The case for rethinking the Queen's Park traffic scheme engagement process put to Brent Cabinet

 

 

Alasdair Balfour, a Queen's Park resident presented a petition to Brent Cabinet today setting out the case for halting the current engagement process:

Background

My name is Alastair Balfour, and I live on Chevening Road in Queen’s Park. A lovely street, in a lovely neighbourhood. I should support the MP Smarter Travel (“MPST”) traffic proposals as they appear to benefit me. But having experienced the utter chaos that the current temporary traffic restrictions have wrought on the wider neighbourhood, it is evident that the proposals are ill conceived, unfair and simply push the problem onto less fortunate neighbours in the ward. These trial schemes have created division among residents and gambled with the health and safety of thousands of children who attend schools on the boundary roads. Sadly, after years of false starts, real damage is being done to our community and to the trust they have in Brent’s approach to this topic.

In the weeks since the MPST meeting on November 4th, our petition has had over 1,400 signatures, a leaflet was produced and delivered to over 2,000 residents, a video has been made and circulated on social media, and newspapers are beginning to pick up the story. This has all been done by volunteers who feel let down, and who care for their neighbourhood. This outpouring of opposition is years in the making.

The MPST engagement is so flawed that it cannot produce reliable results. The catchment thinking is too narrow, the engagement materials were confusing, the online questionnaire was changed mid-engagement and never effectively communicated as promised. There was clearly no technical analysis which stands behind the proposals. And even Councillors and residents benefitting from the schemes oppose the options.

MPST are not traffic management experts, their mission is modal shift and nothing else. They lack clear objectives and indicators of success or failure. And without proper stakeholder definitions, they do not know even who they are solving for.

Proposed Way Forward

We understand that this is a highly complex issue, and we do not have all the answers. But it is patently clear that if this cabinet is serious about improving the situation it needs to start from square one and go back to basics. ⁠This requires joined up thinking, reflecting all stakeholders and doing hard work first. We must stop wasting money on projects that are doomed to fail. The skills and resources exist within the community to assist Brent in developing a project roadmap, defining the problems, crafting solutions, thus ensuring transparent engagement and community support. These offers of help and expertise have been rejected in the past. We ask whether Brent will accept them now, especially when budgets are so tight and resources so constrained.

All community groups (including residents associations) have always argued for wider consultation and a genuinely transparent cooperative process. There is a clear view of how to deliver success which can be shared with councillors at the appropriate time. But this must be done with total transparency, coordination, and consensus. Who better to facilitate this than the residents in the community. We understand the complex trade-offs required.

In conclusion, I want to thank you Cllr Butt for giving me the opportunity to speak today, and for confirming that this petition will be considered as part of this engagement process. But if you are serious about finding a path forward, we now need action over and above telling us that we have been heard. I am therefore requesting a commitment from the cabinet to the following three points:

1. Stop the flawed MPST engagement (it is so tainted that it only fuels anger)

2. Halt all hyper local traffic schemes until a data-led, wider area impact assessment can be provided

3. Sit down with local thought leaders to i) define the most pressing traffic problems (focused on boundary roads and schools), ii) agree the process roadmap which the entire community can support and commit real resources behind and iii) to use utmost transparency in all behaviour, data sharing and communication.

We have mobilised a significant amount of support from across the community in recent weeks, and we owe those neighbours an update on how the cabinet responds.

We want to bring everyone together to support the council’s objectives for a healthy neighbourhood – who would not? But we must learn from past mistakes, plan properly and deliver improvements for the many and not just a select few.

The response from Cllr Krupa Sheth, the Lead Cabinet Member responsible for the  environment can be seen at 06.20 on the video above, Queen's Park councillor Neil Nerva at 08.17 and and Brent Council Leader, Muhammed Butt at 10.25. You can make you own minds up as to whether they commit to the three points raised by Alasdair Balfour.

After the meet a local resident said:

Many residents watching online were bemused when Cllr Butt said at the end that Brent had 43 or 44 successful Healthy Neighbourhood schemes in place.. One said "We look forward to seeing his list. But I can only imagine he's referring to School Streets? To our knowledge, four years on from the first set of attempts, Brent has just one LTN running - in Harlesden and Stonebridge. A status update on that one was expected last April but has not yet appeared. Four of the first batch were implemented but had to be withdrawn before the trial ended  because they were not working.

Later attempts at designing a feasible scheme that could gain community support in Kilburn and Queen's Park Wards have failed - and the current "Engagement" has all the flaws in the speech given this morning" 

Four new constituencies proposed to cover Brent. What constituency would you be in?

The Boundary Commission has published far-reaching proposals on the borough's parliamentary constituencies.  In today's proposals they aim to reduce the total number of seats in England and Wales by 50, evening out the numbers in each constituency. London would be reduced by 5 constituencies.

 Brent wards would be spread over no less than four constituencies: Kenton, Wembley & Harrow on the Hill, Willesden, Queen's Park and Regent's Park.

These would replace the present Brent North, Brent Central and Hampstead and Kilburn constituencies.

The Brent ward constituencies would be as follows:

Ward		Proposed Constituency	Current Cllrs
Alperton (3)		Wembley & Harrow on the Hill	3 Lab
Barnhill (3)		Kenton	3 Lab
Brondesbury Park (3)		Willesden	3 Con
Dollis Hill (3)		Willesden	3 Lab
Dudden Hill (3)		Willesden	3 Lab
Fryent (3)		Kenton	3 Lab
Harlesden (3)		Willesden	3 Lab
Kensal Green (3)		Willesden	3 Lab
Kenton (3)		Kenton	3 Con
Kilburn (3)		Queen's Park & Regent's Park	3 Lab
Mapesbury (3)		Willesden	2 Lab 1 Lib
Northwick Park (3)		Wembley & Harrow on the Hill	3 Lab
Preston (3)		Wembley & Harrow on the Hill	3 Lab
Queens Park (3)		Queen's Park & Regent's Park	3 Lab
Queensbury (3)		Kenton	3 Lab
Stonebridge (3)		Willesden	3 Lab
Sudbury (3)		Wembley & Harrow on the Hill	3 Lab
Tokyngton (3)		Wembley & Harrow on the hill	3 Lab
Welsh Harp (3)		Willesden	3 Lab
Wembley Central (3)		Wembley & Harrow on the Hill	3 Lab
Willesden Green (3		Willesden	3 Lab

Kenton Constituency

Wembley and Harrow on the Hill

Queen's Park and Regent's Park

In its commentary the Boundary Commission states:

-->

In the borough of Brent, we propose
a Willesden constituency, which includes eight wards from the existing Brent Central constituency, and the Hammersmith borough ward of College Park and Old Oak from the existing Hammersmith constituency, and Brondesbury Park ward from the existing Hampstead and Kilburn constituency.

We propose two further constituencies that include wards from the borough of Brent. We propose a Kenton constituency, which includes four wards from the existing Brent North constituency, and five Harrow borough wards – Kenton
East, Kenton West, Queensbury, Belmont, and Edgware – from the existing Harrow East constituency. (It should be noted
that there is already a Queensbury ward from the borough of Brent in the Brent North constituency, making two in the proposed Kenton constituency.) 

We also propose a Wembley and Harrow on the Hill constituency, which includes three Harrow borough wards from the existing Harrow West constituency, five wards from the existing Brent North constituency, and Tokyngton ward from the existing Brent Central constituency.

The electorate of the existing Westminster North constituency is currently below the electoral quota. To bring this constituency within range, we propose including the Brent borough wards of Queens Park and Kilburn from the existing Hampstead and Kilburn constituency. (It should be noted that there is already a Queen’s Park ward from Westminster in the existing constituency, making two in the proposed constituency.) To reflect the change we propose this constituency is called Queen’s Park and Regent’s Park.

The consultation on the proposals is HERE

How the Greens performed in the Brent local elections

The Green Party stood one candidate in every Brent ward except for Willesden Green, which was where we put in most of our campaigning, where we stood two candidates. We left the third slot free so as to make space for Alex Colas the independent Make Willesden Green candidate.  In the event many voters voted two Green plus MWG . MWG were the single choice of some voters and shared with parties other than the Green Party  in other cases.

The combined percentage vote of the three candidates in Willesden Green was 21%: Make Willesden Green 9%, Sharara Ali 6% and Martin Francis 6%.

The Greens beat both Tory and Lib Dem candidates in Harlesden, Kensal Green and Kilburn. We beat all the Lib Dems in Dudden Hill, Fryent, Kenton, Northwick Park, Preston, Queen's Park, Queensbury and Welsh Harp. We beat all the Tories in Mapesbury and Willesden Green.

Greens were ahead of two out of the three Lib Dem candidates in Barnhill, Brondesbury  Park and Willesden Green and two out of three Tories in Queen's Park.

Our highest percentage votes were in Brondesbury Park, Kensal Green, Mapesbury, Queen's Park and Willesden Green.

Brent Green Party has limited financial and human resources compared with the other parties and therefore had to concentrate on a few wards. However, it is clear that there are many potential Green voters in the borough if only we can reach them through leafleting and personal contact. Our aim must be to substantially increase our active membership and network of supporters while at the same time maintaining and improving our campaigning record.

The Euro election results later today should give us further indications of our potential support.

Looking forward to the General Election in 2015 the 'Vote for Policies' website  LINK shows Greens ahead of the other parties in Brent Central. People vote purely on policies without knowing which party they emanate from until completion:

Green Party 25.95%
Labour 23.07%
Liberal Democrats: 17.47%
Conservative 14.77%
UKIP 10.51%
BNP 8.23%

The figures for Brent North also put the Greens ahead LINK

Green Party 24.01%
Labour 22.74%
Liberal Democrats 16.13%
Conservative 15.12%
UKIP 12.48%
BNP 9.52%

Meanwhile, for any individual their political party  affiliation is a matter of 'best fit'  rather than 'I agree with every item in the manifesto'. I hope that some Wembley Matters readers will take note of this election result and come and join us.

More than ever, we are the alternative.

Pedalling Politics in Brent - Support for Space for Cycling

Green Party Assembly Member Jenny Jones toured the boorough with Brent Cyclists to see issues for herself

Earlier this week I spoke to Brent Cyclists at a special hustings on the Londond Cycling Campaigns election initiative 'Space to Cycle'.

I told the meeting about my experience of cycle camping in the US. Breakfasting in a diner a truck driver came and sat with me asked if I was the guy on the bike. I confirmed I was the cyclist and he growled, 'We don't call them cyclists here. We call them donors ...organ donors.'

I said that I often remembered that when cycling in Brent, especially when I tried to negotiate the canyon beneath the North Circular Road at Neasden Shopping Centre/Neasden Lane North.

I was pleased to tell the meeting that all Green party candidates in Brent has signed up to the Space for Cycling campaign and backed the six themes (above).. We supported the proposals for the various wards in principle but would want to examine them in more detail of elected.

Greens had been fighting for safe cycling and comprehensive cycle routes in the London Assembly and were frustrated by Boris Johnson's underspend of the cycling fund and the delay in cycling superhighways.

The meeting was attended by Labour, Lib Dem and Green candidates. It was rumoured that the absent Conservatives had been unable to find a place to park their cars.

In fact there was a great deal of cross-party consensus on the main issues. We talked about how to encourage more people to cycle and the importance of work in schools, specific issues around women cyclists including sexual harassment from motorists, and about the differences between the south and north of the borough.

Cycle usage is much more common in the south of Brent with easy access to Central London. In the North the distance into Central london is much greater with the North Circular a physical barrier. Car ownership is much higher in the north with concreted over front gardens serving as parking for often large numbers of cars - 'a car park with house attached'.

I told the meeting that when I was a headteacher and cycled to work and to meetings I was often given the impresson that this was inappropriate to my status - cycling was something poor people did. Turning up at a Conference at the Holiday Inn at Brent Cross I asked reception where I could leave my bike. 'Sir,  it is only our staff who use bicycles.' This stereotype did not seem to exist in south Brent and this was confirmed by the Queen's Park Lib Dem candidate Virginia Bonham-Carter who wanted a cycle path for mothers in the streets around Queen's Park.

Muhammed Butt said that the attitude was linked to cultural issues and reflected that for some people cycling was seen in the context of 'back home' where it was the poor who cycled and the car was a status symbol. He said that members of his own family questioned why he cycled when he could 'use the car'. There was an issue abut changing attitudes as well as improving infrastructure.

On infrastructure several members of the audience expressed disappointment that a chance had been missed in the Wembley Regenration to build cycling into the plans, despite submissions in the early stages by Brent Cyclists and the Green Party.

The full details of proposals for Brent wards can be found HERE

Declaratio of Interest: I am a member of the London Cycling Campaign

Brent Labour debate the Syria issue

Yesterday evening outside the US Embassy

After attending yesterday's protest calling on the US not to mount a military attack on Syria, I went o to the Labour Party's Public Meeting on Syria in Queen's Park.

All was not unity outside the Embassy with Assad and opposition supporters clashing verbally and there was disagreement too in Queen's Park.  The Labour meeting had been planned well before the heightened tension caused by the use of chemical weapons and the parliamentary vote and it turned out to be a calm and well-informed debate with passion breaking through only occasionally.

Cllr James Denselow who writes on the Middle East, completed a Ph.D in Syria and lived there for 3 years before the regime became 'uncomfortable' with his studeis and banned him from the country.

He described his experience of the country as quiet and safe for tourists but dangerous for  opposition. It had higher numbers of secret police per head than the former Soviet Union.

He said that the Arab Spring had taken previously 'coup proof' regimes by surpise with the rise in food prices being the catalyst for unrest. This meant that the regimes could offer 'neither bread nor freedom'. The young were revolting not merely against their rulers but against the 'owners' of the state.  Syria is a case of the failure of the expectations, of revolution with the opposition united by what they are against rather than what they are for.

With damage to the country amounting to £11b and mounting, the regime only in charge of 45% of the country and 10 million likely to be dependent on aid by the end of the year, the situation is extremely serious.

John Lloyd of the Financial Times spoke next opening with the statement that he agreed with Michael Gove's view, although not how it was expressed, on the rejoicing of MPs after the House of Commons vote. It was a curious vote, which nobody won, and should be revisited. Llopyd said the international situation was unstable with the euphoria of the Arab Spring gone, 20-30 states developing or have developed chemical or biological weapons and nuclear instability  especially over possession of nuclear weapons by Indian and Pakistan.

He likened the situation between Sunni and Shia in the Middle East to that which prevailed in the past between Catholic and Protestant in Europe.

On statements from Labour that the issue may be revisited if something 'huge happens' he said, 'What hugemess are we waiting for. It has happened already.' Countries are trying to uphold international agreements on the use of chemical weapons and we can't let their use become normalised.

Ivana Bartoletti, London Labour Euro 2014 candidate and deputy director of the Fabian Women's Network, spoke from a background of experience in European and international politics. She quoted an old saying, 'Never light the fire when the wind is blowing: you'll get burned'.

She said that Syria was a critical issue with the geographical closeness of Israel and Syrian Kurds beginning to flee to Kurdish regions and the number of refugees in Bulgaria. Bartoletti believed that Labour's amendment was right but that this didn't mean that the UK couldn't intervene in other ways.

Options in Syria are never easy, a campaign for  democracy had turned into a civil war and then a religious war. She was concerned about what would happen internationally if the US attack Syria and believed that the G20 talks gave an opportunity to put the issue at the top of the international diplomatic agenda.

Dr Sundar Thava, of Freedom for Torture, Amnesty International the Fabian Network and an NHS doctor, told the audience about his 10 years experience as an officer in the army in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In contrast to John Lloyd, he was pleased with the outcome of the parliamentary voted although he had not been impressed by the quality of the debate. He believed that we shouldn't intervene and that question was a moral one. The US held hegemony over the UN but we can't sweep China and Russia aside. We should look at the concept of national interest as it applies to the US, Russia and Syria.

The US was seeking to spread neo-liberalism internationally and doesn't need us in terms of our armed forces as such - they can go it alone. Thava thought our non-participation would not affect the 'special; relationship'. He didn't agree with gassing but felt that Obama had been silly in making its use a 'red line; and been trapped into the position of having to be seen to react.

He wanted to see evidence that bombing would send a message to other dictators - he could see none. There was no such thing as bombardment as a 'surgical tool' and it was insincere to suggest that bombardment could be effective without the use of ground troops.

Military intervention would risk escalating the situation.

In the subsequent discussion different views were expressed but I got the impression, despite no show of hands, that there were more people supporting Bartoletti and Thava than Lloyd.

I was not chosen by Chair Tulip Siddiq to ask a question but would have wanted to discuss the wider issue of the UK's international role and whether we should cease the 'punching above our weight' approach that has become our role. Hugh Gaitskell's condemnation of the Suez adventure, Harold Wilson's steadfast refusal to send British troops to Vietnam, Robin Cook's attempt at an ethical foreign policy have to be set against Tony Blair's actions in Iraq.

Can you be an internationalist without being a military interventionist?

'Super primaries' behind 'village' free school proposal

Mary Seacole celebrated on a Jamaican stamp

 Another free school proposal is being pursued in the Queen's Park, Kensal, North Kensington area. This school, Seacole Primary Free  LINK, presumably named after the Jamaican nurse heroine of the Crimea War, is being marketed as a 'A Village School in the heart of London'.

Although the shortage of primary places in the area is cited as making a new school necessary there are links to parental criticism of the increasing number of very large primary schools, some of which will have more than 1,000 pupils:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17012972

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17273218

On this blog I have predicted that Brent Council's expansion of primary schools into much larger units could produce proposals for smaller primary schools where children feel secure in a family atmosphere and parents find staff readily accessible. My arguments against free schools are set out HERE but I have sympathy for those who find 'super primaries' alienating. The answer should be the building of more community local authority primary schools of a modest size but this is made almost impossible by Coalition policy.

The Seacole Primary proposal is set out below:

SEACOLE PRIMARY SCHOOL will strive for academic excellence and an all-round education that allows every child to flourish. Here’s how:

Class sizes: small classes – no more than 24 pupils – so that each child is supported to achieve their full potential.

Curriculum: a strong foundation in core subjects like maths and English complimented by art, music, drama and regular sport.

Collaboration: we believe that a good education is built on a partnership between teachers and parents. We will aim to assist working parents with breakfast and after-school clubs.

Community: each child should feel happy at school to instill a love of learning, confidence and good behaviour. We want to build a school that is a community.

In the Queen's Park, Kensal Rise and North Kensington area there is an acute shortfall of primary school places. A group of local parents are applying to open a mixed, 4 to 11 free school.
We are applying for permission to start with classes from Reception up to Year 4. If our application is approved the school will open in September 2014.

Save Hopscotch Nursery - sign this petition

The Hopscotch Nursery Campaign are asking Brent residents and people who work in Brent to sign their e-petition, lodged with Brent Council.  The petition is self-explanatory and signing is easy. Follow this LINK

The petition:

We the undersigned petition the council to allow Hopscotch Nursery to continue providing its much needed nursery and drop-in services. We demand that Brent council gives Hopscotch a secure future in Winkworth Hall or helps to locate alternative premises in same vicinity and undertakes not to evict Hopscotch until such premises are found.

Hopscotch is a much loved nursery that has been serving the local community for nearly 30 years, providing nursery education for the under 5’s, and a low cost drop-in for carers and children. Hopscotch was rated ‘outstanding’ in its last two Ofsted reports and is the only outstanding full time nursery in NW6.

Brent Council, which owns Winkworth Hall in which Hopscotch is based, has said that the building is “surplus to requirements” and expressed the intention to evict Hopscotch in 2013 in order to sell off the site.
This is despite its statutory duty, under the 2006 Children’s Act, to ensure sufficient childcare for working parents. The area that Hopscotch serves (Kilburn, Brondesbury Park, Mapesbury, Queen’s Park) is the least well provided for in the whole borough. The council’s recent assessment of childcare provision (February 2011) stated that:

“The availability of childcare may be more of an acute problem faced by families in Kilburn than it is for families in the rest of Brent.”

Hopscotch, which is run by a charity for the benefit of the community, addresses these needs. Its nursery and drop-in serve have served 100s of families in the local area. Without it these families simply have no childcare provision available. At a time of cuts a charity like Hopscotch is all the more precious; providing a valuable local service available to all parents without council funding.

 The campaign has a blog HERE. At the time of writing the petition has 355 signatures. It closes on August 1st.

Copland and Queen's Park Community schools not intending academy conversion at present

More is emerging about current discussions among Brent schools about academy conversion.  There are four options under consideration as far as I can ascertain:

1. Conversion to an academy
2. Forming a federation of Cooperative Trust schools with academy conversion
3. Forming a Cooperative Trust without academy conversion.
4. Remaining as they are

Wembley High and Preston Manor are considering the second option along with some Wembley primary schools. Copland Community School is interested in a discussion around the third option with no decision or statement of intent planned.. Queen's Park Community School does not want to consider the cooperative trust option and governors issued a statement in May 2011 stating that they had 'no immediate plans to apply for academy status.'  This leaves Alperton High School and I would welcome any information readers may have about their position: mafran@globalnet.co.uk

Meanwhile a joint union meeting at Preston Manor All-through Foundation School (apparently the school's  new name) is said to have overwhelmingly passed a motion rejecting academy conversion.