New Wembley Park development comes with built in flood risk

Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday 14th will consider a planning application for the vacated Amex site in North End Road, Wembley. LINK

The officer's report has the familiar mantra for the Quintain area which considers that the height of the building, though not meeting planning guidelines, can be approved because of its good design and the height of other buildings such as Victoria House, in the near vicinity; and the proportion of affordable housing at 22.6% not meeting the 50% target is approved as a result of the financial viability assessment carried out by advisers.

The buildings front on to North End Road and follow the loop of the Wealdstone Brook at the back. The aim is to partially naturalise the Wealdstone Brook which is currently in a concrete culvert although lined by mature trees.  Naturalisation was a long term aim of the Wembley Plan to improve the environment but it is unclear from the application whether there will be public access.  I am awaiting  response from the Planning Officer to my query.

The development is next to Danes Court and Empire Court which are four storeys high and set in gardens. The Courts will now have tall buildings at each end of North End Road. In the original Wembley Plan there was a proposal to re-build the North End Road junction with Bridge Road where the Michaela Free School now stands. I have asked Planning about the current status of this plan.

One of the difficulties of the site is that it is surrounded on what could be seen as three sides by the Wealdstone Brook and this is a flood risk area. See the line of the brook below:

In a period of extreme weather caused by climate change there is obviously a need to build mitigation into the development. The Planning Report sets out the risk and actions taken to mitigate the risk. I publish it below for the record. In the event of  extreme flooding the site has the potential to become a temporary island.

The Wealdstone Brook is a 2m wide culverted watercourse, the base level of which is some 2.5m 
below adjacent ground level. The canalised brook is a tributary of River Brent and passes through the area within the engineered structure, and only becomes ‘naturalised’ where it emerges further south.

112.    The application site lies within Flood Zone 3a, defined by the NPPF as having a high probability of flooding. Development classified as ‘more vulnerable’ is only appropriate in these areas following application of the Flood Risk Sequential Test and where the Exception Test has been applied in full and has been passed. The revised FRA submitted has now used updated and revised climate change allowances to assess flood risk on site using the modelling already carried out and approved in support of application at Wembley Point for the Wealdstone Brook. The Environment Agency (EA) accept the design flood level detailed in the submitted FRA.

113.    The NPPF requires the Exception Test to be applied in the circumstances shown in Table 3 of the ‘Planning Practice Guidance: Flood Risk and Coastal Change’. Paragraph 102 of the NPPF makes clear that all elements of the test must be passed for development to be permitted. Part 2 of the test requires the applicant to demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible will reduce flood risk overall.

114.    The flood modelling prepared by the applicant shows that North End Road would be inundated in both the 1 in 100 35% climate change event and the 1 in 100 70% climate change event, which appears to be the only access/egress route. This means that safe refuge within the development is required for future occupants as safe access and egress cannot be achieved.

115.    The finished floor levels of the development have been raised above the 1 in 100 chance in any year, including an allowance for climate change flood extent. This means that floodwater is unlikely to enter the property during a 1 in 100 chance in any year plus climate change flood extent.

116.    The applicant has overcome the EA’s previous objection by submitting an acceptable emergency flood plan framework to the local planning authority that deals with matters of evacuation and refuge to demonstrate that people will not be exposed to flood hazards.

117.    The full detailed flood plan for the site will be secured by condition prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved.

118.    To summarise, the applicant has demonstrated that the site has satisfactorily addressed the EA’s previous objection, demonstrating that people will not be exposed to flood hazards and therefore the application is acceptable in flood risk terms.

North End Road is currently a 'dead end' street and the planning officers, despite the new development being designated 'car free' as it is so close the Wembley Park station and bus routes, take into account potential parking problems:

The applicant therefore proposes to designate the development as ‘car-free’ and the good access to public transport and other services would support this. There is however some concern that this development, with parking provision for just 8% of units, would generate an excessive volume of parked cars in the adjoining streets that cannot be regulated at the present time and that the proposal could potentially result in parking conditions detrimental to the free and safe flow of traffic in the area.

In order to avoid this in the event that the development is approved, it is essential that the right of future residents and businesses to on-street parking permits (both for the existing Stadium event day CPZ and for any future year-round CPZ that is introduced in the area in future) be withdrawn through a Section 106 Agreement.

A significant contribution (£100,000) via a S106 Agreement should also be provided towards subsidising the cost of on-street parking permits for existing residents in the area, so that if a CPZ is introduced to control overspill parking from this development, they are not unduly inconvenienced by it. This figure has been calculated using the Council's standard rationale for CPZ contributions.

There is another broader issue about the development around the stadium which is the gradual removal of small businesses as they are replaced by housing, hotels and student accommodation. This impacts on longer term employment opportunities in the area.

Extraordinary Brent CCG meeting on Wednesday to further controversial health plans

There is an Extraordinary Meeting of the Governing Body of the Brent Clinical Commissioning Group at noon-1.30pm on Wednesday 14^th December at the Boardroom Wembley Centre for  Health and Care.  The meeting is open to the public and 30 minutes has been allocated to questions from the public.

The meeting is about the business case for Shaping a Healthier Future and the CCG consider this essential for ‘delivering’  the controversial NW London Sustainability and Transformation Plan. Cllr Krupesh Hirani confirmed in the Brent and Kilburn Times today that Brent Council intends to sign the STP despite the fact that neighbouring Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham councils have refused to do so.

As usual the documents are massive, jargon ridden and with enough acronyms to fill Wembley Stadium.

Anyone who manages to plough through them AND understand them deserves an honorary degree.

Those who think that the STP, though argued on the  basis of benefits to patients, is really a cover for cuts may be interested in the Strategic Outline Case for investment to eventually save money: 

For trusts under the ‘comparator’ scenario, where no commissioner QIPP is assumed to be delivered and with business-as-usual CIP delivery, all our provider trusts will be in financial deficit, with a combined deficit of £114m at 2024/25. However, if commissioner QIPP were delivered, trusts’ I&E would improve to a combined deficit of £18m as additional CIPs can be achieved (termed the ‘SaHF scenario before reconfiguration). The CCG QIPP delivery is dependent in part on the building of the hubs, which is why it is not included in the ‘comparator’. If we receive the capital funding we are requesting, the trusts’ financial projections demonstrate that all trusts will have a sustainable I&E surplus position of £27.6m at 2024/25, with the reconfiguration contributing a c£50m benefit (termed the ‘SaHF scenario after reconfiguration’). 

Currently the trusts are running in-year deficits which would require an estimated cash support of £1.1bn over the next 10 years (and continue thereafter), which would reduce to £0.5bn under the ‘SaHF scenario before reconfiguration’ (where additional CIPs are delivered, partly due to hub investment to enable QIPP delivery). Under the SOC part 1 option (‘SaHF scenario after reconfiguration’), the cash deficit support in the 10-year period would reduce further to £0.4bn and are eliminated post reconfiguration. 

If the capital investment were funded by loans, two of the trusts would have a below target Financial Sustainability Risk Rating (FSRR) and be unable to meet the loan repayments. As the loan funding scenario is unaffordable from a liquidity perspective, we have explored two further scenarios and have concluded that our preferred option is for Public Dividend Capital (PDC) funding, and an accelerated timeline. 

We have also demonstrated that the case is affordable under a range of scenarios by conducting sensitivity analyses.

Documents

BrentCCG SaHF SOC Part 1 cover sheet 14122016

Shaping a Healthier Future SOC Part 1 Covering Report

14 December GB Agenda

Shaping a Healthier Future - Strategic Outline Case Part 1

This is the Brent Cabinet decision as recorded in the minutes of the October 24th Cabinet meeting:

1.     Cabinet noted the STP submission for North West London. 


2.     Cabinet welcomed the principles adopted within the STP of prevention, out  of hospital care, dealing with the social care funding gap and the need to work across the public sector to maximise benefits from changes to the NHS and other public sector estate. 


3.     Cabinet noted that the STP will need formal sign off by the end of December and that between October and December the following issues need to be clarified both within the submission and through other NHS processes, in 
 order for the council to give full support for the plan:

a.     That the IMBC on which delivery area 5 is based is released, debated and understood; 


b.     That the flow of monies from acute to out of hospital settings are clarified; 


c.      That the specification for out of hospital settings, in particular social care, are clarified
based on an agreed model of out of hospital care; 


d.     That a full risk assessment for the plan and relevant mitigations are included. 


Buy ethical Traidcraft presents for your children this Christmas

Wembley Matters does not carry advertising but I have made an exception in this case. You can make a difference to the lives of some of the poorest people on the planet by making ethical consumer choices.

Show You Care - Nepal: The Stonebreakers (Subtitled) from Traidcraft on Vimeo.

Toy adverts are dominating TV screens and parents are crumbling to the pressure of pester power, but most children are bored with their Christmas presents by the end of the festive season, according to a new study. A national survey by Traidcraft, the UK’s leading fair trade organisation, found that 67% of parents expect their children to tire of their new toys by the end of the holiday season, while almost 3 in 10 parents expect their children to be bored with their gifts on the big day itself.

This lack of interest comes despite the majority of parents surveyed (60%) estimating they spend more than £100 per child on Christmas presents. The survey also found that around nine in 10 people receive at least one unwanted Christmas gift every year. The survey was commissioned by Traidcraft in support of its Show You Care campaign, which calls on UK consumers to shop with thought and buy meaningful fair trade gifts in the run up to the Christmas period. The survey results, which shed light on the nation’s Christmas gift giving, come as a stark contrast with the lives of some of the children and families that the organisation works with in developing countries overseas.

 In Kenya, where Traidcraft works with farmers struggling with the effects of climate change, children surveyed by Traidcraft were excited by the prospect of receiving fizzy drinks for Christmas, while in Nepal Traidcraft’s partner organisation Get Paper Industry provides education for children of desperately poor rural families. Nepal’s ‘Stonebreakers’ are some of the poorest people in the world, whole families including the children make their living collecting, breaking down by hand and selling stones from the riverbed. The average income for Stonebreakers is just 75 rupees, or 50p per day, which must support an entire family.

Stonebreaker Suvash Parijar, who is father to five year old Sudip, is forced to beg and borrow to keep his children clothed and fed. Suvash said: “As I have a family I have responsibilities. I have to make sure they are looked after and have enough to eat. There is no other way to look after my children unless I work. It is all my responsibility. “Sometimes there is no money at all, so if my children demand something that I cannot provide I have to find a way of explaining to them. But we usually beg and borrow to get them what they need. It is very difficult.”

Buying from Traidcraft helps our partners such as Get Paper Industry transform lives, allowing them to run life changing products around the world.

 Roderick Stuart, Traidcraft’s Head of Communications, said:

Of course we want families to enjoy a fantastic Christmas and receive the gifts they want and will enjoy, but we’ve all probably experienced a time when we feel under stress or pressure to buy Christmas gifts that are maybe beyond our means and it feels like we’re in danger of forgetting the true meaning of Christmas.

Meanwhile there are whole families in developing countries living on the equivalent of just 50p a day. Many people think that fair trade simply equates to a fair wage and while ensuring a fair wage for producers is a hugely important part of what we do, the benefits of buying fair trade reach so much further.

In the case of the Stonebreakers in Nepal, our work with fair trade producers means that the children of these desperately poor families have access to a free education, which can eventually help lift the whole family of poverty changing lives for the better forever.

Fair trade Christmas gifts really are a win-win way of spreading festive cheer and that’s why we’re calling on the people of the UK to ‘Show You Care’, buying ethical gifts with thought and love in the run up to Christmas.

 Traidcraft’s fair trade Christmas range is available to purchase at www.traidcraftshop.co.uk

Tulip Siddiq makes a passionate plea for her EU residents

Cllr Carr raises key questions on Brent's Eastern Europeans report

Guest blog by Dr Helen Carr, Indepedent councillor in Brent, on the report about the Eastern European community in Brent. Publication does not mean that I agree with everything said in the article but I think Cllr Carr raises important issues. The original report is HERE

Summary

Feedback, comments, notes & queries re: ‘East European Communities Living in LB of Brent’

1.1.What do you mean by ‘socio economic barriers’? Barriers to what? Who and what is this report for? What is this report intended to do? To describe, compare and contrast who, what and why?

‘Does not include rough sleepers, overcrowding or anti-social behaviour’. Why not? Surely these are all ‘socio economic barriers’ 

1.2 ‘Eastern European’ – which countries exactly? This is a redundant Cold War term, similar to ‘Eastern Bloc’. Does this include the Central Europe (Mittle Europea) Balkans (not all in the E.U.), the Baltics, and South Eastern Europe (Romania and Bulgaria)?

3.1 Romania is in South Eastern Europe. Where is the evidence the Polish community is settled? 

 Which Poles? Why are ‘Poles’ settled and Romanians not? What do you mean by ‘settled’?

By Romanians, do you mean ‘Romanian speakers’, Roma(ny), Romanian speakers from Moldova? Cigany (Gypsy Roma) forms of speech can be heard in and around Mapesbury alone. Speakers can be divided into two groups: Beas (archaic Romanian, similar to Chaucer’s English), Csengo and Lovari (a Magyar Romanian mix found in Banat and Transylvania). How do you know what type of passports / ID people hold? Even if documents can be produced, the black market trade in ID passports, especially for non EU peoples not entitled to work in the UK is thriving. Not all peoples of Romania speak what the Romanian State understands as ‘modern Romanian’. Even in 2001, there was not an agreed official orthography.

Where is the evidence for any of this material? This is a public document. This might not be an academic paper, but this does not mean there should not be intellectual rigor. The majority? How many is the ‘majority’? How was the material collected and by whom? Over what time frame – did anyone attend any of the Romanian Churches/Church groups? In which case, it would be obvious that many women, who are not necessarily publicly and obviously visible (why would they be?), live and work in the hotel and catering industry, or as domestic workers (servants). 

'Men and women are ‘sex workers’. Are ‘East European’ female sex workers subject to ‘abuse and violence’ and ‘health inequalities’ more or less than other sex workers? What about the men? Or are all Eastern European women sex workers?

3.4 Where is the evidence for any of this material? There are sufficiently few numbers to be specific.

Homeless referrals (Start Plus): Not all peoples in Romania are considered ‘white’: is this description or ascription? Cigany/Romany peoples in Hungary especially are described as ‘our black problem’.  

4. Recommendations

4.1 The most obvious issue here is, what for? Is this report intended to ‘get a better understanding’ of...? What languages are required if ‘information and support’ are to be provided? What if the ‘clients’ are not literate in the mother tongue?

4.3 What do you mean by ‘personal and social skills’? Are all ‘East Europeans’ smokers who are anti-social, mentally ill, substance abusers and prostitutes?

4.6 ‘Ethnographic Research: to inform outreach.’  Conducted by whom? To what end? Shouldn’t this have been conducted before this report was produced?

5.0. Where is the money for this ‘research’ coming from? What for? This statement is meaningless. Who decides ‘need’?

6.0 I am afraid there may be legal implications from this report: is the report intended to demonstrate deprivation or discrimination? Of who? By who? Unfortunately, the authors do seem to have demonstrated their own prejudice and discrimination. This report is in the public domain. I refer the authors of this report to the recent publications of the Equalities Commission and Hate Crime.

7.0 As above.

8.0 As above. I am concerned a staff member of Brent with the job title ‘Head of Equality’ has produced this report. There is insufficient material related to the role of the ‘Partnerships and Engagement Manager’ to warrant inclusion.

Why are there no background papers?   

The ‘Situation of the Roma’, as it has become known, has been seen in terms of discrimination and deprivation. In November 1998, I contributed to a report commissioned by the United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT) in which I first voiced concerns about alleged abuses of Roma in Hungary.[1] In particular, “of cases concerning inhuman and degrading treatment.”[2] The situation of the Roma was and is understood in terms of relative deprivation, or ‘lack’: the lack of decent salary and income, good housing, satisfactory clothing and nutrition, healthy drinking water, education, and the ability to compete with non-Cigany (Kemeny 1992: 157). Public and state discourse has until recently perceived the cause of this ‘lack’ as the Cigany culture itself. Integration has always been seen as a solution (Stewart 1993: 187).

It seems from this report, that almost 20 years later, the same prejudices and discrimination are being applied by Brent Council to sections of its own population.

I am concerned about why people are leaving in huge swathes of Europe to seek a life in the UK. As EU citizens they are entitled to work, but not claim asylum (and all the rights and privileges this allows). Yet they too are fleeing poverty, distress, discrimination and deprivation, and also war: the war in the Crimea following Russia’s invasion of eastern Ukraine has inevitably sent populations fleeing westwards, as has the build-up of Nato troops along the Baltic borders with Russia. I represent all residents in my ward, and the Borough, not just the noisy, rich posh ones. I am particularly concerned those groups such as Roma who are an under/ unrepresented socio-economic demographic in the political process have a voice:  they tend to be excluded and avoid participation precisely because of the sort of discrimination and prejudice exhibited in this report.  

We need to demonstrate our commitment to human rights and protection of minority groups, especially important in the current toxic climate. Reports such as these are at the very least unhelpful. At worst, legitimise prejudice and discrimination because they emanate from the State - a Local Authority (and one with no ethnic majority at that). 

Public Space Protection Order

I wonder if this report is intended to legitimise the further extension of the Public Space Protection Order in Mapesbury? This is a tool originally intended to prevent large crowds gathering and ergo protect the public (and property) from injury and damage. It is not intended to protect house prices or enhance gentrification. I object again to the renewal of this Order in Mapesbury. 

We need to see the police records and statistics if we are to assess the usefulness of this Order: which crimes? How are they linked to the Order? Who commits these crimes and what category of crimes are they? If the police receive complaints about ‘migrant’ workers, from who? Where? What sort of complaints? How many, when, and how many are generated by the same people over what period of time?   

If we exchange the term ‘East European migrant worker’ with ‘Jew’ or ‘black’, would we be comfortable with this report?  

Cllr. Dr Helen Carr, Research Associate, University of Oxford, School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography: Elected Fellow Royal Anthropological Institute; UK Delegate and Representative, Congress of the Council of Europe.

---

[1] United Nations Press Releases. Hungary Presents Report to Committee against Torture. HR/CAT/98/38. November 17, 1998.

[2] United Nations Committee Against Torture. Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee Against Torture - Hungary. United Nations Publications. November 19, 1998.

We need to talk about SYRIA - come along on Monday

From Brent Stop the War

Speaker Dr Anne Alexander
Co-ordinator, Digital Humanities Network, Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (CRASSH), University of Cambridge.

It is a hundred years since the Sykes-Picot agreement mapped out the extension of French and British control over areas of the Middle East which had, for hundreds of years, been part of the Ottoman Empire. The divisions that followed that agreement have influenced the subsequent history of the region culminating in the current complex situation of a war with multiple protagonists. Anne Alexander will give us an update on the tragic situation and its historical and political context.

Monday 12th December 7.30pm
BRENT TRADES HALL
375 High Rd, Willesden
NW10 2JR

Very close to Willesden Bus Garage, buses 6,52,98,226,260,266,302,460, and just five minutes’ walk from Dollis Hill Jubilee Line station

Details of a play about war and surveillance in the UK by one of our Brent Stop the War supporters: ISIS at Elmwood Theatre Club, Elmwood Lawn Terrace Club, Holland Road, NW10 5AJ : the Brent dates are 15-17 December 7.30pm DETAILS

The issues behind the Green Party's Richmond Park furore as Green Left calls for transparency

Green Left*, the eco-socialist group with the Green Party, has issued the following statement over the controversy over the Richmond Park by-election, which includes allegations over undue pressure on local members to stand aside for the Liberal Democrat candidate in order to defeat Zac Goldsmith and a donation to party funds (eventually refused) to encourage them to do so. LINK

Green Left  welcomes the Green Party Executive's and Green Party  Regional Council’s decisions to consider the serious  issues raised in the so-called ‘Richmond Report’. Transparency and accountability are essential in this process.  We look forward to the Green Party 2017 Conference democratically arriving at a clear policy on the ‘Progressive Alliance’. furore

The 'Progressive Alliance' put forward by Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley in their co-leadership campaign is itself controversial within the party, putting aside the specific issues around the Richmond Report.

I have recently summed up the various positions thus:

Following some of the discussion, mainly on FB, it seems that there are several positions from Green Party members on recent moves on the 'Progressive Alliance' (PA) (a Venn diagram may be useful!)

1. Those who are for a PA & think that the Lucas-Bartley overwhelming leadership mandate and the fact that a PA was their main platform justifies their current position
2. Those who are against a PA BUT think that -ditto-
3. Those who are for PA but think that Lucas - Bartley have usurped the constitutional role of the membership in making policy
4. Those who are against PA AND think that -ditto-
5. Those who think that a PA is necessary to get rid of the Tories perhaps even in this parliament
6. Those who think that a PA is the only way to get PR in 2020 and thus have more Green MPs in 2025 (little mention how many more Ukip or other far right MPs there may be)
7. Those who think that Lib Dems are progressive on social issues, climate change but right-wing on the economy
8. Those who think think that the Lib Dems are beyond the pale because of their previous record in Coalition
9. Those who are for us holding our noses and reaching a deal with ANY party that will support bringing in PR during the 2020-25 parliament.
10. Those who want to add other redlines to any deal with other parties including austerity, climate change

I think ten is enough for now, although there is also the issue of political campaigning with other parties and organisations on common issues outside of any electoral deal.

In the Richmond case the argument about progressing the campaign for the introduction of proportional representation through deals with other parties (though Labour isn't playing ball) was supplemented by the argument that getting the Tories out should be the primary aim and that would be furthered by reducing the narrow Tory majority in Parliament.

That view was countered by the one that suggested the by-election was an ideal opportunity to show-case the Green Party's policy on opposing ALL airport expansions as essential in reducing emissions to help deal with global warming and climate change.

* I am chair of Green Left

Avoiding stereotypes about Romanians living in Brent

I made representations to Brent's Equalities Committee last night about a report on the borough's Eastern European Community. LINK Although the report's recommendations are mainly non-controversial I argued that statements in the report were likely to reinforce stereotypes about the Romanian community. They focused on single men despite the fact that there are many Romanian families settled in the borough and contributing to the community. Reminding the Committee of the Counci's policy on hate crime I warned that in the present climate the report could reinforce prejudice and as it was in the public domain potentially damaging to the council.

The report's opening paragraph states:
 

This cross-Council group has been established to look at the socio-economic barriers and challenges experienced by the Eastern European communities living in Brent and make recommendations to address these. The scope of the group does not cover rough sleepers, overcrowding and anti-social behaviour because these themes are either within the scope of other forums or will be considered as separate work streams. 


But then goes on to give 'anecdotal  evidence':
 

The two largest Eastern European groups in Brent are Polish and Romanian. The Polish community is on the whole quite well settled and has an established support network in Brent. Unlike the Polish community, the Romanian community does not have access to an established support network. The majority of the Romanians in Brent are single men and/or economic migrants who are financially supporting their families back in Romania. Some of them are coming to Brent to do seasonal casual work, they are not interested in 
interacting with Council’s and NHS services and often do not have National Insurance numbers. They often sleep rough and/or in overcrowded conditions, their health needs are often unmet. There has also been an increase in female sex workers from Eastern Europe who are often subject to abuse and violence and who also experience health inequalities

The focus on single men ignores the fact that later there is data from nurseries and schools that indicate significant number of Romanian children in Brent schools. 500 children (3%) speak Romanian as a first language and 384 (2%) Polish. In primary schools 1,164 (4%) of children speak Romanian as first language and 1,000 (4%) Polish.

In comparison there were 24 rough sleepers in Brent on 25th November 2016 (compared with 64 last year) and 'Romanian and Polish are the two largest groups of rough sleepers in Brent'.

The focus on barriers perhaps inevitably means a concentration on the negatives so in my presentation I wanted to focus on the positive side for balance.

I spoke about my experience as a governor at a school where 12.5% of the children speak Romanian (compared with 4.5% Polish) where the Romanian children are very much part of the school community with some sitting on the Pupil School Council and involved in the many extra-curricular activities, including music and choir.  They are proud of their country of origin but see themselves as now part of the UK.  Many have been at the school for 5 or 6 years although their sense of security was shaken by the EU Referendum result.

There are no issues regarding attendance etc and a Romanian parent (a teacher at another school) is standing in the current Parent Governor election.

In the local community longer-term settlement is also indicated by the number of Romanian shops opening up in Wembley, Preston and on the borough boundary in Burnt Oak.

A further indicator of settlement is the establishment of Romanian Orthodox churches in the borough. A long lease has been taken out on the Old St Andrews Church in Kingsbury and it has a large congregation that spills over into the churchyard on Sunday mornings.  A London based Romanian language newspaper is distributed and there is a community notice board in addition to the services which are attended by many family groups.

I read the committee an e-mail from a local Romanian in reaction to the report. She said:

I think the Romanians are worried for the following reasons:

They do not know yet the effects of Brexit for them. eg They may lose their jobs and they will have to leave the UK
There have been malicious newspaper articles in the UK about Roamnians involved in organised crime such as huuman trafficking, beggars, thieves
Loss of benefits for families with low income
Loss of access to the NHS

In response officers argued that the report was the first step in an new approach and was focused on barriers to the progress of Eastern European communities and as it could not cover all of them, looked at the two largest from Poland and Romania.

They said that there had been 'no negativity' at the Round Table meeting on November 30th with 15 or so organisations that serve the Eastern European community and that the recommendations had been welcomed.  They said that there  data behind the report but that only a limited amount was available.   The community was not always aware of support groups but future activity would be based on the community's own assessment of its needs.  The scope of the proposals will be expanded out into the community as a whole and more research would be undertaken. Genevie George, Partnerships and Engagement Manager, who has been in post for 2 months, emphasised that the report was a starting point.

They acknowledged that 'precarious work' was an issue and the need for workers to know about their rights. Brent was working with Work Rights Centre with sessions every Saturday at Wembley Library.

During discussion councillors paid tribute to the contribution of Eastern Europeans to Brent and approved the recommendations.  They thought it important for the council to undertake positive public relations about the Eastern European community and looekd forward to the rpgress of our newest community. In a caveat Cllr Thomas said that the Council had to be careful not to be seen to be doing more for one community than for others in Brent. He suggested that the research and work on this report could have been done by Brent CVS as they had the capacity to undertake it while the Council was shedding staff.