Have your say at Wembley Connects on Monday: policing, Children's Centres, regeneration

A local resident remarked to me the other day what a mess the area around Wembley Stadium was looking with hastily thrown up plastic and steel multi-storey blocks jostling for space being a far cry from the initial plans featuring green spaces and a car-free environment.

'Quintain are building the slums of the future." she said.

There is a chance to feed back to Quintain at the Brent Connects Wembley Forum on Monday:

Unison challenges Barnet Council's library devastation

'The Thick of It' actor Rebecca Front supports Barnet library campaigners

From Barnet Unison

On Friday 2 October 2015, Barnet Council published their devastating report on the future of the library service which revealed:

· 46% of workforce to be sacked

· Council are now proposing to cut the 634.5 staffed library hours a week to 188.

· Four out of 14 Libraries will be run completely by volunteers

Our report found 

“The cost of the three phases of the Library Review is expected to be about £3.15m, plus £4.41m to reduce the size of libraries and install technology enabled opening systems, a total cost of £7.56m. This is 4.4 times the projected annual savings in the library service operational budget.” 

“The scale of the cut in the Library budget is unprecedented and could result in permanent damage to the service, drastically reduce resident’s use of the service and demotivate staff. The planned savings fall short of the target, so further cuts may be made in the Library budget.”

The Barnet UNISON report makes the following recommendation:

1. The Council should commit to retaining direct provision of the Library Service, eliminate the need for Phase 3 and save the £500,000 costs.

2. Undertake a more rigorous and comprehensive equality impact assessment of the potential effect of the technology-enabled opening hours, drawing on the socioeconomic profile of users in the Edgware pilot.

3. The equality impact of the proposals on staff must be included in the Equality Analysis.

4. The proposed additional risks should be included in the risk register.

5. The consultation process should prioritise the views of service users and groups and organisations that are potential users of library services and facilities.

Professor Dexter Whitfield said:  

"Instead of trying to recruit a contractor, the Council should commit to continued provision by Library staff and use the £500,000 savings to increase staffed hours"

Hugh Jordan Barnet UNISON Library Convenor said:

 “The Council’s proposal “Barnet future Library Service” is a plan to replace qualified, experienced staff who have a wide range of skills and knowledge with volunteer and machines, and to reduce the size and quality of Libraries. The people of Barnet, including our members, did not march, lobby, sign petitions and respond to the consultation in support of volunteer and machine operated libraries, they were defending a service staffed by real library workers, libraries with enough space for people to study and use IT, and to house sufficient items for loan to meet the needs of their users. UNISON members working in Barnet Libraries oppose the Council’s dire future vision of our Service.”

UNISON Branch Secretary John Burgess said: 

“It is a little early for Halloween, but this Library proposal is more trick than treat. The trick is pretending to save our Libraries, the cut in staff and subsequent staff opening hours is tantamount to wholesale closure of all of our Libraries. This proposal will leave all the libraries to ‘wither on the vine’. I can predict a future Library meeting recommending closure of the Libraries with the justification being that no one is using the Libraries. Our members will be joining the Save Barnet Libraries campaign at the Library Committee meeting on 12 October.”

Save Barnet Libraries campaign are holding a rally outside Hendon Town Hall on Monday 12 October at 6 pm.

Democracy for Sale?

As Brent Council prepares to celebrate Local Democracy Week  LINK guest blogger Scott Bartle raises some pertinent questions about the role of money in national elections.
 

First things first, if spending money wasn’t felt to affect the result of an election it wouldn’t be done. We know how much politicians like money as evidenced by their expenses claims. Generally when we consider excessive election spending we look over to the United States where an exorbitant amount is spent per election cycle reaching over $6Billion in 2012. Yet in the UK we are beginning to be faced with similar questions. As an example, I’ll provide the expenses information from across the three constituencies of Brent.

·      Hampstead & Kilburn:

Tulip Siddiq was elected with a total spend of £42,752.16

·      Brent Central:

Dawn Butler was duly elected MP with a total spend of  £18,823.74 

·      Brent North:

Barry Gardiner spent £25,973.24 to be elected in his ‘safe seat’.

To put this into context we as the Green Party struggled raising the £500 for deposits to stand for election in the first place. It was thanks to national and local Crowdfunder campaigns that we were able to put up an almost full slate.  

Once you’re over that hurdle the bare minimum that voters expect from candidates and what you hope to provide is information as to why you’re standing. The government provides a ‘free-post’ scheme however you still have to pay for the printing of the leaflets which whilst almost prohibitive for us can certainly be out of reach for independent candidates. Indeed, the independent candidate standing for Brent North, Elcena Jeffers MBE spent absolutely nothing. Brent Green’s total spend for Brent North was £795.95 with the majority of that (£600) on the ‘free’ - post. Meanwhile Barry Gardiner spent £10,457.64 on leaflets, £90 for some people to do the ‘folding’ for him, as well as £4950.77 on staff, £3352.76 on an office and utilities, £150 on rosettes, £145 on stickers, £119.40 on Balloons, £343,95 on Helium gas all within what was described as a ‘safe-seat’. It can feel difficult to complete when even Labour, as a party that purports to represent the ‘working class’ spends the equivalent of 4 newly qualified nurses salaries on 3 constituencies alone.

Does the public wish to elect people to parliament based upon policy or plentiful purses? As with any fairground, (well Barry bought the balloons) it appears those who have the money to throw the most balls at the coconuts always get the prize. This presents a particularly unfair environment for Independents who receive very limited media space and as such he public might never know nor have the opportunity to decide if their policies were what they were looking for.

A complaint with our political system is that elected politicians are not representative of the communities they wish to serve. Yet, if it’s difficult for those who might be, to achieve the parity to even be heard, economic inequality will forever translate into political inequality.

Whilst arguments for electoral reform are focused upon proportional representation, it would be a mistake to forget about the finances. Even a separate room in polling stations with poster presentations of politicians’ policy could contribute towards making a difference. In 2011 Sir Christopher Kelly calculated that it would cost £23million per year to fund a state funded political system (that’s 50p per person for reductionists out there). When as a country we spend more per year on the upkeep of a Monarchy as opposed to ensuring a level playing field for a fair and transparent democratic process we know the system is broken. We will forever be disappointed that our parliament is not representative of people by Gender, Age, Ability, Ethnicity, Education, Socio-economic status or sexuality.     

Scott Bartle is a member of Brent Green Party and this year stood as a candidate in the constituency of Brent North.

Neasden road works to impact on Wembley road and bus travel for 6 months

Traffic has been very heavy along Blackbird Hill/Forty Lane/ Forty Avenue during peak hours since new schools have opened in Wembley and they are still not operating to full capacity.

Now roadworks at Neasden are due to cause more problems and TfL has issued a delay warning LINK

These are their disruption maps for October:

Details of the impact on bus services and closure of bus stops can be found HERE

Barham library campaigners win 15 year lease on Barham Lounge for community library

Barham  library campaigners cracked open a bottle of champagne this afternoon when Cllr Michael Pavey used the chair's casting vote to award a 15 year lease to the campaign for the Barham Lounge.
This will provide a permanent home to the campaign which has run two community libraries from Sudbury Town station and Wembley High Road since the original Barham Library was closed 5 years ago.

In opening remarks Cllr Pavey admitted that the process had taken far too long and had been 'shambolic'. He was scathing about an officers' report which he said had undervalued the importance of the interview process in which the two sets of bidders were questioned by a panel of three. All the panellists agreed that Barham Library Campaign had come out the strongest in the interviews but this had been down-played in the report.

He added that problems had persisted with a Supplemental Note from the Barham Park Trust Property Adviser only being made available two hours before the meeting.

Cllr Denselow sent his apologies to the meeting but asked that his thoughts be read out to the meeting. These favoured the Barham library bid.

Cllr Pavey said that despite attempts to make the issue party political each councillor present would give their independent views.  Cllrs Hirani and McLennan said that on balance they favoured the Pivot Point bid as they throught this would deliver more of what the community needed.

Cllr Eleanor Southwood, particularly on the interview evidence felt the Barham library campaign bid was stronger. Her view was supported by Cllr Pavey, particularly in terms of providng services that had suffered cuts due to local government funding reductions. Both voted in favour of the Barham library bid.

As the vote was 2-2 Cllr Pavey used the chair's casting vote in favour of the library bid.

Preston Library urges support for Barham campaigners at this afternoon's meeting

FromPreston Library Campaign

From this Saturday, we'll be showing films in the library every Saturday night at 7.30. These films are free for members of the library (you can join at the door), and we will be taking donations towards the library's work.

Our next pub quiz is on Monday 26 October at 7.30 in The Preston. Unfortunately last month's quiz was on a cold and very wet evening - I hope to see lots more of you this month.
The library itself will continue to open and to offer the full range of library services from 11-5 on Saturdays and 1-5 on Sundays.

Finally, can I draw your attention to a meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee at the Civic Centre this Thursday, 8 October, at 3pm. The trustees will be making a decision on Friends of Barham Library's bid to run a library in Barham Park. We at Preston Library have had a huge amount of help from library groups at Barham, Kensal Rise, Cricklewood and elsewhere, and we're looking forward to a time in the very near future when Brent will have a group of four mutually supportive volunteer-run libraries. The Barham Trust meeting is open to the public, and I'm sure Friends of Barham Library would welcome your support.

Thanks for your continuing support.

Barham Park library decision tomorrow - meeting open to the public

The meeting of the Barham Park Trust that will decide whether the Barham library campaign will be granted the lease on the Lounge for a community library takes place tomorrow (Thursday)  at 3pm at Brent Civic Centre (Boardroom 2) LINK

The meeting is open to the public but attendance will be limited by it taking place during working hours.

See Gaynor's Lloyd's guest blog on the campaign HERE

See Friends of Barham Library's bid for the lease HERE 

Will Affordable Housing Position Statement address Planning Committee's concerns?

The Planning Committee of July 23rd (the meeting where the Minutes were mysteriously unpublished for weeks before pressure finally got them unearthed or created LINK ) considered a wide range of issues. The most prominent was a report on affordable housing which reflected concern over whether the Council was achieving a sufficient level of affordable housing in developments and in particular developers' practice of reducing the amount of affordable housing once development was underway through viability assessments. Essentially the assessments claim the developer is not making a sufficient return on the development and that the only way this can be addressed is by increasing the proportion of market price/rent housing in the scheme.

The next Planning Committee on October 14th will discuss a 'Brent Affordable Housing Position Statement' (see below) that if approved will be posted on the Brent Council website and made available to developers.

The accompanying Officer's Report by Stephen Weeks seems somewhat grudging at times over the necessity for such a statement.

Planning Committee is recommended to endorse the statement. It balances the Council's necessity to be clear about the priority it places on certain aspects in the delivery of affordable housing in association with new developments, against the need to not essentially repeat extensive existing robust policy and detailed advice that currently exists as a national, London and Brent level.

As such the Position Statement does not appear to make new policy but clarifies existing policy. It may fall short of the Planning Committee's expectations as exemplified by support at the July 23rd Meeting for Islington Council's Development Viability Supplementary Planning Document. The Brent report states:

...As such the production of a Supplementary Planning Document, essentially duplicating much of the existing relevant guidance against a background of resource constraint is recommended as inappropriate.

Finally the weight given to the Position Statement is limited:

The position statement can be regarded as a material planning consideration. However, the weight accorded to it will not be as strong as for instance Supplementary planning Documents, which have statutory status if adopted in accordance with regulations.

The background to the position statement is the stark fact that average housing prices in Brent are 12 times the average annual wage and that rents have risen by 60% over the last 5 years.  It seeks to maximise the amount of affordable housing through Section 106 obligations and states that 'the priority need in Brent is for affordable housing at rents well below market levels (social and affordable rented' with affordable home ownership and other forms of intermediate affordable housing a lesser priority although necessary for a 'balanced housing offer'.

This is contrary to the Conservative government's recently announced policy prioritising the building of ';affordable' housing for sale.

The preference for thorough viability assessments to be carried out at the pre-planning stage rather than later in the development cycle addresses some of the concerns raised at Planning Committee in July.