currently £1.5m. Rather than this request being led by a community group as is normal, Westminster’s Corporate Property is the applicant and judge of the application. Various protocols were NOT followed including consulting local Councillors. The Marylebone Forum has to date approved a contribution of £1.0m.
However, a Cabinet Member meeting was planned to occur on 20th May to consider an application for £1.25m. In the corresponding official papers, we were very concerned by claims made. It stated that there was unanimous support from the Marylebone Neighbourhood Forum, but the vote was for just 53%. A telephone call between two people was considered adequate to increase the sum required from £1m to £1.25m. The three Councillors were never officially invited to comment about the application.
We, therefore, felt compelled to write to the Leader of the Council, Adam Hug. Please see below for the full text of our letter. The meeting was subsequently cancelled. Our understanding is that the Forum also objected. This is an example of a stronger voice when your Councillors work with stakeholders in the Ward.
Letter to Councillor Hug - 15 May
Dear Councillor Hug,
We note that the topic for discussion at the next Cabinet Member Meeting on 20th May will be the Marylebone Forum Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) being the used for the Seymour Leisure Centre.
We have major concerns relating to the section titled Consultation, Item 9 in the Briefing document.
- Where it states Councillors were informed. I only was sent the Corporate Property application as part of an answer from the Chief Executive. My Colleagues, Councillors Ian Rowley, Karen Scarborough and I were never sent a request to participate in a consultation. We were expecting a submission led by a community group as is normal. In this case Westminster’s Corporate Property is applicant and judge of the application.
- Also, in Item 9 of the Cabinet briefing document Corporate Property are requesting to use £1.25m of the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure (NCIL) fund for Seymour Leisure Centre. Marylebone Forum approved a contribution of £1.0m by a marginal majority of 53% which in not, as stated, an overwhelming majority. Item 9 goes onto say that phone call confirmed the sum to be increased to £1.25m of the £1.5m fund. This was never the Forum’s view and is a misrepresentation of a conversation between two people, the Forum Chair, and a Westminster Officer.
If the Marylebone NCIL drops to £250,000 this will be an extreme disincentive particularly among non-resident members who may drift away. The Marylebone Forum currently has 2 years to run and there are indeed rumblings that the Forum may wind up. The membership of Marylebone Neighbourhood Forum is 50% non-residents and include Baker Street Quarter Partnership, Marble Arch BID, Harley Street BID, New West End Company, The Portman Estates, Howard de Walden Estate, and British Land.
Local people are rightly concerned about this issue. In the interests of public accountability, we are expecting to place this letter and any response in the public domain.
Kind regards,
Cllrs Barbara Arzymanow, Ian Rowley and Karen Scarborough
Letter to Councillor Hug - 10 July
Dear Councillor Hug,
Following on from our letter to you dated 15th May we note that the Cabinet Member Meeting on 20th May was cancelled and is now scheduled for Monday 15th July.
In the revised Cabinet Member papers relating use of funds from the Marylebone Forum Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) for the Seymour Leisure Centre we are pleased to note that the amount requested is reduced from £1.25M to £1.00m.
However, we are still concerned about how consultations are conducted. In Item 7 of the papers corresponding to Monday’s meeting 9.2 under Consultation it continues to state that: -
The Seymour Centre project has been subject to Ward Member and community engagement, as well as Cabinet Members where necessary. Ward Members have been informed of the Neighbourhood CIL but no comments were received prior to submission of the application.
The three Marylebone Councillors were sent a revised form applying for NCIL funds from an officer in Corporate Property. However, again, we were expecting a to hear from the designated team, Innovation and Change Directorate, to contact us.
May I remind you that during a training session about NCIL which took place on 26th March slide 15/18 states that Projects must have been subject to appropriate levels of engagement and consultation. If Councillors did not respond it is incorrect to conclude we had no comment. We are very concerned that Westminster’s Corporate Property is applicant and judge of the application which we believe to be inappropriate. At the training session it was made clear that this process should be officer-led and transparent with any feedback being coordinated by the NCIL-team (in the Innovation and Change Directorate).
The Marylebone Community remains concerned about the quality of Labour-led consultations. For example, following the C43 consultation 70% of respondents in Marylebone were against the proposal but nevertheless continue to push ahead with the scheme.
In the interests of public accountability, we are expecting to place this letter and any response in the public domain.
Kind regards,
Cllrs Barbara Arzymanow, Ian Rowley and Karen Scarborough
Letter to Cllr Barraclough - 14 July
Dear Cllr Barraclough,
Thank you for your reply.
The Councillors do not have a formal role on the Marylebone Neighbourhood Forum, therefore the use of funds for the Seymour Leisure Centre is a matter between the Council and the Neighbourhood Forum Members. Following a Forum Meeting on 6th February Forum Members were asked to vote about a contribution from the Marylebone Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy NCIL fund. A contribution of £1M was narrowly agreed.
In the Cabinet Member papers in May, the sum under consideration was £1.25m, which was not agreed and supports the case to use an impartial body. It would have been more professional to involve the Infrastructure Planning and Delivery team. We were pleased to see that in the Cabinet Member papers for Monday the NCIL contribution under consideration is the agreed £1.0m.
Several Forum members asked Cllr Arzymanow to attend a Forum Meeting and she attended the meeting on 6th February along with two WCC Officers.
The corresponding minutes to the meeting reflect the Forum members views and the use of the NCIL funds. One member debates that with “WCC’s NCIL application there has been lack of engagement with the Forum coupled with timing pressures and the precedence this could set in the future. Earlier engagement would have removed a lot of the concerns and ill-feeling around being backed into a corner. The consultation undertaken for the SLC cannot be conflated with consultation on the NCIL application. NCIL being allocated by the Council against the views/wishes of the Forum risks disengagement.”
Cabinet Member Papers would give a true and fair view if they stated that Marylebone Councillors strongly support the views expressed in the minutes on 6th February. At tomorrow’s Cabinet Member meeting, Members should carefully consider the minutes of the meeting on 6th February, particularly bearing in mind risks of disengagement.
I also should point out that in the February the Marylebone Neighbourhood Forum was asked to make a decision without proper consultation over a period of two weeks. Your letter dated Friday 12 July 2024 to the Marylebone Councillors was the first reply after the Marylebone Councillors wrote to the Labour Leader on 15th May 2024.
In the interest of WCC’s Code of Conduct, which requires mutual respect among all and to ensure a fair democratic process, communications between both the Community and councillors can be much improved, whether using the Infrastructure Planning and Delivery team or simply allowing all parties more time to consider matters at hand.
We are pleased to read the Cabinet Members see this as an important local investment decision. NCIL funds are limited and projected contributions are lower than those under the Conservative administration.
Yours sincerely,
Cllrs Barbara Arzymanow, Ian Rowley and Karen Scarborough
