'Full participation on Brent Cross West Station plans or we will go to law,' Capita-Barnet told

Image from Barnet Council Brent Cross West Station consultation page

The Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross was formed a long time ago and consisted of several political groups, including the Green Party, Liberal Democrats and Labour politicans as well as individuals. trade councils and community organisations. It has had ups and downs as the plans ebbed and flowed but Alison Hopkins has written to Capita-Barnet, who handle the Brent Cross Thames Link project, calling for full public participation ahead of the submission of any planning application for Brent Cross West station:

I write as the co-ordinator of the decade-old “Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood Plan”, made up of local politicians, community organisations and individuals. 

At its various peaks, the Coalition has comprised of twelve residents’ associations plus the Federation of Residents’ Associations in Barnet (another twelve largest residents’ associations in Barnet), Brent Cyclists, Brent Friends of the Earth (FoE), Barnet & Enfield FoE, Camden FoE, Sarah Teather (former MP for Brent Central), Dawn Butler, (current MP for Brent Central), Labour and Liberal Democrat Councillors from Brent and Camden, Navin Shah (London Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow), Darren Johnson (former London Assembly Member), Jean Lambert (now former London MEP), Brent Green Party, Barnet Green Party, Alexis Rowell, (former Chair of Camden Sustainability Taskforce), Brent and Barnet Trades Union Councils, the Bestway Group and numerous individuals.

There is a lower level of involvement nowadays, but, as a former London Borough of Brent councillor, I can still rely on widespread all-party and no-party contacts who have been involved in the Coalition for many years. There is now an increasing London-wide co-ordination of community groups fighting developer-led control of London’s planning policy. We play a part in that, and the content of this submission draws on that resource.

The collapse of the car-based Brent Cross shopping centre expansion has met one of main aims of the Coalition, which has been to oppose Barnet council’s predicted 29,000 extra car journeys every day in the area. That has been opposed based on both unwanted road congestion and what is now called the global heating emergency.

Given the limited nature of this consultation, I want to submit comments on only a single issue. That is the nature of the design integration study for the station.

Barnet Council's Assets, Regeneration and Growth Committee decided on 17 September 2018 to “Authorise Officers to undertake a design integration study to assess how the WLO line (Dudding Hill line) could link into Brent Cross West Station. The £50k cost estimate for the study will be funded from the Thameslink budget”.

As the committee was told:

“As reported to the last Committee, the Council Officers have undertaken an initial review for the potential station on the WLO line (Dudding Hill line) to link into Brent Cross West Station.  There are a number of options for configuring platform arrangements for a potential station.

“Subject to Committee approval, the Council is proposing to undertake a design integration study to understand potential preliminary designs for the station that would integrate with the new Brent Cross West Thameslink Station. This would allow passive provision to be provided, if possible, within the Brent Cross West station.  This review will also need to respond to other constraints such as the existing Brent Curve Junction and the Hendon Lines. 

“Consequently, the Committee is asked to authorise Officers to undertake a design integration study to assess how the WLO line (Dudding Hill line) could link into Brent Cross West Station.  The £50k cost estimate will be funded from the Thameslink budget.”

That public-sector design study clearly and unambiguous falls within the scope of provisions of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 1988, a convention ratified by the UK.

You must open the study’s findings to what the Supreme Court would consider to be appropriate levels of public participation. Furthermore, that consultation must be in advance of incorporating the study’s findings into any Brent Cross West station planning application. Otherwise, we will challenge you in law, using our London-wide expertise and resources.

Please also note that the submission version of the London Borough of Brent Plan has a policy of 8-carriage-length platforms (perhaps provided passively) at any Dudding Hill line stations within the London Borough of Brent. 

That allows future inter-regional trains, running tangentially to central London, to stop at Brent’s growth area stations, as well as short London Overground trains running on this London orbital route.

That aspiration has also been included in community submissions to the Mayor’s London Plan, currently under examination by the Planning Inspectorate.

If and when there is a Dudding Hill Line station at Old Oak Common Lane station, it is also likely that the London Borough of Ealing will require 8-carriage platforms, given that other platforms at that station are already being so specified by Transport for London.

Therefore, the specification within your Dudding Hill line integration study will need to reflect these current and future policies of neighbouring boroughs. You cannot credibly avoid provision for 8-carriage platforms at Brent Cross West station.

Alison Hopkins

What about the Brent Cross Development? How will it affect you? April 4th Meeting

Barnet Trades Council and Barnet Alliance for Public Services 'dismayed' over Brent Council's Capita contract

Barnet Trades Council amd Barnet Alliance for Public Services (BAPS) have issued the following statement LINK regarding Brent Council's decision to renew its business rates collection contract with Capita which we reported earlier today LINK

Barnet Trades Council and Barnet Alliance for Public Services are concerned and dismayed that Brent Council wants to renew its contract with Capita. Our experience of Capita is that it has delivered appalling service and therefore we, together with our local Labour Party, are campaigning for all services run by Capita for Barnet to be brought in-house forthwith. #kickoutcapita is our grass-roots campaign.

Examples of Capita’s misdemeanours in Barnet include:

• A two million pound fraud carried out by a Capita employee, Capita’s lax and opaque processes completely failed to detect
• A call centre which has consistently failed to answer residents’ calls in the required time
• Incorrectly withdrawing travel passes from disabled and vulnerable people
• Actually cost taxpayers more money than in-house services would, through extra charges and “gainshare” payments designed to maximise their profits at public expense
• Performed extremely poorly in audits of the council and brought down the overall standards of council services

We urge Brent Council not to renew its contract with Capita. Capita, along with other failed and failing outsourcing giants like Carillion and Interserve have proved to be entirely failed models. We want to Kick Out Capita from Barnet and bring all services back in-house and under local democratic control. Brent Council should do likewise. The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell has spoken brilliantly about how properly funded, democratically accountable in-sourced public services are the future for the country and we agree. Together we are stronger.

--> -->

Labour Brent Council awards contract to Capita as Tory Barnet consults on getting rid of them

Brent's Labour Council has awarded Capital a further 5 year contract, worth up to £3m, to collect its business rates at the sasme time as Tory Barnet Council is consulting LINK on ending its partnership with Capita (popularly known as Crapita in the borough) and bringing its services back in-house.

In November 2018 Capita agreed to pay Barnet Council £4.12m as compensation for poor performance LINK.

Capita's press release celebrating their new contract with Brent Council quoted Deputy council leader Cllr Margaret McLennan:

Thanks to the big improvements to business rate collection rates, we have been able to invest more in frontline services to make Brent a great place to live and work. The new contract we have signed with Capita will increase the level of business rate collections in Brent and enable us to deliver more efficient services to our residents.

In December Barnet's Kick Out Capita Committee had marked Capita's possible demise with a special Christmas song:

Respond to Barnet's plans for West Hendon Playing fields at consultation meeting tomorrow

Although in Barnet the West Hendon Playing Fields are also a resource for Brent residents. You may wish to contribute to the consultation.

HAVE YOUR SAY – THE WEST HENDON PLAYING FIELDS DRAFT MASTERPLAN

Public drop-in session at the West Hendon Community Hub Tuesday 13th November. You can come and look at the draft masterplan and provide feedback. The session times are:

10.30am – 12.30pm
3.15pm – 7.00pm.

Address: 

Gadwall House, Perryfield Way

Hendon, Barnet,
The Sport, Leisure and Culture Consultancy (SLC) has been appointed to undertake an appraisal of the options available to Barnet Council for the development and creation of a sports hub with associated community facilities at West Hendon Playing Fields

From Barnet Counci:

In line with the strategies' recommendations, the council has appointed The Sport, Leisure and Culture Consultancy (SLC) to undertake an appraisal of the options available to the council for the development and creation of a sports hub with associated community facilities at West Hendon Playing Fields.

Give us your views
Please give us your views on the options by completing the online questionnaire(External link). We welcome responses from everyone including organisations interested in the future development of these sites. We would also like to hear the views of people from outside the London Borough of Barnet area.

To request a questionnaire in an alternative format, please:

• email: nicola.cross@barnet.gov.uk,
• telephone 020 8359 7404, or
• write to us at: Greenspaces, London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London, N11 1NP.

How we will use your feedback

SLC will use the results of the engagement to inform the development of an options appraisal report for consideration by the council. This will lead to the development of a draft master plan for the delivery of the preferred option, which will be the subject of further engagement later in the year. Amendments will be made as necessary to the draft master plan following this further engagement, and it will be brought to a meeting of the Environment Committee. Subject to the outcome of this meeting a full public consultation on the final master plan will then take place.

Detailed information HERE

Capita Barnet Scandal: 'Never mind Brexit, it's time for Capzit!'

From Barnet Unison

Grant Thornton was commissioned by the London Borough of Barnet (the Council) to provide support in its response to the discovery of an alleged fraud.

On Friday 21st September 2018 Barnet Council published the Grant Thornton (GT) review LINK
The GT review looked the two Capita contracts below.

Contract 1: The London Borough of Barnet and Capita (BRDS) Limited relating to the provision of Development and Regulatory Services signed 5^th August 2013 “DRS”
Contract 2: New Support and Customer Services (NSCSO) Partnering Agreement between the London Borough of Barnet and Capita Business Services Limited. “CSG” contract commenced September 1^st 2013.

The combined worth of both contracts over a 10 year period £424 million.
GT review reported:

“The individual is believed to have committed a fraud to a detected value of £2,063,972 by directing CPO payments to personal bank accounts.”

“Our view of both contracts has identified a number of significant weaknesses which may have resulted in contractual breaches. We have identified and reported what we believe are fundamental weaknesses in budgetary control and financial accounting.” 

“We note both the DRS contract and the CSG contract detail consequences for the Service Provider of Persistent Breach”.

“Lack of effective review of controls over financial ledgers.”

“The monthly and annual budgetary control process provided by CSG Finance for capital projects in Re lack sufficient rigour to challenge unusual transactions and journal entries.”

“Significant financial control weaknesses”

“Poor accounting controls

“Weakened scrutiny over regeneration scheme KPIs” 

 SOURCE

The GT review goes on to develop five broad themes and referred as control ‘Pillars’. GT had this to say about their ‘Five Pillars’

“In our view, if any one of these controls Pillars was functioning effectively at any point during the period (July 2016 to December 2017) on question it should not have bene possible for the individual to perpetrate the fraud…”

John McDonnell Shadow Chancellor said:

The Grant Thornton (GT) review of the two Capita contracts in Barnet provides yet more evidence of the folly of privatisation of public services. When I read “significant financial control weaknesses…“poor accounting controls” in the GT review it summed up what I have been saying about the current Tory government. They have failed our economy by rewarding their friends in big business, leaving our communities and public services to suffer at the hands their brutal austerity policies. I want to send a personal message of solidarity from the Labour Party Conference to Barnet UNISON and the residents who have fought side by side against a right wing mass outsourcing ideology. I fully support your campaign to #KickOutCapita from Barnet and bring services back in-house.

Professor Dexter Whitfield who recently published a joint review entitled “’Future Shape’ ‘easyCouncil‘, ‘One Barnet’= Failure” with Barnet UNISON on both Capita contracts had this to said: 

The Grant Thornton audit reveals very serious flaws and inadequate operational practice in both the Capita regeneration and back office services contracts. The fact that it took a fraud case to reveal the full nature and scope of these flaws is a damming indictment of Capita and Barnet Councils contract management and monitoring.

Furthermore, implementation of the remedial action plan may address the current inadequacies but gives little reassurance that there are no other serious flaws that remain to be exposed. The audit provides further significant evidence for the Council’s review of both contracts and a decision to terminate the Capita contracts and return to in-house provision as a matter of urgency.

John Burgess, Barnet UNISON Branch Secretary said

I am shocked but not surprised at the content of the GT review of both Capita contracts. Barnet UNISON predicted that service quality would suffer once the services were privatised however there is little comfort in saying “we told you so” for the hundreds of local jobs in Barnet that were lost as a direct result of Capita winning the contracts. What is surprising, is that it took a fraud, to deliver the forensic scrutiny we have long demanded.

Over the past five years frontline in-house services have endured vicious cuts whilst the two Capita contracts have drained badly needed public money, in order to satisfy the needs of Capita shareholders who put profit before quality services to residents. When Capita issued a dramatic profit warning on 31 January 2018, why did the Council not begin discussions to bring services back in-house. It seems clear from the GT review that even at an early stage there were serious endemic financial and budgetary issues. The Council is currently preparing a review of both Capita contracts.

It is my view that in light of the GT review, it is untenable that the Council could even consider allowing Capita to run any of their services again. The relationship between the Council and Capita is in my opinion irreversibly broken, it’s over, and now is the time to end it, no expensive divorce bill, Barnet Councils services, and residents have tolerated enough of the mass privatisation ideology. Never mind #Brexit it’s time for #Capzit”.

UPDATE Barnet Council tonight debates banning those calling for Israel boycott on grounds of ‘antisemitism’ as defined by the IHRA examples

From Palestine Solidarity Campaign

UPDATE via Barnet Momentum The motion was not taken last night. It has been referred to Barnet  Policy and Resources Committee which next meets on October 23rd.

Barnet Councillor Brian Gordon is to propose a motion effectively outlawing organisations that support Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. The motion [below] cites the hotly disputed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) document on antisemitism as justification for the move. The meeting is at Hendon Town Hall, 7pm tonight.

The motion calls for the London Borough of Barnet to ‘consider the legality of ensuring’ it does ‘not to provide or rent any space’ to individuals and groups supporting the BDS movement – effectively seeking a ban on events promoting sanctions against Israel for its violations of international law.
Councillor Gordon’s motion specifically quotes the contentious guidance notes to the IHRA document in order to claim that BDS is antisemitic, because other countries are not similarly targeted. 

However no other country that the UK treats as an ally has been in illegal occupation of another country for over 50 years, suppressing the human rights of its inhabitants.

The motion has national significance because the Labour Party – which has adopted the 38-word IHRA definition of antisemitism – has been criticised for not fully adopting the guidanceattached to it, including the two examples cited in the motion.

Jonathan Rosenhead, Vice Chair of Free Speech on Israel, said:

Those criticising Labour for failing to adopt the full IHRA guidance claim the document poses no threat to freedom of expression. This motion being put forward in Barnet clearly demonstrates that they are wrong and vindicates the adjustments made by Labour’s National Executive Committee.

Ben Jamal, Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said:

Palestinians have a right to describe their history and the continuing racist injustices that deny them their rights, whether as unequal citizens of the State of Israel, living under military occupation in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, under siege in Gaza, or as refugees denied the right of return. Others have a right to hear this information and, in line with a commitment to fighting racism in all its forms, to respond to the Palestinian call for global action via Boycott Divestment and Sanctions.

Despite the clear warning from distinguished lawyer Hugh Tomlinson QC in his legal opinion on the IHRA document, groups lobbying for Israel have continued to press public bodies both to adopt the IHRA definition and to use it to suppress both legitimate criticism of Israel, and calls for action on behalf of the Palestinian people. In March, a delegation including Joan Ryan MP, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel , Matthew Offord MP of Conservative Friends of Israel petitioned Theresa May at 10 Downing Street, calling for action to  prevent events on UK campuses that describe Israel as an apartheid state, citing the IHRA document as justification.

Campaigners for Palestinian rights including Free Speech on Israel, Jewish Voice for Labour and Palestine Solidarity Campaign are calling for the motion to be withdrawn. They have also called for the UK government to issue a clear statement that no public body should use the IHRA definition to prevent legitimate criticism of the state of Israel (which includes describing its laws and policies as “racist” and meeting the legal definition of “apartheid”). Nor should they use it to prevent calls for peaceful actions including boycott divestment and sanctions in response to Israel’s continuing violations of Palestinian human rights.

Administration motion in the name of Cllr Brian Gordon Boycott the antisemitic BDS movement 

On 31^st January 2017, Barnet became the first local authority to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of antisemitism and its corresponding guidance, which recognises that antisemitism takes many forms including, in certain circumstances, targeting of the State of Israel. 

The IHRA’s guidance rightly points out that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled [sic] against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. However, Council believes the aims, methods, and rhetoric of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and believes its go well beyond this, and are consistent with the IHRA’s guidance on the definition of antisemitism. Specifically: 

·      A completely disproportionate focus on the State of Israel to the exclusion of all other territorial disputes and ethnic conflicts in the world, e.g. the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, the Chinese occupation of Tibet, or the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus; 

·      “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour [sic]”; 

·      Frequently reported incidents of BDS activists “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” and “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to characterize Israel or Israelis.” 

·      “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” 
Following similar action taken by the City of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, on 25^th August 2017, Council instructs the Policy & Resources Committee to produce a Use of Council Premises policy and to consider the legality of ensuring:
·      The London Borough of Barnet does not provide any space or areas for clubs, organizations or even individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet instructs its companies not to provide or rent any space for affiliates, organizations or individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet appeals to landlords of event venues in the borough not to provide or rent any space for clubs, organizations or even individuals who support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

·      The London Borough of Barnet does not make any donations or grants to associations, organisations or other groups which support the activities of the antisemitic BDS movement. 

Council also reaffirms its commitment to fight all forms of prejudice, whether against religion, race, sex, gender, or age. 


--> -->
-->

UNISON - 'It is time to re-build Barnet Council & start process of bringing services back in-house'

Today Barnet Council have published a financial report detailing three options for the two Capita contracts in Barnet LINK

The options are as follows:

1. Maintain the status quo in relation to the CSG and DRS contracts;
2. Re-shape the contracts to better align service delivery to the council and Capita’s strengths and priorities, within the context of the existing contractual structure; and
3. Bring the partnership to an end, and either bring services back in house or re-procure them.

The senior officers preferred option is Option 2.

They have identified the following services to be brought back into Council control

CSG (Customer Support Group)

• Finance and Accounting (excluding transactional services provided from the Darlington shared service centre)
• Estates (Property Services, Building Services and Facilities Management)
• Strategic HR
• Safety, Health and Welfare
• Insight
• Social Care Direct

Re (Regional Enterprise Ltd)

• Regeneration Commissioning (including commissioning the Brent Cross programme)
• Highways
• Economic Skills and Development
• Cemetery and Crematorium
• Strategic Planning

John Burgess, Branch Secretary of Barnet UNISON, said:

I could say we, told you so, and we did. However the Council is in a financially critical situation and now is not the time to for rhetoric. It is time to start rebuilding our Council. I welcome the report going to Policy and Resources Committee on Thursday 19 July 2018.

However, Barnet UNISON will be supporting option 3 with qualifications. We support bringing the partnership to an end, and beginning the process of bringing services back in house. It is simply not feasible to contain to peddle the Commissioning Council model. Pragmatism driven by the financial crisis has to mean that the Council needs to include in their business case a major restructuring of senior management across the Council including the Barnet Group. The Commissioning restructure 2012 is not fit for purpose. The Council need to look at how services best fit including those within the Barnet Group. There must not be a silo approach to insourcing. 

NOTES FROM BARNET UNISON

Footnote: On 26 June 2017 Capita share price was 705.50 now six months later the share price closed today at 202.09 which represents a 72% drop in their share price over a six month period.
On Wednesday 31 January, 2018 the Capita share price opened up at 347 and closed at 182.50 which represents a 47.53% fall in share price.

Links.
Damning report into EasyCouncil, Outsourcing including forward by John McDonnell
http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Barnet-UNISON-Capita-report-2018.pdf
Below are three short video messages from Dexter Whitfield on his report.
Dexter Whitfield on campaigning against outsourcing
https://youtu.be/zDt8VKKQ-Vs
Dexter Whitfield on outsourcing failures
https://youtu.be/IiD17Pt7OwY
Dexter Whitfield on true costs of Barnet easyCouncil
https://youtu.be/V0SytYCj1HA

Disappointment as London Mayor decides not to intervene in the Cricklewood Aggregate Hub

Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, yesterday decided not to intervene in the construction of an aggregate Superhub in Cricklewood. It was open to him to directly refuse the application approved by Barnet Council or take it over himself.

The GLA report (see below) concludes that initial concerns have been addressed and that the application now conforms with the London Plan and the draft London Plan.

Intervention by the Secretary of State is now very unlikely and campaigners will be considering their next moves.

The Superhub was opposed by Fordych, Dollis Hill, Mapesbury and NorthWestTwo residents' associations.  Brent Council objected on highways and environmental grounds but 'noted that some concerns had been addressed following the submission of revised details.' Camden Council supported the application in principle but objected on amenity grounds.

There was cross-party opposition from GLA members:

Caroline Russell  (Green) – Objected to the proposals on the following grounds: committee voted in favour by a majority of one vote; transparency and objectivity; neighbouring boroughs of Brent and Camden have both objected to the proposals; the change in nature of the facility, from intermodal to aggregates / construction waste, was undertaken without public consultation; impact on well-being of residents in Barnet, Brent and Camden; air quality impacts; and traffic impacts. 

Caroline Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)  – Objected on the following grounds: slim majority, with councillors voting along ‘party lines’; transparency; objections raised from Brent and Camden Councils; scheme will impact the well-being and amenity of residents in Barnet, Brent and Camden; air quality impacts; and traffic impacts. 


Navin Shah  (Labour) – Objected to the proposals due to the impact upon noise, dust, traffic, pollution and quality of life. 


Following the Mayour announcement Caroline Russell, Green Party Assembly Member for London, said:

I share the disappointment of Brent residents at the Mayor’s decision not to intervene in the granting of planning permission by Barnet Council for the Cricklewood Superhub in the Edgware Road. Although the Superhub is in Barnet it is nearby Brent residents who will pay the social cost in terms of extra heavy lorry danger noise and pollution. The decision is particularly disappointing because there was united, well-informed opposition  from local residents’ associations as well as from Green, Labour and Liberal Democrat London Assembly Members

Fury as Barnet Council approves Cricklewood Aggregate Superhub

I couldn't be at both the Academy and Cricklewood Aggregate Superhub meeting tonight so here is the sad news from the Barnet Planning Committee as conveyed by Twitter postings:

2. NW2 Res Association‏ @NW2_RA 30m30 minutes ago

   Barnet Council voted along party lines, 6 Conservative councillors approved the aggregate superhub, 5 Labour against. It passed. We’re furious. How dare they?

   
   
3. Fordwych Residents‏ @FordwychRA 7m7 minutes ago
This is terrible news for Cricklewood and surrounding areas. Surely it must go to appeal? There are so many flaws in the reports done by Capita and Barnet. We are extremely concerned about increased traffic and pollution. They didn’t listen to residents.


  Lorna Jane Russell‏ @lornajane2 58m58 minutes ago
Really disappointed that Barnet Tories ignored resident concerns from three London boroughs and voted to approve the Cricklewood super hub. Well done to @BarnetLabour for voting against it, and to everyone that spoke passionately against it this evening! @NW2_RA @FordwychRA


Fordwych Residents‏ @FordwychRA
Replying to @lornajane2 @BarnetLabour @NW2_RA
Thanks Lorna. We really appreciated you speaking against this proposal on behalf of Camden residents. Raising important issues on additional traffic and HGVs using Fordwych Road and other roads in our area. So disappointed it was passed.