Brent Connects-Wembley: Agenda for October 14th

Green Party backs campaign for statutory children's outdoor play space in schools

From Share My School LINK

30 Sep 2014 — We recently met with Natalie Bennett, the Leader of The Green Party of England and Wales to discuss our campaign for outside space in UK schools and the legislation that currently governs this. We highlighted problems within the Standards for School Premises and Independent School Standards Regulations both of which we feel need changing to introduce minimum statutory outside space requirement, which they both lack. We also spoke about the Building Bulletin 103, which sets out the minimum non-statutory guidelines for outside space and how we feel this should be made a statutory baseline requirement for all new schools.

We are very pleased to announce that Natalie Bennett and The Green Party are in full agreement with us and have formally backed our campaign for these changes. Here is a statement of support from Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party of England and Wales:

As I am Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, it may seem unsurprising that I and the Party are so solidly in support of Share My School and Learning through Landscapes’ campaign to change the law to provide green space at our children’s schools.

Green space is vital for everyone in society – as a way to protect our own natural environment, and of course as a way for all of us, however wealthy or otherwise, to be able to share leisure time at no cost.

And the provision of green space has even wider-reaching effects: a study completed early this year at the University of Exeter’s European Centre for Environment and Human Health found that access to green spaces improves mental health in ways – and for longer time periods – that almost nothing else can.

For our children, the benefits are even further reaching.

Time spent outside – for recreation or curricular activity – enables children to exercise, to engage with nature and to build stronger relationships with other children.

That’s why we at the Green Party stand with Share My School and Learning through Landscapes on this issue, and call on the government to reverse its poorly-researched, mistaken policy to allow schools to set up without any outdoor space.

Green space helps our children to thrive. The government has a duty to ensure it is provided.

Natalie Bennett, Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales

Our children have a right to access outside space while at school. In a nation facing an obesity crisis and a rise in mental health issues, it should be a priority of our Government to not exacerbate these issues but work towards positive change. We need to provide our children with space to exercise, engage with nature and to gain a diverse and wide ranging education.

As always, please share our petition with friends, family and colleagues.

http://www.change.org/p/nicky-morgan-stop-new-schools-being-created-without-any-outdoor-space-for-children-to-play-and-learn

Thank you

Nicky Morgan: Protect our children's health and wellbeing - Stop new schools being created without any outdoor space for children to play and learn.

http://www.change.org

Think back to your childhood and you'll likely remember being outside, playing tag or other games with your friends, building dens, riding your bike,...

New free schools announced for Brent, Ealing and Harrow

The Government today announced 35 new free schools which are due to open in Sepotember 2015 although most of them do not yet have sites.

The blurb is from the DfE, not me.  I presume the Wembley Ark Primary is on the Copland site, now Ark Elvin, although it was not on the plans that went before the Council. Elsley Primary School is close by.

Gladstone and Gateway Secondary Free Schools failed to open last month as planned because they were unable to secure a building. Children had to go to other Brent secondary schools. Michaela has opened but building work is still in progress around the children.

Katharine Birbalsingh has started the process of bidding for a Michaela Primary Free School.

ARK Wembley Primary Academy, Brent, London

• primary (ages 4 to 11), 630 places (plus 60 in nursery)

ARK Wembley Primary Academy will be a mixed primary that will open in 2016 and build to full capacity of 630 pupils by 2022. The school will also have a 60 place nursery for 2- and 3-year-olds. ARK already runs 27 free schools and academies and will also open a free school in Ealing in 2017. ARK has a track record of running successful academies and free schools and the school will follow the successful ARK model by focusing on pupil success, with a commitment to developing aspirations and motivating pupils to achieve no matter what their background or prior attainment.

One Degree Academy, Brent, London

• all through (ages 4 to 18) 420 primary places, 300 secondary places, 120 post-16 places

The One Degree Academy, for 840 4- to 18-year-olds, has been put forward by the team behind the tried and tested One Degree Programme in Brent. The programme mentors local young people to develop their self-belief and transform their academic performance. The school will have very high expectations and aspirations for its students. The school’s curriculum will give students a global perspective and will make imaginative use of technology to enhance their learning.

ARK Ealing Academy, Ealing, London

• secondary school (ages 11 to 19), 900 secondary places, 300 post-16 places

ARK Ealing Academy will be a mixed school in Ealing, London. The school will open in 2017 and will eventually include a 300-place sixth form. ARK is a multi-academy sponsor with a track record of running successful academies and free schools. The school will follow the successful ARK model by having a strong focus on pupil success, a commitment to developing and building on aspirations, and motivating pupils to achieve regardless of their background or prior attainment.

North Twyford Church of England High School, Ealing, London

• secondary (ages 11 to 18), 1000 secondary places, 350 post-16 places

The trust that runs the popular and ‘outstanding’ Twyford C of E High School North is to open a new school in Ealing that will provide a rigorous academic education. All pupils will follow a core programme of English, maths, science, languages, history, geography and RE. Pupils will have longer afternoons for sport and creative programmes and will all have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument. The school will have the same principles of embedding a positive ethos within a distinctively Christian framework of values while applying a non-faith, open admissions policy.

In Harrow secondary academies are combining to set up a primary school:

Harrow View Primary School, Harrow, London

• primary (ages 3 to 11), 630 places (plus 26 nursery places), 12 special educational needs places

7 successful Harrow academies:

• Bentley Wood High School
• Canons High School
• Harrow High School
• Hatch End High School
• Nower Hill High School
• Park High School
• Rooks Heath College

are collaborating to extend their high standards by setting up a brand new primary school. Harrow View Primary School will serve a new community in the Harrow View area which is being constructed on the old Kodak site. The proposed school will also include a 26 place nursery and specialist provision to support 12 pupils with autistic spectrum disorders in a mainstream setting.

The same schools, with the addition of Whitmore are setting up a High School in Pinner

Pinner High School, Harrow, London

• secondary school (ages 11 to 18), 900 mainstream places, 240 post-16 places, 12 special educational needs places

8 successful Harrow schools:

• Bentley Wood High School
• Canons High School
• Harrow High School
• Hatch End High School
• Nower Hill High School
• Park High School
• Whitmore School
• Rooks Heath College

are collaborating to extend their high standards by setting up a brand new community secondary school. The new school will build on the high academic standards achieved at these popular schools and create 1,152 places. The proposed school will also offer specialist provision for twelve pupils with autistic spectrum disorders, sustaining their education in a mainstream setting with specialised support and facilities.

Brent Council case gets curiouser and curiouser

The Employment Tribunal Judgement and papers referred to Cara Davani's 'micro-management' at Brent Council.

It was  interesting therefore that I received an email this morning in response to one I had sent to Brent Communications Team. I had asked if the salaries of Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani were still being paid into private companies.

The reply, although unsigned, came with the sender: Cara Davani brent.foi@mail.icasework.com

It said that my request would be forwarded to the relevant department who would contact me shortly.

An FoI request about Brent's decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement, submitted independently by another person interested in the case, was also acknowledged in an unsigned email which identified the sender as Cara Davani.

All a bit odd. Is Cara Davani apart from HR now in charge of Freedom of Information requests...about matters relating to herself?

Eric Pickles decides NOT to intervene in Kensal Rise Library case

Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has  decided NOT to intervene in the case of the Kensal Rise Library Planning application.  The Brent  Planning Committee decision had been the subject of a call-in request by a member of the public. LINK

The National Planning Casework Unit said:

The Secretary of State has carefully considered this case against call-in policy, as set out in the Written Ministerial Statement by Nick Boles on 26 October 2012. The policy makes it clear that the power to call in a case will only be used very selectively. The Government is committed to give more power to councils and communities to make their own decisions on planning issues, and believes planning decisions should be made at the local level wherever possible.

In deciding whether to call in this application, the Secretary of State has considered his policy on calling in planning applications. This policy gives examples of issues which may lead him to conclude, in his opinion that the application should be called in. The Secretary of State has decided, having regard to this policy, not to call in this application. He is content that it should be determined by the local planning authority.

In considering whether to exercise the discretion to call in this application, the secretary of State has not considered the matter of whether this application is EPA Development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.  The local planning authority responsible for determining this application remains the relevant authority responsible for considering whether these Regulations apply to this proposed development and, if so, for ensuring that the requirements of the Regulations are complied with.

In relation to the comments that it is considered the local planning authority of Brent has incorrectly and arbitrarily applied the regulations of the Localism Act 2011 to this proposal and its progression, the Government is concerned that all local authorities should administer the planning system with utmost propriety, However, authorities are independent of central government and are responsible for their actions and decisions to the local electorate, their Auditor and, ultimately, the courts. Ministers have no statutory duty or powers to supervise the general propriety of individual authorities and, therefore, I cannot  comment on London Borough of Brent Council's handling of this matter.

The letter went on to suggest contacting the Council's Monitoring or Complaints officer stating:

It is his or her duty to report to the full council any cases where he or she thinks that the council, one of its committees, sub-committees  or officers is about to or has done something unlawful, improper, or which would constitute maladministration.

They also suggested an approach to the Local Government Ombudsman if this is within 6 months of the original complaint being lodged with the local authority, although they often have more than one stage in their complaints procedure.

Brent's Corporate Management Team - looking after each other

Brent Green Party and Brent Trades Union Council in their calls for an independent investigation into Brent Council have included an investigation into previous business and employment relationships of senior officers.

Christine Gilbert is an ex-Chief Executive of Tower Hamlets Counci and ex-chief of Ofsted. She became Interim Chief Executive of Brent Council following the row between Muhammed Butt (who had ousted former leader Ann John) and the then Chief Executive Gareth Daniel.

Daniel evetually left with a payment of £200,702.

In the course of the row three members of Brent's Corporate Management Team had written in Daniel's defence.

Clive Heaphy,  Chief Finance Officer of Brent Council, formerly Interim Director of Finance at Ofsted  employed Cara Davani on a £700 a day contract as Interim Head of HR. She was previously Director of Human Resources at Tower Hamlets Council and had worked as a consultant for Ofsted

Cara Davani was originally contracted with Brent Council by Heaphy, and her fees paid through Cara Davani Ltd., although the Brent Audit investigation found no written contract existed. Davani's initial engagement was from March 2012 to 31st October 2012.

Cara Davani drew up Christine Gilbert's contract which included payment into her private companty Christine Gilbert Associates in September 2012. She earned £100,000 in six months and later took up an additional job in Haringey. LINK

Clive Heaphy who had been suspended in August 2012 as Chief Finance Officer of Brent Council on grounds, later withdrawn, of gross misconduct, left the Council shortly after Daniel's departure and the day before Christine Gilbert's appointment as Acting Chief Executive. She took up the post officially on November 5th 2012.

Heaphy left with a payment of £140,508.

Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal and Procurement, wrote the report that recommended to the Council that Christine Gilbert continue as Interim Chief Executive until after the 2014 local elections.

Fiona Ledden prevented me from speaking to Brent Council on the issue of the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive. Correspondence about whether she was correct in that decision continues.

Christine Gilbert will continue as Interim Chief Executive during the Autum and Spring according to Muhammed Butt so that she can work on the new Borough Plan.

A  recruitment process for a permananent Chief Executive will begin in 2015.

Did Senior Brent Council officers allow Cara Davani to continue her victimisation of council worker?

With Philip Grant's permission, I am re-posting comments which he has made on the Kilburn Times website, in response to Brent's decision to appeal against the employment tribunal judgement. LINK

Comments made by Philip Grant in response to the online Brent & Kilburn Times story about Brent’s appeal against the employment tribunal appeal decision:

1.  I agree that Brent Council should not be appealing against the Employment Tribunal judgement. An appeal can only be taken on points of law, and cannot overturn the tribunal’s findings of fact, unless no reasonable person could have made those findings on the basis of the evidence before them. The tribunal had very clear evidence, which it set out fully in the judgement, to show that Rosemarie Clarke was victimised by Cara Davani, as a direct result of having made a formal complaint about being bullied by her, and that other senior officers in the Council did not do what they should have done to protect Rosemarie from that bullying and victimisation. 

Even if Brent was to win an appeal, on some legal technicality, against being found guilty of “racial discrimination” as an aggravating feature in its victimisation of a former employee (who for years had played a key part in raising Brent’s status as an “Investor in People”), that victimisation remains a proven fact. By appealing against the tribunal judgement, rather than taking Ms Davani’s actions of ‘victimisation, harassment or bullying extremely seriously’ as it claims it does with all such allegations in its statement, Brent Council is continuing its victimisation of Rosemarie Clarke. 

The Council thinks that its deep pockets will allow it to pay the fees of top barristers to present its appeal, and make no mistake, we are talking of fees and costs well into six figures here. But the money in those ‘deep pockets’ is your money and mine, from Council Tax and Income Tax, every pound of which is needed to provide services for people in Brent. It should certainly not be spent on trying to cover up the actions and protect the reputation of Brent’s Director of Human Resources, Cara Davani.

2. This may seem strange, coming from someone who has criticised Brent’s handling of the Rosemarie Clarke employment tribunal case, but it is possible that her victimisation by senior Brent Council officers was not a result of racial discrimination. If that is the case, why does the tribunal judgement, at para.313, say: ‘The tribunal finds that the claimant has suffered discrimination on the protected characteristic of race, victimisation and was constructively dismissed’?

Evidence showed that a senior white male employee, who had been suspended by Brent for alleged gross misconduct in 2012, had the disciplinary proceedings against him dropped after he resigned. Rosemarie, a black female employee, had resigned in April 2013 after being suspended by Brent at the end of February, but the Council carried on with the disciplinary proceedings, finding her guilty (in her absence, and after she had left their employment) of gross misconduct on 31 July 2013. As it had been proved to the tribunal that there was a distinction between the Brent’s treatment of the two comparable cases, it was then up to the Council to show a valid reason for the difference.

Brent could not show a valid reason for the difference. Brent gave ‘an account as to why disciplinary action was not pursued against Mr H after his resignation, being as to his professional relationship with [an] accountancy body, having implications on his ability to work in the future’. The tribunal said that ‘this does not account for the reason why action was continued against [Ms Clarke] so as to offer an explanation showing that race was not in issue, the continuation and conclusion of disciplinary action having similar employment consequences for both parties.’ In these circumstances, the tribunal found that Rosemarie ‘was less favourably treated because of her race …’ to be ‘… proved on the failure of [Brent Council] to show that race was not a consideration.’ (Paras. 249 and 250 of the judgement). 

Brent Council has been “found guilty” of racial discrimination in this case, and wants to clear its name. If race did not play a part in the decision to continue disciplinary action against Rosemarie Clarke after she had resigned, what was the reason for the decision, and who made it? Here is what the tribunal judgement says at para. 240:

‘With regards to the decision being taken to pursue disciplinary action against the claimant, following the termination of her employment, the respondents [Brent Council and Cara Davani] have been unable to state by whom or when that decision was made. Indeed, by the evidence before the tribunal a decision was taken following a meeting between Ms Cleary [a Brent HR Manager] and Ms Ledden [Brent’s Legal Director]. In her oral evidence, Ms Ledden confirmed that Ms Cleary’s role at the meeting was an advisory one only, but also that she, Ms Ledden, had not made the decision either. Ms Ledden could not identify who had made the decision.’

The tribunal clearly found the evidence reported here scarcely credible, as any reasonable person would. Despite claiming not to know who had made such an important decision, Brent’s most senior legal officer chaired the meeting on 31 July 2013 which implemented that decision, and found Rosemarie “guilty” of gross misconduct. What was the “misconduct” which she had been suspended for? The letter to her on 26 February 2013, supposedly written by the Director of her department, but emailed to her by Cara Davani, said: ‘It has been alleged that you maybe liable for gross misconduct in respect of your failure to follow reasonable management instructions.’ The ‘instructions’ had been given by Ms Davani, who Ms Clarke had lodged a formal complaint against for bullying, and the tribunal found that they had not been ‘reasonable’.

So, what was the reason why Brent Council victimised Rosemarie Clarke? I don’t know Ms Clarke, and was not involved in any of what happened at the Council over this matter at the time, but based on the very detailed evidence set out in the Employment Tribunal judgement this is my opinion. 

·      The primary reason appears to be the personal animosity of Cara Davani, after Rosemarie Clarke had the courage to complain in December 2012 about the bullying and harassment she felt she was receiving from her line manager. 

·      Rather than protecting Rosemarie in this situation, as Brent’s HR procedures set out that they should, other Senior Officers at the Council (up to, and including, the Chief Executive) did not follow those procedures, and allowed Cara Davani to continue her victimisation.

·      When, in June 2013, Rosemarie made a claim against Brent Council to the Employment Tribunal, Ms Davani and the other officers involved (probably including Brent’s Senior Employment Lawyer, who, it appears, is also Ms Davani’s partner) were determined to do all they could to undermine that claim.

·      One way they saw of doing this was to carry on with the “gross misconduct” proceedings, even after Rosemarie had left Brent’s employment, so that they could claim that she would have been sacked, even if she had not resigned.

·      Alternatively, or in addition to this, the continuation of the disciplinary action was a result of Ms Davani’s personal wish to do as much damage as possible to Rosemarie’s future employment prospects, by ensuring that any “reference” she was given by Brent would say that she had been found guilty of gross misconduct during her employment with the Council.

If I am right, then Brent Council would do better to admit the real reason, and make clear that it was not guilty of racial discrimination by taking strong and appropriate action against the Senior Officers who were responsible for Rosemarie’s victimisation, and by ensuring that Rosemarie is properly compensated for the harm she has suffered at the hands of those Officers.

London Greens support the Focus E15 Mothers campaign for social housing

 

The London Green Party is backing the Focus E15 Mothers group, and calls on Newham Council to:

1. Immediately stop persecuting the squatters, and to enable them to live in the empty homes on short-life contracts for the time being, working with them to access funds to bring the empty homes into use.

2. Work with the residents group 'Carpenters Against Regeneration Plans' and Focus E15 Mothers to develop a plan for the comprehensive refurbishment of the estate, providing them with secure and affordable social housing. This can be financed by the addition of new housing for private sale on existing buildings and under-used land.

3. Follow Hackney Council in refusing to attend the MIPIM UK property fair being held in London in October, and overhaul its housing strategy which has been so beneficial to rich investors and land owners, and which has delivered too few social rented homes for people like the Focus E15 Mothers group.

Tom Chance from the Green Party said:

Like so many in the past year, we've been inspired by these women and applaud their direct action. Instead of smearing and persecuting them, Newham councillors should be celebrating and supporting their constituents.

Councils like Newham cannot continue to demolish social housing and replacing it with expensive homes for the benefit of rich investors and big developers. Local residents need more than the crumbs they get from this rich man's feast.

Focus E15 Mothers on Facebook