Appeal to help save the Corrib

Outside the Corrib, 76-78 Salusbury Road, Queens Parkm NW6 6PA

From Friends of the Corrib

Now the Planning application is published, it’s a clear plan to KILL the CORRIB.

We urge you ALL to do one more thing to help Save the Corrib.

Please object to Brent Council Planning

EACH objection increases the chances of keeping the Corrib Community Rooms and Pub forever.

Tell the planners what the community rooms and pub mean to you and what you used it for especially the Function Rooms which had all the dance classes, pensioner meetings and other events and/or just give your views as why it should not be turned into luxury flats - as we should not lose community spaces.

You can just object to the principal of the destruction of community space, especially this one, protected by a 106 agreement protecting money originally spent by Brent when it started for the community. The more you tell them the more weight it will have.

How to object.

You can email the planning officer directly at:
barry.henn@brent.gov.uk

To be accepted by planning you do need to include your name and address in the email.
It does not matter if you are not local – you just need to feel it’s important

Please copy in savethecorrib2017@gmail.com so we can ensure that Brent note all the letters received.

OR (the most sure way)

Go on the Brent Website, register and then object on line.
Paste below into your search engine to register.

https://myaccount.brent.gov.uk/Web/PublicPages/IR1_Register.aspx_ga=1.122443147.1434451185.1368051210

Then paste in the site below

https://pa.brent.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=DCAPR_131699

Click on Make a Comment and add your concerns

Tell them things you could do and events that this place had and the value of the function rooms both in the past and into a promising future

Summary of the Developers plan.

To turn the community rooms on the first floor, into 6 luxury flats and make a £4M profit.
As a sop they have offered a function room in the pub, which will allow some community use for 3 evenings a week, making for a much reduced and commercially dead pub. Of course if the pub fails, more flats.

This planning application means the loss of 530m2 of community space, space that was originally brought with public money and is now protected by both an ACV order and by a Section 106 covenant. The 106 is a council owned legal restriction that prevents the owner building flats on the first floor. We urge Brent NOT to break this 106 covenant but to honour and cherish it.

To read the planning application in full, go to:

https://pa.brent.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=DCAPR_131699

The documents should read are:
1) 170116 - planning statement v756767850000.pdf
2) Statement of community involvement56767850001.pdf

NB: The Sir Richard Steele in Chalk Farm is a similar pub with function room and Camden and the Planning Inspector both turned down this conversion to flats so we say that Brent should do the same here.

http://archive.camdennewjournal.com/steeleappeal

Also ask friends etc. to sign the petition, we are aiming at 2000 signatures.

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-the-corrib-pubs-community-rooms

Thank you for standing with us on this issue. 

Duffy forces Council U-turn on out-sourcing

Following recent controversy about the Kingdom littering contract, including the Scrutiny Committee discussion from which the public were excluded and the revelation that no formal minutes existed for the original contract meeting between officers and Kingdom LINK, it appears that Cllr John Duffy may have achieved a break-through, forcing a re-think by the lead member and Cabinet.

I understand that following Duffy's production of figures showing that an in-house solution would offer better value for money than the Kingdom contract, that this is now likely to happen.

Duffy has maintained that the original Cabinet decision to out-source the contract wasted over £100,000 of the environmental budget at a time when council finance was under pressure from government cuts.  Duffy challenged the Cabinet's claim that Kingdom paid the London Living Wage and it does now appear that the company was not LLW accredited and that rates are far below those for similar officers directly employed in the public sector.

In an interchange earlier in the Scrutiny meeting Duffy quoted 73 fly-tipping fines versus 4,000 fixed penalty, notices mainly for dropping fag ends. Cllr Southwood said the proportion of FPNs for fag ends had been reduced to nearer 60% after talks with Kingdom. Cllr Duffy claimed that this was still still out of balance. An Environment Department officer claimed it was more difficult than people might think to get admissable evidence on the perpetrator of  fly-tipping. Even if addressed letters were found inside black bags you still had to prove the addressee was responsible for the fly-tipping.

The figures suggest that Duffy has been vindicated and that an in-house service will not only produce a better service and value for money for council tax payers but that workers involved will secure  better pay and conditions.

Tomorrow's road closures in Wembley and Kingsbury for Half Marathon

The Vitality North London Half Marathon takes place on Sunday 12th March passing through Brent  and Barnet with about 10,000 runners expected.

This will mean road closures from early morning on the Sunday:

Olympic Way (from 4.45am)
Wembley Park Boulevard (4.45am)
Royal Route (4.45am)
Perimeter Way (4.45am)
Engineers Way (6.45am)
Fulton Road (6.45am)
Brook Avenue (4.45am - between Olympic Sq access gate and Bridge Road)
Bridge Road (4.45am between Brook Avenue and Forty Lane)
Forty Lane  (7am)
The Paddocks (7am)
Fryent Way (7am)
Valley Drive (7am)
Kingsbury Road (7am between Valley Drive and Roe Green)
Roe Green (7am)
Hay Lane (7am)
Edgware Road (8.545am between Hay Lane and Colindale Avenue)
Slough Lane (7am between Kingsbury Road and Salmon Street)
Salmon Street (7am between Slough Lane and the Paddocks)

The race will start at 8am and a 'dynamic reopening schedule' will operate to ensure roads are open as soon as possible once runners have completed each section of the route and when it is safe and feasible to do so. Roads will begin to re-open from 10.15am and most will be re-opened by 12.45pm. Brook Avenue and Bridge Road will be the final roads to re-open at 1.45pm.

WEBSITE

Ofsted chief: It is the substance of education that ultimately creates and changes life chances, not grade stickers from exams.

There was a change of tone in today's speech by the new Ofsted Chief Inspector Amanda Spielman  to the ASCL which I thought was well worth publishing in full for the information of local teachers and parents. Publication does not imply agreement but rather recognition that this is an opportunity to debate wider education issues.

 
I want to start by paying particular tribute to Malcolm Trobe and his stewardship of ASCL in recent months. And I’d also like to congratulate Geoff on his election as General Secretary.

And some other thank yous. One is to my predecessor Sir Michael Wilshaw who, we can all agree, has been a tireless and outspoken advocate for higher standards and improving young people’s life chances. And having seen the number of new challenges he has set himself since stepping down, we can be sure that that zeal will continue for many years to come.

I also want to thank the wider Ofsted team for all it has done in recent years to make an inspectorate so much improved from even just 5 years ago.

The Ofsted I have inherited is far more focused on what works, far more self-critical and reflective, and far more outward facing and engaged with the sectors it inspects, than at any point in its history. It is a privilege to work with this team to carry that forward.

It may be hackneyed, but it still merits repeating, that our education system is only ever be as good as the people who work in it. We know there are very real challenges: funding pressures, changing structures, curriculum and qualification reforms.

But we are lucky enough to have the most talented generation of school and college leaders in our history. Which, by the way, means that we can have, and should aim to have, the best outcomes for pupils in the world.

And I’m delighted that my first major speech as Chief Inspector is to ASCL. For me, ASCL embodies the very best in our education system – self-confident, engaged school leaders, representing a profession determined to control its own destiny. I am looking forward to working with Geoff and your council to continue the good work that ASCL and Ofsted have done together in recent years.

I would particularly like to commend your blueprint, which is a hugely impressive piece of work. It sets out an ambitious vision for the future of education, as well as a challenge for you as school leaders to step forward and take ownership. And I very much hope that vision remains for the foreseeable future.

Getting it right

When it comes to Ofsted, your blueprint highlights the important responsibility that school inspection has to parents and young people in determining the effectiveness of a school. That responsibility means that Ofsted inspections have immense power.

Spending the past 6 months, as I have done, travelling round the country, meeting inspectors, heads, teachers, pupils and parents, I have come to see what that power really means.One of the most gratifying moments was visiting Skinners’ Academy in Tunbridge Wells, led of course by your President Sian Carr.

By pure chance, I was in the school just as they received their outstanding judgement, and I saw first-hand the pride that all the staff felt in seeing their achievements for young people recognised.

 That experience brought home to me just how much our findings matter to those we inspect and how we must never lose sight of that when we make our judgements.

So Ofsted’s power is one that I will use responsibly and intelligently.

Inspection should not be making your job unnecessarily difficult or laborious. Or, worse still, actually diverting you from the real task at hand – our children’s education.

I have no interest in using this role to impose my personal prejudices about how you should run your schools, nor will Ofsted on my watch become a vehicle for promoting the latest educational fashion or fad. And I won’t be pushing you to jump through increasingly convoluted hoops, only to change direction a couple of years down the line.

My interest is solely in ensuring that every child receives what is their fundamental right: a good education. And not only a good education but the right education for that child.

Let me be absolutely clear. My commitment to responsible and intelligent inspection does not mean that I will hold back from exposing places where children are not receiving the proper standard of education or care.

Whether it is pupils struggling to learn in schools where behaviour just isn’t good enough, young people being exposed to extremist views in illegal schools or children left vulnerable in our care system, I will be frank about these failings and, what’s more, I will demand action to tackle them.

Anyone who assumes that the high value I place on evidence and data means that I am reluctant to speak truth to power will find themselves mistaken. In fact, it is the use of robust evidence and data that gives Ofsted the authority to challenge, on behalf of the minority of children who are being let down.

Inspection will never be painless, and a regulator will never be loved by those it regulates – nor should it be. We must, though, make sure we are respected and use evidence responsibly and intelligently in everything we do.

Improving inspection

But, much as we focus on rigour and evidence, inspection will always be to some degree an art as well as a science. It won’t ever be flawless.

At Ofsted, we are lucky to have a terrific team of inspectors: Her Majesty’s Inspectors and also many Ofsted Inspectors drawn from your own ranks.But that doesn’t mean that inspection is a perfect tool.

That is why we are doing more work to refine our processes, to get better, to use research and evidence so that our inspections are as valid and reliable as they can be.

The reliability study we published earlier this week is an encouraging start. As you may well have read, it found that inspectors, working independently but in parallel, agreed on the outcome of a short inspection in 22 cases out of 24.

This is about as good as we could have hoped for. It was pleasing to see this recognised by a number of influential figures, including Professor Rob Coe.

But it is only the first step, and I want to go further in exploring inspection reliability, what we should be aiming for, and how we can improve it.

At the same time, we will look at the validity of inspection. By that, I mean whether inspection is measuring what it is intended to measure, and coming to the right conclusions.

But I need to set expectations here: this is the basis of a continuing programme of work; not one quick hit.

Adding value

One of the most important questions for us is how we make sure we at Ofsted add value. We all know that we live in a world of almost limitless school data and extensive performance measures.

By and large, I think that data is a good thing, not just in providing information about a school’s performance, but also in helping us all to evaluate what works and what doesn’t – and, more broadly, to improve the practice of education.

But as powerful a tool as data is, it also has its limitations. And they are limitations that we do recognise. That is why our inspections are informed by data, but not driven by them.

It is dispiriting to see some commentators still insisting that data is all we care about.

Just a few weeks ago, one headteacher made that very claim in the Observer, despite the fact we recently judged his school to be outstanding when, as yet, it has no results at all!

I cannot stress enough that data is the starting point for our inspections, not the destination.
In fact, it is mostly by looking beyond the data that Ofsted can and should add value, providing a rounded picture of how well a school is doing.

It is that human and, dare I say it, subjective element of our inspections that makes them useful. And for that reason, I am pleased to say that our inspectors are, for now at least, one group who have nothing to fear from automation!

But on a more serious note, we are well aware that the challenge of interpreting data wisely, and placing it in context, is even more important when the main external exams are changing.

For example, we know that it is impossible for schools to predict this year’s student outcomes in the new English and maths GCSEs with any accuracy. That is why Sean Harford, our National Director of Education, has written to inspectors to ask that they do not request predictions from schools: in fact he described it as ‘a mug’s game’.

Instead, inspectors should be looking at whether schools know if pupils are making the progress they should, and taking action where they are not.

At the same time, we said that we would provide both general and school-specific guidance to inspectors from September, about what can and cannot be inferred from this summer’s results. I hope this will provide reassurance that your schools are being fairly judged in the context of a changing qualification system.

A quality curriculum

One of the areas where data can only tell us so much is in assessing the quality of a school’s curriculum.

I suspect no one here will disagree with the vital importance of a curriculum which is broad, rich and deep. It matters so much for children, and particularly for disadvantaged children, who are less likely to have the gaps filled in at home.

As recent research from Dr Cristina Iannelli has shown, differences in the secondary school curriculum contribute significantly more in reproducing social inequalities than does school type. Or, as she puts it:

In the British education systems subject choices were and are still crucial for gaining access to prestigious universities and for entering professional jobs… We should not overlook the importance of subject choices in secondary school for creating opportunities for social mobility.

And our inspectors understand this. Only this week I spoke to an HMI who explained how he’d recently come to judge outcomes in a school to be outstanding. Published progress data was broadly average. But he recognised that the leadership had stuck to its guns, continued to insist on modern foreign languages for all pupils, including in its sixth form, and provided an exceptional curriculum. Those ‘average progress points’ were hard won by a courageous leadership team, who, by the way, were also judged outstanding as a result.

Given the importance of the curriculum, it’s surprising just how little attention is paid by our accountability system to exactly what it is pupils are learning in schools, particularly as we have been through a period of significant curriculum upheaval.

Certainly, we have good measures of pupil attainment at 16 and 18. And new measures, such as Progress 8, go much further than their predecessors in painting a fuller picture of pupils’ learning. But even they take us only so far.

The same is true of Ofsted inspections. While assessment forms a large part of the teaching and learning judgement, the curriculum does not.

The taught curriculum is in fact just one among 18 matters for consideration in reaching the leadership and management judgement, making it somewhat of a needle in a haystack.

I believe that lack of focus has had very real consequences.

I have heard from many of you about the conflict between your desire to give children the right education and the pressure to maintain your league table position.

And we all know how the corrosive pattern can emerge. However much you want to resist narrowing your curriculum or teaching to the test, when you see the school down the road doing it, and getting the league table pay off, you may feel you have no choice but to follow suit.

One of the more dispiriting moments in my 15 years of visiting schools was a particular Year 11 history lesson. First, pupils did a practice exam question, then they had to compare their own work to the model answer for their target grade, to see what they should be adding in. So if you had a C grade target, you were actively discouraged from aiming any higher. For me, the whole lesson was a clear example of where the exam had come to replace the education, rather than merely measuring it.

More generally, there’s a telling contrast in the schools I visit. In some, people want to talk purely about the result numbers and how they achieve them, whereas in others, they want to talk about the actual substance of the education they are giving.

And we all know that the wrong kind of focus on results can be damaging.

As Sean wrote in his inspection update, we know that there are some schools that are narrowing the curriculum, using qualifications inappropriately, and moving out pupils who would drag down results. That is nothing short of a scandal where it happens. Childhood isn’t deferrable: young people get one opportunity to learn in school and we owe it to them make sure they all get an education that is broad, rich and deep.

As I have said many times before, there is more to a good education than league tables. Vitally important though a school’s examination results are, we must not allow curricula to be driven just by SATs, GCSEs and A levels. It is the substance of education that ultimately creates and changes life chances, not grade stickers from exams.

So I am determined to make sure that the curriculum receives the proper focus it deserves.
And that is why I’m announcing today that I have chosen the curriculum to be the focus of the first big thematic Ofsted review of my tenure. From early years, through to primary, secondary, sixth form and FE colleges, this will explore the real substance of education.

We will look at how schools are interpreting the national curriculum or using their academy freedoms to build new curricula of their own and what this means for children’s school experience. We will look at what makes a really good curriculum. And we will also look at the problems, such as curriculum narrowing, and what we can do to tackle them.

What we will not be doing is trying to unpick the national curriculum. Indeed, I suspect I would be jeered off the stage if I were to suggest yet more upheaval.

But I do want this review to provide key insights into some of the most important policy debates of the day. How do we best promote social mobility? How do we make sure that every child has the best possible start in life? And can the accountability system play a part in encouraging the development of a rich curriculum, rather than incentivising gaming?

I do hope that many of you will be able to play a part in this review and share your experiences so that others can learn from your example. You are the experts and you understand these issues better than anyone. Everything we know is informed by the work that you do, and that’s the way that it should be.

Tackling workload

And there is another thing I’d like to talk about today, and that’s workload. I spoke earlier about the importance of Ofsted acting responsibly. We are not naïve about the impact that our inspections have on workload. So we will do our bit to make sure your time is spent where it matters most.

Ofsted does have a track record of listening and acting on the feedback we receive from the profession. That’s why we have brought all school inspection in-house and ended the third-party contracts.

We’ve brought many more serving leaders – including people in this room – onto our inspection teams. Almost half of inspections include serving practitioners, and over a third of inspector days on the ground are from practitioners, not HMI. So we are already much closer to a peer review system than many people realise.

We’ve also introduced a more proportionate inspection model for good schools, so as to focus more sharply on schools that are struggling.

Just as importantly, we have worked hard, especially over the past 2 years, to dispel many of the common staffroom myths about what Ofsted requires or expects when it comes to things like teaching styles, lesson planning, and marking.

Although this is strictly anecdotal, we are seeing more school leaders on social media and elsewhere reflecting positively on their recent inspection experience and how it felt like a marked departure from the past.

Of course there is more to do: more myth-busting work, more inspector training and more critical self-evaluation.

But when it comes to workload, Ofsted can only go so far in mitigating the impact of inspection. As my predecessor pointed out, you as school leaders need to justify your policies on marking, lesson planning and teacher evaluation on their own merits, rather than erroneously citing Ofsted ‘expectations’.

This has to be a 2-way relationship. When we bust myths, we need you, as school leaders, to consign them to history.

Ofsted inspections should not be a performance that schools spend hours rehearsing. Our inspectors are getting better at evaluating whether what we see on inspection is a true reflection of the everyday life of a school.

And no matter what so-called ‘consultants’ are selling, when school finances are under pressure and workloads are high, running mocksteds is an unacceptable waste of staff time and scarce pupil funding.

All of us have a role to play in tackling that destructive cycle which means the teaching profession is bleeding talent, and losing the brightest and the best.

We know from a DfE study released last month that teachers are working unsustainable hours, and we also know from the international TALIS surveys that it isn’t because they’re spending more time teaching than their peers abroad.

At 20 hours a week, teaching time is close to the international average. Instead, teachers in England spend significantly more time on planning, marking and administration, where I know unnecessary preparation for inspection plays a major part.

So Ofsted is committed to supporting the DfE in its workload challenge, and I do hope that you will all be displaying the workload poster and pamphlet released last month. Among other things, this clarifies what Ofsted does and does not want to see.

I am not naïve enough to believe that a poster alone will solve the problem, but it should certainly help.

Another thing we know will help with workload is greater clarity between different actors in the system. As Malcolm Trobe put it in a letter to me earlier this week,

schools would benefit from greater clarity around the roles, responsibilities and relationships between Ofsted and RSCs in particular.

There is nothing inevitable about rising teacher workload, and working together we can tackle it.

Conclusion

So I’d like to leave you with these parting thoughts.

My ambition as Chief Inspector is to make sure Ofsted is regarded as a force for good. I want us to highlight outstanding practice, recognise where leadership and management is performing well in challenging circumstances, and provide the feedback that schools which are less than good need to improve.

But Ofsted judgements aren’t ends in themselves. Despite many years in education regulation, I still believe the old adage that weighing the pig isn’t what makes it fatter.

When I was at Ofqual, I consistently said that qualifications were the mirror of education, not the education itself. And exactly the same applies to Ofsted judgements: they are a reflection of school quality, but they should never become the definition of quality.

All too often Ofsted Chief Inspectors are portrayed as the champions of rigour, standards and quality in schools. But the truth is I’m not a medieval knight in armour, and nor do I aspire to be one.
That’s because it is you and your staff who are the real champions of standards. You are the ones who work tirelessly day in, day out, at evenings and weekends, so that your pupils get an excellent education. Yes, it’s my job to say how well schools are performing, but the far harder job of delivering for young people is yours.

And we need to attract even more talented people into the profession, grow them into successful leaders and support them to take on new challenges.

I want Ofsted to play its part in what your blueprint so perfectly describes as

a move away from prescription to a profession-led system that is evidence-informed, innovative and ethical.

Within such a system, inspection can have a powerful role as a force for improvement and a judge of education quality. Realising that potential is the challenge I have set myself, and I look forward to working with all of you to make it a reality.

Two blocks of flats planned for Wembley Job Centre site

Wednesday's Planning Committee will have a pre-application presentation on a development on Wembley High Road/St Johns Road/Elm Road.

It is on the site of the present Job Centre on St Johns Road with the Boots store front on 500 High Road retained.

The plan would replace the above building with a 10 and 12 storey block .

The site

The following 74 flat residential mix is proposed (remembering that 'affordable' is up to 80% market rent):

 

Private Market Housing (68% of total):
9x studio
12x 1 bed
19x 2 bed
10x 3 bed

Affordable Housing (32% of total):
8x 1 bed (5x Affordable Rent and 3x Shared Ownership)
8x 2 bed (5x Affordable Rent and 3x Shared Ownership)
8x 3 bed (6x Affordable Rent and 2x Shared Ownership)

Overall Tenure Split on Affordable Housing = 67:33 (Affordable Rent: Shared
Ownership)

The officers' report considers issues such as the height of the proposed building and the quality of the build and recommends revision before it is submitted as a full planning application. LINK

Join Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group actions against Tory policies

From Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group (KUWG)

 

DON’T LET THERESA MAY AND HER SYCHOPHANTIC & PYSCHOPATHIC FRIENDS RUIN US! THEIR ‘IDEAS’ ARE ABSOLUTELY STINKING RUBBISH!!!!!!

The Tories espouse the crap ideas that making unemployed people’s lives harder will incentivise them to get work. For the rich MORE monies and bonuses incentivise them…1 rule for the real parasites, another for people already down on their luck.

One stupid cost-cutting exercise is to close 78 jobcentres including KILBURN and NEASDEN. KUWG have petitioned claimants at those jobcentres and found out nobody knew, as not even in a consultation process, and people signed our petition to keep them open. It is yet another tactic to make travelling more onerous to get us late to appointments or not turn up, so we can get sanctioned. Pure evil! We have sent petitions to local MPs Tulip Siddiq and Dawn Butler and to the West London DWP Office so this rotten government can’t say  that there was no opposition. We will continue to try to prevent these closures, with more petitioning, letters, leafleting, protests etc.

The PCS Union, who have staff in jobcentres, have organised on 28th March 12:45pm to 16:45pm a lobby of Parliament to stop Jobcentres closures...turn up & contact your MP.

Unite Community have organised a National “No to Benefits Sanctions” day of protest on Thursday  March 30th with local jobcentre protests with a demonstration at 2pm same day outside the DWP Headquarters Caxton House, Tothill Street, Westminster. Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group will be outside KILBURN Jobcentre tween noon- 1pm that day.

NO TO THE “NASTY” TORY PARTY, WHICH IS GETTING EVEN NASTIER! Yuk!!

What is the Lycee's contribution to the local Brent community?

When the planning application was made for the Lycee des Londres Winston Churchill to occupy the old Brent (Wembley) Town Hall the school stated that it was keen to make community links.  It saw itself as complementing local schools - not a rival. Among the promises made was the provision of French language classes for pupils from local schools as well as adults. LINK

As far as I can see these have not come about, perhaps as a result of relations being soured by the refusal of planning permission for a swimming pool in the gardens adjacent to Forty Lane.

Compared with some of the grand promises made by Quintain this may seem small beer but it does raise the issue of whether Brent Council is sufficiently proactive in making sure that such promises are fulfilled.

Prevent secrecy feeds suspicion

I gave my two minute presentation on Prevent at Scrutiny Committee  earlier this week but not until the lead person on Prevent, Kibibi Octave link person had  given a Powerpoint Presentation and lead member for Stronger communities Cllr Tom Miller had put forward his views.

I had enough time to  ask 9 questions from my list  LINK pointing out that secrecy rules means that none of them could be answered and thus proper scrutiny and transparency was not possible.  I suggested this reinforced suspicion and lack of confidence in the Prevent Strategy.  Octave and Miller admitted this was a problem. In the discussion the former said that there was ‘interest' in the strategy from Brent Muslim groups rather than they ‘bought into’ the strategy. Groups wanted to do things their way rather than be directly aligned with the strategy. Playing Devil's advocate Miller said that if the referral figures were to be published for each borough extremist groups could then focus on the weaker areas.

Muslim groups wanted to do things their way rather than be directly aligned with the strategy.  Responding to a question from a councillor Kibibi Octave said that they'd had less success speaking to Muslim women. I pointed out that a well established Muslim women's group, group An-Nisa had asked for dialogue with the Council - so far unsuccessfully.

Cllr Miller said he had a critical approach to the Prevent duty and was sensitive to the concerns of the Muslim community. He said that the duty was mandatory but he tried to follow key principles that centred on safeguarding victims from grooming etc.  During the discussion there was much emphasis on  avoiding crass referrals and a claim that better training had reduced the number of these. Kibibi Octave said that across London there had been a reduced number of referrals from the education sector in the last year.

Join in conservation event at Welsh Harp Sunday March 19th

(Sorry about the spelling of 'Center'!)

There will be another volunteer session at the Welsh Harp Education Centre, Birchen Grove, NW9 8RY on Sunday March 19th. Tools and steel capped boots are supplied as well as instruction. Bring your own packed lunch - tea and coffee available.

Thames 21 say:

The February event

We had another very successful event at the Education Centre. The 4th Kenton Scouts had their first session at the Education Centre and it was great to see so many regular Friends members as well.

We:

1.       Planted Hazel trees  to compliment the 3 mature Hazel’s which were already well established. These trees were planted in a northern glade near to the mature trees: so the 30 plus schools we work with at the education canter can compare them;
2.       Finished clearing out one of the ponds of nearby vegetation including a large amount of blackthorn, stopping succession and the pond being reduced in size;
3.       Continued to clear out Ivy in an area of woodland where children attending the Education Centre can build shelters and play in the woodland.

 
Next event, Sunday March 19th

We will be starting at the usual time of 10 am. Please see the attached poster for the event and here is a link to the event with full details, http://www.thames21.org.uk/event/welsh-harp-conservation-day-3/

On the 19th we will be completing a mix of the following:


-          Continue clearing the Forest School Zone of ivy;
-          Move suitable branches and logs to the Forest School Zone for shelter building;
-          Around the main pathways and buildings - cut back vegetation that overhang main pathways and check trees for broken bits from the recent storm;
-          Continue clearing blackthorn from around pond.

PS Lots of joyous spawning in one of the ponds last week

Large mixed development planned for Dudden Hill Lane/High Road site

The site

Away from Wembley for a change, Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday LINK will see a pre-planning application presentation for a significant development in Dudden Hill Lane/High Road Willesden.  The site is currently mainly industrial units.

The proposal:

The proposal in its current form seeks to create a mixed use development comprising 224 residential units and amenity space, affordable workspace, café, nursery, florist, supermarket and gym. The workspace and retail elements of the proposal would be located at ground floor level with the residential units located on the upper floors. Vehicular access to the site would be from the eastern side via Dudden Hill Lane. Pedestrian access would also be from this side of the site and on the western side to create a desire line through the site and improve connectivity. The proposal would have three main buildings above ground floor level with heights of nine, seven and five storeys. The residential units would have access to communal space at first floor level between the taller buildings.

Site and Surroundings 

The site has an area of 0.93 hectares and is bounded by the Sapcote Trading Centre to the north: Colin Road to the south; Dudden Hill Lane to the east: and High Road to the west. The site is currently occupied by a number of industrial units including a heavy plant hire business, storage facilities for haulage equipment and scaffolding and a MOT station/Used car sales garage. There are three retail units located on the southern side of the site adjacent to the Colin Road/High Road junction. There is also a tyre garage located on Colin Road that does not form part of the site proposal. 

The surrounding area comprises industrial units to the north, an undesignated shopping parade to the east and south and residential properties to the east, west and south. The site is also located within a Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS). Residential units in the form of two storey terraced properties are located on the southern boundary of the site on Colin Road. Residential properties are also found along Dudden Hill Lane and High Road. The height of the buildings in the area is generally two/three storeys however there are a number of examples of taller buildings located to the west on the approach to Church End and to the north-east on Dudden Hill Lane. The site is not located within a conservation area and does not contain any listed buildings. 

The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 5 with Dollis Hill underground station located approximately 160 metres to the north-east and regular bus services to Church End, Neasden and Willesden.

Last chance today to submit comments on Wembley Stadium events and capacity increase

Guest blog from Wembley resident Denise Cheong

 I write regarding Wembley Stadium planning application 17/0368, which Martin has covered extensively.

For your information and in the interests of raising greater awareness on the issues residents face, these are the comments I submitted to the Head of Planning, Alice Lester.

"Dear Ms Lester

Thank you for consulting us on planning application 17/0368.

We object to the proposed variation of condition 3 (event cap, to allow 31 additional full capacity events) and removal of condition 33 (temporary traffic management) of planning permission reference 99/2400.

The proposal would adversely affect the quality of life of not only Wembley residents, but also a far reaching radius of other Brent residents (as well as their visitors). Traffic congestion generated on Event Days on local roads is noted to be over 3hrs per Event in supporting documents. Granting planning permission of this would effectively impinge on 1/5 of an average person's day time (based on an average adult sleep of 8 hrs per night) on up to 68 Event Days a year; an Event Day every 5.3 days.

The Stadium is not highly accessible by public transport. The supporting documents note the centre of the Stadium has a mere PTAL rating of 3.

There is no robust plan to safeguard residents (as well as their visitors) from additional litter and public order offenses such as urination generated by such Events. There is no firm plan noting exact monies sought from the applicant or the Stadium user for post Event clean up. There are guidelines and assurances but nothing specific to safeguard Brent residents (as well as their visitors). These issues are the financial responsibility of the applicant and need to be individually addressed.

Whilst we appreciate the many benefits our National Stadium affords us, Brent Council has a responsibility and duty of care to it's residents which it needs to safeguard."

Following on from the above, I was pleased to read on page 4 of the 13th March Brent cabinet report Pilot Paper on Managing Street Drinking that:

"7.1 The introduction of the Met Patrol Plus scheme in May/June 16 will also ensure there is robust policing plan of the PSPO areas in the pilot areas.

7.2 ASB Localities Officers, Local Safer Neighbourhood Teams and Kingdom Officers will also assist with the policing of these areas. There will be discussions with Quintain to address what resources they could contribute to the policing of the PSPO in Wembley Park."

We would like to see the specific details of the precise resources that Quintain will be contributing to the Wembley Park PSPO.

Have you submitted your comments yet? Today's the deadline.

Thanks for reading!
Denise Cheong

Submit on-line comments HERE

In a Tweet this afternoon Cllr Stopp (Wembley Central ward) said he was keen to hear residents views on this issue:  cllr.sam.stopp@brent.gov.uk

Sadiq Khan's estate regeneration guidance 'worse than useless' claims Sian Berry, Green AM

West Hendon residents put up terrific resistance to social cleansing by Barratts and Barnet Council

From Sian Berry, Green Party London Assembly Member

The Mayor’s manifesto pledge to estate residents will be broken unless his estate guidance is rewritten from scratch.

That’s my verdict on Sadiq Khan’s ‘good practice guide to estate regeneration’ for councils and landlords on how to handle estate regeneration. The document is out for consultation until 14 March and it’s vital Londoners respond to it to say it’s not good enough – see how to send in your comments in just a few minutes here.

My full response to the draft guidance says it is worse than useless – it rips up the Mayor’s manifesto promise that ‘estate regeneration only takes place where there is resident support’ and does nothing to ensure residents on estates can block demolition of their homes.

The language in the draft is vague and it is unclear what, if any, conditions will be imposed on how councils and landlords to qualify for funding or the Mayor’s support for planning applications.
Most importantly for residents, the Mayor plans to break his promise and not let them make the final decisions for their estates or say there should be an independent ballot. How can they trust any part of the engagement process when they know their views and plans can be completely ignored at the end?

I say the guidance needs to be rewritten from scratch, working with Londoners to get it right.

My response to the draft guidance outlines three key demands on the Mayor that Londoners should ask for:

1. No demolitions without an independent ballot
2. Clear conditions for councils to meet, or no GLA funding
3. Expert support for resident-led plans

I ask for full transparency on the current state of estates, and on all aspects of the business case, social and environmental impacts of council’s plans.

The final guidance also needs to set measurable goals so the Mayor can be held to account, including goals to reduce the number of homes demolished and for a number of resident-led plans to be adopted.

Tell the Mayor what you think by 14 March

UPDATE Flytipping and Litter fines NOT DISCUSSED PUBLICLY at Scrutiny tonight

As he is now a member of Scrutiny Committee there will be a chance for Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn) to get to the bottom of the Kingdom contract which employs operatives to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for litter dropping in the borough, at tonight's meeting..  Duffy has raised the issue of the legality of the contract as well as whether the Council has received 'best value for money' from the arrangement.

One of the documents tabled has been withheld from the public. The public report can be found HERE

UPDATE

When it came to the agenda item this evening Carolyn Downs, CEO said that the public and press should be excluded from the meeting because of the 'below the line' report. It apparently contained information that had not yet been communicated to Kingdom. I suspect this means that it contains a recommendation to end the Kingdom contract and perhaps to provide the service in-house. Downs also said that it was unusual to have a paper discussed before it had gone to Cabinet. Councillors who are not on Scrutiny were allowed to stay as they are bound by confidentiality rules.

Separately Cllr Duffy protested at the withholding of documents he had requested from Downs.  He'd discovered that there were no minutes of the meeting where Kingdom was awarded the littering contract. He'd then asked for any notes that officers had taken at the meeting. Downs refused this saying that these were private notes by officers and that if they were released it was likely that officers would stop taking notes at meetings for fear that they would be made public.

Duffy asked, 'What's the point of electing councillors if officers are going to make the decisions?'

Surely in a Council with nothing to hide scrutiny should take place in front of press and public? 

Greens call for 'emergency intervention' on NHS & Social Care ahead of budget

The Green Party is calling for ‘an emergency intervention’ to steer Britain away from the brink of the crisis in the NHS and social care, and to clampdown on air pollution which is estimate to end 40,000 lives prematurely every year.

The Greens are also calling for the Government to protect small firms from the business rate hike, raise tax for the richest, stop corporation tax cuts and reverse a planned tax hike on solar panels.

The five demands from the Green Party are:
1)      An emergency aid package to protect health and social care services
2)      Toughest ever action on air pollution
3)      Protection of small firms from Business Rate hikes
4)      Ensuring the richest people and biggest corporations pay more tax
5)      Reversing the solar tax hike

Jonathan Bartley said:

This budget must be an emergency intervention to steer Britain away from the brink of multiple crises.

After years of privatisation and underinvestment the future of the health service now hangs in the balance, and social care services are at risk of collapsing. If the Government is serious about working on behalf of the majority of people in this country then they will unveil an emergency aid package to protect health and social care services. We know that funding a world class healthcare service will cost more, which is why the Government should reverse their planned cuts to corporation tax and their tax giveaway to high earners. Failing to properly fund health and social care would be a dereliction of duty from this Government – and would leave any claim they had to be standing up for working people in tatters.

Caroline Lucas MP said:

There is an air pollution emergency happening in Britain – and the Government has to act now to tackle it. The Chancellor should immediately raise vehicle excise duty on new diesel cars, to send a signal to the market that this fuel must be phased out. The freeze on the fuel duty escalator should also end – thus freeing up billions of pounds which the Government should plough into public transport, walking and cycling. In recent years the cost of motoring has dropped considerably while the price of catching the bus or train has skyrocketed – if we’re serious about reducing the amount of toxic fumes in our air we’ve got to shift people out of cars and onto affordable public alternatives.

The Chancellor must also use this budget to get a proper grip on Britain’s climate policy. At a very bare minimum that must mean reversing the solar tax hike that’s set to hit community groups and schools – and it must mean more support for onshore wind too.

International Women's Day event at Brent Civic Centre March 8th

The day will include a Grunwick40 'We are the lions' talk.

Have your say on how Community Infrastructure Levy is spent in Brent

From Brent Council

Brent Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Priorities 2017-2020

Title of consultation

Brent Neighbourhood CIL Priorities 2017-2020

Who is consulting?

Planning Policy & Projects

Why are we consulting?

When developers receive planning permission for some larger, new developments, they're required to make a payment to the council. This helps fund local infrastructure improvements. This payment is called Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Of this, between 15-25% of the funds has to be allocated by the Council as Neighbourhood CIL.

On the basis of feedback received from this consultation, the council will decide how to prioritise spending on particular Neighbourhood CIL funded projects. These projects could be delivered by the council if they relate to council assets, e.g. a park. The council could also deliver projects that are good ideas, but where no other body came forward to deliver them. Alternatively, the council could allocate funds to local community groups where it believes that these groups can deliver the projects themselves.

To streamline the running of Neighbourhood CIL in the borough, Brent has been divided into five local areas: Harlesden, Kilburn, Kingsbury and Kenton, Wembley and Willesden. These are large enough to generate funds that can deliver relatively big projects if this is what the community decides the funds should be spent on. The areas are, however, also  small enough to encourage communities to feel they are likely to benefit from the projects that are delivered. Ultimately, the decision on what to spend the funds on still rests with the council, but we will provide clear feedback on how we have come to any decisions.

Links

Consultation

CIL Cabinet report

CIL appendix

Schools to face £1.8m business rate bill for solar panels

Research by Jenny Jones, a Green Party member of the House of Lords, suggests that schools could face a business rates bill totalling £1.8 million if the Valuation Office Agency goes ahead with plans to remove the exemption for small non-domestic installations.

Of the 74 education authorities in England and Wales that responded to FOI requests, they were responsible for 821 schools with almost 14,000 kW of solar power capacity installed. Scaling that up to all 174 education authorities suggests a total business rates bill in the region of £1,800,000 per year.
 
Jenny Jones, the Green Party’s voice in the Lords said:

It's utterly absurd to penalise schools for investing in solar panels. Schools obviously face bigger financial challenges than this, but the business rate charges will stop any plans for more solar panels. Schools I have visited see them as a triple investment - in their energy costs, their pupils' education, and their future.

My research shows there is huge scope for schools to install more solar panels. While some schools have installed panels on most of their buildings, many currently have few or none at all. The Government should ditch these plans to charge rates on small solar installations and support more schools to join the clean energy revolution.

Quintain consult on Fountain Studios/Stadium Retail Park redevelopment

Stadium Retails Park and McDonalds

Fountain Studios

Quintain continues to vacuum up property around Wembley Stadium and is now consulting on what they call the 'Fulton Quarter Master Plan'.   This is the redevelopment of their acquisitions between Olympic Way and Fulton Road covering the Stadium Retail Park, McDonalds and Fountain Studios (excluding the College of North West London).

The site

Quintain state:

Our proposals include transforming the car dominated Stadium Retail Park and Fountain Studios into a pedestrian-friendly mixed use development with new homes, flexible space on the lower floors that could be used for educational, commercial and/or retail  uses and a number of significant public realm improvements.

We are holding a public exhibition to provide you with an opportunity to view our early concepts for this new site and leave your feedback.

The public exhibition will run from 9th to 11th March at Unit 71 (first floor next to Ping Pong) at the London Designer Outlet (LDO), Wembley Park Boulevard HA9 0QL.

Thursday 9th March 4pm-8pm
Friday 10th March 4pm-8pm
Saturday 11th March 12pm-4pm.

More information: www.yourwembleypark.com
 info@wembleypark.com
 0800 307 7564