Is this the end of Brent Housing Partnership?

There was a bit of a jamboree at Brent Civic Centre as Brent Housing Partnership showed their film Stories of Brent LINK but beneath the public relations glow things are not well with BHP, Brent Council's arms length management organisation (ALMO) for housing.

BHP was put under 'special measures' in March due to under-performance. LINK

Now the Brent Cabinet is to consider the future of the organisation LINK in the additional context of the government's housing reforms  which include high value council housing disposal,where the council is forced to sell high value stock;  'pay to stay' in which council tenants with an income of more than £40,000 income will have to pay higher rents from April 2017 - moving towards market rents, 'right to buy' and a 1% reduction in social rents.

In addition the volume of housing stock has been reduced by the South Kilburn regeneration and redevelopment and existing right to buy.

A further pressure, the potential cost of which is not revealed, is a claim for 'significant additional costs' from Wates, the BHP's asset management service which has been carrying out extensive refurbishment on the BHP's estates. 

The question arises as to whether the BHP is fit for purpose in this new situation. Officers recoemmend that the period for BHP's Recovery Plan be extended until September 30th 2016 while a review of options takes places.

These are the options:

-->

Continuation with BHP .  

   
3.29 Formally this is the most straightforward option but practically will require further and significant reform to assure continued progress, to generate significant cost reductions and to achieve wider outcomes. New operating arrangements and service structures will be needed to achieve this. Preliminary examination of a new Target Operating Model has recently been completed that may provide an initial basis for the development of these. In addition a reformed council client-side function will be required to provide strategic direction and greater assurance, and opportunities to generate additional efficiencies and savings through improved integration between the council and BHP will also be needed. The scope of services to be provided will also need to be considered including what contribution BHP could, in time, make in other areas to the council’s objectives.

 
Bringing the Service Back In-house

 
3.30 The majority of stock-holding councils provide housing management services directly. Simply bringing the service into the council will not in itself assure improved performance and while there may be some direct savings the challenge to generate significant further savings and service could be more fully integrated across a range of council services and functions and this could also support the achievement of wider outcomes but specific expertise and coherence in the service would need to be maintained

3.31 A number of councils with ALMOs have in recent years brought the service in- house. This would require termination of the existing Management Agreement. From the experience of other authorities a minimum period of 6 months would be needed and in a number of cases the process has taken a year. Consultation with tenants and leaseholders would be required in advance.

Service Provision through a Partnership

3.32 A housing management partnership would be formed with another housing management provider with an existing high-quality housing management service in order to raise performance and generate significant economies and efficiencies. This could be a significant local housing association provider. The scope of the partnerships activities (e.g. whether it included affordable housing development) may also be a significant consideration in choosing a suitable partner and in the extent of interest from prospective partners.

3.33 There are two main routes by which this partnership could be established. The council could directly select a suitable partner in place of BHP and enter into the necessary legal arrangements with them to establish a jointly owned housing management company. Alternatively BHP could itself be converted into a partnership housing management organisation, jointly owned and governed by the council and the selected partner. Again consultation with tenants and leaseholders would be required in advance.

4.0 Financial Implications

4.1 The HRA expenditure Budget is £56.9m. This budget is used for the management and maintenance of the HRA stock and for the repayment of the HRA debt. BHP Management Fee for the current year is £7.5m. This fee is for managing and maintaining the HRA properties on behalf of the Council.

4.2 The Housing and Planning Act will have a significant impact on Brent’s council housing and its financial position in coming years. The implications for which are currently being scoped with more comprehensive analysis to follow once the details are published.

4.3 The three options outlined in this report for the management of the council’s stock will each have differing implications in terms of the impact on the HRA and will need to be developed through the formal review process. However, it should be noted that all of the options will result in an initial cost of change, which will need to be factored into the each appraisals.

Private French School to take over Tenterden Pavilion and playing fields

Warning by John Billam Tenterden Parks and Neighbourhood Group earlier this month

Residents have promised 'strong opposition' to a bid by the Lycee International de Londres (the Wembley French School)  through its charity arm,  Wembley Education Charitable Trust (WECT), to take over the Tenterden Pavilion and playing fields. Cabinet will be asked to approve the transfer  on June 27th but  details remain in doubt - in particular an agreement with the long-established and rival bidder Forest United Youth Football Club.  Forest would have first option on the facility when it was not being used by the Lycee. John Billam is no ;onger included as the council wants to retain it as an aset.

The Proposal

.        2.1  That Members approve the proposal for a Community Asset Transfer of the Tenterden Pavilion which involves entering into an agreement to lease that includes provision for granting a lease of the pavilion for up to 30 years and granting a licence on the Sports Ground with the Wembley Education Charitable Trust Ltd (WECT), subject to continued access to community use, planning and funding. 


.        2.2  That Members note proposals for the WECT, in order to meet the community use caveat above, to enter into an agreement with Forest United (1973) Youth FC a local charitable football club at the Tenterden Pavilion and Sports Ground during periods when it is not in use by the WECT and opportunity for community access by other groups, in what will be a significant new local sporting facility. 


.        2.3  That Members delegate authority to the Director of Resources to finalise and agree terms of a leasehold and associated licence disposal to WECT in consultation with the Operational Director of Environment Services. 


 

Risks 

3.17       There are risks with the WECT application:

.        Most prominent is the lack of a full business plan which they have indicated would be worked up, subject to obtaining Cabinet approval. 


.        That WECT is unsuccessful with securing planning consent to build a new indoor sports facility with changing rooms together with an All Weather pitch at the ground, as there may be local opposition. 


.        The WECTi s unsuccessful with its funding proposal to develop the centre to its full potential although the risk is considered small. 


.        That WECT could exercise the lease break option in year 3,were the pupil number not to rise to 1200 at the Lycee International de Londres School. 


.        That WECT and Forest United are unable to agree terms that would allow a collaborative use of the grounds. 

Alternative/Exit Options

3.18    Officers are working with WECT to develop their proposals, however should the collaborative approach be unsuccessful with Forest United then the options for Brent are:

1.     To work with WECT on their own on the new sports facilities development proposal. 


2.     To work with Forest United to develop a much smaller Pavilion fitting on the existing pavilion foot print as detailed in Appendix 1; or 


3.     To consider developing the Pavilion itself in accordance with Brent’s Investment Strategy, provided the investment proposals stacks up, if this options were to be progressed it would be subject to a detailed business case to Cabinet at the appropriate time.

Interim Arrangements 

3.19    The poor condition and disused state of the pavilion on site has created a magnet for anti-social behaviour that has caused residents and the local residents association a lot of concern. As redevelopment plans will take some time to work through. WECT has agreed in principle to assist the Council with demolition of the pavilion. Forest United have said they will consider how a temporary structure can be built in its place, connecting into the existing services that benefit the land. The Council will need to grant a licence to enable this.

Revised parking changes for Brent including £25 diesel car supplement

The Brent Cabinet on June 27th will consider recomendations LINK for revised parking charges.

.        2.0  Recommendations 
Cabinet is asked to formally express its thanks to all those who responded to the on-street parking consultation, and then agree: 
Demand-Led Pay and Display Tariffs: 


.        2.1  To freeze parking prices in Pay & Display bays borough-wide. 
Daily Visitor Parking Charges: 


.        2.2  To proceed to formal consultation on a Traffic Management Order, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, introducing new visitor parking charges in CPZ areas, with a £1.50 charge for up to 2 hours, a £3 charge for up to 4 hours, and a £4.50 charge for ‘all-day’ visitor parking of more than 4 hours. 


.        2.3  To delegate authority to implement the price changes following formal consultation, including amendment of any relevant Traffic Management Orders, to the Strategic Director Regeneration & Environment, in consultation with the Lead Member for Environment. 
Visitor Household Permit 
 

.        2.4  To retain the Visitor Household permit.  

.        2.5  To increase the charge made for the Visitor Household permit, from 1^st October 2016, to a 2016/17 rate of £163 for a full year; £98 for 6 months and £66 for three months; and with future increases linked to the price of a third Resident Parking Permit for vehicles in the proposed ‘Standard’ emissions band. 
Carer and Support Permit: 


.        2.6  Dependent on agreement to recommendation 2.4 above, to withdraw the proposal to introduce a new Care and Support permit. 
School Parking Permits: 


.        2.7  In respect of parking for school staff: 
§ To allow schools within CPZs to purchase a maximum of 3 business permits, at the standard rate (£366 in 2016/17) and terms & conditions, with immediate effect; 
§ To introduce a new scheme allowing qualifying schools to:

§  Purchase a maximum of 3 school staff parking permits at a rate discounted by 25% 
to reflect term-time use only, providing the school has a bronze level accredited 
travel plan; 


§  Purchase additional school staff parking permits at the reduced term-time rate should 
they have either a silver (up to 6 school permits in total) or a gold (up to 9 school permits in total) level accredited travel plan. 
Residents Parking Permits: 


.        2.8  From 1^st April 2017 to amend the resident parking permit scheme as follows:

§  Simplifying emission-based bandings for resident household permits, as set out in 
paragraph 7.3, to provide a clearer signal and encouragement to switch to lower- 
emission vehicles 


§  Introducing a minimum charge of £25 for a resident’s parking permit for any 
vehicle (other than a powered two-wheel vehicle) 


§  Reducing the permitted size of vehicles with resident permits to those weighing 
no more than 3.5 tonnes 


.        2.9  To agree in principle to introduce a £25 supplement for diesel car permits, reflecting their additional contribution to air pollution, with effect from 1^st October 2018 to give adequate notice and therefore time for owners to change to less polluting vehicles or transport modes. 


.        2.10  To note that further research is required regarding the proposal to reduce resident permit entitlement from 3 permits to 2, as set out at paragraph 7.2. 
Visitor Permit Entitlement: 


.        2.11  Dependent on agreement to recommendation 2.4 above (to continue the offer of the Visitor Household permit), to cap the number of visitor permits any household can buy to a maximum of 300 permits p.a., commencing from 1^st April 2017. 
Trader Permits: 


.        2.12  To develop and introduce a new one-day All Zones trader’s permit, allowing a business vehicle to park in any CPZ within Brent for one day. 


.         

.        CPZ Concerns 
Cabinet 27 June 2016 On-Street                          2.13 To note that a further report detailing and scoping a comprehensive review of the operation of CPZs will come to Cabinet in the autumn.

Comment on Harrow School planning application and sign petition before Monday

From Harrow Hill Trust

Click on image to enlarge

 See LINK for previous coverage


 It is clear that the public want a brownfield option. As such, in our reply to the Council we have evaluated the arguments set out against this option and we set out the pros and cons. There are very few compromises required to make this work and there are very many more advantages.
Please try to find one more supporter, the consultation period closes on Monday. Thanks again for your support which is appreciated.

Submit your comment HERE Paste this reference into the search box:  P/1940/16

Latest on Calais Convoy and tonight's Rally from the People's Assembly

Latest on Calais Convoy and tonight's Rally from the People's Assembly

Tonight's rally is going ahead. In light of the horrific events surrounding the murder of Jo Cox MP however, we will be ending the rally early and take everyone to Parliament Square for the vigil in memory of Jo Cox MP. The rally begins at 6.30pm and will now end at 7:30pm.

We will have a briefing on the convoy, a few brief speeches and then move on to the vigil.

Currently the ban on the convoy, put in place by the French Police, is still in place and we are trying our hardest to get it overturned. We will still be converging on Whitehall at 8.30am tomorrow and we look forward to meeting you there. We will be heading down to Dover to demand that the convoy is allowed to pass onto Calais.

Please continue to sign & share the petition.  LINK 

We are also asking people to write to the French Embassy to demand that the convoy is allowed to pass onto Calais.


http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Contact-us-21735

UN report provides opportunity to campaign to restore children's right to play

Re-blogged with thanks from policyforplay.com

The campaign to save Stonebridge Adventure Playground

 The UN’s latest report on the UK government’s record on children’s rights includes some stringent conclusions about the abandonment of play policy. If play advocates can seize the moment, suggests Adrian Voce, it also provides the basis for a persuasive influencing campaign to restore children’s right to play as a national priority.

The concluding observations of last week’s report by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, on the UK’s recent record on children’s rights, has been welcomed by Theresa Casey, the President of the International Play Association (IPA) as ‘the strongest I’ve seen’ on children’s right to play.
This is perhaps no cause for celebration among play advocates. The CRC’s ‘concern about the withdrawal of a play policy in England and the under-funding of play’ across the UK, merely confirms what we know about the woefully inadequate, not to say destructive response of the UK government since 2010, to a human right for children that the CRC says ‘is fundamental to the quality of childhood, to children’s entitlement to optimum development, to the promotion of resilience and to the realisation of other rights’.

The Children’s Rights Alliance for England went on to observe that, since 2010, the government had in fact ‘undermined children’s rights under Article 31 …’

The dismissive approach of the Coalition and Conservative governments of David Cameron, to article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which commits states parties to support and provide for the fulfilment of the right to play, was highlighted by the independent NGO, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) last year. Its civil society report to the CRC on the UK government’s record on children’s rights pulled no punches when it came to play, saying: ‘Rest, leisure and play have been a casualty of the austerity drive. In the absence of a national play policy, many councils have disproportionately targeted play services for cuts with many long-standing services and projects closed and the land redeveloped’.

The CRAE report went on to observe that, since 2010, the government had in fact ‘undermined children’s rights under Article 31 by: abandoning a ten-year national play strategy for England with eight years still to run; cancelling all national play contracts … (and) withdrawing recognition of playwork in out-of-school care…’

Many observers of the work of the CRC over the years have been disappointed at its lack of rigour in holding governments to account for article 31, but the committee’s publication in 2013, of a general comment[1] on the ‘right to rest, leisure, play, recreational activities, cultural life and the arts’ appears to have raised the bar, further vindicating the work of Theresa and her colleagues at IPA in lobbying the UN to produce the document.

UN expects national governments to honour its obligations to ‘respect, protect and fulfil’ children’s right to play

The General Comment (GC17) on article 31 expands on government responsibilities for children’s play under the 1989 convention, urging them ‘to elaborate measures to ensure’ its full implementation. GC17 makes it clear that, in the face of increasing barriers, the UN expects national governments to honour their obligations to ‘respect, protect and fulfil’ children’s right to play by taking serious and concerted action on a range of fronts including, in particular, ‘legislation, planning and funding’. Last week’s report simply highlights what we already know: that the UK government, having been among the world leaders in national play policy before 2010, has since been in abject dereliction of this duty.

While we take no pleasure in this confirmation of the steep decline in the status and priority afforded to children’s play within national policy, we should, nevertheless, see the UNCRC’s report as both an opportunity and a reminder. The opportunity is to fashion an influencing campaign, aligned to the wider advocacy movement for children’s rights in the UK, to persuade future governments to recommit to children’s play. Unsurprisingly, the CRC is critical of the UK record on children’s rights in other areas than play. Its main recommendation is that a broad national children’s rights strategy, abandoned by the coalition government in 2010, should be ‘revised … to cover all areas of the convention and ensure its full implementation’. In England, this plan included a 10-year national play strategy. The play movement should be building links with other children’s rights advocates – who will now use the CRC’s report to put pressure on policymakers – to ensure that the right to play is properly considered in any such revision.

There has been a tendency, since the demise of the Play Strategy, in England at least, to lower our ambition for play policy

The reminder delivered by the CRC report is that children’s play is a serious, crosscutting policy issue, requiring a strategic response and high-level leadership. There has been a tendency, since the demise of the Play Strategy, in England at least, to lower our ambition for play policy. The Children’s Play Policy Forum, for example, has seemed to level its proposals at an agenda that disregards play for its own sake, relegating it to the level of an activity with only instrumental value to such existing policy areas as improving children’s health, reducing neighbourhood conflict or encouraging volunteering.

Good public play provision and playable public space can contribute to all these things of course, but the UN reminded us last week that our government has a duty to legislate, plan and budget for children’s play, first and foremost, because it is their human right. Such an approach will most likely fall on deaf ears, as does so much else with this government, committed as it is to relentlessly scaling back public services and privatising the public realm. Our duty in this case is to point out its failure, and to cultivate support from policymakers outside the government.

An All Party Parliamentary Group, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, the Children’s Commissioner for England, the Leader of the Opposition and now the United Nations have all recently called for a higher priority to be afforded to children’s play by our local and national governments – many of them urging the UK government to emulate that of Wales in adopting a play sufficiency duty on local authorities.

The Play England board earlier this year sanctioned an open, independent debate about its future role and purpose. Sadly, it seems to no longer have the resources even to manage its own consultations; but if it only does one thing between now and the next general election, this must surely be to cultivate and capitalise on such support in high places and coordinate a cohesive, sustained influencing campaign for play to be once again afforded the status it needs within government policy.

Adrian Voce
[1] A UN General Comment is defined as ‘the interpretation of the provisions of (its) respective human rights treaty’ by its treaty bodies. In other words, it is the UN ’s own interpretation of how nation states should meet their obligations under international law.