More events and larger capacity at Wembley? Exhibition Monday at Chalkhill Community Centre

From Wembley National Stadium Limited

As part of its preparations for the 2017/18 season, Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) has submitted a planning application to temporarily increase the number of full capacity events at Wembley Stadium.

The application seeks to establish a temporary cap to accommodate up to an additional 31 THFC sporting events at Wembley Stadium between 1 August 2017 to 31 July 2018 where the available spectator capacity is increased from 51,000 to up to 90,000.

This would allow up to 36 full capacity THFC home games may be played at Wembley during the season with 5 of these accommodated under the existing event cap. In practice however, the number of games is dependent on progress within knockout competitions and whether fixtures are drawn to be played at home or away. In reality, based on recent averages, the total number of home games likely to be hosted at Wembley Stadium is expected to be in the region of 30.

The application also seeks the associated removal of a limit on temporary traffic management events (Condition 33), to enable effective event day travel planning;

Summary Planning Document:

 

 
The application has been submitted to Brent Council where it is to be assessed on its own merits against the prevailing planning policy.

The FA and WNSL are responsible for ensuring that local residents and the wider community are a key consideration in the organisation of any events that take place at the stadium. A consultation process is underway and further discussions will be held prior to the determination of the application.
Local residents and businesses are invited to attend an exhibition at Chalkhill Community Centre on Monday 30 January 2pm until 9pm to learn more about the planning application and what it entails.

Brent Central LP calls on Brent Council to oppose STP alongside Ealing & Hammersmith Councils

At a crowded meeting in Harlesden, the Labour Party in Brent Central condemned the cuts being made to the NHS services that people in Brent depend on. Labour Party members voted unanimously to call for Brent Council to reject the plans drawn up by NHS officials to reduce hospital services across northwest London.  The motion requested that the Council's Labour Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt discontinues any negotiations over the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) and any other proposed cuts to the NHS budget.  The meeting also called for unity with Hammersmith and Ealing Councils who have also opposed STP.

NHS bosses across England are required by the Department of Health to produce these plans, known as “Sustainability and Transformation Plans” or STPs. The plans rest on the idea that large numbers of patients could be looked after more cheaply in the community instead of in hospitals. However, doctors at the meeting said that GPs and other community services are already stretched to breaking point and would not get enough extra staff or money to take on the additional work this would involve.

The plans include closing the 24/7 A&E Departments at Charing Cross Hospital and Ealing Hospital, turning them into Urgent Care Centres.

In 2014, when Central Middlesex Hospital had its A&E Department downgraded to an Urgent Care Centre, Northwick Park Hospital was supposed to take on all the extra emergency patients. Instead patients waited far longer to be seen because Northwick Park was overwhelmed by the needs of the extra patients. Not enough had been done to prepare Northwick Park Hospital for the surge, and funding and staff numbers were nowhere near enough to handle the number of people coming through.

The NHS is already in crisis over long-term funding cuts imposed by the Government, and the plans for further cuts to hospital services are a serious threat to the health of the public, health campaigners told the meeting.

Butt said that Brent Council had not accepted the STP and has demanded assurances on funding and risks from the Government before it could be agreed. Brent Council is currently considering their next steps relating to the plans covering the borough.

At the Health and Wellbeing Board on Tuesday Cllr  Krupesh Hirani said that it was the issue of the adequacy of out of hospital services that kept him awake at night.

High Speed Rail Project can't deliver low speed public notices to those affected by test drilling in South Kilburn

This image does not necessarily  reflect the views of our guest blogger

Guest blog by Pete Firmin, resident on the South Kilburn Estate

Just a few notes from the exhibition event HS2 held in South Kilburn studios on Monday, which might be useful for those who couldn’t make it (and even for some who did).

As ever, lots of boards with maps and lots of HS2 people standing around waiting to sell you their  pet project. Though whenever I asked a question it was never the person I asked who could (attempt to) answer it. We, of course, are expected to understand every aspect of what is going on. While I was there (late afternoon) there were not many members of the public (maybe 6 during the 3/4 hour I was there). As ever, this may well get portrayed as a lack of interest, taking no account of the fact that of those who heard about the event (see below) many would have felt there wasn’t much point in going, or couldn’t make the times (3-7) it was held. Funny how they could send everybody a letter (twice) by recorded delivery saying they might need to CP0 their property, yet can neither rescind these notices (by sending everybody a letter) nor ensure delivery of letters they consider less important).

My first question was about distribution of the notice of the event, knowing that I only knew about it by other means and at least some others in Gorefield House had not had notice. First reaction – as always – was to say it had been delivered, then to retreat into “I know there was at least one block the contracted delivery firm couldn’t get into and we asked for them to send them via Royal Mail, I will check if that happened”. I pointed out that I live on the ground floor with direct access, but that didn’t seem to compute. I also said that it was bit late if they found out now that it never happened.  This is a recurring problem, whether with the Council direct or others (such as the film company last year). They either don’t bother to deliver, or do not check if it has happened.

Another issue which comes up regularly is the maps that are used (people may remember that at the parliamentary enquiry into HS2 we pointed out the inaccuracy of their maps). In this case it seemed questionable as to whether they recognised that Canterbury Road does not continue on to Coventry Close, but that there is a section which is just footpath. Cathedral walk was certainly not named on any of their maps. Maybe this is why some people seem to think it is okay to drive vehicles along the footpath.

Part of the significance of Cathedral Walk is that during their test drilling, and later during the main work, they may find they have problem with utility pipes etc, in which case they would need to do work on them, which could mean taking up part of Canterbury Road and Cathedral Walk, something they will otherwise not need to do.

This event was primarily just about the test drilling, not the main construction. Even so, I was able to ask again about lorry movements etc. This will be of particular interest to people in Albert Road and Canterbury Terrace. For the main construction there will be 100 heavy lorry movements a day (50 in, 50 out). They will enter the site along Albert Road from the Queens Park end, entering  the site through the railway entrance at the end of Albert Road. They will leave through Canterbury Works and turn into Canterbury Terrace and back down Albert Road. When I raised (again) the issue of the narrowness of Albert Road to take these vehicles, I got the response from the “traffic guy” that he had just realised this and they would need to look at how they overcame the problem! We’ve only been pointing this out for years, after all. One thing they will probably do is make Albert Road one way (for other traffic, not HS2) with a diversion.

Their plans also show the loss of 15 parking bays on Albert Road during construction. When I asked where those people were expected to park, I was told wherever they can. No provision will be made for alternative parking. When I pointed out the lack of parking spaces in the estate already, I got a shrug of the shoulders. I also asked where site workers were going to park and was told they would be `expected’ to use public transport. When I asked `yes, but what if they do bring their cars”, he said they would need to pay for parking. And what if they use residents parking bays, as was a constant problem with the construction site on Alpha Place? `That’s up to the Council to enforce’. More wry laughter from me.

An issue of particular concern to many of us is working hours and enforcement of them. I was told that working hours are restricted to 8-6, BUT that they are allowed half an hour each side for preparation. They said they would also take account of the fact that they would be next to the school, but I could not get an answer as to what this concretely means. From bitter experience, I asked how all this would be enforced and was told “these are top tier contactors who will know that have to keep to the rules”. I pointed out that Wilmott Dixon is also considered a pretty “top tier” construction company and had repeatedly flouted the rules, I was told this wouldn’t happen with HS2. When I asked about enforcement, I was firstly told the Council (wry laugh from me!) and that people could send in reports and photos of infringement. As if we hadn’t been doing so for years with no effect. They gave me a copy of their “Residents Charter” and their “Code of Construction Practice”, but we have seen such promises before. Hopefully these are worth more than the paper they are written on, but we will obviously need to keep a close watch.

Lastly, I have been asking at every opportunity for years whether it creates problems that they will be tunnelling for HS2 underneath the Bakerloo line and never got an answer. Finally spoke to someone who knew what he was talking about, who said, yes, there are particular issues and `we will need to monitor whether our tunnelling causes the Bakerloo tunnels to sink. We don’t expect them to, and we don’t foresee having to close the Bakerloo line (or the mainline nearby) at all’.

Harrow Hill Trust's case against Harrow School development published at last

From Harrow Hill Trust:

22 Jan 2017 — Harrow Hill Trust undertook a detailed assessment of the hundreds of pages of application documents submitted to seek planning permission. (Harrow School's development on Metropolitan Open Land) This assessment included many pictures and constructive ideas and was dated 11 June 2016 and was hand delivered. Despite being hand delivered, two phone calls in the summer, which included the case officer, a further hard copy and a letter of complaint it finally appears 7 months late on the Harrow.gov.uk website. This is of course now after the first public planning meeting of 16 November. The assessment can be seen at the Harrow by searching for application P/1940/16 . Your support is appreciated. Thanks

The Harrow Council Planning Website is not exactly user friendly so I have reproduced the full submission below. Click on bottom right corner for a full page.

How London school budgets will suffer under the National Funding Formula changes - London Councils

From London Councils. Clearly we need to campaign to preserve London school funding and for an increase in the total amount spent on schools so that children outside London receive fair funding.

The National Funding Formula (NFF)will remove £19 million of funding from London’s schools.

Taking this into account as well as the increased cost pressures identified by the National Audit Office, London’s schools will need to make savings of £360 million in the first year of the new national funding formula (2018/19) to balance their books. No school will gain enough funding from the NFF to compensate for increased cost pressures due to factors such as inflation, pensions and national insurance.

As around 70 per cent of a school’s budget is spent on staff salaries, funding reductions are likely to result in fewer teachers and support staff posts in schools, as well as increased class sizes.

This is significant because top quality teachers who are motivated and highly skilled are the main reason that children make progress and achieve good results in their education.

Without the right qualifications and skills, London’s children will be unable to access jobs and contribute to the national economy. Over 60 per cent of jobs in inner London require a degree and around 45 per cent of jobs in the rest of the capital require a degree.

Analysis of the NFF shows that:

• 70 per cent of schools (over 1,500) across the capital will face budget cuts.
• The impact is widespread – 802 schools in inner London and 734 schools in outer London stand to lose funding due to the NFF.
• At least one school in every London borough will experience a reduction in funding.
• 19 London boroughs are set to lose funding, with losses ranging from 0.1 per cent to 2.8 per cent.

Combining the impact of the introduction of the NFF and wider cost pressures, headteachers at London schools will have to make savings totalling £360 million in the first year of the NFF (2018/19).

The savings required are equivalent to:

• 17,142 teaching assistant posts, on an average salary of £21,000.
• 12,857 qualified teachers, on an average salary of £28,000.
• This amounts to cutting 7.5 teaching assistant posts per school or cutting 5.6 qualified teachers posts per school, given that there are 2,297 mainstream schools in London.

If the government’s proposals are brought into effect, 70 per cent of schools in the capital will face budget cuts, on top of pre-existing funding reductions. London will also see larger reductions in funding than anywhere else in the country.

This comes on top of National Audit Office figures showing that educational standards across the country could plummet as schools in England face an 8 per cent real-terms cut per pupil by 2019/20 thanks to wider cost pressures.

Taking everything into account, London’s schools will need to make savings of £360 million in the first year of the new national funding formula in order to balance their books.

But at a time when UK schools are seen as underperforming by international standards, and when businesses based in London are facing massive uncertainty about recruiting skilled staff, there is an urgent need to invest in schools in London and across the rest of the country.

London Councils' Key Asks:

• That all children receive a great education – every child in the country deserves this.
• That the government finds an additional £335 million for the schools that stand to gain through the National Funding Formula without taking money away from other schools.
• That the government revises the draft National Funding Formula to better reflect London’s needs and to avoid a decrease in educational standards.
•  
  Key facts about London Schools 
   
  
  
  
  
  
  

   The figure is 94% in Brent
   
  London’s schools are the best in the country
  
  
• In London 89 per cent of schools are currently judged to be good or outstanding by Ofsted, the highest percentage of any region in England.
• Last year London’s schools helped pupils to achieve 60.9 per cent five A* to C GCSEs including Maths and English, the highest rate for any region and above the national average of 57.3 per cent.

London’s schools promote social mobility

• London has the highest attaining cohort of pupils on Free School Meals in the country – 48 per cent of young people on FSM in London achieved five good GCSEs as opposed to only 36.8 per cent of the same group nationally.

Recruitment and retention of teachers is a challenge in London

• Around 50 per cent of headteachers in London are approaching retirement. Schools must act now to ensure teachers in senior leadership roles are ready to become headteachers.
• Living costs are higher in London. One example of this is private sector rents, which are more than twice the national average according to the Valuation Office Agency. Schools are therefore under pressure to ensure salaries reflect this reality.

School places:

• Between 2010-2020 the school age population in London is anticipated to grow by almost 25 per cent
• 110,364 new school places will be needed in London between 2016/17 and 2021/22 to meet forecast demand. This consists of 62,934 primary places and 47,430 secondary places.
• At least £1.8 billion will be needed to provide sufficient school places in London between 2016/17 and 2021/2

 Resources on London school places and funding can be found HERE

More on the situation of schools in Brent HERE

Move to discuss Bridge Park land sale to GMH defeated by Brent Labour

I drew attention to the above notice that was posted on the Agenda of Monday's Council Meeting in a recent article LINK claiming that the public interest was not served by curtailing discussion on these important items.

At the Council Meeting Cllr Warren moved the suspension of Standing Orders to allow discussion to take place but this was heavily defeated by Labour and other councillors.

In the course of the discussion Cllr Warren, speaking to Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, referred to 'Your friend Mr Auchi'.  Sir Nadhmi Shakir Auchi is Chairman of the off-shore British Virgin Islands company General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH) which is Brent Council's partner in the redevelopment of Bridge Park.  Muhammed Butt is the lead member for the conditional land sale of the Bridge Park site to GMH.

At the Brent Cabinet on January 16th Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of the Council, said that she was 'thrilled' by the Bridge Park deal. LINK

Auchi is controversial because of a 2003 allegation of  fraud LINK and of course the whole issue of tax havens and tax avoidance is a current political issue with Jeremy Corbyn promising action by a future Labour Government.

Cllr Thomas intervened to call for Cllr Warren to withdraw his statement about 'Your friend Mr Auchi' directed at his leader, as the Council Meeting was being streamed and he wouldn't want a 'wrong impression' to be given. Warren, saying he couldn't remember exactly what  he'd said,went on to say, 'Mr Auchi has connections with the Labur Party. Let me say that. That is what I was referring to.'

The alleged link goes back to 2001 when the Guardian published an article entitled 'A Tycoon, a Minister and Interpol' LINK and involved Keith Vaz MP.

You can see the live stream and the vote on suspensions of standing orders here:

NHS market rent demand threatens the future of Brent Advocacy Concern

I asked to speak at the Brent Health and Wellbeing Board  yesterday on behalf of Brent Advocacy Concern who were at another meeting, as were Cllr Butt, Leader of the Council and Cllr McLennan, Deputy Leader.

Chair Cllr Hirani, who has the discretion to allow speakers, refused my request on the ground that I had not given 24 hours notice.

My request was in response to a request from Brent Advocacy Concern, a 25 year old charity in Brent, who work with people with disabilities.

NHS England, through NHS Estates, are now charging 'market' rents on spaces in their property and this is impacting on many charities and voluntary organisations who work on health issues.  As the STP proposals involve working in 'Hubs' bringing together different services, including voluntary organisations, this is clearly an issue.

You cannot have a policy of working with voluntary organisations and then pricing them out.  This impacts on the whole strategy of prevention and out of hospital care.

Brent Advocacy Concern received a letter from NHS England on January 11th, which had been sent to all Clinical Commissioning Groups, including Brent, about the move towards market rents.

John Healy of BAC wrote to me:

In order to stay in our office we know that we will have to pay 'rent' on the space. We will also be required to pay for 'capital costs'. Then comes the 'services charges'. Followed by the 10% Management fee. And finally  another 5% Management fee towards the overall lease. There may be other charges such as VAT but as a charity we might be exempt.

I cannot make it myself tonight, as I am booked for a council meeting at the same time.
Anyway, we will have been providing services in Brent continuously for over 25 years (we became a registered charity in Jan. 1991) but we will have to close down as soon as the NHS ASKS FOR THE MONEY.  So far they have not told us anything but I am expecting 'the bad news' anytime soon.

Maybe you or someone could ask a question as to what help might be offered to help small charities to stay within NHS properties such as The Willesden Centre for Health & Care.

That was the question I wanted to ask as it clearly affects more than just Brent Advocacy Concern. The organisation contacted Brent Healthwatch after the publication of an article outlining their situation on this blog LINK but received no response.  I spoke to Healthwatch at the meeting and gave them more details and hope that this results in some action, or at least a recognition of the problem.

John Healy added today (Wednesday):

At the last Community &Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee meeting on the 23rd of November, 2016 it was resolved that:-

(1) "Brent CCG together with NHS Property Services Ltd. develop 'a social value' policy detailing how to maximise use of void space in NHS buildings by the voluntary sector" Agenda item 5, 'NHS Estate in Brent'.

A RESOURCE THEY MIGHT FIND USEFUL CAN BE FOUND AT:-

How to keep it local--- A 5 step guide for councillors & commissioners.  It covers The Social Value Act

and it can be obtained from

Locality.org.uk

Tulip Siddiq may leave Shadow Front Bench over Article 50 vote

Tulip Siddiq, MP for  Hampstead and Kilburn, which covers three Brent wards, in a series of media interviews yesterday said she was prepared to lose her Shadow Front Bench position,  over Labour's decision to vote in favour of invoking Article 50.

She told the BBC's World at One:

 It is something I am considering not supporting and voting against because 75% of the population in Hampstead and Kilburn voted to remain.

If I’m representing the wishes of my constituents I have to make a decision accordingly and that’s how I’ll vote.
 

There are definitely things to consider about democracy and elections. I don’t want to run another referendum.

Meanwhile Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green Party made her position clear over the Surpeme Court ruling:

 This case is a win for parliamentary democracy, and a blow for those ministers who planned to railroad Brexit through without any proper scrutiny.

The spotlight now falls on MPs – and in particular the Labour Party – to properly scrutinise the Government’s plans and act accordingly. That must mean that Labour rethink the support they’ve given to triggering article 50 prematurely, and instead join those of us who refuse to be pushed into Theresa May’s artificial Brexit timetable.

It’s astonishing that Ministers ever thought it was right to trigger Article 50 without a vote in Parliament - and their battle in the courts really does expose a contempt for the democratic process within the Conservative party.

I will not be capitulating to the Tories over Brexit – and will vote against prematurely triggering Article 50 in the Spring. As the co-leader of a Party which stands for environmental, social and economic justice I will not support a Government offering no assurances to EU nationals living in Britain, threatening to turn this country into a tax haven and planning to throw us off the Brexit cliff edge by ending our membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.