It is time for Genesis Housing Association residents to get organised!

-->

 From Genisis Residents

Why? Actually it is pretty straightforward.

The board and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) have been campaigning to ‘de-regulate’ or ‘de-register’ Genesis. Meaning they want to get out of most of government control or become private completely.

Do you remember the mutual building societies which went private about twenty years ago? The same kind of thing. They all ended up in the hands of banks.

In addition Genesis now clearly have a policy of raising rents so they can obtain more loans on the private money markets to build out-of-reach homes. In one recent case Genesis has asked the rent officer for an over 90% rent increase for a secure tenant. Hopefully the Rent Officer will not give in - but there is no guarantee.

Recently Genesis advertised a home for sale for £1,000,000. And another one bedroomed home was offered at a rent of £1,950 per month. I don’t suppose there are many readers who can pay that kind of rent.

The CEO publicly announced back in 2015 that Genesis would not build any good quality low rent houses. He said: “That won’t be my problem.”

He also explained how he looked at the homes of the residents: ‘[We are] really looking at our asset base and seeing what the value of that is and how we can get our hands on that value, (our emphasis) by changing its tenure, by churning it, by selling it and using those proceeds to build more homes.’

Nice! These are our homes he is talking about.

So residents have a fight on their hands and we have created a new residents organisations called ‘Genesis Residents.’

The next meeting for residents is in Harlesden on Thursday 16th February from 6:30.

It will be held in the Harlesden Methodist Church, 25 High Street, Harlesden, NW10 4NE

All the details can be found on our Facebook Page or you can e mail us at the address below

https://www.facebook.com/genesisaction

genesis.residents.action@gmail.com

Hopefully we will see you there.

LDO was skating on thin ice with 'FREE Ice skating' advertisement

Following a complaint I made about the above advertisement that appeared to offer free skating to London Designer Outlet customers and visitors to the Wembley Park area, but stated in very small print (bottom left) that this was only available to people who spent £50 or more at the LDO, LINK the Advertising Standards Authority has responded.  I complained that the advertisement was misleading:

Legal, decent, honest and truthful

Having now reviewed the ad in light of your concerns, we have come to the conclusion that it was likely to have breached the Advertising Codes (“the Codes”) that we administer. I am writing to let you know that we have taken steps to address this.

We have explained your concerns to the advertiser and provided guidance to them on the areas that require attention, together with advice on how to ensure that their advertising complies with the Codes.

 

House of Commons vs Football Association February 9th k.o. 2.15pm

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has secured a debate on the governance of football governance in the House of Commons.

The debate taking place on Thursday 9 February 2017, starts at approximately 2.15pm and is on this motion:

That this House has no confidence in the ability of the Football Association (FA) to comply fully with its duties as a governing body, as the current governance structures of the FA make it impossible for the organisation to reform itself; and calls on the Government to bring forward legislative proposals to reform the governance of the FA.

The Committee published two Reports in the last Parliament calling for reform of the FA, to allow representatives of fans, women’s football, BAME groups, officials such as referees and the grassroots sport a significantly greater say in the governance of the game, and to give the Executive Directors of the FA greater weight in comparison with the representatives of the Premier and Football Leagues. However, the reforms called for by groups representing the wider game, the Committee, successive ministers for sport and recently, a number of past Chairmen and Chief Executives of the FA, have been ignored by The FA.

Last autumn, the Government published its guidance on best practice in sports governance. It is clear that The FA does not comply with this guidance now and there appears to be considerable resistance to the idea of changing its very out-of-date structure at all. The Committee is therefore preparing a draft Bill to bring the structure of The FA—which is, in legal terms, a company—into line with modern company law.

The Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Damian Collins, said:

The current Minister for Sport told the Committee that The FA had been given six months from publication of the Government’s guidance in October 2016 to demonstrate that it was willing to improve governance, otherwise public money would be withdrawn from The FA and distributed to football through other means.

We do not believe that The FA will comply voluntarily: it can survive easily without the Government’s contribution of money to grassroots sport, and there are powerful vested interests that refuse to accept the right of all those involved in football to play a role in the governance of the sport. We are therefore preparing a draft Bill to bring the structure of The FA, especially its Board and Council, more into line with modern company practice and the Government’s guidelines for sports bodies.

 

• Inquiry: The Governance of Football
• Watch Parliament TV: The Governance of Football
• Culture, Media and Sport Committee

Petition launched opposing Spurs & Chelsea home games at Wembley

A petition has been launched asking Brent Council to reconsider the use of Wembley Stadium for Spurs and Chelsea home games. (The FA/Spurs are presently consulting on this See LINK)

The petition is HERE and wording below:

We the undersigned petition the council to reconsider the use of Wembley Statium for Tottenham Hotspur home matches and for Chelsea home matches for the Champions League and Premier League

Wembley National Stadiium is a stadium of national importance and as such is designated for matches organised by the Football Association for matches of national importance and also for finals of league cups etc. These matches are very frequent in the spring and summer each year. The residents around the area understand and accept this use of Wembley Stadium for such matches.

The use of the Wembley National Stadium for club matches for the above mentioned clubs mean that for then next few years at least 30 additional matches will be played in the Wembley Stadium for the above mentioned clubs. This will put extreme pressure on public services around the Wembley Stadium area. The roads will be blocked due to the excessive traffic. Access to schools and post school activities for children will be hampered. Elderly people will be especially at risk due to the huge amount of traffic around the stadium area. The traffic will also put emergency access at risk the roads will be absolutely blocked.

Additionally, the football fans will descend on Wembley for 30 additional days in a year. While not demonizing football fans in general, some sections of the football fans cause immense damage to property and intimidate local residents.

As a national stadium, these club level matches are not acceptable.

Started by: Vishal Sinha

This ePetition runs from 30/01/2017 to 13/03/2017.

High rise march on Wembley Stadium continues as Network Housing propose 21 storey block on Olympic Way

Click on images to enlarge

Network Housing are proposing a block of 21 storeys and 15 storeys to replace their current 8 storey building at 8 Rutherwood Way Wembley Park. The site is bounded by Olympic Way, Rutherwood Way and Fulton Road.

The Planning Committee at their February 15th Meeting will be given a presentation on the scheme which will provide 242 dwellings:

There will be commercial space at ground level and  external community space, including children's play space, at 1st, 15th and 21st floor levels.

The building will be higher than its immediate neighbours but there are others of that height, or higher, in the Quintain area.  It will not impact on 'most' of the views of the stadium according to the officer's report. LINK

One area of controversy will be how much of the development will be affordable in real terms, not the 80% of market rent, commonly quoted, although the planners use the latter definition in their note:

The submission documents have not included details on the proposed provision of affordable housing within the scheme, officers understand that this is still under consideration by the application team and will be included within any submission. London Plan policy 3.12 requires borough’s to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, taking account of a range of factors including local and regional requirements, the need to encourage rather than restrain development and viability. The policy requires borough’s to take account of economic viability when negotiating on affordable housing. 


The applicant will be required to demonstrate that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being provided in this scheme, and this would need to be tested through the submission of a financial appraisal submitted with any future planning application which would be subject to scrutiny by or on behalf of your Officers. 


Brent Council Tax to rise 3.99% in EACH of the next 3 years and borrowing to increase

In a report LINK going before Cabinet on February 13th Brent's Chief Finance Officer is recommending a Council Tax of 3.99% over eachof the next 3 financial years:

In October 2016, Cabinet agreed to consult on a 3.99% increase in Council Tax (2% Adult Social Care precept plus 1.99% for general purpose). Some additional savings of £4.4m were also consulted upon. Following that, in December 2016, as part of the provisional local government finance settlement, central government recognised the immediate pressures in the care market. It has therefore allowed local authorities to bring forward up to 2% of the precept for 2019/20, by increasing 2017/18 and 2018/19 council tax by an additional 1%, in return for a corresponding reduction in the precept for 2019/20. Brent could therefore increase Council Tax by up to 4.99% in each of 2017/18 and 2018/19, but if it exercised this flexibility then the maximum allowable increase in 2019/20 would be 1.99%.

 After due consideration the recommendation of this report is that the budget should be constructed on the basis of a council tax increase of 3.99% in each of the next three years. This is what was consulted upon and so is clearer for residents. The additional flexibility announced in December 2016 is also of relatively minor financial benefit to the council, and has negligible long term impact from 2019/20 onwards. By increasing the council tax in this way the impact of stark and ongoing reductions to local government funding since 2010 will be partly mitigated.

The report has been issued before the budget consultation with the public has been completed and a report on the consultation will be tabled before the Cabinet meets.  Clearly this leaves little room for any change as a result of the consultation. 

In fact consultation responses have been low with 57 on line (with no clear pattern of responses) at the time the report was written and these attendances at Brent Connects meetings:

The report goes on:

Although demography, in this context, is typically discussed as a cost pressure it also results in additional income. As a consequence of this, and of the planning and regeneration policies adopted by the council, the council tax base (i.e. the number of properties on which council tax is paid) is growing significantly year on year. This increases the council tax payable to the council, and helps the council finance the various pressures caused by population growth.The council is required to balance its budget in this year as in all years. 

In order to balance its budget the council has developed an approach that will help it meet the goals of the Borough Plan and Brent 2020 Vision, comprising:

Increases in council tax to minimise the requirement to reduce services; 

Innovative capital investment to reduce costs in key services, such as temporary accommodation;

Planning for growth in services facing major demographic pressure for example adult social care;

and Investing in key services for the Brent community, e.g. community safety.

The  report states that if the 3% Adult Social Care Council Tax increase is not approved Adult Social Care in 2017-18 will have to be cut by £2.1m.  This is in addition to further cuts in the overall council budget required of £2.3m in 2017-18 and £2.1m in 2018-19.

The Council hopes to achieve  £5.6m through a civic enterprise project to increase income from Council assets (you have probably see the posters encouraging people to get married at the Civic Centre) and £8m from improving commissioning and procurement services. The Council is hoping to sell its procurement services to schools.

It is clear that increasing the number of properties in the borough is seen as one way of increasing Council Tax income, even if they are not affordable for ordinary Brent residents on an average income. Population growth increases income for charged services such as parking.

The Council has a big capital investment programme and it is planned to increase borrowing to finance the projects. Expenditure was £111.7m less than expected this year due to a variety of delivery delays and the balance will be carried forward. The Council is planning to increase the amount it raises and increase the authorised limit:

It is important to stress that the authorised limit – the maximum amount that the council may borrow – has for a number of years been several hundred millions pounds above the level of actual borrowing – last year it was set at £400m above the level of actual borrowing. It is proposed to increase that by £100m to £500m, in light of the Council’s investment strategy, while recognising that the Council has been prudent with its estimate of the additional resources that may finance capital spend. Potentially, the additional growth would cost up to an additional £3m to service annually, should the borrowing become necessary, and if this was not offset by additional income or savings. The calculation noted above merely follows from the strength of the council’s balance sheet, as it is largely prescribed by statute and regulation. 


(Bracketed red offsets borrowing requirement)

One area of interest is the school budget where the report notes that:

As at 31 March 2016, Brent’s maintained schools held £24.8m in balances, a relatively high figure, prudently held in view of upcoming school funding reforms. [Cllr Warren attacked the level of school balances at the last Full Council Meeting]

Overall DSG (Dedicated Schools Grant)  funding has increased for 2017/18 due to growing pupil numbers, however on a per pupil level it remains a cash flat settlement, with the main schools block funded on 41,879 pupils at £5,522 per pupil totalling £231.3m. The other blocks support early years provision, funded at £23.4m, and high needs provision which includes all special schools, funded at £52.7m. Total DSG funding for 2017/18 is £307.4m.  

A number of schools are expanding and as a result overall pupil numbers have increased by over 500 in Brent. The two secondary schools experiencing rapid growth of 58 and 116 pupils have gained £238K and £675K, whilst 26 primary schools experienced growth in pupil numbers with an average gain of £125K. Reductions in funding are also in line with decreasing pupil numbers, for example two secondary schools have significant drops of 25 and 54, which results in funding reductions of £260K and £441K respectively. In the primary phase, 30 schools had a fall in pupil numbers resulting in an average reduction of £44k.

After the expansions of recent years a reduction in pupil numbers in a number of schools is significant, particular when the potential impact of Brexit on immigration numbers is taken into account.  The major factor affecting school budgets is of course the reductions involved when the government introduces a new National Funding Formula.

Conrad Hall, Chief Finance Officer, commenting on the overall Brent budget states:

In considering the budget report, the following key considerations should be highlighted in particular.:

The extent to which the overspends in 2016/17 are structural, that is, that they will or may recur in 2017/18, is a particular risk. Any element of these overspends that may be structural will, if not addressed during 2017/18, require further savings to be agreed next year to offset this. Whilst plans are in place to address this the scale of risk is significant.

Delivering the saving programme agreed in February 2016 will present substantial management challenges, particularly around procurement and civic enterprise savings. Again, considerable management attention has been and is being devoted to ensure that these can be delivered, but it is important to stress again the inherent risks in delivering such a large and complex programme. 
 

That said, the budget now proposed is realistic and affordable, albeit challenging. The increases in council tax set out, if agreed in this and subsequent years, will generate significant additional revenue over time, minimising the number of difficult new decisions about funding for specific services to be proposed. If agreed, this budget would provide for affordable services in 2017/18 and 2018/19, but a further gap of nearly £13m remains in 2019/20. Building on the outcome based reviews and other initiatives to start to close this gap quickly will be an important future consideration.

1. 
   

Barry Gardiner reacts to 'Beijing Bling' story with 'no impropriety' statement

Barry Gardiner Labour MP for Brent North is honoured today with a front page splash, double page inside splash and an editorial in the Times newspaper.

The story claims that Gardiner, currently Shadow International Trade Secretary has received more than £180,000 in staff costs from the law firm Christine Lee and Co that acts as chief legal adviser to the Chinese embassy.

Further it is claimed that this partly funds the salary of Lee's son who works in Gardiner's Westminster Office.

The Times draws attention to Gardiner's championing of Chinese involvement in the Hinckley Point nuclear project.  Clearly that is also sensitive to his previous role as Shadow Energy and Climate Change minister as well as his current international trade post.

In its editorial entitled Beijing Bling the Times says:

If the commercial relationship and Mr Gardiner's positions on China were merely coincidental, it betrays not venality so much as naivety.  China has repeatedly demonstrated its appetite for overt interference in the domestic affairs of other countries in order to further its commercial interests and buttress its ambition for global superpower status. Its world-beating credential in cyberespionage and penchant for intellectual property theft are well-established.

This blog has in the past been critical of Gardiner's close relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi LINK  and clearly in his current role as shadow international trade secretary he has to be very careful to avoid any accusations of bias.

On the other hand devoting all this space to a story which the Times itself admits includes 'no suggestion of impropriety' may be part of the anti-Corbyn strategy of the Murdoch press. Gardiner is the only survivor of the three Brent MPs who were in Corbyn's shadow team until the Article 50 vote and several other shadow ministers have resigned or may face sacking as a result of the rebellion. Adding to that turmoil the forced resignation or sacking of a Corbyn loyalist, who has recently received some plaudits for his media appearances, may be the intention.

Today Gardiner placed this statement on his website LINK:

“Christine Lee & Co have generously supported my work as a Member of Parliament over many years since we first worked together to fight against plans to redevelop Oriental City and the loss of homes, livelihoods and community ties in Brent. The firm has enabled me to appoint a strong research support team to hold the government to account. This has always been transparently and appropriately recorded in the register of members’ interests. The Times article has revealed nothing that was not already in the public domain and they themselves admit that the secondment of staff was properly declared and state that “there is no suggestion of impropriety”.

We are likely to know tomorrow whether a complaint to the parliamentary standards commissioner, Kathryn Hudson, will result in an investogation.                                                    

Route and speakers for tomorrow's Stop the Muslim Ban march

March route (click to enlarge

Tomorrow's march starts at the US Embassy Grosvenor Square (assemble 11am to set off around midday) Bond Street is the nearest tube and goes via the above route to Downing Street. Those unable to march the whole route could join at Picadilly Circus or Trafalgar Square.

Please bring your friends, colleagues and family members along: let us send a powerful response to racism and bigotry.

The list of speakers will include Dawn Butler MP, Catherine West MP, Andrew Murray (Unite the Union), Kevin Courtney (General Secretary of NUT), Moazzam Begg (former Guantanamo prisoner), Giles Fraser (parish priest of St. Mary's, Newington and former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral), Rebecca Johnson (Green Party), Salma Yaqoob (anti-racism and anti-war campaigner), and others. Video statements from Jeremy Corbyn and Peter Hain will also be shown.