Harrow Hill Trust's case against Harrow School development published at last

From Harrow Hill Trust:

22 Jan 2017 — Harrow Hill Trust undertook a detailed assessment of the hundreds of pages of application documents submitted to seek planning permission. (Harrow School's development on Metropolitan Open Land) This assessment included many pictures and constructive ideas and was dated 11 June 2016 and was hand delivered. Despite being hand delivered, two phone calls in the summer, which included the case officer, a further hard copy and a letter of complaint it finally appears 7 months late on the Harrow.gov.uk website. This is of course now after the first public planning meeting of 16 November. The assessment can be seen at the Harrow by searching for application P/1940/16 . Your support is appreciated. Thanks

The Harrow Council Planning Website is not exactly user friendly so I have reproduced the full submission below. Click on bottom right corner for a full page.

How London school budgets will suffer under the National Funding Formula changes - London Councils

From London Councils. Clearly we need to campaign to preserve London school funding and for an increase in the total amount spent on schools so that children outside London receive fair funding.

The National Funding Formula (NFF)will remove £19 million of funding from London’s schools.

Taking this into account as well as the increased cost pressures identified by the National Audit Office, London’s schools will need to make savings of £360 million in the first year of the new national funding formula (2018/19) to balance their books. No school will gain enough funding from the NFF to compensate for increased cost pressures due to factors such as inflation, pensions and national insurance.

As around 70 per cent of a school’s budget is spent on staff salaries, funding reductions are likely to result in fewer teachers and support staff posts in schools, as well as increased class sizes.

This is significant because top quality teachers who are motivated and highly skilled are the main reason that children make progress and achieve good results in their education.

Without the right qualifications and skills, London’s children will be unable to access jobs and contribute to the national economy. Over 60 per cent of jobs in inner London require a degree and around 45 per cent of jobs in the rest of the capital require a degree.

Analysis of the NFF shows that:

• 70 per cent of schools (over 1,500) across the capital will face budget cuts.
• The impact is widespread – 802 schools in inner London and 734 schools in outer London stand to lose funding due to the NFF.
• At least one school in every London borough will experience a reduction in funding.
• 19 London boroughs are set to lose funding, with losses ranging from 0.1 per cent to 2.8 per cent.

Combining the impact of the introduction of the NFF and wider cost pressures, headteachers at London schools will have to make savings totalling £360 million in the first year of the NFF (2018/19).

The savings required are equivalent to:

• 17,142 teaching assistant posts, on an average salary of £21,000.
• 12,857 qualified teachers, on an average salary of £28,000.
• This amounts to cutting 7.5 teaching assistant posts per school or cutting 5.6 qualified teachers posts per school, given that there are 2,297 mainstream schools in London.

If the government’s proposals are brought into effect, 70 per cent of schools in the capital will face budget cuts, on top of pre-existing funding reductions. London will also see larger reductions in funding than anywhere else in the country.

This comes on top of National Audit Office figures showing that educational standards across the country could plummet as schools in England face an 8 per cent real-terms cut per pupil by 2019/20 thanks to wider cost pressures.

Taking everything into account, London’s schools will need to make savings of £360 million in the first year of the new national funding formula in order to balance their books.

But at a time when UK schools are seen as underperforming by international standards, and when businesses based in London are facing massive uncertainty about recruiting skilled staff, there is an urgent need to invest in schools in London and across the rest of the country.

London Councils' Key Asks:

• That all children receive a great education – every child in the country deserves this.
• That the government finds an additional £335 million for the schools that stand to gain through the National Funding Formula without taking money away from other schools.
• That the government revises the draft National Funding Formula to better reflect London’s needs and to avoid a decrease in educational standards.
•  
  Key facts about London Schools 
   
  
  
  
  
  
  

   The figure is 94% in Brent
   
  London’s schools are the best in the country
  
  
• In London 89 per cent of schools are currently judged to be good or outstanding by Ofsted, the highest percentage of any region in England.
• Last year London’s schools helped pupils to achieve 60.9 per cent five A* to C GCSEs including Maths and English, the highest rate for any region and above the national average of 57.3 per cent.

London’s schools promote social mobility

• London has the highest attaining cohort of pupils on Free School Meals in the country – 48 per cent of young people on FSM in London achieved five good GCSEs as opposed to only 36.8 per cent of the same group nationally.

Recruitment and retention of teachers is a challenge in London

• Around 50 per cent of headteachers in London are approaching retirement. Schools must act now to ensure teachers in senior leadership roles are ready to become headteachers.
• Living costs are higher in London. One example of this is private sector rents, which are more than twice the national average according to the Valuation Office Agency. Schools are therefore under pressure to ensure salaries reflect this reality.

School places:

• Between 2010-2020 the school age population in London is anticipated to grow by almost 25 per cent
• 110,364 new school places will be needed in London between 2016/17 and 2021/22 to meet forecast demand. This consists of 62,934 primary places and 47,430 secondary places.
• At least £1.8 billion will be needed to provide sufficient school places in London between 2016/17 and 2021/2

 Resources on London school places and funding can be found HERE

More on the situation of schools in Brent HERE

Move to discuss Bridge Park land sale to GMH defeated by Brent Labour

I drew attention to the above notice that was posted on the Agenda of Monday's Council Meeting in a recent article LINK claiming that the public interest was not served by curtailing discussion on these important items.

At the Council Meeting Cllr Warren moved the suspension of Standing Orders to allow discussion to take place but this was heavily defeated by Labour and other councillors.

In the course of the discussion Cllr Warren, speaking to Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, referred to 'Your friend Mr Auchi'.  Sir Nadhmi Shakir Auchi is Chairman of the off-shore British Virgin Islands company General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH) which is Brent Council's partner in the redevelopment of Bridge Park.  Muhammed Butt is the lead member for the conditional land sale of the Bridge Park site to GMH.

At the Brent Cabinet on January 16th Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of the Council, said that she was 'thrilled' by the Bridge Park deal. LINK

Auchi is controversial because of a 2003 allegation of  fraud LINK and of course the whole issue of tax havens and tax avoidance is a current political issue with Jeremy Corbyn promising action by a future Labour Government.

Cllr Thomas intervened to call for Cllr Warren to withdraw his statement about 'Your friend Mr Auchi' directed at his leader, as the Council Meeting was being streamed and he wouldn't want a 'wrong impression' to be given. Warren, saying he couldn't remember exactly what  he'd said,went on to say, 'Mr Auchi has connections with the Labur Party. Let me say that. That is what I was referring to.'

The alleged link goes back to 2001 when the Guardian published an article entitled 'A Tycoon, a Minister and Interpol' LINK and involved Keith Vaz MP.

You can see the live stream and the vote on suspensions of standing orders here:

NHS market rent demand threatens the future of Brent Advocacy Concern

I asked to speak at the Brent Health and Wellbeing Board  yesterday on behalf of Brent Advocacy Concern who were at another meeting, as were Cllr Butt, Leader of the Council and Cllr McLennan, Deputy Leader.

Chair Cllr Hirani, who has the discretion to allow speakers, refused my request on the ground that I had not given 24 hours notice.

My request was in response to a request from Brent Advocacy Concern, a 25 year old charity in Brent, who work with people with disabilities.

NHS England, through NHS Estates, are now charging 'market' rents on spaces in their property and this is impacting on many charities and voluntary organisations who work on health issues.  As the STP proposals involve working in 'Hubs' bringing together different services, including voluntary organisations, this is clearly an issue.

You cannot have a policy of working with voluntary organisations and then pricing them out.  This impacts on the whole strategy of prevention and out of hospital care.

Brent Advocacy Concern received a letter from NHS England on January 11th, which had been sent to all Clinical Commissioning Groups, including Brent, about the move towards market rents.

John Healy of BAC wrote to me:

In order to stay in our office we know that we will have to pay 'rent' on the space. We will also be required to pay for 'capital costs'. Then comes the 'services charges'. Followed by the 10% Management fee. And finally  another 5% Management fee towards the overall lease. There may be other charges such as VAT but as a charity we might be exempt.

I cannot make it myself tonight, as I am booked for a council meeting at the same time.
Anyway, we will have been providing services in Brent continuously for over 25 years (we became a registered charity in Jan. 1991) but we will have to close down as soon as the NHS ASKS FOR THE MONEY.  So far they have not told us anything but I am expecting 'the bad news' anytime soon.

Maybe you or someone could ask a question as to what help might be offered to help small charities to stay within NHS properties such as The Willesden Centre for Health & Care.

That was the question I wanted to ask as it clearly affects more than just Brent Advocacy Concern. The organisation contacted Brent Healthwatch after the publication of an article outlining their situation on this blog LINK but received no response.  I spoke to Healthwatch at the meeting and gave them more details and hope that this results in some action, or at least a recognition of the problem.

John Healy added today (Wednesday):

At the last Community &Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee meeting on the 23rd of November, 2016 it was resolved that:-

(1) "Brent CCG together with NHS Property Services Ltd. develop 'a social value' policy detailing how to maximise use of void space in NHS buildings by the voluntary sector" Agenda item 5, 'NHS Estate in Brent'.

A RESOURCE THEY MIGHT FIND USEFUL CAN BE FOUND AT:-

How to keep it local--- A 5 step guide for councillors & commissioners.  It covers The Social Value Act

and it can be obtained from

Locality.org.uk

Tulip Siddiq may leave Shadow Front Bench over Article 50 vote

Tulip Siddiq, MP for  Hampstead and Kilburn, which covers three Brent wards, in a series of media interviews yesterday said she was prepared to lose her Shadow Front Bench position,  over Labour's decision to vote in favour of invoking Article 50.

She told the BBC's World at One:

 It is something I am considering not supporting and voting against because 75% of the population in Hampstead and Kilburn voted to remain.

If I’m representing the wishes of my constituents I have to make a decision accordingly and that’s how I’ll vote.
 

There are definitely things to consider about democracy and elections. I don’t want to run another referendum.

Meanwhile Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green Party made her position clear over the Surpeme Court ruling:

 This case is a win for parliamentary democracy, and a blow for those ministers who planned to railroad Brexit through without any proper scrutiny.

The spotlight now falls on MPs – and in particular the Labour Party – to properly scrutinise the Government’s plans and act accordingly. That must mean that Labour rethink the support they’ve given to triggering article 50 prematurely, and instead join those of us who refuse to be pushed into Theresa May’s artificial Brexit timetable.

It’s astonishing that Ministers ever thought it was right to trigger Article 50 without a vote in Parliament - and their battle in the courts really does expose a contempt for the democratic process within the Conservative party.

I will not be capitulating to the Tories over Brexit – and will vote against prematurely triggering Article 50 in the Spring. As the co-leader of a Party which stands for environmental, social and economic justice I will not support a Government offering no assurances to EU nationals living in Britain, threatening to turn this country into a tax haven and planning to throw us off the Brexit cliff edge by ending our membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.

Quamari Barnes Memorial Fund Appeal

A Memorial Fund has been set up to help Quamari Barnes' parents with funeral and burial expenses following his killing outside Capital City academy on Monday.  Dealing with sudden death is difficult enough without the added stress of money worries caused by funeral expenses that couldn't possible have been expected.

A Go Funding page has been set up by Quamari's God Parent Sasha Mitchell HERE:

This is what Sasha wrote about Quamari:

On January 23rd 2017, we unexpectedly lost Quamari Serunkuma Barnes in a horrific attack outside his school.

We send our children to school and trust that they are safe but Quamari was chased down outside his school gates and stabbed to death.

He was a respectful, loving good boy and it truly breaks my heart that we lost him in this way.

He wasn't in gangs, drugs or any crimes. He was just a beautiful boy who loved his friends and family.

Quamari was my Godson, and I have set up this account with the permission of his parents to support and assist them through this difficult time. They will be receiving all of the funds from this campaign.

We are asking for 20,000 to cover all funeral and burial expenses and other expenses they may incur.

Our family thanks everyone for their thoughts and prayers during this horrendous time.

We would appreciate any donations.

Please help spread the word!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/-quamari-barnes-willesden-stabbing-london-9684433

#Justice4Quamari

#QdotzWorld

Cllr Mili Patel takes on the challenge of leading on Children and Young People

Cllr Mili Patel (Alperton) has taken over the role of Lead Member for Children and Young People in the Brent Cabinet.   She succeeds Cllr Wilhelmina Mitchell-Murray whose role had been covered by Cllr Muhammed Butt since December 1st 2016 because Cllr Mitchell-Murray was said to unwell. Today the Kilburn Times has quoted Muhammed Butt as saying that Cllr Mitchell-Murray had resigned for 'personal reasons.

The resignation means that three members of the 8 strong Cabinet (Pavey, Mashari and Mitchell-Murray) have resigned since Butt's successful retention of the Labour leadership in May 2016 after a challenge from Michael Pavey.

Cllr Patel had been Lead Member for just 25 minutes when she was asked to speak at last night's Council Meeting so  understandably she limited herself to a brief introduction.

Cllr Patel went to Furness Primary School and Claremont High and is a parliamentary researcher.   She previously worked for Frank Dobbs MP. She is married to fellow Brent councillor  Matt Kelcher who is chair of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

Mili Patel is on the board of Brent Housing Partnership which is likely to be dismantled when Brent Council brings council housing back in-house.

Her other Council positions are listed as:

• Corporate Parenting Committee (Chair)
• Council
• Employees' Joint Consultative Committee
• General Purposes Committee
• Health and Wellbeing Board
• Highways Committee

The Children and Young People position is challenging at the best of time, covering as it does local authority schools, children's social work, safeguarding and the wellbeing of all young children and young people in Brent regardless of the type of school that they attend, but with funding cuts to schools in the headlines, the job is even more daunting.

Cllr Patel would have got a taste of that in the debate that took place at Council on school funding  when the following Labour motion was discussed. She did not contribute to the debate.

PROTECT BRENT’S SCHOOLS FROM GOVERNMENT CUTS

This Council condemns government proposals for a National Schools Funding Formula and rejects any effort to pay for the failure of an ideologically imposed programme of austerity by choking off essential and already insufficient funding for the education of children and young people in Brent.

Councillor Patricia Harrison Preston Ward

During the debate Cllr John Warren lambasted various Labour councillors quoting the bank balances of schools where they were governors. He claimed Brent schools had up to £30m  stashed away.  He did not mention that schools have to justify these  balances to the Council  and provide evidence of the ear-marked projects to which they are allocated.

The debate can be seen here:

Brent’s 2015/16 accounts – progress on objections to the Cara Davani “pay-off

Guest blog by Philip Grant

As it is a couple of months since I wrote about the latest developments in “the Cara Davani Saga” LINK , I thought that the many “Wembley Matters” readers who are interested in this case might like an update on what has been happening.

The Auditor at Messrs KPMG dealing with the Council’s accounts to 31 March 2016 is still considering the objections from five local electors against Brent’s payment of £157,610 to its former Director of HR, so I cannot pass on any details which are still confidential at this stage. However, I hope that they will eventually come into the public domain when the Auditor has completed his enquiries.

In my guest blog of 19 November I said that I was willing to discuss the issues raised with Brent Council, along with the other objectors, as encouraged to do by the Auditor. I did ask to see a number of documents relevant to the payments I had objected to, although my request was rejected, in respect of most of them, by Brent’s Chief Finance Officer. Despite this, along with three other objectors, I met with him and the Council’s Chief Executive on the evening of 6 December 2016. The fifth objector, Cllr. John Warren, could not make that meeting, but had met with them separately earlier that day.

Although no agreement was reached, the discussions took place in a constructive atmosphere, and helped both sides to understand the other’s position. The objectors explained to Ms Downs and Mr Hall why they felt that the £157k paid to Ms Davani was wholly inappropriate expenditure for the Council to incur, and that this was money which should instead have been used to provide services for people in Brent.

The Chief Executive agreed that the whole episode did not reflect positively on the Council, and she did not dispute that elements had been poorly managed, but said that steps have since been taken to ensure that the organisation no longer operates in this way.

Much of the meeting was spent going through the list of documents I had requested to see, and discussing points arising from these. Mr Hall explained that the Council felt it could not allow the objectors to see any legally privileged advice or confidential documents (which was most of them!). However, the auditor would be provided with all of the information that is available, so that he can reach a decision based on that evidence.

Although we could not see the documents, the discussions did provide some interesting information.

We asked for more information about the circumstances which gave rise to Cara Davani leaving Brent. When Ms Downs provided a brief outline of the grounds on which the former HR Director claimed she was entitled to compensation from the Council, the objectors expressed their incredulity. I am sorry that details have to remain confidential for now, but I can say that we asked Ms Downs whether she was joking, and she said that she was not!

One surprising fact was that for many items I had asked to see, no documented evidence had yet been found, even though it should have existed. Ms Downs agreed it was unthinkable that key decisions, such as whether to take disciplinary action against Cara Davani in 2014 or whether to make a settlement agreement with her in 2015, had not been discussed with the Council Leader by the then interim Chief Executive, even though the final decision would be for Christine Gilbert to make.

The absence of any evidence of those discussions suggests that either they were entirely verbal (with no written note made of them), or that they had “off the record” written communications, or even that evidence was deleted or shredded before Ms Gilbert left Brent Council. [Dear Reader: If you can provide any definite information (not just speculation) on this matter, and are willing to share it not only with me, but also with Carolyn Downs and the Auditor, it would be helpful if you could do so, please.]

Following the meeting, Brent Council sent the Auditor its formal response to our objections on 14 December. The Council maintains its view: ‘… that the settlement payment to the former HR Director was made lawfully and that, under the circumstances that existed at the time it was agreed, it was the most appropriate way forward in order to protect the Council’s financial position.’ It recommends to the Auditor ‘… that you should either dismiss the Objections, or at any rate conclude that you should take no action in respect of them.’

Brent’s response concludes by referring to a separate letter sent to the Auditor, attaching the confidential and legally privileged documents, and makes clear that the Council does not consent to these being disclosed to anyone else (i.e. the objectors!).

I wrote to the Auditor about these documents, pointing out that he had invited the objectors to make further comments, and that it was unfair to expect us to do so without being able to see the evidence on which those comments needed to be based. Just before Christmas he did reply to say that he would share with us all of the documents which he considered material to his decision. We have not seen any of these documents yet.

The sticking point is over whether the objectors should be allowed to see the legal advice, which appears to provide the sole justification for the Council making the £157k payment to Cara Davani. The Auditor could not force Brent to disclose that advice to him, but the Council did so voluntarily, and there is a provision which allows the Auditor to disclose information: ‘…except where the disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective performance of …’ his functions as Auditor.

As well as giving an assurance that I would keep the information confidential, I have pointed out that disclosing the legal advice would actually assist the effective performance of his function as Auditor, by giving me the opportunity to either satisfy myself that the legal advice, and actions taken by the Council as a result of it, were lawful, or to explain to him why the evidence supported my objection that the payment involved was unlawful.

What I can tell you about the legal advice is that, although it is said to have been given by an employment law QC, it was not a written legal opinion from him, but a note made by a Brent Council officer of what the QC is claimed to have said. That advice was summarised by the Chief Finance Officer to Brent’s Audit Committee on 30 June 2016, as recorded in the minutes of that meeting:

‘Conrad Hall explained that in May 2015 advice had been sought from a leading QC specialising in employment law.  The QC had been recommended by the Council’s Monitoring Officer from a framework contract operated by the London boroughs legal alliance.  His advice, in conference, had in summary been that the Council lacked good grounds to conduct a fair dismissal of the Council’s former HR Director for a variety of reasons, and had it attempted to do so it was likely to have been found to have acted unfairly by an Employment Tribunal.  Conrad Hall further advised that had such a course of action been attempted then the Council had been notified that a substantial claim would have been submitted by the former HR Director and that under those circumstances the decision had been taken to seek to settle matters by way of a compromise agreement.’ 

Once we have been given the opportunity to see all the documents which the Auditor does disclose to us, all five objectors can submit their further comments. One of the points that I am likely to make is that there appears to be no evidence that Brent dismissed, or even attempted to dismiss, Cara Davani, so how could the Council be ‘… found to have acted unfairly by an Employment Tribunal’ for something that it didn’t do?

I’m afraid that readers will have to wait for the Auditor to complete his enquiries before we discover the outcome of this final attempt to get something done about what many of us feel was an injustice. I hope that the result will be worth waiting for.

Philip Grant.