The growth of home education in Brent

Readers may have been intrigued by a short piece in the Kilburn Times today about the growth of home education in Brent. This resulted from FoI requests by Oxford Home Schooling.

This is the pattern for the whole of London:

The boroughs that have experienced most growth in the last 10 years are:

1. Newham (686% increase)
2. Hackney(323% increase)
3. Ealing (304% increase)
4. Brent (214% increase)
5. Lewisham (212% increase)

A separate FoI request in June 2016 elicited the following figures from Brent Council. The total across all year groups is equivalent to about 10 classes or slightly bigger than a one form entry primary school but the increase is significant.
 

FOI 5758896: Elective Home Education
School year	Year
	2006	2011	2016
Reception	10	14	2
1	4	11	22
2	6	8	23
3	3	16	26
4	5	8	30
5	9	14	32
6	9	14	29
7	6	10	34
8	8	12	27
9	20	9	25
10	12	9	23
11	0	2	16
Total	92	127	289

Home educators I have spoken to have varying reasons for educating their children at home ranging from children with special needs who cannot cope with a school environment to parents who disagree with the current stress on high stakes testing and the narrowing of the curriculum.

The legal position is that education is compulsory but schoooling is not. Read more HERE

Once your child is registered at a school attendance is compulsory.

Green MEP says EU Exit must not be used as a cover to abandon air quality laws

Keith Taylor, MEP for the South East of England, has responded with concern following the government's refusal to commit to retaining EU air quality laws after an exit from the European Union.

The Environment Minister, Therese Coffey, and Minister for Exiting the European Union, Robin Walker, were asked no less than seven times, during questioning by the Environmental Audit Committee on Wednesday, whether the UK would maintain EU air quality laws post-Brexit. Neither minister made a commitment.

Taylor,  who sits on the European Parliament's Environment and Public Health committee and is a vocal air quality campaigner, said:

This is a truly concerning response from Ministers. Leaving the EU cannot be allowed to become a cover under which the government abdicates its responsibility for this public health emergency.

Despite the preventable deaths of 50,000 British people, every year, and an annual public health bill of £20bn, the government is still, apparently, failing to take the air quality crisis seriously. Under David Cameron, the government was held to account for failing to do the bare minimum, as required by EU law, to improve the quality of the air we all breathe.

EU air pollution limits are preventing thousands of deaths every year across Europe and the government readily acknowledges that it is EU law that has been the driver of any positive air quality action in the UK. For the sake of the health and prosperity of the British people, we cannot risk scrapping these safeguards.

I am calling on Ministers to make a firm commitment to maintaining and strengthening vital EU air quality standards.

Dawn Butler MP expresses 'deep concern' over plans to decommission Brent Sickle Cell Support Service

Dawn Butler MP for Brent Central has added her voice to those challenging plans to decommission the Brent Sickle Cell Advisory Support Service (BSCASS). 

She has written the following letter to the Chair of Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), Dr Effie Kong, calling on her to urgently reconsider the decision.

 

Dear Dr Kong,

I am writing to put on record my deep concern at the recent decision taken by Brent CCG to decommission the Brent Sickle Cell Advisory Support Service (BSCASS).

BSCASS provides a thoroughly vital and valued service to the communities of Harlesden and Stonebridge and beyond which has a high prevalence of sickle cell sufferers. This is a poorly understood condition and services such as BSCASS are vital in helping sufferers live normal and healthy lives.

It is also vital in providing assurances to sufferers who are discharged from hospital, that extra help prevents sufferers often immediately returning into hospital, for example if a person’s house is too cold.

In particular, I would like answers to the following questions:

What consultation, beyond the reported meeting due to take place on the 7^th September 2016, has been carried out with sickle cell suffers and service users within Brent?

Has an equality impact assessment been carried out ahead of the decision to decommission this service? And if not, why did you not feel it appropriate to do so?

Brent CCG’s own report suggests service users will be ‘signposted to advocacy and advisory services within the borough’. What assessment has been made of the travel implications of decommissioning for residents of Harlesden and Stonebridge where a majority of local sickle sufferers are based?

Have you conducted a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis in relation to the decommissioning of this service? I understand that the CCG acknowledges a reduction in admissions as a result of the service. Will you also publish any data you have on this point?

I should declare an interest as an MP who is sickle cell trait and my brothers have the full blown disease I understand the complicated needs around sufferers, I have always been so impressed with the service provided by Brent, recently the erosion of this service starting with the relocation of the services from Central Middlesex hospital has been extremely disappointing.

You have no idea how painful it is to sit when you are in crisis and to expect someone to travel an extra 60mins for help is very cruel. The decommissioning of this service adds further to the existing health burden of my constituents and represents a growing inequality in the provision of healthcare services within the borough.

Finally, if this is a question of fiscal constraints then I believe we need to look at new and innovative ways to ensure the preservation of this service. I would welcome the opportunity to meet with the CCG and community activists to explore alternate funding arrangements that would deliver this outcome. I am pleading with you to reconsider your decision.

I look forward to your reply,

Dawn Butler MP

Labour Member of Parliament for Brent Central


Red Kites spotted over Fryent Country Park, Kingsbury

The Barn Hill Conservation Group August Newsletter has reported sightings of Red Kites over Fryent Country Park.

Pete Stevens of the Southern England Kite Group told me that this is not the first sighting over London of these magnificent birds but I think it is the first in our area.

He told me that young kites in their first year often explore away from their home territory and that probably accounts for the sighting. They tend to return to the area where they fledged to nest but suggested local naturalists should listen out for them calling to each other if they are seen in the Spring. This was one indicator of them nesting in the area.

Background information

Red kites were driven to extinction in England by human persecution by the end of the nineteenth century. A small population survived in Wales, but there was little chance of these birds repopulating their original areas.

Between 1989 and 1994, kites from Spain were imported and released into the Chilterns by the RSPB and English Nature (now Natural England). Red kites started breeding in the Chilterns in 1992 and now there could be over 1,000 breeding pairs in the area. The reintroduction has been so successful it is not possible to monitor all the nests, so the overall size of the population can only be estimated. Source

Where to see Red Kites

Reports of sightings can be made directly to the Southern England Kite Group via their website www.sekg.org.uk or by calling Pete Stevens on 07761 205 833

Reprieve for Brent sickle cell project

Photo: Kilburn Times

Previous articles on Wembley Matters drew attention to the possible closure of the Brent Sickle Cell project LINK LINK.  The Brent Clinical Commissioning Group met yesterday and heard representaions on the issue. In this guest blog, written in a personal capacity, Nan Tewari reports on the outcome.

An Appeal - There is long-term condition called ‘failure to listen to the public’ that has infected the statutory sector. This long-term condition needs a long-term view and massive reserves of determination to overcome its more deleterious effects. Your time and your determination will help find a cure. Please (continue to) give generously…...

In a real instance of ‘you said, we did’, Brent CCG (clinical commissioning group) listened to patient and public representations and granted a short reprieve for the BSCASS (Brent Sickle Cell Advisory Support Service) project hosted by the Sickle Cell Society.

Brent Patient Voice (bpv.org.uk) has been very concerned about the real danger of existing users and those in the pipeline being left ‘high and dry’ if the CCG were to have gone ahead and closed the BSCASS project without an adequate, culturally specific, alternative being put in place. BPV has been in extended correspondence with the CCG solicitors DAC Beachcroft in the matter.

Brent CVS will be hosting a focus group on Thursday 15 September from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at their offices in Wembley Park (no change of heart on time or venue, unfortunately!). I would encourage anyone with the sickle cell condition or with experience of the condition or in a risk category, to attend and contribute to the discussion.

This will be followed by a meeting between Brent CCG and Brent council’s chair of Health and Well-Being, Cllr Krupesh Hirani on 20^th September.

Brent CCG has pledged to continue the existing BSCASS project until the outcome of the two meetings. The CCG has also said it will give 3 months’ notice of decommissioning to the project which had previously been lacking.

I am hoping the outcome will be one that establishes a sensible, alternative plan. This will need to satisfy the CCG’s concerns over duplication of spending whilst equally satisfying the need for a culturally sensitive support service that can raise awareness in the wider health and care sectors, e.g. GPs, social services and voluntary sector providers, of how people can be assisted to minimise sickle cell crises and avoid hospital admissions.

The huge effort put in by Brent Patient Voice and the weight of public opinion on this blog in the Brent and Kilburn Times on Facebook and on Twitter, has paid off.

Notably, Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North and Dawn Butler, MP for Brent Central each made strong, written representations to Brent CCG on the matter when BPV raised it with them.

My personal thanks to Martin Francis, Philip Grant, Ann O’Neill (Brent Mencap) Lorraine King (Brent and Kilburn Times) Harlesden Methodist Church and not least, to my colleagues in Brent Patient Voice.

Barry Gardiner's letter is HERE

Barry Gardiner raises Sellafield safety concerns after Panorama programme

Following the Panorama report on Sellafield questions were asked in the House of Commons by several MPs.

The programme can be viewed HERE

This is what Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North and Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change, said:

Yesterday evening’s television report on Sellafield was profoundly disturbing, and my hon. Friend Mr Reed was absolutely right to request this urgent question—I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. My hon. Friend expressed his concerns at the revelations and referred to the importance of the storage and reprocessing facility for his constituency. Of course, the House must raise such concerns on behalf of the country.

I want to focus on a number of questions on which I believe the Minister should give the House either further information or reassurance, and preferably both. On minimum staffing levels, will he confirm that as recently as five days ago a formal notice was sent to the management, raising the unions’ concern about critical manning levels and the ability to comply with the appropriate procedures and practices when minimum staffing levels are not met?

Will the Minister also say whether he agrees with Dr Rex Strong, the head of nuclear safety, who said in last night’s programme that not meeting the minimum safety standards or staffing levels did not mean that there was a safety risk?

In 2013, the manager of the site, Nuclear Management Partners, produced its somewhat ironically entitled excellence plan, cataloguing the safety problems and the critical nature of the infrastructure with respect to both electricity and water supply on the site. Why did the Government not insist that further resources—staffing and, of course, financial resources—be invested in the site to clean it up at that point? The Minister will know that expenditure in 2012-13 was £7,348 million, with £3,157 million from the Department of Energy and Climate Change itself. The year following that report, the figure had fallen to £5,345 million. Will he explain why, after such a damning report, the resources going into the site decreased? Will he also confirm that the cost estimates for the clean-up of the site have increased at an annual estimate from £25.2 million to £47.9 million?

The programme also cited problems with alarms, and it was said that these were turned off repeatedly, without checking. Will the Minister confirm that that practice is no longer in force? Finally, will he confirm that he has absolute confidence in Dr Rex Strong as head of nuclear safety at Sellafield and John Clarke, the chief executive of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority?

Gardiner did not get a very full reply from Nick Hurd, Minister of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for a constructive response, which reflects the cross-party concern to get this absolutely right with no equivocation. Issues were raised in the programme about minimum safety levels. I think they were responded to adequately in the programme. We were reassured that the NDA always has enough people on duty to maintain the site safely, and if the work cannot be done safely it will not get it done. I think the programme and the response to it have reassured us on that front.

As I said in my opening statement, cleaning up Sellafield safely costs £2 billion a year, and maintaining the NDA’s overall annual spend on cleaning up the UK’s nuclear sites at some £3 billion reflects the continuing importance that the Government place on cleaning up the civil nuclear legacy and Sellafield.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the reaction to the number of alarms raised—another issue raised in the programme. Those alarms, as he knows, are not unusual, given the types of material that people are working with and do not necessarily mean that there is a safety issue. However, we are reassured that staff are briefed never to be complacent and always react to alarms if they are serious, which is a point that was made in rebuttals in the programme.

On levels of confidence, yes, we do have confidence in the NDA. We also have a great deal of confidence in the independent regulator, which has made it quite clear that, as far as it is concerned, the programme does not raise any new issues and that Sellafield is safe.

Reassured?

Brent Council's financial decisions 2016-2020 deserve wider debate

The Brent Cabinet on September 13th will be receiving a report on the Council's financial position which forms the backdrop to decisions on the possible fixing of the Revenue Support Grant (RSG) for 4 years and the level of Council Tax for the period 2016-2020.

Changes in funding means that the Council will be facing a reduction in income despite an increase in cost pressures and will have a cumulative budget gap of £31m by 2019/20.  Local government financing is due a major restructuring after that date.

If Council Tax is increased by 3.99% a year the gap will be reduced:

Budget proposals are formulated from October onwards but the Cabinet is being asked to delegate a vital decision to Brent's  CEO Carolyn Downs in consultation with Muhammed Butt, Brent Council leader, over the next few weeks because the Government's deadline expires before the next Cabinet meeting.

The report outlines the Government's offer:

As part of last year's local government finance settlement councils were given the option of fixing their future RSG allocations until 2020. In principle this could address one key concern that the local government sector has highlighted for a number of years: the difficulty of long-term financial planning when key items of income are only determined annually. 


In order to take advantage of this the council would need to make a decision on the four year settlement option by 14 October 2016 and write formally to DCLG on this. As part of this it would need to present an efficiency plan; central government have indicated that this should not be an onerous document, and can be based on the council’s medium term financial plan. 


This is not a straightforward decision: it is a decision about risk management, and whether accepting or declining the settlement offers the better path for the council to manage its risks. DCLG have set out considerable emphasis that a four year fix is exactly that: it sets RSG until 2020 regardless of what may happen with the economy or other government decisions. Of course, legally, government cannot bind future Parliaments, and so it would technically be possible for the DCLG to reopen the settlement even for those councils that chose to fix their RSG. 


Accepting the four year settlement would give the council more certainty of future funding. This makes financial planning and communication much simpler, and significantly reduces the potential volatility in the system. This creates obvious arguments for accepting the fix, as it will aid the council's budgeting process and hence the quality of decision making. It would also clearly shift the focus onto those sources of funding that the council can influence and control. 


It is not only the decision in principle that has to be made by Butt and Downs but an 'efficiency plan' submitted that will dictate the level of savings (cuts, 'efficiencies' and income generation) over the next four years.

These are major decisions and I do not understand why the Cabinet cannot convene a special meeting before the deadline to consider Downs' proposal and efficiency plan. The wider Labour Group as well as the opposition seem to have been left out of the process completely but their hands will be tied for the next four years by these decisions.

Further. the report discusses at length the various borrowing options open to the Council and calls for Conrad Hall, (the report's author), who is Brent's Chief Finance Officer to be delegated the decision on the hiring of financial advisers in consultation with the Deputy Leader, Margaret McLennan:

The traditional way for councils to borrow money for routine capital investment is to borrow money from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB). However, given the scale of funds the council is planning to borrow there are potentially options that will come in at lower cost than the PWLB, such as issuing bonds that would be available for pension funds to buy, loans from the European Investment Bank (which may still be available after Brexit), or the Municipal Bonds Agency. This list is not exhaustive. 


Evaluating these options is complex, and requires specialist skills. In particular the skills to evaluate not just the headline rate, but also the price the costs of any differences in risk assumed by the council under different circumstances. In addition with any variable rate product, it will be necessary to consider a variety of scenarios to understand under what scenarios the council would benefit from a particular product, and under what scenarios it would lose out from a particular product. 


Further, it could be that the best approach for the council is to offset the risks and benefits of different products available to council, and this approach could be more advantageous than choosing a single, simple product. Alternatively, a single simple product may be more advantageous than more products and the complexity involved. 


The council has the skills and expertise to client advisers for such activity, but it would be unwise to enter into such significant long term commitments without taking proper professional advice. The cost of such advice is not yet known, but is often expressed as a function of the total borrowing requirement. As stated above, this is already known to exceed £100m and, depending on what else the council wants to build into its capital plans, could potentially be much higher than this. 


Owing to the highly technical nature of the advice it is therefore proposed to delegate to the chief finance officer, in consultation with the deputy leader, authority to procure and appoint the necessary advisers. Any decision on the structure of the actual borrowing will of course come back to cabinet for approval. 


The full report covers much more ground very throughly and is available HERE

London boroughs need to be more vocal about their role in school improvement

From London Councils

London boroughs renewed their commitment to driving school improvement at London Councils’ Education Summit, held at the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) on Monday.

London is currently the best performing region at GCSE level and around 80 per cent of schools in the capital are rated good or outstanding by Ofsted, but at the same time 40 per cent of young Londoners are failing to achieve  5 A* to C grades including English and Maths. 

At the Education Summit, councillors and council officers from across London discussed various strategies to boost pupil performance across the capital, particularly for those from more disadvantaged backgrounds.

Cllr Peter John OBE, London Councils Executive member for children, skills and employment, said:

London’s schools have much to celebrate when it comes to standards and performance, but it is vital that they do not rest on their laurels. By analysing what drives success in schools across the capital and focusing on narrowing gaps in attainment for pupils on free school meals, who are classed as being the most disadvantaged, boroughs can pave the way for further school improvements.

London boroughs remain committed to playing our part within the education system to ensure children in London receive a top-quality education, and that is why we are so concerned about the likely impact of the national funding formula for schools, on top of rising costs and growing pupil populations.

Keynote speaker Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Ofsted, focused on why it is imperative for local authorities and schools to improve outcomes for disadvantaged pupils and voiced scepticism about the effectiveness of re-introducing grammar schools. He shared insights gained as a head teacher at Mossbourne Academy in Hackney and during his tenure at Ofsted on the education system at large and the factors that create better schools. 

Another keynote speaker at the event was Alan Wood CBE, currently Chair of a government advisory group on the role of local authorities in relation to children. He called on London boroughs to be vocal about their role in school improvement and to do more to help schools push the most able students and those from working class backgrounds, boost attainment among pupils with special education needs and those interested in vocational 14-19 education routes, and improve standards in early years education. 

The story of one of Brent's migrant underclass who is likely to be sleeping rough tonight

Mohammed S Mamdani of Sufra NW Foodbank has sent this out to supporters. I am posting it with his permission.

Not a small proportion of food bank users these days are EU migrants. The kind of people who come to this country to work. Work that people like you and I can’t do, or won’t do. Most probably, both.

Alejandro is a 29-year-old migrant from Spain who came to this country over a year ago. He arrived at the food bank last Friday, peered through the office door and asked if I could help. He spoke impeccable English, so there was no need for me to test out my GCSE Spanish. He says that he has no food or electricity at home and then takes out a bunch of papers – bank statements, bills and his employment contract.

Like so many migrant workers, Alejandro is employed on a zero-hours contract washing pots at a restaurant in Central London. He has not been given any work for the last 2 weeks, and he’s unable to go elsewhere, as he’s obliged to be available for work at the whims of his employer. Whilst some employers will see this as a flexible working arrangement akin to the Uber mantra, it’s just another way to cut costs and deny holiday or sick pay.

Alejandro has responsibilities and commitments. He cares for his boyfriend who has HIV and recently contracted TB. Back in March 2016 he had to spend over a month in hospital with Alejandro caring for him by his side. This morning, he is in court contesting his eviction notice as he can’t afford to pay the rent.

Without any doubt, Alejandro and his bed ridden boyfriend will be sleeping rough tonight. The complexities of our benefit system mean that despite their EU status they are in fact ineligible for housing benefit.

I don’t want to come across as a left-wing liberal or trade unionist whinging about zero-hour contracts (although you’re probably right about the whinging). I cannot believe that even the most right-wing conservative would fail to comprehend the injustice of Alejandro’s situation.

Crudely speaking, Alejandro came to this country for work (in a labour market where we struggle to fill these jobs) to shovel our shit. Mind the French.

In recent weeks the BBC broadcast a new documentary series entitled “Britain’s Hardest Workers: Inside the Low Wage Economy”. After watching the first episode, you quickly realise that Britain’s workers are not British at all. They’re people like our Spanish immigrant, Alejandro.

In the first episode, presented by the gorgeous Anita Rani, we learn the seedy side of hotel room cleaning. At a luxury hotel in Leeds, workers are expected to clean a hotel room in 24 minutes, regardless of the state left by the previous occupier. Apart from wiping pools of urine off the bathroom floor, the towels must be folded perfectly, the lamp shades need to be dusted and the bed linen spotless. If you can’t do that in 24 minutes, you can wave goodbye to the paltry wage of £21.60 for a three-hour shift (in which you’re expected to clean an average of 7/8 hotel rooms). Even if you were offered more hours, you just couldn’t keep up. I’m ashamed to say, but I couldn’t do it.

Hearing the stories of food bank users like Alejandro makes you quickly realise that this great country with its glorious tradition of democracy and human rights, has an underclass of migrant labours who are exploited, abused and then vilified by the tabloid press. Our condemnation of the treatment afforded to migrant workers in other parts of the world such as rich Gulf states betrays a dirty secret much closer to home.

Next time you’re dining at a swanky restaurant or lying down to rest in a 5-star hotel, think about how much of your final bill actually went to those who cooked, served and cleaned for you.

What does this mean for Alejandro? I’m not quite sure. We’re looking for work so that he can quit his zero-hours contract but that’s easier said than done. Especially when you don’t have the money to get on a bus to a job interview. And who wants to give a job to someone who is street homeless, and has nowhere to wash before work? The cliché rings true. It’s a vicious cycle.

There’s someone else peering through the office door and beckoning for help. Better get going.

UPDATE: Green MEPs criticise 'inexcusable' response to 'chaotic situation' in Calais

-->

Refugees in Calais and Northern France must be treated with dignity and in accordance with international law, and the British and French governments must urgently find long-term humane solutions to their plight, Green MEPs have urged today.

The call comes as the Calais ‘Jungle’ camp is again making headlines on both sides of the Channel: Protests against the camp by local residents have taken place this week; the French Government has announced plans to completely close the camp; there has been fresh disruption to cross-Channel traffic, and now there are Donald Trump-esque plans to build a monstrous wall.

Jean Lambert, MEP for London and Green Party migration spokesperson, said:

“The decision to build a wall in Calais is the latest wrong move in what is the ongoing scandal of the handling of the plight of refugees in northern France. Successive French and British governments have utterly failed to fulfil their responsibilities towards the vulnerable people who find themselves in the camps, especially unaccompanied children. A wall will do nothing to improve the security of vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers or local residents, lorry drivers and cross-channel travellers.

“Adding to the already chaotic situation will only cause more children to go missing and give more control to criminal gangs. The authorities need to gain the trust of people in the camps, provide them with the information they are entitled to, give them a sense of security, and handle their asylum claims properly.

“The UK government must get its act together. Many of the people in Calais have a legal right to be reunited with family in the UK. The slow speed at which governments are dealing with asylum claims is inexcusable. People who find themselves in these camps do not want to enter the UK illegally but they need support to access the asylum system and no matter what they need to be treated with dignity.”

Keith Taylor, MEP for the South East of England, said:

“The situation in Calais is a symptom of a problem; dismantling the camps and removing the last scraps of dignity and security from their residents will not solve the problem. Building a wall is certainly not the answer either. Only through cross-border political cooperation can we hope to alleviate what is a global crisis.

“I empathise with the frustrations of local residents, hauliers, and travellers on both sides of the channel, but we cannot allow this Humanitarian crisis to be exploited by resurgent French or British far right groups. The dehumanising campaigns against camp residents cannot become justification for abandoning our legal and moral duties to approach this crisis with humanity.

“History will not judge our nations kindly if French and British governments refuse to work together constructively on this issue. Attacking the symptoms will never solve the problem.”

Molly Scott Cato MEP, who visited the ‘jungle’ camp in Calais earlier this year and is Green Party spokesperson on EU relations, said:

“The new wall will turn out to be another hugely expensive sticking plaster that will simply result in people going further to get round it and will push up tariffs for people smugglers. Instead, the British Government should be registering applications for asylum in the camps in France to quickly identify those people with a right to enter Britain. Perhaps a wall fits better with the fortress Britain mentality which seems to be at the heart of those pushing for a hard Brexit.”

Now Barham Community Library faces difficulties

We have already covered the threat to Preston Community Library and allegations from the volunteers that Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has broken an election promise, now the Council is in conflict with Friends of Barham Library (FoBL).

Tomorrow the  Barham Trust will consider a report (extract below) which gives details of a dispute over a rent free period and the fitting out costs for a community library:

The Trust Committee decided to grant the lease in respect of Unit 4, The Lounge, to The Friends of Barham Library (FoBL) at its meeting on 8 October 2015 on the general terms set out in the marketing particulars and the specific terms offered in the bid submitted by FoBL. The marketing particulars did not offer a rent free period. Nor did the bid submitted by FoBL propose a rent free period for the first year of the term of the lease. 


Subsequently, during the lease document preparation process, the FoBL requested a rent free period. The FoBL argued that the Vets had been offered a 12 month rent free period and therefore in the interests of fairness they should be offered the same terms. The FoBL also relied upon the fact that in order for them to operate their library services they would need to incur substantial fitting out costs. 


Consistent with the Trust Committee’s decision, the Heads of Terms prepared by the Council and dated 19 January 2016, and which the FoBL agreed, did not include a rent free period. However, a draft lease prepared by the Council in March of this year inadvertently included a 12 month rent free period. According to the FoBL the inclusion of a rent free period was not a mistake. They argue that they asked for it and it appeared in the lease and therefore it has been agreed and they have relied upon it in good faith and to their detriment ever since. 


The Council would maintain, however, that a rent free period has not been agreed. It was obvious to officers that the basis upon which the Trust Committee decided to grant a lease to the FoBL did not permit officers to forfeit rental income totalling £7,000. In the circumstances, there can be little doubt that officers had neither the actual or ostensible authority to do so. 


The officers concerned have confirmed that a rent free period had not been agreed and the extensive correspondence between the Council and the FoBL bears that out. The inclusion of the rent free clause in the lease was a mistake and when it came to light, albeit some months later, the FoBL were informed. 


The Council’s Heads of Terms were expressly marked ‘without prejudice’ and ‘subject to contract’. Although the draft copies of the lease were not, in accordance with legal convention and general legal principles, they did not need to be. A draft lease, contract etc. has no legal force and is not legally binding during the drafting process. It becomes legally binding upon its completion. If a prospective tenant chooses to incur expenses and changes their position on reliance of a draft lease, they do so at their own risk. 


The various Units at Barham Park have been let individually and subject to different letting processes and terms depending on the different commercial and other considerations unique to that Unit. The contention that FoBL should have a rent free period just because it has been approved in respect of a different Unit is not sustainable. Different terms for different Units do not amount to unfairness. 


FoBL competed in an open competition in order to realise their ambition to take up occupation of the Lounge. A rent free period was not on offer and no such concession was requested prior to the acceptance of the successful bid submitted by FoBL. In these circumstances, it is incumbent on all bidders to anticipate start-up and running costs in any bid submitted to ensure that bids can be assessed on an equal footing. 


In the circumstances, the Trust Committee need to consider whether to grant a rent free period to FoBL and, if so, for how long. This is a matter for the Trust Committee to decide consistent with the Council’s obligations as trustee which include acting in the best interests of the Trust and in accordance with its fiduciary duties. The Council also has to act in accordance with public law principles. 


Whatever the technical legal arguments, as the Trust Committee will appreciate, there is considerably more at stake. The letting of the Lounge has already been a protracted process demanding a disproportionate amount of resources both at Trust Committee and officer level. Any further delay will only add to the costs incurred by both the Council and the FoBL. 


If the Trust Committee were to agree to the request for a rent free period, the Trust would suffer a loss in rental income. The amount would of course depend on the period. A 12 month rent free period would cost the Trust £7,000. 


In addition, the Trust Committee should note that during the lease negotiation period, the FoBL sought permission “to move items in for storage” because they had to vacate their former premises. This was allowed and since then, in preparation of their occupation, FoBL have already incurred fitting out costs. This, they would argue clearly evidences their commitment to complete the lease and ensure they can be up and running without any further delay. 


That being the case, it is equally important from the point of view of the Trust that the impasse between the Council and the FoBL is resolved once and for all. It is suggested that the FoBL be given the opportunity to complete a lease of the Lounge on the terms set by the Trust Committee by no later than 16 September 2016. If the lease is not completed, it is suggested that the offer of a lease to the FoBL be withdrawn and that the Trust’s Property Adviser be authorised to review the other bids received in 2015 and return to the Trust Committee with recommendations 


You may think fair enough, independent Trustees will be able to adjudicate but all the Trustees are members of the Brent Labour Cabinet and the chair is Margaret McLennan, deputy leader of the Council.