Showing posts with label Brent Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brent Council. Show all posts

Sunday, 11 May 2025

The last Annual Meeting of the current Brent administration

Wednesday's Annual Meeting of Brent Council marks the last year of the current administration and the thirteenth year of Muhammed Butt's leadership of the Labour Group and the Council.

The Annual Meeting sees much fussing over ceremonial regalia and flummery, as well as the serious business of appointing Committee members and representatives on outside bodies.

Cllr Ryan Hack will be installed as the youngest ever Brent Mayor and Cllr Kathleen Fraser as his seasoned Deputy.  Whether Cllr Fraser acceedes to the Mayoralty will depend on the outcome of the 2026 local election.

Committee details are not released until just before the Annual Meeting but Butt may attempt a 'refresh' before the election. Watch this space.

The last item on the Annual Meeting Agenda is a proposed Protocol for setting up International Partnerships and a proposed Twinning Arrangement with Nablus on the West Bank of Palestine.

The Twinning proposal is accompanied by a very thorough 67 page assessment of the benefits to Brent and the practicalities HERE.

 The twinning proposal has been supported by a 1849 signature petition and Brent Trades Council, Brent NEU, Brent Friends of Palestine and Brent Palestine Solidarity Campaign amongst others.

The financial arrangements are covered n the documentation:


The Mayoral Office is likely to spend some of its annual budget on hosting the occasional visit (if in a Twinning arrangement). A maximum budget per twinning or friendship agreement per financial year should be identified and confirmed with the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources by the officer(s) assessing the proposal to ensure funds can be allocated to this budget before any new Internal Partnership Arrangement is agreed.

 

 International Partnering Arrangements would fall under the remit of the Mayor of Brent, but costs related to International Partnering Arrangements must be met by the organisation leading on this. This includes costs for entertaining, gift swaps or costs for printing certificates. There should be no additional financial cost for the Mayor’s Office, or other parts of the council.


 

Friday, 9 May 2025

BREAKING: Brent Labour Party members excluded from candidate selection process for 2026 local elections

 Usually over the next few months Labour Party members would be meeting to select the candidates for their ward in the next local council election in 2026.  In the past there have been allegations of candidates signing up friends and family as Labour Party members a few week before the selection meeting in order to get the maximum vote.

This year is different. 

Selection will be made by external 'assessors' recruited by the London Region of the Labour Party.  Each candidate will have a 30 minute virtual interview.  Candidates will be able to express a preference for their top three wards but sitting councillors will be given first preferences in the allocation of wards.

So what role will rank and file Labour Party members have?

The control by the London Region does not end there. A 'Campaign Improvement Board'  will operate in Brent due to the electoral challenge it faces. It will oversee the selection process and establish a relationship with all Brent candidates ahead of the election. Candidates wil be expected to sign a contract setting out campaigning expectations and any extra support needed.  Training will also be provided.

The Brent Campaign Improvement Board  will include Abdi Duale (NEC), Bella Sankey (Leader of Brighton & Hove Council), and Clyde Loakes (Deputy Leader of Waltham Forest Council). All are well known supporters of Labour leader Keir Starmer.

Cllr Shama Tatler is Vice Chair of the London Regional Executive Committee and a member o the Regional Board for Barnet, Camden, Brent and Harrow.

Islamia Primary move to the Brentfield Road Leopold School site on May 19th Cabinet Agenda. Consultation starts late May/Early June

 

The proposed site for Islamia Primary School, Brentfield Road, Neasden

 On October 11th 2023 Wembley Matters speculated that the Leopold Primary School building in Brentfield Road (Gwnneth Rickus site), that had been earmarked for closure, could be a possible location for Islamia Primary School. LINK. Islamia had been given notice of eviction by the Yusuf Islam Foundation (YIF) that owned the Salusbury Road, Queens Park, site.  The YIF wants to expand the nearby private Muslim secondary schools.

Now Sophia Moussaui, Chair of Islamia Governors, has written to parents to say that the Governors and Brent Council have agreed that the site could offer a positive solution for the future of the Islamia Primary School.

The proposal goes to Brent Cabinet on May 19th and if planned progress goes well Islamia could open on the new site in September 2027. The YIF has extended the eviction notice until August 2027 but states that if the school does not move the eviction will go ahead.

 An informal consultation, managed by the Governing Body, will go ahead at the end of this month if the Cabinet agrees the proposal followed by public meetings at Islamia in the first two weeks of June.

Ms Moussaui writes:

We understand that any change brings questions and we are committed to keep you fully informed as  the process develops.

 The Cabinet Paper (available HERE) includes the following points (my emphasis):

Islamia Primary School (IPS) is one of Brent’s most popular schools as the only state Muslim school in the borough. The school has 418 pupils on roll (School Census January 2025) and each year the 60 Reception places are usually offered to families who applied for the school as their first preference. The school has a high sibling factor with 43% of Reception places in both September 2025 and September 2024 offered to siblings. The majority of pupils on roll are from Brent. The numbers of out-of-borough children offered was historically low. However, this has changed since the school removed a local catchment area from its admission arrangements in 2020. 21.5% of current students live outside Brent.


This is an increase on the figures from January 2024 (17.2%) and January 2023 (14.4%). 36.7% of offers made for Reception in September 2025 are for children who live outside Brent.

 

It is recognised that relocating Islamia Primary School to the Gwenneth Rickus site could give concern to parents and staff who are impacted by and objected to the closure of the Leopold Primary School provision on the site. Other local schools may also be concerned that the location of the IPS on the Gwenneth Rickus site could impact on their pupil numbers. It is the case that Islamia Primary School may attract local pupils in the future. However, as the only Muslim faith school in Brent, IPS draws from a wide area across the borough and for some pupils attending the school the site will be closer to where they live. The school also recruits pupils from other boroughs. Furthermore, the high sibling factor in the school’s intakes (over 40%) means that many families currently attending the school will continue to access places in the future. Given the wide geographic area that the school serves, the school would be expected to develop a sustainable travel plan that includes public transport

 

£2.8m of Targeted Capital Fund was transferred from IPS to Brent by the DfE in 2012 in order to manage and deliver the planned IPS new build following the school’s unsuccessful attempt at delivering the project. The design of the Salusbury Road site expansion referred to in paragraph 3.2.3 was funded using £200K of the TCF and therefore £2.6m remains. The DfE has agreed on an annual basis for this funding to be rolled forward until such time as a permanent solution for IPS has been identified. They have been asked to consider if this funding could be made available for investment in the Gwenneth Rickus site, recognizing that it is not required to provide basic need accommodation. As this would not meet the criteria for the targeted capital programme under which this funding was provided, the DfE may require it to be returned

 

The school’s DSG allocation currently includes £63K in split site funding, which is an element in the national funding formula allocated to schools that operate from more than one site. The school would no longer be eligible for this funding if it relocated to the Gwenneth Rickus site, reducing its per pupil funding by £150 per pupil.

 

The 206 and 224 buses stop near the school and the 18 passes the junction with Brentfield Road. The 260 and 266 stop a little further away in Harlesden. The 206 is already busy with south-north school pupil travel and the service would need to be improved. Double-deckers have already been introduced at some periods.

An Islamia Primary parent commented:

Twenty odd years and they come up with a school miles away. I think  there are many missed opportunities.


Labour Leadership incompetence in the management of the Barham Park Trust could have lost residents up to £100,000 in income, claims Paul Lorber

Another potential  failure in the effective and responsible management of the Barham Park Trust has been revealed by Brent Liberal Democrat Leader, Paul Lorber. Readers will know that the Trustees are all members of the Brent Labour Cabinet with no representation from the community that is supposed to benefit from the Barham bequest.

In an email to Brent CEO, Kim Wright, Lorber alleges that the Trust failed to arrange a lease and collect rent from a Barham Park building occupied by the Young Brent Foundation, thus depriving the Trust of income.

Cllr Lorber asks for an Internal Audit based on the following:

  1.  The Council has had a Lease of the former Children Centre space in Barham Park Complex for many years.
  2. When that use ceased the space was made available to Brent Young Foundation who were allowed to take occupation before a Lease was prepared and signed.
  3. Officers were instructed to prepare and finalise a Lease some 4 years ago but never did. (I expect there were exchanges documenting the terms and basis on which YBF could use the building in advance of the Lease - an unusual situation not available to others). They were due to pay a rent equal to the rent paid by the Council to Barham Park Trust - originally £11,300pa but at some point subject to a review. 
  4. Young Brent Foundation were in occupation until now - it is not clear if proper legal process for termination was followed and the space is still being cleared as I write. (Termination was referred to at a recent Barham Park Trust Meeting). 
  5. The answers received to date (but not complete and slow in coming) suggest that Young Brent Foundation did not pay any rent, any business rates, any service charges and possibly no utility costs for electricity, gas or water or contribution to insurance.
  6. It is also not clear who paid for any of the above.
  7. I estimate that the loss mainly to Brent Council but also partly to the Barham Park Trust may be in the region of £100,000.
  8. An independent investigation is required as Property and Finance are implicated and YBF clearly has other debts owing to the Council and others including possibly HMRC and the Pensions Authority.  Letters from all these are coming through Barham Community Library and have been passed by me to the Property Unit.
  9. The investigation needs to ask a number of questions including why was occupation by YBF allowed without a lease being in place, why was no rent collected, who paid the costs of the business rates and utilities and others. What action is being taken to recover all the debts and losses sustained by Brent Council and Barham Park Trust.
  10. I consider this a major failing by various Units of Brent Council. It seems that if you are well connected as people in YBF were you get anything and you get away with anything without effective scrutiny or action. 
  11.  It is particularly galling because well established organisations in my Sudbury Ward or in Barham Park which have provided services to local people for years - East Lane Theatre Club, LNER Sports Club and Barham Veterans Club are under threat of closures because of unfair and unrealistic rent demands from the Brent Property Unit. All of these should have had lease renewals a long time ago well before the new Brent Council Property Strategy was out in place which fails to take into account the contribution these organisations provide for local people.  

 Cllr Lorber adds:

In view of the above I trust that you will instruct Internal Audit to investigate and for Property and Finance respond fully to my outstanding enquiries.


I am making my request public as part of my Scrutiny duty as the Scrutiny arrangements in Brent Council are ineffective and frankly a waste of time as recent Call Ins clearly show. Labour Councillors are cleared whipped and will never agree to refer an item back to Cabinet however flawed the original decision.

 

Tuesday, 6 May 2025

The formal consultation on the amalgamation of Malorees Infant and Malorees Junion School has opened. Have Your Say. Closing date 10th June 2025

 The headteacher of the Malorees Schools has written to parents announcing that the formal consultation on the amalgamation of the Infant and Junior schools has opened:

 I am writing to inform you that the formal consultation on the proposed amalgamation of Malorees Infant and Junior Schools has now been launched.

A statutory notice has been placed on the school gates, and all relevant information can be found in the formal proposal which can be found at https://haveyoursay.brent.gov.uk.


It is really important that all parents take the opportunity to share their views on the proposed amalgamation. If you are in favour of the proposal, or not we encourage you to make that viewpoint known as all feedback, will be taken into consideration.

 

As the consultation is now in its final and formal stage, all comments must be submitted directly on the website, or by post to Brent Council. Please don’t send any comments to the school as they will not count as a formal consultation response.

 

Thank you for your support.

 

The Have Your Say webpage has the following introduction:

 

Malorees Infant and Junior Schools - Formal Consultation

 

Brent Council has launched a formal consultation regarding the amalgamation of Malorees Infant School and Malorees Junior School.

 

This would result in the schools joining together to become one primary school, known as Malorees Primary School.

 

Brent Council, working with the governing body of the two schools, is seeking your views on the proposal to amalgamate Malorees Infant and Junior Schools. This is a unique opportunity to bring two good schools, which are already federated under one governing body, together as a single educational institution. The combined school would build on the existing strengths and good practice within both schools, and over time there would be opportunities to further enhance whole school approaches to improve teaching and learning across all key stages.

 

Further information is contained in the full proposal document, linked below. Any person may object to or make comments on the proposal by clicking the 'Leave a comment' button on this page.

 

If you have any questions about the consultation, please contact Michael Rollin at MaloreesConsultation@brent.gov.uk

The closing date for the consultation is Tuesday 10th June 2025.

 

THE PROPOSAL DOCUMENT (hover your mouse over foot of page 6 and press + to enlarge)

 

 

 

 

Monday, 5 May 2025

'Neither shared nor ownership' - SHAC's factual information blitz counters SO mis-selling at the London Home Show

 


Despite a partial recognition by Brent Council that Shared Ownership is not an affordable housing route for most Brent resident and broader issues with the product, the Planning Committee continues to approve developments that include a shared ownership component.

Previous articles on Wembley Matters have covered the topic. 

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/11/shared-ownership-lets-have-debate.html

 

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/11/brents-affordable-council-housing.html

 

I thought that a recent article by SHAC (Social Housing Action Campaign) would be of interest to readers and local politicians.

 

I thank SHAC for their permission to reproduce the article below that can also be found on their website HERE

 

 


 

By Alison, SHAC Campaigner

 

Twice a year, the estate agent subsidiaries of the big London housing associations assemble at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in Westminster for the London Home Show. 

 

Mortgage providers, conveyancing solicitors, and related service providers also take stalls. It’s a one stop shop for Shared Ownership (SO) flats.

 

The problem is, SO in neither shared nor ownership. The tenant is responsible for 100% of the costs of the maintenance of their properties, and also, through service charges, the cost of maintaining the building and the area around it. 

 

Service charging is entirely unregulated and escalates quickly. There is no tenure in law that is called ‘shared ownership’ – that is actually a marketing term. Legally, all you have is an assured tenancy, which means that if you get into just eight weeks arrears with rent and / or service charge, the landlord can repossess the entire property and, crucially, not give you back the money you paid for your share (1)

 

It is sold as an affordable way to get a foot on the property ladder, and with an option for ‘staircasing’, ie. increasing the share of the property that you theoretically own until it reaches 100%. But when rent rises above inflation, service charges increase exponentially, and wages do not keep pace with property prices, it’s no wonder that less than 3% of tenants ever ‘staircase’ to 100% (2).

 

So, a few concerned housing activists from SHAC went along to the London Home Show on Saturday 26 April 2025, armed with information leaflets for people attending the show. We knew from experience that the marketing people inside – with their bright smiles and their glossy brochures – give information on SO that is so riddled with inaccuracies, omissions, and outright lies, that their conduct constitutes deliberate mis-selling. 

 

By contrast, we had more details and sources for future research, so that anyone thinking about buying SO would know where get accurate, independent, impartial information. We didn’t have banners or placards or megaphones. But what we did have, in abundance, were facts. 

 


 

It was a lovely, sunny day, and the show was not quite as well-attended as it was the last time there was a demo outside it, in 2022. What we did find, though, was that everyone we spoke to already knew about the problems with SO. Awareness of the problematic nature of the tenure is high, although not everyone knew the details. 

 

Many people were going along to the show out of curiosity, where previously they were going along with the express intention of finding a home. A lot of people were interested in SO only because they viewed it as better than private renting – a low bar if ever there was one – but still were not convinced that it was right for them.

 

It’s astonishing that the Mayor of London chooses to promote SO as a part of his affordable housing plan, when the Housing Select Committee has found that the scheme is failing to deliver on any of its promises (3)

 

It is astonishing that Labour spent fourteen years in opposition, becoming increasingly aware through their constituents’ complaints that SO is a problem and the landlords running the schemes are out of control, and yet still have no plan to reform it. But as people are gradually turning away from the tenure, and more and more SO homes go unsold (4), sooner or later something will have to give.

 

Sources:

(1) Shared Ownership Resources – Shared Ownership – Is It Really Ownership?

(2) SORESEI Blog – Shared Ownership Market Review 2020

(3) Parliament – Shared Ownership is Failing to Deliver an Affordable Route to Homeownership Say MPs

(4) Inside Housing Third Quarter Turnover at L&Q – But Hundreds of Shared Ownership Homes Remain Unsold


Sunday, 4 May 2025

Updated: Bush Farm Collective calls for support for application for shipping containers on site for up to 5 years for barn restoration

 

The barn and orchard are remnants of the former Bush Farm in a corner of Fryent Country Park. The barn is in a pretty dilapidated state and restoration is a long term aim.

The Bush Farm Collective has appealed on Facebook for people to support its planning application for the siting of two shipping containers on the site to contain materials for the restoration The area where they would be installed is outlined in red on the site map below. The barn is next to the site labelled Riding School:


 


 

This is Bush Farm Collective's Appeal:

 

BUSH FARM URGENTLY NEEDS YOUR HELP!

As you are aware we will be renovating our barn we've put in a planning application to have storage containers on site for a maximum of 5 years which is essential to do the works and before our full renovations planning application. 

 Brent wants people's views on this so please go to https://www.brent.gov.uk/.../viewing-or-commenting-on... (you will have to register if you haven't already) the only thing you need to enter is 25/0734 you will then add a wonderful comment about how beneficial everything is etc and click SUPPORT.

 I can not explain how vital this is, please please please share with your contacts for those that don't know bush farm collective is a grassroots community project with a dilapidated 400 year old barn the BFC team have worked endlessly to raise money to save it and bring it back to life to provide much needed education and well-being to all. feel free to view our instagram @bushfarmcollective or email bushfarmcollective@gmail.com with any enquiries.

 

The planning statement gives the cost of renovation as up to £2m.

At present there are 19 support submissions on the Brent Planning Portal and 11 objections. Only 7 local addresses were sent notice of the application. Some of the support submissions are from outside of Brent.

The Comments include this statement of support from the Brent Head of Property

Brent Letter of Support
To whom it may concern

Re: Community Ownership Fund Application. The Barn & Paddocks, Fryent Country Park, Salmon Street, NW9 8YA.

I write on behalf of the Dove Watson-Yorke in support of her proposal to the Communities and Local Government for a grant to fund the transformation of the Barn and Paddocks, a building and enclosed fenced fields that are in need of significant repair to create a modern shelter for horses and livestock. This proposal assists the Council's objective of improving access to fields and open spaces by young people in the local area.

The Barn is a unique one of a kind horse shelter facility in Brent and was previously occupied by another tenant that left the building and paddocks in a poor state of repair. Dove Watson-Yorke took over the Barn and the paddocks as her horses had been sheltered at the location with the consent of the previous tenant. The Council is seeking to enter into a Farm Tenancy Agreement with Dove Watson-Yorke for a 25 year term, subject to detailed heads of terms and the Barn and Paddocks repairs being carried out under an agreement to lease.

The Barn and Paddocks are in need of works and the Council has not been able to bring the property back into a reasonable state of repair due to the level of capital investment required. Repairs include those to the timber structure, replacement of asbestos roof, timber cladding to the outer walls, the addition of modern toilet and and kitchen facities updated services and subsantial field fence repairs. The improved conditions would allow a long term agreement to be entered into and would strongly aligned to the objectives of the Borough Plan. The Brent Borough Plan is charged with a renewed focus and actions to tackle cross-cutting issues such as health inequalities. The Council therefore considered Dove Watson-Yorke to be best placed to bring the Barn and Paddocks into good use and deliver outcomes for local young people. As part of evaluation we have considered Dove Watson-Yorks to have a business model and a plan for meeting these objectives.

We believe that Dove Watson-Yorke, will be able to gain access to and secure other sources of additional investment, and thus secure the future of the asset in the longer term for community benefit. Without intervention, the building will continue to deteriorate and may eventually be lost for community use. The Council recognises that the letting has the potential to achieve a range of key objectives from promoting civic renewal, community cohesion, active citizenship and improving local public services to tackling poverty and promoting economic regeneration. If the proposed letting does not proceed, the Council may need to consider other options, such as demolition of the structure.

Dove Watson-Yorke would be better placed than the Council to manage this asset in the local community, with her local knowledge, and hands-on management likely to lower overheads and achieve better and more intensive and sustainable use from the asset than might be the case under traditional models of service delivery. The letting would also support the delivery of service outcomes which would otherwise be unnaffordable by the Council. There is a lack of high quality assets available for community use in Brent. The proposed letting is therefore a rare opportunity to make use of a potentially high quality asset for community benefit.

The works to be carried out at the Barn and Paddocks, as a condition of the agreement to lease, will include Dove Watson Yorke funding and returning the Barn and Paddocks to a safe, compliant and lettable state of repair. 


The proposal meets the general objectives of providing targeted investment to strengthen capacity and capability in communities to support them to shape their place and develop sustainable community businesses. We strongly support this application and the focus on increasing the use of open spaces for local young people.

I look forward to working with you in improving opportunities for young people in our communities and achieving health equity.
Yours sincerely,


Head of Property
London Borough of Brent

 

There is a submission from a Trustee of the Barn Hill Conservation Group that looks after Fryent Country Park, writing in a personal capacity:

 

I am a long time resident in Kingsbury, a regular volunteer with Barn Hill Conservation Group BHCG and a trustee of BHCG charity. However, I write in a personal capacity.


The proposed redevelopment of the stables barn is a difficult, complex task. The stables with horses are a much loved feature of Fryent Country Park. The applicant has a very difficult task with limited resources. The proposal is an essential step along the way and has my full support.

 

An opposing view is put by a near neighbour:

 

Firstly, I believe granting permission for two storage containers would exacerbate the derelict site the area has become over the past few years, along with the large horse transporter that is used as a mobile home. Moreover, I question the necessity of such large containers for such a long period, especially considering that the barn's reconstruction is due to commence later this year. While I strongly support the barn's refurbishment, the requirement for these containers raises concerns about the timeline for its completion.


In reference to the letter of support submitted by the 'Head of Property' at Brent Council, it's evident that the council is merely pleased that someone else is taking on the responsibility of rebuilding the derelict barn, rather than have to address the issue themselves. They base their trust on a business plan filled with whimsical ideologies, disregarding the potential impact on local residents. The site is not a riding school, there has been no involvement with local schools, and community engagement is minimal at best. My back garden backs onto one of the paddocks, and I have three young children. This portal is the first time I've heard of the educational workshops purported in the business model. Perhaps we don't fit within the definition of 'local community'?


We have attended two events hosted by Bush Farm Collective, one of which we left due to the explicitly inappropriate music being played. Has anyone at Brent Council investigated the authenticity of the claims made in Bush Farm Collective's business proposal?


The 'Brent Council Head of Property' also stated, "Without intervention, the building will continue to deteriorate and may eventually be lost for community use." However, to my knowledge, the barn and 'riding school' have not been available for community use in the nine years we have lived here.


Currently, the area appears to be used as a personal party hub for BFC, with loud gatherings, music, dogs barking, and general noise disrupting the normally peaceful surroundings. Granting planning permission would only allow this free run of the land to continue, making it an impossible environment for us who live within it.

 

A supporting statement from outside the area gives a different view of the Bush Farm Collective's activities;

I am writing in support of the planning application for temporary storage at the paddocks and barn at Fryent Country Park. I have taken part in conservation activities with the Bush Farm Collective (BFC), planting hedges, and improving the land for wildlife. I have also attended and volunteered at the community events organised by the BFC in collaboration with the local community. I have witnessed the hard work and dedication the BFC put into these events. I see how much they benefit the local community members who engage with the group, attend events and get involved with activities. I am also aware of the important work the collective do to support volunteers and children with outdoor activities, that are so important for mental health and general well-being.

 

A further objection contains some points not covered above;

 

 As a daily user of Fryent Country Park and a local resident I was deeply concerned to hear, only two days ago, that this planning application had been submitted several weeks ago. There are no notices on the barn itself, the two noticeboards, the gate or nearby lamp-posts to alert the community around the park. Nor has anyone from the 'Bush Farm Collective' made any attempt to speak to park users or neighbours about their plans. As word of mouth has spread over the past few days, it is apparent that nobody was aware of these plans.

The 'business plan', for which this is supposedly the first step, would not stand up to scrutiny on any level. Quite apart from the substantial change of purpose for what is, and always has been, a community recreational facility with a small area of grazing land and pasture which is leased for private use, the information provided is riddled with inaccuracy throughout - not least that there is no existing Riding School, (which would surely require a license, insurance and a qualified instructor, in any case).

With regard to this application specifically, though, objections are as follows;

- Shipping containers are completely out of keeping with the natural character of the park and would constitute an eye sore.

- The 'Collective' has already parked a dilapidated horse box next to the barn, which could have been used as 'storage' but is frequently occupied overnight, despite there being no sanitation facilities.

- The 'Collective' was granted a substantial amount of money over two years ago but there has been no improvement to the barn or the surrounding paddocks since then. Whilst we understand that the barn itself is now beyond repair (partly as a result of the tenant's actions), there is no reason why the paddocks could not have been cleared of the accumulated junk, the fencing repaired properly and some form of shelter for the horses with an adequate water supply provided.

- Using whatever grant remains to pay for shipping containers, which could not be used to house animals, would be a mis-use of charitable funds.

- Contrary to what is submitted in the application, there is no hard-standing for these containers to be placed on, either in the area indicated on the plan or elsewhere within the leased paddocks.

- To get two 20 foot containers into the place indicated on the plan, a long established and healthy tree would have to be removed / destroyed.

- The plan alleges that installing two containers on the land for a period of 5 years will allow time for planning and work to replace the barn to be completed. Surely there should be planning permission in place first - then they can look at the best way to achieve the work?

- 5 years is not temporary. The 'business plan' talks about further fund raising and income from activities which require the use of the barn and the other 'developments' which means that there is no viable exit strategy should that income not be forthcoming. The containers could be there forever.

- There is a well established, long standing and active community group in Kingsbury which provides volunteers with the opportunity to take part in and learn about conservation and wildlife in the park. It has a garden which offers regular community events, it has direct links with Brent Parks Department and, importantly, a properly formed constitution and committee structure. The 'Collective' has none of these.

- Photographs to show the actual condition of the area around the barn, and the inadequate fencing will be emailed separately. It is an eyesore with an accumulation of dangerous materials left where the horses, dogs and children can easily be injured. For example, broken fence posts with nails sticking out and sheets of discarded rusty metal. This does not seem to correlate with the 'Collective's rhetoric.

A further support statement with some new points:

 I am writing in support of the planning application for temporary installation of 2 shipping containers on the land at Fryent Country Park. The Bush Farm Collective have developed over the past three years a community supported plan to transform the barn for community benefit, providing facilities for local partner charities to conduct their learning and development activities. This requires renovation of the barn to be fit for purpose and use. The shipping containers are required for storage of the barn contents during construction.

The barn restoration plan has been achieved with the support of funding from Brent's You Decide grant, determined by community support. This has been matched with funding by Government's COF Grants, which has achieved the funds required to renovate the barn. The restoration will reinstate the barn for community use, with construction planned to happen in the latter part of 2025.

The Collective is made up of local volunteers, who have worked hard to make the land and barn fit for community purpose, with facilities that will enable the site to contribute to increased community benefit once the barn is reinstated. This has all been achieved with the support and knowledge of Brent Council throughout.

Without the initiative and activities of the Collective over the years, the barn, which has fallen into dereliction, would not be restored, and remain the eyesore, and unused asset that it is presently is. As a borough that is in great need of community facilities, we know that this is seen positively by the Council and many local people. Our community events have always been well attended and supported, and have been used to communicate the plans for the barn, along with extensive consultation, community surveys and letterboxing.

We understand that for some residents, who have the great fortune to live adjacent to Fryent Park, have objections to any change to the public land. We encourage them to look at the architect's plans for the barn once they are live on the planning portal, which demonstrates the transformation possible to this neglected building. We also understand that change is sometimes difficult, however advocate that the benefit to the wider community that Bush Farm Collective are proposing is a change that is worth considering with positive spirit.

LINK TO PLANNING PORTAL TO COMMENT

 In response to request from a reader on the first publication of this story here is more about the Bush Farm Collective's plans.


 

 

Wednesday, 30 April 2025

Should Brent data on Afro-Caribbean Boys' attainment gap be made public?

50 years ago I was involved in a grassroots group called the Westminster Group for  Multiracial Education. The group arose from community concerns about education in North Paddington and involved parents, teachers, school students, social workers, workers from the local Commission for Racial Equality and a young lawyer from the nearby Law Centre who went on to become the MP for Brent East.

Concerns included racism in schools, racist remarks by teachers, low expectations of Black pupils and discrimination in their access to examination streams,  the lack of books and other resources relevant to Black people and their history, and the disproportionate number of Black pupils labelled ESN* (Educationally Sub-normal in the language of the times.) More widely the impact of the SUS law (Stop and Search on Suspicion) and immigration laws on young people was a big issue locally.

In nearby Brent Council adopted a Policy Statement on Multicultural Education on October 21st 1981. the statement recognised and welcomed the community as multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-lingual and stated:

The Council is committed to a fundamental and significant change to a multi-cultural education based on a concept of cultural pluralism. The recongition that all people and cultures are inherently equal must be a constant from which all educational practices will be developed. 

The education system must be one which affords equality of opportunity to all children. we shall develop a plan and strategy to make the means of achievement consistent with the aims.

Reflecting community concerns Brent Council asked the Black educationalist Jocelyn Barrow to head an inquiry into the pattern of secondary school examination results that showed schools in the south of the borough 'performing markedly less well than the north'.  They were to:

1. Assess the standards achieved in secondary schools

2. Assess parental concerns

3. Assess whether these concerns were justified

4. To advise on remedial action

There was opposition from some teachers to the inquiry and schools were often reluctant to release data. The inquiry was accused of usurping the role of the school inspectorate. 

The report was published as 'Two Kingdoms: Standards and Concerns, Parents and Schools. An Independent Investigation into Secondary Schools in Brent 1981-1984'

Following the report Brent Council set up the Development Programme for Education, Attainment and Racial Equality (DPEARE) that sent advisory techers into schools to address achievement issues. A Daily Mail article denounced the teachers as 'Race spies' causing considerable conflict.  Brent Community Relations Council reacted with a statement:

The allegation that DPEARE teachers are merely 'race spies' is beneath contempt. They are quality and experienced professionals seeking to bring about a process of educational change that will help to raise the attainment of all children. 

The HMI reporting in Spring 1988 concluded:

The programme is developing satisfactorily and most work is of sound quality and adddresses the needs of Ethnic Minority pupils within the normal curriculum.

The importance of statistics (data) was underlined by the Home Office DPEARE Monitoring Panel:


 A Queen's Park Community School Staff Newsletter reports a positive visit by the Monitoring team.

 

In 2005 the issues were revisited in a collection of essays in 'Tell it like it is: How our schools fail black children' was published with a launch discussion at Harlesden Library.

An Institute of Race Relations (IRR) review includes the following:

According to Brian Richardson, the editor of Tell it Like it is, ‘Black kids may not be labelled as “educationally subnormal” these days, but they are disproportionately excluded from school, dumped in pupil referral units and sent into the world with fewer qualifications than their peers.’

In 2004, Black boys were three times as likely to be excluded from school as White boys and the percentage of Black Caribbean pupils getting five or more grades A* to C at GCSE and equivalent was 36 per cent compared to 52.3 per cent of White children.

And, in 2005, the cocktail of excuses served up to wash down such unpalatable facts is still of the 1970s flavour. Both major parties and the mainstream media still focus on the supposed shortcomings within the Black community: the lack of ‘academic focus’; the supposed dearth of strong and positive role models created by living in fragmented families and now the influence of ‘ghetto fabulous’ culture. Despite the evidence accumulated over the last three decades which highlights the institutional racism at the heart of ‘underachievement’, there are still plenty of schemes addressing cultural confusion, negative self-esteem, alienation and bad behaviour among Caribbean youth and their parents.

 

Fast forward to yesterday evening's Scrutiny Committee (Video) where I made the following presentation:

The problem of under-achievement, particularly of boys of Black Caribbean heritage has persisted. In 2018 the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee expressed concern at the gap between Black Caribbean boys and other groups.

The 2018 standards report had shown that at the end of Key Stage 2 the attainment of boys of Black Caribbean heritage had increased by four percentage points but the gap with the national average for all pupils had widened to 23 points below the national average.

A Specialist Centre for Black Caribbean Boys’Achievement  headed by Chalkhill Primary School was set up with  Black Caribbean Boys Achievement champions in each school.

Detailed analysis of ethnic achievement data was provided to the Schools Forum and some schools’ reluctance to provide details on Black Caribbean Boys was noted. That data is still on the Council website LINK but hasn’t been updated.

Now we come to this evening’s report:

3.12.6 notes:

 The previous focus to improve the attainment of Boys of Black Caribbean Heritage continues to be monitored. However, this data is not in the public domain and is therefore provided as a confidential attachment.

I ask Why not in the public domain?

3.12.8  notes:

The Brent Schools Race Equality Programme was launched on December 6th, 2024. It is a free offer available to all Brent schools. Only 29 out of 63 primary schools have taken it up)

One of its aims is to:

 To significantly increase the attainment of underperforming ethnic groups

7.4 notes that disappointing outcomes for Black Caribbean Boys persist and says:. Brent  continue to implement plans to mitigate these outcomes the data indicates that there it more collaborative work required to improve outcomes and ensure this cohort does not continue to be left behind.

So Brent Council is stating that the data shows that there is a problem but the public, the community concerned, parents and others interested people are not allowed to see the data and assess the extent of the problem and success of the initiatives. This is not accountability and transparency and could give rise to the lack of trust in the system found by Jocelyn Barrow back in the 1980s.  There is of course a need to assess value for money.

 

I ask that the Committee recommend that the data referred to in 3.12.6 be made public.

 

A further concern is that not all Brent school age children are in school and thus not included in the data.  So there is missing context.

I ask that the Committee make request for ethnic information on the following  issues.

Absence Rates

Exclusions

Number of pupils being home-schooled

The extent (if any) of off-rolling **

Impact of Covid

The number of NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training) in the borough

 

Responding, Shirley Parks,  Director of Education Partnerships and Strategy said;

With regards to Martin's point about the data being publicly available.  The DfE does not publish the data to this level of granularity so we have access to that to use internally, but we can't publish the national comparators. We would obviously also want to talk to schools [to see] if they are happy for us to publish our data alone. That would not make so much sense unless we could publish national comparators, which is why we are treating it as confidential data.

The fundamental trend which is what Martin actually covered was that we've known for years this cohort of children has not performed as well as we would want them to, which is why we've had a number of initiatives including the previous project that included champions in each school and also the current work that we are doing with the Race Equality programme. We've done three different initiatives to support this cohort of children....This year we are taking that  one step further and we are funding an anti-racist programme working with the Leeds Becket University around an anti-racist kite mark award for schools to again make sure were are doing all we possibly can. 

Ms Parks said the trend had gone up and down with different age cohorts but 'we're still not achieving what we want to achieve.' She pointed out that the LA was not doing as well as they would hope but 'we are making achievements as children go through the system.'

Cllr Kathleen Fraser (Chalkhill ward) said:

I'm listening to everybody thinking, nothing has really changed siince I was young and particularly when I was on the Council 1986-90 when we introduced anti-racist strategies and all sorts. I  myself was the product of one intervention with regards to setting up courses for black people to get into higher education. It was successful but a pity that we had to do it...

I follow what Cllr Clinton was saying: with everything you say is happening, it just seems nothing is improving as regards to Afro-Caribbean young people... I'm not saying that there isn't some good stuff going on but we sat here last year and we didn't have certain figures. This year we've got them and we are glad, but how does SEND and Pupil Premium factor in? We talk about disadvantage, the pandemic, we can go on and on, but still we're failing certain children. Certain children are failing because we haven't grasped what exactly is going on.

Cllr Fraser in a further intervention at the end of the agenda item said: 

We need to do more of a deep dive into this so we are not sitting in this situation next year with regard to standards. With the gap widening rather than reducing with regard to the Attainment of young people from Black Adrican Caribbean and Somali communities. I think with the resources that are being pumped in, we owe it to our residents to take a deep dive into this. Perhaps we can set up a Task Group to look at it.

The Committee did not adopt either of my requests. 



 * ‘How the West Indian Child is made Educationally Subnormal in the British School System’ was first published in 1971. Written by Bernard Coard, a Grenadian, who worked in southeast and east London as teacher and youth worker during the 1960s, the book aimed to expose the endemic levels of racism in Britain’s education system and to rally communities to resist.

 ** Off-rolling is the practice of removing a pupil from the school roll without using a permanent exclusion, when the removal is primarily in the best interests of the school, rather than the the best interests of the pupil. This includes pressuring a parent to remove their child from the school roll (Ofsted):