Dawn reprieve for the Furness Road trees

The trees outside Furness Primary School this morning

Cones stacked this morning

Local residents report that the parking restrictions outside Furness Primary that had been imposed to make ready for the removal of five trees this morning LINK have been removed.  News of the proposed felling spread like wild fire yesterday on Facebook and Next Door with the vast majority of local residents opposed. Another three trees were scheduled for removal elsewhere in Furness Road.

Children left their own messages nearby:

Whether this signals a temporary reprieve or a major re-think is not yet clear. Meanwhile the chair of  Harlesden Area Action has written to Cllr Krupa Sheth, lead member for the Environment and Gary Rimmer, Trees officer:

I am receiving feedback from many residents (nearly 50 comments on Nextdoor), far and wide within both the Harlesden and Kensal Green wards, voicing their grave concerns related to the rampant removal of trees. It has come to our attention that a number of trees (8?) are to be removed on Furness Road tomorrow. In addition, one tree, located near 56 Furness Rd has now been removed, and the cutting down of another located at 88 Furness Road has taken place. 

As you are aware, Brent has declared a Climate Emergency; you spoke of this at the Clean Air for Brent meeting last Tuesday. In that light, we would like to understand the rationale behind removing these trees, for each individual tree.  

Would you please provide us with the following: 

1. Specific reason for the removal of each tree.

2. Specific reason for the removal of the tree outside of 56 Furness Road

3. Specific reason for the removal of tree cut down at 88 Furness Road

Lastly, we have understood that you have "asked the officers and contractors to put a hold on the felling of the trees until I have further information, nothing will happen this weekend”.

Please also confirm that no tree will be removed as you noted in your email to residents until we have received further information and have had time to review it.

Cllr Jumbo Chan sent this written request to Brent Council nd promised to keep residents informed of the response:

My thanks to Caitlin for the photographs.

Brent Council should reinstate the role of Allotments Officer to tackle overgrown plots and poor billing

The overgrown allotment next to my plot at Birch Grove, Kingsbury

I was pleased to see Cllr Janice Long take up the issue of Brent Council's allotments at the recent Full Council meeting. It is a subject that has been covered on Wembley Matters several times.

Cllr Long said that she was receiving a lot of complaints about the state of our allotments: the billing process is disorganised, the council does not therefore know who no longer requires their allotment and the result is that many are left overgrown - 'a mess.'

She went on to say that the Council had got rid of its Allotments Officer (something I campaigned against) and the work had  'been dumped on someone in the parks department.'

Long mistakenly said she thought that allotments had been converted to self management, in fact allotment holders except for one site turned this down but the Allotments Officer was nevertheless made redundant. There are however allotment representatives who can liaise between allotment tenants and the council.  There used to be an incentive of free plot rental for people taking on this role but I am not sure this is still the case. My allotment site at Birchen Grove has recently elected a new representative and I hope this will result in some improvement. However I think the problem will only be resolved if Brent Council decide to reinstate the Allotments Officer position - there is a lot of potential income in those plots that are not currently being cultivated.

Cllr Krupa Sheth, lead cabinet member for the environment, responding to Cllr Long said, 'We definitely want to get the best out of our allotments. I'll take this back to the parks team and make sure the billing is done properly as well.'

The cost of allotment neglect in Brent

Birchen Grove allotments in Kingsbury

In Spring 2016 Brent Council consulted on the possibility of our allotments becoming self-managing. Allotment holders were not enthusiastic LINK and as far as I know none, apart from Kingsbury which was already self-managing, opted to self-manage.

I spoke up for the then Council Allotments Officer and the fine job she did but shortly afterwards she was gone.  Without a named officer the role was taken over by the depleted parks department - depleted after Veolia took over the maintenance contract for parks and the Green Flag scheme was abandoned.

Now the Birchen Grove site,  where I have two plots, is looking neglected and overgrown.  There seems to be no system of checking on active cultivation and  expediting the reletting of abandoned plots although I understand there is a waiting list and the Council is supposed to be encouraging local food cultivation LINK

The practical effect of plots being overgrown  is that they are much harder to bring back into cultivation and any new allotment holder can become demoralised by the sheer hard work involved. Grass and weed seeds spread over neighbouring cultivated plots and become a nuisance,

I would be interested to hear about experiences on other Brent allotments and perhaps Cllr Krupa Sheth, Cabinet member for the Environment, could look into the issue. It would be useful for the Scrutiny Committee to review the success or otherwise of the Council's Food Growing and Allotments Strategy.

Meanwhile, following other examples of neglect of council resources such as garages on estates, there is a fear that pictures of neglect and low use rates such as those above, could lead to justification for a polocy of selling off  allotments to be used for housing developments.

Planning Portal comments in support of Welsh School planning application to be verified by officers

Cllr Sarah Marquis, Chair of Brent Planning Committee, told residents attending the site visit at King Edward VII Park this morning that she had instructed officers to investigate comments that have appeared on the council planning portal in support of the London Welsh School's application to build a school in the park.

The resident of 28 Princes Court, whose address and someone else's name, had been used to post support, when she herself was opposed, said that she was not satisfied with the officers' explanation that this was an 'adminstrative error'.

Marquis has asked officers to investigate that and also to verify the 13 other comments (excluding 23 Toley Avenue) in support of the application that suddenly appeared on the portal on January 8th.

Apart from a representative from the Welsh School the 20 or so residents (including children) who attended seem to have been opposed to the planning application.

Debangshu Dey, a local resident, has offered to collate bullet points from residents that could then be included in a presentation to the Planning Committee on Tuesday. Residents can apply to speak for up to 2 minutes and the points could be spread between several speakers.

Debangshu's email is debangshu.dey@medreich.co.uk (corrected)

It would be useful if you could say if you are willing to speak. The collated points can then be sent to all who have responded.

Cllr Sam Stopp (Wembley Central) also continues to welcome comments on the planning application  cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk  He will be speaking at the Planning Committee and will have up to 5 minutes for his presentation.

The site visit was also attended by Cllr Jean Hossain (Preston) and Preston ward residents can write to her cllr.jean.hossain@brent.gov.uk .  Most of the park is in Preston ward, including Collins Lodge where the land swap is proposed. The Bowling Green is in Wembley Central ward.

Residents who live opposite the park on Park Lane should contact Tokyngton councillors and copy in Sam Stopp.

Here are some photographs of the Bowling Green site taken this morning.

The additional classroom proposed to be built here, 4m from the boundary with back gardens

This area behind the Bowling Green Pavilion proposed to  be resurfaced as a playground

Planning Officers confirmed that the Bowling Green itself did not form part of the planning application.  Councillors were shown the disused yard adjacent to Collins Lodge which had not been considered as a possible school site or land swap.

Wembley Connects Forum gets a new chair

Cllr Krupa Sheth

Cllr Mitchell Murray

Cllr Krupa Sheth, (Labour Wembley Central) will take over chairing the Wembley Connects forum from Cllr Wilhelmena Mitchell Murray in the next round.

Sheth, who lives in St Michael's Aveneue, won the Wembley Central by-election in late December 2011 at the age of 20. She will be quite a contrast to the 'tough cookie' Mitchell Murray who controversially stopped discussion of Veolia's human rights record in occupied Palestine at the last Wembley Connects on the grounds that a section of the audience found the topic 'offensive'.

Mitchell Murray has a large personality which, accompanied by a sometimes sarcastic sense of humour, was given free reign at the forum. Krupa Sheth's personality and sense of humour has been largely hidden from public view.

Cllr Sheth was involved in her own spot of controversy when a member of the public accused her of texting throughout a vital Planning Committee discussing the Willesden Green Library redevelopment. She defended herself by saying she was looking up information about the issues under discussion.

Cllr Mitchell Murray has taken over the  chair of the Children and Young  People Overview and Scrutiny Committee from Cllr Roxanne Mashari.

Concerns remain over leafleting after Scrutiny discussion

Although Labour councillor members of the Call In, Overview and Scrutiny Committee, clearly saw their role last night as to support the Executive and the officers, rather than scrutinise, members of the public did try and hold the Council to account with the able assistance of Cllr Alison Hopkins. At either end of the experience spectrum neither Cllr Joyce Bacchus nor Cllr Krupa Sheth spoke.

Pete Firmin speaking for Brent Trades Union Council and Brent Fightback, and a member of the Labour Party, spoke about the lack of clarity in the leaflet licensing document. He said it left lots of grey areas in terms of  exemptions based on 'political purposes' and gave the example of the Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group leafleting claimants outside the Kilburn Job Centre about their rights Was that a political purpose? .  He argued that if the scheme was aimed at commercial interests that this would leave small businesses discriminated against. He said that they key question was, 'Who decides whether a leaflet meets the criterion set out in the report?'  He said that here was no evidence from the council that littering caused by leaflets was a problem - in his experience fast food packaging was much more of a problem. He concluded by stating that only 27% of local authorities had introduced such a scheme, the legislation was enabling rather than compulsory and so Brent Council did not have to implement it, and urged the council to abandon the proposals.

Speaking as a local resident, Secretary of Brent Green Party and a committee member of the Brent Campaign Against Climate Change, Pete Murry asked that the council to entirely reconsider the necessity for charges for leaflet distribution. He said he doubted that the intention of Brent Council was to restrict freedoms of speech, information and discussion in the borough when it would be under the international Olympic spotlight. However he feared that this could be the case

He said:

I have regularly leafleted in Brent on Party political issues during elections, but also at other times on other issues such as pollution from Waste incineration, the dangers of nuclear waste being transported through the borough and to promote events such as public meetings about Climate Change. Such issues are not always well covered in the media and often people can only be made aware of their possible local impact through leafleting. None of the organisations that I have campaigned for are financially wealthy or represent profit making commercial concerns. Leafleting is often the only way for minorities and minority causes to be brought to public attention. The current proposed charges would place even this method of communication beyond the financial means of some groups, especially groups of unemployed people whose limited income would make leafleting charges unpayable.

Murry also drew attention to the ambiguities  around definitions and concluded that there were surely better ways keeping the borough clean and tidy other than restricting citizens' freedoms.

Alison Hopkins asked about a non-party political campaign such as the Brent Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Development leafleting over incinerators and whether that would be exempted. She pointed out that the lack of clarity meant that officers or the council would be making decisions about exemptions and that this may be okay for now in terms of free speech, but officers and councils change and we have to think of the future. Unwritten laws were dangerous so there needed to be detail and clarity based on real cases.

In an intervention that lacked the usual sarcasm and side swipes, Helga Gladbaum said she was relieved that the original focus on the Olympics had changed. She said the council needed to sharpen up enforcement of the rules and asked what was meant by the phrase 'harm to the community's interests'. (This latter phrase was used to illustrate when officers thought they would intervene in the leafleting process'.

Cllr Powney, who seems to be in charge of everything contentious, said that rules on leafleting had been in force since 1994 and that the new proposals represented a liberalisation. For example, the previous rules had exempted 'political parties' not 'political purposes'. He suggested that the wording in the supplementary report was 'not particularly illuminating' unless you are a lawyer. He said the proposals were not lime limited but the Olympics may result in a slightly great amount of leafleting. He said it would be difficult to define all possible cases in advance and it was better to focus on the principles behind enforcement. He said that enforcement has not been a problem in the past.

There followed some detailed officer contributions with assurances from Michael Read that in 18 years Brent Council had never used their powers to stop leafleting for political purposes. He said that there had been no prosecutions since 2006 using the existing powers but there were about 20 seizures of leaflets a year. He said that the council's enforcement record should reassure the public. Leafleting was only an issue if it did real harm, people carrying it out were creating a nuisance (thrusting leaflets at the public on narrow pavements), big corporations carrying out mass leafleting, or leaflets being left unattended or being thrown away on the street.  David Thrales gave examples of nuisance caused by leaflets about new shops opening, mobile cards, buying of gold and pawnbrokers  and these along with examples from Yogini Patel about leafleting by a big betting ship all seemed to focus on Wembley High Road, rather than the other streets designated in the report. She thought that leafleting encouraging gambling did harm. Patel said it was leafleting every day of the week by small businesses that caused the real nuisance and also gave the example of the Cup Final when Liverpool fans distributed 'Don't Buy the Sun' leaflets that were left all over Wembley High Road.

Officers favoured on the spot fines rather than the expense of going to court and also drew attention to problems about seizures where legally the council had to find the original owners and return them. They said that giving a warning or moving people on usually worked and it emerged that Brent Council has only four officers to enforce the rules.

As the discussion progress it seemed to me that the emphasis had changed from discussion about definitions of exempted activities and the dangers inherent in that to the concept of 'harm to the community' or 'nuisance'  which I saw as equally dangerous. David Thrales at one point said that hs own interpretation was that leaflets that broadly wanted to ;'progress the community' were ones that would be approved. That seems to me to be a minefield. Could a pro-academy conversion headteacher complain to enforcement officers that anti-academy campaigners leafleting parents outside her school were 'creating a nuisance' or 'doing harm to the community'?

Winding up Cllr Paul Lorber said that the discussion had justified the Call In showing how confusing the whole issue was. If councillors were confused, what about the public? He asked why,  if the key issue was littering,  was the licensing scheme and fees necessary?  Could the council implement enforcement over nuisance without fees etc? If the target was commercial leafleting then shouldn't that be stated? He said that small business should not be discriminated against by exorbitant fees. Alison Hopkins suggested a sliding scale and Cllr Powney said he would seek advice on whether that would be legal and put it into the consultation if it was.

The Lib Dem Call-in motion was then voted down.

The Consultation will take place from the 22nd May, advertised in the press on 24th May and the results made public on the 14th June. Officers would make the decisions based on the consultation and the new powers would come into effect on July 2nd in time for the Olympics.

Different views in Wembley Central today

Rubbish in London Road that Labour councillors and canvassers walked past today

A front garden today, a rare sight amongst the 'car parks with houses attached'

I bumped into about 10 Labour party canvassers in London Road today who had just walked past a prime example (above) of the impact of Brent's waste management cuts. We were all out and about canvassing for the Wembley Central by-election to be held on December 22nd.

Afifa Pervez (Lib Dem) is campaigning on car parking charges and Madhuri Davda (Conservative) is calling for the end of traffic calming measures which deliberately 'slow down traffic', 'unnecessary bus lanes' and narrowing of the main roads. Both ignore the root of the problem which is that we have too many cars on our roads. Front gardens are paved over with two or more cars per household. Pervez claims that local people need their cars to get to work, take their children to school and do their shopping while Davda claims 'as Wembley's population grows, this problem will only get worse'. Of course it will if everyone of an age to drive insists on having their own cars and parents insist on driving their children to school rather than (horrors!) walking, or (even more horrifying!) using a bus.

There is something pretty illogical about assuming unblocked roads would make things easier if the driving population increases - not to mention longer bus journeys when buses lose priority, which would force people back into cars, and increased traffic placing children in danger from speeding vehicles on 'unblocked roads'. Then of course there is the increased air pollution from all those vehicles.

I support 20mph limits in built up areas and increased investment in public transport to get people out of their cars. Good local schools would reduce the need for all those school runs. While we are at it let's have some controls over the paving over of front gardens - our local streets are becoming nothing more than car parks with houses attached.

The Lib Dem's 'Focus' By-election newspaper states 'Wembley campaigner Afifa Pervez is leading the campaign to save Brent libraries'. Well, no. The Brent SOS Library Campaign is a non-party campaign made up of non-affiliated residents and some who are members of Labour, Green, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. It is not owned by an political party and Pervez does not lead it.  Davda is also campaigning for the libraries but neither mention the fact that it is Coalition cuts to local government funding that has led to Brent Council's cuts.

Which brings us to Krupa Sheth, the Labour candidate who is in the unenviable position of having to defend Labour's cuts. Abracadabra - she copes with the problem in a twinkling by ignoring what the Labour Council has been doing. Instead she assures us that she 'believes in our local schools' but doesn't tell us that her parents believed in them so much they sent her to the private, fee-paying Swaminarayan School. She goes on to say that she will fight the government's 'unfair' cuts to 'Brent's schools, hospitals, police and more'. Well the Labour Council hasn't made much of a fist of that so far.

I go back to basic position: the Tory and Lib Dem candidates deserve no respect if they do not acknowledge that their Coalition government is responsible for the massive reduction in local government budgets as well as abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance, cutting of the  Building Schools for the Future programme which affect our children;s education and the potentially devastating consequences early next year of the Housing Benefit cap which will see many of our families made homeless. Standing up for the rights of motorists seems at the very least 'inadequate' in those circumstances.

And Labour has to be honest. They have to admit that they have been forced to do the Coalition's dirty work and that Brent Council cuts are going to hurt people and damage life chances. No more hiding behind euphemisms such as 'transformation' and 'efficiencies'. There appears to be no appetite amongst Labour councillors for a united fight, alongside the community, for justice for the people of Brent but that is what would bring them back some respect.

Labour chooses their Wembley by-election candidate

Krupa Sheth, aged 20,  has been chosen to fight the Wembley Central by-election for Labour. Polling takes place on December 22nd.

The by-election has been caused by the surprise resignation of Labour councillor Jayesh Mistry.

Brent Greens are likely to finalise their selection tomorrow.