Last chance to have a say on the Welsh School plans in King Edward VII's Park

The Planning Application by the Welsh School to take over the Bowling Green Pavilion in King Edward VII Park, Wembley as a school and to build an additional classroom, lay a playground and remove 4 category B trees (a Monterey Cypress and 3 Irish Yew Trees) was deferred at the Planning Committee to allow for wider consultation and to consider alternative sites within the park for a land-swap. That consultation is now taking place. This  Guest Blog from Denise Cheong addresses some of the issues involved.

Dear Wembley Matters Readers

Re-consultation has begun for planning application no. 14/4208 for the London Welsh School in  King Eddie’s Park.

The London Welsh School has submitted 3 additional supporting documents.

The document titled “Additional Statement” uploaded on 26/1/2015 states in the introduction that:

”This additional statement was produced by the Welsh School in conjunction with Brent’s Property and Projects, and Sports and Parks Service.”

Point 2) refers to the Brent wards the park is located within and borders.

The additional statement incorrectly states that:

”This park is located in Preston ward but its boundaries border Wembley Central and Tokyngton Ward.”

A Brent borough ward map shows that King Eddie’s park is actually located in both Wembley Central and Preston Wards, bordering Tokyngton Ward.

Annotated London Borough of Brent Ward Boundary Map Showing Locations of Bowls Pavilion and Bowls Greens, Wembley Central, Preston and Tokynton Wards © Crown copyright and database rights 2013 Ordnance Survey 100025260

- The bowls pavilion and both bowls greens are located in Wembley Central Ward.

- Collin’s Lodge (the mock tutor house beside Park Lane), the derelict yard (assigned to Veolia as a depot) and the steep bank proposed for the land swap are within Preston Ward.

Wembley Central Ward Councillors are: Cllr Sam Stopp, Cllr Krupa Sheth, Cllr Wilhemina Mitchell-Murray

Preston Ward Councillors are: Cllr Matthew Bradley, Cllr Patricia Harrison, Cllr Jean Hossain

Tokyngton Ward Councillors are: Cllr Muhammed Butt, Cllr Orleen Hylton, Cllr Ketan Sheth

(as listed on Brent Council website on 04/2/2015)

The case officer has said that she will accept comments up to and including Wednesday 18^th February 2015.

With Martin’s extensive coverage of this planning application you will all be aware of the background to this proposal by now.

We urge all Wembley Matters readers, if you have any thoughts whatsoever on this scheme, to make formal comment either via the council website or via written correspondence with the case officer, Victoria McDonagh, planning application no. 14/4208  LINK

Now is the time for your voices to be heard.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Denise Cheong

Your Wembley Central Resident Neighbour

Member, Princes Court & Keswick Garden Residents Association

Chair & Blog Editor, Friends of King Eddie's Park: Friendsofkingeddies.blogspot.com

Blog Editor, Wembley Champions: Wembleychampions.blogspot.com

Steering Group Volunteer Member & Communications Editor, Big Local Wembley Central: http://www.biglocalwembleycentral.org/

Team Member, Wembley Crime Prevention: http://www.wembleycrimeprevention.org/

Possible Council Tax rise emerges as an option on eve of Budget Consultation deadline

I understand that at last night's Labour group meeting the possibility of a Council Tax increase came back into play with a potential rise of 1.99% for 2015-2016 looked upon favourably by a majority of the group. A straw poll indicated 24 in favour of a Council Tax increase and 6 against.  This would be an annual increase of £30 for Band D residents.

Although Cllr Muhammed Butt opposed an increase at the Civic Centre Public Budget Consultation  that this would hit people already suffering from Coalition cuts the counter-argument is that in terms of social solidarity sharing the burden (with those in higher rated property paying more) would enable the most extreme of the proposed cuts to be avoided.  This would preserve some vital threatened services  to the benefit of poorer residents andwould be better for the Council's long-term stability.

Since 2011 the Council has avoided Council Tax increases, accepting the Government's grant for freezing the tax. Indeed Muhammed Butt has made virtue out of what he sees as necessity by boasting to residents that he has frozen the tax.

However there is an argument that long-term freezing of the Council Tax undermines the Council's revenue base.

This is what Clive Heaphy's Report stated in the First Reading Debate in November 2011 LINK

On 3 October 2011 the government announced a further one-off grant, for 2012-13 only, of £2.6m predicated on the basis that the council does not increase council tax for 2012-13. Each 1% in Council tax equates to approximately £1m of Council spending and members should note that the failure to increase Council tax over a number of years will erode the Council’s underlying revenue position in the longer term.

By January 2012 Ann John had ruled out a rise in the Council Tax as reported by the Brent and Kilburn Times LINK

As I stated at the time: LINK

The [Heaphy] report said that a rise of 2.5% in council tax would close the budget gap as follows:

2012-13 £4.4m
2013-14 £1.1m
2014-15 £19.7m
2015-16 £13.1m

In other words a rise of 2.5% in council tax this year would result in a net gain when the loss of the £2.5m grant is taken into consideration. Some councils are considering this option and some Labour councillors in Brent thought it worthy of debate. However that option appears to have been ruled out in advance of both consultation and decision making.

In November 2012 Assistant Director Finance presented a Budget Report that assumed a 3.5% Council Tax increase (above that triggered a referendum at the time). However the trigger was reduced to 2% (still current).

As I stated on my blog in January 2013 LINK

I understand that there has been discussion in the Brent Executive as to whether to raise Council Tax with the benefit marginal after grant losses and  a reduced collection rate are taken into account. A rise above 2% would have incurred the cost of a local referendum.  It would of course have been another additional cost for people already suffering from benefit cuts and low or frozen wages. An alternative view is that calling the Coalition's bluff and triggering a referendum could result in a proper political debate about the need to adequately fund  local services and the iniquities of the Coalition's grant reduction to local authorities. Only a very small percentage of local government revenue comes from council taxes and charges.

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has confirmed via a Facebook interchange with me that there will not be a 2% rise this year. Asked about a possible lower rise he said that the Council was looking at the settlement figures as part of the budgetary process and considering the offer of the freeze grant.

In January 2014 Muhammed Butt said that there were 'no plans' to change policy from freezing Council Tax in the 2014-15 Budget. LINK

I wrote on this blog:

Reflecting on Muhammed Butt's declaration yesterday that there were 'no plans to change course' on freezing council tax for the 2014-15 budget, I wonder what his plans are for 2015-16. In October the Council forecast a deficit for that year of  £34m (see below) a huge amount that on the council's own reckoning will put essential services at risk.

As political parties are deciding their manifestos for the May local elections surely they should be saying something about this crisis waiting for them in their first year of office.

In that respect a manifesto pledge to have a referendum on increasing council tax would make sense. Rank and file Labour party members and the wider public could than have a say and it could provide a launch pad for similar moves by other local authorities.  I do not think increases in council tax are the answer to the huge cuts in local authority funding, that of course requires the restoration of adequate funding, but a national debate post May 2014 leading up to the General Election in 2015 could feed into that demand. It will certainly put the future of local government on the General Election agenda.

Unfortunately despite some efforts at raising the issue and confronting the Coalition with the impact of the cuts, no real movement has emerged and no Referendum challenge..

Brent Council is left with the weakened revenue base that Clive Heaphy warned them about and deeply damaging unpalatable cuts.

It is noteworthy that in the above examples it has been Ann John and Muhammed Butt who appear to have made the decision about a Council Tax rise, although formally of course it is the Full council Meeting.

Where this leaves the Labour Group's support for a modest 1.99% rise, just below the Referendum threshold remains to be seen. Clearly the Cabinet should be taking note of the virews of its own councillors as well as the support shown for services by residents in consultations and in the campaigns that have sprung up to defend services.

If you wish to put your view there is still time to submit a  comment to Brent Council's budget consultation. The deadline is tomorrow, Wednesday February 4th :consultation@brent.gov.uk


 

Pavey Review won't lance Brent's boil but points to future improvements

 

The Pavey Review which was published last week has this key sentence:

0. It is important to note that the review was not a review of our HR department. It is about the role each person has to play in making Brent Council the best possible place to work. There are clear recommendations in relation to employment policies and practice, and these require the action of the entire organisation and crucially managers at all levels.
   

This limitation is why Brent Green Party and others called for an independent investigation into Brent Council, not only in the racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal that an Employment Tribunal found against first respondent Brent Council and second respondent Cara Davani, but into the previous working connections of senior staff. The latest example of the latter is the appointment of Lorraine Langham as Brent's Chief Operating Officer who like Christine Gilbert and Cara Davani previously worked for both Ofsted and Tower Hamlets Council. LINK

In any other organisation disciplinary action would have been taken against a manager found guilty of such conduct. Muhammed Butt, when challenged by members of staff on the issue at Brent Connects said the council had to follow 'due process' and make an Appeal.

Some Councillors suggested to me that disciplinary action could only take place when the Appeal process had been exhausted. A Judge found that the Council had no grounds for an Appeal but still no action was taken. Two legitimate opportunities to lance the boil missed.

Some have claimed that disciplinary action in itself would amount to victimisation or even a 'witch hunt',  or would be to succomb to political pressure. This is  a red herring. The Council owes a duty of care towards its employees and this includes ensuring that they are treated fairly in their day to day employment regardless of race, gender etc. Brent Council should have confidence that their own disciplinary procedures are robust enough to withstand such pressures.

Now the Council is in the position of having someone in charge of HR who has been found guilty of the above offences but is nevertheless in charge of recruitment and redundancies policies. Long term mprovements in processes and procedures does not address immediate issue.

Michael Pavey has done a thorough job within his limited remit, consulting widely with staff and apparently winning their confidence. One glaring ommission is consulting with the staff who have left the Council and examining any gagging clauses that were imposed. They, after all, are possible victims of poor employment and practice.

However, given the comments I have received on this blog regarding working conditions at Brent Council (many unpublished so as not to reveal identity or due to gagging clauses) as well as emails and telephone calls, soemtimes distraught,  the following comment seems emollient:

This review finds that Brent is generally a happy and inclusive place to work. But there is plenty we can do better.

Although Cllr Pavey recognises that Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) statistics in Brent are better than some other London local authorities, he says they are far from satisfactory.  What is missing from his report is the connection between those statistics and the operation of the HR department (Proportion of BAME employees in Brent is 62%, Female employees 65%):

Both show higher proportions in the lower grade and I assume that BAME and Female would be higher still at tScale 3 to P2, and lower at the Hay grade.

Im terms of HR practice the reasons for leaving are also important and for both BAME and Females dismissals are higher (second column)

These are perhaps some of the most important recommendations:

-->

Finding: Generally, feedback from staff themselves suggests that practice is good; however, improvements can and should be made to employee management practice to achieve a more collaborative and inclusive culture. 


Engagement with staff suggests inconsistent application of policies and procedures, including as regards flexible working. There has clearly been great progress in implementing good management practice, but the Council should also seek to ensure that internal communication explain expected practice, underpinned by a clear explication of staff and manager competencies and behaviours.

·      At present, there are few reported incidents of bullying and harassment. The Council has an emphasis on informal resolution: according to the LGA this represents good practice. Consideration should be given to ensuring consistency, support and follow up within the informal resolution framework. 


·      The Council lacks a systematic Council-wide approach to learning from HR and legal processes when complaints are raised; whilst this is not uncommon, we have an opportunity to make improvements. In addition, this may give rise to inconsistent management responses. Thus, though HR takes the lead, individual managers are responsible for learning from ETs and grievances, and reviews take place with HR and within departments. Improvements should be made in terms of cross-organisational learning, peer review and Council-wide improvements. 


·      The Code of Conduct does not at present adequately articulate the behaviours and practice expected of managers and staff. Such behaviours should be clearly articulated, communicated and reflected in: 


·      recruitment and selection processes


·      ongoing team and line management

·      
appraisal processes

·      learning development processes and interventions.

Addressing this presents an opportunity to emphasise the significant priority the Council attaches to valuing diversity.

·      Evaluation of practice and understanding of staff experience should be regular and Council-wide. 


·      Internal communications should be strengthened to become a two-way flow of information. It is critical for senior management to be able to communicate values and good practice to the wider workforce. But it is equally important that communications enables the wider workforce to articulate their experiences to senior management. In two staff focus groups, more than half had not seen a copy of their service or team plan and participants suggested that improvements could be made to internal communications, including the ability for greater staff engagement and management visibility, for example through senior managers attending team meetings. This is increasingly important given the scale and pace of change. Managers themselves need to be supported to communicate effectively, but must also play the key role in staff engagement. Given the current and future constraints on funding, it is important that central advice and strategy is complemented by good practice within departments. 


The Full Report can be found  HERE

Brent Council environment cuts break 'cleaner and greener' pledge

I reproduce below Brent Friends of the Earth's comprehensive response to the current Budget Consultation. I am sure that similar responses could be written on other areas of the proposed cuts making it clear that the level of cuts  now required is unacceptable and making no long-term economic or social sense.

Response to Brent Council Budget Consultation from Brent Friends of the Earth

Our members are concerned about the cuts to Council services overall, in particular cuts to vital front line services.  Whilst we recognise that Brent's income has been severely reduced, we do not wish to see vital welfare services axed, especially those for children. The vision of what will remain is stark and in some cases unrecognisable from the provision residents have come to know and expect as Council services.  However our comments as a group focus on the impact of proposed cuts to environmental services. We also question whether some of the cuts proposed will actually save money in the long run:

Gladstone Free School to be built in notorious pollution blackspot

Having abandoned plans to build their school on playing fields adjacent to Gladstone Park, Gladstone Free School have now found a site 500 yards from Neasden Station. (Their image above)

In their consultation document they state:

We are currently discussing possible sites for Gladstone School with Brent Local Authority and the Education Funding Agency. Site options are necessarily subject to commercial sensitivity, although site options currently being considered  anticipate siting the school within a 500 metre radius of Neasden Underground station on Brownfield sites with existing buildings, and do not include any greenfield or open land.

Unfortunately this site, amidst various waste processing facilities, with heavy skip lorry traffic, has long been notorious as one of London's worst pollution blackspots. LINK  Monitoring has become less effective through the use of pollution suppressors by Boris Johnson as Barry Gardiner tweeted back in April 2012:

"Boris's pollution suppressors near air quality monitors is like putting breathing apparatus on the canary in the mines!"

Neasden Lane: Photo: Veleospeed.co.uk

 Clean air campaigners have long been focusing on the number of nurseries and schools that are close to roads with heavy traffic and the potential long-term damage this can do to the sensitive lungs of young children.

In September 2013 Boris Johnson gave the following written response LINK to a question from Stephen Knight abhout Neasden Lane:

The Neasden Lane monitoring station is classified as an industrial site and the main local sources are regulated by either the Environment Agency or the London Borough of Brent. 

Significant progress has been made this year with all the Environment Agency regulated waste sites now being fully enclosed. The metal recycling site is now partially enclosed to screen the site more effectively. This has reduced the fugitive particle pollution from the sites. 

Dust suppressants, which were shown by King’s College London evaluation report to be highly effective at sites like Neasden Lane, continue to be applied. The Environment Agency has also worked with operators to implement a particulate alarm system which informs operators if particulates on site exceed agreed levels. They then must take action such as ceasing operations and ensure site activities are not contributing to exceedences. 

The Environment Agency have increased inspection frequency to fortnightly compared with approximately quarterly. Many of these visits are conducted jointly with the London Borough of Brent to improve coordination of enforcement activity. This approach has identified new opportunities to reduce emissions from the concrete batching plant regulated by the London Borough of Brent.

Although meant to be reassuring this hardly paints a picture of a healthy environment for school children.

Kensal Rise Library back on the market after failed auction

Kensal Rise Library is back on the market after failing to meet the £1.25m reserve price at auction last year LINK

Bid to change use of Mahatma Gandhi House to accommodation as giant high rise development goes to planning committee

Prior approval is being sought to change the use of Mahatma Gandhi  House, which used to house the offices of Brent Council Housing Service, to  accommodation. LINK

It would comprise 37 studios, 48 one bedroom flats and 4 two bedroom flats. The initial drawings appear to show high density accommodation.  The building is 8 storeys high.

Ground floor

Meanwhile the much large Yellow Car Park Scheme behind Quality Inn and Dexion House  (now demolished) and beside the Civic Centre,  comes before the Planning Committee on February 11th.

This is part of an enormous development including retail, professional, food and drink units; business accommodation, housing units, community use space and student accommodation has been covered before on this blog.

The amount of affordable housing for this site remains small (18 out of 370):

The planners express concern about a short-fall in three bedroom accommodation...

However, this could easily be addressed through internal alterations to the building, amending the size of flats within the element of the building adjacent to the park. This would involve changing a number of groups of two flats which currently comprise two 2-bedroom 4-person flats into one 1-bedroom flat and one 3-bedroom flat. The total number of units would not change. However, the proportion of 3-bedroom flats would increase to meet the minimum level specified within the Development Specification. It is recommended that a condition is attached requiring details of these changes. This is considered to be sound as the proposal would primarily require internal changes and any external changes would be non-material

The site outlined in red

The nearby Fountain Studios (top centre) sent in an objection concerned that the building works (which also include an access road and a park) would disrupt its activities in terms of noise, reverberations and building vehicle traffic. The Council make it a condition that there is engagement to limit the amount of noise and disturbance.

The planners also suggest that the proposed aluminium cladding  with white framing should be softer with greater contrast between the materials.

There are no 'poor doors' (separate entry for affordable and market accommodation)

The officers recommend approval.

Summary

The three applications that are being considered concurrently look to deliver 370 homes together with some key elements of social and physical infrastructure including the 0.4 Ha park and the 300 square metre community hall. The homes meet or exceed London Plan unit size standards and almost all units benefit from good sized balconies. All units within this building benefit from immediate access to the park. The incorporation of a large lobby serving all units helps to demonstrate an inclusive approach to all residents, including those who reside within the Affordable units. Conditions are recommended to address some shortfalls or alterations that are necessary, such as the number of 3-bedroom units, the potential efficiency improvements to the layout of Affordable units and the layout of the community hall. A condition is also recommended to ensure that noise and disturbance from construction is minimised.

As Quintain rapidly fill in the various plots it is hard to keep track of the various planning applications and the stages they have reached, I think it would be useful for the public to have a document and images updating information.

It is hard to get an overall impression of what the area will eventually look like, the amount of retail, food and office space and the different types of housing, including student accommodation.  The amount and type of open space is also an important consideration. However, most important for local people is the lack of affordable housing. The planners argue that using the floor space measure =10% but in terms of the number of units it is just 5%.

Green's rallying speech at London March for Homes