New anti-racist group launched in Brent

A new broad-based group was set up last night to challenge racism in Brent. The group, Brent Anti-Racist Campaign (BARC) will take up issues in policing, housing, immigration, employment, education and any other areas where racism becomes an issue. BARC will also get involved in running 'Know your Rights' workshops for young people.

Barnet Council gives go ahead for Brent Cross redevelopment

Regular readers will know that the Brent Cross development has been subject to much debate, not least because of the increase in car traffic involved in the expansion of retail and the associated loss of green space. See Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Development  LINK

This is a Press Release from Barnet Council: 

Barnet Council has today confirmed planning permission for a revamped Brent Cross Cricklewood shopping centre as part of the wider Brent Cross Cricklewood redevelopment. 

The confirmation comes today following the signing of final commercial agreements between Barnet Council, developers Hammerson and Standard Life.

The overall development of both north and south sides of the A406 will create more than 27,000 jobs and 7,500 homes and double the size of the shopping centre.

The Section 106 planning agreement is one of the largest in British history and will see a £250m investment in roads, public transport and pedestrian and cycle links as well as three new parks.

It will also see investment in three new schools and other community facilities as well as a £5.6m major improvements to Clitterhouse Playing Fields.

Leader of the Council, Councillor Richard Cornelius said:

It is very difficult to overstate the importance of this redevelopment to Barnet. The council is committed to playing an active role in the development of the south side of the site to get the best financial deal for the taxpayer and to play our part in creating a thriving London neighbourhood.

We are particularly excited by the opportunities presented by Brent Cross overground station which will give a 12 minute fast link into Kings Cross. We are working very closely with the Treasury and the Mayor’s Office to make this happen.

A film about Gaza made by people 'living the reality' - July 30th Rumi's Cave

Brent's legal flip-flopping over Kensal Rise Library planning application

In this Guest Blog Meg Howarth tries to disentangle the various interpretations of the law involved in the Kensal Rise Library development planning process.

Last week, Brent's planning committee gave the go-ahead to Andrew Gillick's latest plans for the Kensal Rise Library building he now owns. Brent & Kilburn Times report HERE - 

Regarding the still-unresolved fraudulent email affair surrounding the developer's original scheme - there's currently some speculation that matters might now be in the hands of the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service). This is unconfirmed, however, and shouldn't stop anyone from writing to their ward councillors to ensure that Brent police's investigation isn't quietly dropped on the back of last Wednesday's planning consent.

Last Wednesday's decision was made in the face of apparently contradictory advice from the council's lawyers about the relevance of ACV (Asset of Community Value) legislation to the application - the library building was listed as an ACV in December 2012. The committee's legal advisor told the committee that the Localism Act and ACV was 'separate legislation' and 'not under the consideration of this committee'. This is not only untrue, as Jodi Gramigni says on the following Wembley Matters' blog  LINK

The advice appears also appears to contradict points 7 & 8 of the planning officer's report. These state unequivocally that 'in this case [KTR planning application] the fact that the building is listed as a Asset of Community value is...a material planning consideration' and 'is also relevant...as a partial change of use to residential is proposed' - link to report HERE 

But the most glaring evidence of Brent legal's flip-flopping regarding ACV legislation comes in the statement from Andrew Gillick's spokesman on the eve of the planning committee: 'Further to advice provided by the LPA [Brent local planning authority] in respect of the Assets of Community Value Regulations 2012, I am pleased to advise that the applicant [the developer] has today confirmed that he is naming FKRL as the "actual" tenant, as opposed to his "preferred" tenant'.

So less than 24 hours before the Localism Act and ACV was declared 'separate legislation', it had been  used by Brent's planners to enable a shift from 'preferred' to 'actual' tenant status for FKRL. Why, then, did committee members fail to probe these inconsistencies? Were they asleep on the job? The 2012 legislation either applied to the application or it didn't.

In the event, the shift to the much-heralded status of 'actual' tenant appears to have been little more than a PR move to encourage support for Mr Gillick's latest attempt to convert the library building into unaffordable residential flats. As his spokesman said: 'We trust this ['actual' over 'preferred' tenant status] goes some way to giving the Council, the FKRL and the local community the confidence to support this application'. But as Jodi Gramigni says: there's no 'legally binding requirement to reinstate a library [in the KRL building] or agree a lease with FKRL, confirmed by committee member, Cllr Kasangra, when he said clearly at the meeting that a lease is not part of the planning conditions. 

Those with long memories will here recall the developer's apparent untrustworthiness when, in his original change-of-use application for the Mark Twain library - the one linked to the fake email support - he offered D1 space in the basement of the-then publicly funded building in breach of the legally binding contract he'd signed with then-owner All Souls College: 'none [of the D1 space shall be] in the basement of the Property)' (Option Agreement para 15.1). Jodi's appeal for 'vigilance' is surely spot on.

A further point regarding the Localism Act: if a property is listed as an Asset of Community Value before a sale is agreed, the property is subject to the Community Right to Bid - a 6-month period to enable community groups to prepare alternative sale proposals. Brent's legal counsel argued that the Option Agreement to purchase Kensal Rise Library from All Souls College, allegedly signed in November 2012, preceded the building's ACV-listing in December, and that the building was therefore exempt from the right-to-bid period. But the Option Agreement wasn't a sale contract. That wasn't signed until later, almost certainly in January 2013. So it's arguable that the 6-month bidding process should have started then, enabling FKRL to exercise a bid. For clarification of this alone and/or other aspects of Brent's handling of the application or the police investigation, it might be worth requesting the Secretary of State to call in the planning committee's decision for reconsideration advice on how to do so HERE

Brent Cabinet approve £40 annual charge for green waste despite protests

Despite representations by local resident Martin Redston and a written submission from Brent Friends of the Earth, Brent's Cabinet approved changes to the waste collection system this afternoon.

This will include a £40 annual fee for the collection of green waste, a weekly waste food caddy collection and weekly blue bin dry recyclable collection.

Martin Redston spoke to the Cabinet about the difficult of composting large branches ansd took along some samples. He said that some residents only need a few green waste collections a year coinciding with specific times in the gardening calendar. He  pointed out that cross subsidies already exist across the different levels of services residents receive.

The discussion in the Cabinet suggested that Brent's priority was to increase dry recycling rates and that member residents required more frequent blue top bin collections - the £40 charge would help fund this.

The statement from Brent Friends of the Earth LINK was read out but the Cabinet went on to approve the changes, including the £40 charge.

It is worth pointing out that the Council only set out the specification for the new Public realm contract last year with the report  LINK to the Executive in October 2013, less than one year ago, with no mention of these suggested changes and  certainly the introduction of charges in the specification.

However this paragraph is significant:

-->

During the competitive dialogue process the financial outlook for local government has deteriorated further and Brent Council now faces a budget shortfall of £20m in 2014/15’.

The Medium Term Financial Plan is currently being changed to revise the £55m shortfall between 2014/15 and 2016/17 and will be communicated to members shortly. As a result officers asked bidders to identify other savings options which were not part of the financial evaluation. Within the contract there is a change control mechanism that will help the authority and Veolia to accurately price any service changes during the life of the contract, ensuring that prices are transparent and fair to both parties.

'Both parties' here refers to the Council and Veolia - are they transparent and fair to residents?

 Shahrar Ali, Brent Green Party spokesperson on the environment, said:

--> Brent's latest proposal to implement a green bin charge is ill-thought out. Environmentally, it sends the wrong signal to residents keen to recycle garden waste that is too thick or bulky to do so in their back gardens, but can be managed borough-wide. It discriminates against those who may be unable to do their own composting due to disabilities or other valid reasons. Also it treats residual grey bin waste fit for landfill as somehow more worthy of free collection than recyclable matter in the waste hierarchy. Financially, the imposition of such a flat charge for green bins is extraordinarily expensive for householders already facing real terms cuts in living standards. The Brent administration is clearly out of touch with the everyday pressures people face and its own environmental responsibilities, even to propose such a change,Comments on Wembley Matters and the Kilburn Times website include fears that in order to avoid the charges people  will resort to the fly-tipping of garden waste or its burning, leading to increased air pollution, and it might even accelerate the paving over of gardens.

The current charges for Brent's Household Reuse and Recycling Centre can be found HERE

Enough is Enough: New Brent anti-racist initiative to be launched on Wednesday

Apart from the antics of the various tiny right-wing groups making forays into Brent to stir up trouble, we have other issues to deal with in the borough involving racism and Islamophobia..

On this blog we have covered the racist 'go home' van, UKBA raids at railway staions and places of work, discriminatory letting policies by estate agents and there are ongoing issues over the use of stop and search and disproportionate exclusions of black pupils from our schools.

To address these issues Brent Trade Union Council and others have called a meeting to set up a new Brent Anti Racist Initiative.  It will be held at Brent Trades Hall, 375 High Road, NW10 2JR.

Brent's controversial £40 'Garden Tax' for green waste collection to be discussed by Cabinet tomorrow

Tomorrow afternoon's Brent Cabinet will be discussing a proposal to charge residents £40 per year for the collection of garden green waste. At the ame time dry cycling will be collected weekly instead of fortnightly and caddy food waste will be collected weekly.

Dubbed a 'garden tax' by some there are fears that garden waste not suitable for composting will end up in the grey residual bins or dumped at the roadside.

Charging for green waste seems at odds with Labour's previous condemnation of  charging for bulk waste collections. (Read on for detailed submission by Brent Friends of the Earth)

A 'secret' meeting with Councillor Butt

Guest blog by Philip Grant

-->

The need for independent investigation of a number of important matters which appear to be going wrong within Brent Civic Centre has been the subject of a number of “blogs”, and hundreds of comments on them, in the past few months, most recently in Martin’s article about ‘Diminishing democracy in Brent’ on 13 July:- 

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/diminishing-democracy-in-brent-update.html
 

I was one of the people who urged our Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, to publicly answer the allegations which were being made, both in comments made and in emails sent to him both before and after the local elections in May. I also had outstanding matters from a letter I had given to him on 4 February 2014, at a “Brent Connects” meeting where I had spoken out in a “soapbox” slot about Senior Council Officers failing to honour commitments in Brent’s Constitution about proper consultation and working effectively with the community (the report back to the following “Brent Connects” meeting in April had incorrectly informed the public that ‘the Leader’s Office has responded to Mr Grant’).

I was therefore pleased when one of my emails finally received a reply, from Cllr. Butt himself, on 24 May saying: 

‘Let’s meet up soon so that we can discuss the points that you have been highlighting. I need to be appointed as leader again on June 4^th at the agm of the council and if all goes ahead fine we can sit down soon afterwards.’

After some delays at his office, I finally met with Cllr. Butt, and his assistant Thomas Cattermole, in his office at the Civic Centre on Thursday 26 June. I am a retired Civil Servant, and right at the start of the meeting I made it clear that I wished to make a written record of our discussions. This is how I recorded it in the “Introduction” to my notes of the meeting (the only part of them which I feel I can disclose, for reasons which will become apparent):