Lively consultation on Willesden Green leaves unanswered questions

I started out feeling sorry for Beth Kay from the Brent Council Regeneration Team today as she was once again the council's 'messenger' under fire from many quarters at the latest Willesden Green redevelopment  'consultation'. .This sympathy was reduced somewhat when I heard the presentation and some of her answers to questions.. The Q&A would have gone much better if there had been a neutral chair to keep order and make sure that full answers were provided.

The main feature was the exhibition showing a possible scheme incorporating the 1894 Library. More pictures (above) - more on the Keep Willesden Green blog HERE However Beth gave mixed messages about this. At one stage she had been talkling about dialogue with the community being frustrated by the issue of the the Victorian library and said, "Now the Old Library has been saved we can have conversations about what we want in the new library". However later she said that the retention of the Old Library compromised the scheme, presented challenges and made her nervous in planning terms.

In presenting the results of the top  consultation concerns (Loss of Old Library 45%, Loss of Wiilesden Bookshop 22%, Inadequate parking 18%, Renovation rather than redevelopment 17%, Dislike of design 16%, Insufficient consultation 16%, New building too small 14%, Loss of public space at front of building 14%) she referred to three petitions.  However for the 'Retaining Bookshop' petition and the 'Pause, Listen and Reflect' here presentation only gave the figures for the e-petition, rather than the much larger (sometimes 10 times larger) paper petitions. For the 'Oppose Demolition of the Old Library' petition  the presentation gave both the e-petition and paper petition figures.

I protested that this seriously misrepresented the number of people supporting the first two petitions and she undertook to amend the presentation.

Another conflict arose over the Willesden Bookshop. Beth claimed once again that the bookshop's rent had been subsidised (despite the owner Steve's denial on this blog) and that all bookshops were in crisis. She further claimed that the Bookshop itself had admitted it was not viable. However she said that (yet another) consultant had been appointed to look into the viability of a combined cafe/bookshop.

When it was pointed out that the Willesden Bookshop had now closed despite her presentation stating that the Council was trying to continue non-core services in the interim, she said that the Council was trying to find them premises on the High Road.

Challenged by another member of the audience on the total amount of  money that had been spent on consultants she was unable to provide an answer but implied that Galliford Try was footing the bill.

Questioned about why the planning application had been pulled Beth said this was due to the widespread opposition to the demolition of the Old Library. She did not mention that GLA planners had raised concerns that the proposals did not meet London Heritage policies in meetings with Brent Council officers. With a straight face she stated, "By withdrawing the planning application we have shown it is not a 'done deal' ".

During discussion about why refurbishment of the 1989 hadn't been considered, and when the audience laughed when someone asked 'Who built it if it's no good?" and was answered, to laughter "Brent Council!", Beth claimed that the Chalkhill Estate had been rebuilt and that was the same age as the current library. In fact the old Chalkhill Estate was built in several phases between 1966-70, 20 years earlier than the library.

I did not receive a satisfactory answer to a question about possible conflict over Brent Council's role as instigator of the project, joint partner with the developer, conductor of post partnership public consultation, and decision maker on the planning application. I pointed out that our objections were not just limited to the retention of the Old Library but also concerned the loss of open space, the fact that the housing was unaffordable, loss of bookshop and the provision of council offices, none of which were to be consulted on. Keep Willesden Green had wanted the Council to start again from scratch and involve local people from the start. Beth angrily stated that the provision of council offices was a matter for the council and nothing to do the public, only the Council  knew what they needed.

In the light of the above I asked that Keep Willesden Green be given the space to make their case to the public in the interests of openness and democracy.  To rumbles of disagreement she said that she did not think KWG was representative but added that it had been added to the list of special interest  groups to be consulted in September.   She responded more positively to a suggestion that there should be an ongoing  group to work on the proposals, possibly as part of the Willesden Town Team, or as a separate group.

Brent Council consults on carers' services

The following notice has been published on the Brent Council website:

Carers are invited to have their say on Brent Council and NHS Brent's proposals for the services provided to carers.

The consultation meetings will be an opportunity to discuss the:

• background to existing services 
• priorities for services for carers
• proposals and choices
• future for carers                                                                                                   

The sessions will take place on:

• Monday 27 February 2012 from 4.30pm to 8.00pm at Brent Town Hall, Committee Rooms 1,2 and 3, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 9HD
• Thursday 8 March 2012 from 12noon to 3pm at Patidar House, 22 London Road, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 7EX

LINK TO BRENT  COUNCIL CONSULTATION PAGE

To reserve your place email dipti.naker@brent.gov.uk or call 020 937 2394 by 22 February. Please advise if you have any special requirements

Poor public response to Wembley Action Plan consultation

The report on  the consultation on the Wembley Area Action Plan (Issues and Options) has now been published.  The result is very disappointing in terms of public participation with comments seldom getting into double figures for each issue and mainly limited to organisations. The report could have far reaching implications for Wembley's development and the fact that the great majority of people are unaware of this will store up problems for the future.

The document can be found HERE you need to click on the Comments tab on each section to see the responses.

Brent children agreed with Unicef 8 years ago

I was not surprised by Unicef's report published yesterday which concluded that UK children were caught in a 'materialist trap' in which parents felt pressurised to buy goods for their children. Children themselves said their their happiness depended on having more time with their families and having plenty to do outdoors.

I was involved in a consultation in 2003 on the Green Paper called Every Child Matters. The paper followed a number of high profile inquiries into the deaths of children, including some which took place in Brent. We brought together children from primary schools across Brent to hear their views on what would make them feel safe, secure and enable them to develop fully.

One of the most striking comments, that received support from pupils irrespective of the schools from which they came, was a concern that their parents had to work long hours and thus had less time to spend with their children. More than that the children also reflected on the quality of the time they they did have their parents. They described their parents as exhausted when they did get home and often irritated or short-tempered. One child said that this was when their mum or dad ended up hitting them when they did eventually get back from work.

Unicef suggest that the buying of branded goods is a way of parents compensating for the lack of time they spend with their children. In 2003 those children, now teenagers, had a simple solution. They said that wages were too low and that their parents had to work long hours or have several jobs in order to pay the bills. They said wages should be higher so that their parents could work a shorter day. They said that they would prefer to have fewer toys and gadgets and more quality time with their parents.

We are caught up in a long working hours, low wage economy with many parents working at several small jobs to earn enough to care for their family. I know of women who clean before school, work in a school in the kitchen or as a dinner lady during the day, and do an evening shift on a supermarket till in the evening. In some ways this low wage-long hours economy is supported by the tax and benefit system so that low wages are 'topped up'. Private companies are in effect subsidised and so can continue to pay low wages and maximise their profits.

As a headteacher I was always ambivalent about extended school hours that were seen as 'working parent' friendly but could see children in a school from 8am at a Breakfast Club until 6pm at an Afterschool Club - a 10 hour days for children replicating the parents' long working hours. Such provision is being eagerly advertised by academies and free schools - but at what expense to the child?

This is why the Green Party's policy on a Living Wage is so essential as a way of beginning to break out of the cycle. However Coalition policies are worsening the situation for children in many ways with cuts impacting on everything from play facilities to the ability to stay on at school to study. The housing benefit cap will have a major impact on low wage families and in Brent we are already seeing private landlords giving families notice to quit and an increase in the number forced into bed and breakfast accommodation.

Back in 2004  in reaction to the Green Paper the Mayor published a strategy document entitled 'Making London Better for All Children and Young People' - the 'All' is vital. It included the following aims:

All London’s children should have opportunities to:
• influence decisions about their city
• express their opinions on the kind of city they want
• participate in family, community and social life
• benefit from good quality, child-focused services such as health, education, social care, and housing
• be protected from exploitation, violence and abuse
• walk safely in the streets on their own
• meet friends and play
• enjoy green spaces for plants and animals
• live in an unpolluted environment
• participate in cultural events
• live as equal citizens of their city with access to every service,regardless of ethnic origin, race, religion, income, gender, disability or sexuality
 In the light of the discussions taking place in the wake of the riots we could do worse that revisit this document and renew the dialogue with children about their experiences and aspirations. As Kate Mulley, head of policy development and research at Action for Children said in reaction to the Unicef report 'The government needs to stop just hearing young people and actually listen to them'.

A child-friendly version of the Mayor's strategy is HERE

School Crossing Patrols - a matter of life or death

I had a shock when someone told me that Cllr James Powney had blogged that he agreed with me about something. LINK I feared that I would lose all my friends in the Brent Labour Party as a result. I was reassured when I read his posting. He is at pains to write, "I disagree with much of what he says, most of the time". Phew, that's all right then!

He agreed that the Scrutiny and Overview Committee was used for political grandstanding rather than meticulous examination of policy proposals but sees that only in terms of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative opposition. Of course it also applies to the Labour administration and to Labour councillors who sit on the Committee.

I referred in my article to a Willesden and Brent Times  editorial that argued it has been residents who voted for councillors who have ended up doing the councillor's work by airing concerns about controversial decisions at council meetings.  The local press, especially the Willesden and Brent  Times, have been proactive in covering the council cuts and the library closures issue. Cllr Powney however, accuses them of being weak in not exposing Liberal Democrat hypocrisy. Strange really when the WBT editorial was commenting on its own story about poor attendance at council meetings of some Liberal Democrat and Conservative politicians.

My article covered various issues to do with local democracy LINK not least that of consultation. This is an issue that was controversial under the previous Lib Dem-Con coalition (remember the Wembley Academy consultation?) as well as the current Labour administration.

The latest example is the short consultation, over a school holiday, on the cutting of school crossing patrols. I have an interest because I kicked up a fuss about the lack of one outside Park Lane Primary School in Wembley when I worked there. The school is on a sharp bend and it is hard to see traffic coming in either direction (it used to be called Blind Lane before being re-named) and it is on several bus routes. We eventually won a patrol and Tracey, the officer appointed, became a much-loved member of the school community.

This is one of those issues which is literally a matter of 'life and death' (or serious injury) and one that deserves serious consideration. It is not enough to say that if schools are concerned they can pay for their own crossing patrol out of their hard-pressed annual budgets. The council has a responsibility for the safety and well-being of the community, especially vulnerable members such as children. We encourage children to walk to school for good environmental and health reasons but should not put them at risk. The lack of a patrol may result in parents going back to taking children to school in their cars with a resultant increase in  traffic congestion and pollution.

HAVE YOUR SAY ON NEW TRAUMA AND STROKE SERVICES

Healthcare for London is currently consulting on proposals for two new services. The consultation closes on May 8th 2009:

• new trauma networks based around three or four new major trauma centres



• new hyper-acute stroke units and transient ischaemic attack (TIA sometimes called mini stroke) services

The first proposal is for three or four networks centring around one hospital designated a major trauma centre, serving local hospitals designated trauma centres. The major trauma centre would provide 24/7 immediate treatment for the most serious injuries. Local trauma centres will treat people with less serious injuries.

TRAUMA OPTIONS

1. Four trauma networks - Major trauma centres at Royal London Hospital, King's College, St George's (all working by April 2010) and St Mary's (by April 2012). Northwick Park and Central Middlesex linked to St Mary's Paddington.

2. Four trauma networks - The first three as above and the fourth, the Royal Free, working by April 2012. Northwick Park and Central Middlesex would be linked to the Royal Free.

3. Three trauma networks- Just the first three with Northwick Park and Central Middlesex linked to the Royal London.

Option 1 is the preferred option as it would give wider coverage and St Mary's would deal with a small number of local hospitals. It is also closer to central London, Heathrow and Brent. Option 3 may be preferred as it would be quicker to set up. You can express an option preference.

STROKE OPTIONS

Healthcare are proposing:

1. 8 Hyper-acute stroke units - these will provide immediate response to a stroke for the first 72 hours or until the patient has stabilised.

2. 20 Stroke units - these will provide ongoing care once a patient is stabilised including multi-therapy rehabilitation

3. TIA Services - these Will provide rapid assessment and access to a specialist within 24 hours for high-risk patients or 7 days for low-risk patients.

Northwick Park is a preferred option for all three services.

Further details

Questionnaire

ARK on the rocks?

Tuesday April 7th has been fixed as the date when the Planning Committee will hear the revised Planning Application for the permanent ARK Wembley Academy. Letters went out on the 6th March giving 14 days to respond giving a deadline of Friday March 20th. However the Council said later submissions will be considered if a decision has not yet been made.

However, potential respondents soon found that the promised revised documents were not available on the council website www.brent.gov.uk/planning.nsf (reference 08/2842) as of Sunday March 8th. The planning application is also available for inspection at the One-Stop Shop on the ground floor of Brent House, 349 High Road, Wembley, HA9 6BZ (9am-5pm Mon, Tues, Wed and Friday, 9am-1pm Thursdays). The Planning Service is also open on Wednesday evenings between 5pm-7pm at the One Stop Shop to give advice to the public on town planning matters. There is no reference to the documents being available at other One Stop Shops or Brent Libraries as is normally the case.

The documents were revised following criticism from individuals, the Wembley Park Action Group, Barn Hill Residents Association, Brent Green Party and other local groups, and the GLA. They include the Design and Access Statement, Flood Risk Assessment and Landscaping and most importantly, according to the Council, the Transportation Assessment and Travel Plan.

SUSTRANS CONSULTATION CLOSES MARCH 6TH

This is your last chance to respond to the consultation for possible cycle tracks across Fryent Country Park. Consultation closes tomorrow.

Follow the title link to fill in an on-line copy of the form or paste this into your browser:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=ARPLAq0Cxsce0uMDSLzayA%3d%3d

IS CONSULTATION A CON?

‘Consultation’ has become a buzz word – the government consults about the third runway, the post office consults about post office closures, the health service consults about ‘super surgeries’ or ‘polyclinics’, the local authority consults about graffiti, climate change, care charges for elders, planning including the Wembley Masterplan and the Wembley Academy.

Too often, consultation seems to offer us a way of affecting decisions but leaves us feeling disgruntled and rather cheated. What starts as an extension and deepening of democracy leaves us cynical about decision makers and politicians. Despite a fight post offices closed, despite a fight Heathrow expansion is going ahead.

“It doesn’t make a difference. They’ve already decided anyway.”

For Brent Council I suggest the questions should be:

1. What do we consult about? When do we decide a consultation is necessary? How do we justify not consulting on some issues? It sometimes seems that the most controversial issues are not directly consulted about. We had no consultation about whether the people of Brent were in favour of City Academies as a form of semi-private provision (publicly funded but private controlled), little about where it should be – but were asked about its name and catchment area. We weren’t asked if we wanted a Civic Centre and the subsequent loss of the Town Hall, but were asked (rather glossily and expensively) about graffiti. A new contract has been awarded for play-services but the clubs and clients were not consulted during the bidding process. The new provider, ‘Kids’ has an odd trio of patrons (David Cameron, Cherie Blair and Elton John) and its inadequacies have been exposed by Private Eye – Kensington and Chelsea have already thrown it out.
2. How do we consult? It is not just a question of Area Forums, questionnaires in Brent Magazine, meetings with the Youth Parliament, on line forms, focus groups etc but what information is made available, how and when. There are major questions of accessibility. Having to down-load tens of multi-paged documents is not an option for all, working out from cryptic list of documents on the planning site which are relevant is a full-time job, trying to get hold of documents at libraries and one stop shops can be a marathon under-taking. Timing is crucial major increases in care charges were consulted about over the Christmas holidays when day centres and voluntary organisations were closed. The most telling recent case has been the Wembley Masterplan when local residents and businesses (small and large) were forced to form the Wembley Community Association because they were so enraged by the Council’s failure to reach the people most affected. They managed to force an extension of the consultation process so that they could put their case against the opening up of North End Road and for a more realistic project to be completed sooner. An approach reinforced by Quintian’s comment that the Masterplan was ‘unrealistic, undeliverable and unaffordable and the Govt Office for London demanding more convincing evidence of ‘realism and deliverability’.
3. How good is the quality of information we use for consultation? This includes the quality of questionnaires and whether they enable credible, useful information to be gained (e.g. school places question on school size gave no opportunity to state a preferred size – only to agree/disagree with Council policy); the quality of the often expensive reports carried out by consultants; whether reports actually do the job they are supposed to (the traffic survey for Wembley Academy assume Wembley Primary and Preston Manor pattern of trips to school when children will be travelling from South Brent, flood report says no evidence of local watercourses from street names when Brook Avenue and Kenbrook are nearby - duh!)

4. How fair are our consultation procedures? This relates to accessibility of information as above but also who is consulted and to what lengths we go to reach everyone. The Climate Change Strategy, Wembley Masterplan consultation, and the Care Charges consultation have all had to be extended to give people more time to respond – and it is to Brent Council’s credit that it has bowed to public clamour and done that. But there have also been complaints about the geographical limits of consultation and the need to write to more people and involve the ‘hard to reach’. A colleague has also raised the question of payment for attendance at Focus Group meetings, whether such payments are just known to those ‘in the know’, and how such payments stand ethically. How do you get on a focus group and how are they constructed to give a fair representation?

Perhaps more important is the question:
Does consultation raise unrealistic expectations about changing or reversing decisions? If consultation is really only about small, often cosmetic changes, perhaps it is best to say that at the outset rather than mislead people into thinking they can make any substantial impact on a decision and alienate them by seeming to ignore their well-thought out arguments. After all the ultimate consultation is at election time but if people are fed up with consultations, and thus also with politicians by then, they probably won’t vote.

What we (the people) should be demanding:

Don’t be humbly grateful to be granted a small say – instead:

Demand Council learn from recent problems:

· Widen consultation
· Ensure accessible and high quality documentation
· Ensure procedures are fair with adequate time lines

To strengthen democracy and accountability