Four borough 'super-contract' reduced to three

The four borough 'public realm' procurement contract led by Brent Council has been reduced to three after the London Borough of Richmond dropped out. The contract would cover waste management, recycling, street cleansing, and parks maintenance and include Brent Housing Partnership. A report to the Brent Executive states:

Late last week the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames decided not to participate in the joint procurement because of the need to award a contract starting in April 2014 to meet Brent’s requirements. This would give Richmond a long period of time with an incumbent provider who might not win the contract, giving a risk of having to manage poor performance.

This leaves the boroughs of Hounslow and Barnet. Hounslow has recently awarded a 25 year street cleaning contract so that will not be included. A proposal for Brent and Hounslow to share a Director of Public Health was withdrawn from the agenda of the Brent Executive after it encountered oppositon from within the Brent Labour Group.

Meanwhile Barnet Council is in considerable disarray after its Chief Executive moved on. Cllr Brian Coleman, ex-GLA member, is facing  expulsion from the Conservative group on the council after being arrested and charged with common assault.

Despite the circumstances the Brent report remains upbeat.

The business case for the collaborative procurement with Barnet and Hounslow is still robust. Both councils are still committed to the project and are taking a report to their Cabinets in November 2012.

The slightly reduced scale of the contract helps to mitigate some of the procurement risks set out in paragraphs 3.4.4, 3.4.9 and 3.4.11 of the main report to the Executive:

a slightly smaller contract may encourage other companies to bid

subject to specification development, it will be easier to align services with just one borough where we share boundaries than across four.

The governance arrangements will be updated to reflect the withdrawal of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

Gladstone Free School proposers answer some key questions

William Gladstone makes a point...

 The proposers of a secondary free school in NW2, the four form entry Gladstone Free School, have supplied the answers to questions I sent them about their plans. They have now met with an officer from Brent Council and think that their proposal ticks all the boxes of the  partnership principles set out by the council LINK

The Questions and Answers

1. How will you ensure that all children have access to the school and what will your admissions criteria be?

Our aim is to create a non-selective community school for the Cricklewood/ Gladstone Park area. The school will be open to all but if we are oversubscribed then distance from the school will be the main criterion. We want this school to reflect the local community and will try to place it where it is accessible, though we can’t select a site until we have been approved for funding.

2. Will your school reflect the socio-economic profile of its neighbourhood as measured by the proportion of children admitted who are entitled to free school meals.

We actively want a community school that reflects the profile of its neighbourhood and are planning for at least 27% (Brent's average) of pupils on free school meals. We have chosen distance as the main criterion with the intention of siting the school in the heart of that community. We hope this will ensure a fully representative pupil intake.

3. Will you give priority to children with statements of special education need and those who are Looked After?

Pupils with Special Education Needs who have the school named on their statement will be guaranteed a place. Looked after children are given priority, as they would be with a local authority school.

4. Will you insist that all teaching staff have Qualified Teacher Status?

We anticipate that the majority of teachers will have qualified teacher status (QTS). However, in order to best support the anticipated range of educational needs we will be using a wide variety of innovative strategies, including bringing in expertise from cultural organisations, industry, universities and so on. We can't therefore guarantee that all those teaching will have QTS. What we won’t be doing is using non-qualified teaching staff to cut costs or to make profits.

5. Will your teachers enjoy the same conditions of service as local authority school teachers?

Recruiting, developing and supporting the very best teachers is a key part of our vision. We will have fair terms of employment and will consult on those terms. Our hours and our term times might be different from the Local Authority and therefore we can’t guarantee at this stage that the terms of employment will be identical. We intend to seek the two ticks for disability rating as an employer.

6. How will you ensure democratic accountability for the school and its expenditure of public money?

Our published annual accounts will be publicly available to ensure accountability. We are forming a company with charitable aims to make the bid and run the school. A partnership with Brent council remains a possibility, and we welcome other proposals to ensure accountability.

7. Have you any premises ear-marked for the school?

We are not able to select or earmark premises until we have been approved for funding and have the buildings grant. If anyone knows of any large derelict sites which might suit our proposed school please get in touch. We want something in the heart of Cricklewood/ Gladstone park with good transport links and access to open space to support our active approaches to learning.

8. How far have you got with the application/approval process?

The DfE application submission window is from December 17th to January 4th. We have been recognised by the New Schools Network as a high potential new school and so are confident that our application is on track. We need to demonstrate demand for the school with 240 signatures of parents with children in years 4 and 5 on our pledge, and welcome assistance from parents and other members of the local community with that process. Please ask your readers to take a look at our website at www.gladstoneschool.org.

9. Would you consider a partnership with Brent Council for the school?

We have invited Brent Council to consider exactly that.

10. How will you consult with neighbouring schools and the community about your proposals?

We have made considerable efforts to communicate the plans about Gladstone School to local primaries, and have invited 40 headteachers to a special information briefing. We have put information on the NorthWestTwo residents association page and we are grateful for the opportunity to seek the views of readers of Wembley Matters. We had a stall at the Brent Golden Summer festival in Gladstone Park, and have an informal information briefing session at 11.00am every Thursday in the reception area of the Crown Moran Hotel on Cricklewood Broadway. We encourage feedback, either at the Crown briefings, or via our website. To date we have had an overwhelmingly positive reception to our proposals from local residents.

Anyone who seeks further answers is very welcome to use the "questions and answers" service on our website.

Tenders sought for £50m plus South Kilburn contract

Brent Council is looking to select a partner to deliver the redevelopment of 'Site 11b', which sits within the South Kilburn masterplan area. The contract will be worth £50m to £60m

The masterplan proposes the removal of many of the existing tower blocks, replacing them with 2,400 medium-rise flats. .

Brent Council said that its expectation is for 'exemplar, award winning high quality developments in South Kilburn'. For Site 11b, the council has secured outline planning permission.  It will grant a long leasehold for the demolition of existing structures on site and erection of new mixed use development comprising of up to 144 residential units and up to 480m² of commercial floor space.

Residents blockade road in incinerator protest

Local News By James Cozens from the Ealing Times

 

 RESIDENTS blockaded the road on Saturday morning as they stepped up their efforts to stop the development of a waste incinerator plant. 

The Triangle Island Residents’ Association protest aimed to highlight the disruption that Clean Power’s lorries would cause them along Old Oak Lane, Acton, near Willesden Junction. Their temporary blockade ended around midday.

TITRA Chairman Toby Bolland, 40, of Goodhall Street, is concerned the Environment Agency has no control over the transport of waste to the plant.

He said: “They give no thought whatsoever to the fact that trucks have to drive through the middle of the community.

“It’s basically industrial waste they will be processing.”

Entran, an environment consultancy hired by Clean Power, has predicted a reduction in lorry movements from current levels at the site.

However, Mr Bolland claims present movements are unusually high due to a temporary tunnel-digging project taking place He says there would be a reduction with or without the plant once this project ceases.
A surveyor himself, Mr Bolland said: “I know how these documents are produced. It’s all about making the results fit what you want.”

The plans call for access 24 hours a day and TITRA say they are already kept up at night by lorries passing their cottages and causing the buildings to shake.

“It’s just awful,” said Marie Somerville, of Crewe Place. “They go through at night. They’re very noisy and we don’t get any peace”

Daniel Jones, also of Goodhall Street, said: “It’s literally on the doorsteps of these homes.

“Have they provided enough evidence to say whether access is suitable to the site? We don’t think they have. “

TITRA is particularly concerned with potential odour problems from the plant, which will also include four anaerobic digestion tanks.

Clean Power says the site will be kept under negative pressure to prevent odours escaping and that it has an odour management plan.

However, the nearby Powerday recycling plant has long caused neighbours problems, they say.

“We live with the smell of rubbish on a regular basis. We can prove already that odour management plans don’t work,” said Mr Bolland.

“Technology breaks down,” said Mr Jones. “When you’ve got tons and tons of putrid organic waste on a site and anything happens to the negative pressure system, then it is going to stink!”

Parents bid for secondary free school in NW2 area

A small group of Brent parents are in the process of applying to the Department for Education to open a secondary free school in the NW2 area.

They have circulated e-mails to local residents and are distributing leaflets at local primary schools in an effort to get a minimum of 240 parents of children currently in Year 4 or 5 to pledge support for their application. The deadline is just before Christmas.

I have been warning for some time that the disproportionate number of secondary schools in the south of Brent, compared with the north, could lead to such an application. I have also suggested that many parents prefer a smaller school. This proposal is for a four form entry which would make it smaller than some of the expanded Brent primary schools.

The group have a website HERE.

They summarise their proposal thus:

Gladstone is an exciting new school offering 120 places each year to 11-19 year olds in north west London. Designed by education professionals and parents, the school will create strong links with universities, the local community and London's creative, scientific and cultural organisations.

Our vision is for an ambitious, popular, community-focused school. The knowledge, skills and confidence it provides will transform the aspirations and achievements of all it touches. We'll set high standards, because young people learn best when we expect the best of them. Children starting with us will receive academic rigour, inspirational teaching and rich cultural and physical activities. But we'll also focus on enjoyment since the most ambitious targets are met when learners are active, happy and motivated. Those children will leave us as successful young adults, with qualifications to secure the best that life offers. And they will know the pride of being part of a community, but the confidence to go it alone.

This is what they say about their ethos:

The "inspiration; confidence; success" mantra underpins and informs the management of every element of our school life, from individual child to whole-school policies. Any planned action must be measured against the same checklist: how does this inspire students? how does it increase their confidence? how can we, or they, measure success?

 

It also provides a firm foundation for the school ethos, which includes the following aims:

• to provide a strong academic curriculum, balanced with creative and entrepreneurial activities;
• to promote individual ambition by setting and monitoring personalised targets for every student, alongside tailored academic and pastoral support, so that every student maximises their academic and personal potential;
• to relentlessly pursue exciting and inspirational opportunities for all students, and to seek out individuals and organisations who can support these aspirations;
• to capitalise on the interests, passions and expertise of local parents and the community;
• to ensure all students secure the academic achievements needed to go on to university, if they choose to;
• to encourage and empower young people to become independent: in their learning and their lives generally; and
• to attract and retain the very best teachers by providing them with tailored support, encouragement and professional development opportunities.

I have submitted a number of searching questions to the group about their proposal and hope to carry their answers soon. The questions focus on issues of  access, equality, accountability and teachers' conditions of service.

The return of Wembley and Willesden as political entities?

My mother and father, hailing  from either side of the Welsh Harp, used to bring the class divisions between Willesden and Wembley into their domestic rows. The political row over the merger of the two councils, now fading into history, still has resonance.

Now the Boundary Commission's revised proposals  suggest a Wembley and a Willesden Parliamentary Constituency which may revive some of the old rivalries.

Northwick Park ward goes into Harrow West and College Park and Oak Oak, previously Hammersmith and Fulham, are now part of Willesden. Brent's Kilburn and Queens Park wards, are now in the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency alongside eight Camden wards.

35. Hampstead and Kilburn BC 78,225 Kilburn Brent 9,777 Queens Park Brent 8,882 Belsize Camden 7,555 Fortune Green Camden 7,181 Frognal and Fitzjohns Camden 7,036 Hampstead Town Camden 7,047 Highgate Camden 7,634 Kilburn Camden 7,504 Swiss Cottage Camden 7,916 West Hampstead Camden 7,693.MAP

66. Wembley BC 73,303 Alperton Brent 8,742 Barnhill Brent 9,773 Fryent Brent 8,274 Kenton Brent 8,922 Preston Brent 9,256 Queensbury Brent 10,080 Tokyngton Brent 8,961 Wembley Central Brent

MAP

67. Willesden BC 77,279 Brondesbury Park Brent 7,961 Dollis Hill Brent 7,627 Dudden Hill Brent 7,947 Harlesden Brent 8,254 Kensal Green Brent 7,677 Mapesbury Brent 8,359 Stonebridge Brent 9,240 Welsh Harp Brent 7,908 Willesden Green Brent 7,412 College Park and Old Oak Hammersmith and Fulham 4,894 MAP

There is now an eight week consultation period before the proposals go before Parliament. Consultation closes on December 10th 2012. Responses should be sent to london@bcommengland.x.gsi.gov.uk

Waste and the Wembley Plan - some reservations

As residents of Ealing and Brent in the area around Willesden Junction station fight a planning application for a 'waste to energy' incinerator on the Freightliners Depot site, readers may be interested in Brent Campaign Against Climate Change's submission on the Wembley Plan. This includes references to waste processing. Wembley was of course the site of the 'Wembley Stink' during the Olympics when the stench from rotting organic waste at the Seneca Materials Recycling Facility became a national issue.

Since this response was submitted the Brent Executive have agreed plans for the purchase of a site for a new waste management depot in Brent as part of the four-borough contracts for waste management, recycling, street sweeping and parks maintenance. £6m has been allocated and one wonders if the site will be in the Wembley Plan area.

Brent Campaign Against Climate Change – submission on Wembley Plan

We have limited our comments to the most relevant aspects of the Plan. Omission of comment on other areas neither indicates agreement, nor disagreement, with those proposals.

VISION OBJECTIVES (p13)

• To preserve open spaces for recreation and biodiversity and create new and enhanced open spaces to address deficiencies where possible, but particularly to meet the needs of additional population commensurate with current levels of provision. AGREED
• To increase the amount of public open space (at least 2.4ha within Wembley) and the amount of land with enhanced ecological value. AGREED
• To enhance green and blue infrastructure by tree planting, returning rivers to their more natural courses and mitigating the pollution effects of development. AGREED
• To achieve sustainable development, mitigate & adapt to climate change. AGREED
• To reduce energy demand from current building regulation standards and achieve exemplar low carbon schemes and combined heat and power plants. RESERVATIONS SEE BELOW
• To create a well-connected and accessible location where sustainable modes of travel are prioritised and modal share of car trips to Wembley is reduced from 37% towards 25%. AGREED AS A START BUT NEED TIMELINES FOR MORE AMBITIOUS TARGET
• To promote access by public transport, bicycle or on foot and reduce car parking standards because of Wembley’s relative accessibility AGREED

Wembley Area Action Plan - Preferred Options 13

Business Industry and Waste

1. We are in favour of strict controls on waste management and processing sites in the entire area, rather than the limited area proposed. We would also favour relocation where that is possible. The events over the summer regarding the Seneca MRF and the ‘Wembley stink’ should serve as a warning for the future.  The Neasden/Wembley area already suffers from severe air pollution problems with school pupils particularly at risk because of the impact of air pollution on their smaller lungs. Chalkhill Primary, St Margaret Clitherow Primary, Northview Primary, Oakington Manor Primary and the proposed new Wembley Stadium Primary in Fulton Road are all in the vicinity. Older people also suffer disproportionately from respiratory problems.

2. We propose the creation of a Green Enterprise zone in the area with a concerted effort by Brent Council, in conjunction with the College of North West London, to bring green training, apprenticeship and jobs into the area. At present aside from the building jobs associated with regeneration there is an over dependence on the creation of jobs in retail and leisure. Green jobs would make a significant contribution to the upskilling of the Brent labour force.

Response to Climate Change

1. We welcome the inclusion of a response to Climate Change in the report and note this statement from the Wembley Plan:

10.6 Climate change will have a significant impact on the economic, social and environmental well being of Wembley. Hotter summers will have a bigger impact in Wembley because of the predominance of concrete and buildings. Heat waves will mean more people are likely to suffer from illnesses and could also lead to damage to roads, railways and buildings. Heavy thunderstorms and intense winter downpours will become more common, and will lead to flash flooding where the drainage system cannot cope with the increased rainfall. It is therefore crucial that future development in Wembley addresses these impacts and limits its contribution to climate change by minimising carbon emissions.

10.7 Specific issues for Wembley include the legacy of industrial use in the area which led to a lack of green and ‘cool’ spaces. Much of Wembley is deficient in open space and there are few mature trees. Land adjacent to the Wealdstone Brook is most at risk of flooding, although much of Wembley is also prone to surface water flooding. In addition, the majority of the sewer network in the Wembley area is undersized.

2.       We welcome the recognition of the importance of this issue and that fact that it is being addressed in detail by the Council. We welcome the proposals on naturalising of the Wealdstone Brook, flood plain storage, tree planting, green roofs and creation of new parks are all welcomed as  responses to this situation.

Climate Change Mitigation

1.       Under this heading the Council make a number of proposals for Decentralised  (CHP) Combined Heat and Power facilities and for Energy from Waste over which we have reservations.

2.       The  reservations below regarding CHP are pertinent: and should inform the Council’s plans: (From  www.arthurshumway.smith.com)

 "Combined Heat and Power" (CHP) or "cogeneration" systems for producing both heat and electric power are generally mature and really can reduce emissions of CO2 compared to other fossil-fuel technologies. But there are two problems with typical discussion of CHP:

(1) Fossil-fuel-based CHP cannot be a long-term solution on climate or energy because they still burn fossil fuels, and therefore still emit a lot of CO2. Reducing that by 20% or even 50% is not enough; we need to take steps that over the next 30-40 years will bring fossil CO2 emissions close to 0.

(2) Efficiency claims for CHP systems are frequently greatly overstated. Heat is lower-quality energy than electricity, and only at high temperatures does it become close to comparable. Efficiency claims for CHP systems that use high-temperature heat are not so far off, but CHP systems that make use of low-temperature waste heat have much lower thermodynamic efficiencies than usually claimed.

The inflated efficiency claims often lead to assertions that CHP is the "largest" or one of the largest potential solutions. But the number of applications that require high-temperature heat where CHP efficiency really is quite high are limited. And the modest efficiency gains with low-temperature waste heat use, which could be much more widely applied, don't lead to very much improvement in overall energy use. The combining of heat and power production in CHP systems can reduce our fossil CO2 emissions by a few percent, but much more than that is needed in coming decades.

3. The Wembley  Plan (WEM 33) supports Energy from Waste and again we have reservations.

3.i The first issue is that the emphasis should be on the reduction of waste at source in manufacturing,  then re-use and recycling. There is a danger that in using residual waste as fuel in order to reduce landfill, the incentive to reduce waste is removed. Furthermore, dependence on waste as fuel to generate heat and power, can lead to the need to import fuel in order to keep the processes going. The NABU Study (2010) in Germany illustrates this:

The study shows that in 2010, somewhat less domestic waste will be produced in Germany than at present.. This is due to a decline in the population and a slight increase in recycling. Overcapacities with incinerators are already occurring. This applies to combustible material used in energy from waste plants as well as conventional incineration   

At this point in time, 2 million   more tonnes  of waste are imported into Germany than exported. This is equivalent to a goods train 1000 km in length. Germany is therefore a net importer of waste

We would not want Brent to become an importer of waste in order to fuel our EfW plants.

3.ii  Secondly, the Plan states ‘There are a number of new and emerging technologies that are able to produce energy from waste without direct combustion’ . Our reservation on this is that in some technologies the initial stages do not involve combustion but further stages involve, for example, gases being burned off..  We cannot pretend to be expert on these issues but urge that complete transparency, independent expert advice (rather than assurances from the companies involved) and public debate must take place before any such technologies are employed.

3.ii In investigating the detrimental impact on human health the Council must take into account the concerns that exist over nanoparticles  produced in the incineration process and the emerging science discipline of nanopathology that studies the impact of such particles on the human body.

Food Growing

1.       We welcome the proposal to include food growing areas in new development (WEM 38) and the use of temporary vacant spaces. However we do not agree to the claim that restricted space means that such spaces cannot be provided in any new schools in the area. Raised beds do not take up much space and there are many imaginative solutions involving containers, window boxes, growing walls etc that could be incorporated into new build. In addition the growing spaces in existing schools in the area show what can be done. Provision of demonstration food growing areas in newly created parks would be useful as well as support for finding food growing spaces alongside the Chiltern/Metropolitan and Jubilee  railway lines.

2.       Food growing in schools raises awareness of the children about the impact of climate change and encourages healthy eating and a long term interest in gardening. It links with the curriculum and awards such as Healthy School and Eco School. The Council should be vigorously supporting it and making every effort to find food growing space for children.

3.    The Metropolitan Housing Trust is already working on these issues on the Chalkhill Estate with residents and are seeking additional growing spaces on the estate Involvement of other housing providers should be sought.

Disability protesters block Park Lane

This action yesterday was by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC)