WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Cllr Mathew Bradley has also responded to correspondents with the following generic reply:For the record, I have met with you and your group on a number of occasions and have found our conversations constructive which ultimately have led to the operation of the community library.I hope we can collectively find a solution to this as I think your community library is a fantastic example of community action to keep services running in the face of government cuts and I hope the council can support your hard work, passion and commitment as much as possible.As I said previously, unfortunately property has been removed from the regeneration portfolio but I expect the leader will respond to you fully as soon as possible.
As I have received a large number of emails about this, I've put together this standard response which I hope will answer all your questions.
Thank you for the numerous emails I received about the Preston Community library. As per your requests, we raised your concerns at the Labour group meeting to try and give a clear steer to the cabinet about what we, as Labour councillors (and specifically Preston ward councillors) wanted to see the building being used for - a community library. I think we made this clear in the meeting. The case for the library has been made well by all of you and I want to thank you all for writing in as the level of public support for the community library was made very clear and lent weight to what we had to say.
As an educator, I am firmly on your side in this matter, and I know my fellow councillors, Pat and Jean, feel the same way. We have been impressed at the service which has been provided by the Preston library community group (often in adverse conditions) and hope that this will continue into the future.
At the next meeting of cabinet, they will be deciding whether to enter negotiations with the business next door to see if this property can be purchased by the council in order to start re-development with a mind to building a structure on both sites. The ground floor of this will be reserved for community use, the upstairs area may become flats, or something else, but as far as I am aware the purpose for this has not been decided.
If the community library were to take up residence on the ground floor this would get the library a permanent home, and I believe would be an excellent solution to the many issues the library group has been facing when working with the council. While I can see positives and negatives to this, as a supporter of the library, I feel that this might be the best possible outcome.
Of course, if this happens, the next big fight would be ensuring that the ground floor of this building is indeed used for the library. The work on achieving this is far from over and I thank you all for continuing to support the community library as robustly as you have.Philip Bromberg replied:
Regards,
Cllr Matthew Bradley
First of all, I'd like to thank you and Jean (Cllr Hussein) and Pat (Cllr Harrison) for the support we've had from you over the last two years. Some of the recipients of this email will be unaware that you have done valuable work for the library, and that you've offered to do more for us in the future. We are grateful for your help.WHAT MIGHT BE LOST
However, I'm afraid that what you say about next week's Cabinet is highly misleading. The report is not simply about negotiations with the business next door. There are two recommended proposals, and both involve the re-development of the library site. In both cases, the ground floor community space will be put out to open market tender, with a target rental income of £51,000 per annum. How, in these circumstances, will it be possible to ensure that there is a library on the ground floor?
Two years ago you and Pat and Jean and every other Labour councillor fought an election on a promise to offer the current building for use as a library at a peppercorn rent, and without an open tendering process. Is this promise about to be broken?
I hope you have read the attached letter from the Chair of SKPPRA, which casts considerable doubt on the wisdom of the current plans. Our strong preference is to continue to run the library in the existing building. This is what was promised in May 2014. But any re-development of the site must be done in a way which is consistent with those promises made two years ago. On Tuesday the Cabinet must say clearly that any community space must contain our community library, which must be offered to us for a peppercorn rent. That is what you now need to tell Mo and the other members of the Cabinet.
Brondesbury Park Conservatives have submitted the following motion:
The residents of the Preston Ward have done a fantastic job in keeping the library active and working to make sure that all the residents have access to books in a very professional manner.
Will the Council now honour what they told the residents that is that they would give them the library to continue their good work?If yes, the Committee running the library would like to know when.
This Council confirms its previous promises and pledges of support for the continued existence of the four voluntary - run Brent libraries: Preston Community, Barham Park , Kensal Rise and Cricklewood.
5 flats built on the library site, will produce an income £158,000, less £51,000 from 'community' provision comes to £107,000, or £21,400 for each flat [£411.54per week].
19 flats on larger site, income £420,000, less £51,000 from community space comes to £369,000, or £19,421 per flat, which is £373.48 per week.
Council rents for a one bed are £102, 2beds are £116, and 3 beds are £128.
So Council tenants will not be able to afford the homes. Housing Benefit does not seem to have been accounted for in the calculations.
So the income for the Council as indicated in the report seems inaccurate. It is cheaper to rent out a private flat in the area, so the proposals don't seem viable and won't meet housing need.
We are delighted that, through working in partnership with WNSL and the Football Association, we have been able to reach this agreement. Given the current reduction in capacity at White Hart Lane for next season and the ticketing requirements for Champions League, playing at Wembley will mean that we can continue to accommodate all of our existing Season Ticket holders. Our season ticket waiting list is over 50,000 so this now also offers us a great opportunity to provide more of our supporters with a chance to see the team play live during our Champions League campaign.Importantly, as we know it was our fans' preference, it means that we can continue to play our home matches in London during our season away.
Having Tottenham at Wembley for big European nights next season is a welcome opportunity for us to further the stadium’s position as a world-class venue. As well as helping the club and its fans, it will benefit London and English football in general with our commitment to reinvesting all profits back into the game.The increased revenue will particularly help us meet our targets for improving coaching and grassroots facilities and growing participation. We were already on a strong financial footing, which allowed us to reinvest £117m back into the game at all levels last season.
 |
| The 83 bus will no longer go to Ealing Hospital |
We received 657 responses to the consultation. 645 responses were from members of the public and 12 were from stakeholders.57 per cent of respondents supported or partially supported the proposal to shorten route 83 to run between Golders Green and Alperton and not continue on to Ealing Hospital. 22 per cent said they did not support the proposal, 5 per cent were not sure, and 15 per cent had no opinion or did not answer.77 per cent of respondents supported or partially supported the introduction of new route 483 which would run between Harrow town centre and Ealing Hospital. 11 per cent said they did not support the proposal, 3 per cent were not sure and 9 per cent had no opinion or did not answer.We have considered all of the responses and have decided to go ahead with the proposals. We plan to introduce these changes on 10 September 2016.
FOI 5758896: Elective Home Education
|
|||
School year
|
Year
|
||
2006
|
2011
|
2016
|
|
Reception
|
10
|
14
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
11
|
22
|
2
|
6
|
8
|
23
|
3
|
3
|
16
|
26
|
4
|
5
|
8
|
30
|
5
|
9
|
14
|
32
|
6
|
9
|
14
|
29
|
7
|
6
|
10
|
34
|
8
|
8
|
12
|
27
|
9
|
20
|
9
|
25
|
10
|
12
|
9
|
23
|
11
|
0
|
2
|
16
|
Total
|
92
|
127
|
289
|
This is a truly concerning response from Ministers. Leaving the EU cannot be allowed to become a cover under which the government abdicates its responsibility for this public health emergency.
Despite the preventable deaths of 50,000 British people, every year, and an annual public health bill of £20bn, the government is still, apparently, failing to take the air quality crisis seriously. Under David Cameron, the government was held to account for failing to do the bare minimum, as required by EU law, to improve the quality of the air we all breathe.
EU air pollution limits are preventing thousands of deaths every year across Europe and the government readily acknowledges that it is EU law that has been the driver of any positive air quality action in the UK. For the sake of the health and prosperity of the British people, we cannot risk scrapping these safeguards.
I am calling on Ministers to make a firm commitment to maintaining and strengthening vital EU air quality standards.
