They will be on the Gussy Roots show from 8-10pm.
Meanwhile follow this link to see some of the amazing comments made in support of the Adventure Playground on their website: LINK
WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Friday, 21 November 2014
Tune in to Stonebridge kids fighting for their Adventure Playground Sunday 8-10pm 95.4FM
They will be on the Gussy Roots show from 8-10pm.
Meanwhile follow this link to see some of the amazing comments made in support of the Adventure Playground on their website: LINK
Brent Cabinet finding it hard to find cuts to bridge £54m budget gap
 |
| See last paragraph |
Every Cabinet member had been asked to find deep cuts - and they were struggling. The Labour Group will meet to discuss the recommended cuts on Saturday November 29th.
Butt told the meeting that he would ensure that new housing in Park Royal will have 50% affordable housing. However members were disappointed that his definition of affordable rent was 80% of market rent - far too expensive for most ordinary Brent families. He was asked to go back to officers and challenge this.
I understand that the issue of Stonebridge Adventure Playground was raised by members unhappy about recent developments over its proposed closure. LINK Muhammed Butt told them that a decision would be made in January.
Other sources suggest that the problem regarding the possible barring of three councillors under the 6 month non-attendance rule may be resolved next week. LINK Cllr John Duffy is due to attend Alcohol and Licensing Committee on Monday afternoon and Cllr Zaffar Van Kalwala Audit in the evening.
Cllr Ahmad Shahzad has been unwell so may be exempted on those grounds.
The problem was caused by the sudden movement of the Full Council Meeting from 17th November to December 8th. This was explained as necessary in order to discuss the Brent Plan which is currently being consulted on. Many feel this an indequate excuse as the Council calendar, including consultations, is set up months in advance.
Apparently last night Cllr Janice Long mystified many Labour Party members by asking Muhammed Butt, rather cryptically, if he was planning to set off the Civic Centre fire alarm.
Thursday, 20 November 2014
Brent Council denies restructuring information to ex-Leader - he issues formal Open Government complaint
As readers will know Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani have proposed a restructuring of senior management of Brent Council that some have seemed as part of a 'jobs for the boys and girls' strategy. Details can be found here: LINK
The details were to be discussed at the General Purposes Committee but no details were published on the Agenda. It was marked restricted as individuals could be identified before consultation began. One person who may be affected is Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement, as it was proposed that her post be deleted.
At the meeting the item was taken 'below the line' (confidential) and a backbench Labour councillor was none too happy at being excluded from the room.
Now the issue has been taken up by Paul Lorber, former leader of the Liberal Democrats and previously Leader of the Council.
He pressed the case for open government in an exchange with Fiona Ledden:
The details were to be discussed at the General Purposes Committee but no details were published on the Agenda. It was marked restricted as individuals could be identified before consultation began. One person who may be affected is Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement, as it was proposed that her post be deleted.
At the meeting the item was taken 'below the line' (confidential) and a backbench Labour councillor was none too happy at being excluded from the room.
Now the issue has been taken up by Paul Lorber, former leader of the Liberal Democrats and previously Leader of the Council.
He pressed the case for open government in an exchange with Fiona Ledden:
To: Ledden, Fiona
Cc: Gilbert, Christine Subject: GP Report on Restructuring etc
Fiona
Can you please supply me with a copy of this Report as I believe that aspects of it should NOT have been kept secret .
Brent supports the concept if a Freedom Of Information and Reports dealing with the abolition of Departments and posts themselves have not in the past been treated as confidential.
Only matters which are confidential are issues specific to individual employees.
The normal practice in the past has been a Report above the line dealing with the general issues and only the specific staff related issues should be kept below the line .
Can you please explain who made the decision to restrict all the information to just the Members of the GP Committee and why were other Councillors excluded from Meeting and prevented from being present during consideration of the items.
How does any of this meet the acceptable Freedom of Information undertakings? Has there been a decision to raise the Secrecy threshold under the current Administration?
I would appreciate an early reply.
Thanks
Paul
Dear Paul,
The report was below the line and will always remain below the line I can not therefore provide you with a copy.
The consideration of whether the report should go below the line took into account the relevant information.
Kind regards
Fiona
Fiona Ledden
Director of Legal and Procurement
Fiona
Sorry but this is not an acceptable answer. What 'consideration' - absolute secrecy to hide what officers recommend even if breach of Open Government undertakings?
On what basis were Councillors expelled from the meeting of the GP and thus denied an opportunity to Scrutinise. Are you using GP Committee to by pass information and decision making of full Council or even the Cabinet?
This is clearly an abuse and not what was expected of the Cabinet and Scrutiny System. Perhaps you and your colleagues need to review both the legislation and Brent Council policy on Open Government and act accordingly.
Please advise how this decision can be scrutinised if access to the papers is denied to Councillors let alone the public.
Please treat my email as a formal Complaint against a refusal to provide me with information I am entitled to as a local resident and Council Tax payer.
Regards
Paul
Support every child's right to go to school - sign today
A message from Education International
Today marks the 25th Anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child - a defining moment in history, when for the first time, all children around the world were viewed as human beings with their own set of rights, including the right to a quality education.
Despite progress over the past 25 years there are 58 million children out of school and we are seeing increasing attacks on schools and school children and teachers on the frontlines of education.
This was also one of the main reasons why Education International’s affiliates came together for the Unite for Quality Education campaign over the last year: We believe passionately that all children and teachers have the right to go to school without danger or discrimination and so we are actively supporting a new global call to action –the #UpForSchool petition.
World leaders promised to get every child into school by 2015. We now have a window of opportunity to put the pressure on them to keep their promises, making 2015 the year all children secured the right to go to school and learn.
People power works. Big numbers of people mobilising over an issue cannot be ignored. That is why this petition is being collected in every country around the world.
And we need teachers to be pivotal in this movement. To make this the world's biggest petition, we are asking you to collect as many signatures as possible. Can you help? To sign follow this LINK
We are organising a high-level hand-in of signatures during our World Congress in Ottawa in July 2015 so we hope we can do something historic together!
Please help spread the word and share this message as widely as possible across your networks. Together we can make the voices of teachers heard by world leaders.
Together we can make our voices heard and stand Up For School.
Susan Hopgood
President
Fred van Leeuwen
General Secretary
Education International
Today marks the 25th Anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child - a defining moment in history, when for the first time, all children around the world were viewed as human beings with their own set of rights, including the right to a quality education.
Despite progress over the past 25 years there are 58 million children out of school and we are seeing increasing attacks on schools and school children and teachers on the frontlines of education.
This was also one of the main reasons why Education International’s affiliates came together for the Unite for Quality Education campaign over the last year: We believe passionately that all children and teachers have the right to go to school without danger or discrimination and so we are actively supporting a new global call to action –the #UpForSchool petition.
World leaders promised to get every child into school by 2015. We now have a window of opportunity to put the pressure on them to keep their promises, making 2015 the year all children secured the right to go to school and learn.
People power works. Big numbers of people mobilising over an issue cannot be ignored. That is why this petition is being collected in every country around the world.
And we need teachers to be pivotal in this movement. To make this the world's biggest petition, we are asking you to collect as many signatures as possible. Can you help? To sign follow this LINK
We are organising a high-level hand-in of signatures during our World Congress in Ottawa in July 2015 so we hope we can do something historic together!
Please help spread the word and share this message as widely as possible across your networks. Together we can make the voices of teachers heard by world leaders.
Together we can make our voices heard and stand Up For School.
Susan Hopgood
President
Fred van Leeuwen
General Secretary
Education International
Tuesday, 18 November 2014
Caroline Lucas & Davy Jones condemn Green councillors' privatisation decision
The political decisions of the minority Green Council in Brighton and Hove have been controversial , locally and nationally, within the Green Party and within the broader left movement. At the crux of the argument has been the degree to which the Council should go along with the austerity agenda and implement cuts and costs savings, claiming that 'Green cuts' would be more progressive than those made by the other parties. At the same time the Council has also made considerable progress on the Green agenda. (See article on New Statesman website LINK)
A decision made at by some Green councillors at a Council committee last night has brought out the differences between the Council leadership's perspective and that of the city's Green MP and prospective MP.
Caroline Lucas MP, (Green Brighton and Hove) and Davy Jones (Green candidate for Brighton Kempton) have issued the following statement:
A decision made at by some Green councillors at a Council committee last night has brought out the differences between the Council leadership's perspective and that of the city's Green MP and prospective MP.
Caroline Lucas MP, (Green Brighton and Hove) and Davy Jones (Green candidate for Brighton Kempton) have issued the following statement:
We are disappointed that at yesterday's Brighton & Hove Council Policy & Resources Committee meeting some Green Group councillors including the Council leader Jason Kitcat, voted to accept a Health & Well-Being Board recommendation to out-source a local NHS service (ICES) to provide specialist equipment for people with disabilities to a private sector provider.It is a complicated situation - the Sussex Community NHS Trust was threatening to pull out of the service, "cost shunting" the responsibility over to the cash-strapped local Council that only provides a small component of the service currently. This is deeply regrettable. But we believe the Council has made a mistake in allowing itself to be forced by the NHS Trust to out-source this service to a private sector provider.There was no necessity to make this decision earlier today – the existing contract runs until September 2015, leaving plenty of time to seek alternative solutions to keep the service in public hands.We are particularly disappointed in today’s decision as it is not one that is in line with national or local Green Party policy, that unreservedly opposes the privatisation of NHS services. Neither was the ICES decision brought before the local Green Group or Green Party in advance for discussion. The Green Party councillors on the Council recently successfully proposed a motion to the full Council meeting opposing privatisation of NHS services.We reiterate our outright opposition to the out-sourcing of the ICES service and to support the staff in the NHS in their campaigns to remain in the public sector, and NHS campaigners fighting against privatisation.
More feeble excuses from Cllr Butt as 'error' reveals his deceit on Stonebridge Adventure Playground closure
Cllr Muhammed Butt today told the Kilburn Times that the Forward Plan notice uploaded on the Brent Council website that the Cabinet would be making a decision to end the funding of the Stonebridge Adventure Playground LINK had been 'uploaded in error'. It is reminiscent of the Tweet sent out inviting residents to speak at a Full Council meeting on a Friday, giving Monday as the deadline which was said to be an error when I applied to speak on the subject of the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive LINK
This is what Cllr Butt told the Kilburn Tines: LINK
The Heading (below the purple line) was originally published as:
Whether this is to avoid a headline of 'Brent Council give Stonebridge children a surprise Christmas present - they close their playground!' or some other reason is a matter for speculation.
My hunch is that the original wording of the Forward Plan reflects the Council's true intentions and that Muhammed Butt is fully aware that this is the case.
That local residents, and the children who use the Centre, are being subject to such deceit is a disgrace.
This is what Cllr Butt told the Kilburn Tines: LINK
The forward plan item considering the future funding of the Brent Play Association was taken down from our website as it was an incorrect version which had been uploaded in error. A correct version will be published later today. (Tuesday).The new version of the item has been posted and a screen grab is below:
It is important to note that this funding issue is completely separate from the regeneration proposals for Stonebridge. They are two separate decisions.
Given the fact that by 2018 Brent Council will have had its funding cut in half by government, we are having to review all expenditure across a wide range of areas including children’s services.
But let me be absolutely clear about this, no decisions on either the funding of the Brent Play Association or on the regeneration of Stonebridge have yet been made.
The Heading (below the purple line) was originally published as:
To terminate the funding to Brent Play Association (BPA) at the end of the 2014-15 financial year.Importantly the 'Decision due' date is now the Cabinet of January 26th 2015 rather than the original posting of December 15th 2014.
Decision type: Key
Reason Key: Significant expenditure/savings > 30% of budget for the function in question;
Whether this is to avoid a headline of 'Brent Council give Stonebridge children a surprise Christmas present - they close their playground!' or some other reason is a matter for speculation.
My hunch is that the original wording of the Forward Plan reflects the Council's true intentions and that Muhammed Butt is fully aware that this is the case.
That local residents, and the children who use the Centre, are being subject to such deceit is a disgrace.
Westminster Labour opposes waiver on affordable housing in stark contrast to Brent Council
While Brent Labour Council approves developments with no, or very little affordable housing, their Labour colleagues in the City of Westminster appear to be taking a different approach. Background on the Jubilee/Moberly Sports Centre background can be found HERE
Wesminster Labour released this statement today:
Labour Councillors have objected to the proposal that the condition requiring a contribution of £500,000 towards affordable housing on the Jubilee Sports Centre development should be waived.
In a letter to the Council in advance of the Planning Committee on this evening, Labour Leader Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Queen’s Park Ward, said:
Moreover, unlike Brent Council, Westminster Council does not require a second viability report following the completion of the development to assess whether overage payments should be made by the developer so that the Council can share in the profit from developing its own land. This is a serious failure by the Council in failing to capture the increase in value for the public benefit. This is something on which we will be contacting the District Auditor.
In addition, it is now common knowledge that the Mayor’s fund for affordable housing is substantially unallocated. It has not been proved that the Mayor’s Fund has been taken into account when drawing conclusions on viability.
The Committee should also be aware that the current balance of funds held in the Council’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) at 10 November 2014 was £87.4m. Of these AHF balances £48.6m is contractually committed to ongoing affordable housing projects. A further £16m is currently earmarked for further affordable housing projects that are currently being worked up.
This leaves over £20 million unallocated. In addition, at the end of March 2014, there were c.£34m in payments due to be paid into the AHF from consented schemes that had been partially implemented.
There is clearly sufficient money in the Council’s AHF to build more social rent homes on this site.
Moreover the application should be rejected as unacceptably contrary to the following policy grounds:
POLICY S16 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• Affordable housing and floorspace that is used or was last used as affordable housing will be protected.
• The council will aim to exceed 30% of new homes to be affordable homes, and will work with its partners to facilitate and optimise the delivery of new affordable homes.
• Proposals for housing developments of either 10 or more additional units or over 1,000 sqm additional residential floorspace will be expected to provide a proportion of the floorspace as affordable housing.
The development proposes to replace 12 existing socially rented housing units with five socially rented units and seven shared ownership units. The ratio of shared ownership has now been altered to 80/20, amounting to a further unacceptable overall reduction in the number of social rented units. The Council’s policy requirement requirement to protect floorspace last used as affordable housing has not been met.
The overall number of units available for affordable housing amounts to 16% of the total number of units proposed, far short of the 30% target specified in policy S16. The Cabinet Member Report on the Supply an Allocation of Social Housing and Low Cost Home Ownership 2014/2015 dated 9th May 2014 recognises at para 3.2.1 that: “demand for social housing in Westminster continues to outstrip the supply of available accommodation to let “. The report goes continues: “Thirty four per cent of households need larger home (3 bedrooms or more) and ethnic minority households have a higher than average need for them at 38%.” The report is a material consideration for the determination of this proposal. The mix of units proposed does not reflect the demand projected by the Council’s Supply and Allocation Report.
The Committee has heard in the past about the extensive local opposition to this unwanted proposal.
In summary, the Committee should refuse permission for the conditions to be waived.
Wesminster Labour released this statement today:
Labour Councillors have objected to the proposal that the condition requiring a contribution of £500,000 towards affordable housing on the Jubilee Sports Centre development should be waived.
In a letter to the Council in advance of the Planning Committee on this evening, Labour Leader Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Queen’s Park Ward, said:
The reasons given for not following the Council’s planning policy arebased on a revised viability report on the expected profits of the Council’s development partner.The viability assessment dated December 2013, which has not been made available for inspection, is a year out of date. Since 2013 house prices in London have risen 16.2% and 11% in the City of Westminster (Source: Rightmove property index November 2014). As the Council’s independent viability report has not been made public we have no way of knowing whether the model used by the viability consultants does or does not ignore residential growth in values that occurs between construction start on site and the commencement of marketing and phased release of the dwellings.
Moreover, unlike Brent Council, Westminster Council does not require a second viability report following the completion of the development to assess whether overage payments should be made by the developer so that the Council can share in the profit from developing its own land. This is a serious failure by the Council in failing to capture the increase in value for the public benefit. This is something on which we will be contacting the District Auditor.
In addition, it is now common knowledge that the Mayor’s fund for affordable housing is substantially unallocated. It has not been proved that the Mayor’s Fund has been taken into account when drawing conclusions on viability.
The Committee should also be aware that the current balance of funds held in the Council’s Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) at 10 November 2014 was £87.4m. Of these AHF balances £48.6m is contractually committed to ongoing affordable housing projects. A further £16m is currently earmarked for further affordable housing projects that are currently being worked up.
This leaves over £20 million unallocated. In addition, at the end of March 2014, there were c.£34m in payments due to be paid into the AHF from consented schemes that had been partially implemented.
There is clearly sufficient money in the Council’s AHF to build more social rent homes on this site.
Moreover the application should be rejected as unacceptably contrary to the following policy grounds:
POLICY S16 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• Affordable housing and floorspace that is used or was last used as affordable housing will be protected.
• The council will aim to exceed 30% of new homes to be affordable homes, and will work with its partners to facilitate and optimise the delivery of new affordable homes.
• Proposals for housing developments of either 10 or more additional units or over 1,000 sqm additional residential floorspace will be expected to provide a proportion of the floorspace as affordable housing.
The development proposes to replace 12 existing socially rented housing units with five socially rented units and seven shared ownership units. The ratio of shared ownership has now been altered to 80/20, amounting to a further unacceptable overall reduction in the number of social rented units. The Council’s policy requirement requirement to protect floorspace last used as affordable housing has not been met.
The overall number of units available for affordable housing amounts to 16% of the total number of units proposed, far short of the 30% target specified in policy S16. The Cabinet Member Report on the Supply an Allocation of Social Housing and Low Cost Home Ownership 2014/2015 dated 9th May 2014 recognises at para 3.2.1 that: “demand for social housing in Westminster continues to outstrip the supply of available accommodation to let “. The report goes continues: “Thirty four per cent of households need larger home (3 bedrooms or more) and ethnic minority households have a higher than average need for them at 38%.” The report is a material consideration for the determination of this proposal. The mix of units proposed does not reflect the demand projected by the Council’s Supply and Allocation Report.
The Committee has heard in the past about the extensive local opposition to this unwanted proposal.
In summary, the Committee should refuse permission for the conditions to be waived.
Monday, 17 November 2014
Brent Council removes compromising Stonebridge Playground funding proposal from its website
At the weekend I published an item from the Brent Forward Plan which showed that despite the consultation about the future of Stonebridge, including the closure of the Adventure Playground, not ending until today, the Council was intending to cut its funding.
Muhammed Butt had assured residents and their children (recorded on video) that nothing had been decided ahead of the outcome consultatiopn on the expansion of Stonebridge Primary school and the building of new housing that necessitated the Playground's demolition. He did go on at length about needing to save money so presumably it was the funding cut he had in mind.
The Council's Forward Plan published at the weekend including a proposal for the December 15th Cabinet that funding for the Stonebridge Adventure Playground be 'terminated'.
Now that item has been removed from the Forward Planning section of the Council website, If you follow the link I published this is what you get:
Luckily I had copied the item on Sunday. For those of you denied access by the Council, this is what it said (original format):
Now what possible motive could Brent Council have for removing something that should be publicly accessible and clearly has major repercussions for the parents, carers and children of Stonebridge?
Muhammed Butt had assured residents and their children (recorded on video) that nothing had been decided ahead of the outcome consultatiopn on the expansion of Stonebridge Primary school and the building of new housing that necessitated the Playground's demolition. He did go on at length about needing to save money so presumably it was the funding cut he had in mind.
The Council's Forward Plan published at the weekend including a proposal for the December 15th Cabinet that funding for the Stonebridge Adventure Playground be 'terminated'.
Now that item has been removed from the Forward Planning section of the Council website, If you follow the link I published this is what you get:
Luckily I had copied the item on Sunday. For those of you denied access by the Council, this is what it said (original format):
Revenue funding to Brent Play Association which supports the running costs of Stonebridge Adventure Playground
Details
History
To terminate the funding to Brent Play Association (BPA) at the end of the 2014-15 financial year.
Decision type: Key
Reason Key: Signficant expenditure/savings > 30% of budget for the function in question;
Decision status: For Determination
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Notice of proposed decision first published: 14/11/2014
Decision due: 15 Dec 2014 by Cabinet
Lead member: Lead Member for Children and Young People
Lead director: Strategic Director, Children and Young People
Department: Children and Young PeopleOther items on the Forward Plan sent out at the same time are still accessible.
Contact: Sara Williams, Operational Director, Early Help and Education Email: sara.williams@brent.gov.uk Tel: 020 8937 3510.
Documents
Revenue funding to Brent Play Association which supports the running costs of Stonebridge Adventure Playground
Now what possible motive could Brent Council have for removing something that should be publicly accessible and clearly has major repercussions for the parents, carers and children of Stonebridge?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)