Brent Council: those who survived the axe (for now) and the victims

The cuts recommended to the Cabinet have now been published LINK. As expected the gap between the cuts of £54m required over two years and the £60m actually tabled during the consultation enables the Council to claim to have saved some services.

Despite recent moves by some backbench councillors to propose a rise in Council Tax of 1.99% to save some services, Council Tax is frozen for the 6th year. The councillors' move may have been too late to meet statutory deadlines.

The Budget Report itself does not refer to the petition from Stonebridge Adventure Playground in detail or, as far as I can see on first perusal, does not mention the number of signatories, and instead the future of its funding is dealt with in a separate report which ties the funding into the issue of the expansion of Stonebridge Primary School, which serves to complicate the matter.

It refers to alternative provision with a complete lack  od evidence or detail and it is hard to see how they could make up for what the playground provides (from their report):

The SAP enables children and young people to take part in a range of outdoor and indoor play experiences. Outdoor activities at the SAP include: outdoor adventure play, go-karting, gardening, and sports.

Indoor activities at the SAP include: games, arts and crafts, a ball pond, Wii games, and cooking. Other linked activities include trips, access and use of a narrow boat.

The scheduled opening hours are:

• Monday – Friday term-time, 2-7pm;

• Saturdays, 11am-4pm;

• School holidays (summer, Christmas, Easter, and during the three School half-term breaks), 7am-6pm.

Some of the services which appear in the above list as 'not agreed' have other actions which will still impact on services.  Despite concersn about the capacity of the voluntart sector to take over Council functions this is a strategy adopted by the Council.

For example both CYP16 (Closing 10 children's centres) and CYP17 (Closing youth services) have agreed options (CYP1 and CYP3) that will out-source them to the voluntary sector and have the potential to reduce provision by the back door.

The proposal to transfer the management of the library services to a trust (ENS18) is to go ahead.

Energy Solutions will be expected to become self-financing but will receive a cushioning grant of £50,000 for 2015-16  during the transition,

It is worth looking at the rather contradictory statements in the Cabinet report on supporting people, that appear to doubt the capacity of the voluntary sector to provide the service but nonetheless recommend the cuts:

Proposal R&G27a would reduce the supporting people budget by £1m in 2016/17. This would be in addition to proposal R&G27, which would reduce the budget by £1.8m over two years. The current budget is £7.1m.

6.75    This additional saving would mean a significant reduction or selective cessation of services to provide supported housing and floating support of vulnerable individuals and families to assist them to maximise their independence and prevent homelessness. The service provides support to individuals with mental health needs, homeless families, ex-offenders, victims of domestic violence, young people at risk and isolated older people.

6.76    However, these services are not statutory requirements. There may be potential for VCS organisations to take on a greater burden of support for these client groups but it is very doubtful that there is capacity to do so to the extent implied by this saving in addition o the significant savings identified elsewhere in this area.

6.77    Supporting People services is a catch-all term for a variety of housing support services aimed at people who do not meet the council’s eligibility threshold for social care services. The services provided are intended to prevent clients developing greater caneeds by addressing housing issues. No significant comment has been received from the general public on this proposal, although  this may be because the term ‘supporting people’ is not well understood

6.78    Taking all of this into account leading Members have requested that officers prepare the budget on the basis that proposals R&G27 and R&G27a are agreed

The bulky waste original proposal has been modified to one free collection a year and  £25 for each additional collection.

Despite petitions opposing the cutting of school crossing patrols (ENS21) the Cabinet are recommended to approve it with schools expected to pay for the patrols themselves if they wish to retain the service. The fact that school budgets have not been reduced is cited to justify this.

The report outlines the devastating impact of the cuts on particularly groups but also argues that some have no equality implications as they affect all equally:

-->

The proposals for budgetary savings are extensive and will affect everyone living and working in Brent. The Council h as already made extensive efficiencies and is now at a point where it is not possible to achieve the level of savings required without impacting on service delivery. It is inevitable that there will be a significant impact on those vulnerable people who are the greatest users of council services, particularly older people, disabled people and children. Many of the proposals would also have some negative differentia l impacts in relation to ethnicity or gender; one or two proposals would have a severe impact on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and in relation to pregnancy and maternity. The collective set of proposals will only have minimal impacts in relation to religion o r belief.

 Some of the proposals will have a negative impact on large numbers of people, regardless of their equality characteristics. Although these proposals will be unwelcome and are likely to attract significant public reaction, they are not considered to be problematic from an equalities perspective as they will not unfairly impact on any equality group

This is necessarily only a summary of a complex document but I hope that readers will feel moved to attend the 'Brent Fight Backs' meeting on Tuesday February 17th 7pm, at Tavistock Hall, off Harlesden High Street where people affected by the cuts will have a chance to speak out.

Lastly it is worth noting the very low number of individual written responses which totalled 37 but because some covered several topics have been counted altogether as 54. Day Centres and Adult Social Care (12), School Crossing Patrols (6) and Council Tax (5) were the highest.

Lollipop patrol cuts withdrawn for time being

Officers are to recommend, following the strong responses to the consultation,  that the Council should not proceed with the cuts in school crossing patrols 'at this time'. The full receommendations are below:

2.1 Agree not to proceed with the proposed withdrawal of School Crossing Patrol officers at this time,

2.2 Agree that the Director of Environment & Neighbourhood Services, together with the Director of Children & Families, undertake a detailed consultation with schools, including governors, encouraging them to contribute voluntarily to the costs of the service and further promoting the importance of road safety
education in schools,

2.3 Agree the adoption of the risk evaluation matrix set out in Section 4.2, based on rates of vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows, additional risk factors and evaluation of mitigation, and the safety ranking of sites implied by that matrix,

2.4 Agree that this matrix be used to prioritise the deployment of school crossing patrol officers at such time when there is natural turnover of staff within the service, ensuring that sites with a higher risk assessment (with an adjusted score greater than 1x106) are prioritised for cover.

2.5 Note the prioritisation of risk mitigation measures at school crossing patrol sites, particularly the introduction of speed reduction interventions and controlled crossings that will continue to reduce the adjusted risk scores of sites.

Brent Fightback recently staged a well-publicised demonstration in Kilburn against the cuts in school crossing patrols and street sweeping. The Council received the following petitions:

1. Save Brent’s Lollipops

“I believe the safety of children is very important. I oppose Labour’s plans to scrap my local lollipop person and the school crossing patrol they provide.”(Some with above generic statement, others include specific reference to particular crossings in the borough in Sudbury, Convent of Jesus and Mary Infants, Park Avenue and High Road Willesden). (529 signatures approx.)
From: Brent Liberal Democrats

2. Petition is support of Simon Isaacs from the Parents of Gladstone Park Primary School
“We the undersigned wish to express the strongest possible support for Simon Isaacs our school
crossing patrolman. We want to emphasise the quality of his personal influence on the safety of
children. Pointing out how his happy, positive and inclusive manner affects the whole community
crucially including passing drivers with no connection to the school. This criterion to the exclusion
of others should be the most important for judging whether he remains in post.”
From: Gladstone Park Primary School PSA Committee (301 signatures approx.)

3. The proposed plans to cut the fund for our School Crossing Patrol
“We the parents and children of Leopold School and residents object to our school losing our lollipop lady during the staff cutbacks. She is a valuable community member actively preventing accidents and fatalities around the school in the morning and afternoon. We would like Brent Council to reconsider its decision and keep our lollipop lady.”

From: Leopold Primary School (321 signatures approx.)
4. Petition – objection to proposed changes to the School Crossing Patrol
“We the undersigned are deeply unhappy at Brent Council’s decision to sack 30 of the 47 School Crossing Patrol Officers currently working near Brent’s schools, despite the high rates of child injury and fatality in this country, including many tragic accidents in Brent. We are also very unhappy at Brent allowing just one month for consultation, which gives no real chance for views to be gathered or for preparations to be made. The so-called consultation process is woefully inadequate.

We therefore demand that Brent’s current plans be suspended, pending adequate consultation
and consideration of all the issues.”

Lead petitioner: George Burn (682 signatures approx.)

Making Brent A Dirty and Dangerous Borough

Brent Fightback supporters demonstrated on Kilburn High Road on Saturday morning against Brent Council's proposed cuts in street cleansing and school crossing patrols.

Most residential streets will now be only swept once a week, compared with three times under the previous administration which vowed to make Brent  'a cleaner borough'. The seasonal leaf service will be stopped with even Labour councillors warning of accidents when elderly residents slip on wet, decomposing leaves. Local solicitors should open their files now ready for a rush of custom in October when the cuts are implemented and the leaves (and the elderly) fall.

The Labour council are still reviewing school crossing patrols but intend to cut them forcing schools which want to ensure that their children are safe to pay for the crossing patrols themselves. This is a departure from the basic understanding that road safety is a responsibility of the whole community and provided through that community's local council which residents  fund.

I was just going to add as a joke that perhaps local businesses will start sponsoring lollipop patrols with their logo on the back of high visibility coats - then realised that this Council will probably leap on the idea. Or perhaps we'll end up with 'pay as you cross' with the kids thrusting 10p into the hand of the crossing patrol officer to see them across the busy roads with the ones unable to afford it having to cross at their own risk!

Protecting the vulnerable?

The full report on the street cleansing cuts can be found HERE

Brooms and Lollipops Protest in Kilburn

Brent Fightback are to hold a protest in Kilburn Square, Kilburn High Road from 11am on Saturday.

Supporters will be bringing brooms and 'lollipops' to protest against Brent Council's cuts in street sweeping and school crossing patrols. Veolia, the borough's cleaning contractor will make up to 50 street sweepers redundant in October and details of the numbers of school crossing patrols to be cut is currently under review.

The street sweeping cuts will mean that outlying residential streets will be swept just once a week instead of the three times they were swept under the previous administration.  All street sweeping in the borough will end at 2pm on Saturday and Sunday. Council officers said the event days at Wembley Stadium, when local streets are often scattered with beer cans and takeaway cartons, will come under a different budget but details have not been made clear.

The additional seasonal leaf clearance service will also end. Officers said leaves will be cleared in the normal scheduled sweep but as that it only once a week it is unclear whether workers will be able to keep on top of the job. Previously leaves were bagged and sent for composting and again it is unclear whether that will still be done. If it isn't Brent green credential will take a battering.

Concerns have been raised by residents about street safety if rotting leaves are left on pavements and become wet and icy in the autumn months.  Safety concerns have also been expressed about the safety of school children if school crossing patrol cuts go ahead. Both groups of workers suffer from low pay but are vital to the well-being of the community.

Brent Fightback welcomes any support. Please bring brooms and home-made lollipops, plus placards to Kilburn Square at 11am on Saturday.