'Mums hold the trump card' on Queensbury development

Guest blog on the redevelopment of the Queensbury pub in Willesden Green by a local parent.

As well as being a concerned mum who took great confidence and sometimes solace from attending the National Childbirth Trust sessions,Tuesdays in particular, at the Qeensbury, I am also professionally, involved in Planning and Development so I have an idea of how the process works and what the developers are trying to do.



The exhibition run by Fairview is intended to consult locals on their revised proposals. They did this last year (9 months ago for their previous scheme) but the invitees to the exhibitions were a very short list and didn't include Busy Rascals or the NCT. Fairview recorded at that time only 22 comments from locals - I suspect that none of these 22 comments came from local parents who use the pub regularly for NCT/Busy Rascals.



If you can make it down to the exhibition it is most important that you leave a comment inside with the Fairview team so that this time they will have a more representative selection of comments to submit to Brent. These comments have to be formally presented to the council, they will not be ommitted or ignored. If you can't make it down they are opening some web pages on the 17th July where you can view the proposals online and I presume leave a comment (see below).The exhibition is online HERE



Just a few pointers so that you cannot be fooled: the new proposals as I understand it, include a space for community uses and a cafe on the ground floor. You may think this will be adequate for Busy Rascals but I think not...here's why:

1. The management team and staff at the Queensbury that are so welcoming and accommodating won't be there. This space will be leased to someone else who may not want children and babies running round their space. There is absolutely no way that Fairview can guarantee that the operators of this new space will take on the groups in the same way as the Queensbury people do.
   

2. There will be a period - if this happens - during demolition and rebuilding when there will be no venue at all for the groups. So how do Fairview guarantee a temporary venue for the groups? The Council are I think very concerned about the survival of the the children's groups into the future and Fairview will HAVE to address this point. How do they do this?
   

I would also like to say that the Queensbury is only under threat if there is no support for its retention. So far the team at the Save The Queensbury, along with support form local residents groups, CAMRA and hundreds of local individuals have delayed the application decision by at least 9 months, have forced Fairview to revise their plans (at great cost to Fairview) and raised a huge amount of profile for the pub in local press and within the local area. Please don't do anything because you think the closure of the pub is inevitable - I assure you it isn't!!



In many ways you mums hold the 'Trump Card' - Fairview cannot be seen to be closing down children's groups - bad for the company reputation, AND the council would be much, much less concerned about this application if the Queensbury was 'just a pub'! Please use your trump card!

Pavey: No Copland sell-off

Cllr Michael Pavey, Brent Council lead member for Children and Families has reacted to the Guest Posting below with this statement:

"Copland School will not be sold off. The site will be redeveloped, but as an improved school - not for non-educational uses. 

All the steps Brent Council have taken have the sole purpose of improving teaching and learning in the school. The recent Ofsted report found that two-thirds of teaching is inadequate or requires improvement. This is a tragedy which is desperately failing local families. 

Turning around this terrible situation requires tough actions. However there is absolutely no question of running down the school to sell it off. Quite the opposite: we are determined that Copland will become a successful school that parents are proud to send their kids to."

Copland staff fear hidden site sell-off agenda

I publish below a Guest Post from someone involved with current events at Copland Community School. The views expressed are those of the guest blogger but I publish it because I believe that the public should know what some of the staff are experiencing and thinking. I will be happy to publish any alternative perspectives.
 

An increasing number of Copland Community School staff suspect that it is Brent’s intention to let the school die. The evidence?

New Head Richard Marshall and new Deputy Head Nick John have spent their few weeks in office

·         cutting whole courses and subject areas

·         narrowing the curriculum

·         demanding that department heads nominate staff for redundancy

·         threatening any who refuse with redundancy themselves

·         reducing heads of department to tears

·         wasting Brent HR officers’ time calling them in to interview staff about legitimate and certificated sickness absence (including ones following operations and motor accidents)

·         cancelling Sports Day and another planned Activities Day at short notice

·         refusing any joint consultation with staff

·         refusing to furnish a definitive list of staff leaving in July citing ‘equal opportunities’(?)

·         adding to the 30 plus staff leaving for voluntary redundancy (sometimes under threat of future non-procedural and bogus capability action) by making working conditions for remaining staff so bad that they are desperate to leave as well

·         making the school curriculum offer to prospective Yr 7 parents, and to Year 11 students considering staying on for A levels, as unattractive as the appalling physical conditions students will work under

·         boasting about how ‘tough’ they are prepared to be in carrying out more of the above

Everyone knows how extensive and attractive the Copland site would be for developers. It certainly wasn’t lost on former Head (now awaiting trial on fraud charges) Sir Alan Davies.  Many at Copland now believe that the only explanation for the imposition of yet another clueless management regime on this long-suffering school community can be that Brent want to reduce the roll to  the point where they can declare the school unsustainable, close it down  and flog off the land to a supermarket chain and a residential developer.

Looking for the X Factor at Brent Civic Centre's first Executive meeting

Well not really! The X Factor was filming outside the Civic Centre in Arena Square and Cllr Krupesh Hirani was quite overcome by seeing Nicole Scherzinger strutting her stuff, but inside Boardrooms 4 & 5 the X Factor or almost any other factor was decidedly absent. The photograph should be evidence enough.

A discussion on parking charges went on for ages and nearly made me rush out and throw myself off the Boardroom's balcony thoughtfully provided by the Civic Centre designers  for any Brent residents who can't stand it any more.

The parking discussion, where actually there appeared to be no major disagreements, was about ten times as long as the discussion on two major housing reports which will have a much more serious impact on families and individuals forcing some of them to leave Brent and others to choose between paying their rent or buying food for themselves or their children.

As Robin Sivapalan of Brent Housing Action pointed out from the floor, the report on Supply and Demand almost seemed to welcome the Coalition's Bedroom Tax as a way of shifting tenants from 'under occupied'  housing, while other actions appeared to reduce demand only by redefining overcrowding or disrepair rather than by  providing actual housing. The second report promised action to build new affordable housing but lacked detail while action was promised both to tackle poor landlords but also to encourage more landlords to rent out properties.

Michael Pavey in an outbreak of left rhetoric called private foster agencies exploitative but then seemed only to want to get a better (cheaper) deal out of them, He also suggested primary school expansions were preferable to the 'anarchy' of free schools.

Muhammed Butt was very tetchy and lost his cool on at least two occasions, giving the impression that opposition councillors had no right to disagree with him.

'Color (sic) Run' invades Wembley

I got back to Wembley yesterday evening after spending the day at the wonderful Kilburn Festival to find remnants of the so called 'Color Run' still out on the streets. Immediately irritated by the US spelling and the Dulux sponsorship I looked in vain for any evidence that it raises money for a good cause.

It is an international phenomenon which started in the United States where winning is not the objective - instead runners get covered in coloured powder after each kilometre and take part in a party and clean up at the end.

I prefer the Kilburn Festival. (grump)

Butt unwelcome at Tulip victory

Tulip Siddiq won a decisive victory in the Hampstead and Kilburn Labour Party selection vote today.

Her victory was preceded by the ritualistic(and highly symbolic)  head-butting of a housing protester, who was wearing a Unite T-shirt, by someone who was thought to be a member of the Labour Party.

Does this report REALLY tackle Brent's housing crisis?

Click on image to enlarge

A report going before the Brent Executive on Monday July 15th lays bare the extent of Brent's housing extent and how it has been exacerbated by the Coalition's changes to benefits.

The graph shows that Brent has been much more affected by landlords ending tenancies than our neighbouring boroughs. 47%of homeless acceptances in 2012-13 were homeless due to the ending of a private letting in the wake of the changes in the Local Housing Allowance. The private rented sector itself continues to grow with 31,784 households living in private rented accommodation in the 2011 Census, compared with 17,043 in 2001. The sector accounted for 28.8% of Brent households.

Unmet demand for housing assistance stands at 10,366 households. This excludes those on Band D who are assessed by the Council Allocations Scheme as having no housing need.

Current demand on the Housing Register, including the homeless in temporary accommodation and those on the Transfer list is just over 19,000 households. In contrast the Council expect to make just 844 lettings of permanent social housing tenancies by the end of 2013-14.


These are allocated thus:

Looking ahead the Report notes the pressures that will be experienced:

1. Local Housing Allowance changes will continue to impact and make it harder for the Council to procure private rented accommodation as landlords will be unwilling to 'engage with tenants in recipet of benefits'.
2. The changes in LHA payable to single people under 35, which limits payment to a single room in a shared house, will mean they will find it increasingly difficult to find accommodation in the private rented sector.
3. From 12th August 2013, over a five week period, the Overall Benefit Cap will limit the total amount of benefit payable to a non-working couple or a single parent to £500 per week, and £350 per week for a non-working single person. The OBC was expected to impact on 2,700 Brent households, but some have taken measures so as to be exempted and the DWP assesses the total as 2,267 now. The bulk of these are in temporary accommodation or the private rented sector.
4. The Bedroom Tax will reduce benefit for rent  for social housing tenants by 14% (average £17.50 pw) with one 'spare room; and 25% (average £32.66 pw) for those with two 'spare rooms'.
5. Many households will be making a minimum contribution of Council Tax for the first time when they are also faced with  financial pressure from other welfare reforms.
6. The DWP is predicting that approximately 40% of claimants currently receiving Disability Living Allowance will not qualify to receive the replacement Personal Independence Allowances. The report notes: 'these claimants will be a high priority for receiving support from the council to cope with changes in circumstances' as receipt of DLA by a member of a household previously exempted them from  the Overall Benefit Cap and Council Tax charge.

The consequences of all this, the report says, is that families are likely to live in over-crowded and poor quality accommodation in the borough rather than move out to cheaper and better quality accommodation outside Brent. 'Unscrupulous' landlords may take advantage of families affected by Welfare Reform by refusing to deal with disrepair issues, knowing that the families will be reluctant to report them for fear of losing their accommodation. Brent Council has therefore drafted a Private Housing Action Plan to deal with these issues.

The report confirms actions already approved by the council including:

1. The introduction of fixed term tenancies by the council with partner housing providers determining their own policies as long as they are 'broadly consistent with the council's priorities'.
2 To use Flexible Tenancies (fixed term tenancies at either social or affordable rent) on the same basis as approved for other social landlords.
3. Introductory or starter tenancies of 12 months will be used for all new tenants in concert with fixed-term tenancies as relevant, 'Five years normally but with shorter and/or longer periods for specified groups/circumstances'.
4. Changes in the Allocation Scheme which means the residence qualification is established through living in Brent at the time of application and continually throughout the last five years. (NB this is a tightening of the previous proposal of living in Brent for three of the last five years).
5. The definition of 'living in unsuitable accommodation', which gives priority under the Alllocation Scheme will be tightened so that 'households with only minor disrepair issues are not being given priority for rehousing'.
6. Households who are over crowded by 'just one room' should not automatically be given priority in the new scheme - each case will be considered 'on its individual merits;.

The Mutual Exchange scheme, originally aimed at providing an incentive to 'under-occupiers' to downsize as as a result of the bedroom tax, will be extended to cover for example those over retirement age who are not affected by the current benefit changes.

The maximum payment for someone wishing to downsize would be £1,000 plus assistance wit removal costs and access to a handyman service. Full payment would be made for a 'perfect fit' exchange and pro rata for others.

It does seem to me that while the Private Housing Action Plan to protect private rented tenants is welcome much of the report is really fiddling while Rome burns. Changing definitions and tenancy arrangements is not dealing with the underlying issue which is a shortage of social housing and the failure (cf Quintain Wembley Regeneration, Willesden Green Library development, Queensbury development, and the Bridge Park/Unisys development) to build truly affordable housing.

The full report can be found HERE

Gary Younge's censored article: Open season on black boys after a verdict like this

Requests are circulating across the internet for the sharing of this article by Gary Younge that the Guardian has decided not to publish.

Calls for calm after George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin are empty words for black families


Let it be noted that on this day, Saturday 13 July 2013, it was still deemed legal in the US to chase and then shoot dead an unarmed young black man on his way home from the store because you didn't like the look of him.


The killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year was tragic. But in the age of Obama the acquittal of George Zimmerman offers at least that clarity. For the salient facts in this case were not in dispute. On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead.


Who screamed. Who was stronger. Who called whom what and when and why are all details to warm the heart of a cable news producer with 24 hours to fill. Strip them all away and the truth remains that Martin's heart would still be beating if Zimmerman had not chased him down and shot him.


There is no doubt about who the aggressor was here. The only reason the two interacted at all, physically or otherwise, is that Zimmerman believed it was his civic duty to apprehend an innocent teenager who caused suspicion by his existence alone.


Appeals for calm in the wake of such a verdict raise the question of what calm there can possibly be in a place where such a verdict is possible. Parents of black boys are not likely to feel calm. Partners of black men are not likely to feel calm. Children with black fathers are not likely to feel calm. Those who now fear violent social disorder must ask themselves whose interests are served by a violent social order in which young black men can be thus slain and discarded.


But while the acquittal was shameful it was not a shock. It took more than six weeks after Martin's death for Zimmerman to be arrested and only then after massive pressure both nationally and locally. Those who dismissed this as a political trial (a peculiar accusation in the summer of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden) should bear in mind that it was politics that made this case controversial.


Charging Zimmerman should have been a no-brainer. He was not initially charged because Florida has a "stand your ground" law whereby deadly force is permitted if the person "reasonably believes" it is necessary to protect their own life, the life of another or to prevent a forcible felony.


Since it was Zimmerman who stalked Martin, the question remains: what ground is a young black man entitled to and on what grounds may he defend himself? What version of events is there for that night in which Martin gets away with his life? Or is it open season on black boys after dark?


Zimmerman's not guilty verdict will be contested for years to come. But he passed judgement on Trayvon that night summarily.


"Fucking punks," Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night. "These assholes. They always get away."


So true it's painful. And so predictable it hurts.