Brent Council Tax Support Scheme changes will ask 'those with the lowest income to find spare income that doesn’t exist'. CAB flash survey says average claimant's bill will rise by £524.98.

 Brent Council is to adopt changes to the Council Tax Support scheme that will require residents to pay at least 35% of their Council Tax Bill (increased again this year by 4.8% D-band total £2,133.15). It will also require non-dependent members of the house-hold to pay £8 weeky if not in work and £20 if in work.

The majority of resident respondents rejected the proposed changes at consultation but the Council faced with a new deficit of £16m  and a potential saving of up to £8m in council tax support costs will go ahead.  The changes do not affect pensioners as they are in a separate Government administered scheme.

The Cabinet report states:

The aim of these changes is for all households to contribute towards the Council services that residents in the borough benefit from. However, it is recognised that where a resident is unable to work because of their disability they may face a particularly significant impact, as they may have higher disability related costs and will not have the ability to increase their income. The Council Tax Support scheme seeks to reduce this impact, by disregarding all income from DWP or HMRC benefits in the Council Tax Support calculation. This includes disability related benefits, disability premiums, carer’s allowance and much more.

 

The Yellow column above is the reduction in the amount of Council Tax to be paid.

The yellow column above is the weekly amount of Council Tax that non-dependant members of the household will have to pay

 

The results of the Council's consultation are below showing the majority of respondents rejected the change. The majority of respondents were non-recipients of Council Tax Support:

The consultation enabled people to comment and these make interesting reading including the comment in this article's headline:

 

Out of 397 responses, 115 respondents also left comments.

 

For the people that Agree or Strongly agree, the top themes that emerged were:

 

• Reasonable – These respondents thought that the changes proposed were reasonable given the Council’s financial situation and need to make savings. These respondents in general thought that the scheme was generous and that it was a fair proposal to introduce a minimum contribution for all Council Tax Support recipients.

• Scheme Recommendations – Some respondents raised suggestions for the new scheme. These included: Reducing the top band to 80% instead of such a steep drop to 65% & reducing last band to 15% (instead of 20%), having council tax support as a monetary value (i.e. £) rather than a % reduction, including a vulnerable group to be exempt from 35% minimum contribution & including other income, capital or savings into the means testing (e.g. property, benefits income, etc.)

• Scheme still too generous – Some people agreed but thought the minimum contribution should be higher, for example, 50%.

 

For the people that Disagree or Strongly disagree, the top themes that emerged were:

• Financial Difficulties – These respondents thought that the changes proposed would cause them to fall into further financial difficulty. The cost-of-living struggle was frequently mentioned as well as an inability to pay the additional council tax that would be required. Many people raised concerns around their disability and the inability to find work or increase their income. Some answers highlighted that pushing residents into further financial difficulty could increase the demand on other council services and reduce the actual savings achieved by this change.

• Protecting the Vulnerable – Many respondents raised concerns around disabled residents, the elderly, carers, or parents all with a reduced ability to find employment and cover the council tax shortfall that will be created because of this change to their support. These answers raised worries that this scheme change would affect those on a low-income unfairly and expects those with the lowest income to find spare income that doesn’t exist. Responses highlighted that people were already struggling and this change would only serve to exacerbate their struggle.

• Unfair – These replies often highlighted that they thought it was unfair to target those in receipt of Council Tax Support who have low-incomes already and an inability to pay council tax often being carers, disabled or in receipt of benefits only. Some answers highlighted that the people receiving this support are already on the poverty line and this change could push people into poverty. Some respondents believed that the change would breach Discrimination & Human Rights & Equality Laws.

• Find savings elsewhere – These answers highlighted the need for the council to find the savings from somewhere else. Some of the reasons given were that this change would be potentially more costly in the long run due to increased demand on council services or increased outstanding debt. These responses raised that the changes were targeting individuals who don’t have the means to contribute more, and many suggestions were received to look to the wealthier residents within the borough for savings. Other suggestions included: advocatingfor more equitable funding from central government, finding efficiencies in other areas of spending, increase income rather than cut services, targeting outstanding debt/fraud or council tax evasion or reducing Brent employee salaries.

 

Question 2 - Changes to the Council Tax Support non-dependant deductions

 

(£8 deduction for non-dep in household out of work and £20 deduction for non-dep in household in work).

 

Out of 397 responses, 88 respondents also left comments.

 

For the people that Agree or Strongly agree, the top themes that emerged were:

 

• Fair – These respondents thought that it was fair to ask non- dependants to contribute towards household bills including Council Tax and sensible to look at household income as a total rather than only the income of a claimant or partner.

• Simpler – Comments highlighted that a two flat-rate deduction system is an improvement on the previous system and would be simpler or easier for residents to understand.

• Unfair – Whilst these people agreed with the proposal, they believed in general that the £20 deduction for working non-dependants was fair whereas the £8 deduction for non-working was too much of an ask.

• Scheme Recommendations – These comments made suggestions to not take non-dependant deductions for students.

 

For the people that Disagree or Strongly disagree, the top themes that emerged were:

• Financial Difficulties – These respondents thought that the charges proposed were too much of an increase especially considering the current cost of living. Some people highlighted that £20/week for a working non-dependant would be over £1000 per annum and a significant portion of the Council Tax bill. These respondents highlighted that this change would not be affordable, further push families into poverty or struggle and that this change would hit the poorest.

• Unfair – Some of the suggestions received thought that the £8 deduction was too much for non-dependants that are not working, disabled or students. Some people believed that deductions for working non-dependants should be means tested & based on their income level, with higher earners contributing more.

• Find savings elsewhere – These comments suggested that Brent look to other ways of making the savings or cutting costs. These included looking at efficiency savings within the council, increasing fines for parking penalties/littering/anti-social behaviour etc. or empty property rate.

 

 Brent Citizens Advice Bureau conducted their own survey of the impact of the changes. They said: Since 2021 Brent Council has made over 40,000 referrals1 for enforcement action against residents with council tax arrears. The proposed changes risk seeing an increase in enforcement action against households already struggling with debt, and with very little income available for new or increased bills.

We conducted a flash survey to determine how the proposed changes to CTS could affect Brent residents. In total, we surveyed 32 CTS claimants over a period of 3 weeks. The survey was targeted at Brent residents who already receive some level of CTS, with questions aiming to establish respondents’ current council tax liability, level of council tax support, and whether they maintain a positive budget. This enabled us to assess how the proposed changes will alter the financial situations of individual households.

Key Findings

• The average council tax bill increase for the CTS claimants we surveyed was £524.98

• 13 out of 32 CTS claimants we surveyed did not have enough income to cover their monthly costs, despite receiving the maximum level of CTS.

• 2 in 3 CTS claimants we surveyed will receive a new or increased council tax bill that they currently do not have the monthly income to pay.

Their report and its recommendations are worth reading in full:

 

 

Time for a review of Brent Members' Code of Conduct?

 The Audit and Standards Committee on Tuesday February 4th will received a report on complains against councillors during 2024.

The report gives a commentary on trends in complaints:

During consideration of the previous complaints review report last year, the committee asked that future monitoring reports provide an outline of any trends being identified in terms of complaints and outcomes.

 

The Committee will be aware that the Code only permits the investigation of complaints against Members made in their “official capacity or when giving the impression [they] are acting as a member of the Council”, unless it relates to a serious criminal offence being committed in the Member's private capacity.

 

Accordingly, any decision that purports to find a breach of the Code whilst the Member in question was acting in their private capacity, would be liable to challenge. The Committee will see from Appendix A that one of the main findings at Initial Assessment Stage in respect of the complaints over the past 12 months is that the Councillor “was not acting in their capacity as councillor.

 

This trend may reflect changing public expectations. Members of the committee will note that one element of the consultation referred to in this report [Open consultation Strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England LINK] is the possibility of extending the Code to some categories of behaviour by members outside their role as a councillor.

 

The other main reason for complaints not proceeding beyond initial assessment stage is that the complaint "did not disclose sufficiently serious potential breaches of the Code to merit further consideration”.

The main rationale for this finding has been that insufficient evidence has been submitted to support the allegations made and/or when considering the allegations in context, there was no significant evidence to suggest the Councillors had behaved in the manner complained off. Indeed, in some cases the evidence indicated aggressive or otherwise unreasonable behaviour by the complainant towards the councillor.

 

The Committee should note, the main recurring factor in relation to escalating complaints to the Assessment Criteria Stage have been based on the contents of the complaint and that there may be a serious issue to consider, with an opportunity for the councillor concerned to comment being necessary to establish if this is indeed the case.

 

The report is accompanied by a document listing the complaints and action taken.

 

Calvin Robinson, defrocked turbulent priest, has Brent political and religious connections

 

Calvin Robinson at Christ Church, Harlesden, 2022

Calvin Robinson giving a salute, resembling a Nazi salute, at National Pro-Life summit in the U.S.

I first met Calvin Robinson when he was a by-election candidate in Kilburn back in 2016. Tall and lean, of mixed parentage and with a huge afro, he was not your typical Brent Conservative candidate. He did not win the by-election nor the Camden by-election that followed.  His adherence to the Rightwing Henry Jackson Society should have been a warning.

He joined the Brent nest of rightwingers when he became a governor at Michaela School in Wembley, where Suella Braverman had been the founding Chair of Governors. 

Robinson moved on from the Conservative Party to support the Brexit Party as a candidate in 2019 and in August lst year became the lead spokesperson for UKIP. He was dismissed from GB News in 2023 following his support for Dan Wootton who had been suspended over Laurence's controversial comments on Wootton's show.

Robinson was a Free Church of England deacon of Christ Church in Harlesden and then a priest in the Nordic Catholic Church. Moving to the U.S. he joined the Anglican Catholic Church until they defrocked him following the Nazi salute incident.

The Church said:

While we cannot say what was in Mr. Robinson’s heart when he did this, his action appears to have been an attempt to curry favor with certain elements of the American political right by provoking its opposition.

In a personal statement Robinson said:

My attempt at dry wit, in that typical British way, was not a joke at the expense of WWII, nor an admission of my membership in the Nationalist Socialist Party. That would be an incredibly ignorant and bad faith assumption to make. The responses are very telling, though. The people who understand, cheer – those who have eyes to see. The people who do not want to understand, reach for their pitchforks. They have found a new channel for their hated. They remain in my prayers; may the Lord soften their hearts.

Where Robinson will go now is anybody's guess but he will certainly not be avoiding the limelight. The publicity may well have brought him to the attention of one Donald Trump. 

Watch this space.

 

 

Richmond Council says third runway would cause 'significant harm' to local communities

From Richmond Council

The Leader of Richmond Council has today reaffirmed the Council’s long-standing opposition to the expansion of Heathrow Airport, including the construction of a third runway, following the latest announcement from the Chancellor.

Councillor Gareth Roberts stressed the significant harm the expansion would cause to local communities, already heavily affected by flight paths.

Richmond Council has been clear and consistent in its stance: a third runway at Heathrow would have catastrophic consequences for our borough and for London. The environmental damage, increased noise pollution, and disruption to local communities are simply too high a price to pay, especially when viable alternatives exist that can support sustainable economic growth without compromising our health or our future.

We fully recognise Heathrow’s importance to the local and national economy, but a better Heathrow does not have to mean a bigger Heathrow. Growth should never come at the expense of the wellbeing of our communities or the health of our planet. The airport has yet to present a credible plan showing how its expansion would align with the UK’s net-zero targets. It continues to ignore the ongoing issues of noise and air pollution that are severely affecting our residents.

The Chancellor’s decision to prioritise short-term economic growth over the long-term health of our communities and the environment is deeply disappointing. This move fails to consider our climate commitments and disregards the devastating impact a third runway would have on families and households in our borough and across London.

Richmond Council has long warned about the challenges posed by Heathrow’s expansion and remains committed to working with the government to protect local communities and the environment from its harmful consequences.

Councillor Roberts is actively reconvening a cross-party coalition of councils, local MPs, Assembly Members, and community groups to oppose the renewed push for expansion at Heathrow. “This coalition was instrumental in overturning the government’s approval of a third runway in 2020, and by uniting once again, we will continue to fight for the protection of our borough and the wider London community from the adverse effects of this expansion.”

Last month, Richmond Council restated its opposition to a third runway and updated its policy position on Heathrow’s planned developments, including opposing any increase in night flights, challenging airspace modernisation, and supporting renewed efforts on easterly alternation.

Tower Block Tatler's successor on Brent Cabinet named. Teo takes over.

 

Cllr Teo Benea

 

Cllr Muhammed Butt has appointed Cllr Teo Benea who represents Sudbury ward, alomng with Lib Dem leader Paul Lorber, to the Cabinet as lead member for Regeneration. Planning and Property. This is a slight variation on Shama Tatler's portfolio that has been held by Cllr Butt for some months. Presumably 'Property' refers to Brent Council property which is currently under review to achieve maximum market rates.

In a message to fellow Labour councillors, Cllr Benea wrote:

I just wanted to let you know that I am delighted to have been appointed Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Property and I am looking forward to working with colleagues, officers and residents to support regeneration and planning projects that benefit all residents across the borough

Brent Labour's website gives details of her background including working at a consultancy on planning and regeneration:

Teo has lived in Brent for several years, she has long been the champion for closer relations with our European neighbours. As a first-generation migrant herself, she is also particularly passionate about supporting under-represented groups to vote – including EU and Commonwealth Citizens. She currently works in a public-affairs consultancy in the planning and regeneration sector. When the war started in Ukraine, Teo coordinated the collection of donations and organised the logistics for these to be delivered at the border between Romania and Ukraine in partnership with other Romanian organisations and partners. Teo and the then Sudbury councillors managed the donations that came in at St Andrew’s Church in Sudbury over 4 days. Donations were collected from all locations across London and 5 trucks of goods were loaded and sent to Ukraine.

Teo has a strong track record in campaigning and working hard for local residents and has a background as an Organiser for the Labour Party and also previously worked for a Labour MP in Westminster. In council Teo advocates for Sudbury to get its fair share of investment – including more new roads and pavements, cleaner streets and improved green spaces in Barham Park, Vale Farm and elsewhere. Another priority is to ensure that the Eastern European communities have a voice on the council, building community cohesion among the diverse communities that live in Brent.

 

Watford Road water mains works due to the volume of developments around Wembley Stadium

 Affinity Water Ltd, in an email seen by Wembley Matters, has confirmed what to many seemed obvious:

This work (Watford Road) is to enable us to carry out 1.7km of mains reinforcement for the area. Breaking that down, we need to carry out 950m along Watford Road. This reinforcement job is vital due to the volume of developments in the area close to Wembley Stadium, our Modelling Team estimate circa 8,000 customers across 6 DMA’s  (District Metering Areas) may experience supply issues if this work is not carried out as soon as possible.

 

Green Party: Expanding Heathrow in the face of a climate emergency is the definition of irresponsible.

 

Responding to the news that Rachel Reeves is backing the expansion of Heathrow Airport, Green Party MP, Sian Berry MP said:

 

The Chancellor talked about the ‘costs of irresponsibility’ but expanding Heathrow in the face of a climate emergency is the definition of irresponsible.

 

Worst still, we’re also expecting formal planning decisions from ministers on Gatwick and Luton airport expansion, which the Chancellor pre-empted today. Giving these permissions in the month before vital new advice is expected from the Climate Change Committee, today’s speech is nothing short of reckless.
 

The carbon cost of expanding Heathrow, Luton, and Gatwick together will cancel out the benefits of Labour’s keystone clean energy plan, making Net Zero minister Ed Miliband’s task almost impossible.
 

The Chancellor’s stated goal is ‘raising living standards in every part of the UK’ but more and bigger airports will serve only the very richest aviation bosses and the most frequent flyers whose wealth doesn’t help people’s daily lives get better.
 

Tackling inequality and building a greener future should go hand in hand. That must mean investment in warmer homes, green energy and the local transport people use every day, not these bleak proposals.

Friends of the Earth - Tell Rachel Reeves: don’t put plane profits before planet. Sign our petition.

 

From Friends of the Earth

BREAKING: Chancellor Rachel Reeves has given the green light to airport expansion while we're in a climate emergency. 

Expanding airports like Heathrow won’t do much, if anything, for the communities that need growth the most. Instead, benefits will be enjoyed by shareholders and the wealthiest few who fly frequently.  

Airport expansions mean more subsidies for a heavily polluting industry - when we desperately need to be doing all we can to reduce emissions. Greenlighting a third runway at Heathrow alone could jeopardise the UK’s ability to meet our climate promises and put us all at risk of more extreme weather. 

Add your name now to this petition to demand no more airport expansion while we’re in a climate emergency. LINK

Rachel Reeves' statement that growth trumps everything is the short-sighted kind of thinking that has led to the climate crisis. And the growth that would come from expanding airports like Heathrow is questionable.

• Airport expansion doesn’t make flying cheaper. According to the Treasury’s own analysis, the costs of expanding Heathrow airport could add £40 to the cost of an airline ticket.
• More money leaves the UK from outbound flights than is spent by incoming tourists. Tourism spending is concentrated in London and a few hotspots, with little benefit elsewhere.
• Emissions from flights are growing while the aviation industry receives at least £10 billion in subsidies annually, due to tax breaks on fuel. This costs taxpayers and allows the sector to pollute without meeting climate targets. And the burden of climate action is shifted onto other sectors.
• Analysis by the New Economics Foundation shows that if expansions at 4 UK airports including Heathrow are allowed to go ahead, they will cancel out the carbon savings of this government’s clean power plan in just 5 years.

 

Rather than planning to trample over nature protection rules and binding carbon reduction targets, the government should be investing in a bold and fair climate plan. A plan that means we can all benefit from cheap energy, widespread public transport, thriving nature and well-paid green jobs.

 

Sadiq Khan: I remain opposed to a new runway at Heathrow airport

 

Now Watford Road joins the Brent Festival of Roadworks February 25th - July 1st 2025

 

Affinity Water have warned residents that they will be replacing the water mains along the A404 Watford Road between Northwick Park Roundabout and John Lyon Roundabout.

They say they have been in contact with the Highway Authority and local transport teams at London Borough of Harrow and London Borough of Brent to minimise the
impact of these works:

We’re doing this work to improve our infrastructure to help us continue supplying you and the local community with high-quality drinking water to you and your local community long into the future.

 • Working dates: Tuesday 25th February 2025 – Tuesday 1st July 2025.
• Working hours: 8am – 6pm Monday to Friday & various timings on
weekends.

These works are part of a larger Scheme, which will be taking place in phases and are due to be completed by December 2025.

How will this affect you?

• Traffic management: There will be rolling multi-way traffic lights in place to manage the traffic flow to avoid any major disruptions in the area.

Brent Safety Officer withdraws objections to K-Pop Festival after additions to conditions

 The Brent Safety Officer has withdrawn their objections LINK to the K-Pop Festival planned to be held in Northwick Park after the organisers put forward additions to the licence conditions. 

Amagalmated conditions are HERE. Changes are in Red.

Further changes are likely after discussion with the various parties.

K-Pop Festival licence application to be heard Tuesday February 4th 10am Brent Civic Centre

 The controversial application will be heard at the Licensing Committee on Tuesday. at 10am.  Currently it is not going to be livestreamed so interested residents will need to attend Brent Civic Centre in person.

Documents

Here are two key maps as background. Click X at bottom right corner for full view.:

 

Many of the documents related to the Licence Application have been restricted from public view by Brent Council. These will relate to the financial arrangements between the Applicant and Brent Council which are of obvious interest to Brent residents. 

 

Brent Council issue pictures of Wembley High Road restructure works progress

 From Facebook

 They say:

 

Wembley High Road progress💪 We have exposed the following so we can check & repair👇 🚿Water 🔌Electrics ⛽️Gas 📞Telecommunications 🔴The running lane, between Oakington Park Manor & St Joseph’s Church is for the sole use of buses and emergency service vehicles only

 

Certainly residents report fewer private vehicles trying to get through the portion of road reserved for buses and emergency vehicle since the Council publicly announced they would be fined. 

A burst water main in the High Road main this morning added to the problems.

 

Residents invited to public meeting on drug and knife crime - Monday 27th January 6.30-9pm Brent Civic Centre and online

 

  From Brent Council

 

Local residents are invited to a public meeting on Monday 27th January to discuss ongoing efforts to reduce drug and knife crime in Brent. 

 

Chief Superintendent Sara Leach will speak about the steps the police in Brent are taking to cut crime and build trust within the community. She will outline how the police are working alongside the council, local partners, and the community to make Brent a safer place for everyone. 

 

Brent’s commissioned support services will also explain how they help adults and young people who are worried about their own or someone else’s drug use. 

 

The meeting will provide community members with the chance to share their views, voice their concerns and discuss ways everyone can work together to improve safety in the borough. 

 

Attendees will also have an opportunity to meet and ask questions of local police sergeants, police officers, council officers, addiction recovery advocates, and support workers. These representatives will share their ongoing efforts to tackle drug and knife crime and invite feedback on how they can better connect with local communities.

 

This is an opportunity to hear what has already been done in Brent on these community safety priorities, find out how organisations and individuals can help reduce drug use and knife carrying, and suggest ways forward.

 

The public meeting is organised by the Brent Safer Neighbourhood Board (SNB) which is made up of community members and partners, including the council. Its role is to scrutinise the police and enable the community to engage with the police. Following the meeting, the SNB will work with the police to ensure action is taken on the issues raised by residents. 

 

The meeting will take place on Monday 27 January, from 6.30-9pm at the Grand Hall in Brent Civic Centre. Refreshments will be provided, and there is no need to register in advance. The event will also be webcast online.

 

'We rescued a dozen people from the Kilburn Job Centre fire.' claim locals. Premises still wide open to intruders.

 

A gaping hole in the Job Centre wall at 4.30pm today

 

I went to  site of the fire at the disused Kilburn Job Centre this afternoon and found the Cambridge Avenue side of the building open to the elements - and any intruders. It was burnt out except for a table and the twisted metal guards that had been torn down.

A security guard hung around while I was taking photographs and I was approached by an onlooker, Jamie.

Jamie told me that he and his friends Ezra and DJ had seen the building was on fire and rushed in to get people out. He had given their names to a newspaper reporter but their account had not been published:

'We didn't stop to think we just ran ino the building. There were six people on the ground floor, four on the first floor, and two at the top.  They didn't hang around, they just scarpered, because it's arson isn't it?  By the time the para medics came they were mostly gone.

My throat hurt from the smoke. My mate told me that I should have got a wet towel and wrapped it around my face but we acted on impulse -  I wasn't going to waste time my searching for a towel and water, was I?'

The hole is just yards from the bus stop and passengers stopped to look when they alighted. It is quite a sight:

At the back of the building, in Coventry Close, it appears that work has been done to keep out intruders and squatters, although doesn't make much sense when Cambridge Avenue is wide open. Perhaps the contractor did not know about the other entrance...

 

Attempts at securing the building

Abandoned belongings indicate a hasty exit

The side of the building (above) looks less secure as does what appears to be a first floor balcony (below)

 

Having  escaped what could have been fatalities in the fire, though not responsible for the building, I understand that Brent Council is now contacting the owners with more energy than hitherto. They had been warned several times by residents over many years.

I hope the Council thanks Jamie, Ezra and DJ.

How will our MPs vote on a Third Runway for Heathrow?

 Keir Starmer voted against a Third Runway for Heathrow back in 2018 but has changed his mind as part of Labour's growth, growth and more growth agenda.

But how did our MPs vote in 2018? 

Bob Blackman MP for Harrow East at the time defied a three line Conservative whip and voted against as did Dawn Butler ( Labour - Brent Central),  Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent North) and Karen Buck, then Labour MP for Westminster North.

That constituency is now largely Queens Park and Maida Vale represented by Georgia Gould, who is very close to Starmer.

How will they all vote this time?  Will they forget the climate emergency out of loyalty to Keir Starmer?

Bee kind! – grow some winter flowering plants if you can

 Guest post by Philip Grant

A buff-tailed bumblebee in a Kingsbury garden, 24 January 2025.

 

If you were watching the BBC Winterwatch programme on Thursday evening, you will have seen a film about a buff-tailed bumblebee, and its need to find flowers to feed from after emerging from its hibernation burrow. A sudden rise in temperature and some sunshine, like we had on Friday after several very cold weeks, can make them think that Spring has arrived.

 

Plants that are in flower can be hard to find at this time of year. It is several weeks too early to find snowdrops or crocuses in bloom. The bumblebee in Bristol was lucky enough to find some Mahonia bushes in flower, a winter flowering evergreen shrub that can have yellow flowers between November and March.

 

Mahonia flowers. (Courtesy of the RHS website)

 

But if you have a garden, or even a small patio or balcony, and can grow some suitable plants, you may be rewarded with sights like the buff-tailed bumblebee above, which I saw feeding on a patch of winter-flowering heather in the sunshine on Friday morning. Bee kind, if you can – nature needs our help, and can also give us so much pleasure.

 

Don't forget it is the RSPB Garden Watch this weekend! See my post from last January HERE.

 

Philip Grant.