Cllr Eleanor Southwood to step down from Brent Council Cabinet

 

Rumours that had been circulating for some time were confirmed today when at the end of a 30 minute Cabinet meeting, Council Leader Muhammed Butt, announced that Cllr Eleanor Southwood was stepping down as a Cabinet member and returning to the backbenches.

A potential successor had been named to Wembley Matters but no confirmation was forthcoming after enquiries were made. There is always the possibility of sharing the portfolio amongst the remainder of the Cabinet or a reshuffle at the Labour Group AGM. 

Cllr Southwood was considered one of the most able of the current Cabinet with a command of the detail of her brief and a strategic approach to its development.

LETTER: The Minterne Road development will be an eyesore and infringe our privacy

 

Dear Editor,

 

I hope you are keeping well.

 

I wish to raise the granting of planning permission by Brent Council for a 4 bed house at Minterne Road, Harrow, HA3 9TA  in your publication Wembley Matters.

 

Planning Reference: 22/1386

 

All the neighbours of adjoining properties have raised objections on two occasions with Brent Council and in total there are 8 objections. In spite of this Brent Council has made a one-sided decision to proceed with this development as it suits their interests and without giving any consideration to the objections of residents in the area.

 

I had also participated in the Brent Planning Committee meeting in person on 16th November 2022 plus this objection was also raised in March 2022 with MP Barry Gardiner and Cllr Eleanor Southood but unfortunately there was no response.

 

This development is an eyesore and will affect the neighbour’s privacy, overlooking into their garden, kitchen, dining and bedrooms. None of the houses on Dorchester way have such a development overshadowing more than half of the immediate neighbours’ gardens so it is naturally out of character for the area.

 

DK (address provided)

Citizen scientists' findings on Brent's deadly air pollution problem

Four Brent community groups have been monitoring air pollution in the southern part of the Borough as part of a citizen science project across London. Four more voluntary associations have now joined forces with them in a campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of air pollution and improve air quality in Brent. Brent Council are supporting this effort.

In late 2016 Transition Town Kensal to Kilburn (TTK2K), Transition Willesden (TW) and Queens Park Area Residents' Association (QPARA) put up “diffusion tubes” to monitor nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in their areas. They surveyed main and residential roads, outside schools and in parks. The results are shocking: three quarters of the twenty sites the Transition groups tested exceeded legal limits for the pollutant. This complemented a similar survey of Chamberlayne Road NW10 by Kensal Rise Residents' Association (KRRA) in 2014. All the findings are consistent. They demonstrate that the closer you are to busy routes the more exposed you are to illegal pollution levels.

All eight groups, now including Brent Friends of the Earth (BFoE), Aylestone Park Residents’ and Tenants’Association (APRATA), Kensal Triangle Residents' Association (KTRA) and Brent Eleven Streets (BEST), met last week with Queens Park Cllr Ellie Southwood, Cabinet Member, Environment. They now plan to campaign together and work with others in the community to alert residents of the dangers of air pollution, show how people can reduce their exposure to it and improve air quality. This work builds on a successful track record of residents' associations coming together to energise and engage the Queens Park ward community on air pollution.

Air pollution is a health hazard. It is estimated to be responsible for the premature death of 9,400 Londoners a year and many serious illnesses. This compares with 127 deaths from road accidents in London in 2014. There were 112 early deaths in Brent from air pollution in 2010. Medical research shows that air pollution is linked with cancer, strokes, heart disease and respiratory problems. The main pollutants are nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, particularly from diesel vehicles. The principal source of air pollution in Brent is road traffic, though emissions from heating systems also contribute.

Viv Stein from Transition Willesden says, “Not surprisingly we found the highest levels of NO2 pollution along busy main roads – Cricklewood Broadway down to Kilburn High Road, with many other areas also above what's considered safe. In view of this we are pleased to learn that greener buses will be coming to this heavily polluted route under the Mayor of London's Low Emission Bus Zones, though we will have to wait till at least 2018.

“Though our findings show only a snapshot of pollution over a short period, results are in keeping with other studies across London. We would like to do further monitoring, and involve schools, businesses, residents, health providers and the Council to raise awareness and take action on this public health issue. Along with other local groups we are now planning to raise awareness about vehicles idling, and about the damaging impact of all diesel vehicles, including diesel cars which now make up nearly half of the cars on the road.”

Janey McAllester from Transition Kensal to Kilburn says, “Pollution affects us all. Drivers need to be aware they and their passengers are breathing in a lot more pollution inside their cars than walking or cycling. The less time we spend in cars, the better for everyone. We want to encourage more cycling and work with the Council to help people cycle and walk more.”

Souraya Choukeir from QPARA says, “Air pollution is not something you can see so people are often not aware of how bad it is or of the harm it does. But there are things that we all can do to reduce it and protect ourselves from it such as switching to cleaner, non-diesel vehicles, driving less, and, where possible, walking on less polluted side streets.”

Cllr Ellie Southwood says, “It was great to see residents’associations and green groups coming together to share hard evidence about the problems of air pollution in Brent. I look forward to their helping us develop actions to deliver the Borough’s new Air Quality Action Plan and I am looking forward to working with them to make a positive difference to the air we breathe in Brent."

The two Transition Town groups each set up ten diffusion tubes to monitor NO2 in their areas between September 24th and October 8th. They also tested for particulate matter at a number of sites. This was part of the Cleaner Air 4 Communities programme run by the London Sustainability Exchange (LSx). QPARA monitored ten sites around Salusbury Road in August and October. BFoE have also started monitoring this month.


The groups' findings will add to Brent Council's own monitoring data which measures NO2 at 27 locations across the Borough. Much of Brent is designated an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) as clean air standards are not being met. The Council's new Air Quality Action Plan will be going out for consultation soon. The voluntary groups hope that the plan will engage with their efforts, and make all residents and those who work in Brent aware of the need to combat this serious threat to our health and well being.

To find out more about the Transition groups' project, see their results and join in, see http://ttkensaltokilburn.ning.com/group/air-pollution-monitoring. More on QPARA's project is at http://www.qpark.org.uk/action-groups/environment/.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

4

Democracy breaks out in Brent Labour as key positions contested

The Brent Labour Annual General Meeing  next Saturday will see elections for Leader, Deputy Leader and Cabinet positions I understand from well-informed sources.

This is part of the normal democratic process but takes place against the background of internal tensions that included Councillor Butt's attempt to select his own deputy.

Following the election the posts have to be confirmed by Full Council but that is usually certain given the Labour majority - unless the results are very close and susceptible to abstentions at Council.

These are the current positions and responsibilities:

Leader of the Council

Councillor Muhammed Butt

Responsible for:

• Community Planning and Partnership
• Strategic Regeneration
• Voluntary Sector
• West London Alliance
• Health and Wellbeing Board (chair)
• Mayor's Development Corporation
• Executive and Members Services
• Legal Services

Find out more about Cllr Muhammed Butt.

Deputy Leader

Councillor Michael Pavey

Responsible for:

• Finance
• Performance Management
• Complaints and FOI
• Council as Employer (HR)
• Equalities
• Procurement
• IT

Find out more about Cllr Michael Pavey.

Cabinet Member for Employment and Skills

Councillor Roxanne Mashari

Responsible for:

• Customer Access
• Skills
• Jobs and Employment
• Business and Enterprise
• Welfare
• Poverty
• London Living Wage Advocate

Find out more about Cllr Roxanne Mashari.

Cabinet Member for Environment

Councillor Eleanor Southwood

Responsible for:

• Environment
• Transport
• Public Realm
• Sustainability
• Highways
• Parking
• Transportation
• Street Lighting

Find out more about Cllr Eleanor Southwood.

Cabinet Member for Children and Young People

Councillor Ruth Moher

Responsible for:

• Early Years
• Schools
• Special Education Needs
• Early Help
• Children's Social Care
• Youth Services
• Troubled Families

Find out more about Cllr Ruth Moher.

Cabinet Member for Adults, Health and Wellbeing

Councillor Krupesh Hirani

Responsible for:

• Adult Social Care
• Health and Wellbeing
• Public Health
• CCG

Find out more about Cllr Krupesh Hirani.

Cabinet Member for Housing and Development

Councillor Margaret McLennan

Responsible for:

• Housing
• Private Sector Housing
• Landlord licensing
• Planning
• Building Control
• Property and Asset Management
• Facilities Management
• Brent Housing Partnership (BHP)

Find out more about Cllr Margaret McLennan.

Cabinet member for Stronger Communities

Councillor James Denselow

Responsible for:

• Community Cohesion
• Community Safety
• Community Resilience
• Arts, Leisure and Sports
• Trading Standards
• Licensing
• Libraries
• Communications
• Registration and Nationality

Find out more about Cllr James Denselow.

Brent FoE meeting on air pollution - its impact and solutions

 From Brent Friends of the Earth

A panel of politicians and campaigners will be discussing air quality at Brent Friends of the Earth's (Brent FoE) monthly meeting at Watling Gardens Community Meeting Room in Kilburn on Tuesday April 12th at 7.30pm.

Brent FoE's meeting will discuss the situation with air pollution - which is a serious health threat for Londoners and is a major problem in Brent. It will be a chance to learn about how air pollution is affecting us and to discuss what we need to do to get cleaner air to breathe. The speakers will be: Cllr Eleanor Southwood - Lead member for the Environment at Brent Council, Navin Shah - Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow, Dawn Butler - MP for Brent Central (to be confirmed), Juhaina Junaid from the Pollution Control Services at Brent Council and Ollie Hayes - Campaigner from Friends of the Earth.

Pam Laurance, a Co-ordinator of Brent Friends of the Earth says, “Poor air quality in London has a significant effect in shortening the lives of many people. In 2010 almost 9,500 Londoners died prematurely from causes linked to air pollution. The main pollutant is nitrogen dioxide, plus in some areas it is particulate matter, particularly from diesel vehicles, that do most of the damage. The principal source of air pollution in Brent is road traffic emissions, though emissions from residential and commercial heating systems also contribute.”

The discussion will start at at 7.30pm till approximately 9pm, and will be followed by Brent FoE's AGM. Everyone is welcome to attend this free event, and stay for the rest of the group meeting. Light refreshments will be available.

The meeting will be at Watling Gardens Community Meeting Room, 97/135 Watling Gardens, Shoot Up Hill, NW2 3UB (5 mins. from Kilburn tube/buses on Shoot up Hill). For more information see http://www.brentfoe.com or email info@brentfoe.com.

NOTE FROM MARTIN

As the only political party represented at this meeting is Labour  you may want to read what the Green Mayoral candidate, Sian Berry, has to say about clean air for London HERE

UPDATE: Brent Visitor Parking Debacle - Duffy does it again!

I understand that Cllr John Duffy, who last year claimed he stepped in to stop a flawed policy that would let Veolia pocket large sums in the multi million Public Realm contract, LINK, has now intervened on the Visitor Car Parking  consultation which at the very least would have left Brent Council with egg all over its face.

He was not popular with the Council leadership over the Veolia affair, claiming that they snubbed him for acting on behalf of residents, but this time his colleagues are admitting that he has a point. 

Sources in the Labour Group say  Duffy appealed to Carolyn Downes, Chief Executive, over a report that according to him had flaws that 'are devastating and have damaged our case of proving our competency. The costing variations were all over the place and the report itself quotes the obvious and often contradicts itself.'

The flaws had not been picked up by the Cabinet, other Labour councillors or the Opposition., although Scrutiny Committeee submitted comments. Cllr Duffy told the Labour Group, 'We should be concerned about is how such a bad report was given wings by the Cabinet and was only stopped at the last minute.'

The Cabinet Minutes November 16th 2015 Item 11 can be found HERE
 
Apparently Cllr Southwood, lead member for the Environment, defended the report up to the last minute before being forced to withdraw it.

Making the best of a bad job she wrote to all Labour Councillors:

Dear Colleagues

Over the past few weeks I have been reflecting on the proposals in front of Cabinet to increase visitor parking charges to address pressures on parking spaces across the borough. 

As with any proposed increase in charges this has been a contested and hotly debated subject. 
I have listened to many views, spoken to many residents, consulted with officers, looked at best practice elsewhere and of course heard from Labour Group colleagues.

I have been struck by the complexity of the issues and the many differing needs and requirements that we are trying to balance. We are fortunate in having two strategies which are a good foundation for our discussions: the Parking Strategy and the recently agreed Long Term Transport Strategy and aligning our actions with these will help to deliver our vision for a better borough for residents. 

I have come to the view that the visitor parking charges proposal needs to be set in the context of a wider review of our parking offer. Current arrangements have been developed over time in response to circumstances and events and whilst our policies are sound, they are also complex and not easily understood. I believe that we will get a better, and fairer outcome for local people, their visitors and local businesses if we look at the wider parking offer at the same time as the visitor parking permits. 

Our parking offer was already planned for review. I am now proposing to accelerate this work so that we can take a more holistic decision and have a really meaningful dialogue with residents about the best solutions. I will therefore delay the consultation on visitor permit parking charges until this wider work has been completed and intend to bring a report to March's cabinet.  

I'm sure you will agree that it is important that we get the strategy and policies right. I will, of course, arrange a session for Labour Group members to shape the proposals and I hope that you will be able to participate.

Thank you to everyone who has shared their views so far. Your continued support and involvement will ensure we get the right outcomes for residents, visitors and businesses.

I am, of course, very happy to meet with any of you to discuss this further.

 It is to be hoped that the 'wider work' will be thoroughly researched and costed and that this time it won't be left to Cllr Duffy to blow the whistle. Meanwhile perhaps he is owed some dulia by his colleagues.

Since publication I have been sent this comment  (Feb 4th)  which was  longer than the word limit in the usual comment box.

"All credit to Cllr John Duffy for his part in causing a rethink on the planned increase in visitor parking charges and to Cllr Ellie Southwood for being big enough to respond to reasoned concerns from affected residents. However Queen's Park Area Residents Association also held a session with Cllr Southwood and officials on these proposals and on 24 January wrote:

Dear Councillors and Officers,

QPARA discussed the Cabinet report on proposed increase in visitor parking charges at its January meeting, and this prompted a wider review of local parking congestion. The association would like following perspectives to be considered before final consultation on increased charges.

QPARA supports a general policy direction of increasing reliance on public transport, cycling and walking rather than on private cars, for environmental and public health reasons. Nevertheless there needs to be a balance between this and the very large proposed increases in daily charges for visitor parking. While there may be a case for a modest increase QPARA is concerned at the scale of this from £1.50 to £4.50. Charges are almost invariably paid by residents not visitors and the percentage increase is well beyond inflation. As an example a resident with 30 daily visitors a year will in future pay £135 for visitors rather than the current £45. This will be a particular pressure on residents on lower incomes.

The Council's case for the increase centres on high demand for parking in Controlled Parking Zones which leads to overcrowding, and that 'evidence also suggests that some households are using daily visitor permits to book parking on behalf of commuters'. However, we note that there is no general study of why parking overcrowding occurs in particular zones, and no attempt is made in the Cabinet report to form proposals for a wider range of solutions which could address this, nor its more general environmental impact. In the absence of this the Council identifies only one solution which will have at best a modest impact on overcrowding and is associated with an assumed increase in income of £795,000 in 2016/17 (para 6.1 of the report). It is hard to avoid a conclusion that this increase is driven more by the Council's need to increase income substantially rather than resolve overall parking congestion issues.

Accordingly QPARA proposes that Brent conducts a wider study of the impact of a range of factors leading to overcrowding within the ward before proceeding with such large increases. This study should include parking related to schools, business parking permits, under-used car club bays, bays used for builders' materials, and patchy parking enforcement (better enforcement alone could increase the Council's income substantially). For example the teacher permit regime is full of anomalies, with permits given to schools as a prize for having gold travel plans, without regard to pressure points in the overall parking system nor the impact on residents. Notwithstanding, if permits are awarded, these could at least be restricted to a nominated street only, such as by the Park away from streets which are 'parking congested.' Members have also commented that even small businesses can have three permits, and it would be straightforward to limit these to perhaps one to help address overcrowding, yet the Report does not explore this.

In a summary document the Council advises that 'for many visitors who need to park for only a short time, the availability of pay and display bays may better meet their needs than pre-booking a visitor permit' and refers to charges of £1 for 30 minutes or £2 for up to an hour when booked by mobile phone. This suggestion does not take account of the lack of availability of pay and display bays in large parts of QPARA's area, which is mainly residential, so this is not a solution for many (or most) residents. Moreover, where such bays do exist near to busy shopping areas they are often fully occupied and cannot be relied on. So while a partial solution may lie in creating more P & D or mixed use bays, and could be pursued, this is clearly only possible in streets where there is spare capacity.

The summary document refers also to the option of purchasing an annual visitor household permit for £110 (to increase to £165 during 2016). It does not make clear that the Council's Cabinet decided in 2012 to withdraw these permits, and while this is on hold because the Adult Social Care department has yet to find capacity to determine a resident's eligibility for a proposed 'cared-for' permit, it remains policy. While this annual permit may be an option for the present it does not provide a solution in the longer term.

Considering the range of proposed daily visitor charges from £3 to £4.50, many residents have commented that there needs to be a lower charge than £3 for shorter stays than 3 hours (a frequent requirement). Where meters are available (and if unoccupied) then these provide some solution, but as above these simply do not exist in large parts of QPARA's area. We propose therefore that a charge of £1.50 for visitor parking in residents' bays be retained for short stays of up to an hour, to provide equity for QPARA residents with parts of the borough where meters are more generally available.

Powney is not alone as questions raised over Flytipping Report

'Am I alone in finding this change of wording interesting?' asks James Powney LINK , drawing attention to a discrepancy between a report  on the Scrutiny Task group on Flytipping from the Chief Executive going to Brent Cabinet on January 20th and the actual body of the Task Group's Report (which is also included in the Cabinet papers).

Spot the difference:

Chief Executive's Report LINK

The Task Group Report LINK

So 'Why the mysterious change in Scrutiny wording?' as James Powney asks. Could it be that someone (who?) has decided the critical second sentence in 22 should be deleted? Why and on what authority?

I quoted the whole section so that readers could see that the other points are identical so this is no simple editing of the entire report.

It could be argued that it makes no difference because the original report is also included in the Agenda but then the Cabinet is actually voting on, and adopting, the version in the Chief Executive's Report.

James Powney was  Lead Member for the Environment at the beginning of 2013 and was succeeded by Cllr Roxanne Mashari at the AGM. In 2014 Cllr Keith Perrin was elected to the position but resigned in September 2014. Cllr George Crane was appointed in his place after an interval in which there was no one in the post.  LINK  Cllr Eleanor Southwood is the current Lead Member.

It is not quite Stalin removing Trotsky from the photographic record but intriguing all the same. Is there someone at Brent Council who cannot tolerate criticism or is it just a harmless tidying up exercise?

Cabinet approves Tudor Gardens changes despite impassioned plea by relatives and carers of vulnerable residents

The speech by Ken Knight on behalf of relatives and carers of Tudor Gardens residents
 
The deregistration of the Tudor Gardens Residential Home was the most emotional issue discussed at yesterday's Cabinet. The proposals were covered in an earlier posting HERE.

There was a calm but passionate presentation by Ken Knight whose sister is a resident at Tudor Gardens.  He sought to demonstrate that an original Equality impact assessment which had found a negative impact on residents of the proposed changes had been changed to a positive one, with the original not made available to Cabinet.

He said the change went well beyond 'updating' as a result of further consultations, although that was contested by Phil Porter, Strategic Director of Adult Social Care, and suggested the documentation had been 'doctored'.

In a briefing pack  supplied by Knight he contrasted: The policy will have a positive impact on residents because it will promote independence and give choice and control how they live their lives. to the original 'This policy will have a negative impact on clients who have no capacity to make decision.

Knight noted, 'Relatives and carers don't believe any resident has this capacity, Aga Ambroziak thinks some might. We want high quality, objective, functional asessmewnts (like the WHO ICF), carried out by an independent clinical psychologist, to settle matters before anything else happens.

Knight said that  the residents who had the mental capacity of a 3 to 4 year old, did not need to be given any more 'choice' than they had in the home already: they needed safeguarding and the 24-7 care that they had already.

He said the manager of Tudor Gardens had already left because as a result of the changes she would have lost £20,000 in salary. Other care workers stood to lose £10,000. Protection through TUPE regulations did not apply as  most workers were on fixed term contracts. The proposed new contractor had boasted that their staff were on zero hours contracts.

Cllr Mashari said that she was concerned about the Equality Impact assessment and asked if it was usual for them to go from a negative to positive impact in the public domain.  Christine Gilbert said that there were attempts to mitigate the negatives revealed at the first stage of the assessment but did not know about a move from negative to positive.

Cllr Hirani, lead member for Adult Care said that savings were on housing costs, residents would be entitled to Housing Benefits under the new arrangements, and not on care. He recognised the importance of safeguarding.  He said that the Council needed to reduce spending and at the same time cater for more people. The Council would help the residents apply for allowances that could give them £4,000 more income annually. They would also have security of tenure.

Cllr Southwood asked for reassurance around the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and was told that there would be a team to monitor the required standards and that the changes should have no impact on the quality of care.

Cllr Mashari appeared to still have doubts. She asked if there was a detailed record of the 'journey from negative to positive' and suggested that in the light of the issues involved the item should be revisited.

Cllr Pavey said he did not think that was necessary and that officers would supply a note on the Equality Impact Assessment changes.

Cllr Mashari asked for an update on progress in six months time.

Ken Knight summed up the relatives' and carers' case to the Cabinet:

Right at the beginning of this process relatives and carers said they were opposed to supported living and wanted the residential care home to stay as it is BUT that if change was forced upon us we would do our best to ensure the best possible future for the residents of Tudor Gardens. this remains the case. in return officers promised transparency, openness, honesty and that we would be working together. I leave you to judge if this has been delivered.

At the very least, and before you vote on it, can this process be paused for internationally recognised functional assessments to be done by an independent clinical psychologist, with full involvement of relatives, cares and Tudor Gardens staff.

Voting for supported living now means paying people to make decisions for residents who can't do it for themselves by virtue of their lack of mental capacity. It obviously won't give them 'more independence, choice and control' - it'll just hand it over to different people. Those who exercise this power now on their behalf have proved themselves care, trustworthy, altruistic, reliable and competent. That's why we want to keep them. There are no guarantees we will if supported living goes ahead.

It seemed very clear from last night's discussion and a conversation with the Tudor Gardens Unison representative that the retention of staff trusted by residents and their relatives and carers is unlikely.

The Cabinet approved the proposal.

Complacency at Cabinet as controversy swept under the carpet

Preston Community Library representatives spoke at Cabinet tonight on the issue of Brent Council's new Property and Asset Strategy.   They were concerned that the community library they now have up and running in the building, which provides many services to the local community apart from lending books,  should not be affected by the strategy which states:

Fundamentally the strategy moves away from a presumption to dispose outright of property towards one of retaining and acquiring assets with a view to maximising revenue potential.

Muhammed Butt, leader of the council said that the  council also recognised the importance of social value of property, rather than just monetary value.

Several Cabinet members praised the campaign which had been promised the Preston library building at a peppercorn rent.  However Cllr Moher indicated that discussions were taking place on the use of part of the building to provide additional school places.

Clearly there will be some difficult decisions when weighing up any conflict between monetary and social values in a period of budgetary cuts.

Ex councillor James Powney wrote on his blog:

The new strategy has two apparently contradictory aims.  One is to maximise value through renting property.  The second is maximise "social value" through renting below market rates to worthy causes.  Of course this all takes place in an environment where the Council's income from fees & charges, Council Tax and government grant will all be in decline.  Inevitably, this locks Brent Council into cutting public services to the maximum extent possible, which I suspect is not a policy that the majority of those who voted in May 2014 would support (although it is very much what the newly elected Tory government supports).

There are likely to be a number of Community Asset Transfers with voluntary organisations running services from former Brent buildings. 

Cabinet approved the Strategy Report's recommendations which Cllr Pavey claimed marked a 'massive' change in Council policy - but he does tend to suffer from superlative inflation.

They went on to approve authority to tender for a Direct Payments Service contract for adult and children's social care. Cllr Hirani argued that this would enable better working conditions and wages as it would do away with the profit requirement of agency providers.

The Council is expecting an increase of 400 people on Direct Payments over the next three years, a total of 1,127.

Cabinet approved the award of the Local HealthWatch Service contract to CommUNITY Barnet, Cllr Pavey remarked that the current HealthWatch has been well-intentioned but ineffective. It had not been successful in getting community engagement and representing patients.

There were similar remarks about the youth service when the Cabinet discussed the £1m cut it is making which will result in further demands on the voluntary and faith sectors.  In answer to Cllr Mashari who asked if this represented a move away from a universal youth service, Cllr Ruth Moher said she doubted if Brent had such a service at present and that the present service was not coherent, it had developed rather than was planned.  She remarked that that there was no point in providing a service if what it provided was not what young people wanted, so they would be consulted. She went on to say that the Coucil had never done a proper mapping of the services that were already offered acxross the borough by the council, voluntary organisations and faith groups.

Cllr Moher referred to the paragraph about the dangers for the Roundwood Centre if the strategy was not successful. Cllr Mashari said that there were many groups just waiting to get into the centre and she looked forward to it being better used and more dynamic.

There seemed little recognition of what could be read between the lines of the report and was pixcked up by the Kilburn Times - this could mark the end of youth provision in Brent.

I was shocked that there was no delegation at the council from the youth service or its users,  or the Youth Parliament which is, after all, supposed to represent young people.  Cabinet were told that their had been a question from the former chair of Brent Youth Parliament asking what a youth worker attached to the BYP would actually do - the answer was value to say the least.  However, the BYP, kept on at a cost of £60,000 may have to watch out as Cllr Moher said that they would be looking at 'different ways' of delivering that service.

Ruth Moher also presented the report on the Expansion of Stonebridge School and was equally complacent saying that most of the respondents to the consultation had been concerned about the future of Stonebridge Adventure Playground, swallowed up by the school expansion and accompanying regeneration. Referring to the 700 letters  received against the proposal she said that these had all been the same so didn't mean much and went on to say, about a 1,000 plus petition calling for the saving of the adventure playground, 'as we know you can get anyone to sign a petition.

Dear reader, I was moved to protest at this disparagement from a councillor who had never once visited the playground!

Cllr Pavey then jumped in to tell us all how big schools were great (he is chair of governors at the BIG Wembley Primary), the bigger the better ('massive' 'bigger the better' - is there a theme emerging here?) and suggested that Quintain with its BIG profits could be persuaded to add another form of entry or two at its proposed primary school.

Cllr Butt followed this with his usual statement. The provision of school places was a statutory responsibility and the Council owes it to residents and children to provide places: 'We will not shy away from making difficult decisions'.

So, we have to admire Brent Council for making the 'difficult' decision to close a children's playground, even though it, as well as the school,  served families and children in one of the poorest parts of London. Campaigners were never persuaded that the Council had considered the possibility of an alternative design for the  expansion of the school that kept the playground or had even tried to find it an alternative site.

And wasn't Stonebridge Adventure Playground a community asset?

The meeting concluded with a refreshingly eloquent presentation by Cllr Eleanor Southwood, the new lead member for the environment. It was not about her portfolio but a report from a Scrutiny Committee task group that she led on the pupil premium and how it is used in Brent schools.

Cllr Southwood  said that the group had looked at case studies and talked to pupils not just about the impact on attainment but on enjoyment of school and the broadening of horizons.

The good practice described in the report will be shared with the Brent Schools Partnership.

Brent want Welsh Harp kept open as Environmental Education Centre

Brent Council has responded to my message regarding the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre. Although they have not answered all my questions they did state:

The Centre is required to be subject to a formal Community Asset Transfer process, which must be an open marketing of the facility. Please see the council’s statement on the matter below -

Councillor Eleanor Southwood, Lead Member for Environment at Brent Council said:

“Although the Centre was due to close following Council budget savings, we have been making strong efforts to ensure that it can continue as a community facility.

“To allow this to happen, we must go through a formal process which involves marketing the facility in an open and transparent way.

“We are committed to helping keep the Centre open as an environmental education centre and we will favour bids which show that they can do this.”

Eleanor Southwood is Brent Council's new lead member for Environment

Cllr Eleanor Southwood (Queens Park) was elected to be the new Lead Member for the Environment at the Labour Group AGM today and joins the Cabinet.

She replaces Cllr George Crane who had decided to stand down.

The appointment is welcome as for a time it looked as if there might be no Environment lead member post at all following the outsourcing of most of the department's work to Veolia via the Public Realm contract.

Cllr Southwood was previously on the Scrutiny Committee.

Following her joining the Cabinet this picture of the new Cabinet was circulated on Twitter today:

 They may have been stuck in a lift.
 

Kenton By-election candidates named

Brent Council today announced the list of candidates contesting the Kenton by-election. It marks the return of Robert Dunwell, spotted at the Wembley Area Consultative Forum earlier this week, to local politics. Dunwell a  Conservative councillor until he and Atiq Malik fell out with Bob Blackman and formed the Democratic Conservative Group, will be standing as an Independent.  They did not contest the local election in 2010.

Other candidates are:
Chunilai Hirani (Liberal Democrat)
Suresh Kansagra (Conservative)
Alan Mathison (Green)
Eleanor Southwood (Labour)

The by-election will be held on 17th February.