Now it's three Brent Councillors pledged to fight austerity

In a welcome move Cllrs Sam Stopp and Keith Perrin have now added their names to the People's Assembly Against Austerity letter from local councillors pledging to fight austerity and local government cuts LINK

Other councillors can add their names by emailing office@thepeoplesassembly.org.uk

LATE NEWS Cllr Tom Miller has added a comment that he would like to sign but thwarted by a dud link. I have taken that as support for the pledge.

Potty 'Park and Stride' scheme exposed by Perrin in Byron Court car mayhem debate

Streets around Byron Court Primary School (click on image to enlatrge)

Cllr Keith Perrin claimed at the Planning Committee on Wednesday evening that the officer's report to the Planning Committee showed that currently the school experiences 'outrageous and dangerouus tarffic movements.' He said that the school had 'patently been unable to enforcde their Travel Plans' mainly because they have no enforcement tools.  He claimed that only last week someone was convicted of assaulting a resident.

Perrin went on to say that police and parking enforcement had been ineffective, even with camera cars.  The situation was exacerbated by lack of parking spaces and public transport and pressure on parking space from the increasing number of staff at nearby Northwick Park Hospital.

The result is that local roads are choked during the day and the Northwick Park Car Park had to apply restrictions to allow park users to park there.

Cllr Perrin said that the travel plans had failed and that the revised plan was deficient because it relied on 'Park and Stride'. (parents dropping children in Northwick Park Car Park and the pupils walking to school from there).  He had analysed the current pupil role by postcode (see LINK - I had the postcodes but deleted them to safeguard the identity of the children).  His analysis showed that of 697 pupils  only 319  are under 20 minutes adult walk to the the school,  100 come by tube, 11 travel for almost an hour on the 245 bus - in all at least 200 currently travel by cars that  'create absolute mayhem.'

That was the current situation but the report says that with expansion 299 extra pupils will travel by car.  Using Northwick Park Car Park for 'Stop and Stride'  would mean 162 cars needed to enter and exit via a single carriagewat - 324 car movements in 30 minutes, or a car movement every 5.5 seconds.

Perrin raised a number of issues regarding the proposal to use Northwick Park Car Park for 'Park and Stride':

• the logistics of staff collecting and controlling 160 children and marching them to the school through 'rain or shine'
• the chances of cars arriving within the same 10 minutes - one every 2 seconds
• where wouldl children wait in the park
• will there be sufficient staff to manage them
• would there be any shelter or holding area?
• a zebra crossing would be required at Norval Road - would this be a dangerous?
• what were the chances of parent ignoring Park and Stride in the event of bad weather and attempting to drop their children off at school?
• how would staff know which children to expect to be dropped off and what action woudl be expected if they don't turn up?
• clear safeguarding issues
• condition of the children if they have to wait in the rain for 10 minustes and walk 0.4 of a mile for 15 minutes in the rain to get to school
•  

Cllr Perrin called for the Park and Stride idea to be abandoned and said he felt that the Highways Department did not really support the scheme despite their report: 'I know these officers to be some of the best and they are definitely not stupid.'

 To help inform readers here is an extract from the memo sent to the Brent Head of Planning from Transportation on November 23rd 2015:

 
-->

Parking

Parking standard PS12 of the UDP-2004 will allow 1 car parking space to be provided per 5 staff, with visitor parking to be provided at 20% of the staff parking, but a minimum provision of a single car space. This standard also urges close attention to pick-up and set-down facilities at school sites, and the impact of on-street car parking on local residents.

The school currently employs 75 staff; 41 teachers, 29 support staff and 5 admin staff. This will increase to 105 staff members as a result of the proposal.

The school currently has 23 unmarked parking spaces, 22 cycle parking spaces and 15 scooter spaces and the proposal will provide 26 parking spaces including 2 disabled and 60 cycle spaces. This is sufficient to satisfy standards.

Cycle parking

62 cycle parking spaces will be provided and the cycle sheds appear to be located by both accesses; Spencer Road and Nathans Road. The cycle spaces should be in a secure and covered shed to protect against theft and weather in compliance with PS16 of the UDP-2004.

Site observations

The main issue observed was the number of vehicles parking in obstructive manners at the junctions on double yellow lines, blocking resident’s driveways and in some cases actually parking in the residents drive and overhanging the footway. This obstructive parking as well as parents wanting to park directly outside the school, or as close to the school as possible, was resulting in a tail back of traffic up to the junction of Norval Road. This in turn was leading to dangerous crossing behaviours by parents and pupils. Due to the nature of the road, it only took one or two vehicles to park in this manner or travel against the informal flow, for severe congestion to occur.

It appeared that on the days that teachers were outside the entrance encouraging traffic to move on and signs were placed out on the highway, vehicles were less disruptive as the teachers and signs were a deterrent to stop them parking so close to the school. However, this deterrent does not stop vehicles carrying out obstructive parking at the junction with Norval Road or vehicles trying to mount the footway and still did not stop vehicles blocking driveways, parking in the resident’s driveways and parking on the single yellow lines outside the school. On the days teachers were not always outside the entrance, parents appeared to revert back into bad habits of parking.

This illegal and inconsiderate parking by parents is a major concern for pupil and pedestrian safety and for access into and out of residential properties in the street. 

It was disappointing to see that Northwick Car Park was not used at all. Two parents were observed driving up to the entrance of the park looking for on street parking on The Fairway and then turning around when they did not find any.

Having discussed this with out School Road Safety Team, they have advised that they do encourage the school to make use of Northwick Car Park and name and shame parents who park dangerously. However, our observation on site shows that illegal parking and inconsiderate parking still occurs and in many instances it was the same vehicles parking in this manner. The traffic congestion is still an issue and the school should be more active to reduce this problem and address pupils safety concerns. 

Transport Assessment

Table 2.1 illustrates that 66% of the students live in same postcode region as the school (HA0), with 13% living nearby in HA9 and 12% living in HA1.

Point 2.26 refers to collision data retrieved from TfL. The data shows one slight collision at the junction of Abbots Drive/Spencer Road in 2011, involving a child pedestrian hit by a vehicle. Transportation’s accident statistics in the last three years showed show 2 slight accidents in 2014/2015, involving vehicle accidents on The Fairway at junctions with Norval Road and Abbots Drive and is unlikely to be related to pupils at the school as the children in the vehicles were aged 13 and 15 (Please see attached documents).  Please note that the accident statistics only report data whereby injury had occurred and near misses or slight accidents where no injuries were reported will not be included in the data. Therefore, statistics do show that no accident has occurred in the vicinity of the school.

Table 5.1 shows the mode split data of existing pupils taken in the summer 2014 and winter 2015. The results show 490 pupils walking in the summer and only 249 in the winter resulting in 50 pupils travelling by car in the summer and 96 travelling by car and 33 car sharing in the winter. Pupils’ travelling by bus doesn’t seem to change however, those using the train’s increases in the winter by 4.6%.

Northwick Car Park is in the vicinity of the site and the parking survey (carried out March 2015) shows that the car park provides 96 spaces with 79% occupancy. Due to the recent enforcement of commuter parking, within this car park, Transportation had requested for a more recent parking survey to be carried out. This was carried out in May 2015 and table 5.28 and 5.29 showed an average availability of 96%.

An all day parking survey (05:00 and 21:00) was carried out on Thursday 12^th March 2015, by the consultants. Roads included Abbots Drive, Nathans Road, Norval Road, Spencer Road and The Fairway. The results showed an average of 57% occupancy in the morning peak between 07:30 -10:00 and an average occupancy of 70% in the afternoon peak between 15:00 – 17:30. The parking survey for Spencer Road showed an average occupancy of 64% in the morning and a high occupancy of 112%-127% in the afternoon during school pick up time.

The survey was carried out again in May 2015 after the enforcement of the car park and results in table 5.30 show that there were still spaces available on street and that the displacement of parking from the car park had not affected on street availability. Further to Transportation’s site observations on 23^rd, 25^th and 26^th November, it was noted that there was no on street parking spaces available in the vicinity of the school on either Nathans Road or Norval Road due to the high number of commuters parking in the vicinity before 8.30am.

Please note the parking survey shows two figures for Spencer Road; 49 and 26 spaces. The 49 spaces are counted on both sides of the road as there are no legal restrictions for parking on one side only. However, the road is too narrow to allow parking on both sides and therefore the figure is incorrect and the realistic figure for a total of 26 spaces should be used for assessing parking availability. In addition to this, parking on Spencer Road should be discouraged due the width of the road and danger to pedestrians/pupils crossing the road near the school entrance and therefore parking availability on Spencer Road should not be considered.

Northwick Car Park

This car park is proposed to be used by parents for park and stride to school and table 5.23 shows a break down of occupancy in the between 08:00-09:00. The car park occupancy does gradually start increasing by 08:30 however, the average occupancy is 39% and therefore less then half the car parking is being occupied giving scope to use the car park for parents to park and stride.

A follow up survey was carried out 12^th May 2015 and showed 115% occupancy on Spencer Road in the morning school peak and 146% occupancy in the afternoon school peak. However, Northwick Car Park shows only 4-5% occupancy both in morning and afternoon peak which is a significant change in results.

Since the enforcement of the car park, only approx. 5-10 parked cars have been counted during our site observation and the survey carried out by the consultants shows a low 4-5% occupancy. The car park is therefore ideal for parents to park within to ease congestion on the surrounding residential streets. However, the access into the car park is 200m long and does not have segregated footway, which is a concern for pedestrians walking on the carriageway whilst vehicles travel in and out of the car park. The grassed area either side of the carriageway can probably be walked along in the summer months however during the recent site observations, it was found that it was to muddy to walk on leaving pedestrians to walk on carriageway. This is Brent Council Parks land and Transportation would suggest that the school seriously consider the use of this car park for parents when dropping and picking up children and if this option is to be taken forward then discussions with Parks Department should be made to implement a segregated footway for pedestrians, especially the school children, to be able to use.

Automatic traffic counters on Spencer Road showed 100 vehicles travelling southbound between 08:00 -09:00 and at speed of 11mph and 63 vehicles travelling at 10mph between 15:00-16:00. Automatic traffic counters on Nathans Road showed 61 vehicles northbound and 34 vehicles southbound between 08:00-09:00 and 29 vehicles northbound and 23 southbound between 15:00-16:00. Traffic on Nathans Road travelled between 17-18mph.

Table 5.34, 5.35 and 5.26 shows a pupil and staff modal split for the existing and proposed as balanced however transportation would like to see an improvement to these figures via the Travel Plan targets and initiatives.

One of the initiatives the school proposes is to increase the ‘soft start’ from 10 minutes to 20 minutes between 08:30-08:50 to allow a staggered drop to reduce number of vehicles in the vicinity at any one time. Based on this and the assumption of extra school activities, table 5.49 proposes 20% of pupils to arrive 07:00-08:00, 25% between 08:00-08:30 and 54.7% between 08:30-09:00. The departure figures proposed 39.6% to leave between 15:00-15:30, 24.7% to leave between 15:30 -16:00 and 30% to leave between 16:00-17:00.

Table 5.58 anticipates an additional 83 - 299 during the morning and afternoon peak of summer/winter. These vehicles will be staggered between 7am – 9am and 3pm- 6pm and these vehicles can be accommodated within the Northwick Car Park, which can accommodate 50 or more spaces, alleviating on street parking concerns.

Travel Plan

After assessing the travel plan (dated October 2015) using the attrubte tool, it has failed for the following reasons:

·       The submitted travel plan will be effective from the proposed development 2016 and this is not acceptable. A revised travel plan should be submitted with initiatives already in place in order to address and reduce existing problems. 

·       A travel plan coordinator should already be appointed and working towards implementing measures

·       Targets should also be set out for 3-5 years after occupation

·       or adhere to a standardised approach.

·       The travel plan shows a target in Autumn (2016) when the proposed site is due to open and the vehicle target is 16%, which is as existing. By 2020 the target for vehicle travel is 12% (winter) when the proposed site should be in full occupancy. The staff targets show a reduction in vehicle travel by only 8% in 2020 with targets for walking to remain the same and the cycle travel increased by only 2% by 2020. These targets should be increased to encourage more sustainable modes of travel.

The travel plan does not mention use of Northwick Car Park, which was initially discussed as part of the pre-app and our School Road Safety Team have also discussed this option with the school as well. Transportation have suggested the car park to be used for parents to park and then walk to pick up or drop of their children particularly since enforcement of the car park has meant only 5-10 vehicles park in their with over 50 parking spaces available for parents to use. However it has been very disappointing to see that the school are currently not encouraging this option and that this is not mentioned as one of the travel plan measures.

The school currently uses a voluntary one way system in the morning from northbound on The Fairway and southbound on Spencer Road. The streets are too narrow to accommodate a two way flow and therefore the voluntary one way system in the morning attempts to alleviate traffic. The afternoon pick up attempts to keep to a one way system however, parents park to pick up their children so the one way system can provide difficult. However, this is simply a case of dealing with the symptoms of the travel problems and not addressing the underlying cause of too many car-borne pupils being brought to the school gates by car along a road that is unsuitable for the level of traffic generated.

In conclusion, the school has an existing parking and traffic congestion problem and they have failed to be proactive in addressing these existing problems by implementing sufficient measures in order to mitigate these issues before proposals of expansions were put forward. The travel plan should address measures to start mitigating these issues and should be enforced. Only then could any comfort be provided that the school would be able to expand without significantly worsening existing traffic problems in the area

Servicing Management Plan

During construction, the school proposes to continue using the access of Spencer Road for their deliveries and refuse, as is the current situation.

After construction, the school proposes to use the access on Nathans Road for their deliveries and refuse.

Drawing number SP21A proposes a 5.3m wide access leading to a 21m long and 20m wide hard standing area. The drawing shows the vehicle tracking for a refuse vehicle, which is 8.3m long. The drawing shows that a refuse vehicle can turn around within the site and leave in forward gear, which is acceptable. Refuse storage is proposed near the rear access for straightforward collection.

Swept path analysis has also been provided for ‘transit’ sized vans, which can also turn around and leave in forward gear. The van deliveries will be made for groceries/food deliveries and drawing number 941N200J does propose the kitchen near the rear access, allowing straightforward unloading into the kitchen. There is also an office by the rear access which will presumably allow deliveries such as post to be collected.

The hard standing area reserved for unloading/loading and turning area, will not be marked out with bays or ‘keep clear’ signage and therefore could potentially lead to off street parking by the school. This is not acceptable as it would lead to obstruction of large vehicles being able to turn around or park. Clear signage should be implemented or the school should strictly enforce no vehicle parking in the area other than deliveries.

The applicant also states that the area will be used for coaches and a swept path analysis should be submitted for this.

The school currently restricts deliveries between 08:00 – 09:00 and 15:00 – 16:00. As the access from Nathans Road will be used by pupils during the start and end of school and the expansion is likely to result in pupils using the after school activities as stated in the TA, Transportation would request the restriction to be placed from 15:00 – 17:00.

It appears that delivery vehicles will have to wait on Nathans Road whilst trying to access the school and this is not acceptable. The vehicle should set the gate back 10m to allow a refuse vehicle to wait within the access whilst they are pressing the intercom to gain access into the school.

Mini expenses revolt by two Labour backbenchers

Labour backbencher and former Executive Member Keith Perrin told Full Council last night that he could not vote for an increase in councillor expenses at the same time that the Council was putting up Council Tax. He voted against the proposal and was joined by Cllr Long. They are two of a total of 56 Labour councillors.  I understand that Cllr Helen Carr, Lib Dem, also voted against the increase.

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?

Cllr George Crane appointed Brent Council lead member for the Environment to replace Keith Perrin

Hot on the tail of my story about the non-filling of the Lead Member for Environment cabinet post left vacant by the resignation of Cllr Keith Perrin LINK and my suggestion that Cllr Butt was reluctant to have another election for the post, comes this story on the Get West London website LINK

It appears that former Executive member Cllr George Crane has been appointed to the post. There is no press release on the Brent Council website about this:

A former manager of Rolls Royce has been appointed the new lead member of environment at Brent Council.

Councillor George Crane from Wembley has taken up the role after Councillor Keith Perrin stepped down from the position last month.

Councillor Crane has been a councillor for a number of years and was the lead member for regeneration and growth in the last Cabinet.

He has two grown up sons and is retired now but was a senior manager at Rolls Royce for 20 years and after that worked as a buyer for a food manufacturing company in Harrow.

He said: "I am delighted to take on the role of Lead member for Environment at the request of the Leader of the Council.

"I am excited about the portfolio area - there are lots of new things in the pipeline in Brent including improvements to the public realm and waste management including new and more frequent recycling collections from Spring next year. However I am also acutely aware that Brent Council faces some tough challenges with public services facing dramatic cuts in funding from central government, so the Cabinet will have to be making some tough decisions over the coming months.

"I am keen to listen to and engage with residents. I look forward to working with them and other Partners over the coming months."

Keith Perrin had 'no problem' with £40 garden waste charge

Gaynor Lloyd has sent me this comment on suggestions that the Garden Tax was a contributing factor to Cllr Keith Perrin's resignation.  (It is published here as it was too long to go in as a normal comment on the original story)

As Keith Perrin's wife, could I just make a comment? I  was around when - after the election and  as new Lead Member - Keith  was looking at the whole "package" of changes to the waste arrangements: considering  the overall  contract,  and the variations including those for food and green waste. I know what  research he did , and how much time he spent  raising  questions with officers, etc. I   watched him deliver information about the changes in various forums, and answer numerous residents' and councillors' questions, including at Scrutiny - and follow up those questions which he was unable to answer. I can  say that Keith had -  and has  - no problem with the "garden tax"  (though he may not be keen on calling it that!) or with the overall changes .   What follows is the article he did for the Sudbury Court Courier in our Ward, while he was Lead Member, and which sets out Keith's genuinely held views. 

" Changes to Waste Services in Brent by Northwick Park Councillor Keith Perrin

After being elected to the Council in May, for which I thank you all, I became Lead Member for the Environment in June.   Almost immediately, the  Council announced proposed changes to its Waste Services.  Since then, I have been questioned daily and often at great length on the subject.  I have had to understand the issues, the waste contract with Veolia (the Council's contractor) and the position in the Borough as a whole. Most contentious is the new 'opt in' £40 charge for a garden waste bin   - but the changes are about much more.  

These changes are being introduced for two reasons.  Put simply, the Council has no choice. It has to save money and it has to reduce waste. The changes should achieve both.  More than that, they will be  fair and overall improve the waste collection service  to all the residents in the Borough.  

The basic principles behind the changes:

·         We have to improve recycling rates

·         We have to reduce overall collected waste (2011 Waste Regulations). Waste sent to landfill costs us £108 a tonne.

·         We have to reduce the overall cost of waste disposal.  Mixed garden and food waste  costs £88 a tonne to process;  food waste on its own costs less than £30 a tonne and garden waste £34.

·         We have to save money or increase income. We have a £53 million budget deficit.  The Government won't let us raise Council Tax; the Council is bound by law to provide services - which cost money. We have to do what we can. These changes will  reduce the cost of the waste contract by a projected £378,000 per annum (and potentially more).

So - back to the Green Bins.

I should explain that, unlike most waste,  the Council has no statutory obligation to collect garden waste for free; many councils have never done so; since 2005, some of us in Brent have been lucky and received this service. Living in the greener parts of the Borough, I have had a free green bin for mixed food and garden waste. (In fact, I have two.) But not every household  in Brent even has one.  

Their food waste has to go into the ordinary landfill bin, collected fortnightly  - so potentially smelling awful, and attracting vermin, maggots and flies. You could say that our green bins have been subsidised by other people in the Borough who have not even had a food waste collection service. This does not make sense. 

Going forward, all 110,000 Brent households will be supplied with a robust sealable 23 litre food waste container  - collected every week - by new compartmentalised recycling lorries, which will also  collect dry recycling (the blue bin stuff). In one step reducing landfill by taking food waste,  and the overflow recycling which has previously found its way into the grey bins,  because blue bins are only collected  fortnightly. This removal of recyclable waste from the landfill bins will save us over £70 a tonne. Since 50,000 households don't have a green bin, you can easily work out how much we might save.

I have looked at the evidence from other parts of the country. I know that people believe that garden waste will increase fly tipping.  I believe It hasn't happened anywhere, except Birmingham, where there were "demonstrations" prior to the local election in May.  I hope it won't happen in Brent;  I don't believe that those who love their gardens would be the sort of people who would fly tip their garden waste. 

I hope we gardeners will think of composting, mulching, leaving wildlife areas less cultivated,  and being community minded in, e.g., helping each other on shared runs to the free recycling centre in Park Royal. But, if there is fly tipping, Veolia collect it. And pay the excess landfill tax.  Veolia clearly believe it will work! And I believe it will. It has to. We must reduce waste,  not just to save money but for the sake of the planet and our children. And a bit more leaving of green wildness might help in that aim too. ".

Butt finds democracy a bit bothersome

I guess Brent's contribution to Democracy Week of an Question Time session with the panel consisting solely of Brent Labour Council's Cabinet members (the token Tory dropped out) is par for the course.

But the democratic deficit actually reaches into the Labour Group itself.

Cllr Keith Perrin, Cabinet member for the Environment resigned some weeks ago. One of his first jobs as lead was to defend the £40 Garden Tax against criticism from fellow Labour councillors. Some suggest this was a contributing factor in his resignation.

Rather than being replaced his role has been taken on by Council Leader Muhammed Butt - or has it?

Word has it that Butt does not want another election to choose Perrin's successor as the last election was too acrimonious with many councillors jostling for a Cabinet post.

Muhammed Butt is already on record as finding annual leadership elections irksome and now it appears even elections that don't involve him personally are too bothersome.

He has out-sourced the donkey work  for now to a former member of the Executive, who knows rather more about regeneration than waste.

Meanwhile, lurking in the wings is Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn)  who as former adviser on waste to Ken Livingstone when he was London Mayor, really is an expert on the subject.

However, he is not one of the Young Turks (or should it be Young Tiggers?) who form Butt's buttress against challenge.  He is too independent and experienced to fit in with the group.

Meanwhile people are contacting me who have only just found out about the Garden Tax. This one won't go away.

To cap it all there are now rumours that an excuse will be found to not go ahead with the Council meeting due on November 17th.

Brent's Super Scrutiny found wanting

Last night's first meeting of the 'Super' Scrutiny Committee of Brent Council, which replaces several specialist scrutiny committees, revealed the weakness of the new system.

Firstly, committee members seemed unclear of their remit and their powers, with only Cllr Mary Daly appearing well-briefed and prepared to ask awkward questions.

Perhaps because of time constraints in the over-crowded agenda, the chair, Aslam Choudry, limited questions from members of the committee, although he did allow the public to speak. On the Garden Tax he was reduced to asking Cllr Keith Perrin, lead member for the environment, and the officer, if they truly believed the waste collection changes were a good thing. Of course they did!

The outcome of the Central Middlesex A&E closure, local health reforms and the Garden tax discussions were anodyne proposals about monitoring and returning to the committee later,

Cllr Janice Long, a former member of the Executive, and one of those calling in the Garden Tax tweeted:

 Signed the call-in on Garden waste, sat through mtg but not allowed to ask questions. Had to email officers. Appalling lack of scrutiny.

The public gallery was crowded for the meeting and the general consensus was that the Committee would have to do a lot better in the future if the Cabinet is to be held to account.