What kind of whipping will Brent councillors have on Monday?

Following the internal row over Brent Council Labour Group's vote in favour of a Council Tax rise of 1.99% in order to save a number of important services, which was then dismissed by the Labour leadership as a straw poll which they did not have to take account of, there appears to be some shifting of position  ahead of Monday's Full Council Meeting.

Cllr John Duffy has complained to the Constitutional Officer of the Labour Party about the vote disregard LINK and I understand there is anger among backbenchers about the situation.

Now Cllr Sandra Kabir, Labour's Chief Whip, has made a statement to the Kilburn Times LINK which is not exactly a model of clarity but may indicate tolerance of a possible 'rebellion':

The Times reports:

The full council will vote on the cuts next Monday but councillors are under no obligation to vote.

Cllr Sandra Kabir, Brent Council’s chief whip, told the Times: “Nobody can be forced to vote against the budget they don’t want. But the budget was made starting from August, over the summer, over many, many sessions with the councillors, so everyone is very aware of what’s in the budget.”

Asked if councillors would be disciplined if they voted against the cuts she said: “Not necessarily no.”

'Lollipop' men and women - a benefit to children and the community

I am publishing the speech made by Michelle Goldsmith at Brent Cabinet,  presenting a petition about the cuts in school crosssing patrols, as a Guest Blog as it raises many pertinent issues.
 

Another petition where children lose out.

This petition is asking the Council to review their intention to sack all School Crossing Patrols in Brent.  I appreciate that these are difficult times with huge cuts in funding, but cutting road safety services too far will mean more people being killed or injured. Apart from the human cost, it just doesn’t make financial sense – road accidents can cost millions of pounds so preventing them saves millions of pounds.

A 'mumble for Mo' as assault on children and young people is approved by Brent Cabinet

It is customary in government, when spending priorities are being decided,  for each departmental minister to make the case for his or her department to the Treasury and to the Cabinet. Their effectiveness can be gauged by their success,

Transferring that to Brent Council level it was clear at tonight's Cabinet meeting that Ruth Moher, lead member for children and families appeared to have been particularly ineffective. Putting aside Children's Centres, which are Michael Pavey's passion, the main losers were children and young people.

Brent Council likely to to pay the Big Lottery to close Stonebridge Adventure Playground!

Brent Council is at present wanting to turn  number of its services over to voluntary groups and charities, even to the extent in its Equalities Policy of asking council staff to volunteer.  So staff will be expected to volunteer, in their spare time, to run services where their colleagues were made redundant.

However, at the same time its treatment of voluntary organisations, such as Brent Play Association, and facilities bequeathed by local philanthropists such as Titus Barham, and agreements reached with organisations such as Fields in Trust, has been cavalier to say the least Now in the 21st century it is the Big Lottery that Brent is disrespecting.

The Big Lottery financed Stonebridge Adventure Playground, through Brent Play Association, which itself raised funds for many other businesses. Ironically the fact that it was  part-funded by an annual Council grant, limited how much the BPA could raise for itself.

Now, the Coucil is adamant that it will cut playground funding at the end of the financial year, and apprently, even while the BPA is finalising redundancy terms for its employees, has had the gall to ask if it would be possible for workers to carry on as volunteers, to cover the Easter and Summer holidays.

The closure is going to be expensive for the BPA but may also be so for Brent Council as they will be breaking an agreement made with the Big Lottery - that is if the Big Lottery decide to play ball with the Council.  My reading is that this may cost the Council up to £250,000 which they appear willing to pay.

Potential penalties are set out below:

Meanwhile Philip Grant has pointed out that:

-->

At item 9 on tonight's Cabinet agenda is a report from Andy Donald, Brent's Regeneration Director on how he proposes to spend S.106 (planning) funds for 2015/16 (the Development Funds Programme). One of the items is: 

Title: King Edward VII park landscaping bowling green. Purpose: Landscape the disused bowling green to increase informal recreation area. Ward: Wembley Central Details: There are no legal impediments to using this funding for this project. Given the importance of King Edward VII park to providing amenity space for the future occupants of the borough's largest growth area, this park is considered a priority. Proposed spending for 2015/16: £152,044.

Is it coincidence that the bowling green is adjacent to the proposed London Welsh School to be housed in the Bowling Green Pavilion, with an additional classroom to be built on the site?  The possible use of the bowling green as a play area for the 30 or so children at the school was mentioned at the beginning of the planning process but did not form part of the planning application. It was subsequently denied that it would be used as a regular part of the school's amenities. However, there seems to be little reason for it not to be used by the school as parks are public spaces.

As Jaine Lunn  has pointed out LINK this land is subject to a trust agreement between the Council and Fields in  Trust. This raises a question over 'no legal impediment' above as the Trust told Jaine re the Welsh School development:

I can confirm that Brent Council did submit a formal request to Fields in Trust with regards to granting a lease on the disused bowls pavilion area to the London Welsh Language primary school on a 15 year term, and in addition to erect a single storey classroom block and convert the paved hard landscape area to an all weather playground.   We were advised that the bowling green and Pavilion are unused and the area fenced off, furthermore there was no bowls interest. 

I can confirm that the Council’s request was rejected by our Trustees in January 2015 because the site is protected for recreational purposes and the proposed new use would be outside the objects of the Deed of Dedication.  In order for the matter to even be reconsidered by our Trustees the Council would need to offer up for protection a replacement site of at least the size of the land being lost or provide a payment which is to be made available for investment in the facilities within the remainder of the site.  To date we have not received a revised application, which I believe would only be forthcoming should planning consent be granted.

Neither the Fields in Trust Agreement, nor Regeneration's proposal feature in the Welsh School Planning application, although surely both are relevant to the application.

So the Council will pay money to get rid of the Stonebridge Adventure Playground and will spend money on landscaping a bowling green in Wembley. They help the Welsh School displaced from Stonebridge through the same school expansion process which requires building on the adventure playground, but cut the playground's funding and pay compensation to the Big Lottery.

Who said politics is about priorities?

Cara Davani presenting Brent's Equalities Strategy on Wednesday

Regular readers will perhaps find it ironic that Wednesday's General Purposes Committee will be considering reports from Cara Davani, Director of Human Resources at Brent Council, on Equalities Strategy and Equalities Policy.

Brent Council has taken no action regarding Cara Davani's role in the Employment Tribunal's finding that Brent Council discriminated against an employee on grounds of race and was responsible for victimisation and constructive dismissal.  They again failed to take action a second time when the Tribunal found no grounds for the Appeal that Brent Council launched.

The last General Purposes Committee heard a report from Cllr Michael Pavey on his inquiry into the role each person had in Brent Council 'to make it the best possible place to work' - not an inquiry into the Human Resources department as such. LINK

The latest argument I have heard regarding the lack of action is that this is not a matter for councillors but for Christine Gilbert, Acting Chief Executive Officer.

The General Purposes Committee consists of the Cabinet minus Cllr Mashari, plus Cllr Kansagra, leader of the official Conservative opposition. Consideration of thr Equalities issue would perhaps carry more weight and be more robust if some Cabinet members stepped aside in favour of substitutes who are members of the BAME community.

 The Agenda blurb on the Equalities Strategy says:

The new Equality Strategy 2015 – 2019 sets out a refreshed vision and approach underpinned by the values of fairness, respect for people, valuing diversity and excellence in all our services. The strategy sets out Brent’s determination to be an exemplar of good practice in equality, diversity and human rights by achieving an ‘excellent’ assessment in the Equality Framework for Local Government in 2015 

The Action Plan includes the following outcomes:

·      All council employees receive equal pay for work of equal value

·      Progress towards a living wage for all who live and work in Brent

·      Equality is integral to all employment processes and practices

·      The council workforce is representative of the local community at all levels

·      Increased proportion of BAME senior managers

·      Our employees feel engaged in the development and work of the council

·      Positive outcomes from staff surveys

CNWL lecturers to strike over casualisation proposals.

Lecturers at the College of North West London will be striking on February 23rd and 25th over the college management's replacement of permanent contracts by hourly paid contracts.

The college UCU branch said:

Following the strike on the 8 December 2014 and subsequent negotiations we have not been able to persuade our employer college (College of North West London, Dudden Hill Lane) to either abandon its policy of achieving greater casualisation (replacing permanent contract with zero hours contract) through compulsory redundancies and nor persuade the College to reinstate one of our members Michael Starrs, plumbing lecturer, who became a victim of this policy. 

Therefore our members are having to take further strike action on the 23rd February and 25th  February following the half term break. A reputable law firm, employed by our union is handling his case at the Tribunal as it considers he has a reasonable prospect of Success.  

The vast majority of Michael's plumbing students have signed a petition supporting his reinstatement. He was also voted as the most popular teacher by students in 2012/2013. Members who voted unanimously to take two days a strike action believed that more strike action maybe needed to resolve this dispute.  

We are planning a public meeting very soon over this issue nearer the election as we did for our " Save Kilburn College Campaign" on the eve of the 2010 general election, where a number of MPs' and prospective candidates came for a debate.

The Green Party Trade Union Group  has issued a statement of support:

The Green Party Trade Union group supports CNWL strikers, casualisation and victimisation of education workers is not just an attack on workers and their conditions of employment, but it's also an attack on education. We need Further Education to train and educate those who can help to create the low-carbon economy that is so urgently needed and need FE managements that value their staff and treat them properly.

The college management blame the proposal to move 30% of staff on to hourly paid contracts on sharply reduced funding for the current academic year.

Brent Fightback Final Demand to Coalition: Give us Back Our Money

Outside Sarah Teather's Office in Willesden Green

Outside the Brent North Conservative Office in Preston Road, Wembley

Brent Fightback supporters today presented Brent Liberal Democrats and Conservatives with a 'Final Demand' for the £142,900,000 that the Coalition  will have cut from Brent Council's budget over the current period.

This has meant cuts in valuable Council services that will hit the young, the poor, the vulnerable and the elderly.

Those making the demand included independent local activists and residents and members of the Labour, Green and Socialist Workers parties.

Copies of the Final Demand were posted through the letter boxes of the offices.

Is Brent Council in breach of Trust Agreement over King Edward VII Park Welsh School proposal?

 

Collins Lodge

Guest blogger Jaine Lunn raises a vital issue that puts a big qustion mark over the London Welsh School's bid to open a school in King Edward VII Park, Wembley.
 

Collins Lodge in King Edward VII Park has a plaque that reads "Queen Elizabeth II Award Jubilee year 2012 by Fields in Trust LINK for Sport and Recreational use in perpetuity.”

Having contacted this organisation they responded I quote:-

"Brent Council entered into a deed of dedication with Fields in Trust in 2012.  The deed is registered at the Land Registry and states that King Edward VII Park is held as a “public playing field and recreation ground, inclusive of a bowling club and sports pavilion” in perpetuity.   I have attached our guidance document on how we protect recreational land which may be of interest.

If the landowner of a protected site wants to make a change that is outside of the permitted use then they will need to formally seek the consent of Fields in Trust.  We have a process in place for that and I attach that information for your reference.   This guidance outlines what our responsibilities are with regards to assessing such matters.   All decision are taken by our Trustees.

Fields in Trust do not get involved in the local management of sites as this very much stays in local hands.  So any changes to a site which fit within the agreed user clause do not require our consent.   There is some flexibility built into the deed of dedication, for example our Trustees may at their discretion consent to the disposal of land provided that betterment for local communities in terms of outdoor sport, recreation and/or play can be demonstrated. 

I can confirm that Brent Council did submit a formal request to Fields in Trust with regards to granting a lease on the disused bowls pavilion area to the London Welsh Language primary school on a 15 year term, and in addition to erect a single storey classroom block and convert the paved hard landscape area to an all weather playground.   We were advised that the bowling green and Pavilion are unused and the area fenced off, furthermore there was no bowls interest. 

I can confirm that the Council’s request was rejected by our Trustees in January 2015 because the site is protected for recreational purposes and the proposed new use would be outside the objects of the Deed of Dedication.  In order for the matter to even be reconsidered by our Trustees the Council would need to offer up for protection a replacement site of at least the size of the land being lost or provide a payment which is to be made available for investment in the facilities within the remainder of the site.  To date we have not received a revised application, which I believe would only be forthcoming should planning consent be granted."

As we have all seen on the site visit It is not a fair and equitable swap as it neither matches the size of the land proposed to be built on neither is it comparable to be used for sports. In the additional documents that have been submitted in the interim period the idea that residents should be able to sit on this land and be able to access a view comparable to the view from Primrose Hill over Central London is laughable and whoever cited this as acceptable "should have gone to SpecSavers" about covers it, or suggests they are taking some form of  medication to enhance their  very vivid imagination.  

Knowing all of the above, what really baffles me and to which I seek answers to the following questions.

1)  Who originally suggested/proposed the idea to the London Welsh School that this was a suitable location for their school?  

(After all they had investigated 98 other locations, 65 of which was outside of the London Borough of Brent.)

2.  Why did the Brent Planners not reject this immediately knowing that the land was protected?

3.  Having ignored the fact, made an application, which had they thoroughly read and understood the deeds of  dedication they had signed would have realised that it would be rejected?

4.  Why are they still supporting this application to grant permission, knowing that they must make another application to Fields in Trust for approval when the suggested land swap is also unlikely to be approved by the trust.

5.  How are they justifiying a complete and utter waste of time, money and resources of all concerned?

I would appreciate any answers to the above, from anyone!

To Brent Planners I say stop this nonsense and reject now.

This land is public owned Land and should remain so for the people of Wembley to enjoy as was originally decided when bought by the local Council back in 1913 to compensate for loss of Parkland at Wembley Park.  

MF A further question would be to ask why Brent Council have not informed the public about this agreement as part of the documentaion on the planning application. It is clearly a 'material consideration' for the Planning Committeee to take into account.