THE RIGHTS OF EU NATIONALS IN THE UK - FACT SHEET HERE

With EU nationals' rights considered a legitimate bargaining chip by the Government in the Brexit negotiations, JeanLamber MEP  and other Greens are showing we are firmly on the side of EU nationals and will stand up for their rights and for freedom of movement.

Written with a barrister, the factsheet contains important information about existing rights (see below)

Please note that this factsheet is designed to provide information only. The law may have changed since this was produced in November 2016 and you should always seek up-to-date legal advice. The author and publisher cannot accept responsibility for any reliance placed on the information contained in this factsheet.

Click on bottom right corner for full view

Developer withdraws presentation of 27 storey Dollis Hill tower block development for later scheduling

The Kilburn Times reveals today that Brent Council has told them that the developer has withdrawn the pre-planning presentation for the 27 storey tower block in Dollis Hill from Wednesday's Planning Committee agenda. LINK

It will be rescheduled for a later date.

This follows a posting about the plans on Wembley Matters on Wednesday LINK  and subsequent comments on The View from Dollis Hill Facebook LINK

The block along witha banqueting hall and swimming pool would replace the historic Admiralty Chart House.

Residents call for wider and extended consultation on controversial Ealing Road Library plans

Ealing Road Library (centre) set back from Ealing Road

Residents around Ealing Road Library, Wembley, are calling for the consultation plans on the development of the Ealing Road Library site in Ealing Road to be extended on the grounds that few residents knew about the plans and the very limited circulation of letters asking for views on the plans.  In addition the notice of the planning  application posted near the library was obscured.

 The plans envisage bringing forward the boundary of the library to the pavement edge by building a community enterprise hub on one side and a 'tea house' cafe on the other  with a courtyard between the two that could be used for community events, a market or an outdoor cinema.

According to the application the aim is to bring more outside visitors into an area that residents advise is already congested.

As with many such developments residents feel that the application has been hidden from them and now that they have found out about it there is too little time to respond. They question whether the Council has fulfilled its statutory responsibilities in terms of consultation.

One of the application documents found on-line states:

The investment will deliver a new cafe, a new public space and a community and enterprise hub which will be used for gathering, extended library activities, performance, market days and other events that will attract local and London wide visitors.  The project is the first element in the wider series of Gem Chain projects which aim to attract visitors London-wide to Ealing Road and reinstate the place’s status as a premier high street place.

 Local residents concerns  are as follows:

The poorly promoted consultation with poorly sited planning notice dated 27th October which states deadline for comments on the application is 17th November - just three weeks?  Also the planning notice states docs would only available to view on line from 2nd November – so not even the full three weeks to study the docs and comment if you are able to access them on line, a lot of older residents are not?  Why such a short amount of time for local people to comment? When pushed the library finally had hard copies to view on from 11th November, over two weeks already into the consultation period.

Developing the library space and re-promoting Ealing Road as a major shopping destination could have a further serious impact on the environment for local residents who are concerned about the potential of even more traffic in grid locked Ealing Road, more pollution, more noise pollution and more rubbish on local streets.  Ealing Road is already gridlocked most weekends.  If shoppers are coming to buy in bulk or buy gold or buy expensive clothes they will want to come by car – they will not want to come by bus or tube!  Yet Montrose Crescent car park is being closed to build flats, so if they also close the small library car park and also loose around 10 spaces from the slip road outside the library due to the forecourt being extended what other parking provision is going to be offered – will they take away resident only parking bays and allow shoppers to use them?

These plans have clearly been drawn up and put together over a considerable period of time and considerable expense with no apparent consideration for these issues and their impact on local council tax-paying residents who believe the consultation needs to be re-promoted and the deadline for comments extended:

(a)       there are lot of local people who would not have seen the planning notice due to the poor location of the planning notice;
(b)      there are lot of local people who would not have heard anything about this development due to lack of information locally;
(c)       there are lot of local people who do not have Internet access to view the plans on line - if they do go to the library to view them on-line it is very time consuming to try and look through the 42 individual documents on your website, these should be printed out and put on display in Ealing Road Library;
(d)      there are lot of local people who are not able to get up to the Civic Centre to view the plans at all (lack of mobility, traffic problems, parking restrictions, etc);
(e)       there are lot of local people who are not able to get to the Civic Centre to view the plans between 9-5pm during weekdays (people who work, have childcare or family commitments etc);
(f)       some local residents don’t even know how to use a computer yet there is no address on the planning notice for people to write to should they wish to comment on the application.

The Planning Application(Ref 16/4527) can be found HERE

This is one of the main documents supporting the application:

Click bottom right for full view

Action on school funding and staffing crisis needs your support

Slide from presentation at Brent governors' meeting with Brent senior officers

 Brent schools, which out-perform other schools nationally, are going to have to fight to maintain their position in the future as a result of cuts to their budgets and a crisis in the recruitment and retention of teachers and senior staff including headteachers.

Although changes to the national funding formula have been delayed, the eventual changes will be to the detriment of urban areas, unless the whole national education budget is increased. This seems unlikely as there is zero growth at the moment which means a cut in real terms as funding does not make up for rises in national insurance payments, pension contributions, price inflation and an increase in pupil numbers.  Increasingly schools have to 'buy in' services that were previously supplied by the council.

The crisis in recruitment and retention is due to  number of factors of which the main ones are the constant changes in curriculum and assessment introduced by the government and the high cost of housing in London LINK. The latter means that when young teachers start a family they have to move out of London to find an affordable place to live.

One way Brent Council could tackle this is by planning more affordable social housing for key workers such as teachers and national health workers.

School governing bodies are finding it very difficult to recruit headteachers in the present climate as the job becomes harder as a result of high stakes expectations from Ofsted and the government. Primary schools have expanded in size as a result of the government not allowing local authorities to build new schools where they are needed.  Managing a large school is more akin to being a chief executive of a large organisation and many prospective heads see this as moving away from the 'leading educator' role that was their impetus to join the profession.

Most Brent primary schools have remained with the local authority rather than be tempted by the false delights of academisation but that means Brent Council has a job to do in championing its own schools as well as trying to positively change the context in which they work.  This was the subject of a recent motion at Brent Central Labour Party.

On Tuesday the London NUT will be holding a march and lobby on these issues and more and would welcome parents, carers and others concerned to join them.Assemble for March: 17:00, Whitehall, (Opposite Downing Street) Rally: 18:30, Emmanuel Centre, Marsham Street, SW1P 3DW

If you are interested in how your school will be impacted by cuts, which usually hit teaching assistants first, type the name of the school into the map below. Teacher assistants play a vital part in the progress of London primary school children and these days are often trained to teach small groups of children in intervention projects, enabling them to catch up with their peers. They are under-paid and sometimes under-valued. Nevertheless, they are a vital ingredient of Brent's success story.

EDUCATION - INVEST, DON'T CUT March & Rally Nov 17th

The cuts being implemented by the Conservative Government put education at risk. Increased funding is desperately needed to safeguard our children’s education. We are asking the Government to change course and invest, not cut.

What the NUT wants:

• School funding – Extra money in the system to support reform of the funding system – and more money for all schools to fund higher costs and the impact of inflation.
• Post 16 funding – Restoration of cuts already made – and real support for sixth form colleges.
• Send and early years funding – fair funding for these vital areas of education
• Funding in Wales – an end to the funding gap.

Invest Don’t Cut Education Funding Rallies

The rallies are an opportunity to make policy makers listen to our concerns about the impact of education funding cuts, and act on our demands to increase education funding. Spread the word and encourage colleagues, friends, family and neighbours to attend and support our aims.

London NUT March and Rally - Thursday 17 November 2016
Assemble for March: 17:00, Whitehall, (Opposite Downing Street)
Rally: 18:30, Emmanuel Centre, Marsham Street, SW1P 3DW

Farm Terrace Allotment Campaign 'disappointed' by National Allotment Society's press statement on their case

From Farm Terrace Campaign LINK

We are extremely disappointed by the National Allotment Society 's recent press release regarding the result of our Judicial Review regarding the deregulation of Farm Terrace.

The press release stated:

Although the decision itself went against Farm Terrace there are many useful comments within the Judgment that the National Society can rely on to protect allotment sites in the future. Within this judgment we now have a legal definition for ‘exceptional’. This judgment has also confirmed that the underlying purpose of the Allotments Act 1925 is to control the disposal of allotment land and that the guidance affords greater safeguards against the appropriation of land because of the value placed on allotments by the Secretary of State.

Unfortunately, we do not agree that there is now a legal definition for 'exceptional' circumstances' and we do not believe that the guidance affords greater safeguards against the appropriation of allotment land because of the value placed on allotments by the Secretary of State. In fact we think it increasingly weakens the law regarding it.

It is saddening that although the National Allotment Society supported our case they have not been in contact with us since the ruling to discuss how we could work together in the future. In addition the statement makes no reference to the continued threat that urban allotments are under from property development.

We are also aware of a recent freedom of information request that has asked in those cases where the government deregulated under exceptional circumstances if the local authority made a case for an exception.

This is important as this is referenced in The National Allotment Society's statement and if the local authority hadn't made a case for exceptional circumstances the deregulation decision could have been made on unsafe grounds.

Who was really responsible for the Granville Centre debacle?

Last week I published Cllr Duffy's interchange with Cllr Mashari in which he called for her resignation over the Granville and Carlton Centres in South Kilburn. LINK

Cllr Mashari claimed that the proposals for regeneration  of the sites came under the Property portfolio which Cllr Butt, leader of the council, holds, rather than Regeneration. Property covers council ownership of buildings and sites and Brent Council has a policy to realise the value of these assets to address their financial plight.

The Granville proposal was put to the Cabinet by Margaret McLennan, deputy leader, rather than Butt who chairs the Cabinet.  Other South Kilburn proposals on the agenda at that meeting, Phase 3a and Site 18,  were put by Cllr Mashari.

It has not been possible to find the full list of responsibilities of each portfolio holder including the leader and deputy, as up to date details do not appear to be available on the Council website.

The report about Granville was written jointly by the Strategic Directors for Resources, and Regeneration and Environment.

Philip Grant points out in a comment on the earlier post:

However, both of those Directors, Althea Loderick (Resources) and Amar Dave (Regeneration and Environment) were new to Brent, having taken up their posts in June 2016, having previously been in Waltham Forest and Essex respectively. So they probably knew very little about Kilburn, and may not even have visited the area from their new offices in the Civic Centre before they put their names to the report.

The contact officers for the report were:

Althea Loderick
 Strategic Director of Resources

Sarah Chaudhry
 Head of Property

Tanveer Ghani
 Project Manager

Dale Thomson
 Regeneration Manager

There is only a cursory reference to the Granville Nursery Plus (and not by name) in the report and none to the Granville Kitchen.

 Given the economic deprivation found on the South Kilburn Estate  and the presence of many protected groups the Equality Analysis attached to the report is clearly deficient - particularly the last sentence:

Appendix 4: Equality Analysis Stage 1 Screening Data

What are the objectives and expected outcomes of your proposal? Why is it needed?

The proposal covers the phased redevelopment the Carlton & Granville Centres, Granville Road, London, NW6 5RA to deliver new homes, an Enterprise Hub and additional community use space.

Who is affected by the proposal?

The proposal is relevant to residents in South Kilburn, small businesses in the area and the South Kilburn Trust. As the premises proposed for re- development are largely unoccupied and will shortly be vacated by the remaining users, there is no impact for existing users.

Could the proposal impact on people in different ways because of their equality characteristics?

The proposal will deliver new workspace accommodation for up to 30 small businesses as well as new housing for households in housing need. To the extent that some protected groups are over-represented among households in housing need or seeking employment opportunities, the positive impacts of the proposal may offer particular benefits to these groups.

Could the proposal have a disproportionate impact on some equality groups?
If yes, indicate which equality characteristic(s) are impacted

No, other than as noted above.

Would the proposal change or remove services used by vulnerable groups of people?

The proposal will provide new or improved services that may be used by vulnerable groups.

Does the proposal relate to an area with known inequalities?

Yes.

Is the proposal likely to be sensitive or important for some people because of their equality characteristics?

Yes – although the proposal is not seen as sensitive, it may offer important new opportunities for some protected groups and more generally.

Does the proposal relate to one of Brent's equality objectives?

The proposal relates to the following objectives:

            To know and understand all our communities 


            To ensure that local public services are responsive to different needs 
and treat users with dignity and respect 


Recommend this EA for Full Analysis?

No.

Although according to Cllr Duffy, recently  Cllr Butt and Cllr McLennan have met up with him, Kilburn councillors and  Granville and Carlton users, to discuss the situation,  some of the responsibility may rest with them for the original failure to recognise the needs of the community. The potential confusion between the Property and Regeneration roles of Cllr Butt and Mashari, and the involvement of recent Strategic Director appointees, may mean that the resulting consultation failure and furore, may have been more cock-up than conspiracy.

For reference here are the Minutes of the July 25th Cabinet Meeting:

Brent Tories call for Brent Council to return to committee governance rather than Cabinet

Brent Conservatives have tabled a motion for the Council meeting on November 21st calling for Carolyn Downs, CEO, to formulate a commitee meeting of local government for Brent Council.

They claim that the Cabinet system, where most decisions are made by just 8 of 63 councillors, 56 of them Labour, is not working.

It is likely that many of the Labour Group, who feel excluded from key decision making, will be sympathetic but reluctant to publicly support the call.

Model of decision making in Brent 
 

This Council believes that the Cabinet system in Brent is not working. 

The Local Government Act 2000 allowed Councils to adopt different models of government - Brent chose the cabinet model - but we believe it is time for a change. 

We instruct the Chief Executive to formulate a "committee model " of government, whereby all main committees make their own decisions, which are then put to Full Council for approval. 

We believe that this model gives much greater involvement for more members and is a more open and transparent method of running the Council. 

The Chief Executive should present this report to the January Council meeting. 

Brent Conservative Group