Gladstone Free School throws in the towel having spent thousands without educating a single pupil

Gladstone School, initially a secondary free school planned for the Gladstone Park area in Brent, has thrown in the towel having again failing to find a site and having to tell children expecting to attend in September that they will have to find another school.

On the 'school's' website today (I put 'school' in quotation marks because it has never educated a single child)

It is with great regret that we must announce the end of the Gladstone School project, due entirely to a failure to find a suitable site.

As many of Brent’s parents already know, a change in government policy in 2014 blocked the school’s plans to open in a temporary site at the last minute, forcing us to defer opening. A site was identified for a 2015 opening, but in February last year negotiations with the site owner collapsed, along with our chances of opening that year. Since then, no further site has been found, despite the full support of Brent Council who have long recognised the need for more secondary school places.

Since we first floated the vision of a parent and community led school, we have been met with enthusiasm, interest and support – locally, nationally and indeed internationally. The depth of that support has kept us fighting for a new school for so long. However, faced with the continued absence of a possible site, the decision has been made to cancel the project altogether.

We are very sad that we will be disappointing the many parents and young people who responded so warmly to our ideas, and would like to thank you for all your support over the last four years.  

Maria Evans 

Chair of Governors

Putting aside the issue of the plans for the school, which have not been put to the test, questions have to be asked about government  free school policy when the Education Funding Agency and DfE are unable to find a site for a school but continue funding it.

Brent schools could have used the money well for actual children rather than the cash going down the drain on something that is not much more than a website, illustrated with stock photos of uniformed child models, and a salaried Principal who has no building, no staff and no pupils.

Background from a previous blog HERE

Warning notices installed at Fulton Road/Olympic Way crossing after accident fears

Olympic Way southbound

Fulton Road westbound

Fulton Road westbound

Additional warning signs for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians have been installed on the Fulton Road, Olympic Way junction which was scene of a serious cycling accident last week.

Tony Kennedy, Head of Brent Highways and Infrastructure, had said that they had commissioned a consultants report on the junction to improve accessibility for all road users which should eb with the council by late July.

I suggested to Cllr Margaret McLennan that, meanwhile, before the summer peak, short-term measures needed to be taken so it was good to see the new notices today.

Anne Clements, Planning director, Quintain, told Cllr McLennan, 'We are committed to improving the junctions around our estate and we will be pleased to work with your officers, particularly reviewing Olympic Way / Fulton Road.'


 Brent Cyclcists have a letter in today's Kilburn Times calling for action.

Work starts on mowing Wembley French School's meadows

Flower beds in formr times

Today after the 'meadow' was cut back

Cutting waits to be completed on the south side of the steps

 It was probably a coincidence but following a flutter of comments on Twitter at the weekend, work started today cutting the grass back in the former municipal gardens in front of the Lycee de Londres  previously Brent Town Hall and before that Wembley Town Hall.

It is a rough and ready job and still lots of litter around but let's hope it is the first stage in a restoration of what was once a source of local pride.

Action promised on Fulton Road/Olympic Way accident spot

I am pleased to say several Brent councillors have responded to the email and video link I sent this morning LINK.

Cllr Southwood, Cabinet member for Environment wrote:

Thank you for your email. I too have concerns about safety here, from personal experience and brought into sharp focus by the accident last week.

Some improvements have been made. A 20mph speed limit was introduced last August and earlier this year the speed table was reconstructed, additional warning signs and road markings, tactile paving and anti-skid road surfacing was installed.

Given the development planned for the area, he number of cyclists and pedestrians using this crossing is likely to increase. I absolutely agree with the need for us to actively consider how to make it safer and more accessible. In April we commissioned a study to identify options and this is due to be completed in July.

The recommendations will come to Cllrs for comment but in the meantime I'm very happy to talk with you and others who have suggestions. We will of course be speaking with Brent Cyclists following last weeks accident to get their input into the recommendations.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of the Council said:

I can assure you that this junction is being looked at and we have had a lot of work done recently, and there is always room for improvement.

I have already been in touch with the highways and transport lead and the cabinet member along with the chief exec, about seeing what else can be done to help improve things for everyone.

Cllr Margaret McLennan, deputy leader of the Council responded:

This falls under Ellie Southwood and Environment, however, I have asked officers and Quintain to respond as we too are aware of the issues surrounding this crossing and will be looking to make it more secure and accessible. You can of course understand we have to do this in liaison with the Stadium and local law enforcement. 

Cllrs Shafique Choudhary, Ruth Moher, Carol Shaw and Helen Carr have also responded.

Councillors urged to act on Wembley Stadium Fulton Road accident danger

I have sent a link to this video to Brent Councilllors with the following message: Dear Councillor, You are probably aware that there was an accident in which a cyclist was seriously hurt last week at the Fulton Road/Olympic Way crossing. Concerns have already been voiced about this crossing, not least by some councillors, and because of its proximity to Brent Civic Centre and the stadium’s national profile, has the potential to reflect badly on the borough if there is an accident. Yesterday I took a short video about 4pm in the afternoon which I think shows the dangers. At this time there is a mix of tourists, shoppers going to the LDO and children and young people going to Wembley Library all crossing Fulton Road. Currently there are roadworks and the usual 2 lane traffic is down to alternate one lane controlled by lights. This may in fact be safer although drivers were confused by having to obey lights and signs indicating they should give way. I would urge you to ensure that action is taken by Brent Council/Wembley Stadium/TfL to make this crossing safe.

Brent Lib Dem councillor poses questions for Cllr Oladapo investigation

Brent Councillors have been invited to submit evidence to Richard Penn's investigation into issues surrounding the death of Cllr Tayo Oladapo.

This is the submission by Brent's only Liberal Democrat councillor Dr Helen Carr:

God Bless Cllr. Tayo. I did not know him, but I am saddened his untimely death has triggered this unpleasant, but necessary enquiry.

Cllr. Tayo. Facts and Questions to be answered.

The facts are, according to my understanding, that Cllr. Tayo Oladapo had not attended Full Council for more than one calendar year. This was known, accepted and voted upon by Full Council.

The Labour Group had known about his illness for some considerable time.

His death in January was allegedly not known by the Labour Party until March.

The Labour Whip will have been responsible for moving the vote to excuse Cllr. Oladappo from attending Full Council.

Questions to be answered:

Within any political party (Labour in this case), what are/what is the nature of the procedures to report an absence?

At what point is an absence sufficient to effectively terminate a Councillor’s duty?

Who is the person responsible for checking, monitoring, regulating and reporting when there is an absence :

1. Within a political party?
2. Within Brent?

Within a political party, who and what are the procedures to report and pass on information regarding an absence, illness or death?

Are there any (in this case, within the Labour Party), if so, were they met? If not, why not?

At what point should or could a bi election have been called? What should/would have triggered the call for a bi election? Attendance and death is obvious and measurable, but what of sanity? Ill health – at what point and who decides if a Councillor is Fit for Purpose? (the definition being ..?).

Was information withheld? By Whom? When? Why? How? What evidence is available?

In this particular case, is the Labour Party responsible for procedures, or Brent Council’s Chief Executive? Where does the burden of proof lie? Or do the political parties have no responsibility for identifying and passing on such information?

Should Brent follow Hammersmith & Fulham and replace glyphosate

I am well aware that dangers to public health are often under-estimated or dismissed only to be cited decades later as the cause of illness and perhaps early death. As an NUT representative at a school in Fulham in the early 70s I discovered asbestos, claimed to have been safely removed over the summer holidays, stuffed behind classroom radiators.  The borough Medical Officer of Health at the time was  not particularly sympathetic. Now the effects of exposure to even small amounts of asbestos dust  is well documented.

Currently concerns over the weed killer glyphosate are being similarly down-played.  When I informed Brent Council about the TUC's concerns about safety concerns for workers who use the spray LINK

The TUC report said:

There is no question that weed killers containing glyphosate are dangerous. If it gets on the skin it can cause irritation and dermatitis. It can also cause oral and throat discomfort if it is breathed in. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis. If swallowed it may cause corrosion of the throat and can lead to kidney or liver failure.

It is also believed that it can cause cancer. In March 2015 the International Agency on research into Carcinogens (IARC) announced that glyphosate probably caused a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This was based on a study of agricultural workers who were exposed to the chemical, although it was backed up by tests on animals. However it is not known whether the cancer is being caused by contact through the skin or through breathing it, or both. It is therefore necessary to try to prevent any workers coming into contact with glyphosate.

It advocated action to protect workers:

Given that the risks to the skin, lung and eyes have been known about for many years, employers should already have been taking action to prevent any contact to glyphosate, even before there was evidence it causes cancer

Now that there is new evidence that glyphosate is likely to cause cancer, all employers must review their risk assessments, including their COSHH assessments. Where possible they should consider alternatives to the use of herbicides, but if that is not possible they must investigate whether there are safer alternatives. If there are alternatives then they should be introduced, regardless of whether they are more expensive. However they should not rush into substituting another herbicide for glyphosate without ensuring that they know the risk from the substitute. All herbicides are likely to have some dangers to humans.

If they are going to continue to use glyphosate then they should look at whether there are alternatives to how it is used now. Often it is sprayed from backpacks (which often leak) and are filled in an enclosed space. The employer must consider alternative ways of applying it and also look at how containers are filled, cleaned and the chemical stored and disposed of. They also need to provide training and information to the workers about the risk.

If, after that, any workers are still likely to come into contact with glyphosate, they must provide protective clothing. That may include gloves, masks and protective overalls. This must be done free of charge, and arrangements need to be made for them to be stored and cleaned. The safety representatives should be involved in any discussion on the best protective equipment.

Employers should also be monitoring the health of all those who use glyphosate (or any pesticide).

 In my email to Brent Council I said:

 I would like to draw your attention to the latest advice from the TUC re Health and Safety and the use of glyphosate  based weed killers which was issued last month.

With many schools out-sourcing grounds maintenance I wonder if a warning could be issued to them as well as clarifying the situation with Veolia.

Samantha Haines replied for Brent Council:

I have spoken to our contractor and the public realm department here at Brent and they have told me that our contractor are aware and adhere to these practices.

This did not address the issue regarding school contractors and of course some schools may have their own premises staff using the chemicals.   Apart from the danger posed to the workers concerned there is also that of exposing children to the herbicide.

Last week Hammersmith and Fulham Council responded to a 38 Degrees petition on the use of  glyphosate.   Wesley Harcourt, the cabinet member for environment, said:

As is the case at almost all local authorities, glyphosate-based herbicides are currently  used by Hammersmith and Fulham council contractors, Quadron-Serco.

However we have been working with contractors for some time to replace these with chemical  alternatives, such as hot foam and steam.

In May a group of 48 MEPs volunteered for a test to detect levels of glyphosate in their urine. The average was more than 17 times the safe limit and the lowest double the limit. at 0.17ng/ml LINK

Jean Lambert, MEP for London, a member of the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee whose personal test results show a glyphosate contamination level of 0.67 ng/ml, said:

It is genuinely frightening that glyphosate is everywhere in our everyday lives. These test results show that no matter where we live, what we eat, or our age we cannot escape exposure to this toxic substance. With glyphosate widely used in cities, in urban parks and public spaces, on streets and pavements, the European Commission must bow to public pressure and put the safety of people and the environment ahead of the profits of chemical industry giants.

The general public using herbicides in their gardens, need to be aware that popular weedkiller Roundup, on sale in garden centres and other outlets, contains glyphosate.  Manufacturer Monsanto is fighting a public relations battle against critics of its product LINK

In May campaigners claimed a minor victory when the EU decided to delay re-approval of the use of glyphosate in the EU.  The Monsanto backed Glyphosate Task Force  complained about ' acute politicisation of the regulatory procedure' while Pekka Pesonen of the main European Farmers' Union deplored the fact that a ban on glyphosate ban would put them at a 'competitive disadvantage'.

The battle continues.

 The 38 degrees petition can be modified for any local authority and can be found HERE

NHS Kill or Cure? STP knowns and unknowns - some key questions

So much creeps up on NHS 'reform'  and realisation of its true repercussions known only to a few who can penetrate the jargon, that I am pleased to publish this early warningby Robin Sharp and Peter Latham  taken from the website of Brent Patients Voice


 Sustainability & Transformation Plans (STPs) being prepared across the country on the orders of NHS chief Simon Stevens. There is a plausible view that they present the greatest threat to the NHS since the 1948 settlement. Although there is much that we don’t know, veils are removed almost every day.

This is a brief account of what we have so far gleaned. We don’t think we should delay further sharing it with our readers. What follows is based on a note we sent to Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, for a meeting she kindly offered us on 1st June about the process for preparing these plans. She is the local government lead for the 8 NW London boroughs.
Overall the national STP process as well as its local iteration appears to be radical and internally self-contradictory, but moving forward in semi-secrecy at an unacceptable speed. If it was clear that clinicians and other professionals who deliver care, as well as the wider public, were going to have a proper input before STPs were finalised and implemented we would be content to wait for our turn. However this does not seem to be the case.

By virtue of the NHSE National Planning Guidance for 2016/2017 NHS CCGs and Trusts are required to produce and submit STPs in outline (checkpoint) form by mid-April and in full by the end of June, with implementation beginning in October. Local authorities, though not subject to NHSE jurisdiction, are to be engaged in the process of production. Clinicians and patients are to be involved, presumably after the full STP has been submitted. STPs cover newly-created areas called “footprints”. In the case of our area the footprint consists of the 8 boroughs already grouped together for the purpose of 'Shaping a Healthier Future', 'Whole Systems Integrated Care' and 'Transforming Primary Care'.

The main purposes of STPs are 
to speed up implementation of the changes in ways of working between hospitals, GPs and community services outlined in The Five Year Forward View and;
to eliminate financial deficits, i.e. spending above budgets, in short order.

The Guidance makes no reference to current NHS shortcomings, pressures, staff shortages or population growth but strongly asserts that in the short term better services can be delivered with fewer resources. It has a list of questions to be answered which seem likely to provoke cynicism among front line staff.

The NHSE publication: General Practice: the Five Year Forward View issued on 21 April 2016 with Introduction by Simon Stevens describes a major transformation of NHS GP practices that Sarah McDonnell for Brent CCG recently described at the Brent Health and Wellbeing Board as a 'cottage industry', and Dr Sarah Basham characterised as 'getting more corporate'. This is set out in Chapter 5 at page 49.

The vehicle proposed for this transformation is the new 'Multispeciality Community Provider'(MCP) contract:

"Today the range of services funded within general practice owes much to history rather than optimal working arrangements for GPs or patients. The MCP model is about creating a new clinical model and a new business model for the integrated provision of primary and community services, based on the GP registered list, but fully integrating a wider range of services and including relevant specialists wherever that is the best thing to do, irrespective of current institutional arrangements. At the heart of the MCP model the provider ultimately holds a single whole population budget for the full breadth of services it provides, including primary medical and community services."

So-called Accountable Care Partnerships, including GP federations with patient lists averaging 170,000, would be formed to provide these services in place of the old model of care with the individual GP practice at the centre, going back to the 1948 origins of the NHS. These would still need to address the long-standing problem as to who pays when long-term residential care is needed for individuals who should not be in hospital but cannot care for themselves at home. The current shortfall in social care funding, even when supplemented by the Better Care Fund, only exacerbates this dilemma. These deep issues are not going to be solved by a series of hastily written and implemented STPs.

Moreover this is the point at which the STP process becomes self-contradictory. The major change in primary care, the “new model of care”, has not begun to be sold to GPs and the public, far less designed and accepted. It will need time and a good deal of money to be tested and to demonstrate its advantages. This is completely inconsistent with a requirement to eliminate NHS deficits in a couple of years or even less.

The trend in NHS Trust deficits is moving sharply downwards from a surplus 4 years ago to £800m in 2015 and £2.45bn this year (though experts say the true figure is closer to £3bn). Rising demand, higher costs of agency staff because permanent staff are not available and over-use of management consultants are factors. There is no evidence that this trend can be significantly reversed over the five-year planning period without reductions in the care delivered. Most key care outcome indicators are already on a downward trend.

Some questions and issues:

Is not a candid analysis of the current situation and immediate prospects the essential basis for realistic STP planning?

Can such planning be done without full involvement of medical and social care professionals?

Does not the recent dispute with junior hospital doctors just highlight the deterioration in relations between core staff and political leadership, whereas trust between these two elements in the system is essential for successful reform?

Why has the national political leadership made no effort to justify to Parliament and the public the major changes in GP/patient relationship envisaged by the Five Year Forward View proposals for transforming primary care?

Is not the structure of the footprints (and regional leaders above the footprints) where official representatives are meant to have delegated powers to commit their organisations an attempt to sidestep the legislation of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 with its devolved and GP-led commissioning by a centralised top-down planning system without any recourse to fresh legislation?

How can the secretive and rushed process for STPs ordained by Simon Stevens end up securing any measure of public consent? When is serious public and clinical engagement going to begin?

Is it not the case that projects to group GPs into federations working with other providers to deliver packages of care in the community or “out of hospital” will not deliver savings in the short term – even if GPs manage to understand and approve of them – with the consequence that closing acute hospital beds and A&E departments (in NW London 500 beds and two more A&E's) becomes once again the preferred method of acceding to HM Treasury demands?

Bearing in mind that outline STPs already submitted are not in the public domain and that local authorities are party to them, have elected Brent councillors seen and approved them or authorised officials to proceed without reference to them? Will the final STP submissions be considered in public before submission at the end of June?

Should we not recognise that the health and social care workforce is going flat out and that there are no more large “efficiency savings” to extract under the present financial settlement? Is not the underlying question here how much the UK taxpayer wishes to spend on health and social care as a proportion of GDP if the NHS 'free at the point of delivery model” is to be preserved? Or is the intention of this Government initiative to facilitate an extension of commercial provision of NHS medical and local authority social care?

Robin Sharp and Peter Latham
Brent Patient Voice
31st May 2016