Natalie Bennett: 'We are at a big change, a leap, in politics'

Natalie Bennett speaking at the Ecosocialism: Fracking, Climate and Revoution conference on Saturday whcih was organised by Socialist Resistance and Revolutionary Socialism in the 21st Century.

 

A particular strong speech was made by Fiona Brookes of the Campaign Against Climate Change

Unusual activity in Fryent Country Park disused tennis courts

Investigating unusual Sunday morning activity in the disused tennis courts behind my house this morning, I found UK based Punjabi singer Kaz Khan and crew getting ready to film their latest YouTube video.

kazkhan.co.uk

Chalkhill BMX track ready for use

The cycle facilities at Chalkhill Open Space (Barnhill Road/St David’s Close) are now complete and ready for use by the local community. The facilities provided include a BMX track, a family cycle trail around the perimeter of the open space and a scooter track. More information on the facilities can be found at this webpage: LINK

A few things remain outstanding such as moving the football goalposts away from the cycle trail and time for the grass seed to establish but these do not diminish the availability of the cycle facilities.

The official launch of the facility is likely to be June 25th but children were already enjoying the BMX track when I came by on Thursday evening.

A great addition to the facilities on Chalkhill thanks to Brent Council's Sports and Parks Department.

Kensal Rise Library application a baptism of fire for the new Planning Committee

The controversial planning application for the Kensal Rise Library development appears to be scheduled for the new Planning Committee on June 17th, despite the police not having yet reported on their investigation of fraudulent emails submitted on the previous application.

Planning officers are recommending that the committee grant consent 'subject to legal agreement'. What this means will become clearer when their full report is published a week before the meeting.

The new Planning Committee, which is supposed to operate independently of the Council and is not whipped, is chaired by newly elected Barnhill councillor, Sarah Marquis who is a lawyer.

This is the composition of the Committee which consists of 7 Labour and one Conservative councillor:

Sarah Marquis, Amer Agha, Shafique Choudhary, Lia Colacicco, Dan Filson, Orleen Hylton, Suresh Kansagra and Arshad Mahmood.

One issue that immediately strikes me is that the Standing Orders for the Committee LINK, approved as part of the constitutional changes adoped at Full Council, is whether a hearing on June 17th gives enough time for the training of new councillors on the Planning Committee that is now required. A good grounding would seem to be required in such a controversial and complex case.

The Declarations of Interest for new councillors have yet to be posted LINK

The full list of comments on the  planning application can be seen on the planning portal LINK

Meanwhile here are some of the comments which will give readers an idea of the issues involved.

-->

Support: I despair that this historic library, opened by Mark Twain, funded by public subscription; with help from Andrew Carnegie, fought for by so many in the community, and now designated a community asset, is to be carved up into a residential development for private profit, with token space set aside for its original use. If the choice is between nothing and something, then of course I support the Planning Application 14/0846 and FKRL as tenants of the space. But the ethics of the closure remain far from clear to me.

Support: Support for planning application 14/0846 I give my support re Planning Application 14/0846: 1. For D1 community library and space 2. For FKRL to be tenants of the space in the belief that this is the best practical way to use the Kensal Rise library building as a community asset. I hope the planning committee has more relevant information than me, and can better judge these issues: * Is a community library a practical, sustainable activity in the space envisaged? * Would the community get sufficient benefit from a library in the space envisaged to respect the "asset of community value" status? * Does the committee believe that the community could get better value from the building (that was funded by public subscription) in another way; i.e. that it should it reject the planning application or defer a decision until after the end of May when further funding options can be discussed? I await the decision and your reasons with interest

Objection: I object to the planning application 14/0846: 1) The application conflicts with the building's Asset of Community Value ("ACV") listing: The whole building is listed as an ACV. The applicant's/develper's plan for flats occupying almost the entire space within the building (less about 185sqm on the ground floor) conflicts with the requirement of the building's ACV listing for future non-ancillary community use. Were the applicant to succeed, most of the building's potential use as a future community facility would be lost to us forever, and in its place we would have the applicant's provision of an ancillary "D1 community space"; this contravenes the ACV requirement that future use of the building for the community be non-ancillary. 2) The impact on local employment and skills: The applicant's plan will damage the employment prospects of local people. In converting almost the whole building to residential use, the applicant is denying the future use of that space to local companies and organisations which could offer the learning of diverse skills not only to those they employ but those who would use their services; in contrast, the small space offered by the applicant cannot offer the same sustainable and diverse business, education, skills and employment opportunities to local people - and such a loss always affects poorer people most. I note that the Friends of Kensal Rise Library (FKRL) is the developer's "preferred bidder" for the space, however its model for financial sustainability is weak because it relies almost exclusively on volunteer support - this is because there is little space for it to generate revenue to run a library in the D1 space offered by the developer in this application. 3) Not much more D1 space than in developer's first rejected application on the building in August 2013: The D1 space offered now is little more than what was offered in the developer's first planning application when it was rejected by the planning officers on the grounds of insufficient D1 space. At that time, the developer offered D1 space partly in a basement and partly on the ground floor; as a percentage of total floor space available, the D1 space offered now isn't much more than what was offered then - in fact it's probably less because there is now less basement space in the developer's current application. Therefore, if the planning officers rejected the first application after having concluded that it conceded insufficient D1 space, then it only makes sense for the sake of consistency to reject the current application as well. 4) The police's current fraud investigation potentially exposes planning officers and committee to civil proceedings against them: Has the council considered the legal consequences to it of assigning residential status to any part of the building - and therefore immediately enriching the applicant - while there is an on-going police investigation into email and identity fraud around the applicant's support for his first application in August 2013? While the financial implications of assigning residential status to a currently D1-only building are not a matter for the planning officers and committee, the consequences of doing so while an investigation, which could possibly result in criminal charges, might be. 5) The D1 space is unattractive, small, and will not generate a sustained level of interest from the community because the space is too limited in what it can offer; it is essentially a narrow corridor separating two relatively small rooms - which will be small once essential public facilites such as toilets, staff room, and circulation are factored in. The proposed entrance to the D1 area is in a chimney flue, leaving the better and larger entrance for the few flat owners.

Support: This supporting comment is being submitted on behalf of the Kensal Triangle Residents Association. While,like everyone else, we deeply regret that the whole building is not to be saved for community use, as it was originally gifted to the local community, we consider that the FKRL who have worked tirelessly for the last four years have arrived at the best outcome which still retains a library on the site. We wish for the Friends of Kensal Rise Library to be the tenants of the space and to run the Library. Commenting on purely physical details, we agree with many others that the proposed entrance (through the existing chimney flue) creates a cramped space with poor flow, which will not help with optimisation of the space available: surely some way can be found of creating secure entrances to the flats and the Library through the existing main door.

Support: Time to Win the Peace? We have been involved in campaigns for Kensal Rise Library library since 1988, when the people occupied the building. Now is the turning point. Do we support the developer¿s planning application with the proviso that there be a rent-free space for community use on the ground floor whose preferred tenants are the Friends of Kensal Rise Library? For us the answer is a ¿Yes¿. We know and trust the Friends of Kensal Rise Library, who have fought so hard to save this building and who kept the Pop-up Library running in all weathers, a hard and unglamorous task. Thanks to their tireless negotiations with the developer and All Souls, the space offered has been increased to around two-thirds of the original space the library took up. No war ever achieves all its objectives. Ideally we would all like to keep the whole building for community use. But a moral victory is useless if there is no library at the end of it. The Friends and Trustees of Kensal Rise Library have taken the very difficult decision to support the planning application. After years of saying 'No' to an Oxford College, a Council and a developer, it is hard to say ¿Yes¿. But what were we fighting for? A library. Not an embattled plastic tent, brilliant as it was, but a warm, dry space where books, company and computers are free. A space where parents can bring young children, where older school children can do their home-work. The end-game was always a peace, not a war. My husband, the writer Nicholas Rankin, and I believe it is time to win the peace. It is an act of faith. But every library is an act of faith that when people work together, good things can happen that are not just about profit or advantage. We want Kensal Rise to have a real library back and we think the best chance of it now is to support the planning application.

PLEASE NOTE THAT BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS ILL-TEMPERED ANONYMOUS COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH AROUSED STRONG FEELINGS ON BOTH SIDES, I WILL ONLY PUBLISH COMMENTS WHICH INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE COMMENTER.

Gladstone Free School opening delayed until September 2015

Paul Phillips, Principal Designate, has issued the following statement on Gladstone Free School, which was due to open in the Dollis Hill area in September 2014.


Gladstone School, the new Free School approved to open in NW2/NW10, is today announcing that it has been unable to agree terms on permanent premises in time for a September 2014 opening, and as a result is forced to delay its opening until September 2015.

The decision follows a recent policy shift by the Department for Education (DfE) that no Free School can be allowed to open until a permanent site has been identified and secured. The Education Funding Agency (EFA), the government agency responsible for Free School premises, has been in discussions on several proposed permanent sites but none has proved suitable for the school.

Announcing the news today Principal Designate Paul Phillips said, “At this late stage it is highly unlikely that permanent premises will be found to permit all necessary contractual negotiations to be finalised in time for a September 2014 opening. In the light of this the school has no option but to postpone its opening for a year. We know of many other Free Schools in London suddenly forced to defer for the same reason. As a parent-led group we are profoundly aware of the distress this decision will cause to parents and carers of year 6 children who had put their faith in the Gladstone School vision.”

The school had previously advised parents of the possibility of deferral soon after it heard of the DfE's policy change in early March. Several parents wrote to their MPs and to the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove to express their concerns.

Gladstone School will now open in September 2015, with the continued support of the DfE. Mary Pooley, Deputy Director of the Free Schools Group at the Department for Education said, “We have been delighted to work with Groups, such as Gladstone School, which share our vision to provide more children with the opportunity for an excellent education. It is very disappointing for us all that difficulties in securing a site will delay the opening of Gladstone School for a year. We will continue working to secure a site, and extend our full support to the school for a successful opening in September 2015.”

Chair of Governors and founder parent Maria Evans said, “This is heart-breaking news for us all, but there is still a vital job to do. The hundreds of Brent parents who have supported us over the last two years, and welcomed our ambitious and innovative vision, need the certainty that this school will open. We will be working in close consultation with Brent Council and the Education Funding Agency to secure the ideal site ahead of the admissions process for September 2015 entry.”

Earth 2064: Ravaged Disaster or Eco Dream World?

Alperton downgraded after first post-academisation Ofsted inspection

Alperton Community School which received an Outstanding grade in its previous Ofsted Inspection has been downgraded to Requiring Improvement in the latest inspection, which is the first since it converted to academy status in September 2012. The full report is available HERE

The Report states the school requires improvement because:
 

·       Students’ achievement is below expectations in a number of subjects, including English.

·       Not enough teaching is good or outstanding, especially in English.

·       Teachers do not set challenging work in all subjects, particularly for the most able students.

·       Students do not do enough extended writing in all subjects.

·       Teachers’ marking does not always help students to do better. Students sometimes do not respond to teachers’ feedback and this restricts how well their work improves.

·       Teachers sometimes fail to check if students understand the work taught during lessons, which hinders their progres

·      The school’s leaders do not compare what they know about students’ progress between Years 7 to 11 with national expectations in all subjects.

·      Some subject leaders do not have the skills to improve the quality of teaching and students’ achievement quickly enough in their subjects.

·      Senior leaders do not evaluate aspects of the school’s performance, such as the impact of teaching on students’ achievement, precisely enough.

·      The sixth form requires improvement because students’ results vary too much between subjects.

 However Ofsted did identify the following strengths:

·      Weaknesses in teaching and staff under- performance are being effectively attended to by the newly appointed headteacher.

·      Students’ behaviour is good in and out of lessons. Students are safe.

·      Attendance levels are higher than average.

·      The governing body challenges the school’s leaders and holds them to account for students’ achievement.

·      Students achieve well in mathematics and science.

·      Lower ability students, and those who speak English as an additional language, achieve well.

  

• 
  
   
  

Brent Labour backbenchers vote to reduce their own powers and Tories split

 

It was a sad day for democracy at the Brent Council AGM yesterday when not one of the 56 Labour councillors questioned the constitutional changes that will see the level of scrutiny in the Council reduced and limitations on questioning of Cabinet members by backbenchers and the opposition.

At the same time the opposition was weakened by a split in the Conservatives which saw them form an Official Group of three councillors and the 'Brondesbury Park Group' of three.

Cllr John Warren (Brondesbury Park Conservative) opposed the constitutional changes urging Labour backbenchers to 'look at your rights and how they are being lost' pointing to reduced scrutiny, restrictions on questions, removal of 'Key issues' debates, removal of rights to requisition meetings and the guillotine on Council meetings reducing them by 30 minutes.

Dr Helen Carr, (Liberal Democrat, Mapesbury) in her first intervention as a lone Liberal Democrat, said that she did not doubt Muhammed Butt's integrity, but had concerns about the constitutional changes and potential corruption. She appeared to nod in agreement when he reassured her that all was well and all councillors adhered to the highest of standards.

Butt's defence of the changes appeared to be based on their election mandate: 'The people of Brent have spoken'. He argued that the changes would increase participation pointing to the new right of individuals and community organisations to address meetings of the Council. He said that headteachers and doctors would be involved in the new Scrutiny Committee but failed to make a case for the reduction in the overall number of scrutiny committees and restrictions on questions.

All the Labour councillors voted for the changes, Brondesbury Park Conservatives voted against, and the Official Conservatives abstained.