Public denied access to brook side walk after police advice

Impression of new development

It emerged last night at Brent Planning Committee that the public will be denied access to a walk beside the Wealdstone Brook which forms part of the redevelopment of the Amex House site in North End Road, Wembley.

There has been a long-time aim of naturalising the brook and increasing public access but the police have advised that because it does not provide a 'natural thoroughfare' (ie leaves North End Road and moves in a loop around the development and then rejoins North End Road) it could be liable to anti-social behaviour.

This would seem to put other potential access as a result of redevelopment at risk as the same argument coud be used as brooks and rivers meander and don't provide straight A to B thoroughfares. The police seem to have ignored walking for pleasure as something that nearby residents may want to pursue in an area with sparse greenery.

The Wealdstone Brook eventually joins the River Brent where there is a riverside path down to Monks Park and the North Circular and this is a recognised local amenity.  There is also a walk along the Brent and the canal feeder between St David's Open Space and Neasden Lane/Blackbird Hill. It is hard to know why these are fine but Amex House is not.

Councillors were concerned about potential flooding of the site and the level of pollution in the brook. The Environment Agency has opposed the development wanting it further away from the brook and this means that despite it being passed last night it will have to be referred to the Secretary of State.

The Committee also passed development applications for the Powerleague site next to Wemblety Stadium and Wembley Arena, Cottrell House, Warranty House (Dudden Hill Lane) and extensions to Ealing Road Library.

There were no public representations against any of these schemes - just speeches in favour from Brent Planning Officers and the developers' agents.

Note: I suspected there was an issue regarding public access to the brook side walk when the officer's report was vague about it. I received no answer when I contacted the Planning Department by email  and phone asking for clarification. The police advice is not included in the report to the Planning Committee.

Bid for £513m for NW London CCGs to be submitted to implement STP

Just after the Kilburn Times LINK published a story about the potential impact of the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) on Brent, the NHS Brent Clinical Commissioning Group held an extraordinary Governing Body meeting at lunchtime today. The Times story pointed to a difference in emphasis on the STP from Cllr Krupesh Hirani, lead member for community wellbeing who said he would sign up to the STP, and Carolyn Downs, Brent CEO who has led on the STP, who repeated the caveats made at Brent's October Cabinet meeting*. The STP got very little detailed mention at today's meeting.  Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham boroughs have refused to sign the STP at present.

The chair said that in seeking £513m investment the area CCGs were following through the controversial Shaping a Healthier Future  (SaHF) and the Sustainability and Transformation Plan . The investment was necessary to deliver these plans and the meeting considered the Strategic Outline Case (Soc 1) for the investment. 

The majority of the funding (£304)  would go to acute hospitals, most of it to Ealing Hospital. £69m to improving GP practices, and £141m to out of hospital hubs.

 

The £304m hospital share would:

• support Ealing's changes to become an excellent local hospital
• expand A& E and provide more beds at West Middlesex Hospital
• expand A & E and maternity at Hillingdon Hospital
• provide more primary and community care services at Central Middlesex Hospital
• provide more post-op recovery and critical care beds at Northwick Park Hospital and improve some existing buildings

The £69m GP practices share would:

• make it easier for patients to physically get in and out of practices
• make better waiting rooms and more consulting rooms across all 8 boroughs

The £141m allocated to Out of Hospital Hubs would:

• modernise 11 existing community hubs
• build 7 new ones
• increase capacity and enable people who have multiple health and care needs to have those dealt with in one place 

The overall aim was better health care and preventing unnecessary hospitalisation.

At the public question time Robin Sharp speaking for Brent Patient Voice said:

I thank the Governing Body for making 30 minutes available for public comments or questions during this session. I am afraid that the rest of what I have to say will be more critical.

Sadly we are presented with yet another example of flawed procedure and a flawed case for change on the part of our NHS.

To begin with procedures, it is farcical that the Governing Body are set to approve a complex 250-page submission only 8 days after it was put into the public domain. Doctors on the Governing Body are very busy people with important clinical jobs. How can they have had time to read and understand these proposals?

It is also disgraceful that 7 out of the 8 NW London Healthwatches which make up the PPRG (Patient and Public Representative Group) for SaHF have offered quasi-endorsement for the document even though they admit that the public they are supposed to represent have not seen it.

We are told there will be public engagement in future, but is not this the wrong way round? Engagement should have been before the document goes to the Treasury.

Turning to the clinical case for change, it has been over 3 years since the “Better Care Closer to Home” strategy set out in SaHF was launched. It was supposed to be all in place by 2015. Where is the assessment to show that more care in the community has stopped people being admitted to hospital and reduced the need for acute beds?  It is certainly not in the NW London STP (Sustainability and Transformation Plan). “If Better Care Closer to Home” works why are our A&Es among the most challenged in England. Why are Referral to Treatment (RTT) times on a downward trend?

We were told in the slide presentation that 27 Hubs across NW London are at the heart of this Business Case and that St Charles off Ladbroke Grove is an example of a fully functioning “Hub”. Can we please see a paper giving details of how this is working? As a patient of a nearby Brent practice who uses the Urgent Care Centre at St Charles I have to say that the existence of a Hub is a well kept secret. No-one has told me or my Practice PPG about it.

Maurice Hoffman asked if only a limited amount of the monies claimed was available how would it be distributed?  He asked if  a 'local A & E' would meet London standards. He was told that the CCG had made it clear to the NHS that all the proposals were inter-connected and they were pitching for the full amount.  He was told that a Charing Cross A & E would not take 'blue light' case and NW London CCGs were looking at what services for the frail and elderly could be best placed there.  He was assured that 'until we have the capacity we will not change anything.'

As the presentation had mentioned voluntary organisations as providing services in the hubs, I asked how this would work when NHS England and NHS Estates were saying that market rents had to be paid. There was a momentary silence while the governing body members looked at each other and then Sarah Mansurali replied that they were looking at giving grants to voluntary sector organisations so they could afford the rent, offering sessional space or try to integrate voluntary organisations into new models of care.

The Governing Body noted the scope of the SOC and approved Part 1 for submission to NHSE and NHSI for approval and asked for the following points to be considered prior to approving subsequent related Outline Business cases (OBCs):

• further public involvement is undertaken where appropriate
• the OBCs continue to justify the capital requirement set out in SOC part 1
• opportunities to accelerate the delivery of the benefits are explored
• opportunities to further improve the income and expenditure position of proposals are explored

It is worth noting that this meeting took place during the day on a weekday so opportunities for the public to attend were clearly limited.  

*Cabinet Minutes October 24th 2016:

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.

Sharp surprise in store for bottoms relaxing on a Wembley street

Fed up with people sitting on their boundary wall and dropping litter into the grounds, landlords of Kings Court, Kings Drive, Wembley have turned to nature for a remedy.

Planting of pyracantha shrubs all along the low street wall has now been completed. Pyracantha is known for its sharp thorns so once the shrubs have grown a little more anyone sitting on the wall will get a sharp jab up the backside.

Meanwhile just around the corner, the Winston Churchill Lycee, occupying the old Brent Town Hall, has planted the more benign English privet along its boundary wall with Forty Lane.

Ken Montague: 'He made the seemingly impossible happen...and without fuss'

Tributes to Ken Montague from Campaign Against Climate Change

We are deeply saddened at the death of our friend and great climate campaigner and socialist, Ken Montague, who passed away last Friday.

Ken was secretary of the Campaign Against Climate Change trade union group and a member of CACC steering group for many years. During that time Ken played an invaluable role in developing the work of the trade union group and especially the One Million Climate jobs report and campaign.

Ken's work was unseen and often unsung but without it much of what the CACC trade union group have done in the last few years would not have happened. Ken's work allowed the trade union group to campaign increasingly effectively within the wider trade union movement, to develop a deeper understanding of the climate crisis, its relevance to the struggle of working people and to counter the false narrative that jobs and the environment are mutually exclusive.

Ken had so many skills that he put to use in the climate campaigning work which he prioritised in the final years of a lifetime of campaigning for a better world. Most especially Ken was a great organiser, he made the seemingly impossible happen and always without any great fuss.

One of his greatest feats was the organisation of the climate jobs caravan which involved organising two low emissions vehicles and the co-ordination of many, many people and events across the UK. The two week long event was hugely creative and successful. Arriving in towns and cities with a visible display of the campaign on the sides of the two vehicles, the tour was able to put the case for trade union campaigning on climate and for climate jobs in towns and cities across the country. It was a huge logistical operation, the bulk of the work carried humbly, as usual by Ken and was a testament to Ken's organisation, perseverance and equanimity.

Ken was also a great negotiator of situations and especially people. He had insight and empathy into individuals, their concerns and complexities. He used this regularly to great effect to help progress work in which there were conflicting views about how to take things forward. Ken didn't slide over differences of opinion but he always looked for ways through which encouraged understanding between people and more often than not a solution.

Such skills were last employed in one of Ken's last successful achievements before the news of his illness which was the organising of the first official fringe meeting for the CACC trade union group at this year’s TUC conference.

This time last year Ken was in Paris alongside 10,000s of climate activists from across the world, demonstrating for climate justice, despite a ban imposed by the French government. Many of us have wonderful memories of Ken from this time and the meetings and protests that he took part in. Coming out of Paris, Ken shared an optimism and determination, alongside others, about the growing climate movement and the necessity of an even more effective movement able to make connections and alliances in order to deliver the changes needed to tackle climate change.

It was as a result of the meetings and discussions that Ken had in Paris that he proposed to the CACC trade union groups the idea of a conference on climate change and refugees. Ken took the initial steps of setting this up, putting in place, despite as ever many logistical obstacles, the key organising group, speakers and venue in the months after his proposal. This important conference will take place next year on February 11th.

When Ken informed us only weeks ago that he was ill with cancer and his illness was terminal we all hoped that Ken would be able to be with us for this very important conference he had initiated. Unfortunately, Ken will not be there. But the conference should be and will be a huge testament to the work that Ken did and the immeasurable contribution Ken made to fighting for an equal, just and sustainable world.

We will all miss him greatly. He leaves an enormous gap which we will find hard to fill. We will miss his hard work, determination and positive outlook. We send our deepest condolences to Ken's family - his partner Janet and children Brendan, Kate and Alex, who have lost Ken far too young.

Suzanne Jeffery - Chair

On behalf of CACC steering group and CACC trade union group



Ken Montague died on Friday. When we heard the news, Nancy said, ‘How incredibly sad. He was so very nice.’

‘Yes’ I said, ‘He was nice. It’s incredibly sad.'

It stood out. Ken was nice because he was such a good man. He was kind. When people talked, he listened. He sympathised.

Another way he was good was in his dedication. He was a dogged, determined man, but not harsh. Ken was a trade unionist all his life. He was the secretary of Brent Trades Council during the Grunwick dispute, and secretary of his further education teachers branch for many years. He was a loyal member of the International Socialists, and then the Socialist Workers Party.

In his sixties Ken dedicated himself to climate activism. For the last several years he was secretary of the trade union group of the Campaign against Climate Change. It would be wrong to say Ken worked tirelessly, because he got tired. But he kept on working.

There was a thing that happened over and over at our meetings. We would be going through the agenda, generating jobs that needed doing. Then there would be a silence while none of us volunteered. Someone would suggest that Ken do it. Ken would nod. Someone else would say that we had already asked Ken to do too much, and other people would nod. But then another person would say, but Ken will actually do it. And heads would nod. Ken would say, I’ll do it, because he knew it needed doing. And also, he knew that actual human labour was what changed the world.

He did it because he cared. To listen to him talking about the planet, or socialism, or trade unionism, was to see someone putting his whole body, a whole world of emotion, into what he was saying. There was something about his shoulders, and the way he leaned forward. But he was never loud. Ken was passionate and gentle.

People said Ken was modest, but the word isn’t quite right. He was humble, really. He thought humble people should rule the earth. I think the way he saw it was, he was doing what he could. He held our one million climate jobs campaign together. He organised all our conferences. He talked to people. He put his heart into organising for a climate jobs presence at the Paris climate talks in 2015.
He never claimed credit, never pushed himself forward as a speaker. In fact he was shy about
speaking. But we started asking Ken to speak all round the country about climate jobs. I asked people how he was a speaker, and they said wonderful. Then I listened carefully as he spoke a few times. Ken was not showy. He was not loud, though everyone in the room could hear him. There were no rhetorical flourishes. What he did, I began to realise, was that he explained the situation we found ourselves in and what we had to do about it. And he explained it so clearly that everyone in the room could understand. I realised I was listening to an experienced, and very good, teacher.

I think that was at the core of Ken’s humility, his goodness and his dedication. Always it was for the other person. He wanted people to understand, so we could do something.

Ken was my friend, too, and I’m proud of that. After they found the cancer he died so much faster than anyone expected. Our thoughts are with his partner, Janet, and his children, Brendan, Kate and Alex.

Jonathan Neale

Brent getting a poor deal in Spur's Wembley Stadium deal, claims councillor

Tottenham Hotspur's win against CSKA Moscow last Wednesday may have done something to allay fans' doubts about the move to Wembley but Cllr John  Duffy has voiced doubts about the Council's capacity to achieve benefits to Brent residents.

In an email to all Brent councillors Cllr Duffy said:

To All Brent Councillors,

I am very concerned that the Wembley Stadium and Spurs planning application is being guided and manipulated by both officers and Cabinet members.It would seem they seek a solution, that will not fully benefit Brent residents . 

All Councillors are independent on this issue and Councillors should not be influenced by either Cabinet members or officers on a pre-agreed application and should seek to ensure and maximise the benefits for Brent.

Firstly you have to consider does Brent want Wembley stadium to be a home ground for a Premier League Club and do not we want the extra congestion, nuisance and general disruption. Unless we get real investment  from the FA, Premier League and Spurs, I believe the answer is NO.

It is clear that the Cabinet are unaware of the potential of ensuring the investment to alleviate the problems caused by Wembley hosting Spurs and have not negotiated a reasonable deal for the residents…..I am tired of Brent residents being short changed, therefore I  believe Councillors should oppose the application as it stands.

Please find an edited email I previously sent to the Labour Group, which outlined my concerns about the planning application and the lack of benefits for Brent.

The earlier email, sent only to the Labour Group of councillors, said:

Dear All,

As it is 99% definite,Tottenham Hotspur will be moving to Wembley and its also likely that Chelsea (they may go to Twickenham) will moving in the following year.Its time we sorted out a strategy to protect and improve our Environment, Sports Education , parking ,community and employment strategy, together with compensation for Brent  residents.

As Chair of planning when we knocked down the old Wembley stadium and a member of the Task force for Wembley Stadium regeneration I have seen negotiations close up with the FA and they will be tough and we need a clear strategy.

From memory Wembley were allowed 22 sporting advents and they were no envisaged to be the home venue for any football club.Therefore at this point I would advise not to accept a season long deal but to treat every game as an FA cup Final and expect resources to reflect this. There Are many safeguards we  need for residents.I will outline the basics without the detail.

(1) Environmental improvement. 
I would expect extra resources ( too many options to go into) plus investment into plant. I have not looked at other Boroughs but I am aware of some who get a massively enhanced service for match day.
(2) Parking. 
Increased protection/enforcement of the neighbouring area. 
(3) Sports Education.
Ensure Investment in equipment and sports teaching in our schools including visits from football stars. Its important both the FA and Premier League show their commitment to grass roots football.
(4) Community Support .
Financial support for community activities,including , local R/As ,St Patricks day,Eid and Navratri and maybe support for local group who participate in the Notting Hill Carnival.
(5) Employment strategy.
Ensure that Brent residents get their fair share of any new jobs/ training arising from  the extra games. Also local firms should get a fair share of the increased supply chain for contracts 
(6) Compensation for local Business and residents.
Whereas the some business will benefit many other will lose (who would travel to Wembley to shop on a match day) so its important we look at high street improvements. The new games coming to Wembley will not only be on a Saturday they will included Sundays and weekdays at various kick off times.

There are many ways to negotiate and you should not look at only the time the football club is there, you should seek a 2/3 year deal on things like sports education and community support.I think you should have a local councillor on the negotiations ( seems unlikely as the leadership reject a task force for Kilburn Regeneration and now all decisions are made by the Lead member ) so local input will be represented.In my opinion we should not over engage in the - presentations- Vol-au-Vents  and vanity projects system which some members of the Cabinet prefer. We should also not going in asking for jobs at LLW ( getting employers to pay LLW is a failure ) we should be looking better jobs in supervision and management training. Finally do not over rely on Officers who will seek a deal that suits them as administrators. 

It would seem that some of the cabinet wish to treat the FA, the Premier League and Tottenham Hotspur  as " partners" whereas I see them them as people who wish to make a lot of money while using the facilities of  Brent which I have no problem with. However I believe this should be reflected in how we support our residents.So hopefully the cabinet have an agreed strategy about what we need from the richest sport in the world and the most famous football venue in the world.
    And Brent should not be short changed for all the inconvenience  

Let your Harrow councillor know your views on Harrow School's development proposal

This is an update from Harrow Hill Trust who are opposing Harrow School's bid to build on Metropolitan Open Land and have put forward alternative proposals. I have added links to email addresses for your convenience:

 11 Dec 2016 — At the Harrow planning meeting there was a motion to refuse the planning permission. The minutes don't tell you how your Councillors voted. However, so that you know how your particular local Councillor voted it was as follows.

Councillor Keith Ferry, Labour for the ward of GreenHill voted against the motion to refuse it, and as Chair used his casting vote to defeat it. Also he was the only Councillor to vote against the deferral.

Councillor Simon Brown, Labour for Headstone South, (was standing in as a reserve for Councillor Anne Whitehead, Labour for Wealdstone) voted against the motion to refuse.

Councillor Barry Kendler, Labour for Edgware voted against the motion to refuse, but tabled the motion for deferral which was supported by all except the Chair, Councillor Keith Ferry.

Councillor Mrs Christine Robson, Labour for West Harrow abstained from voting.
Councillor June Baxter, Conservative for Harrow on the Hill voted for refusal
Councillor Stephen Greek, Conservative for Harrow Weald voted for refusal
Councillor Pritesh Patel, Conservative for Harrow Weald voted for refusal.

So if you are in the wards of the Labour Councillors mentioned above please do let them know your views and the strength of local feeling. The brownfield option is what residents want and it is a much better site for many reasons and a much better fit for London Plan policy 7.17. There is even non-metropolitan land on the existing Northern boundary to allow an expanded footprint. We will be launching a call to action in the next update. Thanks again for your support, it is appreciated, and will be appreciated by our children.

The petition needs just 7 more signatories to reach 1,500 LINK

Ken Montague: an appreciation

Ken Montague, a well known and respected local Brent activist who had recently moved to Brighton, died on Friday not quite a month after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.

In perhaps his last email to friends and comrades after the diagnosis Ken finished by saying, 'Please pass on the word to those that need to know and say that I am relying on you to keep up the fight for better and more sustainable world. My only regret is that I'm bailing out so early. In comradeship, Ken'

I have offered to host tributes on Wembley Matters and begin with this from his colleagues in the University and College Union:

We regret to announce the death of Ken Montague, known to many of us as a socialist, climate change activist and member of the UCU London Retired Members branch. His contribution will be sorely missed. We send our condolences to his comrades, friends and family.

Merilyn Moos, vice chair of the retired members branch, who knew Ken for many years, has written this obituary.

I knew Ken as a comrade and friend from when we were in our early 20s. His sudden death, at 70, is a terrible blow, politically and personally.

Ken became an FE lecturer, first in what was then Kilburn Polytechnic (where I taught), then at Barnet. Before he retired, he did some part-time teaching at Middlesex. His main area was literature but he was deeply involved in Media Studies. His students loved him, especially those he took on annual pilgrimages to Cannes so that they could witness the iniquities but also the ‘alternative reality’ of the film industry for themselves. He was the Branch Secretary for what I suspect he felt was far too long, fighting the college management’s petty vindictiveness as well as the grander issues of conditions and pay. One of the crucial (and ultimately successful) campaigns he was crucially involved in was for the reinstatement of John Fernandes, a black lecturer at the College of North West London who was being dismissed for revealing the racist content of essays by police cadets whom he taught.

He was a member of IS, (International Socialists) then SW (Socialist Workers Party), an organisation which, with a couple of outs and ins, he remained a member of for all his life. He was passionate about his politics but never became a hack nor did he become bureaucratically compromised, retaining a fundamental commitment to grassroots struggle all his life.

The first massive class struggle I remember him in was at Grunwicks. He was the Secretary of Barnet Trades Council at the time and was on the Grunwick strike committee. From the beginning he stressed the importance, especially given the concealed racism, of solidarity between white, male, manual workers and Asian women and was vociferous in demanding, mass pickets to shut down Grunwick. As Ken wrote in SW: ’There was lots of talk of support from the top of the unions but it was mostly just talk.’ Indeed, as I remember vividly the turning point in the dispute came when, after a few weeks of mass pickets, the TUC (in the figure of Jack Dromey, then of Brent Trades Council, and indeed, Scargill,) marched us away from the gates. Ken would not have been in agreement with that.

 
Ken continued to be active, campaigning for example for the Respect candidate in Brent in a number of elections. But his next major and long-term involvement was over climate change, which, in recent years, including campaigning against fracking. He emphasised throughout the importance of trade union support and organisation. He was instrumental in setting up the Campaign against Climate Change Trade Union Group (CACCTU) and became its Secretary. He took a leading part in organising and promulgating the influential ‘One Million Climate Jobs’ booklet and campaign, both in Britain and internationally (supported by Jeremy Corbyn though one wouldn’t know it).

Last year he attended the Paris Climate talks as part of the Global Climate Jobs movement. Global Climate Jobs is the network of all the national climate campaigns, which he was instrumental in setting up. The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) held an alternative summit in Paris, attended by approx 40 climate jobs activists from 20 countries, which launched a Global Climate Jobs campaign. Ken always emphasised the crucial role of trade unions.

As he wrote afterwards about Paris:

It is clear that the leaders of all the countries in the world have failed us. They did so because nowhere did we have the political and social power to make them take decisive action on climate… We have to mobilise... After all, we need cuts of 80% in global emissions, as soon as possible.

We have to fight to leave the coal, gas and oil in the soil, he said. So we need to replace fossil fuels almost entirely with renewable energy. Ken could always be found doing the organising, writing and distributing the leaflets, speaking at meetings and rallies (which he didn’t enjoy), making the contacts, arguing with rank and file trade unionists - but never claiming the lime light.

The last event he was organising was the Conference Climate Refugees, The Climate Crisis & Population Displacement. Building A Trade Union & Civil Society Response (to be held on Saturday 11 February 10pm - 5pm, NUT, Hamilton House) Let’s support it.

Ken died too young and we shall all miss him.

Pete Murry, fellow UCU member and Brent Green Party and London Green Party TU Liaision Offcer, Secretary of Green Left wrote: 

For much of his life Ken lived in Cricklewood and was active in many local campaigns against, council and goverment cuts, against racism and against war. He was the founder and backbone of the Brent Campaign Against Climate Change and a key organiser in Campaign Against Climate Change nationally and its Trade Union group. It was an honour to have worked with him on these campaigns and as a fellow UCU member.

'Heartless and irrational' decision to close Brent Sickle Cell Service

Following the news LINK that Brent Clinical Commissioning Group have decided to stop the funding of the Brent Sickle Cell Advice and Support Service (SCASS), which was temporarily reprieved by widespread protests, including that of Dawn Butler, MP for Brent Central and Barry Gardiner MP for Brent North, Robin Sharp of Brent Patient Voice has sent me the following comment:

Brent Patient Voice (BPV) is dismayed by the decision of the Brent CCG Governing Body on 30 November to withdraw support from the Brent Sickle Cell Advice and Support Service.

This decision was originally made by the Governing Body on 2 July and only paused because BPV challenged the way it had been taken. At the time the Service was faulted based on data from only the first nine months of operation which was totally inadequate for demanding targets to have been met. There had been delays in recruiting staff and long term sickness had affected one of the workers. The independent evaluation report was very positive about the quality of the Service and the benefits to those who had used it. It suggested that based on trends from when it had become fully operational it would have met targets within a few months. We were shocked when we saw letters from the CCG to local MPs suggesting it was cheaper for Sickle Cell patients to have traumatic episodes requiring treatment in A&E than to be helped to avoid such trauma by the Advisory Service.

In our view and based on the evaluation report, the Advice and Support Service has been valuable in helping Sickle Cell sufferers to cope with social issues such as housing, benefits and employment by explaining to providers of these services the special features of Sickle Cell. Indeed we heard that Sickle Cell groups elsewhere were interested in it as a model.

The Governing Body in September agreed to review the situation and a so-called Focus Group was hosted by the Council for Voluntary Service on 15 September. This was attended by Sickle Cell representatives and patients as well as several members of BPV. In our view the weight of opinion in this meeting was strongly in favour of a service with the main characteristics of the existing BSCASS. The CCG ignored these views and decided to proceed with their preferred option of referring Sickle Cell patients to Care Navigators in the Whole Systems Integrated Care programme. These Navigators are only just beginning to operate and will have large caseloads across the spectrum of elderly vulnerabale patients. We have severe doubts as to whether they will be able to offer any practical help to Sickle Cell patients.

Speaking personally I see this decision as heartless and irrational.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council with Dr Ethie Kong, Chair of Brent CCG

This is the document BSCASS  presented to the Brent CCG in July this year to appeal against the earlier decision to stop funding them: