CNWL lecturers to strike over casualisation proposals.

Lecturers at the College of North West London will be striking on February 23rd and 25th over the college management's replacement of permanent contracts by hourly paid contracts.

The college UCU branch said:

Following the strike on the 8 December 2014 and subsequent negotiations we have not been able to persuade our employer college (College of North West London, Dudden Hill Lane) to either abandon its policy of achieving greater casualisation (replacing permanent contract with zero hours contract) through compulsory redundancies and nor persuade the College to reinstate one of our members Michael Starrs, plumbing lecturer, who became a victim of this policy. 

Therefore our members are having to take further strike action on the 23rd February and 25th  February following the half term break. A reputable law firm, employed by our union is handling his case at the Tribunal as it considers he has a reasonable prospect of Success.  

The vast majority of Michael's plumbing students have signed a petition supporting his reinstatement. He was also voted as the most popular teacher by students in 2012/2013. Members who voted unanimously to take two days a strike action believed that more strike action maybe needed to resolve this dispute.  

We are planning a public meeting very soon over this issue nearer the election as we did for our " Save Kilburn College Campaign" on the eve of the 2010 general election, where a number of MPs' and prospective candidates came for a debate.

The Green Party Trade Union Group  has issued a statement of support:

The Green Party Trade Union group supports CNWL strikers, casualisation and victimisation of education workers is not just an attack on workers and their conditions of employment, but it's also an attack on education. We need Further Education to train and educate those who can help to create the low-carbon economy that is so urgently needed and need FE managements that value their staff and treat them properly.

The college management blame the proposal to move 30% of staff on to hourly paid contracts on sharply reduced funding for the current academic year.

Brent Fightback Final Demand to Coalition: Give us Back Our Money

Outside Sarah Teather's Office in Willesden Green

Outside the Brent North Conservative Office in Preston Road, Wembley

Brent Fightback supporters today presented Brent Liberal Democrats and Conservatives with a 'Final Demand' for the £142,900,000 that the Coalition  will have cut from Brent Council's budget over the current period.

This has meant cuts in valuable Council services that will hit the young, the poor, the vulnerable and the elderly.

Those making the demand included independent local activists and residents and members of the Labour, Green and Socialist Workers parties.

Copies of the Final Demand were posted through the letter boxes of the offices.

Is Brent Council in breach of Trust Agreement over King Edward VII Park Welsh School proposal?

 

Collins Lodge

Guest blogger Jaine Lunn raises a vital issue that puts a big qustion mark over the London Welsh School's bid to open a school in King Edward VII Park, Wembley.
 

Collins Lodge in King Edward VII Park has a plaque that reads "Queen Elizabeth II Award Jubilee year 2012 by Fields in Trust LINK for Sport and Recreational use in perpetuity.”

Having contacted this organisation they responded I quote:-

"Brent Council entered into a deed of dedication with Fields in Trust in 2012.  The deed is registered at the Land Registry and states that King Edward VII Park is held as a “public playing field and recreation ground, inclusive of a bowling club and sports pavilion” in perpetuity.   I have attached our guidance document on how we protect recreational land which may be of interest.

If the landowner of a protected site wants to make a change that is outside of the permitted use then they will need to formally seek the consent of Fields in Trust.  We have a process in place for that and I attach that information for your reference.   This guidance outlines what our responsibilities are with regards to assessing such matters.   All decision are taken by our Trustees.

Fields in Trust do not get involved in the local management of sites as this very much stays in local hands.  So any changes to a site which fit within the agreed user clause do not require our consent.   There is some flexibility built into the deed of dedication, for example our Trustees may at their discretion consent to the disposal of land provided that betterment for local communities in terms of outdoor sport, recreation and/or play can be demonstrated. 

I can confirm that Brent Council did submit a formal request to Fields in Trust with regards to granting a lease on the disused bowls pavilion area to the London Welsh Language primary school on a 15 year term, and in addition to erect a single storey classroom block and convert the paved hard landscape area to an all weather playground.   We were advised that the bowling green and Pavilion are unused and the area fenced off, furthermore there was no bowls interest. 

I can confirm that the Council’s request was rejected by our Trustees in January 2015 because the site is protected for recreational purposes and the proposed new use would be outside the objects of the Deed of Dedication.  In order for the matter to even be reconsidered by our Trustees the Council would need to offer up for protection a replacement site of at least the size of the land being lost or provide a payment which is to be made available for investment in the facilities within the remainder of the site.  To date we have not received a revised application, which I believe would only be forthcoming should planning consent be granted."

As we have all seen on the site visit It is not a fair and equitable swap as it neither matches the size of the land proposed to be built on neither is it comparable to be used for sports. In the additional documents that have been submitted in the interim period the idea that residents should be able to sit on this land and be able to access a view comparable to the view from Primrose Hill over Central London is laughable and whoever cited this as acceptable "should have gone to SpecSavers" about covers it, or suggests they are taking some form of  medication to enhance their  very vivid imagination.  

Knowing all of the above, what really baffles me and to which I seek answers to the following questions.

1)  Who originally suggested/proposed the idea to the London Welsh School that this was a suitable location for their school?  

(After all they had investigated 98 other locations, 65 of which was outside of the London Borough of Brent.)

2.  Why did the Brent Planners not reject this immediately knowing that the land was protected?

3.  Having ignored the fact, made an application, which had they thoroughly read and understood the deeds of  dedication they had signed would have realised that it would be rejected?

4.  Why are they still supporting this application to grant permission, knowing that they must make another application to Fields in Trust for approval when the suggested land swap is also unlikely to be approved by the trust.

5.  How are they justifiying a complete and utter waste of time, money and resources of all concerned?

I would appreciate any answers to the above, from anyone!

To Brent Planners I say stop this nonsense and reject now.

This land is public owned Land and should remain so for the people of Wembley to enjoy as was originally decided when bought by the local Council back in 1913 to compensate for loss of Parkland at Wembley Park.  

MF A further question would be to ask why Brent Council have not informed the public about this agreement as part of the documentaion on the planning application. It is clearly a 'material consideration' for the Planning Committeee to take into account.

The price you pay for 'BIg Name' local convenience stores

Guest blog by Michaela Lichten, the Green party candidate fro the Kenton By-election

On the campaign trail one of the most common responses to a discussion on sustainable and local/farmer’s markets food shopping is: that it’s all right for people that have got money but that people living in the ‘real world’ have to watch their budgets and that means a trip to one of the big 4 supermarkets.

Let me share my response: if you use the small ‘local’, ‘express’ or convenience stores of the big 4 you could be paying up to 40% more for your shopping! 

Yes, in 2013 an orange in a Tesco Express shop cost 40% more than at one of their superstores according to The Daily Mail (13/5/13).

Prices analysis showed that Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and Tesco all put hefty premiums on the limited stock in their smaller outlets.

The average consumer doesn’t realise that there can be a routine difference of 11% in pricing between Tesco Express and its superstores whilst a sample basket at Sainsbury’s Local costs 10.2% more than at a larger store and Waitrose downsized branches can be up to 7% more expensive.

What price convenience indeed!

The second way that these giants hit at the pocket of those on a budget is, that they are often the only convenience store on estates, new builds, in poorer areas or in areas poorly served by transport links and so the poorest often find themselves paying the most for their food.

Plus we are changing the way we shop with an increase in ‘top-up’ shops fuelling a surge of almost 10% in the number of convenience stores owned by supermarkets in recent years. 

Therefore the perception that these large companies offer the best value is one that is costing us dear.