New Preston Community Library building delayed due to supply chain problems

 I was in the Preston pub, Preston Road on Friday and noticed that the Preston Library building site opposite was shrouded in sheeting and totally silent - no work in progress.

I understand that there is slippage on the scheme which consists of flats and a ground floor library space. It is now not expected to be completed until at least August with further delays possible.  The delay is blamed on supply chain issues.

The expectatation was that the Preston Community Library, saved by volunteers after Brent Council closed the original library along with 5 others, would move into the building in Spring 2023 after being housed temporarily in Ashley Gardens. 

Remembrance silence for bus workers who have lost their lives to Covid19 - Willesden bus garage tomorrow

Brent Council live streaming fails again

Brent Council seems beset by technical problems that recently have included its telephone system, parking booking system, planning portal and now the live streaming of Council meetings.

As Alexi points out the absence of a live webcast of yesterday's Full Council is detrimental to democracy. No warning of non-availability was given on the webcast portal on the Council's website and so far no apology given to residents.

LATE NEWS July 10th 16.50

The recording of the meeting is now available HERE

Brent Council eventually apologises:

  

Labour's selection for Kenton ward

Kenton ward selection for Labour candidates for  Brent Council 2018 local elections: Syed Alam, Nyela Reid, Rajan Seelan

Green Party responds to Lords Committee report 'Building More Homes'

I thought readers would be interested in this release from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee and the Green Party's response

In their report, Building More Homes, published today LINK, the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee criticises the Government’s housing policy for:

· Setting a new homes target which will fail to meet the demand for new homes or moderate the rate of house price increases.

· Restricting local authorities’ access to funding to build more social housing.

· Creating uncertainty in the already dysfunctional housing market by frequent changes to tax rules and subsidies for house purchases, reductions in social rents, and the extension of the Right to Buy. All of these changes reduce the supply of homes for those who need low cost rental accommodation.

· A narrow focus on home ownership which neglects those who rent their home.

The Committee makes wide-ranging recommendations to address the housing crisis, including:

· Restraints on local authority borrowing should be lifted. Local authorities should be free to borrow to fund social housebuilding as they are other building programmes. This would enable local authorities to resume their historic role as one of the major builders of new homes, particularly social housing.

The current historically low cost of borrowing means local authorities could make a large contribution to building the houses we need for the future. Further, the new Prime Minister has announced that the Government will abandon their fiscal target. This paves the way to increase local authority borrowing powers.

· Council tax should be charged on development that is not completed quickly. The Government’s reliance on private developers to meet its target of new homes is misguided. The private sector housebuilding market is oligopolistic with the eight largest builders building 50% of new homes. Their business model is to restrict the volume of housebuilding to maximise their profit margin. To address this the Committee recommend that local authorities are granted the power to levy council tax on developments that are not completed within a set time period.

· Maximise the use of public land. The Government must take decisive steps to build on the very substantial holdings of surplus publicly owned land. The Committee recommends that a senior Cabinet minister must be given overall responsibility for identifying and coordinating the release of public land for housing, with a particular focus on providing low cost homes. The National Infrastructure Commission should oversee this process.

· Local authorities should be given the power to increase planning fees. Local authorities should be able to set and vary planning fees to help fund a more efficient planning system and the upper cap on these charges should be much higher than the current limit.

Commenting Lord Hollick, Chairman of the Committee, said:

We are facing an acute housing crisis with home ownership – and increasingly renting – being simply unaffordable for a great many people.

”The only way to address this is to increase supply. The country needs to build 300,000 homes a year for the foreseeable future. The private sector alone cannot deliver that. It has neither the ability nor motivation to do so. We need local government and housing associations to get back into the business of building.

Local authorities are keen to meet this challenge but they do not have the funds or the ability to borrow to embark on a major programme to build new social homes. It makes no sense that a local authority is free to borrow to build a swimming pool but cannot do the same to build homes.

The Government are too focussed on home ownership which will never be achievable for a great many people and in some areas it will be out of reach even for those on average incomes. Government policy to tackle the crisis must be broadened out to help people who would benefit from good quality, secure rented homes. It is very concerning that changes to stamp duty for landlords and cuts to social rent could reduce the availability of homes for rent. The long term trend away from subsidising tenancies to subsidising home buyers hits the poorest hardest and should be reversed.

If the housing crisis is to be tackled the Government must allow local authorities to borrow to build and accelerate building on surplus public land.

Responding to the House of Lords Economic Committee’s report ‘Building More Homes’, Green Party Housing Spokesperson Samir Jeraj said:

Many of the committee’s recommendations -  on breaking the monopoly on developers, enabling council house building, and the misguided nature of the government’s focus on home ownership - reflect long-held Green Party positions.

However, they do not go far enough in some areas, particularly on Right to Buy. This damaging policy has rightly been scrapped in Scotland, and is on the way to being scrapped in Wales - it must be abandoned in England too.

To make council tax genuinely fair, it should be replaced by a Land Value tax, which would return to the community the value added to a property because of improvements that have been paid for by the public purse.
 

Tackling the housing crisis must be at the top of the new Prime Minister’s priorities, and taking on this report’s recommendations would be a positive first step.

The need for a 'Needs Budget'

Mural to celebrate the Poplar rate rebels who used the powers of local government to stand up to a Conservative and Liberal coalition government in the aftermath of the First World War

Guest blog by William Quick, a Green Party member in Bristol. This posting was orginally published on his blog A Green Trade Unionist - In Bristol

I’ve just been selected by the Bristol Green Party to be their candidate for Bedminster in next May’s Council elections.  I’m really excited and want to thank all our local members who voted for me; we came second to Labour in Bedminster by only 3% this year and we have a really good chance of getting atleast one of the two seat in the ward.  I intend to do a longer post on my priorities for the ward, but for now I thought I’d dwell on something that came up in the hustings, my opposition to any and all cuts budgets and the need for a ‘needs budget’.

As you should know the Green Party completely opposes Austerity as a failed economic model, that has held back the economy, and punished the poor and most vulnerable in our society whilst forcing ordinary people to pay for the bailout of the banks.

Nationally our MP has been fantastic in continually voting against cuts and austerity and has one of the best voting records of any Left wing MP.

However, on the local level, the limited options available to resist the imposition of cuts has seen Green Councillors – most famously in Green controlled Brighton – adopt a ‘dented shield’ approach to try and minimise the worst excesses of local cuts and vote for cuts budgets (so they can amend and tinker with them).

The amount of money in the budget is imposed on local authorities by central government and its austerity agenda.  To set a legal budget within those confines means passing on cuts.

The alternative is setting a ‘needs budget’.  Disregarding the limit set by Whitehall this would set a budget adequate to cover provision for all the services local people need (hence a ‘needs budget’).  Such actions have been made illegal under section 114 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 which then obligates the councils financial officer to alert Whitehall as to what’s happened.  After that the council would have 21 days to set a legal budget or supposedly civil servants from central government would depose the council and set a cuts budget themselves.  

That being the case many feel they have no option but to pass cuts budgets that have minimised the threat to vital services as much as possible.

However, to me, and many others, this seems a very improbable course of events.  This is a government with a wafer thin majority, and deposing the democratically elected council of one of the largest cities in the UK would be a deeply unpopular move.  The drama would dominate the news and could be a spark that ignites the disparate movements we’ve seen trying to resist austerity these last 5 years.

Should it even get so far as civil servants being sent into the city, they would be met with large scale protests and no doubt a strike from local government workers who would then refuse to help them carry out their dirty work (and many civil servants are PCS members who would be unlikely to cross a picket).  With all that going on, the likelihood of the worst case scenario (the deposition of the council) happening seems very low.

Instead they’d no doubt try and reach a compromise, in which we’d be able to win a better deal for Bristol.

One way this might work has already been laid out by our Mayoral candidate Tony Dyer.  The Conservatives have said councils can keep their business rates (probably from 2020).  Tony has challenged the government to give Bristol its business rates from 2016, which would allow us to reverse the cuts and invest in the many many infrastructural projects Bristol urgently needs (chiefly social and affordable housing).  If we set a needs budget and demanded we be given our business rates early to pay for it, it seems likely central government would, to some extent, give in.

It’s not as far fetched as some might have you believe.  Remember despite the apparent dire state of the nations finances, in the last budget the Conservatives magicked up £12 billion in extra defence spending (the exact same amount they’re cutting from welfare, coincidently), and another £10 million for a private jet for the PM (among many other things).  Last year they found money for an 11% pay rise for every MP, and £15 billion for Osborne’s ‘Road Revolution’.  In short, they’re very good at finding extra money when they need it.  And in the kind of constitutional crisis they’d provoke by trying to depose Bristol Council, they’d no doubt decided they’d need the money.

Furthermore, councils have already had their budgets cut by so much that there simply isn’t that much more they can cut before statutory services start to fail.  The so called ‘low hanging fruits’ of council expenditure have already been picked.  If councils continue to live within the dictates of the law and refuse to try and set ‘needs budgets’, at some point in the next 5 years we’re going to see a significant failure of the basic services many people depend on.

The main argument against ‘needs budgets’ is that civil servants aren’t going to know our communities needs and their cuts will be far worse than the more compassionate cuts our Council will do itself.

As I’ve said this seems unlikely, and if it got to the point where implementing cuts will result in the failure of services how can civil servant driven cuts be any worse?  Also it would focus the blame for these cuts squarely back where it belongs with central government, and would make the Tories do their dirty work themselves.

We’ve already seen massive mobilisations against the government and its austerity program since the election. If unelected civil servants started deposing local authorities to implicate savage cuts; the protests, strikes and civil disobedience it would cause would be a significant challenge to the government.  

If several councils refused to set cuts budgets at the same time, their likelihood of success would be even higher.  The blowback from them attempting to depose multiple authorities at once could likely bring down the government (so they’d probably give in).  For that to happen we need people elected onto those councils making those arguments and willing to make a stand against austerity. 

If elected I will be one of those people.  I pledge to never vote for a budget containing cuts, and to consistently make the case for the alternative whenever possible.

Corbyn and Council Cuts: Time for a united resistance?

Local councils are currently drawing up their budgets for 2016-17 with the accompanying cuts to accommodate the cuts in local government funding. Council leaders across the political spectrum have warned that these are cuts too far and will have a devastating impact on core services.

The budgets are often part of a 3 or 4 year plan started a year or two ago. Labour councils (and the defeated Green minority council in Brighton) have used the 'dented shield' argument that only they can make the chocies that will preserve vital services.  This looks increasingly weak as the cuts accumulate and the poor are hit.

Since those cuts were projected in budgets the political situation has changed. On the one hand the Tories are back in power but on the other hand Jeremy Corbyn has won the leadership on an anti-austerity ticket with a surge of support, often from local activists involved in housing, NHS and cuts campaigns.

The run up to local and the London Mayoral and GLA elections will be accompanied by local press stories on the council cuts and their impact on vulnerable adult care, children's social services, provision for children with special education needs, local libraries and youth provision.

Labour will be in the contradictory position of having an anti-austerity national Labour leadership and a local leadership that is implementing the government's anti-austerity measures.

There has been a silence from the new Labour shadow cabinet on this so far but the call for resistance and a strong campaign based on local activists and public sector unions that was made under the last Labour leadership by the left must surely be repeated with added urgency now?

I have raised this issue in Green Party circles with a varied response. Some have shrugged and said, 'What else can local councils do?' and suggested we concentrate on the source of the cuts - the Tories and their ideology - emphasising that there is no need for the cuts but it is a choice that the Conservatives have made: Councils have no choice. This leaves us with divisive debates about exactly where the cuts will fall.

Others see the Corbyn phenomenon and the various broad alliances proposed (Momentum, Red Pepper circles etc) as well as the People's Assembly and trade unions as an opportunity to build a massive resistance.

What advice will Corbyn give local coucils?

I publish below a response I received about this from a Green Party activist:

I agree that we have to draw attention to the inconsistency between having an "anti-austerity" policy position, whilst being forced to implement austerity cuts locally, which are once again directed at the most vulnerable, in a deliberately discriminatory and disproportionate manner.

e.g. Disability groups have been calling for a 'Cumulative Impact Assessment' (CIA) to asess what the cumulative effects are, of 'multiple cuts' to different services and benefits, on those who (being the most vulnerable) rely on a range of different benefits and services. There are assessments of each individual cut, but no asessment of those who are subjected to multiple cuts over time. This has been requested repeatedly for several years now, and the Government/DWP still refuses to do it. Meanwhile, there has been a rise in the death-toll of vulnerable people, and those people deserve not to die unacknowledged, while their 'deaths' were a deliberate 'colateral-damage' decision, which was made by Tory 'policy-makers'.

"The United Nations is carrying out an unprecedented inquiry into “systematic and grave violations” of disabled people’s human rights by the UK government"
http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/confirmed-un-is-investigating-uks-grave-violations-of-disabled-peoples-rights/

We need to be behind this move by the UN and seen to be showing solidarity with anti-austerity disabled rights groups around the country, who have been on the receiving end of these deliberately 'Targeted' cuts for 5 years already. Cuts which have potentially contributed to thousands of deaths.

Either Labour are going to be an opposition thorn in this sociopathic government's side, or they are going to continue with the Neoliberal narrative that 'economics' makes it all inevitable because... money, family purse, budget... mixing macro-economics with family economics like the Tories always do, and confusing people's perceptions of how 'money/debt' is created (while the Tories have doubled the 'debt' and handed the 'money' to their old-school corporate chums). The Green Party has a new and important policy around money-creation, and this is also a big opportunity for Greens to push that & to explain it to the public, so as to dispell the 40 year old Thatcherite meme of a family purse budget.

A Green New Deal is beneficial socially, economically and environmentally. It ticks all the boxes as the alternative to 'austerity'. A nation-wide renewable energy and energy efficiency programme (managed at the 'Local' level), coupled to electrification of transport (which would require offshore wind wave tidal development), would be a massive (but increasingly urgent) undertaking, which would both improve 'quality-of-life' for people locally, as well as mitigate some of the damage we're doing to the environment. Voters need to know that the Tory government are letting Britain be left behind in the new global renewable energy industry, which has massive social & economic benefits if encouraged to prosper.

One of Thatcher's biggest crimes, was not investing North Sea oil tax revenues in the renewable energy technologies which were available at the time, like on/offshore wind power, and solar water heaters & insulation for homes etc etc. The 'jobs' thus created could have replaced the coal jobs lost, instead of throwing tens of thousands into unemployment, with no new jobs to go to. Those new sustainable jobs are still screaming out to be created. Austerity is a lie. It is the diversion of Public money into Private offshore accounts without the 'societal' benefits that should come from creating that money.

But let's not forget there are powerful neoliberal forces in Labour still. The first Bail-Out was under Brown and that alone was enough to pay off every single mortgage in the UK at the time. Those people haven't just gone away because Corbyn became 'Leader' and there hasn't been a huge shift in policy position by the Parliamentary Labour Party as far as I can tell - so far.

Earl Bramley-Howard
West Mendip Green Party

Where does the power lie in Brent Council?

Muhammed Butt and Cara Davani

The Brent Labour Group will be meeting on Saturday for its Annual General Meeting ahead of the Council AGM LINK on Wednesday 20th May.

The meeting comes at a time when some Labour backbenchers are still angered at the failure to deal effectively with the Employment Tribunal case and the personnel involved, as well as concerns about who will be the next Chief Executive.

There have been mutterings about Brent CMT 's connections with Tower Hamlets and similarities in ethos, in the light of the Lutfur Rahman Inquiry findings.

It is unclear whether the vacant Lead Member for Environment post will be filled at the AGM or incorporated into an existing portfolio, plus reducing the size of the Cabinet.

The Council AGM will again decide which of the rival Conservative groups will be designated the official opposition, unbless the groups come up with their own agreed solution beforehand. The composition of Committees will also be decided at the two AGMs with Scrutiny the most important. The committee has been severely criticised for its failure to scrutinise effectively but 7 out of its 8 members will remain Labour councillors. The General Purposes Committee is effectively the Cabinet plus one opposition member.

If any councilor digs deep enough they may also be concerned about proposals to extend the powers of the Chief Executive in proposed constitional changes. Particularly 2.3.2 below:

“2.3.1 The Chief Executive shall also have the authority to carry out all executive functions in the interim in the event of there being no Leader, or Deputy Leader appointed and insufficient members of the Cabinet appointed to achieve a quorum.

2.3.2    Exceptionally, notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Chief Executive shall be authorised to exercise either executive or non-executive functions where the matter is urgent unless this is prohibited by law.

2.3.3    If the Chief Executive acts in the circumstances set out in paragraphs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 above, the Chief Executive shall notify, as appropriate, the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Council, the Lead Member with portfolio responsibility for the matter to which the decision relates and the Leader of the Principal Opposition Group of any such action.“

Cross party letter on council cuts a beginning but we must challenge austerity

Following my posts on this blog about the budget crisis faced by local councils, including Brent and Brighton, it is good to see this cross-party letter in the Observer today signed by leaders of many local councils as well as the Chair of the Local Government Association LINK

Of course a letter on its own won't solve the problem and it is not just a matter of more control of funding but also the total amount. Austerity, which led to the cuts, is supported by the main political parties represented in this letter.

Local anti cuts campaigns, trades councils and trade unions, tenants associations and other citizen groups need to step up their campaigning against what amounts to the destruction of local services under the cover of austerity.

The Observer Letter 

Funding for services provided by councils has borne the brunt of austerity while demand continues to rise. When the chancellor delivers his autumn statement this Wednesday, “more of the same” cannot be an option.

After a 40% reduction in funding during this parliament, our efficiency savings are coming to an end. Further reductions without radical reform will have a detrimental impact on people’s quality of life and will lead to vital services being scaled back or lost altogether. Services such as libraries, leisure centres and road maintenance continue to buckle under the strain of cuts and the ever-rising cost of caring for our growing elderly population. Failure to address this will not only jeopardise other services, but will pass costs on to the NHS, which will have to pick up the pieces if we cannot protect adult social care or provide the services that keep people healthy.

Last week, the Smith commission set out a better deal for Scotland, granting more control over funding and recognising the importance of devolving power down beyond Holyrood. It’s England’s turn now.

There is compelling evidence that taking decisions closer to the people affected achieves better results and saves money. It is vital that the autumn statement sets out a new settlement for England, which puts powers beyond Westminster, and shares out tax and spending across the UK on a fair basis. The people we represent, who look north of the border with envy at the greater control Scots are to get over their everyday lives, will expect nothing less.

Brent Council calls for modification of Mayoral Development Corporation' for Park Royal/Old Oak while Hammersmith & Fulham opposes in principle

Brent's Cabinet which meets tomorrow afternoon, will be considering its response to the proposed Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) that would take control of the regeneration of Old Oak Common and Park Royal. It would cover parts of Brent, Hammersmith and Fulham and Ealing.

Stephen Cowan, leader of  Hammersmith and Fulham Council, came out strongly against it in July, calling it a 'land grab'.

This council objects to an MDC at Old Oak and Park Royal. We are concerned about the Mayor of London’s record on delivering truly affordable homes for Londoners and do not believe he should be entrusted with sole responsibility on a scheme of this importance.

We are committed to changing housing policies so that we build homes for residents rather than investment properties for overseas speculators and look forward to working with Ealing and Brent councils to do that. There is no good business case for the Mayor to step in.

In fact, the move in government over the years has been to devolve more powers to local communities not take them away. The Mayor’s proposed organisation is a throwback to decades long gone, it would be undemocratic and unnecessarily takes away powers from local residents and local businesses and essentially hands them over to developers and unelected bureaucrats.

There is little information on Ealing Council's  response but Brent Council LINK does not follow Hammersmith and Fulham in opposing the MDC in principle:

To support delivery on the scale required there is no doubt a delivery body  with a strong regeneration focus is required. Without such a body there is a real risk that the opportunity HS2 and the Old Oak interchange presents for Brent will be missed. Arguably an MDC gives Brent greater influence over the proposals that will come forward at Old Oak as the Council will have representation on the decision making bodies.

The report goes on to seek some changes in the MDC brief..

In fact, when the Ealing Officer's report LINK sets out their demands if the MDC goes ahead despite their opposition, there is little difference between the two Councils.  Both seek changes in the borders of the MDC zone.  Both seek greater representation on the MDC and quote the Localism Act in their support. Both also seek assurances on the availability of genuinely affordable housing. Brent is also concerned about the CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy).

Countering the MDC proposal Hammermsith and Fulham call for a Joint Area Action Plan:

The Council has also discussed the potential for a joint Area Action Plan that would include land from LBs of Ealing and Brent as well as LBHF. Officers from the three Boroughs have been working well together on this project for a considerable period of time meeting weekly with the GLA and TfL as a JointProject Team and reporting up to a Project Strategy Board. LBHF has resourced the project with key staff who have led on and significantly progressed the project. This process could continue (subject to discussion and agreement with LBs of Ealing and Brent) and a cross borough Area Action Plan could be progressed by the three boroughs without the considerable expense and administration involved insetting up an MDC.

This is not mentioned as far as I can see in the Brent report - Brent offers no alternative, just a modification of the MDC. It is surprising that in dealing with a Tory mayor that three Labour boroughs have not cooperated more on their response.

Brent Officers call for the following local benefits:

PARK ROYAL: Hammersmith & Fulham object to London Mayor usurping planning powers while Brent remains silent

This Guest Blog from Harlesden Blogspot highlights a neighbouring borough's  reaction to the London Mayor's proposal to take planning powers from Brent, Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham in order to develop the Old Oak Common and Park Royal site. So far Brent Council has been silent on the issue, merely advertising the consultation, which closes on September 24th, on its website LINK

The issue will be discussed at the Harlesden Brent Connects meeting on July 8th at Tavistock Hall, off the High Street AGENDA

A proposal to take local planning powers away on one of the capital’s biggest housing projects are ‘an anti-democratic land grab’ which gives the potential for the Mayor to allow the building of properties for overseas speculators rather than homes Londoners can afford, according to Hammersmith & Fulham (H&F) Council.

The Mayor of London launched a consultation on plans to create a Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) around Old Oak Common and Park Royal which is the area where the new High Speed 2 (HS2) hub station is expected to be built.

The MDC would assume planning powers within its borders, which span large parts of the north of H&F and parts of Brent and Ealing. H&F’s new administration objects to this and has raised concerns that this is nothing more than a land-grab designed to make life easier for the developers – at the cost of local people.

Concerns over Brent's tree cutting addressed but highlights need to communicate with residents

I have been hearing recently of residents' concerns about the removal of apparently healthy mature trees in the borough. Concerns have been followed up by resident Martin Redston in his local area and his findings are set out below. Clearly, following the recent tragic death caused by a falling branch, LINK the Council has a duty to make sure that trees are safe while also maintaining and increasing the borough's stock of trees.

Following concerns about the cutting down of trees locally I met  Gary Rimmer (Brent Tree Officer) in Park Avenue on Tuesday afternoon for an hour or so. We looked at every tree. He showed me that each tree that had been cut, was actually in poor condition. Most were hollow at the base and one outside no 2 was actually dead. We talked at length and ex- councillor Maloney joined us for a few minutes so he was also given some of the information. 

Give voice to the alternative-vote Green in Euro & local elections

Greens are polling ahead of the Lib Dems in the Euro elections and because of the voting system every Green vote counts towards increasing our number of MEPs. This interview on Open Democracy with Jean Lambert MEP gives more information on our European record and stance: LINK

Here again is our local election manifesto for Brent:

We will:
· Campaign for REAL accountability
· Fight cuts to local services
· Tackle climate change
· Combat air pollution
· Press for affordable housing for local people
· Oppose bedroom tax evictions
· Support our local schools and oppose their privatisation
· Protect and enhance our local green and  urban spaces
· Press for restoration of  local library provision

Safeguarding local services Brent has already lost millions in funding under the Coalition. The 2015-2016 Brent budget is likely to require cuts that will cause untold damage to the local population. The Green Party is anti-austerity and pro-social justice and so opposed to the Coalition’s attack on the poor and vulnerable. We will oppose any such cuts.

Accountability and Transparency  Many residents have experienced being ignored, bulldozed or mislead by Brent Council. We will make sure the Council is accountable for its  actions and transparent in its dealings with the public. We’ve signed up to Keep Willesden Green’s pledge to submit ourselves, if elected, to recall by 51% of the votes cast in a ward at this election.

Climate Change Greens are working at a national and international level to combat climate change. We will also press for local action including, encouragement of green jobs through a Brent Green Industries zone with start-up subsidies, a programme of energy  efficiency in council and BHP properties including double glazing, insulation and solar panels and a pilot Low Carbon Zone.

Clean Air Air pollution is not just an irritant, but an unseen killer, strongly linked to asthma, lung cancer and cardiovascular illness. Over 4000 Londoners die early each year as a result of it. We will work with Green Assembly members for action at the London level to tackle high polluting vehicles and reduce dependency on cars. Locally we support the London Cycling Campaign’s ‘Space for Cycling’ initiative, will press for better public transport to reduce car use, especially the ‘school run’, and encourage a diversity of shops in our local high streets to encourage ‘walkable’ local shopping.

Housing We will support local developments on viable brown field sites that include at least 50%         genuinely affordable housing and that are accompanied by infrastructure improvements including health and education facilities to support the additional population. We will press for the urgent  delivery of the delayed family housing in the Wembley Quintain development. We will oppose evictions of tenants who have defaulted on rent payments because of the unfair bedroom tax.

Education We would strengthen the role of the local authority and its accountability in terms of school improvement and Special Educational Needs provision and campaign for it to be able to build new schools where needed, rather than rely on the costly and undemocratic free schools and academies. We will support the emerging collaborative arrangements between schools that aim to improve the quality of teaching and learning across the borough.

Green Spaces Brent’s increasing population makes green and urban open space even more important and extreme weather requires flood management for Brent’s streams and rivers. We will defend those green open spaces where they exist and insist on their sustainable maintenance as well as supporting the creation of new pocket parks and town squares. New developments will be required to provide play spaces for children and growing spaces for residents. The new Chalkhill Park has shown what a major impact a green space can make on a community both environmentally and in terms of bringing a community together.

Libraries We will press for restoration of accessible local libraries across the borough.

YOUR GREEN CANDIDATES

Alperton - Yusuf Akram, Barnhill - Giovanna Dunmall,  Brondesbury Park- Rai Shamon, Dollis Hill - Pete Murry,    Dudden Hill - Simone Aspis, Fryent - Claire McCarthy,   Harlesden - Simon Erskine, Kensal Green - Sally Ibbotson, Kenton - Graham Allen,

Kilburn - Nas Belazka,   Mapesbury - Scott Bartle, Northwick Park - Mimi Kaltman, Preston - May Erskine,

Queensbury - Adlen Biloum,  Queens Park - Alex Freed, Stonebridge - Brian Orr,   Sudbury - Manish Patel, Tokyngton - Khalid Akram, Welsh Harp - Jafar Hassan, Wembley Central - Kolos Csontos,

So what have Greens been doing since the last election?

Brent Greens  have campaigned on library  closures , the loss of the Willesden Bookshop, the forced  academisation of Gladstone  Park Primary School,  the Harlesden Incinerator, the free schools shambles,  protecting the Welsh Harp from over-development , construction of Chalkhill Park, and the  building of affordable housing rather than luxury  housing for overseas buyers. We opposed the cuts in street cleaning that have left our roads litter strewn. We have relentlessly  tried to hold the council to account despite not holding office. We work WITH campaigns and don’t try to take them over. Elected or not, our campaigning will continue.

Your Green candidates for Brent Council elections May 22nd

Some of the candidates with Jean Lambert MEP

The Green Party will be standing a candidate in every Brent ward in the local elections on May 22nd, except for Willesden Green where there are two candidates.

Here are the candidates in ward order:

Alperton - Yusuf Akram,

Barnhill - Giovanna Dunmall,

Brondesbury Park- Rai Shamon,

Dollis Hill - Pete Murry, 

Dudden Hill - Simone Aspis,

Fryent - Claire McCarthy,  

Harlesden - Simon Erskine,

Kensal Green - Sally Ibbotson,

Kenton - Graham Allen,

Kilburn - Nas Belazka,

Mapesbury - Scott Bartle,

Northwick Park - Mimi Kaltman,

Preston - May Erskine,

Queensbury - Adlen Biloum, 

Queens Park - Alex Freed,

Stonebridge - Brian Orr,  

Sudbury - Manish Patel,

Tokyngton - Khalid Akram,

Welsh Harp - Jafar Hassan,

Wembley Central - Kolos Csontos,

Willesden Green - Shahrar Ali,

Willesden Green - Martin Francis