'We are not responsible for Brent Council', HS2 Select Committee

Pete Firmin,  a South Kilburn estate resident and Arantxa Arranz, a parent from St Mary's Catholic Primary School spoke to the HS2 Select Committee yesterday about the impact of the sinking of the 40m deep shaft at Canterbury Works, next to the school, on children, parents and the local community.

At one point when the lack of consultation from Brent Council about the vent proposal and their failure to enforce 'Considerate constructor' standards with the company regenerating South Kilburn were raised, Chair of the Committee said that they were not responsible for Brent Council.

Arantxa  told the Committee that the school and parents had opposed the building of the shaft, supported by the interim headteacher in May, and then returned after the half-term holiday to find that the interim headteacher had been replaced by an Executive Headteacher and an Interim Executive Board imposed to replace the governing body. After that the school's opposition was ended and communication with parents about their concerns was minimal.

She asked, in some bewilderment, why the change of vent site from one next to Queen's Park station (on a car park) with easy road access and no homes, to one next to a primary school, accessible only by narrow roads and close to housing?  HS2 had initially wanted to build the vent next to the station and had admitted the unsuitability of the Canterbury Works site next to the school.
Peter Bottomley, a Committee member, said that this was because Brent Council had asked the promoters (HS2) for the change and added, 'the detail is not for us'.

The promoters said they had offered up to £500,000 to the school to mitigate the impact of the works but Ms Arranz said that this would not compensate for the impact on the children's learning, possible respiratory problems caused by the works and the anger of accidents outside the school.

HS2 said that the period of 'intense construction' would only last for 6 months with 50 workers on site and 50 truck movement into the site and 50 out during that period.  Over the following 2-1/2 years the workforce would be 25 and most of that work would be internal fitting out of the shaft.



The House of Commons video (View from 11.15 am) can be found HERE

The Pell Frischmann report on the impact of works at the two sites can be found HERE 

South Kilburn residents vent their opposition on HS2 - next stop Parliament!

Select Commitee Visit Photo: Arantxa Arranz

Guest blog by Pete Firmin, chair, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association

Bad news for those who hoped that opposition to the HS2 LINK vent shaft being sited in the middle of a residential area and next to a primary school in South Kilburn would go away once Brent Council had persuaded HS2 of the wisdom of this.

On the contrary, campaigners turned out to lobby the parliamentary select committee when they visited the proposed site on Monday 9th November. Although it was meant to be a flying (5 minute!) visit, the visitors were persuaded to stop and briefly listen to us spelling out the problems with the site, LINK some of them also engaging in one-to-one conversations as well. One of the Brent Councillors and a lead officer looked none to pleased at this. Campaigners in many other places on the proposed  HS2 route also turned out to lobby at proposed sites.

A stark illustration of the problem was given to the select committee when they got stuck in traffic on Albert Road, the route down which they want to send 80 heavy lorries a day! But such irony is probably lost on Brent Council which the same week chose to announce that work was starting on Woodhouse Urban park on the same road. No doubt a highly relaxing place with lorries going past every few minutes.

Before and after the visit, local campaigners were out collecting signatures against the siting of the vent shaft here, from residents, parents of children at the school and a local business. It was impossible to find anyone in favour of the vent shaft being sited here, something which the Council has steered clear of mentioning. Indeed, while the Council website says “we are in dialogue with HS2, the school and local residents to discuss the proposed change and suitable mitigation measures”, a Freedom of Information request as to what this dialogue consists of has been refused.

Petitions had to be submitted to parliament by Friday 13th November, and on the day before our MP, Tulip Siddiq, brought all her staff to the area to assist in ensuring the petitions were in order, not an easy task. At least 6 different petitions have gone in, together with hundreds of signatures. Incidentally, in Camden the Council put council facilities at the service of petitioners. Brent, of course, has done the opposite.

What happens now? We will get letters from the select committee in the next few weeks responding to the points raised in the petitions, after which, if we are not satisfied – highly unlikely – we will get the opportunity to address them at a hearing in Westminster. Watch this space.

“Considerate Constructors” in South Kilburn – Really?

Guest blog from Pete Firmin, Chair, Alpha and Gorefield Houses and Canterbury Court Tenants and residents association

Readers of Wembley Matters may have noticed on many building sites around Brent posters showing “this site is registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme” [CCS]. Very impressive, and their website http://www.ccscheme.org.uk/    sounds good too: “Considerate constructors seek to improve the image of the construction industry by striving to promote and achieve best practice under the Code of Considerate Practice”. My understanding is that being registered under this scheme is a requirement for getting contracts with Brent Council (and many others).

Having had problems with how (in)considerate Wilmott Dixon are towards those neighbouring their site behind Kilburn Park station in South Kilburn, members of our Tenants and Residents Association checked further.

The code of practice has various sections “Care About Appearance”, “Respect the Community”, “Protect the Environment”, “Secure Everyone’s Safety” and “Value their Workforce”. It would be interesting to know to what extent Councils monitor any of this, but our concern is with the “Respect the Community” section, where it states “Constructors should give utmost consideration to their impact on neighbours and the public; Informing, respecting and showing courtesy to those affected by the work; minimising the impact of deliveries, parking and work on the public highway; contributing to and supporting the local community and economy; working to create a positive and enduring impression, and promoting the Code.”

Having felt over the 3 years in which Wilmott Dixon have been our neighbours that we have not been treated with anything like the implied levels of consideration, we decided to submit a complaint to the scheme. Easily done via the CSC website, which also says

“When a complaint is received that is relevant to the Scheme’s Code of Considerate Practice, the site manager or company contact will be told what the complaint is about, and given the name and contact details of the complainant (with the complainant’s permission). Advice might also be offered as to how they might deal with the complaint.

The Scheme will stay in contact with the complainant until the site or company has investigated and responded to the complaint and until the Scheme is satisfied that the site is adhering to the Code of Considerate Practice, at which point the complaint will be taken off the ‘active’ list.”

Inconsiderate vehicle movements endanger children in South Kilburn development

 We submitted a lengthy complaint, covering a multitude of issues, such as frequent arrival of delivery vehicles before the permitted time of 8 a.m., , frequent working outside of permitted hours, building workers parking in residents’ spaces, construction vehicles moved via a footpath which is supposed to be only used by emergency vehicles, operations being carried out in a narrow street during times when parents and children were passing on the way to the local primary school, refusal to pay compensation to residents when cables have been cut. That’s the shortened version.

To be absolutely clear, all of these relate to issues (except not cutting cables) which Willmott Dixon committed to even before they began work on the site. Breaches have been complained about to Willmott Dixon, Catalyst Housing, Brent Council officers and Councillors throughout (usually with photographic evidence where appropriate). Very little has changed, even though occasional promises were made that it would. Rather, we found that Council officers had sanctioned some of these practices – they endorsed the idea that Wilmott Dixon did not need to pay compensation to those whose utilities were cut off (we were told that WD “didn’t mean to do it”). Council officers gave permission for WD to move vehicles between site entrances along the footpath (this was eventually reversed, but only after vehement complaints by residents).

We submitted that catalogue of complaints to the Considerate Constructors Scheme in April. We immediately got a response saying the registration of that site under the scheme had lapsed! Interestingly, the first response of the senior Council officer this was referred to was to suggest it be on the table for a future meeting. It had to be pointed out to him that maybe Brent should enquire as to why this had happened, which he subsequently did. The posters proclaiming the site a registered one came down sharpish. The registration fee was later paid retrospectively.

Early in May, because of concerns about our complaints, a meeting was held with TRA representatives, a senior Council Officer, local Councillors, a Brent Housing Partnership representative and local and senior representatives of both Catalyst Housing and Wilmott Dixon, at which we laid out our complaints fairly comprehensively. During the course of this meeting it emerged that there had been several site visits by the Considerate Constructors Scheme during the course of the work. However, WD had not thought (!) to inform tenants and residents reps of this, when we could have raised our complaints. They undertook, under pressure from their more senior representatives present, to invite us to a future such site visit (apparently they are known as ‘Open Days’).

Under the CCS, a registered site is under obligation to log all complaints received about their behaviour. At this meeting they undertook to provide us with a copy of this log and a full response to our catalogue of complaints, both of which we duly received. It should be noted that the log only contains those complaints sent by email, not those made by phone or verbally, clearly a shortcoming.

Not long after, there was indeed a visit by an investigator from the CSC. However, it turned out that he did not know we would be present, had not seen our list of complaints, and what’s more he had not known the size of the site he was visiting! We were treated as unwelcome guests and shunted out after a brief exchange. We have yet to hear anything further from CSC.

Just before this site visit, Wilmott Dixon excelled themselves. At the meeting one of the issues which came up was their poor communications, often informing residents late in the day about progress in the work, changes to access etc.. Our TRA had its Annual General Meeting coming up, and as ever, invited WD, Catalyst BHP etc. to give reports. WD asked if we wanted them to distribute our notices, to which we replied “no thank you”, we would distribute them ourselves to all residents as usual. A few days later WD put out their occasional bulletin with an update through residents doors, except that this time the second sheet was an adulterated version of our AGM notice changed to appear as if it came from WD! When we complained that, among other things, this made it appear we are somehow linked to WD they just didn’t “get it”. In fact they claimed that they were “being helpful”. How helpful is it when you are asked not to do it and go ahead anyway?

Have things improved since that meeting? Not really, we still have vehicles arriving early, we still have building workers using residents’ parking spaces and we still have work carried out outside ‘permitted’ hours, and cut cables again.  What has changed is that the building work is nearing completion (though it is still the case that every estimated completion date we are given is overshot), so not so much heavy work is taking place. Moreover, many of those who have complained have now given up because nothing changes and are just hoping it is all over soon.

Brent Council? There has never been any sign that Council officers monitor the performance of the developers. If we are lucky they occasionally respond to our complaints, encouraging WD to pull their socks up. If they are doing more, they certainly don’t tell us.

Last year our frustration was such that we passed a lengthy motion at our Annual General meeting in July covering 3 aspects – regeneration as social cleansing; problems with the proximity of new buildings to existing ones; and the attitude of the developers to local residents. Readers may have seen the article in the Kilburn Times about this. That resolution was sent to the lead member for regeneration, Councillor Margaret McLennan. Despite promising a written response on several occasions, we have yet to have one from her nearly one year on.

To be clear, our Kilburn Councillors have taken up our complaints strongly and have got as frustrated as us with the response from Council officers.

CCS? It is a self-regulated scheme, so maybe we shouldn’t have expected anything anyway. And WD sits on its board and has received awards under the scheme. But given that Brent and other Councils expect builders to be members of the scheme, you might expect (hope?) that they would pay some attention as to whether they fulfil their commitments under the scheme. Rather, Brent turns a blind eye, if anything siding with the builders in their inconsiderate behaviour.

To add insult to injury, after 3 years of this, Brent is pushing for HS2 to build its vent shaft next to our flats and the local primary school. So after 3 years of living on a building site, we are expected to accept another 6 years of the same. Or, rather, worse, given the vehicle movements predicted for the building of the vent shaft.

One last point, Brent like some other Councils, has taken a stand against blacklisting, saying it will not award contracts to any company that blacklists. Excellent, but maybe Councils should push for such a commitment against blacklisting to be written into the CCS, especially as so many companies which are known to have blacklisted in the past (including Willmott Dixon) are members.

Brent shows - again - how little it cares for South Kilburn

Demonstration outside the school

 Guest blog by Pete Firmin, South Kilburn resident

 

On Friday 22nd May, pupils, parents teachers and local residents held a protest at the gates of St. Mary’s Catholic Primary School in South Kilburn against the proposal from Brent Council that the `ventilation shaft’ for HS2 be sited right next to the school and close to flats.

 

 

Apparently such ventilation shafts are necessary at certain distances along the line in order to get rid of the air pushed in front of the speeding trains, otherwise they would slow the trains down. Such vent shafts are not a small thing, being usually about 25 m by 25 m and 2 storeys high – the size of a small block of flats. Such an enterprise is calculated to take up to 6 years building work, involving movement of over a hundred lorries a day to and from the affected area at peak times, with the association noise, disruption and dust..

 

HS2’s current proposal is that this be sited close to Queen’s Park station, but Brent Council is pressing that it be on the Canterbury Works site next to St Mary’s school instead. Some studies suggest a ventilation shaft is not essential at either site.

 

Brent Council’s proposal ignores the pleas from local residents and school staff and users and is putting its regeneration scheme above any concern for the health and wellbeing of students and residents. They have the support of Queens Park residents in this, who feel the vent shaft would be a “blight” on their community, despite the disruption and siting being much further from their homes and schools than is proposed for South Kilburn. As so often, South Kilburn is seen as the dumping ground for things that Brent and its middle classes regard as `undesirable’.

 

The issue of Brent and HS2 has a background. The local Tenants and Residents Association has been asking Brent Council about HS2 and how it will affect us for years, ever since we discovered it is due to run underneath (or very close to) our flats. Unfortunately, unlike Camden, Brent Council didn’t seem to be looking at this at all, its only comments being that HS2 offered great `business opportunities’ for Old Oak Common. Even when we got letters from HS2 saying they may want to Compulsorily Purchase our properties we got no support from Brent. We’ve all had at least 2 such letters now, and, despite our urging, Brent Council appears to have done nothing to get proper answers from HS2 on this. Some people have been told verbally that this is just something that HS2 has to do and they will not be wanting to CPO our properties, but we have never had such a commitment from HS2 in writing.

 

Then, despite us asking for years that Brent take up our concerns and nothing happening, we discovered from a third party that a report on HS2 was due to go to Brent Council  in March last year. This was the first we knew about proposals about the siting of the vent shaft, when the report argued for its siting in South Kilburn rather than next to Queens Park station. We asked that we be allowed to address the Council when it discussed the report, but this was refused. Instead we were given a commitment that our concerns would be taken on board. Given our concerns included opposition to the Council’s push for the vent shaft site to be adjacent to the school and our flats, this was clearly not the case.

 

Then this year we saw by chance an email from a Council officer to one of our Councillors which said “HS2,  we continue to lobby for this to be relocated from the Council owned site at Salusbury Road car park to the rear of Canterbury Works. Various professional studies have been commissioned which support this Full Council approved stance and have been recently submitted to HS2 for their consideration.”

 

 Around the same time the headteacher of St Mary's school came away from a meeting with HS2 and Council officers convinced the vent shaft was going to be put next to the school. Soon after leaflets were put through our doors campaigning against the vent shaft being sited there. This came from people associated with the school, and since then they have had a meeting for all parents, produced petitions and initiated the protest outside the school.

 

Local residents support the opposition from school users to the siting of the shaft here, but there is an added complication. The leaflets put through every door and the drive behind the school campaign come from a PR company employed by the property developers building luxury flats (no social housing) at Canterbury House (also next to the school and a block of flats) and property developers hoping to build a ten-storey block of flats on the Canterbury Works site (currently a vehicle repair site, and the site where Brent wants the vent shaft site to be). 

 

Many of us are opposed to both the siting of the vent shaft next to the school and our flats and ANY further development of the site. We think that having been living on the middle of a regeneration building site for the last 3 years (with the myriad of complaints that has involved, about which Brent has done nothing), we should have respite from any further development and the disruption, noise and dirt involved. Added to which, the Canterbury House development is luxury flats only (advertised as in Queens Park, even though in the middle of South Kilburn), and development on the Canterbury Works would probably be similar, or at the very least the low proportion of social housing we are now seeing in SK `regeneration’), this would only add to what we have called the `social cleansing’ taking place with regeneration. SK is also already one of the most densely populated parts of Brent. We have lost some our little green space through regeneration, we would like to get some back rather than further development. So, as well as opposing the siting of the vent shaft here, we would oppose planning permission for further flats on the site too. Some of us joined the protest outside the school with placards opposing both the HS2 vent shaft and the property developers.

 

Just to be clear, the PR company’s employee working with the school put on the “No to HS2 at Canterbury Works” Facebook page “We do not want to see a ventilation shaft at Canterbury Works, we are protecting the interests of Canterbury House and a ventilation shaft would be detrimental to this development and to its future residents who will be part of the South Kilburn community.” Protecting the interests of Canterbury House means the property developers, it couldn’t be more explicit. Future residents seem to take precedence over current ones too. When they started work on Canterbury House (the building has been empty for years, even though planning permission was obtained some time ago), they knew that HS2 was going through the area and people had been served with potential CPO orders. Our belief was that they were hoping for maximum compensation (unlike us!) and that was why they pressed ahead.

 

We are hoping we can have one united campaign involving both school and local residents against the siting of the vent shaft here. There does seem to be an attempt to keep us at arms length from the school campaign, given our critical stance.

 

As so often, Brent Council has spent years ignoring the concerns of local residents and is now intent on pressing HS2 to trample on the interests of both school pupils and residents.

 

South Kilburn residents face barely affordable rents hike - (if our sums are right)

South Kilburn resident Pete Firmin has been giving himself a headache trying to work out what Brent Council's 'affordable rent' policy really means. In this Guest Blog, after studying Council documents, he give it his best shot. We would be happy to hear from anyone who can show the conclusion is wrong (with workings!).

-->

At the Council Cabinet meeting on 26th January, a report from the “Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth” headed “South Kilburn regeneration Programme” was adopted. This concerned the approvals needed for the the next stages of redevelopment and regeneration. LINK

One of the recommendations in the document is:

“2.1. That the Cabinet agree to set rent levels for the affordable homes at Gloucester House and Durham Court once complete, at a rent equivalent to the Homes and Communities Agency Target Rent levels.”

The Gloucester House and Durham Court redevelopment involves:

“3.1 The redevelopment of Gloucester House and Durham Court site involves: a. the demolition of Gloucester and Durham and the development of 236 new homes for a mix of market sale (134 new homes) and affordable social rented (102 new homes) accommodation;”

On the rents:

“Target Rents

3.5 On 18 July 2011 the Executive agreed to adopt a rent equivalent to the HCA Target Rent levels for affordable developments in South Kilburn until Borough wide rent levels were reviewed. The 18 July 2011 Executive report set out the background to the rent level change and concluded that setting HCA Target Rent levels on phases 2 and 3 and subsequent phases is the only realistic way of affording the South Kilburn regeneration

programme and avoiding the requirement for large amounts of grant that would not in themselves be certain of being awarded and, if awarded, would require rents to be increased to the new 'affordable rent' levels.

3.6 The Target Rent regime controls rent levels in the social sector. Target Rents are calculated by a formula, the basis of which is set out below. Increases in Target Rent levels are also pegged to inflation and subject to an overall cap.

• 30% of a property’s Target Rent is based on relative property values compared to the national average

• 70% of a property’s Target Rent is based on relative local earnings compared to the national average

• A bedroom factor is then applied so that, other things being equal, smaller properties have lower rents”

“3.7 Between 2010/11 and 2014/15 increases in Target Rent levels and caps have been linked to RPI as set out in the tables below:”

[for tables on caps you will need to refer to the document via above link]

“Last year Government introduced a new rent policy, and for the ten years 2015/16 – 2024/25, increases in rents in the social sector will be limited to CPI +1% and increases in rent caps will be limited to CPI + 1.5%.”

BUT

“3.8 It should be noted that new social rented properties being developed in South Kilburn have a higher capital value than existing Council properties and therefore will attract a higher Target Rent under the formula outlined. Inflationary rent increases on these newproperties, whilst governed by the same rent policy and same CPI +1% limit, will therefore also be higher in monetary terms (i.e. in pounds sterling). This is because 1) inflation will be applied to a higher base Target Rent and 2) the Council will sometimes (and more commonly than the Registered Providers managing the new properties in South Kilburn) not apply a full inflationary increase to rents across its own housing stock.

3.9 In line with the Council's commitment to maintaining current HCA Target Rent levels in regeneration areas it is recommended that the Cabinet agree to set the rent levels for the affordable units at Gloucester House and Durham Court and the Post Office Plus Site once complete, at rents equivalent to the HCA Target Rent levels.”

Problem is, of course, that this is fairly impenetrable for those who want to know what this actually means in terms of real rent levels for the “affordable” new flats.

A Councillor helpfully enquired what this actually means and got this response from a Council officer:

“Your enquiry regarding affordable rents has been forwarded to me for reply. I have provided a brief explanation of the position below but please let me know if you would like any additional information or technical detail.

Target rent levels relate to Social Rented Housing, whether owned by a Council or by a Housing Association. These are based on a national formula that takes account of the capital value of the property and a factor for regional (London) earnings. They do not directly reference private rented sector rents. Target rents therefore vary across properties and boroughs. In Brent, as in many authorities current rents are below target rents but have been gradually moved towards them recent years under the government’s rent restructuring formula.

Current average rents for Brent’s council properties (which for larger properties are below target rents) are:

Bedsit - £93.91 / week

1 bed - £107.07

2 bed - £119.43

3 bed - £130.80

4 bed - £141.63

New affordable housing development is typically at Affordable Rents. These are directly based on market rents and are the lower of the maximum Local Housing Allowance (Housing Benefit) rate and 80% of the market rent (including service charge). Brent Council has a published Tenancy Strategy, that housing associations are required to have regard to, which provides guidance on maximum Affordable Rents. These set lower limits in order to support affordability, particularly for households who may be affected by the Overall Benefit Cap. The guideline limits are as follows:

1 bed – 70% market rent

2 bed – 60% market rent

3 and 4 beds – 50% of market rent”

Still with me? So what are local market rents?

This is where an internet search comes in.

To be as fair as possible (?) to Brent Council I’ve restricted myself to flats actually in South Kilburn, i.e. not even Kilburn High Road, Camden Kilburn or Brent Kilburn North of the Watford line and definitely not Queens Park.

Some results:

1 bed flat, Malvern Road (described by Estate Agents as Queens Park, but then they do that all the time) £260 pw

2 bed flat, Cambridge avenue, £425 pw

2 bed flat, Malvern Road, £385 pw

2 bed flat, Cambridge Gardens, £425 pw,

2 bed flat, Cambridge Avenue, £400 pw

3 bed, Chichester Road, £475 pw

2 bed flat, Canterbury Road, £375 pw,

1 bed flat, Malvern Road, £295pw,

enough, my brain hurts.

Anyway it should be clear from this search of just a small part of one estate agents website what the range of “market rents” is in the area.

Even taking the lowest market rent for each size of flat. this would give the following

1 bed flat Target rent (70% of market) £182pw. current average Brent council rent £107.07

2 bed flat Target rent (60% of market) £225pw, current average Brent Council rent £119.43

3 bed flat Target rent (50% of market rent) £237.50 pw, current average Brent Council rent £130.80

So, it appears that Brent Council aims to charge new tenants double or nearly double current rents. As well as new tenants, these will also apply to those previously in Council accommodation moved in to new properties.

Brent Council has always denied that regeneration amounts to social cleansing, but surely this proves the opposite.:

In addition to the fact that well over half of the new properties are for market sale (and a new 3 bed flat in South Kilburn was recently on sale for £850,000!) this amounts to a massive hike barely affordable for those currently living here.

Attempt to clear up confusion on council rent increases not entirely successful

Pete Firmin

Speaking to Brent Executive last night, Pete Firmin, secretary of Brent TUC, a South Kilburn resident and Labour Party member, lambasted the Council's stance on council rent increases.  He said that the annual above inflation increases, which in his case would mean an increase of 40% over 5 years, should be unacceptable to a Labour Council.

The plans were included in the Housing Strategy officers' report which Firmin described as impenetrable. Several people had tried to make sense of it, including Brent Central potential Labour candidate Kingsley Abrams, and had been unable to say with absolute certainty what was proposed. His local Kilburn councillors had said they knew nothing about it and when he asked Cllr Margaret McLennan and Cllr Michael Pavey, both members of the Executive what it meant, they confirmed rent rises over five years to 80% of market rents.

He said that the Council would be adding to the financial problems of people already hit by benefit cuts, council tax benefit changes and higher food and energy prices. He asked why tenants were being forced to fund new build through the rent increases and contrasted that with the freezing of the Council Tax.

Firmin said that this was not something the Council had to do and he circulated information from Islington Council  on its approach.

Muhammed Butt defended the Council's approach saying that new housing was imperative. Cllr  Margaret McLennan, lead member for housing, said that the policy referred to social rent and not market rents (a search of the report reveals that the only mention of social rent is one about the possible national fixing of these).  She said that the Council had not yet decided on their definition of an affordable social rent.  She said that that the planned new build was good news ands that the plans had receved a high level of endorsement.The priority was to house people on the waiting list.

Andy Donald, head of Regeneration and Major Project, said the new build would go straight to an 'affordable' rent of between 60% and 80% of market rent. This was the government's definition and the Council would have to charge that to use a government grant. If new build was at an 'affordable rent' it would help fund the refurbishment of existing stock. The actual rent rises would be fixed in February 2013 and would be roughly 4% higher in 2014-15.

Cllr Pavey waded in to say that Pete Firmin should have discussed this earlier, the Islington document was interesting but why hadn't Pete circulated it beforehand (and anyway they had more land available than Brent) and then ended with what is fast becoming his mantra: this is not perfect but the best we can do in difficult times.

Many of us left not entirely clear on what was proposed and I suspect that was also true of the Executive members who voted to approve the strategy.

Gardiner admits opposition stopped Modi's visit

The India News today quotes Barry Gardiner MP on the Modi visit  following the protest at the Brent Civic Centre on Monday LINK

Following the protest, Gardiner said that Modi is unable to come to the UK in the next few weeks in the face of so much of opposition.

This is contrary to previous statements that merely said Modi was too busy to come at present.

The same report quotes Pete Firmin, Chair of Brent TradesUnion Council:

It is a terrible idea to invite Modi given his involvement in the massacres in Gujarat. Barry Gardiner should withdraw the invitation right away,

 

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.

Believing James Powney...

I wrote recently LINK that in my experience Cllr James Powney, despite our differences, has always posted my comments on his blog, but it seems that others have not been so fortunate.

Pete Firm, who is secretary of Brent Trade Union Council and a Labour Party member, posted a comment on the leafleting licence issue some time ago. The comment was about James Powney's suggestion that the campaign around the issue had been 'invented'

Cllr Powney had written:

The mischief started with the Willesden and Brent Times leading with a story that gave the impression that this was an entirely new set of rules, and glossing over the exemptions.  What is striking is that I personally spoke to the reporter and told her that "political purposes" meant a variety of political campaigns, not just political parties

Firmin's comment pointed out  the  Editor's note in the subsequent WBT , at the foot of a letter from Michael Read clarifying exemptions to the licence requirement, which said:

Brent Council's communication team has issued an apology to the Times for issuing an inaccurate statement on which our original report was based.

In other words, as I have also pointed out, LINK the Willesden and Brent  Times story was based on an e-mail from the Council itself.

 The comment was never published on Cllr Powney's blog and Pete wrote on April 30th asking why.

James, Can I ask why you haven’t published my comment (submitted last Thursday or Friday) to you blog post “How To Invent A Campaign”? Pete Firmin

 Firmin has has received no response.

 Coincidentally the latest post on James' blog is pertinent. LINK He is concerned that people don't believe him:

All this helps to create an atmosphere where anything that a Council officer or councillor says is disbelieved.  I have had this many times over the libraries issue, when I have pointed out that an assertion is not true, only to be told that it must be, and to have my interlocuter refuse to believe me even when I refer to documentary proof. 

Pete Firmin and I have both pointed to the 'documentary proof' in the Council e-mail and the Editor's note, that Cllr Powney's accusation about an invented campaign was wrong.

Time to publish Pete Firmin's comment, James?

What should the council do about Coalition instigated cuts? The debate begins.

Today's Any Questions? with Labour Councillors and representatatives of Brent Fightback  was a lively affair.  Janice Long and Jim Moher (with Lesley Jone as a later substitute for Moher) appeared for Brent Labour Councillors and Pete Firmin and Sarah Cox for Fightback. Pete Firmin is chair of Brent TUC.

Janice Long said she was unwilling to refuse to implement cuts as someone else making them would be worse. Cllr Moher said that he was the only member of the Executive to make changes in proposals as the results of representations and had not implemented the proposed cuts to school crossing patrols. He said the Council had protected front-line services but had to exercise the 'judgement of Solomon' in deciding what to cut. In response to ex-Labour councillor Graham Durham, who called on the council to unite with other London Labour councils and refuse to implement the cuts, he said that the situation now was far more difficult than the 1980s when Durham had been a councillor.

Sarah Cox said the Coalition had no mandate for the cuts in the NHS and it was time to resist bad laws. She said the Council should have put together a 'needs budget' and taken it out to the people of Brent as a basis for a united campaign by the council, its workers, and the Brent public against the Coalition's policies. Pete Firmin said that Labour councillors hadn't taken up opportunities when they could have worked with local activists, such as attending the Fightback lobby of Sarah Teather, MP for Brent Central. He said other London Labour councils were backing the public sector strike on November 30th but no such backing had come from Brent Labour council. Labour's  deputy leader, Cllr Butt, had referred a caller who wanted to oppose the overnight closure of Central Middlesex A and E Department, to Brent Fightback. The council itself needed to get organised against such cuts.

Janice Long said with the council having to choose between closing libraries and enabling people to carry on living in their houses she had to say that having a house was more important.  Her statement was challenged as conflating local government cuts and the government's cap on housing benefit.

Questioned by Shahrar Ali, Brent and Harrow  Green Party candidate for the London Assembly, about the cost of the new Civic Centre, Janice Long said the cost to Brent residents was neutral and it would reduce the council's carbon footprint and provide more space. It would  pay for itself over 25 years.  Cllr Moher said that the cost of the interest on the £102m project would be a further £25m but the Civic Centre would save the council £4m a year compared with the current buildings. He admitted that it was a difficult project to justify in the current situation of cuts and recession.

Pete Firmin said the we needed transparency and honesty about the Civic Centre and that another connected issue was the concentration of services in Wembley rather than in the various localities of Brent.

Cllr  Moher said that he was right behind the November 30th strike as an individual but that the council itself wanted to see lower public sector pensions because of their cost.  He supported a pension based on 'career average' earnings rather than a 'final salary' scheme. He justified this on the basis of the immense burden on council tax papers of the pensions of high salaried senior officers but a member of the audience pointed out that this would also affect the low paid - the average salary based on 40 years service was much lower than one base don final salary.

In response to join the NUT and other unions at the Torch, Bridge Road, Wembley at 9.30am on November 30th, Janice said that she hadn't known about that, but the Brent Central Labour Party would be on the march.

There was a brief discussion about whether campaigners should stand an 'anti cuts' candidate in the forthcoming Wembley Central by-election. There were a variety of views on this and it will be discussed at a later Fightback meeting.

Earlier in the day there had been speeches from Chris Coates about the Brent SOS Libraries Campaign and its success in mobilising people, raising money and getting  high profile support form famous authors. Jeremy Taylor, President of Brent Teachers Association and NUT representative at Preston Manor High School, spoke about the impact of cuts on students at his school and how the changes in pensions would affect teachers. He expressed concern both for teachers and students if teachers were forced to go on teaching well into their 60s when the job required so much energy. He demonstrated that the changes in pension contribution represented a wage cut in real terms.

In a wide-ranging speech Kishan Parshotam, Chair of Brent Youth Parliament and a Brent UK Youth Parliament member said that the BYP was campaigning against negative stereotyping of youth and for their voice to heard. He said that they supported the reduction of the voting age to 16 so that politicians would have to listen to their concerns. The cuts in libraries would mean over-crowded study areas and poor ICT access for the most needy students, particularly in the south of Brent, who lacked those facilities at home.

He told the audience that in discussions 8 and 9 year old children were well able to talk about how cuts would affect them and should not be under-estimated.

As well as councillors, campaigners and residents, the meeting was attended by Dawn Butler, ex-Labour MP for South Brent, but she made no contribution during the open sessions. Cllr James Powney trotted past the venue just before the Assembly started but kept his head down and did not come in.

I think a valuable debate and perhaps even a dialogue was opened up during the day. Brent Fightback wants to involve a broader spectrum of people and this was a modest start. We now need to consider how to involve more people at a time when everyone is feeling hard-pressed and those most affected by the cuts are concentrating on day to day survival.

Shahrar Ali's take on the day is HERE