Family visits on now at Fryent Country Park, Kingsbury - ideal weather to visit

After recent unhappy events in the park, Barnhill Conservation Group are welcoming children and their families to Fryent Country Park today using the entrance between 109-111 Valley Drive, Kingsbury.

It's a lovely day to explore the park and you'll be sure of a warm welcome from Larry!

 

Thanks to Noreen Scott for the photographs

Thumbs up for Shakshuka at the Roundwood Park cafe

I popped into the Roundwood Park Lodge cafe for lunch today with a friend. There was a warm welcome and time taken to describe the dishes on offer. The cafe serves a mixture of traditional meals, with a special children's menu, and Middle Eastern dishes prepared by the Egyptian chef.

We chose the shakshuka which was freshly prepared and very tasty:

There is plenty to tempt you if you are just popping in for tea or coffee:

The cafe has had a makeover but still attracts families. Children are able to use the attached play area or the toy corner in the cafe while their parents relax and chat.

Highly recommended!

Preview of decisions to be made at Brent Council Executive on Monday

Monday's Meeting of the Brent Council Executive will be making some important decisions. Here is a preview of some of the post important ones:

Delegation of awarding of 'Supporting People Contracts' to achieve 'savings'
Re-procurement of existing services which provides housing support workers, sheltered housing managers, women’s refuge workers, etc. support vulnerable adults to prevent hospital admissions, evictions, mental ill health, homelessness and anti-social behaviour. The budget is additionally utilised to provide a range of non-statutory welfare services including handyperson, accident prevention, and hospital discharge support.

The council aims to make a reduction in costs (cut) of £900,000 through the new contracts. As they are due to run from February 1st there is no time for the Executive to make a decision so it is delegated to Head of Regeneration, Andy Donald and Director of Adult  Social Services, Alison Elliott in consultation with the lead members. LINK

Blue Badge Scheme for people with disabilities
Introduction of a £10 charge for Blue Badges usually payable every three years when badges are renewed plus tougher enforcement. LINK

Green Charter Monitoring
I will cover this in a separate posting. LINK 

Secondary School Expansion 2012-16
I have already blogged on these proposals which involve increasing the capacity of some secondary schools to cater for rising numbers. Kingsbury High will have 15 classes in each age group which will make it a very large school. My blog  HERE Executive Report LINK 

Capital funding for expansion of Vicar's Green Primary, Ealing
Vicar's Green is just over the border in Ealing and provides places for many Brent children. Brent will make a contribution to its expansion to provide more places subject to consultation LINK  

 London Living Wage 
Brent is aiming to becoming an accredited London Living Wage organisation itself and enouraging out-sourced suppliers to also pay it. It is not included as a requirement in the current Public Realm procurement.  My blog on it HERE Council Report: LINK 
 
 Working with Families
An integrated strategy to work with Brent's 810 'Troubled Families' aiming to save money by making it unnecessary for children to go into care and maximising Brent's income from the Government's 'Payment by Results' funding.(!)  It is worth reading the report in full LINK

Annual Audit Letter 2011-12
The letter from the Audiitor states:   
 Following the Audit Committee, on 28 September 2012 Ithe Auditor:
• issued unqualified opinions on the 2011/12 financial statements of the Council and the Pension Fund; and
• concluded that Brent Council made proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in your use of resources in 2011/12.

London Housing Consortium
Proposes that the Brent Executive's responsibilities for the Consortium be discharged to the Lead Member for Housing and another non Executive member (TBC) who will be on the the newly formed Joint Committee of the London Housing Consortium LINK

 The meeting begins at 7pm at Committee Rooms 1-3 Brent Town Hall and is likely to be over by 7pm.

Getting social housing in Brent to become harder under new proposals

The Housing Allocations Policy that Brent Council is currently consulting on LINK will have major repercussions for residents wishing to go on the register for social housing in the borough. There will particular impact on extended families, people without leave to stay in the UK, young adults living with their parents, those at a specific income threshold, families in rent arrears in the social housing sector or in homeless temporary accommodation.

The Council will no longer have an 'open' waiting list and in addition to having a housing need residents will need to establish a local connection through residence or work. The 'reasonable preference' criteria will include households in employment in addition those below:

· Homeless people as defined by Part VII of the 1996 Housing Act, including people who are intentionally homeless and those who are not in priority need

· People who are owed a duty under section 190(2), 193(2) or 195(2) of the 1996 Act (or under section 65(2) or 68(2) of the Housing Act 1985) or who are occupying accommodation secured by any housing authority under s192(3)

· People occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions

· People who need to move on medical or welfare grounds, including grounds relating to disability

· People who need to move to a particular locality in the housing authority area, where failure to meet that need would cause hardship (to themselves or others)

The Council state that legislation forbids it to give assistance to individuals subject to immigration control:

A restricted person is a person subject to immigration control who is not eligible for homelessness assistance because he or she does not have leave to enter or remain in the UK or has leave which is subject to a ‘no recourse to public funds’ condition (s.184(7) of the 1996 Act).

The Council seeks views for when the individual subject to immigration is a member of a wider household:

Note that it is not mandatory to exclude a person subject to immigration control from a household, although a household cannot be regarded as having reasonable preference solely on the basis of the needs of a person subject to immigration control as noted above. The council is minded to adopt this exclusion but views on the point would be welcome.

 The Council its definition of what constitutes a 'household' for the purposes of allocation of accommodation. It excludes the  extended families sharing accommodation that are common amongst some ethnic groups in Brent:

Considered as households:

-A single person without dependents
- A married couple
-An unmarried couple, who can prove that they have been resident together for at least 12 months at time of application and at time of offer.   
-A lone parent and their dependent children   
-A married or unmarried couple with dependent children   
-A civil partnership with or without dependent children

 The following would not usually be considered to be part of a household when considering qualification and priority for housing:

· Anyone subject to immigration control

· non-dependent adult children over the age of 21

· other adult relatives

· non-relatives and lodgers

· Extended family members such as cousins, nephews, aunts and uncles

The scheme excludes the following:

-A young person aged 21 or over and therefore not treated as a child would not normally be considered as part of a household and will usually be disregarded when considering applications for rehousing.

- If there are children aged 21 or over who are living at home, advice will be provided on housing options but they will not count towards any calculation of overcrowding. They will be able to apply for housing in their own right but may be disqualified if they do not fall within any of the priority groups defined in this scheme.

- Given the severe shortage of housing and in particular of larger homes, the Council will consider whether people living in a household could move into smaller homes of their own, thereby creating a separate household. If a household member has already made a separate housing application they will not be included in any new or subsequent applications.

 The proposals introduce income thresholds that will try and shift those in need of housing into the private renting sector (which has grown enormously in Brent according to the most recent census and which Muhammed Butt has pledged to improve in terms of quality) or shared ownership.

The ranges which will be reviewed regularly are set at:

· 1 bed - £35,000 a year

· 2 bed - £45,000 a year

· 3 bed - £ 55, 000 a year

· 4 bed - £70,000 a year

 The Council states that in assessing the number of bedrooms required by a household, the following criteria will apply: 

· One double bedroom for a cohabiting couple

· One double bedroom for two additional persons/children of the same sex and generation.

· One double bedroom for two children of the opposite sex, where both children are under 7 years.

· One double bedroom for two children of the same sex unless one is over 10 years of age and there is an age gap of more than 5 years.

· One double bedroom for two dependents of the same sex over 18 years of age.

· One single bedroom for each person who the Council's Medical Officer considers should have their own bedroom on health grounds.

· One single bedroom for any other person included as part of the household.

· Single people will normally be considered for Bedsit accommodation.

· A couple or single parent with a child under two years of age can be

 offered a one bedroom property.

In addition the Council propose that the following categories will normally not qualify:

· Anyone guilty of serious anti-social behaviour where a possession order is being sought or has been obtained

· Anyone who has assaulted a member of staff where an injunction has been sought or obtained

· Anyone who knowingly gives false or misleading information or withholds information that has been reasonably requested.

· Applicants with an income above the limits set out above

The following will apply to housing transfers:

-Tenants with rent arrears of six weeks or more will be suspended from receiving the offer of accommodation. Consideration will be given to varying this rule in some circumstances including;

-Tenants with urgent management or medical priority in band B or A may be transferred at the discretion of the Rehousing Manager.

-Offers of accommodation may be made despite rent arrears to tenants who need to move because of statutory overcrowding or because of an overriding priority awarded by the Allocations Panel or where a permanent decant is essential

-Tenants moving under the Incentive Scheme subject to the above guidelines may be made an offer with the incentive payment being set of against the arrears

Families in temporary accommodation may also face problems

· Homeless households in temporary accommodation may be advised that, if they fall into rent arrears, their housing register application may be suspended. Applications may be suspended when an applicant either

a) refuses to pay the rent

b) fails to make a commitment to repay arrears or

c) fails to provide supporting information for a Housing Benefit claim.

d) accrues an excessive level of arrears

e) is in arrears such that the landlord is taking action to end the tenancy

· If an applicant falls into arrears, their application may be suspended. The application will remain suspended until the arrears are cleared or an agreement has been reached to clear the arrears and this agreement has been kept to for an agreed period. Depending on the amount of the arrears and the nature of the agreement, discretion may be exercised to review cases and lift suspensions. Exceptions may be agreed to this policy, in particular for those cases in bands 1 or 2.

The Council recognises that private sector tenants on the register may be in difficulty because of the welfare reforms:

The council is not minded to introduce any blanket restriction on cases involving rent arrears, in particular since recent and proposed reforms to the welfare system increase the risk that some households may not be able to cover their full rent and because there are cases in which a move may assist in tackling rent arrears, for example where a household moves to a cheaper home

 There are additional detailed proposals regarding carers and military personnel that can be found in the main document.

The Consultation specifically asks for views on:

• The period that should be required to establish a local connection
• How that should be demonstrated through employment (inc part-time and self-employed)?
• What othjer factors could be taken into account to establish a local connection?
• In what circumstances should the Council make exceptions to the local connection requirement?
• What other groups should not qualify under the scheme?
• Should anyone subject to immigration control not be considered as part of the household?
• At what age should non-dependent adult children not be considered part of the household (18.21.25)?
• Are there other people who should normally be considered as part of an applicant;s household?
• In what circumstances should rent arrears mean that a household should not qualify or that an application should be suspended?
• The circumstances in which a transfer application can be made outside the scheme (see main document for details)
• Details regarding how long applicant should have been in employment (see main document)
• Are the proposed bands that rank applicants according to level of needs appropriate (see main document for details)
• Time limits on bidding for accommodation (see main document)
• Should the income thresholds be as set out above?
• Details setting out factors defining 'reasonable preference criteria' (see main document)

 The main consultation document can be found HERE and should be read before responding as it is not possible to cover all the issues in this posting. I hope however that this is sufficient to alert readers to the serious issues involved. The consultation closes on March 8th 2013

Teather 'terrified' of impact of benefit cap on Brent families

Sarah Teather, Liberal Democrat MP for Brent Central has spoken out today on the impact of the benefit cap on her constituents. LINK

This is an extract from the Observer's story:

In an outspoken interview with the Observer, the Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather, who was sacked from the government in September, says the policy will have devastating effects on many thousands of children whose lives will be disrupted as their parents are forced to uproot from their homes.

Teather predicts that there will be a "reverse Jarrow march" in the run up to next April, when the cap comes into force, as families head out of London in huge numbers, in search of new homes.
Accusing ministers of a deliberate attempt to denigrate those who cannot find work, Teather says she saw clear evidence while in government that the policy would not save money and that it would inflict immense social damage.

While accepting that the wider aim of encouraging people off benefits and into work is the right way forward, she says that imposing a cap on people who live in areas such as her own Brent Central constituency in north London, where rents are high, will have a "horrible" and "traumatic" impact. She also claims that the primary motive behind the policy, which has strong public support, was a desire to court popularity by unfairly demonising the poor.

"There are all sorts of things you have to do when times are tight that have negative consequences but you do them for good purposes. But to do something for negative purposes that also has negative consequences – that is immoral," says Teather. She praised Nick Clegg for showing "immense courage" in limiting some of the effects of welfare cuts and urged her party to fight as hard as it possibly could to prevent more. She said many people in her constituency, which is one of the most ethnically diverse and deprived in the country, did not realise what was about to hit them next April.

Middle-class families were also ignorant of the huge impact of the changes on those around them, particularly on children, because of the caricatures peddled by government and the rightwing press about those on benefits. She believes the effects may only sink in when children from "nice middle-class families who send their kids to the local primary school come home and say 'my friend has just disappeared'. I think then it might hit home and they might realise a whole set of children have disappeared from the class."

Teather added: "I am frankly terrified about what is going to happen. A lot of these families do not know what is going to happen to them … How good is the education system at working out where that child has moved to? How good is the child protection system going to be at working out where children have moved to? I don't feel confident of that."

The local council estimates that more than 2,000 people in Brent will end up losing at least £50 a week when the cap comes in. At the top end, 84 families will lose about £1,000 a week. Many will be driven out of the area, including thousands of children.

She accuses parts of government and the press of a deliberate campaign to "demonise" those on benefits and of failing to understand that those in need of state help are just as human as they are. With vivid outrage she describes the language and caricatures that have been peddled.

"Whenever there is any hint of opposition they wheel out a caricature of a family, usually a very large family, probably black, most likely recent immigrants, without much English, lots of children, apparently chaotic, living in a desirable neighbourhood that middle-class people would like to occupy. That is the caricature and of course it is a partial spinning of the truth and it allows the demonisation to take place.

"I would really urge particularly Conservative colleagues but people in all parties to be careful. I don't think we can afford to preside over a society where there is a gradual eroding of sympathy for people at the bottom end of the income spectrum and a rapid erosion of sympathy for people on benefits."