OK, it's August -Silly Season - time to see what Brent Council's Cabinet is tabling for their get together on the 13th

Guest post by Gaynor Lloyd
 

If you live in Northwick Park area - or South Kilburn for that matter - it’s worth having a quick look at the  Cabinet papers  about Brent’s  “Regeneration Zones”. LINK 

Yes, some of us lucky residents of leafy Northwick Park were just a bit startled to see ourselves in a “Regeneration Zone”. Some of us weren’t  too shocked, however - though still very , very upset. This is just the latest stage in the story of the plans for what we residents call “the Park”. A fantastic piece of Brent open space, including formal much used sports and  playing fields, a nature conservation area and a golf course. 

And it seems  the Leader of the Council is in charge of this; South Kilburn get the Cabinet Member for Regeneration. I expect we should be flattered. 

This is all about one element of the One Public Estate (OPE)  scheme which has come home to roost in Northwick Park. [More about OPE for those interested at the bottom of this piece **- and see also the linked news stories in Brent & Kilburn Times LINK  

and my letter on Page 13 on the earlier story LINK 

The scheme involves Network Housing, Northwick Park Hospital, Brent Council, University of Westminster and potentially TfL. It’s quite hard to get the detail  but the idea is that there will be 3700 homes  by 2035 somewhere on the margins of the Park. Tower blocks will be built on the land near to the Tube station - a “landmark residential development”.

Sure, as some  papers have emerged, there have been references to key worker housing, and affordable homes  - gosh, do we need key worker housing, and social housing - truly affordable homes - but these proposals  are all very vague. I’ve been trying for more transparency - a couple of Freedom of Information (FOI)  requests over the last 2 years - but not much joy. 

Even though  Brent got a grant of  £530k to do viability research on all this. Including transport research, my current  huge concern - and the reason for asking Martin to post this blog. 

My latest FOI request of Brent  from last December has been so sat on for a very long time -  despite  numerous charming assurances that the sifting process of 100’s of emails was being done  and that the release of  all or some would be opined on “soon” by Brent’s Legal Team . Well, after a last chance given to Brent by the Information Commissioner just to reply at all,  it’s now been accepted by her  as a complaint . I await hearing if the Information Commissioner accepts my argument that the plans should be out in the public domain. 

I was particularly incensed by  the secrecy for the transportation reports/ surveys, and the plans being hatched for  “infrastructure works”  . Principally an access road for this huge re-development. Our very own Regeneration Zone.

Clearly the access road can’t  go across the railway/Tube lines. OK, University of Westminster might be decamping for pastures new; maybe it could go that way. But the University’s plans  seem to be a more recent possible development. 

So where could this road  possibly go? And where might it be considered for going - a location of such commercial confidentiality and sensitivity that Brent can’t possibly release any professional transport reports or plans on it into the public domain? 

Oh, let me think...

Could it be an access road across our Park - designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) - put simplistically, the London equivalent of Green Belt? (The Mayor recently refused an application by Harrow School for a major long planned sports centre on its MOL  land just cross the road from Northwick Park - because it was inappropriate development on MOL) 

It’s not “just” the effect on the environment, or the open air sports facilities; it’s the madness of adding to the roads here, which also serve Northwick Park hospital - a major hospital with (as we all know) a busy A&E. 

But hang on - to finance all this - Brent has a £9.9 million grant from HM Government from the Marginal Viability  Fund bit of its  Housing Infrastructure Fund. To get  this “marginal viability funding”, according to the HMG website , there is supposed to be “market failure”, and  “extensive local consultation” and      “alignment with the Local plan”. Well, these are  a bit news to me but obviously I don’t know everything.

So another reason for my FOI request - which sought evidence of  any of those factors. So far all I have got is a bit of alleged consultation.  Sudbury Court Residents’ Association AGM in April 2017, to which Brent officers did come after a bit of persuading. They brought  a very rum set of slides, including one of rather a scruffy park bench by Northwick Park Tube station, mentioning   litter. The officers did do a bit of question answering by local residents - and promised to revert on some stuff (but didn’t).

If that was consultation, it seems odd  the FOI officer says they have to ask the Chair of the SCRA for her notes of the meeting! Anyway, it wasn’t “consultation” in any normal sense of the word.(NO comments please on Brent’s consultations)

Oh -  and that aligning with Local Plan point. Well, maybe that can be retrospective. The Cabinet paper says “ members may be aware that Brent’s planning department is engaged in consultation on the local plan for which Northwick Park has an allocation “. I’d hope all members (especially on the Cabinet) would be aware we’ve had a bit of Local plan consultation in Brent. 

However, speaking as a local resident (and married to a Ward Councillor) and  having gone to a local meeting  on this Local Plan business   - though I admit I am getting on a bit , so I might have forgotten  - I was completely unaware of any Planning Officer referring to Northwick Park at all. Let alone in terms of revising Northwick Park’s  Local Plan “allocation” or Northwick Park becoming a “Regeneration Zone”.

It seems that the Local Plan “Preferred Options” will be out in November - when “it is proposed to run public consultation specific to Northwick Park in parallel”.

I hope we residents will be having a little pre-consultation consultation amongst ourselves rather more quickly than that. I also hope others in the Borough interested in open space, the environment,  good use of NHS land, pollution, key worker housing and good social housing provision will join us. WATCH THIS SPACE.

[**NOTE on OPE if you’ve got this far!

HM Government OPE is a plan to dispose of “surplus public land”. A particularly infamous issue is the disposal of NHS land in London - based on a couple of reports by Sir Robert Naylor. Generally Sir Robert in his openly available  Report says  to NHS bodies “Identify your surplus land” (that can include unused/empty space like corridors and open walkways, by the way). If your percentages of unused/empty or underused space to your overall site are too high, oh dear, inefficiency - using a carrot & stick approach - the message  is “sell, sell, sell”. Sir Robert’s second, confidential report -  “Naylor 2” - identifies some prime value London NHS sites for disposal  and  is so sensitive NHS England has been fighting a Freedom of Information request I have in on it for around 2 years. 

So clearly a sensitive area generally. Naylor’s reports IS useful in one respect though; Deloittes accountants did a background research report for him - which said sensibly that we ought to be looking strategically at the need for land for NHS use, in light of London’s growing population - and reminding of high land values here if we need to reprovide. Gosh how sensible - how ignored! ]

Wembley’s hospitals and the NHS 70th Birthday

Guest blog by Philip Grant

July 5^th 2018 sees the 70^th anniversary of the founding of the National Health Service, and there will be a community tea party in Wembley’s Yellow Pavilion the following day (Friday 6^th July, from 1pm to 4pm) to celebrate the event:-

But what medical facilities did the ordinary folk of Wembley have before the NHS was set up, and who provided these? I was invited to provide some “local history” information for this NHS70 event, and I would like to share some of it with “Wembley Matters” readers here.

Ever since Tudor times (after Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries who had often provided some health care to the areas around them) the Church of England parishes were expected to provide care to poor people within their district. Every year each parish appointed two or three local men to serve as Overseers of the Poor, raising money to meet the costs of providing “relief” and (if they were lucky) some basic medical care.

Most of Wembley was in the Harrow parish, but in the 1840’s two spinster sisters, Anne and Francis Copland, who had inherited their father’s estate at what is now Barham Park, campaigned for Wembley and Sudbury to be made a separate parish, and paid to have St John’s Church built in Harrow Road, not far from their home. They were great philanthropists, providing money for a school, and a workmen’s hall (including a small library).

Anne Copland, c.1860

In 1871 (the year before she died) Anne Copland gave money to build and endow a Village Hospital. The site is now Wilkinsons, in Wembley High Road, near the junction with Park Lane.

Charles Goddard, 

Unfortunately, Anne had said that only the interest (at 4%) from the investments she had given the hospital could be used to fund its running costs, and the hospital had to stop taking inpatients in 1883. After that, the building became a doctor’s house, at which the sick could be seen, and given medicines from a dispensary.

The doctor living in the former cottage hospital, Charles Goddard, became Wembley’s first Medical Officer of Health, when it was made a separate District Council in 1895. He held that post for around forty years, and in 1924 he called a public meeting to propose that a new hospital be built. There was a lot of support from local people, and Titus Barham (who owned the Express Dairy Company, and lived at Sudbury Park, which had been the home of the Copland sisters) donated land at Chaplin Road, which was part of his own dairy farm, as a site for the new Wembley Hospital. Barham also donated £2,000 towards the cost of building it, and he and his wife Florence were active in organising fund-raising events for the project as well.

The foundation stone for the hospital was laid in October 1926, a Board of Management for the hospital was set up, and the new hospital was opened on 2 June 1928 by the Duke and Duchess of York (later King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, who became the Queen Mother when their daughter succeeded to the throne in 1952).

Wembley Hospital, around 1950.

When Titus Barham, who had been the hospital’s president, died in 1937, he left a further £20,000 to Wembley Hospital in his will. But as a charity (a bit like St Luke’s Hospice today), it needed to regularly raise money from other sources. One of the ways this was done was by holding an annual hospital carnival week, with a Carnival Queen, street parade and various fundraising events. Another important source of funds was a “hospital savings scheme”, where by paying contributions of sixpence a month (made by 20,000 of the 90,000 residents in Wembley and Kingsbury in the late 1930’s) local people were entitled to free treatment in the “public wards”.

The Anne Copland Ward at Wembley Hospital, around 1950.

When the NHS was set up in 1948, Wembley Hospital was absorbed into this new service, but although its management had changed, it still provided the same type of care to its patients. Like many other hospitals, as well as training local young women as nurses (under the supervision of the Matron), Wembley also benefitted from some who came from the Caribbean (another 70^th Anniversary! – LINK

 

 

Christmas time in the Children’s Ward, Wembley Hospital, 1950’s

Wembley Hospital’s role diminished over time, especially after the new District Hospital at Northwick Park was built in the late 1960’s, but its site in Chaplin Road is still providing a range of health services for local people (me included!) as the Wembley Centre for Health and Care. So, Happy 70^th birthday NHS, and thank you.

Philip Grant

Acknowledgement

All images are  from the Wembley History Society Collection at Brent Archives.

-->

Northwick Park Hospital message to patients

Like other hospitals in London and across the country, we are experiencing sustained pressure due to the high number of people seeking emergency medical care, combined with a much higher number of frail older patients who require social support to be discharged from hospital. 

Our staff are working tirelessly to see everyone in a safe and timely manner and, as always, we will triage and treat our sickest patients first. This means that some people may experience longer waits while we treat those most in need.

We have rescheduled operations for those patients needing to stay overnight in a hospital bed. Urgent, day case and cancer operations are going ahead as planned.
 
We will contact patients if we do, regrettably, have to reschedule their operation. If you do not hear from us, please attend your procedure as planned.   


How you can help
We are asking our local communities to help us during this very busy time and attend our emergency departments for serious and life-threatening injuries and conditions only. 

If you are unsure whether you need emergency care please call NHS 111 for advice.
For a guide to local health services in Harrow, Brent and Ealing, please click here.

Demonstrate for #OurNHS on Saturday - we have too much to lose if it goes

Unfortunately I will be unable to attend this demonstration as I am currently unwell but I  hope as many Wembley Matters readers as possible will attend. Our NHS is worth saving.

My current illness has enabled me to see the NHS at first hand as my condition was investigated. Doctors, nurses and auxillary staff in Northwick Park A&E, Ambulatory care, Ultra Sound and CT departments have been amazing. They take care to ensure that procedures are as painless as possible and they gave full explanations of what they were doing, giving me a chance to ask questions.   Appointments were made quickly and communication between the deparrttments and with my GP was excellent.

All  this is under threat, not just from funding cuts and closures, and privatisation, but from the impact of Brexit.  Northwick Park has an extremely diverse staff who work smoothly together as a team.

The i reports a TUC analysis today that one 4.5% (54, 985) NHS workers are from the European Economic Area (EAA) while 90,200 (7%) of adult care workers are from the EAA. In London  9.8% of NHS staff and 18% of the adult social care workforce are from the EAA.

TUC General Secretary, Frances O'Grady, condemned the uncertaintly being created by the government:

It's a terrible way to treat dedicated public servants. And if Brexit means they have to leave our health and social care services will struggle to cope.

She called on the Prime Minster to guarantee EU citizens living and working in Britain  the right to remain and to do soe ahead of negotiations.

Unfortunately there is no Metropolitan Line services between Baker Street and Aldgate and no Hammersmith and City Line service between Edgware  Road and Barking on Saturday.

Northwick Park Hospital has 5th highest 'high risk' backlog of repair work

 

Northwick Park Hospital - under a cloud

Gareth Thomas MP (Harrow West) has revealed that a new analysis by the Shadow Health team shows that Northwick Park Hospital has the fifth highest backlog of ‘high risk’ repair work of any facility in England. 

‘High risk’ maintenance is categorised as an urgent priority in order to prevent ‘catastrophic failure’ and ‘serious injury’. The estimated cost to eradicate the backlog of ‘high risk’ maintenance work at Northwick Park Hospital is £21,488,929.

Other figures are:

Cost to eradicate significant risk backlog: £10,554,117

Cost to eradicate moderate risk backlog:  £10,446,688

Cost to eradicate low risk backlog:  £62,441,594


Risk adjusted backlog cost: £33,418,297

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.

Scrutiny Committe unconvinced by assurances on Northwick Park A&E

Yesterday the BBC reported that ambulance crews would have to call ahead to the control room before taking patients to A&E at Northwick Park Hospital because of the pressures on the hospital. Local GPs are being asked to refer patients to other hospitals. It also reported that in September 179 patients had to wait for more than 30 minutes for an ambulance and 30 patients have to wait for more than an hour.

Yesterday at Scrutiny Committee councillors put the NW London NHS Trust under pressure regarding these issues.  In often emollient replies to tough questioning councillors were assured that there was no danger to patients.

Problems were ascribed to an increase in acuity of patients arriving at the hospital with a sustained rise in medical emergency admissions. In other words more Brent people are becoming sicker.

Although the planned increased bed capacity at Northwick Park would not take place until Autumn 2015 the Trust were taking steps to increase 'in year' capacity at Northwick Park by 32 beds and 20 at Ealing Hospital. Ealing had not shown a marked rise in admissions but there had been an increased length of stay for patients.

Measures to cope with the problem included quicker discharge and less DTOC (delayed termination of care).

In a rather chilling statement an NHS officer said that there was no evidence  that the problems were having an  impact on mortality rates. 'Yet...' was what I said to myself.

Summing up the Committee's view, last night's Chair, Cllr Reg Colwill,  said they were concerned about the timescale of the implementation of improvements to Northwick Park and the danger this posed to Brent residents.

The discussion of the repercussions of the closure of Ealing Hospital Maternity ward also centred on capacity.

Councillors were told that the facility was no longer viable and an earlier closure than the two years initially planned was necessary to maintain safe services. Northwick Park and Imperial had the capacity to expand maternity provision without infrastructure work and a maternity booking service would be introduced.  41% of Brent mothers already attend Imperial which includes Queen Charlotte's in Hammersmith. Ealing staff would be transferred to other facilities over a transitional period.

Officers said that current activity in the hospitals was less than the previous maximum and the expected rise in numbers would be within that maximum. there was an expectation that 95% of women would get their first choice of maternity care. The only cap was at Queen Charlotte's Hospital.

Cllr Mary Daly challenged this in the light of the area's rising birthrate. In summing up Cllr Colwill said that the Committee was not convinced that the rise in birthrate had been sufficiently taken into account and remained  concerned about whether alternative provision would be in place in time.

The main discussion on the future use of the Central Middlesex Hospital site following the closure of the A&E, was the transfer of rehabilitation beds from the Willesden Centre to Central Middlesex.  This raises the question of the future use of the vacated space at Willesden.

The plans for moving Park Royal mental health facilities to Central Middlesex are not going ahead. This was because the costs arising from the 'enhancements for mental health service would not be economically appropriate'.

All we are saying is 'Give Us Fair Pay' - NHS strikers at Northwick Park Hospital this morning

Nurses and other health workers were in fine spirits despite the rain when I visited this morning and Shahrar Ali, deputy leader of the Green Party also joined them to express Green party solidarity.

This is why they are striking:

The Green Party Trade Union Group sent the following message of solidarity to the strikers:

The Green Party Trade Union group sends solidarity to all those NHS workers who are striking today. It is a disgrace that in one of thericher nations of the world, we are so misgoverned that workers in our health services are not properly paid for their skilled and dedicated work,whilst the government continually seeks to make the provision of healthavailable as a source of profit to the private sector. GPTU and the Green Party stand for a properly resourced health service staffed by properlypaid workers providing health free at the point of need. Victory to the NHS strikers!

Have your say on Thursday about the future of local hospitals

Wembley residents will get the chance to air their views on proposed hospital reform in the borough which could see two hospital trusts in North West London merge.

The meeting, held by Brent Local Involvement Network (LINk) on Thursday December 12th  will discuss plans for a proposed merger between North West London Hospital Trust and Ealing Hospital Trust.

Residents are invited to air their concerns and answer any questions from experts at both hospital trusts during the meeting in the Sattavis Patidar Centre in Forty Avenue.

Although there are no concrete plans for the merger a potential scenario could see Central Middlesex Hospital in Acton Lane, lose its Accident and Emergency Department.

Ealing Hospital Trust manages Ealing Hospital as well as community services across Brent, Harrow and Ealing while the North West London Hospital Trust manages Northwick Park Hospital and St Mark’s hospitals in Watford Road and Central Middlesex Hospital in Park Royal.

The hospital trusts are planning a merger after an independent report revealed that both trusts were among 20 trusts country wide that were not clinically or financially viable.

The evening begins at 7pm. For more information contact Carol Sealy on 0208 965 0309 or email: Carol.Sealy@hestia.org

At this stage, Brent LINk does not have an opinion regarding the merger.

Barry Gardiner: Central Middlesex A&E closure 'devastating'

This is the exchange between Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North and Jeremy Hunt following the latter's announcement of the closure of Central Middlesex A&E in Parliament yesterday:

Barry Gardiner (Brent North, Labour)

This decision is devastating for my constituents. The Secretary of State will know that in the last winter period, Northwick Park hospital and Central Middlesex hospital, which comprise the North West London Hospitals Trust, were the worst-performing hospitals when it came to meeting A and E targets not only in London, but in the country. The trust scored 81.03%. That is an appalling record. What he has done today, by announcing the almost immediate closure of Central Middlesex, can only make that much worse. The College of Emergency Medicine has said that his reconfigured hospitals should have at least 16 consultants in their emergency departments, but his decision will give them 10—and that is not for major trauma centres. Will he elaborate on what he will do to bring the number of consultants up to the level required by the college?

Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey, Conservative)

Has the hon. Gentleman, who is so against these proposals, not noticed the proposals for more emergency care doctors, more critical care doctors and more psychiatric liaison support for A and E departments, which will reduce pressure on A and Es and mean that people admitted through A and Es for emergency care will not have a 10% higher chance of mortality if they are admitted at weekends? His constituents will be among the first to benefit from that. I would caution him, therefore, against saying that this is devastating for his constituents. We were reminded in Prime Minister’s questions earlier of how Labour suffered from predicting massive job losses, when in fact there was an increase in jobs. This announcement is good news for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and he should welcome it

Butt poses key questions on future of NHS provision in Brent for Executive endorsement

The Brent Executive will be asked to retrospectively endorse a personal submission made by Council Leader Muhammed Butt to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. The IRP was gathering evidence on the Shaping a Healthier Future plans for health services in North West London which include the closure of Central Middlesex A &E  and submissions closed  yesterday.

Th IRP will report to the Secretary of State on September 13th and his decision will be made in October 2013.

Muhammed Butt's Submission

I am writing to you to express my views on the Shaping a Healthier Future programme (SAHF). It is accepted that the NHS needs to change and services have to evolve but I have some serious concerns with the proposals as they stand, and whether they can really deliver improvements to health care in North West London within the planned timetable for implementation. I support the referral that Ealing Council has made to the Secretary of State for Health that will see the Shaping a Healthier Future proposals reviewed by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. It is important that the plans are subject to robust and independent scrutiny and that the modelling and assumptions built into the proposals are properly tested.

Out of Hospital Care

SAHF makes it clear that changes to out of hospital care are essential if it is to deliver the planned changes to acute care. The general princip le of transferring services from acute to community locations with investment in primary and community care, where appropriate, is welcomed. People should not have to travel to hospitals for routine care or to manage a long term condition.

That said, I am concerned about whether the proposed changes can really be delivered, and even if they are, will they deliver the reduction in demand for acute services that SAHF claims?

I have seen no guarantees that out of hospital care will get the investment in the near future that is needed to ensure that SAHF can deliver improvements. The business case outlines the level of out of hospital care investment required, but in times of financial pressure and constantly shifting priorities, I need cast iron assurances from all of the CCGs in North West London that this money will be allocated to out of hospital services that underpin SAHF no matter what other challenges are faced in the coming years. 
 

The Decision Making Business Case (DMBC) is clear that commissioners and providers should not undertake reconfiguration of hospital services until out of hospital care is shown to be working and have sufficiently reduced demand on acute services. But I need clarity on exactly what the thresholds are for the reduction in demand that will need to be met before the reconfiguration of acute services is allowed to begin, particularly on critical services such as A&E.

I also need to be convinced that delivering more and more services out of hospital will be cheaper for the NHS. There is an assumption that this is the case, but I have seen no evidence to support it. One of the benefits of providing services in a hospital setting is the critical mass that can be achieved by locating services in one place. For some services, such as maternity, we will see a reduction in the number of places services can be offered.

For other services, we will see an increase in settings as services are delivered away from hospitals. The CCGs need to demonstrate more clearly how out of hospital services will be cheaper.

While there appears to be a general consensus of support across CCGs in North West London for the provision of out of hospital care, the provision of this falls to individual CCGs and individual Out of Hospital Care Strategies. A failure to deliver an Out of Hospital Care Strategy in any one CCG areas could have a knock oneffect on neighbouring CCGs, particularly if it affects demand on shared acute care services. For example (and this is hypothetical), if Harrow CCG fails to reduce demand for acute services, how will this affect Brent residents using Northwick Park Hospital where services could be under extreme pressure? Similarly, in these times of stark finances and shifting priorities, if one CCG decided to reduce its commitment to out of hospital care, it is not clear what the effect would be on neighbouring boroughs and shared acute service provision.

GP Support and “Hubs”

The Out of Hospital Strategy underpinning SAHF cannot succeed without GP support and I note that one of the key issues listed in the panel’s terms of reference is the consideration of GP’s views. I have seen no evidence of grass-rootsGP support for the changes, particularly in relation to out of hospital care (I refer to GPs themselves rather than the CCG). Although GP events took place, the DMBC gives limited reference to them, despite the report’s acknowledgement that Health Scrutiny Committees in North West London had made it clear that they expected to see evidence of GP support.

It seems to be a general assumption throughout the decision making process that the support of CCGs should be taken as implicit supportof GPs. This is an erroneous and dangerous assumption. Shaping a Healthier Future relies heavily on additional out of hospital services and without the full buy-in and cooperation of GPs SAHF will face serious, if not insurmountable, challenges. I ask that the IRP challenge the CCGs to provide the full details and results of the GP engagement activities that were undertaken to demonstrate that there is GP support for their proposals

Besides the lack of evidence of general support fro m GPs, we have seen little evidence that GPs will be prepared to make changes to the way they work or provide additional services/support that is required. SAHF and the CCGs needs to satisfy the panel that the GP elements of the Out of Hours services can be delivered, and what the back-up alternatives are in cases where it proves they cannot.

One of the key elements of the Out of Hospital Strategy is the provision of additional local medical centres (“hubs”). Yet purpose built centres that already exist in Brent have not fulfilled their potential. Monks Park Medical Centre for example remains under-occupied and consequently underused. Similarly, I understand that the NHS Brent has failed in the past to encourage a GP practice (the Willesden Medical Centre) to relocate into the Willesden Centre for Health and Care (one of the designated hubs) despite considerable efforts. I urge the panel to fully investigate SAHF's claims that the proposed centres will really be able to deliver on their promises across NW London and particularly in Brent.

Evidence from Brent to date suggests that efforts to move GP practices into purpose build medical centres have not succeeded and that they remain committed to working from their existing premises. Why should SAHF change this?

Given that “hub” medical centres are a central component of the Out of Hospital strategy underpinning SAHF, I need to see more clarity on exactly what services are planned for each hub. In particular there needs to be clarity on exactly what services will be provided at Willesden Centre for Health and Care and for Wembley Centre for Health and Care, which are already large medical centres in Brent and two of the designated hubs. I also want to see assurances that no existing services at these sites are going to be removed.

GP access is already a serious issue in Brent, particularly in the south of the borough, and previous attempts by the PCT to address this have had little success. Since SAHF is dependent on increasing GP access I urge the panel to establish with the CCGs (particularly Brent CCG) what evidence they have that that their new attempts to increase GP access will succeed where previous attempts have failed. Without this A&E attendances and acute demand will continue to rise.

Changes to acute care

I have seen little tangible evidence to support the models for individual services leading to reduction in demand on acute services. I acknowledge that there will be an element of risk in the modelling of any service reconfiguration, but the scale of change is huge and the impact of the Out of Hospital services not producing the required reduction in acute demand could be catastrophic. To this end I urge the IRP to establish what mitigation plans there are if the model fails, either for individual parts of the reconfiguration or for more fundamental modelling of the reconfiguration as a whole.

An example of a proposed service change that causes me concern is the provision of maternity beds at Northwick Park. Under the proposals there will be an increase from 69 to 70 beds by 2015/16, but a 20% increase in births atthe site. This appears to be based on the questionable assumption that a 15% reduction in average length of stay can be achieved by 2015/16. I ask the panel to establish what provision has been made if North West London Hospitals fails to deliver the numbers proposed?

Previous attempts to reduce acute demand through faster discharge have been unsuccessful and I would be interested to hear why SAHF believes it will succeed where previous attempts have failed.

I am particularly concerned about the deliverability of the proposals - maternity is one example. Changes on the scale proposed by Shaping a Healthier Future would ideally be carried out in a stable and highly functioning health system. But, we know that the NHS is in crisis, and North West London is not immune to this

.

Central Middlesex Hospital

It will come as no surprise to you that I am concerned about the future plans for Central Middlesex Hospital. Central Middlesex serves the south of Brent, which contains areas of significant deprivation and poverty. Has there been any research done on the evening closure of A&E at Central Middlesex that is already in place, and its effect on Northwick Park, St Mary's and other neighbouring hospitals? Northwick Park’s A&E Department is already failing to perform adequately or safely. Unless out of hospital services deliver a marked reduction in the use of Northwick Park’s A&E, the removal of A&E services at Central Middlesex could cause Northwick Park hospital to reach breaking point.

I note that North West London Hospitals and Brent CCG both support the plans for the closure of A&E at Central Middlesex but that does not alter the fact that there is a genuine, strongly felt public opposition to this plan which cannot be ignored and I urge the panel to give this strong consideration when they consider the proposals.

It is proposed that Central Middlesex be an elective hospital with an Urgent Care Centre. However, there is a complete lack of information on precisely what elective services will be delivered at the site, and what catchment area they will serve. It is also unclear what the UCC will provide despite plans for a standard UCC offer to be developed across London. A working group set up to develop plans for UCCs has,to the best of my knowledge, not published any proposals. I need to see clarification from Brent CCG on its plans for services at Central Middlesex Hospital and assurances on its long term viability as an NHS hospital before I can support the proposed changes.

Northwick Park Hospital

Northwick Park has struggled for some time to deliver an adequate or safe A&E and has one of, if not the worst, “four hour waiting time” performance in the country. It has recently had a crisis summit focussing on A&E leading to the imposition of an “Implementation Plan” to address the issues. Is it really prudent to give extra A&E responsibilities to a hospital that has shown itself incapable of delivering adequate A&E services to date and what is being put in place to manage these increased risks? The recent risk summit at the Trust highlighted the depth of the problems that currently exist and I have serious concerns about how you can transform a system which is already in crisis.

In addition, the response to the current A&E crisis at Northwick Park has been to utilise facilities at Central Middlesex. What back-up options will there be in the future once Central Middlesex’s emergency facilities have been removed?

Equalities and Population

Many residents of the south of Brent suffer deprivation and hardship. It is an area with a high proportion of BME residents and residents with English as a second language. We have sought assurances from SAHF that these communities will not be unduly disadvantaged by the reconfigurations and particularly the closure of Central Middlesex A&E.

In particular we have sought clarity on the travel implications for both patients and residents. To date we remain dissatisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to this. Clinical priorities are cited as being more important, but we should not ignore the fact that the mental health and recovery of patients can be dependent on regular visits and support from family and friends and I urge the panel to push for clarity on the effect that the changes would have on low cost transport options for patients and visitors, particularly in this deprived area. We would similarly seek assurances from Brent CCG that it will take seriously the public transport implications to the medical centre "hubs", which besides being an equalities issue, could reduce the numbers of patients using these services.

Conclusion

I want Brent Council to work constructively to challenge our NHS colleagues. I am not opposed to change without good reason, but I remain concerned at the lack of clarity in key areas, including: 

 

• The ability to deliver better out of hospital services

• That Northwick Park Hospital will be able to provide additional acute services for an expanded population

• The future of Central Middlesex Hospital. Despite the Shaping a Healthier Future plans being published a year ago, I am no closer to understanding what will be delivered from the Central Middlesex Hospital once it becomes an elective centre.