Stonebridge Adventure Playground is NOT SAVED yet - fight goes on

Rumours are apparently going around Stonebridge Estate saying that the Adventure Playground has been saved. This is not true. The Council's granting of Asset of Community Value status helps but on its own will not stop the redevelopment.

What will stop it is a determined campaign by the whole community united in protecting this asset and using every peaceful means necessary to bring the message home to councillors:  THIS PLAYGROUND MUST STAY!

Last night amid the fireworks I seemed to be the only person who turned up for the consultation meeting at the Hub. Unsurprisingly for a day when children and their families are busy having fun.

Either the timing was deliberate to discourage attendance or the Communications Team at Brent Council are extremely poor at their job.

We will need a huge turnout of the generations of Stonebridge and Harlesden people who want to keep the playground at the next consultation meeting which is on November 12th 5-7pm at Stonebridge School.

If you are unable to attend fill in the consultation form here: www.brent.gov.uk/stonebridgeconsultation

or email your response to stonebridge.consult@brent.gov.uk
 

The consultation closes on November 17th

I told the consultation team:

• Stonebridge and Harlesden children need a playground in a high density area to provide space to play, experience challenge and develop physical and teamwork skills
• They need a staffed playground so they and their parents know they are safe
• The playground is a place where parents and carers mix and get to know each other
• Children from many different primary and secondary schools mix happily at the Centre
• The staff are known and trusted by the community and have their respect
• In turn the staff know several generations of local people and have seen them grow from children into youth and adulthood
• This makes a unique contribution to the stability of the area
• The Council is in danger of concentrating on the 'accountancy' in housing and school place provision and missing the social value of what Stonebridge Adventure Playground provides
• Increased density of housing with no 'safety valve' such as the Playground provides will build up potential trouble for the future (more flats are to be built on the site of Bridge Park and Wembley Point across the North Circular Road may be turned into flats)
• The kickabout area (see illustration below) is next to the main road posing a danger both from traffic accidents and traffic pollution
• The Playground's holiday and weekend provision for children with special needs and disabilities is unique and its record of integration very positive
• The Playground also contributes to the mental health and well-being of children and young people through the care and support it offers
• Any Equalities Impact Assessment would have to recognise that in closing the Adventure Playground the Council would be depriving an already disadvantaged community further as well as removing support from children with special needs, disabilities and mental health problems

Stonebridge School and Our Lady of Lourdes next door - kickabout area next to main road and NO Adventure Playground

It is worth noting that the Brent Council website  consultation page introduction does not mention the plans involve the closing of the Sdventure Plkayground ad it merits just two sentences on page five of the consultation booklet.

From the Council website:

We are consulting on the redevelopment of Stonebridge Primary School between 6 October and 17 November 2014.

The current proposals are for the redevelopment of the Stonebridge Primary School site and the area around it.  This site is located off Hillside and is bordered by the canal off Johnson Road, Milton Avenue and Our Lady of Lourdes RC School.

The redevelopment includes the site currently being used as the Stonebridge Primary School annexe on Twybridge Way.

Stonebridge is your community, so it’s important that you tell us what you think of these plans.

These are proposals and no decision has as yet been taken.

Not very transparent is it?

Brent Centre's work on children's mental health features on BBC News

The Brent Centre for Young People features in a BBC News report in response to the publication of the Health Select Committee report 'Children's and Adolescents' Mental Health Services and CAMHS'.

The news report was aired on BBC Breakfast and BBC News at One on Wednesday 5th November 2014.

Stonebridge Adventure Playground gets Asset of Community Value listing but watch this space

Campaign on Facebook PleaseSupport

Campaigners for Stonebridge Adventures Playground are celebrating the granting of Asset of Community Value to the facility which has served local children and their parents seince the 1970s.

Brent Council plan to close the playground in order to extend Stonebridge Primary School and build housing. The full staffed and well-resourced playgtround which also runs special projects for children with special needs and disabilities would be replaced by a much smaller unstaffed 'kickabout' close to the main road.

As well as recognising the value of the playground to the community the listing also opens the way to a community bid for the site.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE PLAYGROUND IS SAVED AND RESIDENTS ARE URGED TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT  THE CAMPAIGN,  SIGN THE PETITION AND ESPECIALLT TO COMPLETE THE ON-LINE CONSULTATION

However, this extract from the letter granting ACV status also indicates (last para) the possibility for an appeal which I would expect to come from the Planning Department - basically one part of Brent Council appealing to another part of Brent Council.  Something to carefully monitor.

A consultation process is currently underway on the Council plans with the latest meeting tonight at the The Hub in Stonebridge 7-9pm. Bonfire Night is perhaps not the best night of the year to consult with children and their parents!

Extract from Brent Council's letter signed by Cathy Tyson

-->

I am satisfied that the nomination made by the community body falls within Section 90(3) and under section 90(4) the Council is therefore required to enter the land as nominated on the Council’s list of assets of community value.

In accordance with Section 91 of the Act I hereby give notice of the inclusion of the Stonebridge Adventure Playground with the boundary shown on the maps provided by the nominee on 9^th September 2014 on the Local Authority’s list of Assets of Community Value.

The consequences for the land and for the London Borough of Brent as owners of the land of the inclusion of the land on the list of assets of community value are that

.        i)  The land will remain on the list of assets of community value for a period of 5 years unless the criteria for listing are found to no longer exist during an earlier review. 


.        ii)  It is open to the Council to remove the entry if for any reason the council no longer considers the land to be of community value. 


.        iii)  A restriction will be entered on the Land Registry and entry will be made on the Local Land Charges Register. 


iv)Under s95 of the Act the owner (London Borough of Brent) must not enter into a relevant disposal of the land unless certain conditions are met. These include notifying the Council in writing of the owner’s wish to enter into a relevant disposal of the land and complying with any moratorium periods on disposal.

v) A relevant disposal of listed land is ineffective if it is a disposal which contravenes S95. There is an exception to this in paragraph 21(2) of the Regulations.

The owner of the land (London Borough of Brent) has the right to ask for a review under S92 of the Act. A request for a review must be made in writing before the end of 8 weeks from the date of this notice. Such request should be addressed to the Assistant Chief Executive, Brent Council, Brent Civic Centre, Empire Way , Wembley, HA9 0FJ

Wembley Matters prints the Deputation on racism case that Brent Council banned

Mr Philip Grant was not allowed to make a deputation at yesterday's Scrutiny Committee on the subject of Brent Council's appeal on the Employment Trubinal case that found the Council guilty of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

In a terse statement at the beginning of the meeting Cllr Aslam Choudry said that deputations would not be heard, indicating that there was more than one, and almost as an aside said it was not on the agenda. In fact Deputations (if any) were Item 2 on the Agenda.

In the interests of democracy, a concept not currently being upheld by the members and officers of Brent Council, I publish below what Philip Grant would hace said, if he had been allowed to:

-->

“Deputation” for Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November 2014

I am speaking as an individual Brent resident, but I hope that the many people who have raised this matter online, in letters to local newspapers and at recent “Brent Connects” meetings, will feel that I am expressing their concerns as well.

I am here to formally request that Scrutiny Committee will agree to urgently scrutinise the decision, made in the name of Brent Council around 26 September, to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the case of Rosemarie Clarke v. London Borough of Brent and Cara Davani.

The Employment Tribunal found, on very clear evidence set out in its judgement, that Brent’s former Head of Learning and Development had been constructively dismissed by the Council in 2013, and that she had suffered victimisation and racial discrimination.

Although a Council statement has said that it took independent legal advice before deciding to appeal, I believe that the decision is likely to be an unsafe one,
and not in the best interests of Brent Council or the people of the borough.
Briefly stated, my reasons for that belief are these:

1.   Brent has already victimised Rosemarie Clarke, through her treatment after she first complained of being bullied and harassed by Cara Davani in late 2012, then through the ordeal of an Employment Tribunal to prove that she had been constructively dismissed. In taking the case to appeal, rather than apologising, and compensating her for the harm she has suffered, Brent is continuing that victimisation.

2.   As I explained to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, as soon as the decision to appeal was made public, Brent does not need to appeal in order to “clear its name” of racial discrimination in this case. It simply needs to tell the truth about why Council Officers decided to carry on with disciplinary proceedings against Rosemarie Clarke after she had ceased to be a Council employee, and ensure that the Officers involved face the consequences of their actions.

3.   Brent's decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement is likely to have been made by, or strongly influenced by, people involved in, the actions which gave rise to that judgement. They would also have had in mind a wish to see their own actions, or those of their associates, covered up, and their own positions and reputations protected. This probable conflict of interests makes the decision an unsafe one, and a possible abuse of their power and of the trust placed in them.

4.   The appeal will involve costs, perhaps considerable costs. If the legal action is being pursued in the interests of individual Senior Council Officers, rather than in the best interests of Brent Council, that is a misuse of Council Taxpayers’ money, at a time when “every penny counts”.

I am aware that you have been advised, by the Council’s Legal Director, Fiona Ledden, that this decision to appeal is not one which it is open to you to scrutinise, as it is an Officer decision not an Executive decision. As I have already indicated to you in writing, I believe that advice to be incorrect. Under your Committee’s terms of reference in Part 5 of Brent's Constitution, the functions which the ‘Scrutiny Committee shall perform’ include:

‘3. To review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive and to make reports or recommendations to the Council or the Cabinet in respect of such matters.'

You can scrutinise the decision to appeal against this Employment Tribunal judgement, I have set out why you should scrutinise it, and I hope that you will agree to do so, as a matter of urgency. Thank you.

Philip Grant,

3 November 2014

During the course of Philip Grant's correspondence with Cllr Choudry, and the latter's consultation with Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal, it has become clear that the decision to appeal was made by Brent Officers and not by councillors.

As Christine Gilbert, Fiona Ledden and Cara Davani are all Brent officers named in the Employment Tribunal case it becomes even more important for the public to know which officers made the decision to appeal, on what basis and what the cost implications are to Brent residents.

This decision follows on Fiona Ledden's previous ruling barring me for speaking at a Council Meeting on the issue of the recruitment of a permanent Chief Executive at Brent Council. Christine Gilbert occupies the interim position after councillors extended her term for a second time.

Philip Grant is doing democracy a service in Brent, as well as standing up for its residents, and deserves our support.

No scrutiny allowed of Employment Tribunal Appeal decision-Update

I tweeted Brent Council earlier today asking if tonight's Scrutiny Committee would be allowed to scrutinise the decision to appeal the Employment Tribunal case.

This is the Council response, and mine:

UPDATE

Philip Grant attended the meeting last night in order to make a deputation on the subject of the Council decision to appeal the decision of the Employment Tribunal in which the Council was found guilty of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

At the beginning of the meeting, which had an unusually large number of Labour councillors in the audience. the Chair, Cllr Choudry, announced that there would be no deputations and added 'it is not on the agenda'. He gave no further explanation.

In fact Deputations are on the Agenda (Item 2) and Mr Grant had given sufficient notice.

During the course of Philip Grant's correspondence with Cllr Choudry, and the latter's consultation with Fiona Ledden,Head of Legal, it has become clear that the decision to appeal was made by Brent Officers and not by councillors.

As Christine Gilbert, Fiona Ledden and Cara Davani are all Brent officers named in the Employment Tribunal case it becomes even more important for the public to know which officers made the decision to appeal, on what basis and what the cost implications are to Brent residents.

Later today I hope to publish what Philip Grant would have said if he had been allowed to speak.

This decision follows on Fiona Ledden's previous ruling barring me for speaking at a Council Meeting on the issue of the recruitment of a permanent Chief Executive at Brent Council. Christine Gilbert occupies the interim position after councillors extended her term for a second time.

Romanians protest at denial of democratic right to vote in Romanian election at Wembley polling station

Post by Ion Holban.

Farewell to Myron Jobson of the Kilburn Times

Myron Jobson

Myron Jobson, who has become a familiar figures covering demonstrations and meetings in Brent is leaving the Kilburn Times tomorrow.

He is joining the Financial Times to to work on features, mainly for one of its supplements.

Myron's recent series of articles on the campaign to save Stonebridge Adventure Playground has shown committed local journalism at its best.

It is a big leap into another world and I wish him well.

Mysterious Brent Full Council Meeting change may have unintended consequences

This is the rather terse statement on the Brent Council website announcing the very unusual change in the meeting of Full Council.

Peter Goss gave me rather fuller information just before his office closed on Friday:

Councillors have this afternoon been notified that the Full Council meeting on 17 November has been moved to 8 December in order that the outcome of the consultation on the borough plan can be considered as part of the 1st reading of the budget.  The web site has been amended to reflect this change.

However, this raises rather more questions than it answers.

1. Who made the decision and under which provision of the Brent Constitution?
2. When the Council has a carefully constructed Forward Plan how was this major item missed in the calendar?
3. With the Borough Plan consultation not closing until Friday November 28th, how will it be possible for the Brent officers to compile a report for Full Council in just 5 working days?

 I remain sceptical about the reasons for this decision.

One consequence of the three week delay is that some councillors may be caught in the six month rule. This disqualifies councillors from office if they have not attended a council meeting, which they are expected to attend, in a six month period.

Unless some special dispensation is granted, or councillors presently not on a committee are drafted on to a committee that meets before November 24th, there appear to be  three councillors who face disqualification as a result of the postponement.

These are John Duffy (Kilburn), Zaffar Van Kalwala (Stonebridge) and Ahmad Shahzad (Mapesbury).

This may (or may not) be an unintended consequence of the postponement decision but it would be absurd, and expensive, if as a result of the postponement three by-elections are triggered.