Wembley development: 'I feel trapped in a nightmare'

Guest blog from Jaine Lunn in reaction to Brent Council's plan to review the Local Plan LINK

I saw your blog and so wanted to comment/blog but am at a loss as where to start. Whilst I think in theory it is a fantastic idea to get local residents involved in the Local Plan review I feel once again Brent Council are just blowing smoke up our arses.  They don't really care, its futile to think that we will be listened to and our suggestions taken on board and acted upon, for them it's just a PR exercise.  They will do what they like and when it goes "Tit's up" they will blame Central Government - they made the laws.

As you know I live in one of the oldest streets in Wembley circa 1906.  I have lived here for 30 years, in the past 10 years I have paid attention to all propaganda delivered to my door on Wembley's UDP, Local Plan etc etc,  It has been changed so many times I have lost count.  I now find myself trapped in what I can only describe as an absolute​ nightmare.  Since the changes in planning laws thanks to Sir Eric Pickles, minister for Local Government and Communities, two office building's at the entrance to my one way street are in the process of being converted to flats.  Despite mine and my neighbours protests at every opportunity to planning, both have been given planning permission to do what the hell they like.  Both have been given permission to increase height by 2 floors.  Neither Developer is providing any social housing, or affordable.  Both buildings will house 1/2 bedroom flats, open plan, live in your kitchen type flats.  Neither one provides any out door amenity space, no balconies etc.  Some in one development does not even meet basic standards in terms of square metres and falls short by even the Councils minimum standards. But hey "they have a get out of jail card" as under permitted development they were not allowed to take action as to what is built within the fabric of the building,  only if they change the outside would they need planning permission.  This has been going on for 3 years and neither building is finished as yet.  When finished it will result in approximately 200+ ( taken from the developer's assessment) people accessing my street.  From 29 houses we will have increased by 60 additional homes.  Whilst they have some parking they are not able to accommodate every flat.

Brent House Annexe's ground floor flats will have their windows open directly on to the high road, despite it being in the Local Plan that they should be offices or shops at ground level.

You need to visit my street, take pictures and post the results. ( Brent Council have made changes to their system so you cannot upload numerous photos):

• Residents with permits cannot park.
• Broken pavements and knocked down bollards created by all the heavy goods vehicles delivering plant and supplies, parking on pavements as street is so narrow.
• Daily blocking access.
• Huge holes in the road as water, gas and electrics make constant upgrades to accommodate the extra facilities required.
• Constant disruption to Broadband and Telephone.  I have had loss to my service 3 times this year so far.  Directly due to all works in the street.
• Ugly hoardings which prevent any natural surveillance of entrance to street, people persistently driving in the opposite direction of the one way system.
• Trucks, Lorries, and workers vehicles parking on private property with gay abandonment.  With no consideration to the residents private parking.  Blocking access to garages, and their own parking  bays. Clogging up the CPZ. We rarely see any parking wardens during the day.
• They work Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays,  drilling and making noise. I have persistently called Planning enforcement who issue notices to cease and desist but to no action is actually taken. Despite being consistently in breach of planning regs, building regs, etc etc.
• Flytipping is a daily occurrence.  I use the "Cleaner Brent" app daily.  I have the proof.

Don't even want to go into the times that Veolia now think its OK to reverse down my street buzzer and lights flashing waking up everyone at 2.30 am, 1.30 am, Midnight was the latest time recorded, but regularly after 11.00 pm at night.

I have proof from Land Registry that the Brent Council (Len Snow being on the Board of Directors for Copland School) transferred the Public Land "Coplands Fields" to Copland School, which is now Ark Elvin who have gained 26+ acres for FREE, to use for the building of the school and MUGA facilities, despite us knowing that we are 50% down on green space for the amount of residents in the area.

The list is endless!

I have no confidence in the system anymore.  Even to the extent of citing the Human Rights Act, which affords people the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property it does not apply to us regular Council Tax payers.

The monstrous block that has vandalised the Welsh Harp

In 2013 there was a cross party campaign opposing the redevelopment of the West Hendon Estate in Barnet which borders on the Welsh Harp. The biggest scandal of course is the treatment of social housing tenants on the existing estate. Despite an amazing resistance they have effectively been socially cleansed to make way for a luxury development.

There is another scandal which has changed the local landscape for ever. A luxury multi-storey block now dominates that end of the Welsh Harp and while its residents enjoy a wonderful natural landscape from their flats, those on the other side of the reservoir are greeted by a huge tower block on the edge of a nature reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest.

There was cross-party opposition to the development  from Brent Council LINK but Barnet went ahead supported by Eric Pickles who was the Communities and Local Government Secretary at the time, as well as Boris Johnson, the London Mayor.

Three years on the extent of Barnet Council's social and environmental vandalism is clear as the development steams ahead. Campaigners warned that the proposed multi-storey block was completely out of character with the surroundng area, suited more to a development in the City of London that outer-London suburbia. The fear is that this will set a precedent for further develpment on the banks of the Welsh Harp.

Does the Rotherham Report resonate in Brent?

An ex Brent Council worker, forced out of her job and silenced by a compromise agreement, has sent me Eric Pickles’ summary of the Casey LINK  report into Rotherham Council.  She remarked, ‘familiar, isn’t it?’

Of course not everything applies equally to Brent, and some perhaps not at all, but there are enough similarities to be of concern. Make up your own mind about which apply.

·      Poor governance is deeply seated throughout the council

·      There is a pervading culture of bullying, sexism, suppression and misplaced political correctness which has cemented the council’s failures.

·      Both members and officers lack the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or upsetting community cohesion

·      The council is currently incapable of tackling its weaknesses, without a sustained intervention.

·      The council lacks political leadership.

·      It is directionless and is not clear what kind of organisation it wants to be, and how it will get there.

·      It is clear that the political leadership of the council is unable to hold officers to account, and there is an inability of all members to properly represent the interests of local people and businesses.

·      Some councillors, have not lived up to the high standards expected of those in public life or their positions of responsibility. For example the council goes to lengths to cover up and silence whistle-blowers.

·      It has created an unhealthy climate where people fear to speak out because they have seen the consequences of doing so.

·      Management is ineffective.

·      There is no cohesive senior leadership team and no permanent chief executive.

·      There is a poorly directed tier of middle managers, some of whom do not demonstrate that they have the skills, drive and ability necessary to turn the organisation around.

·      There is a history of poor performance and a tolerance of failure in Children’s Services.

·      Strategies and action plans sit on the shelf and don’t get translated into change.

The Casey Report finds overall that Rotherham Council failed to Listen, Learn, Challenge and Improve. They found insufficient evidence of clear managerial leadership, not of political leadership to ensure officers were held to account for delivery. Members blamed officers for failure to progress and officers blamed members for lack of leadership.

The Report shows what might have been achieved by an independent report into Brent Council, rather than the internal Pavey report. A request for a review, sent by Nan Tewani to Eric Pickles, has still to receive a response. LINK

Inspectors saw regular reports to the Cabinet and Scrutiny committees, but not the effective challenge we would expect from elected Members. The notion of challenge has been misunderstood and misinterpreted as bullish questioning. Challenge means setting aspirational targets, knowing how far to stretch the organisation, asking searching questions, drilling down into information and data, ensuring targets are kept to and agreed actions implemented. It also means recognising organisational inertia and doing something about it; identifying when people are struggling, finding out why and getting alongside them, overcoming barriers and working out solutions.P65

One illustration of this disconnection between vision, plans and practice is the Council’s equalities plan and single equality scheme. The documents are clear,aspirational and include a summary of good practice. However, we found that this was not rooted in the day-to-day experience of staff. We set these matters out i more detail elsewhere in considering political correctness and race. The point here is  that whilst plans and policies look appropriate, or even good, they bear little relationship to what inspectors found at the frontline. (p70)

Inspectors were told that  in Children’s Services only “60-80% of staff are having Performance Reviews, with HR spot checking more than anything”. Inspectors did not find this to be at all adequate. We would expect the vast majority of staff, with few exceptions, to be having performance reviews so they know what is expected of  them and how their work contributes to the delivery of the Council’s plans. Inspectors concluded that some staff did not understand the Council’s vision; a number were clearly confused about what was expected of them and this hampered their performance in terms of day to-day service delivery (p70)

Note: Pavey found that in two ‘non-management’ workshops, 45% and 30% respectively of Brent staff had not had an appraisal in the last 12 months and more than half had not had sight of their team or service plan.

Scrutiny in Brent has been an issue since the incoming Labour administration reduced it to one Committee in May 2014. It was also an issue in Rotherham:

However, it is not clear how effective it has been in holding Cabinet Members and senior officers to account for their individual performance and decision-making  Inspectors could not find much evidence of how scrutiny had changed practice or policy making. P75

Where Councillors have scrutinised other agencies, eg aspects of health, they have been more effective and robust. However, not enough Members really know how to get underneath information presented by officers, and the organisation has not properly resourced and facilitated effective scrutiny. It was generally acknowledged that the scrutiny team was small and disconnected from the Senior Leadership Team.  P77

Inspectors concluded that overview and scrutiny had been deliberately weakened and under-valued. The structures and processes look superficially adequate, but the  culture has been one where challenge and scrutiny were not welcome. P76

There are also findings that relate to the budget process and planning cuts:

However, Inspectors found that the overall approach to finance planning was not based on a clear and political strategic vision. The Improvement Board recognises this and is working to develop one. In the absence of this vision, the budget process has been led by finance. All departments were asked to find a quota of savings, with some protection for frontline services. This approach has delivered the bottom line, but with serious consequences. For example, some services no longer have the capacity to function effectively. We were particularly concerned about the level of funding for central regulatory functions and those which will drive transformation, like legal services, organisational development, strategy, and resources to ensure community cohesion. P83

It is  in the area of Human Resources that comparing Rotherham with Brent becomes most telling:

Generally, inspectors found the Council too willing to take the path of least resistance rather than ensuring it did the right thing for individuals or the organisation as a whole. We have concluded that whilst the Council has followed its own procedures, these have not always ensured that it has taken, and continues to take, appropriate action against staff potentially guilty of gross misconduct. P130

Settlements can leave issues unresolved in the case of grievances. For example, one staff member was offered severance when she complained of being bullied. There were counter claims against her by others saying she was a bully. Because the case was not properly investigated, it is unclear whether the matter was resolved by the complainant’s departure. Where severance is used instead of disciplinary action procedures being followed through, it sends the wrong message to the workforce and managers. It may not be an appropriate use of public funds, particularly where dismissal could have occurred if due process had been followed. This was acknowledged by the Council. P132

The above point is particularly interesting in the light of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case and the different treatment of a white member of the Corporate Management Team  which led to the finding of racial discrimination as well as victimisation and constructive dismissal.

Grievance cases were too frequently dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence. In two cases where this had occurred, Inspectors considered there was clearly some evidence of poor conduct by managers. In another case, Inspectors noted that the disciplinary process appeared to have been concluded without seeking evidence from all third party witnesses. 

At times, little effort appeared to have been put into seriously exploring issues raised through grievances. For example, a complaint about potential institutionalised racism was apparently dismissed without investigation on the basis that it was ‘unsuitable for a grievance process’. We make no comment on the merit of this particular case, except that it should have been properly looked into. P133

Whistle-blowing and the treatment of whistle-blowers was an issue in Rotherham as it is in Brent: 

Inspectors have concluded that RMBC goes to some lengths to cover up information, and silence whistle-blowers. It has created an unhealthy climate where people fear to speak out because they have seen the consequences of doing so for others.

“I’m just worried about reprisals of a personal nature.” (A councillor)

“We’ve all been made aware of the (whistle blowing) procedure,but no-one dares ever use it, because if they did, eventually it would come back to bite them in the backside and they would be bullied out of the organisation”. (A whistle-blower P134)

Staff in RMBC have spoken to Inspectors of being afraid to speak out, told to keep

quiet, instructed to cover up, and of a culture where “if you want to keep your job,

you keep your head down and your mouth shut.” 

A significant number of people we interviewed were clearly afraid of what might happen to them if they spoke out. 

Inspectors considered detailed evidence in three specific cases where people who blew the whistle felt they were marginalised, bullied, harassed and victimised as a result. 

In two cases, whistle-blowers claimed they were deliberately restructured out, one

from the Council and the other from a provider working closely with the Council

under a contract. In a third case, following a similar pattern of marginalisation the

person left. Inspectors recognise that sometimes whistle-blowers may have other agendas and those who approach inspections can be aggrieved for all sorts of reasons. We have borne this in mind when reviewing the cases presented to us and have nevertheless formed a view that in these specific cases there was sufficient truth in the matters raised to be a cause of public concern.

It is clear from the report that correct paper policies and procedures are not enough. It is what happens day to day, and people's experience of management's handling of the big issues of respectful treatment and equality which is important and that is what has concerned Brent Council staff.

One person at least will be able to see if this report resonates with Brent. Lorraine Langham, late of Ofsted and Tower Hamlets, and recently appointed Chief Operating Officer for Brent, was one of the inspection team for the Casey Report.

 

Possible Council Tax rise emerges as an option on eve of Budget Consultation deadline

I understand that at last night's Labour group meeting the possibility of a Council Tax increase came back into play with a potential rise of 1.99% for 2015-2016 looked upon favourably by a majority of the group. A straw poll indicated 24 in favour of a Council Tax increase and 6 against.  This would be an annual increase of £30 for Band D residents.

Although Cllr Muhammed Butt opposed an increase at the Civic Centre Public Budget Consultation  that this would hit people already suffering from Coalition cuts the counter-argument is that in terms of social solidarity sharing the burden (with those in higher rated property paying more) would enable the most extreme of the proposed cuts to be avoided.  This would preserve some vital threatened services  to the benefit of poorer residents andwould be better for the Council's long-term stability.

Since 2011 the Council has avoided Council Tax increases, accepting the Government's grant for freezing the tax. Indeed Muhammed Butt has made virtue out of what he sees as necessity by boasting to residents that he has frozen the tax.

However there is an argument that long-term freezing of the Council Tax undermines the Council's revenue base.

This is what Clive Heaphy's Report stated in the First Reading Debate in November 2011 LINK

On 3 October 2011 the government announced a further one-off grant, for 2012-13 only, of £2.6m predicated on the basis that the council does not increase council tax for 2012-13. Each 1% in Council tax equates to approximately £1m of Council spending and members should note that the failure to increase Council tax over a number of years will erode the Council’s underlying revenue position in the longer term.

By January 2012 Ann John had ruled out a rise in the Council Tax as reported by the Brent and Kilburn Times LINK

As I stated at the time: LINK

The [Heaphy] report said that a rise of 2.5% in council tax would close the budget gap as follows:

2012-13 £4.4m
2013-14 £1.1m
2014-15 £19.7m
2015-16 £13.1m

In other words a rise of 2.5% in council tax this year would result in a net gain when the loss of the £2.5m grant is taken into consideration. Some councils are considering this option and some Labour councillors in Brent thought it worthy of debate. However that option appears to have been ruled out in advance of both consultation and decision making.

In November 2012 Assistant Director Finance presented a Budget Report that assumed a 3.5% Council Tax increase (above that triggered a referendum at the time). However the trigger was reduced to 2% (still current).

As I stated on my blog in January 2013 LINK

I understand that there has been discussion in the Brent Executive as to whether to raise Council Tax with the benefit marginal after grant losses and  a reduced collection rate are taken into account. A rise above 2% would have incurred the cost of a local referendum.  It would of course have been another additional cost for people already suffering from benefit cuts and low or frozen wages. An alternative view is that calling the Coalition's bluff and triggering a referendum could result in a proper political debate about the need to adequately fund  local services and the iniquities of the Coalition's grant reduction to local authorities. Only a very small percentage of local government revenue comes from council taxes and charges.

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has confirmed via a Facebook interchange with me that there will not be a 2% rise this year. Asked about a possible lower rise he said that the Council was looking at the settlement figures as part of the budgetary process and considering the offer of the freeze grant.

In January 2014 Muhammed Butt said that there were 'no plans' to change policy from freezing Council Tax in the 2014-15 Budget. LINK

I wrote on this blog:

Reflecting on Muhammed Butt's declaration yesterday that there were 'no plans to change course' on freezing council tax for the 2014-15 budget, I wonder what his plans are for 2015-16. In October the Council forecast a deficit for that year of  £34m (see below) a huge amount that on the council's own reckoning will put essential services at risk.

As political parties are deciding their manifestos for the May local elections surely they should be saying something about this crisis waiting for them in their first year of office.

In that respect a manifesto pledge to have a referendum on increasing council tax would make sense. Rank and file Labour party members and the wider public could than have a say and it could provide a launch pad for similar moves by other local authorities.  I do not think increases in council tax are the answer to the huge cuts in local authority funding, that of course requires the restoration of adequate funding, but a national debate post May 2014 leading up to the General Election in 2015 could feed into that demand. It will certainly put the future of local government on the General Election agenda.

Unfortunately despite some efforts at raising the issue and confronting the Coalition with the impact of the cuts, no real movement has emerged and no Referendum challenge..

Brent Council is left with the weakened revenue base that Clive Heaphy warned them about and deeply damaging unpalatable cuts.

It is noteworthy that in the above examples it has been Ann John and Muhammed Butt who appear to have made the decision about a Council Tax rise, although formally of course it is the Full council Meeting.

Where this leaves the Labour Group's support for a modest 1.99% rise, just below the Referendum threshold remains to be seen. Clearly the Cabinet should be taking note of the virews of its own councillors as well as the support shown for services by residents in consultations and in the campaigns that have sprung up to defend services.

If you wish to put your view there is still time to submit a  comment to Brent Council's budget consultation. The deadline is tomorrow, Wednesday February 4th :consultation@brent.gov.uk


 

Eric Pickles decides NOT to intervene in Kensal Rise Library case

Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has  decided NOT to intervene in the case of the Kensal Rise Library Planning application.  The Brent  Planning Committee decision had been the subject of a call-in request by a member of the public. LINK

The National Planning Casework Unit said:

The Secretary of State has carefully considered this case against call-in policy, as set out in the Written Ministerial Statement by Nick Boles on 26 October 2012. The policy makes it clear that the power to call in a case will only be used very selectively. The Government is committed to give more power to councils and communities to make their own decisions on planning issues, and believes planning decisions should be made at the local level wherever possible.

In deciding whether to call in this application, the Secretary of State has considered his policy on calling in planning applications. This policy gives examples of issues which may lead him to conclude, in his opinion that the application should be called in. The Secretary of State has decided, having regard to this policy, not to call in this application. He is content that it should be determined by the local planning authority.

In considering whether to exercise the discretion to call in this application, the secretary of State has not considered the matter of whether this application is EPA Development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.  The local planning authority responsible for determining this application remains the relevant authority responsible for considering whether these Regulations apply to this proposed development and, if so, for ensuring that the requirements of the Regulations are complied with.

In relation to the comments that it is considered the local planning authority of Brent has incorrectly and arbitrarily applied the regulations of the Localism Act 2011 to this proposal and its progression, the Government is concerned that all local authorities should administer the planning system with utmost propriety, However, authorities are independent of central government and are responsible for their actions and decisions to the local electorate, their Auditor and, ultimately, the courts. Ministers have no statutory duty or powers to supervise the general propriety of individual authorities and, therefore, I cannot  comment on London Borough of Brent Council's handling of this matter.

The letter went on to suggest contacting the Council's Monitoring or Complaints officer stating:

It is his or her duty to report to the full council any cases where he or she thinks that the council, one of its committees, sub-committees  or officers is about to or has done something unlawful, improper, or which would constitute maladministration.

They also suggested an approach to the Local Government Ombudsman if this is within 6 months of the original complaint being lodged with the local authority, although they often have more than one stage in their complaints procedure.

Final decision on Kensal Rise Library on hold while Department for Communites considers planning application

Brent Council has agreed with the Department for Communites and Local Government to put the final Kensal Rise Library planning application decision.

Responding to a member of the public who had requested a call-in to Eric Pickles, Secretary of state, 
The National Casework Planning Unit state:

Thank you for your email set out below addressed to the Secretary of State, your email will be passed to my colleague Fiona Hobbs who is already considering this application on behalf of the Secretary of State, and while she is working on the case the council have an agreement with us not issue a decision.  I understand from my colleague that Brent council are currently preparing a S106.

This is the content of the e-mail:
 

Dear Secretary of State,

PLANNING APPLICATION 14/0846: FORMER KENSAL RISE BRANCH LIBRARY, BATHURST GARDENS, LONDON, NW10 5JA - LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT 

I believe the above application - granted planning consent on 16 July - should be called in because it raises issues of more than local importance: 

a) the Localism Act 2011, ACV listing and Community Right to Bid regulations appear to have been incorrectly and arbitrarily applied by LB Brent LPA:

i) inconsistent, arbitrary application of Localism Act 2011 to an Asset of Community Value (ASV): points 7 & 8 of the LB Brent LPA case-report (note 1) state unequivocally that 'the fact that the building is listed as a Asset of Community [ACV] value is...a material planning consideration' (7) and 'is also relevant...as a partial change of use to residential is proposed' (8); 

ii) so why did LB Brent LPA's legal advisor tell the 16 July planning committee that the 2011 Localism Act and ACV were 'separate legislation and not under the consideration of this committee' (note 2)? 

iii) LB Brent legal department's failure properly to apply the Community Right to Bid (CRB):

- Kensal Rise Library, subject of planning application 14/0846, was designated an Asset of Community Value (ACV) in December 2012;

- the sale contract for the building wasn't signed until January 2013, ie after ACV-listing, so the 6-month moratorium bidding process should have been enabled; but

- LB Brent LPA chose as the sale-date the earlier date of the Option Agreement (note 3) to purchase the property, signed in November 2012, ie before ACV-listing. Using this earlier date, LB Brent LPA argued that the 6-month moratorium on the sale did not apply.

b) I believe 14/0846 to be, therefore, a suitable test-case for the proper application of the Localism Act 2011 to ACV-listing:

i) it's widely believed that the Option Agreement was signed in order to bypass the provisions of the 2011 Localism Act for a moratorium on the sale of the property's ACV-listing (note 3, para 6.2). 

ii) this was, and remains a controversial sale and change-of-use planning application for one of Brent's few remaining historic buildings (note 4). The possibly deliberate attempt to bypass the ACV provisions of the 2011 Localism Act by then-owner All Souls College, Oxford requires investigation.

The Localism Act/ACV listing and Community Right to Bid is new legislation with little or no case-law to date. I urge you, therefore, to exercise your right to call in the application to ascertain whether correct procedures have been followed.

Notes: 

1 http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s25283/03 Former Kensal Rise Branch Library Bathurst Gardens London NW10 5JA.pdf

2 awaiting publication of minutes of meeting; 

3 https://www.dropbox.com/s/g20egs1atxoqogr/AS%20OA%202012%20Scan.pdf

4 http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/brents-legal-flip-flopping-over-kensal.html

 

All parties on Brent Council unite to condemn Eric Pickles' decision not to intervene on Welsh Harp development

Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors tonight joined the Brent Council ruling Labour group to condemn Eric Pickles' decision not to intervene in the West Hendon redevelopment on the banks of the Welsh Harp reservoir and nature reserve.

The Barratt Homes  development in Barnet was narrowly approved by  Barnet Planning Committee but opposed by planners in neighbouring Brent. The reservoir straddles both boroughs.

The news was received only shortly before the Council was due to discuss a Labour motion calling for Pickles to intervene because of the scale of the development (flats of up to 29 storeys) and the damage it would do to a cherished and rare open space.

An amendment was quickly tabled condemning his failure to intervene and was passed unanimously in a very rare show of party unity.

Fundraising continues as Watford Council digs heels in over allotment sell-off

Watford Borough Council has refused a request from the Farm Terrace Allotment campaign to put a hold on their development plans following the Secretary of State's withdrawal of his consent to build on the land.

Instead they have stated thir intention to relocate the plot holders and seek planning permission to build on the allotments.

The campaign remains determined to fight on and are redoubling their fundraising efforts. Donations can be made at: LINK

Round 1 allotments victory: that's the way the Pickles squirt!

The Farm Terrace allotment campaign was celebrating this weekend after Eric Pickles was forced to admit his department had made a legal error when approving Watford town council's plans to build on the site. His department failed to explain why it had approved the decision despite the allotments still being in heavy demand.

The decision will now have to be reconsidered and although this may still eventually result in approval of the plans, the campaign to save the allotments is celebrating a 'Round 1' victory. Allotment holders had applied for a judicial review and raised more than £6,000 for a fighting fund through the GoFundMe LINK crwod funding site.

The news brought congratulatory messages from a wide spectrum of supporters with some hailing a victory for 'people power' and making connections with the Lewisham A&E Campaign and the campaign against the Bedroom Tax.

This is good news ahead of next week's National Allotments Week but a government report in 2011 revealed that 50,000 allotments had been lost in the previous 15 years.  Allotees will have to remain vigilant. Some councils have provided additional allotments in the face of growing demand recently and there have been schemes to provide temporary alloments on land awaiting development as well as in 'common areas' of  social housing estates. However pressures on sites will continue as developers seek new land for housing and retail development and hard-pressed councils look for a cash boost.

Brent Council recently advertised vacant plots at seven allotment sites but there are significant waiting lists at others.

Although I have not heard of any sites under threat currently, the new tenancy  agreement circulated to allotment tenants last week does include clauses giving Brent Council the right to terminate the tenancy at a minimum of 12 month's notice 'where the Council requires the Allotment for any purpose for which it was acquired by the Council...or has appropriated them to another purpose under any statutory provision, or if the Council requires the Allotment for building, mining or any other industrial purpose, or for roads or sewers necessary in connection with any of the aforementioned purposes...'

Butt challenges Teather to 'pick up the phone' and make a difference to Brent residents

 The early start to the campaign to win marginal Brent Central following Sarah Teather's sacking from the Government and her pledge to devote herself to her constituents,  was confirmed today when Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt wrote her an open letter accusing her of not standing up for Brent residents.

Writing on the Labour List website LINK today her said:

Dear Sarah,

As Leader of Brent Council, I was somewhat surprised to read in our local paper this week that you have been “working with the Council” on the issue of welfare reform, and are leading our efforts to mitigate the impact on our residents.

I was surprised because I don’t remember your help in preparing residents for the cuts in Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit that are going to devastate our community. Surprised because I don’t remember your help while everyone at the Council was refocusing their efforts on getting as many residents as possible into work and increasing local wages to minimise the impact.

Nor do I recall you standing up for residents by supporting our stance on the Living Wage, or helping reduce residents’ bills through our bulk energy buying scheme. I don’t recollect your offer of assistance in tackling slum housing and rogue landlords or in persuading landlords to accept lower rents rather than throw residents out on the street.

I can’t remember you lobbying Eric Pickles not to strip over £100 million from our funding or to give us the money our residents deserve for underestimating our population by over 60,000. Nor do I remember your help in supporting Brent’s food bank as they broke their own record for the number of vouchers given out in a single day over Christmas.

That’s because unlike the other MPs in Brent, you haven’t helped us or our residents with any of these issues – so far. 

If you really want to help our residents, instead of writing press releases claiming undue credit, why don’t you pick up the phone and ask what you can do to actually make a difference?

Our residents need someone to persuade this Government that they simply can’t take any more pain, they need someone to stand up for them in Parliament on a regular basis and they need help bringing together all partners in Brent to work together to protect them.

I look forward to your call; there is a lot of work to do.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council

Butt's lamentations will change nothing

Nearly Christmas and we now know that Brent Council will lose more funding next year. Muhammed Butt, leader of the council has issued more lamentations and condemnations but we need more than that.  There is still no word on whether his council will devise a needs based budget to rally a community campaign against the cuts, how the council will consult residents on the budget, and at what point they will refuse to make a budget that they know will bring more deprivation to the people of Brent.

From Cllr James Denselow's blog:

Councils in England will have their spending power cut by 1.7% next year, the local government secretary, Eric Pickles, has announced.

The shadow communities and local government secretary, Hilary Benn, said: “It is clear that he is living in a world of his own, because he simply does not understand the impact that his decisions on funding are having on the services and local people who use and rely upon them.”

Cllr. Muhammed Butt, the Leader of Brent Council said “this looks like another disastrous settlement for local authorities. I spent the weekend helping out at the Brent food bank – helping people who literally can’t afford to eat. Make no mistake, Eric Pickles announcement today will mean they have to help thousands more people in Brent alone in 2013. It is a direct attack on the poorest residents of our community, and it is shameful.”

As the year ends insiders tell me that Butt's position as leader is far from secure with critics both in the Executive itself and in the  wider group of Labour councillors, with former leader Ann John returning to a more active role.

Brent Cross - Flawed Plans and Wasted Opportunity will Destroy Local Communities

The Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood (BXC) Plan has condemned last Thursday’s decision by a single unelected official at Barnet Council (leader Lynne Hillan -pictured below) to approve the fundamentally flawed planning application.

Lynne Hillan

The BXC Coalition fears the demolition of hundreds of local homes and road works on a massive scale will cause devastation to local communities.

Pauline McKinnell, Chairperson of  Cricklewood Community Forum and Hendon Way resident, says, “This scheme will cause huge disruption to the community for years to come. Hundreds of homes will be destroyed, with residents not knowing where they will be moved to. Home owners, many of whom have lived in the area for years, will be offered shared equity deals if they wish to stay locally, but details have not been worked out.

“The area is bounded by major roads - the North Circular, A5, A41 and Cricklewood Lane - that already experience frequent traffic congestion.  Adding 7,500 new housing units and 27,000 jobs will lead to complete gridlock.

 Boris Johnson who ridiculed protesters

“The concentration of new housing in such a small area is ludicrous. The only way you can get 7,500 homes into the area is to build enormous blocks of flats all over the place. Who on earth would choose to live in a tower block overlooking the North Circular?”

Navin Shah, Labour party Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow says, “The scheme fails to conform to a significant number of key planning policies. It is unambitious, and wastes the opportunity for a successful, green, long-lasting alternative to the car-orientated Brent Cross plans of the 1960s, by exacerbating that outdated vision.

“The planning process has been a complete shambles from start to finish, and required a much closer scrutiny by Barnet Council, the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State. This has not happened, and as a result the residents and stakeholders of Barnet, Brent and Camden have been left exposed to a bleak future.

“The green light for the project means a huge letdown for my constituents in Brent and Harrow, and thousands of residents in other parts of London. Every single authority responsible for the assessment of the planning application has abjectly failed. Barnet Council’s entire process was a complete mess.

“Super-hub projects such as this are condemned in the recent London Plan amendments, but Mayor Boris Johnson rubber-stamped approval of the application, and the Coalition Government too has shown no vision, and let people down by not calling a public inquiry.

“My constituents are now left facing the prospect of hugely increased traffic and congestion, and an incinerator with a 140m high chimney, equivalent to a 50-storey tower block on their doorsteps.” 

Eric Pickles

Dr Shahrar Ali, Brent Green party spokesperson for Environment and Planning says, "Secretary of State Pickles, Mayor Boris and now Barnet Council seem determined to put the building of giant shopping malls ahead of the future sustainability of the planet. This decision betrays the short-termist political ideology of local, regional and coalition government. Local residents will renew their campaign to kick this over consumptive fantasy into the long grass!" 

Demolition of the Whitefields Estate, Clarefield Park, Claremont Way and the Rosa Freedman Residential centre, one of the biggest day care centres in Barnet, is part of phase one of the development, due to commence in 2014.  Many residents face a highly stressful future because of the developers’ failure to offer adequate compensation for the demolition of their homes and the cost of relocation.

The Coalition will continue to fight the plans building by building to ensure a sustainable scheme – one that the local community wants – is put in its place.  The developers have now suddenly stated that they want “meaningful engagement” with the local community and the wider area. This is laughable, because it should have happened years ago, before the plans were set in stone.   Instead, we face the existing housing and modern sports centre, and the modern parts of local schools, all being demolished.   We face future light railway and cycling routes being destroyed, with major increases in road congestion instead.  And we face toxic chemicals being emitted every day by the Brent Cross domestic waste incinerator.

To date, there has been no press release about this £4.5-billion redevelopment from Barnet Council.  Given the enormous impact on the Borough, and the rather minor nature of SOME of their releases, this is amazing.  After all the justified criticism perhaps Barnet is now too ashamed to publicise its folly.

Private sector backed - public sector hacked

A monster, squatting in the north west London suburbs, spewing out pollution and noxious fumes... the proposed Brent Cross Cricklewood Plan gets the government go ahead. Simultaneously the same government announces cuts to hospitals and schools and thousands face unemployment and wage reductions.

Welcome to the Land of the ConDems!

Eric Pickles, Communities Secretary, has announced via the doomed Government Office for London, that he is not going to call in the Brent Cross Development for a Public Inquiry. Having considered the matter he believes that despite the massive opposition locally, increased traffic pollution,  the impact on neighbouring boroughs, the health threat posed by unproven incinerator technology, and the fact that the Westfield Shopping Centre has been built since the initial application, that his 'intervention would not be justified'!

Co-ordinator Lia Colacicco of the Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Cricklewood Plans spoke for many of us when she said, "This ill-conceived decision by the secretary of state does not bode well for future planning decisions, and is completely at odds with new Conservative Party policies on planning, and the recent Coalition Government planning statement.

"We will continue to fight this regressive, unpopular scheme, to replace it with a sustainable development that meets both 21st century standards and the needs and aspirations of the whole community."