Brent getting a poor deal in Spur's Wembley Stadium deal, claims councillor

Tottenham Hotspur's win against CSKA Moscow last Wednesday may have done something to allay fans' doubts about the move to Wembley but Cllr John  Duffy has voiced doubts about the Council's capacity to achieve benefits to Brent residents.

In an email to all Brent councillors Cllr Duffy said:

To All Brent Councillors,

I am very concerned that the Wembley Stadium and Spurs planning application is being guided and manipulated by both officers and Cabinet members.It would seem they seek a solution, that will not fully benefit Brent residents . 

All Councillors are independent on this issue and Councillors should not be influenced by either Cabinet members or officers on a pre-agreed application and should seek to ensure and maximise the benefits for Brent.

Firstly you have to consider does Brent want Wembley stadium to be a home ground for a Premier League Club and do not we want the extra congestion, nuisance and general disruption. Unless we get real investment  from the FA, Premier League and Spurs, I believe the answer is NO.

It is clear that the Cabinet are unaware of the potential of ensuring the investment to alleviate the problems caused by Wembley hosting Spurs and have not negotiated a reasonable deal for the residents…..I am tired of Brent residents being short changed, therefore I  believe Councillors should oppose the application as it stands.

Please find an edited email I previously sent to the Labour Group, which outlined my concerns about the planning application and the lack of benefits for Brent.

The earlier email, sent only to the Labour Group of councillors, said:

Dear All,

As it is 99% definite,Tottenham Hotspur will be moving to Wembley and its also likely that Chelsea (they may go to Twickenham) will moving in the following year.Its time we sorted out a strategy to protect and improve our Environment, Sports Education , parking ,community and employment strategy, together with compensation for Brent  residents.

As Chair of planning when we knocked down the old Wembley stadium and a member of the Task force for Wembley Stadium regeneration I have seen negotiations close up with the FA and they will be tough and we need a clear strategy.

From memory Wembley were allowed 22 sporting advents and they were no envisaged to be the home venue for any football club.Therefore at this point I would advise not to accept a season long deal but to treat every game as an FA cup Final and expect resources to reflect this. There Are many safeguards we  need for residents.I will outline the basics without the detail.

(1) Environmental improvement. 
I would expect extra resources ( too many options to go into) plus investment into plant. I have not looked at other Boroughs but I am aware of some who get a massively enhanced service for match day.
(2) Parking. 
Increased protection/enforcement of the neighbouring area. 
(3) Sports Education.
Ensure Investment in equipment and sports teaching in our schools including visits from football stars. Its important both the FA and Premier League show their commitment to grass roots football.
(4) Community Support .
Financial support for community activities,including , local R/As ,St Patricks day,Eid and Navratri and maybe support for local group who participate in the Notting Hill Carnival.
(5) Employment strategy.
Ensure that Brent residents get their fair share of any new jobs/ training arising from  the extra games. Also local firms should get a fair share of the increased supply chain for contracts 
(6) Compensation for local Business and residents.
Whereas the some business will benefit many other will lose (who would travel to Wembley to shop on a match day) so its important we look at high street improvements. The new games coming to Wembley will not only be on a Saturday they will included Sundays and weekdays at various kick off times.

There are many ways to negotiate and you should not look at only the time the football club is there, you should seek a 2/3 year deal on things like sports education and community support.I think you should have a local councillor on the negotiations ( seems unlikely as the leadership reject a task force for Kilburn Regeneration and now all decisions are made by the Lead member ) so local input will be represented.In my opinion we should not over engage in the - presentations- Vol-au-Vents  and vanity projects system which some members of the Cabinet prefer. We should also not going in asking for jobs at LLW ( getting employers to pay LLW is a failure ) we should be looking better jobs in supervision and management training. Finally do not over rely on Officers who will seek a deal that suits them as administrators. 

It would seem that some of the cabinet wish to treat the FA, the Premier League and Tottenham Hotspur  as " partners" whereas I see them them as people who wish to make a lot of money while using the facilities of  Brent which I have no problem with. However I believe this should be reflected in how we support our residents.So hopefully the cabinet have an agreed strategy about what we need from the richest sport in the world and the most famous football venue in the world.
    And Brent should not be short changed for all the inconvenience  

Let your Harrow councillor know your views on Harrow School's development proposal

This is an update from Harrow Hill Trust who are opposing Harrow School's bid to build on Metropolitan Open Land and have put forward alternative proposals. I have added links to email addresses for your convenience:

 11 Dec 2016 — At the Harrow planning meeting there was a motion to refuse the planning permission. The minutes don't tell you how your Councillors voted. However, so that you know how your particular local Councillor voted it was as follows.

Councillor Keith Ferry, Labour for the ward of GreenHill voted against the motion to refuse it, and as Chair used his casting vote to defeat it. Also he was the only Councillor to vote against the deferral.

Councillor Simon Brown, Labour for Headstone South, (was standing in as a reserve for Councillor Anne Whitehead, Labour for Wealdstone) voted against the motion to refuse.

Councillor Barry Kendler, Labour for Edgware voted against the motion to refuse, but tabled the motion for deferral which was supported by all except the Chair, Councillor Keith Ferry.

Councillor Mrs Christine Robson, Labour for West Harrow abstained from voting.
Councillor June Baxter, Conservative for Harrow on the Hill voted for refusal
Councillor Stephen Greek, Conservative for Harrow Weald voted for refusal
Councillor Pritesh Patel, Conservative for Harrow Weald voted for refusal.

So if you are in the wards of the Labour Councillors mentioned above please do let them know your views and the strength of local feeling. The brownfield option is what residents want and it is a much better site for many reasons and a much better fit for London Plan policy 7.17. There is even non-metropolitan land on the existing Northern boundary to allow an expanded footprint. We will be launching a call to action in the next update. Thanks again for your support, it is appreciated, and will be appreciated by our children.

The petition needs just 7 more signatories to reach 1,500 LINK

Ken Montague: an appreciation

Ken Montague, a well known and respected local Brent activist who had recently moved to Brighton, died on Friday not quite a month after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.

In perhaps his last email to friends and comrades after the diagnosis Ken finished by saying, 'Please pass on the word to those that need to know and say that I am relying on you to keep up the fight for better and more sustainable world. My only regret is that I'm bailing out so early. In comradeship, Ken'

I have offered to host tributes on Wembley Matters and begin with this from his colleagues in the University and College Union:

We regret to announce the death of Ken Montague, known to many of us as a socialist, climate change activist and member of the UCU London Retired Members branch. His contribution will be sorely missed. We send our condolences to his comrades, friends and family.

Merilyn Moos, vice chair of the retired members branch, who knew Ken for many years, has written this obituary.

I knew Ken as a comrade and friend from when we were in our early 20s. His sudden death, at 70, is a terrible blow, politically and personally.

Ken became an FE lecturer, first in what was then Kilburn Polytechnic (where I taught), then at Barnet. Before he retired, he did some part-time teaching at Middlesex. His main area was literature but he was deeply involved in Media Studies. His students loved him, especially those he took on annual pilgrimages to Cannes so that they could witness the iniquities but also the ‘alternative reality’ of the film industry for themselves. He was the Branch Secretary for what I suspect he felt was far too long, fighting the college management’s petty vindictiveness as well as the grander issues of conditions and pay. One of the crucial (and ultimately successful) campaigns he was crucially involved in was for the reinstatement of John Fernandes, a black lecturer at the College of North West London who was being dismissed for revealing the racist content of essays by police cadets whom he taught.

He was a member of IS, (International Socialists) then SW (Socialist Workers Party), an organisation which, with a couple of outs and ins, he remained a member of for all his life. He was passionate about his politics but never became a hack nor did he become bureaucratically compromised, retaining a fundamental commitment to grassroots struggle all his life.

The first massive class struggle I remember him in was at Grunwicks. He was the Secretary of Barnet Trades Council at the time and was on the Grunwick strike committee. From the beginning he stressed the importance, especially given the concealed racism, of solidarity between white, male, manual workers and Asian women and was vociferous in demanding, mass pickets to shut down Grunwick. As Ken wrote in SW: ’There was lots of talk of support from the top of the unions but it was mostly just talk.’ Indeed, as I remember vividly the turning point in the dispute came when, after a few weeks of mass pickets, the TUC (in the figure of Jack Dromey, then of Brent Trades Council, and indeed, Scargill,) marched us away from the gates. Ken would not have been in agreement with that.

 
Ken continued to be active, campaigning for example for the Respect candidate in Brent in a number of elections. But his next major and long-term involvement was over climate change, which, in recent years, including campaigning against fracking. He emphasised throughout the importance of trade union support and organisation. He was instrumental in setting up the Campaign against Climate Change Trade Union Group (CACCTU) and became its Secretary. He took a leading part in organising and promulgating the influential ‘One Million Climate Jobs’ booklet and campaign, both in Britain and internationally (supported by Jeremy Corbyn though one wouldn’t know it).

Last year he attended the Paris Climate talks as part of the Global Climate Jobs movement. Global Climate Jobs is the network of all the national climate campaigns, which he was instrumental in setting up. The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) held an alternative summit in Paris, attended by approx 40 climate jobs activists from 20 countries, which launched a Global Climate Jobs campaign. Ken always emphasised the crucial role of trade unions.

As he wrote afterwards about Paris:

It is clear that the leaders of all the countries in the world have failed us. They did so because nowhere did we have the political and social power to make them take decisive action on climate… We have to mobilise... After all, we need cuts of 80% in global emissions, as soon as possible.

We have to fight to leave the coal, gas and oil in the soil, he said. So we need to replace fossil fuels almost entirely with renewable energy. Ken could always be found doing the organising, writing and distributing the leaflets, speaking at meetings and rallies (which he didn’t enjoy), making the contacts, arguing with rank and file trade unionists - but never claiming the lime light.

The last event he was organising was the Conference Climate Refugees, The Climate Crisis & Population Displacement. Building A Trade Union & Civil Society Response (to be held on Saturday 11 February 10pm - 5pm, NUT, Hamilton House) Let’s support it.

Ken died too young and we shall all miss him.

Pete Murry, fellow UCU member and Brent Green Party and London Green Party TU Liaision Offcer, Secretary of Green Left wrote: 

For much of his life Ken lived in Cricklewood and was active in many local campaigns against, council and goverment cuts, against racism and against war. He was the founder and backbone of the Brent Campaign Against Climate Change and a key organiser in Campaign Against Climate Change nationally and its Trade Union group. It was an honour to have worked with him on these campaigns and as a fellow UCU member.

'Heartless and irrational' decision to close Brent Sickle Cell Service

Following the news LINK that Brent Clinical Commissioning Group have decided to stop the funding of the Brent Sickle Cell Advice and Support Service (SCASS), which was temporarily reprieved by widespread protests, including that of Dawn Butler, MP for Brent Central and Barry Gardiner MP for Brent North, Robin Sharp of Brent Patient Voice has sent me the following comment:

Brent Patient Voice (BPV) is dismayed by the decision of the Brent CCG Governing Body on 30 November to withdraw support from the Brent Sickle Cell Advice and Support Service.

This decision was originally made by the Governing Body on 2 July and only paused because BPV challenged the way it had been taken. At the time the Service was faulted based on data from only the first nine months of operation which was totally inadequate for demanding targets to have been met. There had been delays in recruiting staff and long term sickness had affected one of the workers. The independent evaluation report was very positive about the quality of the Service and the benefits to those who had used it. It suggested that based on trends from when it had become fully operational it would have met targets within a few months. We were shocked when we saw letters from the CCG to local MPs suggesting it was cheaper for Sickle Cell patients to have traumatic episodes requiring treatment in A&E than to be helped to avoid such trauma by the Advisory Service.

In our view and based on the evaluation report, the Advice and Support Service has been valuable in helping Sickle Cell sufferers to cope with social issues such as housing, benefits and employment by explaining to providers of these services the special features of Sickle Cell. Indeed we heard that Sickle Cell groups elsewhere were interested in it as a model.

The Governing Body in September agreed to review the situation and a so-called Focus Group was hosted by the Council for Voluntary Service on 15 September. This was attended by Sickle Cell representatives and patients as well as several members of BPV. In our view the weight of opinion in this meeting was strongly in favour of a service with the main characteristics of the existing BSCASS. The CCG ignored these views and decided to proceed with their preferred option of referring Sickle Cell patients to Care Navigators in the Whole Systems Integrated Care programme. These Navigators are only just beginning to operate and will have large caseloads across the spectrum of elderly vulnerabale patients. We have severe doubts as to whether they will be able to offer any practical help to Sickle Cell patients.

Speaking personally I see this decision as heartless and irrational.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council with Dr Ethie Kong, Chair of Brent CCG

This is the document BSCASS  presented to the Brent CCG in July this year to appeal against the earlier decision to stop funding them:

 

Greens 'betrayed and angry' over conduct of defector to the Tories

Cllr Dearnley

This is the public statement made after the defection of a Green councillor to the Conservatives. Amongst other things he claimed that the Green Party had become 'too leftwing' and disagreed with the party's position on the EU Referendum..

Norwich Green Party and the Norfolk County Council Green group condemn Councillor Adrian Dearnley’s decision to defect to the Conservative Party, and in particular his decision to announce this through the press without informing us.

We were aware that Councillor Dearnley had some growing differences of opinion with the Green Party, notably on the EU referendum. If he feels that he can no longer be a member of the party, then that is a decision for him.

However, we are shocked that Councillor Dearnley would choose to throw in his lot with the Conservative Party, which over the last six years has overseen the systematic destruction of local government and the welfare system, left British people poorer and more divided, and shown total disregard for our environment and the urgent need to tackle climate change. Locally, too, the Conservatives are the party of environmental destruction, pushing for the King’s Lynn incinerator and ill-thought-out road schemes like the NDR, which the Greens have fought so hard to oppose.

Most of all, we are appalled by the lack of respect shown by Councillor Dearnley both to Thorpe Hamlet residents, who elected a Green councillor to serve them, and to his former colleagues in the Green Party, who feel betrayed and angry that he saw fit to make this decision behind their backs.

Your Green councillors will continue to work hard to represent you, to challenge the Conservative administration at County Hall and to speak up for the environment and for those hit by cuts. We stand in solidarity with the residents of Thorpe Hamlet in the face of this betrayal. The work of Councillors Lesley Grahame, Ben Price and Jo Henderson in their ward will continue to show them the real face of Green councillors – hardworking, concerned for people and planet, and committed to giving residents a voice.

Down the Chute in Wembley Park

Mountain Water Chute at Wembley Park

Local historian Philip Grant has sent in this comment on the development plans for Amex House in North End Road, Wembley Park LINK:

A few months ago, on behalf of Wembley History Society, I dealt with an email enquiry about the history of the Amex House site from an agent for the developers.

I was able to tell her that in 1924/25 this location was in the Amusement Park which formed part of the British Empire Exhibition (North End Road got its name because it ran across the North End of the BEE site).

Because of the available water supply from the Wealdstone Brook, this particular area of the Amusement Park was used for the Mountain Water Chute attraction, so much of it was deliberately flooded then!

Greens celebrate nana anti-fracking victory by giving her lifetime membership

The Green Party has celebrated the dismissal of the case against Anti-Fracking Nana Tina Rothery today as a victory for the future of peaceful protest.

Rothery, a 54-year-old grandmother, could have become the first ever climate change protestor to go to prison when she appeared at The Law Courts in Preston today (Friday 9 December 2016).
Rothery was taken to court by fracking firm Cuadrilla for trespass after she staged a peaceful protest in a field near Blackpool which was under consideration as a fracking exploration site.

She was ordered to pay the firm’s legal bills which stood at more than £55,000, and could have faced 14 days in jail for refusing to pay. But today a judge dismissed the case against her.

The Green Party has given Rothery lifetime membership in support of her fight against shale gas exploration in Lancashire.

Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party, said:

Today marks a great victory for everyone who believes in the right to peaceful protest and the fight against climate change. It would have been utterly unjust to jail Tina Rothery, who has shown exceptional courage protecting her community from the threat of fracking.

It is an honour to give Tina lifetime Green Party membership in recognition of her bravery in the fight to protect our planet.

Amelia Womack, deputy leader of the Green Party, said:

We say today that companies targeting individuals will meet ever stronger opposition. Fracking completely undermines the international climate commitments to limit warming to 2 degrees as made under the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

If we are to stop climate chaos, there can be no new dirty fossil fuel infrastructure. No pipelines. No mines. No fracking.

NW London STP: 'Change is needed - but not like this'

From Brent Patient Voice LINK

This was the theme elaborated by Dr Julia Simon, former NHS high-flyer, when she addressed a packed and lively BPV public meeting last Thursday 1^st December at the Learie Constantine Centre, NW10.

BPV Chair, Robin Sharp, explained that big changes to the way in which GPs relate to their patients were hidden away in the recently published NW London NHS Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP). Essentially the Plan was about cutting £1.4billion from local health and social care service over the 5 years up to 2021, including previously announced proposals to “reconfigure” hospitals and cut beds. What was new was the plan to turn GPs from being a “cottage industry” to the brave new world of “Accountable Care Partnerships”.

Dr Simon told us she was not a medical doctor but had been a philosopher before moving into the healthcare world. For several years up to last September she was a senior leader at NHS England, working on primary care and commissioning issues. She had left to be able to break out of some of the constraints that being at NHSE imposed, not least in relation to the speed at which the STPs were being imposed across the country and the realism of some of the claimed financial figures.

Striding around the room like a university lecturer, Dr Simon captivated her audience with the clarity and honesty of her presentation. She said that in the 90s the idea of a market had been introduced into the NHS to drive up standards. This involved creating a division between “commissioners”, who worked out what was needed and paid for it, and “providers” such as hospitals and GPs who delivered it. The trouble was that under the NHS healthcare was not a market because it could not be allowed to fail.

In 2012 Parliament enacted the Health and Social Care Act, the brainchild of Andrew Lansley, whose wife was a GP. This put local GPs into 209 local Clinical Commissioning Groups to be in charge of designing and paying for about two-thirds of the health care provided by hospitals and in the community. The downside was enormous fragmentation because NHSE became commissioners for specialist services and local authorities for public health. In addition local authorities remained responsible for adult social care, which was means-tested, whereas healthcare was free at the point of delivery.

This was the context into which the new chief of NHSE, Simon Stevens, launched his plan for the future in 2014, the “Five Year Forward View”. As well as accepting that the NHS could make £22billion “efficiency savings” by 2021, this plan called for integration between GPs, hospitals and adult social care. All parties, medical bodies and commentators signed up to it without apparent reservation.

Then in December 2015 the annual Planning Guidance from NHSE to the CCGs and hospital trusts announced that implementation of the Forward View was much too slow and current trust deficits were “unsustainable”. The CCGs and trusts were grouped into 44 areas (Footprints) across England and required, working with local authorities, to produce STPs by 30 June 2016 to eliminate deficits and implement “transformation” over a 5 year period.

Meanwhile various experiments in new forms of integrating services locally had been launched under the brand of “Vanguards”. As Dr Simon explained these are still in progress and there are no evaluations. “The jury is out on the Vanguards”, she said.

The Vanguards include integrated primary and acute care systems, as well as multi-speciality community providers. The first of these embraces Accountable Care Partnerships (ACPs). Dr Simon spelled out some of the features of ACPs. These envisage a fixed budget for each patient (capitated budget), an emphasis on self-care and prevention leading to fewer hospital admissions and merging the boundaries between commissioners and providers. New legislation might be needed and there were some perverse incentives in the present system.

To conclude Julia Simon said that, while she was convinced that new approaches to organising the NHS and delivering care were needed the STPs had been produced in semi-secrecy and much too fast. Moreover the savings being suggested were not really credible. She likened the situation to George Orwell’s “1984” where officials state in public numbers that in private they admit are impossible. However she saw some signs that the top of the NHS would soon announce a delay enabling more serious public consultation.

Julia was congratulated by an audience member on delivering the most informative address he had ever heard from an NHS person. There was general support for this sentiment.

Her presentation was followed up by some 40 minutes of questioning and passionate statements of concern, especially at the unacceptability of the STP for NW London. Noting that Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham Councils had refused to sign up to the Plan, audience members wanted to know what more could be done to persuade elected councillors in Brent and other boroughs not to endorse it.

Robin Sharp

Chair Brent Patient Voice

See 'I, Daniel Blake' free at Tricycle Kilburn tomorrow morning

There are still some free tickets available for tomorrow's  Sufra screening of Ken Loach's  I, Daniel Blake, at the Tricycle Cinema, Kilburn High Road, 10.30am.

In order for the organisers to monitor numbers please register HERE using the promotional code 'FRIENDS TICKET'.

New Wembley Park development comes with built in flood risk

Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday 14th will consider a planning application for the vacated Amex site in North End Road, Wembley. LINK

The officer's report has the familiar mantra for the Quintain area which considers that the height of the building, though not meeting planning guidelines, can be approved because of its good design and the height of other buildings such as Victoria House, in the near vicinity; and the proportion of affordable housing at 22.6% not meeting the 50% target is approved as a result of the financial viability assessment carried out by advisers.

The buildings front on to North End Road and follow the loop of the Wealdstone Brook at the back. The aim is to partially naturalise the Wealdstone Brook which is currently in a concrete culvert although lined by mature trees.  Naturalisation was a long term aim of the Wembley Plan to improve the environment but it is unclear from the application whether there will be public access.  I am awaiting  response from the Planning Officer to my query.

The development is next to Danes Court and Empire Court which are four storeys high and set in gardens. The Courts will now have tall buildings at each end of North End Road. In the original Wembley Plan there was a proposal to re-build the North End Road junction with Bridge Road where the Michaela Free School now stands. I have asked Planning about the current status of this plan.

One of the difficulties of the site is that it is surrounded on what could be seen as three sides by the Wealdstone Brook and this is a flood risk area. See the line of the brook below:

In a period of extreme weather caused by climate change there is obviously a need to build mitigation into the development. The Planning Report sets out the risk and actions taken to mitigate the risk. I publish it below for the record. In the event of  extreme flooding the site has the potential to become a temporary island.

The Wealdstone Brook is a 2m wide culverted watercourse, the base level of which is some 2.5m 
below adjacent ground level. The canalised brook is a tributary of River Brent and passes through the area within the engineered structure, and only becomes ‘naturalised’ where it emerges further south.

112.    The application site lies within Flood Zone 3a, defined by the NPPF as having a high probability of flooding. Development classified as ‘more vulnerable’ is only appropriate in these areas following application of the Flood Risk Sequential Test and where the Exception Test has been applied in full and has been passed. The revised FRA submitted has now used updated and revised climate change allowances to assess flood risk on site using the modelling already carried out and approved in support of application at Wembley Point for the Wealdstone Brook. The Environment Agency (EA) accept the design flood level detailed in the submitted FRA.

113.    The NPPF requires the Exception Test to be applied in the circumstances shown in Table 3 of the ‘Planning Practice Guidance: Flood Risk and Coastal Change’. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF makes clear that all elements of the test must be passed for development to be permitted. Part 2 of the test requires the applicant to demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible will reduce flood risk overall.

114.    The flood modelling prepared by the applicant shows that North End Road would be inundated in both the 1 in 100 35% climate change event and the 1 in 100 70% climate change event, which appears to be the only access/egress route. This means that safe refuge within the development is required for future occupants as safe access and egress cannot be achieved.

115.    The finished floor levels of the development have been raised above the 1 in 100 chance in any year, including an allowance for climate change flood extent. This means that floodwater is unlikely to enter the property during a 1 in 100 chance in any year plus climate change flood extent.

116.    The applicant has overcome the EA’s previous objection by submitting an acceptable emergency flood plan framework to the local planning authority that deals with matters of evacuation and refuge to demonstrate that people will not be exposed to flood hazards.

117.    The full detailed flood plan for the site will be secured by condition prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved.

118.    To summarise, the applicant has demonstrated that the site has satisfactorily addressed the EA’s previous objection, demonstrating that people will not be exposed to flood hazards and therefore the application is acceptable in flood risk terms.

North End Road is currently a 'dead end' street and the planning officers, despite the new development being designated 'car free' as it is so close the Wembley Park station and bus routes, take into account potential parking problems:

The applicant therefore proposes to designate the development as ‘car-free’ and the good access to public transport and other services would support this. There is however some concern that this development, with parking provision for just 8% of units, would generate an excessive volume of parked cars in the adjoining streets that cannot be regulated at the present time and that the proposal could potentially result in parking conditions detrimental to the free and safe flow of traffic in the area.

In order to avoid this in the event that the development is approved, it is essential that the right of future residents and businesses to on-street parking permits (both for the existing Stadium event day CPZ and for any future year-round CPZ that is introduced in the area in future) be withdrawn through a Section 106 Agreement.

A significant contribution (£100,000) via a S106 Agreement should also be provided towards subsidising the cost of on-street parking permits for existing residents in the area, so that if a CPZ is introduced to control overspill parking from this development, they are not unduly inconvenienced by it. This figure has been calculated using the Council's standard rationale for CPZ contributions.

There is another broader issue about the development around the stadium which is the gradual removal of small businesses as they are replaced by housing, hotels and student accommodation. This impacts on longer term employment opportunities in the area.

Extraordinary Brent CCG meeting on Wednesday to further controversial health plans

There is an Extraordinary Meeting of the Governing Body of the Brent Clinical Commissioning Group at noon-1.30pm on Wednesday 14^th December at the Boardroom Wembley Centre for  Health and Care.  The meeting is open to the public and 30 minutes has been allocated to questions from the public.

The meeting is about the business case for Shaping a Healthier Future and the CCG consider this essential for ‘delivering’  the controversial NW London Sustainability and Transformation Plan. Cllr Krupesh Hirani confirmed in the Brent and Kilburn Times today that Brent Council intends to sign the STP despite the fact that neighbouring Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham councils have refused to do so.

As usual the documents are massive, jargon ridden and with enough acronyms to fill Wembley Stadium.

Anyone who manages to plough through them AND understand them deserves an honorary degree.

Those who think that the STP, though argued on the  basis of benefits to patients, is really a cover for cuts may be interested in the Strategic Outline Case for investment to eventually save money: 

For trusts under the ‘comparator’ scenario, where no commissioner QIPP is assumed to be delivered and with business-as-usual CIP delivery, all our provider trusts will be in financial deficit, with a combined deficit of £114m at 2024/25. However, if commissioner QIPP were delivered, trusts’ I&E would improve to a combined deficit of £18m as additional CIPs can be achieved (termed the ‘SaHF scenario before reconfiguration). The CCG QIPP delivery is dependent in part on the building of the hubs, which is why it is not included in the ‘comparator’. If we receive the capital funding we are requesting, the trusts’ financial projections demonstrate that all trusts will have a sustainable I&E surplus position of £27.6m at 2024/25, with the reconfiguration contributing a c£50m benefit (termed the ‘SaHF scenario after reconfiguration’). 

Currently the trusts are running in-year deficits which would require an estimated cash support of £1.1bn over the next 10 years (and continue thereafter), which would reduce to £0.5bn under the ‘SaHF scenario before reconfiguration’ (where additional CIPs are delivered, partly due to hub investment to enable QIPP delivery). Under the SOC part 1 option (‘SaHF scenario after reconfiguration’), the cash deficit support in the 10-year period would reduce further to £0.4bn and are eliminated post reconfiguration. 

If the capital investment were funded by loans, two of the trusts would have a below target Financial Sustainability Risk Rating (FSRR) and be unable to meet the loan repayments. As the loan funding scenario is unaffordable from a liquidity perspective, we have explored two further scenarios and have concluded that our preferred option is for Public Dividend Capital (PDC) funding, and an accelerated timeline. 

We have also demonstrated that the case is affordable under a range of scenarios by conducting sensitivity analyses.

Documents

BrentCCG SaHF SOC Part 1 cover sheet 14122016

Shaping a Healthier Future SOC Part 1 Covering Report

14 December GB Agenda

Shaping a Healthier Future - Strategic Outline Case Part 1

This is the Brent Cabinet decision as recorded in the minutes of the October 24th Cabinet meeting:

1.     Cabinet noted the STP submission for North West London. 


2.     Cabinet welcomed the principles adopted within the STP of prevention, out  of hospital care, dealing with the social care funding gap and the need to work across the public sector to maximise benefits from changes to the NHS and other public sector estate. 


3.     Cabinet noted that the STP will need formal sign off by the end of December and that between October and December the following issues need to be clarified both within the submission and through other NHS processes, in 
 order for the council to give full support for the plan:

a.     That the IMBC on which delivery area 5 is based is released, debated and understood; 


b.     That the flow of monies from acute to out of hospital settings are clarified; 


c.      That the specification for out of hospital settings, in particular social care, are clarified
based on an agreed model of out of hospital care; 


d.     That a full risk assessment for the plan and relevant mitigations are included. 


Buy ethical Traidcraft presents for your children this Christmas

Wembley Matters does not carry advertising but I have made an exception in this case. You can make a difference to the lives of some of the poorest people on the planet by making ethical consumer choices.

Show You Care - Nepal: The Stonebreakers (Subtitled) from Traidcraft on Vimeo.

Toy adverts are dominating TV screens and parents are crumbling to the pressure of pester power, but most children are bored with their Christmas presents by the end of the festive season, according to a new study. A national survey by Traidcraft, the UK’s leading fair trade organisation, found that 67% of parents expect their children to tire of their new toys by the end of the holiday season, while almost 3 in 10 parents expect their children to be bored with their gifts on the big day itself.

This lack of interest comes despite the majority of parents surveyed (60%) estimating they spend more than £100 per child on Christmas presents. The survey also found that around nine in 10 people receive at least one unwanted Christmas gift every year. The survey was commissioned by Traidcraft in support of its Show You Care campaign, which calls on UK consumers to shop with thought and buy meaningful fair trade gifts in the run up to the Christmas period. The survey results, which shed light on the nation’s Christmas gift giving, come as a stark contrast with the lives of some of the children and families that the organisation works with in developing countries overseas.

 In Kenya, where Traidcraft works with farmers struggling with the effects of climate change, children surveyed by Traidcraft were excited by the prospect of receiving fizzy drinks for Christmas, while in Nepal Traidcraft’s partner organisation Get Paper Industry provides education for children of desperately poor rural families. Nepal’s ‘Stonebreakers’ are some of the poorest people in the world, whole families including the children make their living collecting, breaking down by hand and selling stones from the riverbed. The average income for Stonebreakers is just 75 rupees, or 50p per day, which must support an entire family.

Stonebreaker Suvash Parijar, who is father to five year old Sudip, is forced to beg and borrow to keep his children clothed and fed. Suvash said: “As I have a family I have responsibilities. I have to make sure they are looked after and have enough to eat. There is no other way to look after my children unless I work. It is all my responsibility. “Sometimes there is no money at all, so if my children demand something that I cannot provide I have to find a way of explaining to them. But we usually beg and borrow to get them what they need. It is very difficult.”

Buying from Traidcraft helps our partners such as Get Paper Industry transform lives, allowing them to run life changing products around the world.

 Roderick Stuart, Traidcraft’s Head of Communications, said:

Of course we want families to enjoy a fantastic Christmas and receive the gifts they want and will enjoy, but we’ve all probably experienced a time when we feel under stress or pressure to buy Christmas gifts that are maybe beyond our means and it feels like we’re in danger of forgetting the true meaning of Christmas.

Meanwhile there are whole families in developing countries living on the equivalent of just 50p a day. Many people think that fair trade simply equates to a fair wage and while ensuring a fair wage for producers is a hugely important part of what we do, the benefits of buying fair trade reach so much further.

In the case of the Stonebreakers in Nepal, our work with fair trade producers means that the children of these desperately poor families have access to a free education, which can eventually help lift the whole family of poverty changing lives for the better forever.

Fair trade Christmas gifts really are a win-win way of spreading festive cheer and that’s why we’re calling on the people of the UK to ‘Show You Care’, buying ethical gifts with thought and love in the run up to Christmas.

 Traidcraft’s fair trade Christmas range is available to purchase at www.traidcraftshop.co.uk

Tulip Siddiq makes a passionate plea for her EU residents