We want OUR library back!

From the Friends of Preston Library
 

Elections to Brent Council are less than a month away. We are holding a public meeting at 7.30 on Wednesday May 7 in St Erconwald's Church Hall, Carlton Avenue East HA9 8NB (flyer attached).  We have invited all the local candidates. In three of the four wards served by Preston Library, seats changed hands at the last election. They need your votes, and this is your chance to tell them what you think.

It's over two years since Brent closed six of the borough's libraries, and much of what we said would happen has happened. Brent's libraries are now, on almost every measure in the official statistics, amongst the poorest performers in London. We know that many people in the Preston area have been deprived of their library service - only yesterday someone who lives a few hundred yards from Preston Library was telling me that her daughter now struggles to find study space in the new Civic Centre Library.

The Preston Library building is still in public hands, and will be vactated by Preston Park School next year. Please come to St Erconwald's next week, and tell the politicians that we want our library back!

What do Brent councillors think about deferral of Kensal Rise planning application?

A lively and at times passionate debate is taking place on these pages over the redevelopment of the Kensal Rise building.

The article has attracted more comments than  almost any other on this blog and I am posting this to invite readers who may have missed it to join in.

In particular I am inviting councillors and council election candidates to respond to what is clearly an important local matter.

One major theme is whether the planning application should be deferred until after police have completed their investigation into the alleged fraudulent emails submitted in support of the developer Andrew Gillick's previous planning application. LINK

Other matters include whether the space offered to the trustees of Friends of Kensal Rise Library for a community library is sufficient, and how robust that agreement is.

The original article by the trustees of the Friends of Kensal Rise Library and subsequent comments can be seen HERE

Since this was written responses have started coming in via Twitter. I will update here:

1. Martin Francis ‏@WembleyMatters 1h

   .@CllrButt What do you think? http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/what-do-brent-councillors-think-about.html …
2. Cllr. Muhammed Butt ‏@CllrButt 1h

   .@WembleyMatters we have a statutory responsibility to look at application. 1000's apps in Brent. Do we check the person or application

   
   

    Vicky Zentner ‏@vickyzentner 56m

   @WembleyMatters @CllrButt isn't ignoring the suspicion over fraudulent emails at very least morally wrong and at worst, collusion?
3. Meg Howarth ‏@howarthm 47m

   @CllrButt Both person& app.need flagging up.Planning cmtee statutorily independent&can vote to defer hearing>
4. Alex Colas ‏@AlexWG2014 18m
   

   .@WembleyMatters Planning cmtee should defer decision on this application until investigation into fraud allegations are completed.

@WembleyMatters 1/2 Strongly agree planning app should be deferred until outcome of investigation. Result might invalidate, for example. Alison Hopkins  @Hopkins_Alison   @WembleyMatters 2/2 FKRL know if space enough. I want VERY watertight legal guarantees. I've bad experiences with developers (Brent X!

Community, councillors, Assembly Member and MP rally behind Queensbury Pub campaign -decision tonight

Making community representations to the Planning Committee

Brent's Planning Committee will tonight decide whether to accept the officer's recommedation to approve Fairview's planning application, subject to Section 106 conditions*, to demolish the Queensbury Pub in Willesden Green, and replace with a 10 storey block, or to refuse planning permission.

At the time of writing campaigners have not yet heard how many of the public will be allowed to speak and it could be limited to just two. Local councillors are also likely to speak.

These are the most frequent obkections made by local residents (number of objections in brackets)

Loss of the Queensbury Pub and Busy Rascals which are both important local community facilities (140)

Height of replacement building too tall with surrounding area and modern design out of keeping the character of the area (105)

Replacement building is inappropriate and detracts from the character of the Mapesbury Conservation Area and setting of nearby heritage assets including Willesden Green Underground Station (69)

Demolition of existing building (68)

Designation of pub as Asset of Community Value should require its protection and be a material planning consideration (43)

Loss of existing pub will affect the wider regeneration of the area. Reference made to loss of the Deli on Walm Lane and loss of other community facilities including the Spotted Dog Pub and Willesden Library (41)

Replacement community space within the new building does not adequately compensate for the loss of the Queensbury Pub and Busy Rascals (33)

Lack of residential parking will lead to further congestion on surrounding roads (31)

The site is large enough to be redeveloped whilst retaining the existing building for use by The Queensbury public house and Busy Rascals. Housing can be provided elsewhere within the site.(26)

Lack of affordable housing within the scheme (26)

The Planning Committe is statutorily independent of the Council and therefore not whipped but these are representations made by councillors representing Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative parties and a Labour Assembly Member and a Liberal Democrat MP :

 

Councillor Krupesh Hirani (Dudden Hill Ward) - objection raised based on a representation received from a constituent that wishes not to see the site replaced by flats.

Councillor Christopher Leaman (Mapesbury Ward) - Objections raised on the grounds of the loss of the

community facility (The Queensbury public house and Busy Rascals) and the design is not in keeping with the area.

Councillor Carol Shaw (Brondesbury Park Ward) - Objections raised for the following reasons:- (1) The Queensbury Pub has been listed as an Asset of Community value and therefore needs to be protected and not demolished; (2) loss of public house which is a community facility; (3) loss of building in a conservation area; (4) replacement building does not fit in with its surroundings and will adversely impact on setting of other listed buildings in the area; and (5) increased traffic, noise and pollution.

Councillor Aslam Choudry (Dudden Hill Ward) - Objections raised to the planning application.

Councillor Alison Hopkins (Dollis Hill Ward) - Objections raised on the grounds of the loss of the community facility (The Queensbury public house and Busy Rascals) and the design plans are not in keeping with the area.

Navin Shah Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow - Objections raised for the following reasons:- (1) Loss of public house/community facility; (2) Loss of a building in a conservation area; (3) Design - to tall for conservation area; (4) Substandard accommodation - lack of affordable housing and family sized units; and (5) development too dense for this location.

Sarah Teather MP for Brent Central- Objections raised for the following reasons:- (1) Out of character with surrounding area - too tall; (2) Loss of public amenity - building will overshadow area; (3) Substandard accommodation - lack of affordable housing and family sized units; and (4) loss of community asset, The Queensbury Pub - replacement ground floor use does not compensate for the loss of the pub and its status as an Asset of Community Value should be a material planning consideration.

The Save The Queensbury Campaign submitted a letter of objection and a petition with 4,011 signatures and objections were also made by the North london branch of the Campaign for Real Ale, Mapesbury Residents' Assocation and North West Two Residents' Association.
 
The meeting is at 7pm this evening at Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley.  Follow events on Twitter @QueensburySOS

* SECTION 106 DETAILS

The application requires a Section 106 Agreement, in order to secure the following benefits:-

(i) Payment of the Council's legal and other professional costs on completion of the deed in (a) preparing and completing the agreement and (b) monitoring its performance.

(ii) Notification of material start 28 days prior to commencement;

(iii) Affordable Housing - 10 shared ownership units (3 x one-bed, 3 x two-bed and 4 x three-bed) + £138,346 offsite contribution + financial review mechanism on an open book basis;

(iv)Community Access Plan - to secure a minimum of 18 hours per week for community use, requirement to find alternative accommodation for Busy Rascals (existing community use) during the construction period; and provision for the ancillary community space to continue to operate in the event that the A4 use is not occupied;

(v) Sustainability - submission and compliance with the Council's Sustainability check-list ensuring a minimum of 48.4% score is achieved. Compliance with Code for Sustainable Homes Code Level 3 and carbon reduction of 40% improvement on 2010 Building Regulation (with compensation should it not be delivered);

(vi) Notify Brent 2 Work of forthcoming job and training opportunities associated with the development;

(vii) Join and adhere to the Considerate Contractors scheme;

(viii) Provision of a Travel Plan for the site;

(ix) Enter into a permit free arrangement to remove the rights of future residents and visitors being able to apply for a permit to park on neighbouring streets

CIL DETAILS

This application is liable to pay the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The total amount is £1,382,214.75 of which £1,167,110.71 is Brent CIL and £215,104.04 is Mayoral CIL

Copland students challenge councillors over ARK forced academisation

Copland students on the picket line

Around 400 Copland school students have signed a petition* to Brent councillors over the forced academisation of their school. A headteacher from the Ark stable has already been appointed. Copland was the last non-academy/non-faith secondary school left in the London Borough of Brent.

The petition states:

PETITION TO KEEP COPLAND A COMMUNITY SCHOOL

We believe it unfair that we have not been listened to regarding the future of our school. We do not want our school to be linked to Ark Academies, We believe that school requires more resources and more permanent teachers.

As Brent Green Party's spokesperson on Children and Families I fully support  the students' petition. It is not just school students who are denied a voice on forced academies but also school staff, parents and the local community.

This is the letter that accompanied the petition:

Dear Councillors,

I am a student at Copland School and I amk sending this petition on behalf of hundreds of students. Probably everyone in the school would have signed it but we did not have permisison to go around classes with it. As soon as Ofsted visited our school last year we collected a petition of hundreds of names and handed it to Brent Council. No-one admitted seeing the petition and so it was ignored, We have now collected hundreds of more of signatuires and this time we have photocopied it and are sending it to every councillor.

I am not including my name and address for I know that our teacheres have contacted all of the councillors but have received very few replies so you will probably not reply to me either and I am frightened of what would happen if ARK Academy found out that I write this letter.

I have some questions:

1. Is it fair that our last petition was ignored?
2.Will you do anything about this petition?
3. Is it fair that staff were sacked at Christmas and now we have no mentoring department at Copland?
4. Is it fair that staff were sacked at Christmas and now our school library is often closed? It even closes at lunch!
5. I know that Brent Council have closed down libraries in Brent. Is it fair that those of my fellow students who have no internet at home cannot do their homework?
6. Is it fair that over their holidays many of our teachers have been sent letters saying they will not be needed next year because there are no students to do their subjects and we will be told that we cannot do certain subjects next year because there will be no teachers for these subjects?
7. Is it fair that Ark Academy is already deciding which subjects we will not be allowed to study (Business, Drama, Media, Music, Photography etc etc)?
8. We are not interested in councillors saying that they want to do the best for us. Prove it. We have made it clear all along that we do not want to become an academy. Support us, our teachers and our parents to keep our school a Community School.
9. Why when our teachers went on strike for 6 days and we joined them on the picket line did we only see one councillor there to support us? We want to thank that one councillor.
10. Will you make it clear in public that you will help us to stop our school from being forced to become an academy?

Sincerely,

Copland Student

*Wembley Matters has seen copies of the petition and can vouch for its authenticity.

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.

How has your Brent Councillor done this year?

The end of the year is a good time to review our councillors' performance. The table below gives an overview of attendance at committees between July 8th and today. Some councillors have many more committees to attend than others and opposition councillors often complain that the present system gives them very little voice (and thus motivation to attend?) when decisions are rubber-stamped by the Labour only  Executive and committees with in-built Labour majorities.

The Green Party has policy on this:

The Green Party believes that local authorities run by single party cabinets, or by directly elected mayors, are not in the best interests of local democracy. They take decision making powers away from councils as a whole and place them in the hands of a few individuals, leading to the disenfranchisement of those councillors who are not in the ruling party and the citizens they represent. We would therefore reintroduce the committee system across local government at all levels, which provides for direct member involvement in decision making.

The Greens also have a policy of recall if 40% or more registered electors request it.

The columns below in order list: Name, Party, Number of Required Attendances, Actual Attendances, Percentage Attendance and Additional Attendances at meetings where their attendance is not required. The latter are often meetings where a councillor represents the interests of his/her ward to the committee. Barry Cheese has the best record on that count.

Councillor Abdi Aden	Lab	12	9	75%	2
Councillor Michael Adeyeye	Lab	2	2	100%	0
Councillor Emad Al-Ebadi	Lab	9	7	78%	1
Councillor James Allie	Lab	5	3	60%	0
Councillor Mary Arnold	Lab	12	12	100%	0
Councillor Javaid Ashraf	LD	6	5	83%	0
Councillor Joyce Bacchus	Lab	5	4	80%	0
Councillor Eddie Baker	Con	10	5	50%	0
Councillor Jack Beck	LD	3	2	67%	0
Councillor Lincoln Beswick MBE	Lab	2	1	50%	0
Councillor Daniel Brown	LD	15	8	53%	1
Councillor Muhammed Butt	Lab	14	13	93%	2
Councillor Barry Cheese	LD	6	6	100%	10
Councillor Bhagwanji Chohan	Lab	9	8	89%	8
Councillor Shafique Choudhary	Lab	9	8	89%	6
Councillor M Aslam Choudry	Lab	11	9	82%	2
David Clues	Ex LD	5	0	0%	0
Councillor Reg Colwill	Con	9	7	78%	0
Councillor George Crane	Lab	15	13	87%	0
Councillor Mark Cummins	LD	11	11	100%	1
Councillor Mary Daly	Lab	6	5	83%	3
Councillor James Denselow	Lab	16	11	69%	0
Councillor Helga Gladbaum	Lab	10	10	100%	1
Councillor Simon Green	LD	5	2	40%	0
Councillor Patricia Harrison	Lab	19	16	84%	2
Councillor Sami Hashmi	LD	12	11	92%	6
Councillor Claudia Hector	Lab	10	10	100%	1
Councillor Krupesh Hirani	Lab	15	11	73%	1
Councillor Alison Hopkins	LD	12	11	92%	0
Councillor Jean Hossain	Lab	12	11	92%	0
Councillor Ann Hunter	LD	10	8	73%	0
Councillor Ann John OBE	Lab	9	5	56%	0
Councillor Lesley Jones	Lab	11	9	82%	0
Councillor Sandra Kabir	Lab	10	8	80%	0
Councillor Suresh Kansagra	Con	6	5	83%	0
Councillor Dhiraj Kataria	LD*	16	13	81%	0
Councillor Chris Leaman	LD	5	3	60%	0
Councillor Janice Long	Lab	10	10	100%	0
Councillor Paul Lorber	LD	9	7	78%	6
Councillor Roxanne Mashari	Lab	17	12	71%	1
Councillor Hayley Matthews	LD	6	2	33%	0
Councillor Margaret McLennan	Lab	12	12	100%	0
Councillor Jim Moher	Lab	14	12	86%	1
Councillor Ruth Moher	Lab	21	20	95%	1
Councillor Colum Moloney	Lab	3	3	100%	0
Councillor Wilhelmina Mitchell Murray	Lab	9	6	67%	0
Councillor Kana Naheerathan	Lab	2	1	50%	0
Councillor Benjamin Ogunro	Lab	4	4	100%	0
Councillor Tayo Oladapo	Lab	3	3	100%	1
Councillor Bhiku Patel	Con	4	4	100%	0
Councillor Chandubhai J Patel	LD	12	3	25%	1
Councillor Harshadbhai Patel	Con	14	11	79%	4
Councillor Harihar Patel	Con	7	6	86%	0
Councillor Ramesh Patel	Lab	11	8	73%	1
Councillor Michael Pavey	Lab	17	15	88%	1
Councillor James Powney	Lab	12	9	75%	0
Councillor Carol Shaw	Con**	2	2	100%	1
Councillor Ketan Sheth	Lab	18	12	67%	0
Councillor Krupa Sheth	Lab	6	5	83%	0
Councillor Harbhajan Singh	Lab	9	7	78%	0
Councillor Gavin Sneddon	LD	3	1	33%	0
Councillor Bobby Thomas	Mayor	2	2	100%	0
Councillor Zaffar Van Kalwala	Lab	11	8	73%	1

* Defected from Labour to Liberal Democrat

** Defected from Liberal Democrats back to Conservative

Clearly committee attendance is only one measure and the amount of casework and how much of it is successful is important as well as the degree of visibility and engagement of each individual councillor with their residents.

Please note some of these non-attendances may include illness. Apologies for absence are included on the Council website - click on councillor's name.