22 storey block incorporating a pub to replace The Boat in Alperton

The Boat (Pleasure Boat) as was

As planned

Plans revealed at today's consultation propose the replacement of the two storey 'The Boat' public house in Alperton by a 22 storey block incorporating a replacement pub and 'affordable' workspaces.

The joint venture between developers and Heineken includes 99 'affordable' homes with parking for 6 disabled Blue Badge holders only.

Brent Council would  achiueve £1.5m planning gain.

Today's consultation ends at 8pm this evening. The second consultation session is Thursday September 21st  3.30pm-8pm at Brent Play Association, Peppermint Point, Alperton

MAP

Exhibition on King's Drive 'garages into homes' exhibition postponed

Brent Housing Partnership has postponed the Exhibition due to be held on May 9th about the proposal to build bungalows on the site of King's Drive garages. LINK

This is a result of Brent Council deciding that all public consultations on new developments should be postponed until after the General Election.

Barnet consulting tonight on rail frieght yard which is already operating!

From Barnet Council

We will soon hold public exhibitions to present information about the new Waste Transfer Station and Rail Freight Facility, which forms part of the Brent Cross Thameslink project.

You will be able to meet the project team and ask any questions you might have.

Dollis Hill

• Thursday 20 April 2017
• 6 to 8pm
• Crest Academy, Crest Road, London, NW2 7SN

Whitefield Estate

• Wednesday 26 April 2017
• 6 to 8pm
• Acorn Theatre, Whitefield School, Claremont Road NW2 1TR

Further events will be held later this year regarding the new Thameslink station, railway sidings, and Midland Main Line bridge.

Contact us

• Call: 0344 225 0003
• Email: BXT@glhearn.com
• Write: Freepost RTHZ-AKZT-SABG, GL Hearn, 280 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7EE

Email us: BXT@glhearn.com to join our newsletter list and be kept up to date.

Comment by Alison Hopkins on Facebook The viw from Dollis Hill

And this, by the way, is what the exhibition is all about. No matter how they spin it, Barnet want a dump on our door step. That rail freight yard is behind Lidl and is ALREADY operating without consent. Doesn't make you hopeful if Barnet don't listen to their own residents, let alone those of us in Dollis Hill!

Dodgy goings on with Spurs application to increase events & capacity at Wembley Stadium?

Residents have been in contact about two aspects of the on-line consulation on removal of the cap on the number of events held at Wembley Stadium and more full capacity events LINK.

The first is the fact that on at least two occasions the link has been unavailable clearly affecting the public's ability to comment.

The second is puzzlement that submissions by the public that clearly object to the proposal are classifed as 'Neutral' - see below:

Please see comments below one of which suggest that if you do not choose Support, Object, or Neutral when submitting a comment online the system defaults to Neutral to the Neutral category. If this has happened to your comment it might be worth contacting the Planning Officer to state your position.

4 Park Lane, Wembley, HA9 7RZ (Neutral)

I strongly object to the proposals. It would add to the traffic gridlocks, sometimes hooting of horns late in the evening - not to mention increased air pollution! And difficulty using public transport. Also, residents having the nuisance of having to plan theirs lives around the events. The behaviour of hooligans is also unbearable - I came home once to find a brick had been thrown through my bathroom window! A small tree got broken in half once on an event day - and then there is urinating everywhere. And parking becomes impossible of corse. - As the stadium is a national stadium it should not be used for anything else. - I therefore strongly object to the variation of condition 3 and the removal of condition 33 of 17/0368.

8 Village Mews, London, NW9 8SZ (Neutral)

I strongly object to this and don't think residents have been taken into consideration here.

Roads are already highly congested and Brent should be thinking about minimizing this instead of making matters worse. Whether I drive or take public transport on an event day my journey time is doubled sometimes tripled. I am unable therefore to travel within the local vicinity on event days.

Looking at other comments it is clear there is strong opposition, so it is hoped you take these concerns into consideration and think again of the impact this will have to residents, roads, traffic and the environment.

15 Hillside Drive, Edgware, HA8 7PF (Neutral)

We live and work very near to Stanmore and Cannons Park Underground Station, the A41 and the M1 Edgware exit. Whenever there is any event on at Wembley Stadium, the whole area grinds to a halt. The roads become impassable and journeys around this area almost impossible. There is just not enough space for the amount of cars on the road to travel or the availability of parking places. Together with the noise and nuisance levels of hundreds of various football or rugby fans, the request for additional events is unacceptable for the residents living anywhere near Stanmore or Cannons Park Underground stations or the M1/A41 or A1. If there are visiting fans from the North of England, then the additional traffic on the M1 turns the area to one large car park - absolutely nothing moves and a 10 minute journey can turn into an hour.

We already have to contend with additional traffic and congestion when there are any events on at Allianz Park in Copthall Stadium Mill Hill and any events at The Hive in Edgware.

Therefore we strongly object to any additional usage of Wembley Stadium and to any football club having their games held there or having a residency there.

68 Beverley Gardens, Wembley, HA9 9RA (Neutral)

'Condition 3' was put in place for a reason - to prevent local residents from suffering the great disruption and inconveniences caused to local residents when up to 91,000 people descend on Wembley Stadium. Yet it is now proposed that an extra 31 such events are allowed to take place. And not just any events, but football matches, with their supporters, some of whom have a tendency towards rowdiness, drunkenness and anti-social behaviour.

WNSL has tried to say that it will try to mitigate any problems by 'working closely' with TfL and the Met Police etc. But with a large football crowd those problems can only be 'managed' not removed completely. On match days, residents will still have problems getting home (or leaving it) by train or car, problems picking up their children from school, problems accessing the Civic Centre, or be unable to have friends round.

I therefore object to this application. At the very least, THFC matches should be restricted to 50,000 seats. After all, their existing stadium only accommodates 36,800 and their new one will only be a 61,000 seater.

I also feel that by allowing this application for THFC to use the Stadium, a precedent will have been set that will allow future applications to be 'nodded through'.

49 Linden Avenue, Wembley, HA9 8BB (Neutral)

I feel that the application is not pragmatic to the overall functions of Wembley. I believe that the current situation is bad enough and does not need to be exacerbated any further. There is enough congestion in Wembley on event days. We as residents of Wembley do not feel any benefit from the stadium events. We feel that we are made to surrender our parking spaces to people who do not live in Wembley. We cannot have visitors around because of the congestion. Life in Wembley is already bordering on depressing. Please do not make it worse. I strongly object!

99 Grasmere Avenue, Wembley, HA9 8TG (Neutral)

This area is already very busy and too much traffic.

I object.

DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS THURSDAY MARCH 2ND

Spurs planning application for Wembley Stadium now open for comments

Click on image to enlarge

The application to increase the number of event days at Wembley Stadium and to increase the number of full capacity events has now been published on the Brent Council website.  Full documentation can be accessed and comments made. LINK

I was interested in the fact (see image above) that no local residents in the neighbourhood, nor residents' associations or other organisations, schools etc have been directly written to with a 'unique letter' about the plans.  Consultation with them seems to be limited to a presentation at Wembley Connects, a poorly advertised and attended event at Chalkhill Community Centre on Monday, and an advertisement in the Kilburn Times.

The proposal in summary is:

[Previously] the number of major sporting events held at the stadium in any one year was restricted to no more than 22 (to exclude European Cup and World Cup events where England/UK is the host nation), and the number of major non-sporting events to 15. After this, additional events over and above this were permitted subject to the number of spectators being limited to the capacity of the lower and middle tiers of the stadium.

The proposal would allow for up to an additional 31 major sporting Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) events between 1 August 2017 and 31 July 2018. A major event (which may or may not include THFC) would be considered to be an event in the stadium bowl with a capacity in excess of 10,000 people.

Spurs set out their responses to concerns about the application in their 'Statement of Community Engagement' which addresses issues such as urinating in public, obscene and racist chants, congestion, pay back for residents. I have embedded it below for ease of reference. In particular see pages 5-9. The current 'standard' expiry date for consultation is February 23rd 2017.



There is an ongoing discussion about the application on the Streetlife website LINK

Brent Council calls on residents to make their views known on 2017-18 budget

Brent Council has issued a press release advertising the last meetings where residents can express views on the upcoming 2017-18 and by implication the 2018-19 and 2019-20 budgets.   The release (below) covers 'spending' plans but not the proposed cuts or increases in charges, although it does mention 'raising income to balance the books'. 

The Council is likely to front-load an increase in Council Tax of 4.99% in 2017-18 and again in 2018-19 but with a smaller increase in 2019-20. If this is approved 'savings' will  be needed of £5.4m in 2017-18, £0.7m in 2018-19 and a whopping £13.7m in 2019-20.  The front-loading was offered by the government so that councils can address (but only very partially) the rising costs of adult social care:

Residents across the borough are being called to have their say on Brent Council's tax and spending proposals for next year before an online consultation closes on February, 1 and at a final round of upcoming meetings with councillors.

The Brent Connects meetings at Kilburn (January, 24), Willesden (February, 7) and Kingsbury & Kenton (February, 8) form part of a ten-week consultation on the council's budget plans.

Shoppers to Asda in Wembley on Monday 30 January will also have the chance to give their views, as a supermarket roadshow of the proposals makes its final stop having visited Morrisons in Queensbury on January 14, and Sainsbury's in Willesden on January 18.

Online and at the meetings, residents will have the opportunity to have their say on the council's plans to raise council tax in response to budget cuts from central government, in order to protect services.

As well as discussing how the council plans to raise income to balance the books, views are also sought on the council's spending proposals for 2017/18.

Currently, these include spending in areas to help make Brent cleaner and safer, rubbish and recycling collection, boosting jobs and skills, protecting the vulnerable, increasing council housing, maintaining parks and open spaces and giving every child the best start in life possible.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said:

"It is vital that the work we do as a Council reflects the priorities of our residents. That's we are asking the people of Brent to tell us what matters to them. I would encourage as many people as possible to visit the website, or join us at their local Brent Connects meetings"

Have your say online by 1 February 2017 or come along to one of the Brent Connects public meetings in January or February 2017.

Views taken at the Willesden and the Kingsbury & Kenton Brent Connects meetings, after the consultation portal has closed, will be added as an appendix to the Cabinet report and considered on Monday 13 February 2017 at the Cabinet meeting.

Full Council will then make a decision on the final budget for 2017/18 on Monday 27 February 2017.

Savings already agreed and new policy options can be found here:

http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s45300/Appendix%20One%20-%20Previously%20Agreed%20Savings.htm

http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s45302/Appendix%20Three%20-%20Detailed%20New%20Policy%20Options.pdf

Residents call for wider and extended consultation on controversial Ealing Road Library plans

Ealing Road Library (centre) set back from Ealing Road

Residents around Ealing Road Library, Wembley, are calling for the consultation plans on the development of the Ealing Road Library site in Ealing Road to be extended on the grounds that few residents knew about the plans and the very limited circulation of letters asking for views on the plans.  In addition the notice of the planning  application posted near the library was obscured.

 The plans envisage bringing forward the boundary of the library to the pavement edge by building a community enterprise hub on one side and a 'tea house' cafe on the other  with a courtyard between the two that could be used for community events, a market or an outdoor cinema.

According to the application the aim is to bring more outside visitors into an area that residents advise is already congested.

As with many such developments residents feel that the application has been hidden from them and now that they have found out about it there is too little time to respond. They question whether the Council has fulfilled its statutory responsibilities in terms of consultation.

One of the application documents found on-line states:

The investment will deliver a new cafe, a new public space and a community and enterprise hub which will be used for gathering, extended library activities, performance, market days and other events that will attract local and London wide visitors.  The project is the first element in the wider series of Gem Chain projects which aim to attract visitors London-wide to Ealing Road and reinstate the place’s status as a premier high street place.

 Local residents concerns  are as follows:

The poorly promoted consultation with poorly sited planning notice dated 27th October which states deadline for comments on the application is 17th November - just three weeks?  Also the planning notice states docs would only available to view on line from 2nd November – so not even the full three weeks to study the docs and comment if you are able to access them on line, a lot of older residents are not?  Why such a short amount of time for local people to comment? When pushed the library finally had hard copies to view on from 11th November, over two weeks already into the consultation period.

Developing the library space and re-promoting Ealing Road as a major shopping destination could have a further serious impact on the environment for local residents who are concerned about the potential of even more traffic in grid locked Ealing Road, more pollution, more noise pollution and more rubbish on local streets.  Ealing Road is already gridlocked most weekends.  If shoppers are coming to buy in bulk or buy gold or buy expensive clothes they will want to come by car – they will not want to come by bus or tube!  Yet Montrose Crescent car park is being closed to build flats, so if they also close the small library car park and also loose around 10 spaces from the slip road outside the library due to the forecourt being extended what other parking provision is going to be offered – will they take away resident only parking bays and allow shoppers to use them?

These plans have clearly been drawn up and put together over a considerable period of time and considerable expense with no apparent consideration for these issues and their impact on local council tax-paying residents who believe the consultation needs to be re-promoted and the deadline for comments extended:

(a)       there are lot of local people who would not have seen the planning notice due to the poor location of the planning notice;
(b)      there are lot of local people who would not have heard anything about this development due to lack of information locally;
(c)       there are lot of local people who do not have Internet access to view the plans on line - if they do go to the library to view them on-line it is very time consuming to try and look through the 42 individual documents on your website, these should be printed out and put on display in Ealing Road Library;
(d)      there are lot of local people who are not able to get up to the Civic Centre to view the plans at all (lack of mobility, traffic problems, parking restrictions, etc);
(e)       there are lot of local people who are not able to get to the Civic Centre to view the plans between 9-5pm during weekdays (people who work, have childcare or family commitments etc);
(f)       some local residents don’t even know how to use a computer yet there is no address on the planning notice for people to write to should they wish to comment on the application.

The Planning Application(Ref 16/4527) can be found HERE

This is one of the main documents supporting the application:

Click bottom right for full view

Should Brent follow Camden in proposing 100% Council Tax exemption for poorest residents?

Camden Council is currently consulting on changes in its Council Tax Reduction Scheme and its preferred option would mean that those people of working age with the lowest income would pay no Council Tax.

At present in Brent, apart from pensioners, everyone pays something towards Council Tax. A 20% payment, one of the highest in London,  is expected unless the person concerned falls into a 'protected' group if:

A person on their  partner or their dependant children are entitled to Disability Living Allowance, Personal Independence Payment, War Disablement Pension, War Widow(ers) Pension, Guaranteed Income Payment, Disabled Earnings Disregard, Disability Premium, Enhanced Disability Premium or the Council Tax Disabled person reduction

When the Brent scheme was consulted on in 2013 Zacchaeus 2000 put in a powerful submission arguing for a 100% reduction for the most vulnerable. LINK

In February this year Cllr  Butt told me at the Civic Centre consultation that there was not time to review the borough's Council Tax Support Scheme for 2016-17 despite the proposed rise of 3.99% in Council Tax. As a further increase of 3.99% is likely in 2017-18 (and beyond) we should expect Brent Coucil to take a leaf out of Camden's book and review its scheme without delay.

In Camden it has been argued that money will be saved by not having to chase up the poorest residents for unpaid Council Tax, releasing funds  to pursue non-payment by those able to pay.

Writing about the Camden proposals  Sian Berry, Green GLA Assembly member and former Camden Green councillor, said:

As Camden Green Party has argued, for several years, Camden Council is considering cutting council tax for the borough’s poorest people.

Since 2013 the council has removed the previous 100 per cent exemption for people on benefits – including disabled people and families with low incomes and children.

It now charges people with the lowest incomes at least 8.5 per cent of the normal rate, something it’s very hard to pay when you have no way of making the money required.

I have spoken out about this, called for the exemption to be 100 per cent, and have regularly criticised the council charging additional legal costs for enforcement against people who fall behind.

The fact is that this is revenue from people who would pay if they could, but simply don’t have the income.

They are more than likely to be subject to benefit sanctions and the bedroom tax already, and it has been inhumane for the past three years to be driving our poorest people into impossible debts.

I urge all Camden residents to respond to this consultation and say you are in favour of the 100 per cent exemption being restored.

These are the options offered by Camden Council in its consultation:

Proposed changes to Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2017-18

Overview

We offer a discount on council tax to eligible people in Camden as part of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS). The maximum discount available to working age people is currently 91.5%, which means that all working age people have to pay a minimum of 8.5%. We are proposing to increase the maximum amount of discount for working age people to 100%, meaning those with the lowest income would not have to make a contribution to Council Tax until their income increases.

Pensioners are already entitled to a maximum of 100% support.

There are five options set out below impacting on working age households only:

1. No change

Maximum CTRS discount available remains at 91.5% with no changes to eligibility or the applicable amount.

2. Maximum council tax discount available increases  to 100%

Maximum CTRS discount available increases to 100% with no changes to eligibility.

3. Decreasing the discount to less than 91.5%

This would increase the amount of Council Tax payable by all working age claimants.

4. Offer further discounts to specific groups

The scheme could provide protection to specified groups, such as families or disabled claimants, whilst keeping a deduction for all other claimants.

5. Design a different scheme

Develop a new scheme altogether, with discounts based on a different calculation than the current scheme. Any scheme would be subject to a full consultation and would not be implemented until April 2018.

Camden’s preferred option is option 2.

We currently collect about £1.03 million from customers on the maximum discount compared to £120 million for the whole borough. As well as relieving the burden of council tax on our poorest residents, this proposal will enable us to focus more resources on pursuing other debts from those that are seeking to avoid paying.

'Almost overnight our school became a brutal exam factory' - Rescue Our Schools speaker

This passionate speech was made by a parent at the Parents Defending Education conference at the weekend. It sums up the limitations of the academy model which the government wants to impose on all schools.

Thanks to Rescue Our Schools for this video:  http://www.rescueourschools.co.uk/

Self-managed allotments- local control or a cover for cuts?

Brent Council is holding a consultation meeting with allotment holders on 'Allotment Associations and Self-Management: The Future of Your Allotments?'  on March 2nd.

As part of the Food Growing and Allotment Strategy LINK tenants will be consulted on their views of self-management:

Councils across the UK are looking at different styles of management with the aim of running allotments more effectively. Having an Allotment Association os the first step to taking more ownership of your site and in its most extreme (sic) form, this means that Allotment Associations lease the sites from the Council and take on the full financial, administration and maintenance management of their sites.

In Brent one allotment site is already self-managed but other sites lack an Allotment Association.

Speakers include:

Richard King, Barnet Allotment Federartion on 'The Barnet experience'
Clare Fuchs, self-management in Hammersmith and Fulham
Richard Wiltshire, the National Allotment Society
Derek Osborne, Chair of the self-managed Old Kenton Lane Allotment Association

In my chats to fellow allotment holders there seems little appetite for self-management but I expect attitudes will vary across the borough.

'Full financial , adminstration and maintenance management' sounds like a considerable amount of work that will be transferred from council officers to volunteers.  Major maintenance such as control of trees, fencing and drainage will clearly be potentially very expensive although water bills, toilet lighting etc will be paid through regular rental income.

There are whole borough issues such as management of waiting lists where people may be interested in plots at more than one site and initiatives such as wildlife friendly gardening, sustainable and chemical free gardening, where the present Food Growing and Allotment Offfcer has performed a vital role, which would be lost if the post is abolished as a result of self-management.

I hope the meeting is well attended and the issues given a good airing.

NHS Consultation on patient transport services in NW London

Thursday 21^th January,  at 2pm to 4pm
Venue: Wembley Centre for Health & Care, 116 Chaplin Road, Wembley, HA0 4UZ

The NHS is reviewing patient transport across North West London. They are looking for the views of patients and carers to understand their experiences of using these services.

In January 2016 they would like to meet with people living in North West London that currently use or care for someone who uses patient transport services. They are holding workshops in Wembley and Hammersmith to share their initial findings and to hear your views on their proposed improvements.

More information is in the introductory letter and flyer – please circulate. If you are interested please contact by Tuesday 5^th January by email travel@nw.london.nhs.uk or phone 020 3350 4734.

October 6th: Lyon Park Infant and Junior Amalgamation Consultation

From Brent Council

Brent Council in partnership with the governing body of the Lyon Park Infant School and Lyon Park Junior School is consulting about proposals to amalgamate the schools to form one primary school.

If the proposals are agreed the two schools, which are on the same site, would amalgamate to become Lyon Park Primary School from April 2016 - an all-through primary school for 80 nursery pupils and 840 children.

Lyon Park Infant School in Vincent Road, Wembley, is at present a community school providing 360 school places for children aged from four to seven; there is also a nursery with 80 part-time places.
Lyon Park Junior School, also a community school, currently has 480 school places to boys and girls between the ages of seven and 11.

Two consultation meetings are taking place for parents, staff and residents to attend and discuss the amalgamation proposals. They will take place on 6 October at 3.30pm, and 7pm in the junior school hall.

For more information, call 020 8937 1061 or email judith.joseph@brent.gov.uk. The consultation closes on 9 November.

Details

Charity to take over management of Brent's Children's Centres to save £0.75m

Cllr Michael Pavey and the then Shadow Chamcellor Ed Balls and Shadow Children's Minister Sharon Hodgson in February 2013 at the launch of Labour Friends of Sure Start (FOSS)

This is a Press Release from Brent Council and I invite comments and views from readers. 
 

Leading children’s charity Barnardo’s will manage children’s centres across the borough as part of a new partnership model with Brent Council which will keep open the highly valued centres.

Brent Council’s Cabinet has agreed to award a four-year contract for managing the operations of 14 children’s centres to Barnardo’s, which already runs more than 170 children’s centres in the UK. Its centres aim to promote the inclusion of all children, their families and carers in a safe and nurturing environment.

Barnardo’s will work in partnership with Brent Council to manage the transfer of children’s centre staff to the charity, and the council will retain an oversight of the centres’ performance and Ofsted inspections.

The four-year contract will save Brent Council around £750,000. Brent Council has experienced significant reductions in central government funding, which contributes to running services such as children’s centres, and must save around £54million over the next two years.

The decision by the Cabinet was made after a significant consultation with parents, community groups, voluntary sector, staff and schools about the future of children’s centres in the borough.

Councillor Ruth Moher, Lead Member for Children and Young People, said:

“We are in an era of unprecedented cuts to local authority finances which means it is becoming harder than ever to protect the front-line services so prized by our residents.

“That’s why I’m pleased we have been able to agree to award a contract to Barnardo’s which will keep open these 14 children’s centres in Brent so they can continue to provide such fantastic support to many children and families.”

Lynn Gradwell, Director of Barnardo’s in London, said:

“We are thrilled to have been awarded this contract and excited to start working with the many thousands of Brent families who use these 14 children’s centres.

“Barnardo’s is committed to providing the very best service to children and young people in Brent, to their parents and carers, to the council and to the dedicated staff members who will transfer over to Barnardo’s. We are working hard to make the transition as seamless as possible and are looking forward to getting started.”

The 14 children’s centres which will transfer to Barnardo’s are: Treetops, Wykeham Primary; Wembley Children’s Centre, Alperton Children’s Centre, Preston Park Children’s Centre; The Welcome Children’s Centre, Granville Plus Children’s Centre, Three Trees Children’s Centre, Hope Children’s Centre, Harmony Children’s Centre, St Raphael’s Children’s Centre; Church Lane Children’s Centre, Mount Stewart Children’s Centre; Willow Children’s Centre.

Three other children’s centres - Fawood, Curzon Crescent and Challenge House - are excluded from the partnership agreement and will continue as present.

The new model for the children’s centres will be implemented from autumn 2015.

Brent Labour's choice: Resist or Rat on the Poor

from @MapesburyGreen

Saturday was a busy day for Brent Labour Party members with the opening of offices for the parliamentary candidates and a big push on Dawn Butler's campaign for Brent Central.

Down at the Methodist Hall on the Neasden roundabout members were subjected to 'Death by Powerpoint' style presentations and separate cafe style discussions on different services and the cuts proposed. A familiar process for those who have experienced 'Shaping a Healthier Future' or Brent Plan consultations.  It is a method that seems to dilute opposition and impose the control of the organisers.

I expected little from this 'Shaping a Broken Borough' consultation and that was confirmed by Graham Durham's posting on the Brent Fightback page on Sunday:

-->

Well what a poor turnout at the All Brent Labour Party meeting yesterday on the £54million cuts proposed by the Labour leader, Cllr Butt. By the time votes were taken only 12 ordinary Party members were present - the rest were councillors. Reasons for this poor attendance vary - obviously considering how to destroy services to the poorest and most vulnerable in Brent is not everyones cup of tea as a priority for 10 am on a Saturday morning. There is also a democratic deficit in the Labour Party as ordinary members know that whatever they say the Labour councillors will ignore it.

This cynicism grew when Labour councillors awarded themselves a 25% pay award this year - so councillors now have an interest in turning up to ensure their huge allowances are protected. As usual the trick of proposing slightly more cuts ( £60m) was used so Butt and co can claim later they saved this or that ...but otherwise there were the usual crocodile tears from Cllrs Butt and Pavey that Labour councillors do not want to attack the most vulnerable at all but feel obliged to do so. 

The cuts themselves were set out in a series of PowerPoints prepared by Council officers - and sadly most of the justifications were read by Cabinet members from scripts prepared by Council officers -as ever it was clear Labour councillors were doing what they were told by officers and exerted no control over Council decisions at all. When the detail of the cuts were revealed there was much unhappiness- in the children's service for example over the £8.4 million cuts. 

Cllr Ruth Moher tried to present £2.3milion of these cuts as 'uncontentious'-as they represent a £700k loss of residential placements for the most needy children in care ,cuts of £650k in spending on quality remand placements . They were, of course, deeply contentious. Worse was to come as £900k was to be lopped off what is left of the Youth Service, carers and study advice to the most vulnerable young people was to be slashed by £500k, Stonebridge Adventure Playground was to be slashed by £118K, up to ten Children’s Centres closed etc etc. 

When it was pointed out that there is an epidemic of child abuse in Brent and everywhere else and all these proposals and more put children more at risk of abuse it suddenly dawned on some councillors that they were attacking the very children they had been assured would be protected. One new Brent North councillor declared she spent her working life working for vulnerable children and became quite upset when she realised she was required to vote to damage these very children. 

When a vote was taken on a Kilburn ward motion to refuse to make the cuts and to campaign against them Party members were tied in the vote - but twelve highly paid Labour councillors were allowed to vote to rule this out (only one Cllr Rita Conneely abstained). There will be sleepless nights counting those allowances between now and March 2nd when the Council budget is set.

There are consultations with residents tomorrow (see image above) where there will be a temptation to argue for specific services in the £6m cap between the cuts set out in the draft budget and the total actually required.  However Brent Fightback wants a much more militant approach by the Council"

Fightback believes the Council should resist the cuts, tell the government that they are totally unacceptable and refuse to implement them, that they should organise a march to Eric Pickles' office or Parliament and ask the people of Brent and all the other Labour Councils and the people of other boroughs to come with them. It would be good if Fightback supporters could go to these meetings and make these points

A well placed senior source reckons that Muhammed Butt currently has the support of about three quarters of the Labour Group so a revolt seems unlikely at present, although those who are disaffected are VERY disaffected.

South Kilburn anger as Council denies them a voice on being dumped with ventilation shaft

A recurring theme of this blog has been the lack of democracy and poor consultation in matters involvng Brent Council: the views of library users over the transformation project, Willesden Green residents over the redevelopment of the library site, human rights campaigners over Veolia's multi-million public realm contract and more recently the denial of residents' requests to speak at Council meetings on matters that affect them.

Here a South Kilburn tenant outlines the latest case of 'democracy denied'.

Last year Brent Council changed the rules so that residents can no longer address full Council meetings about issues of concern, however much support they have. The claim is that this is unnecessary, since petitioners can address the committee meetings or Executive where the issues are discussed, and there are all sorts of consultations where there views can be heard. 

 

Even when such opportunity exists – committees and consultation forums – this is inadequate, since it is only when an issue comes to full Council that all Councillors are present to hear the issues.

 

But what happens when an issue comes to full Council without going to any committee or consultation beforehand? Isn’t it obvious that in such a situation those affected should be heard? It would be a simple matter of suspending Council standing orders for this to happen

 

Far from it. A report is going to Full Council on Monday (March 3rd) about the affect of the HS2 Bill on Brent. This report notes that the HS2 Bill allows for the acquisition of 2 blocks of (Council) flats and St Mary’s school in South Kilburn, and also calls on HS2 to move the planned ventilation shaft, currently proposed to be next to Queens Park station to a site next to St Mary’s school and those flats.

 

That report has not gone to any committee or the Executive. Affected residents were not informed of its existence by any Councillor or Council Officer, despite their Tenants and Residents Association asking for over 2 years now how they would be affected by HS2 and Brent Council being unable or unwilling to provide them with answers. Residents received recorded letters from HS2 last year saying it might want to acquire their property, and still Brent Council was unable to provide advice on what this might mean. And, of course, residents have not been consulted on their attitude to having the shaft moved next door. This in a situation where residents have made numerous complaints about the effect of living on a building site – being in the middle of regeneration with all the dirt and disruption involved.

 

Yet despite all this, Councillors are denying residents the right to put their views to the Council meeting. There have been attempts to fob them off by saying that their Councillors are able to speak and represent their views. Some of those saying this have no idea whether the Councillors and TRA have the same view on the issues concerned! But the very idea is patronising – who better to put their views forward than residents themselves, especially when so directly affected.

Respecting Brent Council's Constitution

This is the 'Soap Box' delivered by local resident Philip Grant at the Kingsbury Connects forum last night. Apparently it was well received by the 40 or so people present.

I will begin by reading three short extracts from Brent’s Constitution:

The purpose of the Constitution is to support the active involvement of citizens in the process of local authority decision-making. (Article 1.4)

The Council is committed to involving the community through effective consultation and two-way communication. (Article 10.1)

The Council recognises that meaningful participation can only take place ... where community spirit is fostered so that people care enough to want to take part, and are encouraged to do so. (Part of Article 10.2)

Last October I was one of six local history society members who “cared enough” to take part in a stakeholder meeting at the Civic Centre, to contribute ideas which will help the Council to draft a new Museum and Archives Strategy. That Strategy will go out for public consultation next month, and be decided this Spring.

At the meeting on 16 October we asked that a staff restructuring exercise at Museum and Archives should be put “on hold” until the new Strategy was in place. The Head of Libraries, Arts and Heritage, who had only told staff about her plans the previous month, would not discuss this, claiming it was ‘an internal matter’.

Our request made sense, because until the Strategy had been consulted on and decided, how could anyone know what staff would be needed to deliver it? This Officer’s actions were undermining any effective consultation on the Strategy, because she was imposing her ideas of what staffing the service needed, while the decision-making process was still taking place.

I contacted Senior Officers at Environment and Neighbourhoods about this breach of the commitments in Brent’s Constitution. They ignored the constitutional point and simply backed their Officer’s actions, refusing to discuss the matter further. I complained to Brent’s Interim Chief Executive, and she also declined to take any action, while sidestepping the clear breach of Brent’s Constitution which was involved.

This is one of a number of examples I have come across in the past three years where Brent’s Officers have ignored what are supposed to be Council commitments about consulting with the community, and engaging in proper two-way communication. 

I believe that much better results can be achieved for our community by local people, Council Officers and Councillors working together. I try to work positively with the Council in areas where I can help, but community involvement needs to be seen to work in practice.

I have written an open letter to the Leader of the Council, and to the leaders of the other political parties on the Council, about this problem. I would ask that they work together to find a solution to it, so that everyone at Brent Council respects the commitments in its Constitution, for the benefit of our community.

Brent Connects Forum Dates

The new round of the Brent Connects Forums starts soon. The agenda for Willesden  includes the Brent Council Budget for 2014-15 with a Q&A with Muhammed Butt and the proposed private landlord licensing.

Wednesday January 8th Kilburn and Kensal 7pm Palmers Lodge Hillspring at Willesden Green,  233 Willesdne Lane, NW2

Tuesday January14th Wembley 7pm Patidar House, 22 London Road, HA9

Wednesday January 15th Harlesden 7pm Furness Primary School Hall, Furness Road, NW10

Wednesday January 22nd Willesden 7pm Dudden Hill Community Centre, 19 Dudden Hill Lane, Willesden, NW10

Tuesday February 4th Kingsbury and Kenton 7pm Kingsbury High School. Princess Avenue, Kingsbury NW9

Expansion of Princess Frederica school proposed despite strong parent opposition

Princess Frederica  Cof E Primary School, Kensal Rise

The Brent Executive on January 13th will be asked to approve the expansion of Princess Frederica Primary School despite substantial opposition.

The school would grow from 420 pupil capacity to 630 by 2020 with some new build and partial demolition and rebuild of the present building.  The new build would include a roof top playground.

The Council argue that the expansion is needed to address the current shortage of school places due to the rising child population of Brent.

The Officers' Report LINK states that in the initial consultation 7 local residents were for expansion and 14 against, 3 parents were for and 22 against and 26 staff were for with 1 against.

Following the Statutory Notice during the four week Representation Stage  224 responses were received of which 16 were for the expansion and 208 against.

These are statement from some of the objectors:

“I am writing to ask you to turn down the request for the school expansion of Princess Frederica. The local area and infrastructure will not be able to sustain the added congestion. Already both the pupils and local community are put at risk through the cramming of small pavements and roads. I would suggest a much better use of Brent’s resources would be to turn around the local schools in the area –meeting specifically Furness Road School.

Piling all the resources into one local school which for now is popular, shows no sense of long term  planning for the broader community.”

“- the proposal is far too large for the footprint of the site and the access roads in the surrounding areas. The works will cause severe disruption to the education and welfare of the children there in 2014 and the dust created by building work will create a health hazard for my daughter who suffers from asthma there are better alternative schools sites for building expansion in the vicinity, we have real worries about how the building work - dust, noise, heavy machinery is inevitable - will affect the education of the current children, and also that the pressure on space from the additional classes each year will affect the future education in the widest sense, as well as the logistical issues of safety in delivering and collecting a greater number of children from school each day.”

“College Rd & Purves Rd are narrow & bottle neck at the slightest provocation. How will they & their residents cope with the heavy lorries & construction vehicles that will be needed on top of an already precarious equalibrium? If, as I understand,  the admission criteria are not to change to include more children on proximity rather than church attendance, there will be more cars & bicycles at drop off  & pick up times. Bicycles are being stolen from the railings outside the school on a regular basis & campaigns for parking them on the school premises have failed for years for reasons of short space!”

 “I believe that the school facilities are already over stretched and the addition of more pupils at the expense of outside s pace does not serve the educational interests of the pupils. In addition, two years of packed lunches and studying next to a building site will not help the children's education

 On space the Council respond:

Design work shows that it is possible to fit the additional buildings/internal space needed for the

increased number of children on the existing school  site and leave sufficient outside play area to  meet guidelines.

The additional proposed roof top play area and changes to the surfacing of ground level play areas, mean that based on the government’s method for measuring outdoor play areas there is sufficient to meet guidelines for a 3FE school on a confined inner city site.

It is accepted that during construction the available outside play space will be reduced but this will be managed to minimise the impact on existing children.

 On parking and infrastructure the Council state:

There is no parking on the school site and no facilities to drop off children by car other than on roads immediately surrounding the school. The school travel plan will actively encourage a majority of parents to walk or  cycle to school with their children.Cycle and scooter storage will be provided on site to avoid congestion created on the pavement by cycles being chained up outside school.  

It is proposed to widen the pavement in parts along  Purves Road to alleviate pedestrian congestion.  

A full transport assessment has been undertaken and will be submitted with the planning application. LBB Highways will review the application in detail and make further recommendations if required to minimise the  impact of proposed expansion on the existing road network.

On the community's preference for a 2 form entry school the council gives no quarter and presses what it sees as the benefits of larger shcools and in a new departure suggests they are becoming the norm:

Brent has 12 successful 3FE primary schools and 6 successful 4FE primary schools. 3FE and larger primary schools are now becoming the norm across London. Larger primary schools have considerable advantages in being able to afford higher levels of expertise, including subject expertise in e.g. MFL.

They also offer a wider range of extra curricular and after school activities. Brent also has many primary aged children currently without a school place. The council has a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places for Brent residents who require a school place.

The Council say that it cannot changes the admissions criteria because the school is a Church of England Voluntary Aided School and therefore in charge of its own admissions. These currently give preference of church worshippers.

 Clearly this case raises issues that have been previously addressed on Wembley Matters over the optimum size of schools and the importance of play space. Most importantly of course it raises questions about consultation processes when, in this case, overwhelming views of parents as stakeholders are rejected.

The expansion plans will not be going to Planning Committee until June 2013 but the Council proposes that an additional 30 pupils will start in existing accommodation in September 2014 with the building works finished before the start of the 2015/16 academic year. The additional forms of entry will then gradually fill up the school year by year.

Council responds to complaint over Council Tax Support Scheme consultation

Brent Council has responded to the complaint by Robin Sivapalan on behalf of residents that its consultation on the Council Tax Support Scheme was not advertised widely enough and gave inadequate time for responses. The council wants to keep the controversial current scheme with some small statutory changes.

Here is the Council's reply:

Dear Mr Sivapalan,

I refer to your complaint about the way we are consulting on Brent’s Local Council Tax Scheme for 2014/15. Firstly, I would like to make you aware that we have extended the consultation period to 13 December.

The consultation that is currently under way is on the proposal not to change the Local Council Tax Scheme agreed by full council last year (except for statutory changes to the prescribed scheme for pensioners and a minor amendment to explicitly include a specific group as vulnerable and therefore protected from paying at least 20% of their council tax which had not been made clear in the original scheme for 2013/14). There
is no requirement for an Authority to consult each year on its local scheme if there are only statutory changes, but we felt that we did want to give residents an opportunity to make comments so decided that we would run a web-based consultation.

Although we had made a number of stakeholders aware of the consultation process during network and partner meetings over recent weeks, we hadn’t formally written to advice agencies before this week. As you acknowledge, this was due to a genuine oversight for which I apologise, however on that basis, we have extended the consultation period for a week as mentioned above to allow those that had been unaware on the consultation an opportunity to comment.

I regret that it is not possible to extend the consultation to the end of January, as you request, as the Council is required to determine its scheme for next year before the end of January.

As your complaint makes significant reference to those affected by the current scheme, I consider it appropriate to comment on the current scheme and how we have tried to help our residents during what we all agree has been a difficult time. Firstly, I must point out that there cannot be a reinstatement of the previous Council Tax Benefit (CTB) scheme as this was a national scheme funded by central government that has now been abolished. The scheme that we are proposing to carry forward into 2014/15 was the subject of extensive publicity and consultation last year including the following::

 · Publicity on the Council’s website and a special email account set up for queries;
· Text messages to 2694 existing Benefit claimants;
· Emails to 1770 Benefit claimants;
· A leaflet issued with 13,000 Council Tax bills;
· Meetings and presentations to over a dozen organisations including Mencap, Citizens Advice Bureau, Help Somalia Foundation, Private Tenant Rights User Group, Older Persons Partnership Board, Brent Housing Partnership, Brent Mental Health User Group, Willesden Mosque and representatives from Lynton Close Travellers Site;
· Emails to 600 Area Consultative Forum members and 640 Citizens Panel members;
· Paper copies of leaflets and documentation in all Brent libraries;
· Features on the consultation in both the May and July 2012 editions of the Brent Magazine and publicity in the local media including the Harrow Times and the Brent and Kilburn Times;
· Presentations to 267 residents at the five Area Consultative Forums;
· Letters and emails to all partner organisations in the borough;
· A wide range of posters and other publicity throughout the borough.

Following the consultation period and full council’s agreement for the scheme, we wrote to all our customers in advance of the start of the scheme, and included a special advice leaflet in all our year end bills where CTB was in payment. Officers embarked on an extensive exercise to speak to as many of the customers affected as possible especially those who were likely to have to pay something towards their council tax for the first time. Where we were unable to contact the customer by phone, we wrote to residents affected inviting them to contact us so that we could explain the scheme and how it affected them and also to discuss how best they could meet their financial obligations. We also made arrangements to allow council tax to be paid in 12 instalments rather than the normal 10 to help spread the cost.

We have continued to try and engage with residents since the introduction of the scheme and take a sympathetic view with customers who are trying to pay their council tax.

Where residents are also affected by other aspects of the government’s Welfare Reform programme – the overall benefit cap or the bedroom tax restrictions - we have often been able to offer assistance with their housing costs.

Finally, in respect of the current consultative exercise, I do not believe that the process has been unreasonable and certainly meets or exceeds our statutory obligations.

We shall treat all responses seriously but will be subject to both time and financial constraints when considering any proposals for changes.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Monkley
Subsidy & Policy Manager