Kensal Rise Library listing as Community Asset hailed as good news

Jodi Gramigni writes:

Great news! Kensal Rise Library has been added to the Brent Local Authority "List of Assets of Community Value".(Harrow Observer: Kilburn Times:)

This is extremely good news because it confirms the buildings significance as a Community Asset under the new legislation. Please see this LINK for further information:

In fact, Kensal Rise Library is already considered a special resource, and is also listed as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset in Brent, more commonly referred to as "Locally Listed". Being Locally Listed does not afford the same protection as English Heritage Listing, but it does require extra care and consideration by the Planners in regard to changes to the building, including change of use (i.e. from community use to residential use).

Why is this important? Because All Souls has chosen to sell Kensal Rise Library to developers for conversion to private flats even though the library is Locally Listed. Although we did not expect that All Souls would necessarily choose our bid, we did believe that they would choose a bidder who was sympathetic to the planning restrictions in place (i.e. school, charity, library, etc), because they advised us that community use was their preferred option. Sadly, as you know, this was not the case.

However, now that the Kensal Rise Library has been added to the "List of Assets of Community Value", we can prepare a bid (to buy) the building and try to keep it as a community resource. This is an important decision for the community and one that will be need to be thoughtfully considered and discussed in days to come.

You may be wondering if it is necessary, or if in fact if it is reasonable, to consider preparing a bid to buy Kensal Rise Library if All Souls has already offered us an area for a small library.

The truth is, the area All Souls College has offered only practically allows enough space to have one reading room. Because of this limited size we would most likely need to choose either an Adults Library or a Children's Library. As you might imagine we would like a better outcome for the community than a small one room library surrounded by flats. We have, of course, requested more space in our ongoing negotiations, and while nothing concrete has been forthcoming, we are always ready and willing to discuss alternative proposals. In the meanwhile this new development - Community Asses designation - supports the the buildings main function as a library and gives us another option to consider.

This will be our third Christmas campaigning for Kensal Rise Library. As the holidays approach, and frost envelops the pop-up, it is worth remembering that while the land was generously gifted over 112 years ago, the building was paid for by local subscription and donations. This community has always been, and will always be, committed to achieving a fair outcome, a moral outcome, and a just outcome, for our library.

Many thanks for all of your support!
Kind regards,
Jodi

London Councils laments but where's the fightback?

Anti-cuts campaigners in London have been urging councils to get together with their communities to mount a challenge to the cuts imposed by the Coalition.  Most now admit that the cuts are doing real damage to and hitting the most vulnerable.  London Councils, the body representing boroughs across London,  could be the vehicle for a coordinated campaign but have been reduced to lamenting the impact while local councils quietly carry on carrying out the Coalition's dirty work for them.

If London took the lead this could be followed by other local authorities and the beginning of a national movement.

London Councils issued the following statement after the Autumn Statement:

On the basis of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, funding for local government is expected to fall by a further 2% in 2014/15 beyond the funding reductions already expected. 

Mayor Jules Pipe, Chair of London Councils says:

 ‘The capital needs 90,000 more school places for the start of the 2015 school term and the city’s housing crisis has been brought into sharp relief by the Government’s changes to the benefits regime.

‘This means additional financial pressure on London councils as they seek to ensure a good school for all London’s children and decent homes for Londoners.

‘In 2010 the Government announced a cut of 28% to local government grant. Yet the Government continues to cut the amount of funding available to local government.

‘London’s councils have been at the forefront of delivering efficiency savings while attempting to improve and protect local services.

‘The Government needs to be aware that with increasing levels of demand this level of cuts is unsustainable and presents a significant level of risk to delivering those services vital to ensuring that London is a world class competitive city. The Government needs to realise that if London doesn't work, the country doesn't work."

Butt: The working poor, disabled and young families will be hit by 'Coalition Poll Tax' passed tonight

Brent Council tonight approved the Council Tax Support scheme that Council leader, Muhammed Butt, described as a Coalition Poll Tax that had been forced on the Council by the Government.

Butt, confessing that the scheme was the most unsettling thing that he'd had to do in his political life, said that the Council had been faced with 'equally nasty' choices over which vulnerable groups would be hit. The working poor, the disabled and families with young children would all suffer.  By definition, anyone entitled to Council Tax Support was vulnerable but 'some are more vulnerable than others.'  Pensioners and war pensioners had been protected and most now having to contribute would pay no more than £4.99 a week. He went on however to admit that was still  'a significant amount of money from people who, frankly, just don't have it.'

'Painful and difficult' changes had to be made with the better off claimants having to pay more and the amount of savings allowed reduced from £16,000 to £6,000.

Cllr Butt called for councillors to support the scheme that was 'as fair as it can be'.  Rounding on the Opposition benches  he declared, 'It is your government, your  Coalition, your actions that have brought this about, You are taking money from the strivers and strugglers, the vulnerable and the disabled and giving it to the rich. You should stand up and say sorry to the people of Brent.'

In the questions that followed Butt was asked why the scheme assumed a collection rate of 80% rather than 85%. He responded that  the Council had to make a realistic assumption when collecting tax from 24,000 people who had never paid it before. Lib Dem councillor Barry Cheese asked Butt to look again at the levy on young job seekers who were already under pressure with parents who themselves would be hard up. 

Lib Dem leader Paul Lorber asked why an £800,000 buffer had been set aside in a scheme of £5.1m and why reserves weren't used instead. A cushion of 20% was excessive. Butt responded that the buffer was normal prudential action. Lorber said that the reduction of savings allowance to £6,000 from £16,000 was too much and that this was often money put aside for a funeral.

Lorber went on to say that in the briefing that preceded the council meeting they had been told that they had to accept the scheme - there was no alternative.   He put forward amendments that would protect young job seekers for the first 12 months after their first claim, retain the £16,000 savings allowance and  reduce the minimum contribution to Council Tax from 20% to 15%.  Conservative leader Cllr Kansagra repeated his usual 'blame the Labour government' line and suggested that Labour was choosing to hit the poor rather than make the necessary cuts in services. Tory councillor HB Patel made a somewhat incoherent attack on the plans to increase council tax on empty properties and second homes - 'You are taking away money!'

Defending the proposed Council Tax Support scheme Cllr Powney said that the low level of council reserves had been criticised over many years and that the incoming administration had decided to bring them into line with auditors' recommendations. We had to recognise the difficulty in getting the 24,000 to pay up and that the monies available for the scheme would be eroded by inflation in subsequent years. He said that the £6,000 savings threshold had been chosen to be in line with the Coalition's proposals for Universal Benefit and that if he disagreed with it Lorber should the issue up with Sarah Teather and government ministers.

Labour voted down the Lib Dem amendments and the scheme was approved.

The Labour benches were unusually subdued, as were the Lib Dems, and it was clear that Cllr Butt was not the only one 'unsettled' by the measures that were being taken that will, in a few months times, lead to people's lives becoming even more difficult and some families having to choose between food, heating and paying their council tax.

What is even worse is that many of those that will be hit do not yet know what is coming...

Starbucks versus Sure Start and women's services- the protest

I accuse the Coalition of knowingly increasing child poverty

Blurb of 'Born to Fail?' 1973

A month or so ago during morning play at a local primary school a 5 year old boy came up to me, rubbing his stomach looking at me with pleading eyes, and saying 'I'm hungry'.

Sympathetic school staff  found some biscuits and fruit to keep him going until dinner time. Apparently it wasn't the first time he had made that appeal. 

Inevitably schools are the first to see the direct impact of economic pressure on families, not just hunger but inadequate clothing, worn out shoes, tiredness caused by lack of sleep through living in one room in a bed and breakfast or shared housing. We are also seeing children disappearing from the school roll as they are rehoused out of London away from family and support systems.

Although the Coalition is keen to shift the blame on to 'work shy' families, fecklessness and dependency culture in an effort to divide and rule the working class, the truth is that 62% of children currently in poverty have one working parent. However the Coalition  seem determined to punish children for the perceived sins of their parents.

Coalition policies including the Housing Benefit cap, the Universal Benefit cap, and the move to restrict child benefit to the  first two children, will reduce disposable income and thus amount available to buy food.

The Coalition are taking food out of children's mouths.

There has been some progress recently in closing the gap in educational achievement between the poor and the rich, a gap so vividly illustrated by the National Children's Bureau in 'Born to Fail' in 1973. More recently the Child Poverty Action Group has listed the impact of child poverty:

• There are 3.6 million children living in poverty in the UK today. That’s 27 per cent of children, or more than one in four.
• There are even more serious concentrations of child poverty at a local level: in 100 local wards, for example, between 50 and 70 per cent of children are growing up in poverty.
• Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. Almost two-thirds (62 per cent) of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one member works.
• People are poor for many reasons. But explanations which put poverty down to drug and alcohol dependency, family breakdown, poor parenting, or a culture of worklessness are not supported by the facts.
• Child poverty blights childhoods. Growing up in poverty means being cold, going hungry, not being able to join in activities with friends. For example, 62 per cent of families in the bottom income quintile would like, but cannot afford, to take their children on holiday for one week a year.
• Child poverty has long-lasting effects. By 16, children receiving free school meals achieve 1.7 grades lower at GCSE than their wealthier peers. Leaving school with fewer qualifications translates into lower earnings over the course of a working life.
• Poverty is also related to more complicated health histories over the course of a lifetime, again influencing earnings as well as the overall quality – and indeed length - of life. Professionals live, on average, eight years longer than unskilled workers.
• Child poverty imposes costs on broader society – estimated to be at least £25 billion a year. Governments forgo prospective revenues as well as commit themselves to providing services in the future if they fail to address child poverty in the here and now.
• Child poverty reduced dramatically between 1998/9-2010/12 when 1.1 million children were lifted out of poverty (BHC).This reduction is credited in large part to measures that increased the levels of lone parents working, as well as real and often significant increases in the level of benefits paid to families with children.
• Under current government policies, child poverty is projected to rise from 2012/13 with an expected 300,000 more children living in poverty by 2015/16.This upward trend is expected to continue with 4.2 million children projected to be living in poverty by 2020.

The last Labour government pledged to reduce child poverty with some limited success and the goal was supposed to have cross-party support. Clearly the Coalition is going in the opposite direction.

'Born to Fail' in 1973 concluded:

...if it is accepted that many parents are expected to cope with impossible burdens and that their material circumstances provide a major contribution to those burdens then there is much to be said for tackling  more earnestly the poor housing and low income that our study has revealed, Arguably it could eliminate a large part of many families' difficulties. And on humanitarian grounds alone large numbers of children need a better chance to grow, develop, learn and live that they currently received...

Are we more interested in a bigger national cake so that some children get a bigger slice eventually - or are we ready for disadvantaged children to have a bigger slice now even if as a result our personal slice is smaller. 

How many of our pleasures are bought at the expense of the disadvantaged.

It is not just the immediate hunger that a child might feel today but the way that will affect their life chances in terms of education attainment, health and income. For society it raises questions about polarisation, alienation, disaffection and conflict.

In 2011 the Institute for Fiscal Studies in Child and Working Age Poverty 2010-2014 modelling the changes ahead in welfare and fiscal policy concluded:

The results therefore suggest that there can be almost no chance of eradicating child poverty - as defined in the Child Poverty Act - on current government policy.

 

Although this project did not assess what policies would be required in order for child poverty to be eradicated, it is impossible to see how relative child poverty could fall by so much in the next 10 years without changes to the labour market and welfare policy, and an increase in the amount of redistribution performed by the tax and benefit system, both to an extent never before seen in the UK. IFS researchers have always argued that the targets set in the Child Poverty Act were extremely challenging, and the findings here confirm that view. It now seems almost incredible that the targets could be met, yet the government confirmed its commitment to them earlier this year, in its first Child Poverty Strategy, and remains legally-bound to hit them.

There is no shortage of evidence about the damage that is currently being done and that will increase over the next few years.  The only conclusion I can reach is that the Coalition  is prepared to see children suffer as they pursue their aim to destroy the welfare state.

Harlesden incinerator plans put on hold

The Brent and Kilburn Times is reporting that the application for an incinerator at Willesden Junction have been put on hold by Ealing Council. This follows a letter from HS2 regarding their need for the proposed site.

How the poor will be hit by Council Tax Support scheme

The Special Meeting of Brent Council on Monday will be making decisions on the new Council Tax Support scheme that will leave many residents worse off. This follows the Coalition handing implementation of the schemes to local councils whilst at the same time reducing the money available by at least 10%.

The overall result in Brent is that residents who used to receive Brent will now generally  have to pay double the contribution to Council Tax that they used to pay.   These residents will also be hit by other benefit changes including the Housing Benefit cap and the Universal Benefit cap. 24,604 residents will be affected by the changes which can only have the effect of pushing more people into poverty.

The following table gives an overall picture but the full document needs to be read for detail on excemptions and the means-testing involved.
 

Description of deduction	Amount of weekly deduction 2012/13	Proposed weekly CTS scheme deduction	Annual change in 2013/14
Adult in receipt of pension credit guarantee credit or savings credit	Nil	Nil	Nil
Adult in receipt of employment support allowance (income related) main or assessment phase	Nil	Nil	Nil
Adult in receipt of job seekers allowance (contribution based) or employment support allowance (contributed based)	£3.30	£6.60	£171.60
Gross income of adult  in remunerative work is less than £183	£3.30	£6.60	£171.60
Gross income of adult in remunerative work is greater than or equal to £183 but less than £316	£6.55	£13.10	£340.60
Gross income of adult in remunerative work is greater than or equal to £316 but less than £394	£8.25	£16.50	£429.00
Gross income of adult in remunerative work is greater than or equal to £394	£9.90	£19.80	£514.80
Adult in receipt if job seekers allowance (income based)	Nil	£6.60	£343.20
Adult in receipt of income support	Nil	Nil	Nil
Adult working less than 16 hours per week or is on maternity, paternity, adoption or sick leave	£3.30	£6.60	£171.60
Any other adult not included in the above descriptions	£3.30	£6.60	£171.60

There are likely to be difficulties concerning collection of council tax where resident are already financial pressed or where they have not paid anything before.

A second decision that the Full Council will have to make is on changing the amount of tax paid on empty properties. Owners of such properties will now have to pay more Council Tax and in the case of long-term empty homes this could be a 150% tax after two years.

These are the proposals set out in the report:
 

• Class A empty properties (requiring major repairs or undergoing structural alterations) – reduce the current 100% exemption to 50% discount for the first twelve months.

• Class C empty properties (vacant and substantially unfurnished) – reduce the current 100% exemption to zero so that the owners of such properties pay 100% of their Council Tax liability with immediate effect from the date of vacation.

• Second Homes – Remove the current 10% discount so that owners of such properties pay 100% of their Council Tax liability

• Long term empty properties – charge a 50% premium after they have been empty and unfurnished for 2 years so that the Council Tax liability for such properties is 150% (after two years).

This is the full report:

 

Local press continue to hold Brent Council to account

Following my recent posting on the importance of the local press in ensuring the accountability of councillors and the counter claim that the BKT was too close to the council, it was heartening to see the front page of the newspaper this week. LINK

Clearly the BKT is continuing to dig up stories that ensure resident know what is really  going on in the Town Hall.

The Wembley and Willesden Observer also has a story this week about the importance of the local press with post-Leveson comments from campaigners about the part local newspapers have played in enabling them to put their message across.