WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Thursday, 7 April 2016
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Just 4 councillors allow TwinTowers to change the face of Wembley Central
 |
| Impression from Park Lane Methodist Church/Park Lane Primary |
Afterwards residents were aghast that two councillors abstained on such a major issue. If there is any committee where councillors are expected to make a decision it is planning. If you don't have enough information to make a decision you should keep on asking questions until you do.
If the vote had tied 4/4 I presume Marquis would have exercised a casting vote against the application.
Denise Cheong with just 2 minutes to represent hundred of local residents made a presentation on the impact of the high density high rise blocks on the local area, the impact on current over-crowded roads and public transport and the fact that the development did not comply with established GLA and Brent standards.
Cllr Sam Stopp (Labour, Wembley Central) appeared to have been so impressed by the developer's consultation procedures and his openness that this had persuaded him to support the development despite recognising that the building was not perfect. He would like to have seen it less high but its height was based on what officers had told the developer was possible. He thought the building's orientation was not ideal.
Stopp went to to list the positives: The excellent consultation by the developer, quality of the building design, provision of community space.
He went on to contrast the developer's consultation with that by the Council. Local residents seemed to have found out about the proposal late in the day with a rush of contacts comparatively recently. The Council needed to adopt a more open and transparent approach to consultation. As in Islington, we need members' panels which are accessible to the public so they can question developers and councillors.
David Glover, the planning officer,was faced with the task of explaining why officers were supporting the application despite it not complying with policies on density, carbon emissions, living space, open space, play space and the proportion of affordable housing.
He claimed that although the building did not meet the standards that it could be approved by reference to the guidelines that interpreted policy. He echoed Cllr Stopp in praising the quality of the finish of the building and the flats. He said that the restricted nature of the site justified the developer in building at greater height and density than set out in the local plan. The 28% affordable hosing (rather than the recommended 50%) had been subject to independent viability assessments. Initially the developer offered a higher proportion of affordable housing but this was limited to a 7 year period after which it would move to market rents. Officers had negotiated a lower proportion of affordable housing but for perpetuity.
Some of the most incisive qustioning came from Sarah Marquis, chair of the committee, who pointed out that the density was double that recommended for town centre locations and doubted that it complied with the requirement that not meeting those standards could only be supported if it was 'clearly and robustly justified by local circumstances.' The density was that which applied to international city locations rather than a local town centre.
She went on to query the planners' claim that the development was allowed because the local plan allowed 'tall building' in the Wembley Central vicinity. She pointed out that local tall buldings were much lower and that the previous application in the sites had been for 17 storeys. It was a big leap from the 30metre definition of tall to the 85metres of this development.
In the course of the discussion the developer confirmed that they were also seeking to purchase the green space on the embankment behind Chesterfield house and their aim would be to build residential properties there. This was not followed up by the Committee but would obviosuly add to the issues around local infrastructure including traffic density and school places. The negotiations had not got very far and purchase of the garage space behind Chesterfield House to provide disabled parking for the new development has not been completed.
The extent of this additional land which is now subject to acquisition and development can be seen in this illustration:
 | ||
| Click to enlarge |
The actual process of building on a site surrounded by traffic congestion with difficult access and parking sounds as if it will be a two year nightmare for local residents not to mention the impact when crowds travel to the stadium and arena.
I am left puzzled by how the committee members who voted for the development could have felt persuaded despite all the arguments above. Does a community space and 'quality finish' really outweigh the disadvantages?
The voting details are below. A further puzzle was how Cllr Colacioco asked all the right questions, got extremely unsatisfactory answers, and then voted for the application!
Voting on
the application was as follows:
FOR 4
Cllrs Agha,
Choudhary, Colacicco and Mahmood
AGAINST 2
Cllrs
Marquis (Chair) and Cllr Maurice
ABSTENTION
2 Cllrs Ezeajughi
and Cllr Patel
Marmite? The new Green Party election broadcast
This broadcast is recieving both plaudits and criticism on social media. I suspect it is Marmite. Anyway here it is so you can make up your own mind.
Duff litter enforcement proposal slammed by Kilburn councillor
The proposal to out-source litter enforcement came in for a drubbing from Kilburn Councillor John Duffy at last night's Scrutiny Committee. Cllr Sam Stopp stated at the beginning of the meeting that the Task Group he led report on illegal rubbish dumping could have been interpreted as advocating some sort of out-sourcing but this was not the case. He cited Islington as a borough where in-house services had proved to be more efficient.
Stopp went on to express 'deep dissatisfaction' that the Task Group had not been consulted on the implementation of any of the recommendations made in their report. He opposed out-sourcing because the Council needed to earn revenue and provide employment opportunities and in-house provision could deliver both. He said that there should be a clear commitment to continuing liaison with task group members when implementing recommendations.
Cllr Duffy said that the proposal to out-source to Kingdom was a decision made to employ 'cheaper people'. The Council had reduced enforcement officers from 21 to 7 but were now proposing getting people back to do the same job through a private company - the 'most basic and primitive' form of out-sourcing. They would be employed well below the average wage and would be reliant on in-work benefits. He challenged the officers and lead member's view that these would be 'different jobs'.
He challenged the Council's claim that Kingdom's enforcement officers would not be involved in Court appearances. This was tantamount to saying to those caught 'if you don't pay you won't end up in court'.
He presented figures to show that the Council stood to lose income of up to £100,000 by out-sourcing rather than setting up an in-house operation.
Chris Whyte in response said that the Kingdom employee's enforcement role was on the ground, patrolling streets, spotting litter dropping and issuing tickets, while the Council enforcement team, did a wider spectrum of work investigating fly-tipping crime and follow up work including preparing cases for Court. Kingdom staff would make occasional appearances in Court but would not prepare and investigate cases.
Cllr Duffy said that he had got hold of a Kingdom job description and it was very similar to that he used to have to do as an enforcement officer. Cllr Southwood, lead member for environment admitted that a job evaluation would only be done if the Council went out to procurement after the six month pilot with Kingdom.
Cllr Kelcher, chair of Scrutiny expressed concern over the safety of enforcement officers issuing £80 Fixed Penalty Notices. Chris Whyte responded that a risk assessment would be undertaken as Brent Council was responsible for the safety of staff.
A 'social value' assessment would be incorporated into the specification if it was decided to go for external procurement after the trial. Whyye said it was essential to collect data during the trial to see what the scale of the litter problem in Brent. By out-sourcing the risk of little return via fining would rest with the contractor and not the Council.
Duffy pointed out that Kingdom would be motivated to issue a high number of tickets as this would boost their profits. Operatives were likely to go for the easy option of targeting 'rich pickings', such as smokers outside tube stations, where they could issue many tickets in a short time, rather than areas where real action was needed on street litter.
Cllr Southwood said that Kingdom would be guided by Veolia, ward councillors and the public, Chris Whyte said monitoring of the contract was essential. He would be concerned if it was only cigarette butts.
Duffy said that the report had argued that the proposal was cost neutral but the real issue was whether it was best value for money. He questioned how much of the £52,000 income to Brent Council would be taken up by costs of going to Court. He claimed the Council were 'addicted to out-sourcing'. He presented figures to suggest that there was little risk to the Council from an in-house contract but Whyte said that Ealing Council had found their in-house provision was inefficient and had therefore out-sourced to Kingdom.
For the Committee Matt Kelcher said that after the pilot Brent Council should look at in-house provision and build social value into the process.
Stopp went on to express 'deep dissatisfaction' that the Task Group had not been consulted on the implementation of any of the recommendations made in their report. He opposed out-sourcing because the Council needed to earn revenue and provide employment opportunities and in-house provision could deliver both. He said that there should be a clear commitment to continuing liaison with task group members when implementing recommendations.
Cllr Duffy said that the proposal to out-source to Kingdom was a decision made to employ 'cheaper people'. The Council had reduced enforcement officers from 21 to 7 but were now proposing getting people back to do the same job through a private company - the 'most basic and primitive' form of out-sourcing. They would be employed well below the average wage and would be reliant on in-work benefits. He challenged the officers and lead member's view that these would be 'different jobs'.
He challenged the Council's claim that Kingdom's enforcement officers would not be involved in Court appearances. This was tantamount to saying to those caught 'if you don't pay you won't end up in court'.
He presented figures to show that the Council stood to lose income of up to £100,000 by out-sourcing rather than setting up an in-house operation.
Chris Whyte in response said that the Kingdom employee's enforcement role was on the ground, patrolling streets, spotting litter dropping and issuing tickets, while the Council enforcement team, did a wider spectrum of work investigating fly-tipping crime and follow up work including preparing cases for Court. Kingdom staff would make occasional appearances in Court but would not prepare and investigate cases.
Cllr Duffy said that he had got hold of a Kingdom job description and it was very similar to that he used to have to do as an enforcement officer. Cllr Southwood, lead member for environment admitted that a job evaluation would only be done if the Council went out to procurement after the six month pilot with Kingdom.
Cllr Kelcher, chair of Scrutiny expressed concern over the safety of enforcement officers issuing £80 Fixed Penalty Notices. Chris Whyte responded that a risk assessment would be undertaken as Brent Council was responsible for the safety of staff.
A 'social value' assessment would be incorporated into the specification if it was decided to go for external procurement after the trial. Whyye said it was essential to collect data during the trial to see what the scale of the litter problem in Brent. By out-sourcing the risk of little return via fining would rest with the contractor and not the Council.
Duffy pointed out that Kingdom would be motivated to issue a high number of tickets as this would boost their profits. Operatives were likely to go for the easy option of targeting 'rich pickings', such as smokers outside tube stations, where they could issue many tickets in a short time, rather than areas where real action was needed on street litter.
Cllr Southwood said that Kingdom would be guided by Veolia, ward councillors and the public, Chris Whyte said monitoring of the contract was essential. He would be concerned if it was only cigarette butts.
Duffy said that the report had argued that the proposal was cost neutral but the real issue was whether it was best value for money. He questioned how much of the £52,000 income to Brent Council would be taken up by costs of going to Court. He claimed the Council were 'addicted to out-sourcing'. He presented figures to suggest that there was little risk to the Council from an in-house contract but Whyte said that Ealing Council had found their in-house provision was inefficient and had therefore out-sourced to Kingdom.
For the Committee Matt Kelcher said that after the pilot Brent Council should look at in-house provision and build social value into the process.
Pavey throws off his shackles to make frank presentation on HR to Scrutiny Committee
When Cllr Michael Pavey, deputy leader of Brent Council, stood to present the report on the progress of the recommendations made in his review of Brent Human Relations, there were none of the usual officers present at his elbow who normally support lead members at meetings. Noting this Pavey said that the report had been tabled without the final version being given to him for his approval.
He went on to say that he would not have approved it if he had been given the chance. Parts of the report hinted at complacency and suggested that the mere ticking of boxes had solved problems.
The truth was that the report was only coming to Scrutiny because of failures by the Council based on an ugly Employment Tribunal case (The Davani case LINK) that the Council lost on grounds of racial discrimination and a failure to stamp out bullying and harassment of staff. There has also been a failure to promote staff from under represented groups into senior management,
He said that his review was set up in the wake of the Employment Tribunal but he had been forbidden from investigating that case. This had meant when he talked to staff the event that was on everyone's mind and that they were keen to discuss was not on the agenda. He said that with hindsight he wished he had fought to broaden the terms to enable the review to 'roam freely to look into the areas that some wanted to keep secret.'
Cllr Stopp asked Pavey what had caused the narrow, restrictive terms of reference. Cllr Pavey was a little thrown by the question and replied that he must pick his words carefully. He said that there was no doubt that the review stemmed from the Tribunal and in hindsight he should have fought harder for the terms of reference to include the Tribunal findings. He had been forbidden to go into that incident and this affected his review. The incident had caused a breakdown of trust and it had been hard to gain the trust of council staff in carrying out the review when the burning issue had not been addressed. Responding to a further question Pavey said that he had tried to widen the terms of reference but had been unsuccessful.
Cllr Mary Daly said that she had recently been approached by a staff member about bullying so the problems remained. Pavey said that the staff member should use the Council's whistle blowing policy. The Committee discussed concerns about a top down approach where equalities was being led by senior directors so staff may feel uncomfortable in taking up issues from below. Cllr Pavey said it was essential that changes in approach should be led from the top but acknowledged that diktat as a method would not work. Networks had been set up to promote 'staff voice' but he would take back the wider issue to HR.
Committee members were keen that mental health and well-being of staff should be considered and that issues were dealt with before reaching the official complaints or tribunal stage. The Committee neded to lack at how redundancies were affecting BAME workers. There were also issues about how 'burnt out' frontline staff dealt with members of the public. Cllr Pavey suggested that work done with senior staff on unconcious bias should be extended to staff who directly served the public.
A co-opted member of the Committee, Mr Alloysius Frederick, expressed serious concern that a paper had come to the Committee without being signed off by the responsible lead councillor beforehand. This procedure would be expected in any organisation.
Cllr Pavey replied that this was the only time it had happened to him and he had spoken to the CEO about it - it would not happen again. Despite this failure he took full responsibility for the report.
Pavey told the Committee that there was much work still to be done and challenges to overcome. There would be a big role for Scrutiny Committee in the future as well as for the new Strategic Director.
He said that these challenges should not detract from the 'excellent work we were able to achieve within our narrow terms of reference:
NOTE: It is work noting that Michael Pavey was not the only person who was affected by attempts to limit discussion of the Davani case. Philip Grant was particularly active in seeking answers to key questions and was not allowed to raise the issue at a previous Scrutiny Committee LINK
Cllr Pavey's comments are a vindication of Philip Grant's pursuit of openness and transparency on this issues.
Cara Davani left the Council some time after the Tribunal decision and attempts to find out whether she got a pay off from the Council have been unsuccessful. Her deputy Mildred Phillips stepped up to act in the role and was the author of the report to Scrutiny.
He went on to say that he would not have approved it if he had been given the chance. Parts of the report hinted at complacency and suggested that the mere ticking of boxes had solved problems.
The truth was that the report was only coming to Scrutiny because of failures by the Council based on an ugly Employment Tribunal case (The Davani case LINK) that the Council lost on grounds of racial discrimination and a failure to stamp out bullying and harassment of staff. There has also been a failure to promote staff from under represented groups into senior management,
He said that his review was set up in the wake of the Employment Tribunal but he had been forbidden from investigating that case. This had meant when he talked to staff the event that was on everyone's mind and that they were keen to discuss was not on the agenda. He said that with hindsight he wished he had fought to broaden the terms to enable the review to 'roam freely to look into the areas that some wanted to keep secret.'
Cllr Stopp asked Pavey what had caused the narrow, restrictive terms of reference. Cllr Pavey was a little thrown by the question and replied that he must pick his words carefully. He said that there was no doubt that the review stemmed from the Tribunal and in hindsight he should have fought harder for the terms of reference to include the Tribunal findings. He had been forbidden to go into that incident and this affected his review. The incident had caused a breakdown of trust and it had been hard to gain the trust of council staff in carrying out the review when the burning issue had not been addressed. Responding to a further question Pavey said that he had tried to widen the terms of reference but had been unsuccessful.
Cllr Mary Daly said that she had recently been approached by a staff member about bullying so the problems remained. Pavey said that the staff member should use the Council's whistle blowing policy. The Committee discussed concerns about a top down approach where equalities was being led by senior directors so staff may feel uncomfortable in taking up issues from below. Cllr Pavey said it was essential that changes in approach should be led from the top but acknowledged that diktat as a method would not work. Networks had been set up to promote 'staff voice' but he would take back the wider issue to HR.
Committee members were keen that mental health and well-being of staff should be considered and that issues were dealt with before reaching the official complaints or tribunal stage. The Committee neded to lack at how redundancies were affecting BAME workers. There were also issues about how 'burnt out' frontline staff dealt with members of the public. Cllr Pavey suggested that work done with senior staff on unconcious bias should be extended to staff who directly served the public.
A co-opted member of the Committee, Mr Alloysius Frederick, expressed serious concern that a paper had come to the Committee without being signed off by the responsible lead councillor beforehand. This procedure would be expected in any organisation.
Cllr Pavey replied that this was the only time it had happened to him and he had spoken to the CEO about it - it would not happen again. Despite this failure he took full responsibility for the report.
Pavey told the Committee that there was much work still to be done and challenges to overcome. There would be a big role for Scrutiny Committee in the future as well as for the new Strategic Director.
He said that these challenges should not detract from the 'excellent work we were able to achieve within our narrow terms of reference:
'Without question Brent is a fairer, more inclusive, more rewarding employer than when we lost the tribunal which triggered this work.'
 |
| Cara Davani with Council Leader Muhammed Butt |
Cllr Pavey's comments are a vindication of Philip Grant's pursuit of openness and transparency on this issues.
Cara Davani left the Council some time after the Tribunal decision and attempts to find out whether she got a pay off from the Council have been unsuccessful. Her deputy Mildred Phillips stepped up to act in the role and was the author of the report to Scrutiny.
Tuesday, 5 April 2016
Dawn Butler MP calls on Brent to lead fight to bring schools back under local authority control
I was one of 10 Chairs of Governing Bodies in Brent to send a letter to Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt and Lead Member for Children and Families Ruth Moher (copied to our three MPs) opposing the government's new policy of forcing local authority primary schools to become academies.
As well as oppositon from Labour, Greens and Lib Dems, lead members for education in the Tory Shires, the local Government Association and the Conservative Bow Group have also made public statements of opposition.
Dawn Butler, Labour MP for Brent Central has sent me copies of letters she has written to Muhammed Butt amd Carolyn Downs, Brent's Chief Executive Officer calling for the Council to lead a fight to bring schools back under local authoriy control. (I would prefer 'oversight' rather than control as governing bodies are responsible for the strategic leadership of schools).
Brent Council failed to support parents and teachers challenging the forced academisation of Gradstone Park Primary School and Copland High School. In the latter case Muhammed Butt supported the forced academisation claiming that the Council did not have the resources to support the school. He now sits on the governing body of the school which was renamed Ark Elvin when Ark took it over.
As well as oppositon from Labour, Greens and Lib Dems, lead members for education in the Tory Shires, the local Government Association and the Conservative Bow Group have also made public statements of opposition.
Dawn Butler, Labour MP for Brent Central has sent me copies of letters she has written to Muhammed Butt amd Carolyn Downs, Brent's Chief Executive Officer calling for the Council to lead a fight to bring schools back under local authoriy control. (I would prefer 'oversight' rather than control as governing bodies are responsible for the strategic leadership of schools).
Brent Council failed to support parents and teachers challenging the forced academisation of Gradstone Park Primary School and Copland High School. In the latter case Muhammed Butt supported the forced academisation claiming that the Council did not have the resources to support the school. He now sits on the governing body of the school which was renamed Ark Elvin when Ark took it over.
 |
| Click image to enlarge |
FoE Air Quality meeting now to include other parties - April 12th
This message from Brent Friends of the Earth has appeared on Facebook today:
Brent Friends of the earth Air Quality meeting 12th April
We have now asked the local Lib Dems and the local Conservatives and the local Green Party if they would like a rep on the panel.
When, some weeks back, we invited the lead councillor for the environment in Brent, and the local M.P. and the GLA rep to speak all were invited as local reps and not, in any way, related to anyone’s political affiliation. We also invited a local council officer and a campaigner from Friends of the Earth national office.
This is the original poster for the meeting with all the details:
Brent Friends of the earth Air Quality meeting 12th April
We have now asked the local Lib Dems and the local Conservatives and the local Green Party if they would like a rep on the panel.
When, some weeks back, we invited the lead councillor for the environment in Brent, and the local M.P. and the GLA rep to speak all were invited as local reps and not, in any way, related to anyone’s political affiliation. We also invited a local council officer and a campaigner from Friends of the Earth national office.
As all the politicians we had invited are Labour we've been persuaded
that since the meeting is close to the London elections it would be seen
as unfair not to ask reps of other parties if they would like to join
the panel. When we began setting up this meeting we had not thought
about the date being close to the London elections
Inviting others on to the panel will make the panel larger than we would have preferred; we hope we can still have a good meeting.
With Good Wishes,
Pam L
Inviting others on to the panel will make the panel larger than we would have preferred; we hope we can still have a good meeting.
With Good Wishes,
Pam L
This is the original poster for the meeting with all the details:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)