Cash-strapped QPCS Academy withdraws licensing application after residents claimed 'You're turning the school into a pub or night club'

A licensing application made by Queens Park Community School that had  attracted strong opposition from some neighbouring residents as well as minority support from some concerned about education funding cuts has been withdrawn according to the Kilburn Times LINK . An application for a 3G floodlit football training pitch is going ahead. The school said it had 'heard residents concerns' about the licensing application but would use the income from lets of the pitch to the benefit of pupils.

Opponents claimed that the licensing hours of 10am to 23.30 (including 'drink up time') were unreasonable with some claiming that this amounted to a change of use from an educational premises to an entertainment venue. Noise and anti-social behaviour were cited as having a negative impact on a residential area while others questioned whether alcohol should be served when children are present on the premises.

An example of the  objectors' arguments can be found HERE.

Those supporting the application included some governors and ex-governors of the school who said that the school needed to generate an additional income in an era of education cuts and that entertainment offered at the school (live entertainment, recorded music, performance of dance, film screenings) would be to the benefit of the community as well as making an offer of a large venue for weddings, celebrations etc. They claimed that the school has promised sufficient detailed safeguards to address residents' concerns. A example of a supportive comment which details the safeguards is available HERE.

There were 67 objections and 19 supportive comments.

A key aspect of any licensing application is the view of the local police. They objected to the application and listed  conditions that would need to be met if it were to be approved. HERE

Queens Park Community School is not run by Brent Council. It is a Co-operative Society Academy.

 The applications are symptomatic of the increasing desperation of schools to win additional income streams from their premises faced with funding cuts. Brent Council recently took action against local schools that let their playgrounds out for Event Day parking cutting off that additional income stream.

Proposed Selective Landlord Licensing Scheme stigmatises the poor and could lead to evictions

The Brent Council Executive on August 26th will be asked to approve a Selective Landlord Licensing Scheme in the private rented sector LINK  covering Harlesden, Wembley Central and Willesden Green wards. The charge to landlords will be £350 for the 5 year licensing period.

Here Scott Bartle of Brent Green Party gives a personal view on the proposals:

I thoroughly disagree with Brent Council’s proposed  Selective Landlord Licensing  Scheme. The basic premise is that selective licensing will reduce anti-social behaviour as opposed to the version Brighton and Hove Council LINK wishes to introduce which suggests that selective licensing will help tenants with rogue landlords.

Brent Council state that selective licensing will affect people from the lowest socio-economic demographics living in the lowest cost accommodation.

They are therefore in effect disparaging an entire group of people as trouble makers and are stigmatising people. 

In Reference Section 7 (pg 55) of the responses they acknowledge that the examples they used as 'anti-social behaviour' are covered by existing laws and that selective licensing will not have any impact.

In Reference Section 9 (page 56) it states that:

The council full accepts that tenants rather than landlords are responsible for anti-social behaviour.

References 7 & 9 clearly go against the core premise for introduction of this scheme. In Reference Section 15 the council acknowledges that due to austerity they have resource constraints and will have difficulty implementing the policy.

After reading the rest of the responses I'm convinced that this is part of the gentrification / social cleansing agenda and also a way to get money from people that will not be subject to the garden tax. They even state on the Equalities Impact section (pg117) that landlords could choose to withdraw from the sector leading to evictions with the risk  particularly pronounced for the people that this policy is specifically targeting

Brent Labour, Increasing Inequality for the working poor

Guest Blog by Scott Bartle who was the Green Party candidate for Mapesbury ward in the local election

The Private Rented Sector Licensing Consultation.

Brent Council have released their consultation paper for the Private Rented Sector Licensing.
The consultation can be found HERE

This was initially discussed at the Brent Council Executive Meeting on Tuesday 22nd April 2014.

What I am interested in, as I'm sure you are is Council's making policy based upon firm evidence, but the research this private rented sector licensing is based upon is very shoddy, hence its very important for people to have their say in the consultation.

After a review of the research it is clear that

1)The  anti-social behaviour and the case scenarios that are described in the report are best dealt with by the police who have relevant anti-social behaviour orders to do with it. There is a lot of conflation between Anti-social behaviour and criminal acts.

2) The sample size of people that responded was too small. In total 121 households renting in the private sector out of 20,182 spoke to the researchers (and 67 from other tentures). Their perspectives can not be considered representative, and their responses will be bias as they would have had a specific interest to speak to the researchers.

Of these: only 3 people from Mapesbury ward responded and according the map these are people living in housing association properties and A> will not be affected by the tax and B> due to the nature of their accommodation (and the nature of the banding system) have a higher likelihood of vulnerable people with various difficulties living in the properties.

3) HQN analysed both the Council and Police data to map anti-social and some criminal behaviour in Brent to identify where the anti-social behaviour was most concentrated. The 'anti-social' of highest frequency relates to litter and flytipping.

At the Executive Council Meeting on 22 Apr 2014 7.00 pm - Councillor Butt admitted that the data is corrupted by people that do not live in the area (such as tourists visiting Wembley Stadium dropping litter). Similarly one might ask if people would really 'poo on their own doorstep' & flytip in their own local area. Often the flytip appears to be related to building works and could thus be identified as being left by people who are only in the area on short term contracts. Similarly, in Mapesbury the data is skewed by the number of adhoc workers on Chichele Road who litter etc who the local dispersal order was directed towards.

In table 3: The majority of the acts listed are criminal acts and are already dealt with by the police.
e.g. violence theft etc. Therefore one might ask if it is the role of the Council (and if they really have the budget) to try and do police work.

4) Similarly, they include 'burglary' in this statistics to evidence why they should put this tax upon tenants and landlords who are both equally likely to be victims of burglary. This policy will clearly not be effective in solving 'burglarly' as an 'anti-social behaviour' by placing a tax on the very people that are affected.

HQN has analysed both Council and Police data to map anti-social and some criminal behaviour in Brent to identify where anti-social behaviour is most concentrated.

5) The research talks of problems with HMO's (Houses of Multiple Occupancy) which indicates a [quoted from the report] "A significant problem with the mangement and condition of HMOs in Brent." - I would like to point out that HMOs are ALREADY Subject to mandatory licensing under the Housing Act 2004 and are already under eye of Brent Council. However, they are reported STILL be a significant problem. This is further evidence that this Private Rented Sector Licensing policy will not be effective at what it proposes to do and will only serve to penalise residents in Brent for an issue that it is clearly not possible for the council to deal with.

6. The consultation paperwork shows that The Enforcement Team in Brent’s Private Housing Services unit records its activities dealing with sub-standard accommodation in the private rented sector. Yet prosecutions are very low - less than one a year. his is further evidence to show that sub-standard accommodation is not an issue that Brent Council can affect real change with. There is also no evidence to suggest changing the accommodation will reduce anti-social behaviour.

7. Punishing the residents of Brent for increased littering or flytip due to a failure in contract negotiations with Veolia very unfair. According to the results of a freedom of information request Brent did not ringfence funding for specific tasks when they outsourced the public the service to a private company. The primary aim of a private company is to make profits therefore based upon the reduction in service, the poor collection of bins and additional issues experienced with Veolia it is clear they are squeezing service to increase their income.

8) The final figures in the report states that the six wards where the most anti-social behaviour was recorded were, in order:

Willesden Green, Mapesbury, Wembley Central, Aperton, Northwick Park and Harlesden.

In the report the authors state themselves that "the number of incidents was small - less than 35 a year."

35 divided by the 21 wards in Brent = 1.6* incidents, per ward per year.

This is evidence that the only purpose for this policy can be for income generation and this a stealth tax.

We must remember, that a council tax increase has already been proposed so it is unclear if this is a fair way to deal with the issue.

At the beginning of the consultation it states:

"Brent’s private rented sector has over 35,000 properties many of which offer good accommodation but some are of poor quality. There is evidence that poor quality accommodation can contribute to anti-social behaviour and there may be other associated problems including overcrowding."

It is well known that 'poor quality accommodation' is often lived in my people with limited means and is generally considered to be an indicator of people living in Poverty. Ergo - with this policy they are blaming the poor for 'anti-social behaviour' and wish to tackle this by a licensing the landlords, who will pass the costs on to the tenants thereby further increasing inequality and making the people who live in this accommodation poorer. Also worrying is the parallels this has to the 1986 Westminter 'homes for votes' scandal where the conservatives allegedly aimed to force out the poorer sections of society to increase their vote share.

Most people everywhere have concerns relating to 'anti-social behaviour' and the people in Mapesbury would be no different in that regard, but the question is if the research this policy is based upon and the problem it purports to solve is sound. In this case, the research is not as it conflates 'anti-social behaviour' with criminal behaviour and also confuses correlation with causation. It is ill thought out and is clearly not the solution to the issue.

Reference:

a) The Consultation details on the Brent Website HERE

b) The details from the Executive Meeting HERE

Make your views known on Landlord Licensing extension

Brent Council is consulting on a licensing scheme for landlords in the private sector. Although  this could be very useful in terms of ensuring the safety and quality of premises, the fair treatment of tenants and might help with issues such as furniture dumping when tenancies change, there are concerns from some that it could be used in conjunction with UKBA to check on the immigration status of tenants. This could result in driving landlords underground and thus defeat the main object of the scheme.

This is Brent Council's communication:

The council already operates a Mandatory Licensing Scheme that covers larger houses with multiple occupation. We are consulting on proposals to introduce Additional Licensing Scheme that would cover smaller houses with multiple occupation across the borough as well as a Selective Scheme that would cover all privately rented homes.

The selective scheme is proposed for three wards – Harlesden, Willesden Green and Wembley Central but we would also be interested to hear your views on whether it should cover a wider area.

Please click on the relevant link below to give us your views:

Tenants and residents’ survey

Landlords and managing agents’ survey

Was Brent Council's leafleting licensing a success?

Brent Council's revised regulations regarding the licensing of leaflet distribution designated areas  the borough caused considerable controversy last Spring. Initially said to be aimed at limiting litter during the Olympics it was later justified as merely tightening up existing regulations. LINK

There were concerns that voluntary organisations and campaigning groups may have had to request a licence months in  advance of any events and the impact this would make on free speech. The complex regulations seemed to be using a sledgehammer to break a nut and suspicions that it was a disguised money making venture that would impact on small business.

No one has come to me to say that 'political' leafleting has been affected but I made a Freedom of Information request top find out how much licensing had actually take place.

I got a very quick response (thanks, Yogini Patel ) and here are answers to my questions (Answer in bold):

1. How many licences were issued after the introduction of the new regulations up to December 31st 2012?  20
   

2. How many were refused? 4

3. List the number of licences issued for each designated area? Wembley 18, Neasden 2

4. List the number of licences issued during the period of the Olympic Games 2012 compared with the normal period. 9 during Olympics, 11 outside Olympics 


5. How many unlicensed distributors were given warnings by council officers? 28

6. How many leaflets were confiscated from unlicensed operators and on how many occasions was this? Leaflets were confiscated on 15 occasions ranging from 150-300 on each occasion

6. How much increase was there in the amount of littering in designated areas during the Olympic Games 2012 compared with normal times? This information is not gathered but observations suggest that during the Olympics streets appeared to have less litter.

Leaflet Licensing: regulation gone mad?

Would he fire Ann John?

Despite the Council's clarification of their understanding of 'political purposes' I am still very sceptical about their proposed leaflet licensing system and whether they will be able to enforce it.  For those of you who have not been able (or could not face) downloading the document I print below the proposed Licence Conditions for Distribution of Free Literature.  It made me feel sorry for the poor small businesses trying to make a crust faced with this tangle of regulation.

All licences will be subject to the following standard conditions. Licences may also be subject to specific conditions based upon the application details.

1. All staff engaged in the distribution of free literature shall wear an authorisation badge with photograph of the distributor issued by Brent Council bearing the licence number and showing the name, address and contact telephone number of the licence holder so that it is clearly visible.

2. The above authorisation shall be produced on demand to an authorised officer of the Council or other relevant agency, such as the police.

3. All staff engaged in the distribution of free literature shall wear a hi-visibility safety tabard provided by the licence holder and marked ‘Authorised Distributor’.

4. No free literature shall be left unattended by staff for the general public to take at their discretion.

5. All places in the vicinity of free literature distribution, must be kept free of discarded literature so that the area does not fall below grade B of the Government’s Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse at any time. If an authorised officer of the council judges that the standard has been breached as a consequence of the distribution of free materials, his judgement will be definitive at the time. Challenges to that assessment will only be accepted

through the formal appeal process.

6. The free literature must bear the name and address of the licence holder who is responsible for its distribution unless exemptions have been agreed by the Council.

7. Applications for consent must be made not less than 14 days before the required date for the distribution of free literature.

8. Licences will be subject to the payment of a fee to be paid at the time of the application.

9. No free literature shall be placed on, attached to, affixed to vehicles, buildings, street furniture, telephone boxes or structures.

10. No free literature which encourages irresponsible consumption of alcohol can be distributed. This includes examples of: offering free alcoholic drinks; drink vouches; discounted drink offers; all in bar offers; unduly cheap sales; happy hours and similar promotions. It is recommended that responsible promotions for alcohol carry the Drink Aware message.

11. If an authorised officer requests the consented staff to pick up discarded literature, the staff member shall do so immediately.

12. If litter is created which is in need of urgent clean up, the licence holder will be liable for the full cost of the necessary street cleaning operation.

Can you imagine the contestants on the Apprentice trying to tackle their assignments in Brent?

Seriously, have the Council the capacity and the police the time, to enforce this?