Alert sounded on return of Pinkham Way waste plant proposal

The Pinkham Way Alliance LINK  have circulated an alert on the return of plans to relocate Barnet's 6 acre Cricklewood Waste Transfer Station (WTS) to the Pinkham Way site, working again with the North London Waste Authority (NWLA).

The Alliance claim that any plant handling black-bag waste can have major problems with odour and fly infestations and that WTS facilities pose a particular fire risk. They quote statistics that show between 2011-2013, there was a fire in UK WTS's almost every three days. 

Barnet's facility would be directly adjacent to the A4506 and the East Coast Main Line.

The Alliance say that the number of lorry movements will approach that of the previous, abandoned waste plant proposals on one of the most polluted and congested road stretches in London.

Stephen Brice, Chair of the Pinkham Way Alliance, will be addressing Haringey Cabinet about the issue at the start of their meeting on Tuesday 14th July at 6.30pm, Haringey Civic Centre, Wood Green, N22 8LE.

He calls on supporters to be out on force in the public gallery and more, for 'barely half an hour' that evening to let politicians know the strength of local feeling.

Twitter: @PinkhamWay

Options for the update of Brent's Gordon Brown Centre to be discussed at Cabinet

Generations of Brent people have, as school children,  enjoyed a residential trip to the Gordon Brown Outdoor Education Centre (nothing to do with the ex-PM) which is in deepest Hampshire, near the village of Rotherwick.

The Centre is on land that once formed part of Tylney Hall which between 1933 and 1984 was a special school, latterly owned by the London Borough of Brent. It is now an upmarket hotel.

The ‘Shrubbery’ at Gordon Brown is a standalone unit with pupil and teacher dormitories and rather basic showers.

Its condition has deteriorated and there have been plans over several years for its refurbishment.

The Cabinet on Monday will debate a report that examines several options to deal with the problem. They includes investing more than £500,000 in replacing the Shrubbery, the possibility of selling the lease and making the new owner responsible for the rebuild or selling off the  freehold and investing the money in a new Centre possibly  nearer to Brent in Hertfordshire. LINK

Officers recommend the first option and propose to pay for it by using some money from reserves and an increase in fees: 

With the agreement of Cabinet, revenue contributions from the Youth Support Service in 2012/13 (£150,000.00 held an earmarked reserve within Regeneration & Growth) and in 2013/14 (£100,000.00 held in an earmarked reserve within Children & Young People) could be used to contribute to the overall costs of this work.

Subject to agreement to use the revenue contribution from Youth Support Services, the remaining sum of £325,000 would be re payable over a period of 12 years at an annual debt charge cost of £32,650 per annum. This cost can be met from the additional income flow over the total 12 year period

It is proposed that fees be increased by 4.5% every three years to increase the income flow over the 12 years, although in the early years it would not be sufficient. Income flow would also be improved by increasing the capacity of the Shrubbery from 27 beds to more than 40.

Greens renew call for railway nationalisation after upgrading debacle

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has renewed the Green's call call for the railways to be returned to public ownership and accused the government of “failing” on public transport after it announced it would delay or cut back several railway improvement projects.

Bennett said:

This government is already failing when it comes to public transport. It is failing the two-thirds of unemployed people who don’t have access to a car, the thousands who die prematurely due to air pollution, the rural poor trapped by the slashing of bus services.

The growing numbers of people who use our railways every day are increasingly dissatisfied with the service they are getting. If we want to encourage people to use public transport, to improve public health and reduce air pollution, we must invest.

Yet instead of making public transport accessible, reliable, convenient and affordable, the government is wasting money on expensive vanity projects like HS2 and the expansion of major roads.

The Green Party, along with 66% of the public, wants to see Britain’s railways back in public hands, so that profits can be invested back into improving services, rather than filling the pockets of shareholders. It’s time the government listened to the public, and delivered a railway service that works for passengers, not profit.

What's behind the offer of 'half price' school uniforms by free school?

The Kilburn Times this week LINK  publishes an article about a new primary free school, Kilburn Grange,  offering half prices uniforms to pupils entiled to free school meals.  The uniforms are complete with an old-fashioned 1950s style blazer.

Despite the positive gloss by the school it appears that this is a possibly desperate gambit because the Reception classes due to start in September 2015 are not yet full.  Given the shortage of primary places in the borough this is quite unusual. The closing date for this round of applications is today - Friday June 26th.

Another aspect of the 'offer' is that the school receives the pupil premium for chldren entitled to free school meals so in terms of accounting that means the pupil premium subsideses the school uniform discount. Currently the pupil premium is worth £1,300 per child.

Whether this is the best use of the pupil premium, designed to improve the educational opportunities and attainment of poorer children in order to 'close the gap' with better off children, is arguable.

A Scrutiny Committee Task Group recently published a report on good practice in Brent on the use of the pupil premium. LINK

They stated: 

The task group found that Brent schools are already very innovative and creative with their interventions on closing the attainment gap. There were wonderful examples of Brent secondary and primary schools trying unconventional interventions and being able to show impact and improved outcomes for children. 

This diagram shows the range of uses of the  pupil premium in Brent primary schools.

Subsidising a uniform is about easing access to a school with an expensive school uniform  school rather than spending it on teaching and other activities once the child is at school in order to close the gap in attainment.

Duffy claims he was punished by Butt & Co for saving council tax payers up to £500k

Councillor John Duffy (Labour Kilburn) reveals in his blog today LINK that he is snubbed by the Council's Labour leadership and some other members of the Labour group scarcely speak to him. 

This is despite his vigilance over the green waste contract that was out-sourced to Veolia.  Duffy successfully challenged a clause that gave Veolia any income from the scheme once the collection target of £400k had been achieved. His claim that this would be illegal was eventually supported by the Chief Finance Officer despite Duffy initially getting the brush off from the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council when he raised concerns.

Duffy says:

You may think Brent Council Labour group thanks me for this. No the leadership of Brent Council Labour group are unforgiving that I forced this amendment, they took me off all committees; many of the Labour group hardly talk to me or shy away. They seat me next to the Tory group (a fate worse than death) as they believe by forcing the amendment I undermined their authority. One member of the Cabinet accused me of bullying officers because I would not let it drop. I am not allowed to speak at full council. If I do members of the cabinet heckle me.

Cllr Duffy claims that the Council could benefit by up to £500k  in contrast to the council tax money that Veolia would have handed to the contractor. He is concerned, however, that the additional money will be spent on Council vanity projects rather than supporting vital services.

Concluding his posting Duffy says he is going on holiday but on his return will  reveal why St Patrick's Day may not be coming to Brent and 'the tale of the missing nomination'.

Dawn Butler gives Brent FoE her views on pressing environmental issues

Brent Friends of the Earth have issued the following account of their meeting with Dawn Butler, Labour, Brent Central, when they lobbied her over Climate Change.

 

Six members of Brent Friends of the Earth (Brent FoE) met with Brent Central MP Dawn Butler at the House of Commons this Wednesday 17^th June as part of a climate change lobby of Parliament.

The campaigners joined thousands of concerned people from all around the country to take part in 'For the Love of' – a mass lobby to urge MPs to take urgent action on climate change. The Brent group focussed their views on fracking, solar schools, fuel poverty, and airport expansion, and found much common ground with their newly-elected MP.

On fracking, Dawn is now as signatory to Labour MP Geraint Davies' “Fracking (Measurement and Regulation of Impacts) (Air, Water and Greenhouse Gas Emissions) Bill”, which hopes to stop fracking through making the contamination of water used and the emissions created by the process illegal. Fracking uses vast quantities of water along with toxic chemicals to extract shale gas. Forcing companies to clean this up would make extraction too expensive. She supports Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham MP in calling for a moratorium on this controversial technology in order to concentrate efforts on supporting renewables. Both Wales and Scotland already have moratoriums in place.

Viv Stein, Spokesperson for Brent FoE says, “With a decision due next week on whether to approve the UK's first fracking site in Lancashire, it is vital that we put a stop to fracking now. Giving the go ahead to this dirty fossil fuel there could pave the way for more fracking up and down the country, including a proposed site at Park Royal in Brent. It would also reduce the chance of preventing irreversible climate change. We need to leave shale gas in the ground and invest in renewable energy instead.”

“Fracking companies and the Government need to know they will find huge opposition wherever they plan to drill. We were pleased that Dawn Butler agrees that we should put a stop to fracking now, and that renewable energy is the way forward to secure our energy needs.”

On renewable energy, Brent FoE have been instrumental in setting up a local community energy co-operative, 'Brent Pure Energy', to put solar panels on schools and public buildings. Dawn favours extending the scheme to local churches and a mosque in Willesden Green, and she is also setting up a 'Green Cabinet' to focus attention on sustainability in Brent.

Dawn this week was voted Vice Chair of PRASEG, the All Party Parliamentary Renewable and Sustainable Energy Group - a group of MPs and senior industry stakeholders working together to promote issues around sustainable and renewable energy in Parliament. As Vice Chair Dawn will play a leading role in helping PRASEG hold the government to account and ensuring the UK plays a leading role worldwide on energy and climate change.

Ensuring warmer homes and ending fuel poverty is also a particular concern for both Brent FoE and Dawn. As a Magistrate she sees many people in court penalised for defaulting on energy bills. She wants to end the high tariffs charged by pre-payment meters, and to encourage landlords to insulate homes. NHS budgets will also benefit as cold homes mean poor health.

Dawn Butler, Labour MP for Brent Central says, “Ending fuel poverty and protecting tenants against excessive fuel bills are high on my agenda. I'm on board - Friends of the Earth are pushing on an open door with me on this, but it's not so open it's letting all the energy out!”

On airport expansion Dawn opposes the proposed expansion at Heathrow, but is not convinced that future expansion might be needed based on 'the business case'. She supports London Mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan, who has come out against Heathrow. FoE believe airports should not be allowed to expand, and that most of the extra capacity is for transfers so would not make much impact on UK business. The group did not agree with Dawn's belief that there are 'greener' planes. We believe the only 'green' plane is the 'solar impulse' a solar powered plane, which recently paused its round the world flight. Flying still remains the most carbon-intensive form of travel.

The lobby of Parliament is was organised by the Climate Coalition – the UK's largest group of people dedicated to action on climate change. For more details see http://fortheloveof.org.uk/. Brent FoE has a website at www.brentfoe.com. To sign FoE's urgent petition to keep Lancashire frack free go to https://www.foe.co.uk/act/psfl.

Brent Labour fail to grasp nettle of Davani pay-off

I missed last night's Brent Council meeting but checking the Twitter feed it is clear that Labour made no attempt to address the issue of a pay-off to Cara Davani, controversial head of Brent HR, who resigned recently:

Ahead of the meeting Philip Grant had writtent the following email to his ward councillors:

Dear Fryent Ward councillors,

You have probably heard that on Wednesday a Council spokesperson confirmed that Cara Davani, Brent’s Director of HR and Administration, is leaving the Council at the end of June, to take a career break. If you had not heard, you can read the announcement, and reaction to it, at:

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/cara-devani-leaving-brent-council-to.html

While the Council’s statement praises ‘the significant contribution that Cara has made over the last 3 years’, it does not mention Ms Davani’s misdeeds, such as her vicious actions against a Brent employee as shown by findings of fact in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case. That case has already cost Brent Council probably a six-figure sum in legal fees, and will land the Council with a further bill, quite possibly a seven-figure sum (i.e. more than £1 million) in compensation, damages and costs when the remedy hearing makes its decision (likely to be in about three months time).

Given this background, and the serious damage done to Brent’s reputation by the finding that the Council “racially discriminated” against Ms Clarke, I am seriously concerned (as are many others) about the financial terms on which Ms Davani may be leaving the Council’s employment. She is leaving at the end of June, and I would not seek to interfere with her salary entitlement up to that date (even though any decent person would have resigned when the judgment was published last September, and any other Chief Executive would have either insisted on that resignation or taken immediate action to dismiss her for gross misconduct). However, that last salary payment should be the only further financial reward that Cara Davani receives from Brent Council.

There should be no other “payoff” or leaving payment of whatever description made to her. If Ms Davani has been “persuaded” to leave now, there is talk of a possible “compromise package” - which, I understand, following changes made to HR procedures during Ms Davani’s reign, would normally be agreed on by either the Director of HR or the Chief Executive. As she is the Director of HR, the Chief Executive (Christine Gilbert) is her friend and former colleague from Tower Hamlets Council and Ofsted, who she helped to bring into Brent in 2012, the interim Director of HR is to be Mildred Phillips (another former colleague, first brought into Brent as an interim consultant, then given a permanent position and promoted by Ms Davani to be her deputy), it would not be possible for the amount of any payment, even if one were deserved (which it most certainly would not), to be arrived at on an arm’s length basis. It may be that she is leaving now, while she still has “friends in high places”.

[And please don’t suggest that the terms of any payment might be agreed instead by Brent’s Principal Employment Lawyer - Ms Davani’s personal and business partner, Andy Potts - or by its Chief Operating Officer, Lorraine Langham, another former colleague of Ms Davani and Ms Gilbert at Tower Hamlets and Ofsted. It is the extent of this “cronyism” at high levels in Brent Council that has previously allowed Ms Davani to get away with her actions against Rosemarie Clarke, and other now-former employees of the Council.]

The is another financial aspect of Cara Davani’s leaving Brent which councillors need to ensure is handled properly. The full title of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case is Ms RC Clarke v. 1) The London Borough of Brent and 2) Ms Cara Davani. Ms Davani is a separately named respondent in the case, even though it appears that she did not have separate legal representation at the full Tribunal hearing, with Brent’s barrister (at Brent’s expense) effectively defending her as well. There should be no agreement made under which Brent agrees to pay, or indemnify Ms Davani in respect of, any award of compensation, damages or costs made against Cara Davani personally as the second respondent in the case. I also believe that Brent should make clear to Ms Davani that she will need to arrange and pay for her own legal representation in the case after she leaves the Council’s employment at the end of June. 

At first sight, this may sound vindictive, as the case relates to actions she took while Brent’s Head of HR (although she held this role up to 31 March 2013 as a self-employed interim consultant) and as interim, then formally appointed, Operational Director of HR. However, it is clear from the evidence and findings of fact in the Tribunal judgement that her actions against Ms Clarke were totally contrary to the Council’s HR policy and practices, and that her victimisation of Ms Clarke was done for reasons of personal spite, as a result of Ms Clarke complaining of being bullied and harassed by Ms Davani. Her actions were therefore not in the proper performance of her duties, particularly when those duties were of Brent’s most senior HR officer, who should have been leading by example.

I hope you will agree with the two propositions which I have highlighted, and that you will take early action to see that these are put in place. I would suggest that you could ask for “Departure from the Council of the Director of HR and Administration” as an item to be put on the agenda for the Full Council meeting on 22 June, with the current Chief Executive (or her representative, if Ms Gilbert is not available to attend) making a statement about Ms Davani’s departure, and then giving members the chance to comment or ask questions. The Chief Executive should give at least outline details of any planned payments, over and above her basic salary to 30 June 2015, which are proposed, and in particular, be asked to confirm that Ms Davani will be personally liable for any award made in respect of her as the second respondent in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, and that Brent will not pay, or indemnify her in any way, in respect of such an award against Cara Davani personally. I am copying this email to the Chief Executive, for her information.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email, and let me have at least a brief response to my comments, which reflect the views of many people, even though I am the one articulating them to you. Please feel free to forward this email to any of your fellow councillors, if you wish to seek their views before deciding what action you should take in response to it. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant

The Education Bill: A solution that will harm schools

Henry Stewart published this useful background article on the Education and Adoption Bill yesterday before the House of Commons meeting on the Bill organised by the Anti academies Alliance. First published by Local schools Network.

Today is the second reading of Nicky Morgan’s Education and Adoption Bill. The main purpose is to speed up the conversion to academy status of “inadequate” and “coasting” schools, It will force local authorities and governing bodies to implement an academy order, whether or not they feel it is in the best interest of the children.

And the evidence increasingly suggests it is not in the best interest of those children. The education select committee, chaired by Graham Stuart of the Conservatives, carried out a thorough review of academies and free schools and found no such evidence. “Academisation is not always successful nor is it the only proven alternative for a struggling school,”

Announcing the bill, the Secretary of State claimed to have “education experts who know exactly what they have to do to make a failing school outstanding.” I have submitted a Freedom of Information request to ask how many schools rated “Inadequate” by Ofsted have been converted and how many of these have since become Outstanding. I await the response with interest. 

A study of the current Ofsted listing of the most recent inspections for all secondary schools suggests she is unlikely to find many. For secondaries the number of schools going from Inadequate last time to Outstanding this time is precisely zero. For primaries there are eight schools listed as making that remarkable transition but none are academies. All are local authority or voluntary aided schools (“maintained schools”).

The Ofsted list, which shows the current and previous inspection, shows that a secondary school is far more likely to improve its Ofsted rating if it is not a sponsored academy. With academies that have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion (as the report does not list a school’s rating pre-conversion) we find:

Sponsored academies twice as likely to stay Inadequate

For secondary schools previously rated as inadequate, sponsored academies are twice as likely (18% v 9%) to stay inadequate as maintained schools. Non-academies are over three times more likely (27% v 6%) to move from Inadequate to Good or Outstanding than sponsored academies.

Sponsored academies twice as likely to fall from RI to Inadequate

For those previously rated “Requires Improvement” they are more than twice as likely (20% v 8%) to fall to Inadequate if they are a Sponsored academy

Non-academies three times as likely to move from Good to Outstanding

For secondary schools previously rated Good, they are almost four times as likely (19% v 5%) to fall to Inadequate if they are Sponsored academies. At the same time they are more than three times as likely to become Outstanding from Good (16% v 5%) if they are a maintained school as opposed to a Sponsored academy

These dramatic differences are only true of sponsored academies, generally schools that were “underperforming” and sponsored as an academy by another school or by an academy chain. “Converter academies”, where a school is generally Good or Outstanding and chooses to convert, perform as well as maintained schools.

This analysis appears to show that conversion of a school that is rated Inadequate is likely to slow its improvement. Indeed, rather than helping it, becoming a sponsored academy is more likely to lead to a school falling back to being Inadequate and less likely to become Good or Outstanding.

There is no data to back up the Secretary of State’s claims. The Bill is very clearly based on ideology not evidence. As the Education Select committee also stated, “the government should stop exaggerating the success of academies”. It is advice that Nicky Morgan would do well to take.

Note: This analysis only includes secondary schools. The reason is that, to qualify, a sponsored academy must have had two Ofsted inspections since conversion. While this is true of 211 sponsored academy secondary schools, it is only true of 2 sponsored academy primary schools.