Eggcellent chance to sponsor a chicken for Sufra Foodbank

Sufra NW London are launching an appeal for chicken sponsors having built new accommodation at St. Raphael's Edible Garden after local foxes  killed their previous flock.

This is their message:

Today we launch our Sponsor a Chicken Appeal! We're looking for 20 egg-lovers to donate £99 towards the purchase and up-keep of a chicken for one year.

For £99 we will give you:

1) The chance to name your chicken (Theresa May has been taken, but Boris Johnson is still up for grabs).

2) A framed photograph of your chicken to display on your mantle-piece.

3) An invitation to an omelette breakfast prepared by Dina using eggs supplied by your chicken especially for the occasion.

4) A private tour of St. Raphael's Edible Garden led by Sami.

5) ...and the opportunity to provide over 300 eggs each year to food bank guests who are reliant on Sufra NW London for emergency food aid.


To sponsor a chicken, please email Sami and the Youth Committee at youth@sufra-nwlondon.org.uk.

The Sponsor a Chicken Appeal is open to all - individuals, local companies and even groups of friends. If you can't afford £99 you can raise it through sponsorship by taking part in the...

Brent Interfaith Walk

We’d like to invite you to take part in the Brent Interfaith Walk on Sunday 29 October 2017. The event is an opportunity to show solidarity between faith communities and acknowledge the vital contributions that people of faith and no faith make to maintaining our service – all whilst walking off that extra slice of cake you shouldn’t have eaten the night before.

The route will commence at Sufra NW London and pass by different places of worship and religious significance in Brent, with a necessary toilet break at the Ace Café.

Whilst you’re welcome to just trod along with us, we also request that you collect sponsorship for the charity. If you raise £99 we will refund your registration fee. You can register here.

(The registration fee covers our costs, including a free t-shirt and an end of walk vegetarian buffet on St. Raphael’s Edible Garden.)

CLEAN AIR FOR BRENT launches tonight at Willesden Green Library 7-9pm

From Clean Air for Brent LINK
Clean Air for Brent (CAfB) is to launch THIS WEDNESDAY 11 October at 7pm at Willesden Library, 95 High Road, NW10 2SF. 

You’ll be welcome at the door, but to help get a sense of numbers you can RSVP to cafbrent@gmail.com.

Much has happened since the public meeting held in July and there is CAfB news and information on https://cleanairforbrent.wordp ress.com/ . 

On Wednesday, we will hear more, including an update from Cllr Ellie Southwood on Brent Council’s Air Quality Action Plan. As well as brief formalities, including appointing members of the volunteer steering group, this is an opportunity to consider bringing your skills and interests to the group too.

The evening will be a chance to share ideas on how we might all play a part in reducing the damage to health created by polluted air.

To kick off our discussion, here are some quite simple ways CAfB volunteers together might help create the positive differences needed: 

• Monitoring of key roads in parts of Brent not so far covered, e.g. Wembley High Road, Ealing Road, Neasden/Blackbird Hill
• Designing and producing a map of Brent, clearly showing pollution hotspots
• Short talks and presentations on air quality at schools, residents’ associations and community groups
• Campaigning to green public transport
• Informing choices of private cars and fleet vehicles
• Working on a low emission neighbourhood designation
• Investigating the impact of Underground and Overground trains on air quality
• Sharing information and campaigning via internet and social media. 
• Contributing to surveys and consultations

Wednesday evening will be a great chance to meet like-minded people and share ideas, so do join in.

We’ll look forward to seeing you

Clean Air for Brent

NEU Joint General Secretary at Green Party Conference

Back from the Western Front: African Soldiers of the Great War in Britain - Launch 18th October Willesden Green Library

They Also Served from RVS Film:Edit:Encode:Broadcast on Vimeo.

Launch event 6-7.30pm on 18th October 2017 and Exhibition running until 8th January 2018 at 12am, Exhibition Space, Willesden Library Centre, 95 High Rd, London 

See events in: Exhibition, Museum and Archives, Museum and Archives – exhibitions

Brent Museum and Archives and Learning through the Arts are working together on ‘Back from the Western Front: African Soldiers of the Great War in Britain’ – an exciting community research and exhibition project which will explore the legacy of African soldiers in the First World War.

The project is funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and will explore the heritage, sacrifices and contributions of soldiers of African origin at The Western Front as well as the challenges of resettlement, for these soldiers returning to Britain in the immediate aftermath of the war between 1918-19.

Angelina Osborne and Yewande Okuleye are Sankofa Rising, a project collaboration where they have a shared interest in recovering "untold stories" about Afro-Caribbean and African histories. The focus on WW1 commemoration has presented opportunities for both historians to curate community exhibitions.

Angelina curated They Also Served exhibition

Yewande  worked with volunteers at the Brent Museum and curated Back from the Western Front .

They are asking for support from anyone interested for their next project. They will visit Littlehampton Cemeteryin West Sussex where three members of the South African Labour Corps are buried.  The men were on the SS Mendi which sank on the 21st February. At the ceremony on November 4th at the cemetery they will perform a reading and lay wreaths and commemorate those men buried far away from home.

If you would like to take part in this initiative contact Yewande  sankofarisingnow@gmail.com There is no funding for the project. A return ticket from London to Littlehampton is about £30 but cheaper options may be available.

Vital questions on dust impact of Cricklewood Rail-Road Aggregate Superhub

The following article is republished with permission from the NW2 Residents' Association blog LINK
 

-->

The planning application for a road/rail superhub at 400 Edgware Road tells us

“it is estimated that a total of 370 – 570 Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) could leave the site each day, to export aggregate” which could be “including sand and gravel” or “will depend on local demand and could consist of sand, ballast or MOT Type 1 road stone (mixture of stone fragments and fine particles)”, 

and there’s demand for cement too.

This stuff will be brought in by rail, stocked in piles, and loaded into HGVs. It’s dusty stuff and a dusty business handling it. So how much dust will there be?

In one of the 17 appendices, there are tables covering 42 different locations with all sorts of figures for current levels and predicted levels of NO₂ and PM₁₀ pollution from … traffic. Dust pollution from the unloading of trains, from the loading of HGVs and from the stockpiles, from the basic operation of the site – that’s not included. It’s left out of the calculations and there are no figures for dust levels at other aggregate sites.

We are told that the wind’s generally in a good direction, blowing from the south-west across the railway tracks, but often in a bad direction, blowing down from the north-east instead. We’re told that on average, the wind isn’t likely to ‘re-suspend’ dust – to actually pick it up – because

“approximately 57% of the time mean-hourly winds do not exceed moderate levels.”

That ‘moderate’ 57% includes the gusty hours when the wind’s rising and falling, and it happily ignores the 43% of the time that that mean-hourly winds do exceed moderate levels – often by quite a lot.

There will be rain, and mitigation measures: there’ll be sprinklers. Wheels will be washed. Drivers will be told to cover their loads.

“It is anticipated the dust impact during the operational phase will be minimised.”

What does ‘minimised’ mean? Politicians talk of minimising the tax burden and very occasionally shave a percent or two off – we still pay plenty. It seems we’re being told we have to accept ‘minimised’ dust pollution as part of our regeneration. It will annoy us but it will not be significant. Here’s what Appendix 13-1 says:

“Guidance recognises that, even with a rigorous dust management plan in place, it is not possible to guarantee that the dust mitigation measures will be effective all the time, for instance under adverse weather conditions. The local community may therefore experience occasional, short-term dust annoyance. The scale of this would not normally be considered sufficient to change the conclusion that the effects will be ‘not significant’.”

That last sentence is beautifully phrased. But what are we being told? That we will suffer, but that such suffering is usually written off as insignificant when people are planning giant dust-generating operations.

There will be monitoring, we’re told, and something will be done if there’s too much dust. How much is too much? We’re not told. That would open up the whole question of how much dust there will be, and nobody wants to say.

There’s more about the superhub on our page here. Do add your comments and share what you know about the proposal below, but if you want the council to listen, you’ll have to object on their website. The planning application is here; its reference number is 17/5761/EIA. You can add your comments and objections online there, or email the case officer Chloe.Thomson@barnet.gov.uk. The full site name is “Cricklewood Railway Yard, the land at rear of 400 Edgware Road NW2 6ND”. The deadline is 18 October 2017.

You could also copy local councillors in. Council elections are in May.

Barnet – Childs Hill ward
cllr.p.zinkin@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.j.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.c.ryde@barnet.gov.uk
Barnet – Golders Green ward
cllr.m.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.d.cohen@barnet.gov.uk
cllr.r.thompstone@barnet.gov.uk
Brent – Dollis Hill ward
cllr.parvez.ahmed@brent.gov.uk
cllr.liz.dixon@brent.gov.uk
cllr.arshad.mahmood@brent.gov.uk
Brent – Mapesbury ward
cllr.helen.carr@brent.gov.uk
cllr.lia.colacicco@brent.gov.uk
cllr.ahmad.shahzad@brent.gov.uk
Camden – Fortune Green ward
richard.olszewski@camden.gov.uk
flick.rea@camden.gov.uk
lorna.russell@camden.gov.uk

Labour Party branches rally to support of expelled local Jewish Israeli activist accused of anti--semitism

Local Labour Party branches in Brent and Camden have rallied to the defence of Moshe Machover who lives in Queens Park, following the expulsion of the 81 year old Israeli Jewish professor with decades of activism as a socialist from the Labour Party over allegations of anti-semitism.

So far, Kilburn (Brent), Queens Park and West Hampstead & Fortune Green braches of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP has passed motions in support of Moshe.

Dudden Hill and Kensal Green branches of Brent Central CLP have also passed resolutions in support of Moshe.

Both CLPs are due to meet on Thursday October 19th. A full account of the expulsion can be read on the Jewish Socialists' Group website HERE

The resolution passed in Kilburn said:

This Branch/CLP is outraged that:

·Professor Emeritus Moshe Machover has been expelled from the Party. Prof Machover is Jewish and Israeli, the distinguished co-founder of Matzpen, the socialist organisation which from the 60s to the 80s brought together Arab and Jewish opposition to the illegal occupation of Palestine; 

· the Head of Disputes has accused Prof Machover of writing an “apparently antisemitic article” according to the new IHRA definition, and further accused him of “membership or support for another political party, or a political organisation with incompatible aims to the Labour Party” on the basis of “participation in CPGB events and regular contributions to the CPGB’s newspaper, the Weekly Worker”.

This Branch/CLP notes that:

·The Chakrabarti Inquiry found that the party’s “. . . complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise . . .” and called for “the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”.

· The IHRA definition is being monitored by Camden Council to ensure that it is not used to stifle free expression and criticism of Israeli policies.

·Prof Machover who denies the accusations, has not been given the opportunity to challenge either the accusation of antisemitism nor his alleged support for another party or organisation with incompatible aims to the Labour Party.

·This expulsion is a frightening precedent in a party which is working to be more democratic and called for, in the words of its leader Jeremy Corbyn, ‘support to end the oppression of the Palestinian people, the 50-year occupation and the illegal settlement expansion’.

This Branch/CLP therefore calls for:

·Prof Machover’s expulsion to be immediately rescinded and for due process to take place so Prof Machover is given the opportunity to challenge the claims of the Head of Disputes.

More resolutions and statements of support can be found on the Jewish Voice for Labour website HERE

Speakers against Brent Council's adoption of the IHRA definition and examples of anti-semitism warned against its potential misuse to accuse pro-Palestinan activists of anti-semitism. LINK

Action Plan for Brent SEND children services to be approved tonight

The Brent Health and Wellbeing Board will tonight consider a Written Statement of Action following concerns expressed following a joint inspection of the authority's and Brent Clinical Commissioning Group provision for chldren with special educational needs and disabilities. The officer's report states:

-->

Although some aspects of the inspection were very positive, a Written Statement of Action has been requested. Brent Council, Brent CCG and health providers have worked together to address these concerns and respond to them so that children in any setting can get the right health advice and treatment to support their education. The most challenging of these concerns to address is the waiting times issue that has arisen due to wider shortages of specialist NHS staff. Brent CCG has appointed a specialist Designated Clinical Officer to oversee and speed up the programme of health reforms. 


The inspectors required the local area to provide a Written Statement of Action in regard to the following concerns:

·      strategic leadership of the CCG in implementing the SEND reforms 


·      the fragmented approach to joint commissioning causing gaps in services 


·      the lack of opportunity for therapists to respond to draft EHC plans before they 
are finalised 


·      poor access to services for some vulnerable groups; in particular, to audiology, 
OT and speech and language therapy, limited opportunities for parental involvement when designing and commissioning 
services. 

The draft Written Statement for  Action can be found HERE.

It has to be submitted by October 23rd

 


Cllr. Butt and hospitality from a property PR company – the details

Thanks to Philip Grant for this guest post. It is a long article but worth reading in full by anyone concerned about the relationship between Brent Council, its councillors and developers.

A recent blog on questions over “hospitality” for councillors, raised by Cllr. Duffy with Brent’s Standards Committee LINK led to many comments from “Wembley Matters” readers. In one comment, I drew attention to an entry in Cllr. Butt’s “Register of Interests” on the Council’s website, which raised concerns over its possible effect on planning matters in the borough:

'09/05/17 - Three course meal with developers from the construction industry. Estimated value between £30-40. Received from Terrapin Communications, London.'

I decided to seek further information from the Council Leader about this meal (paid for by a PR company which represents a number of property developers), so sent him an email and added the text of it as another comment. I had intended to put any reply received from Cllr. Butt as a further comment below that blog, but now feel that more readers could see it, and make their own judgement about the details given and their implications, if they are set out in a separate blog.

I was not optimistic that I would receive a reply from Cllr. Butt, as he has not replied to any emails I have sent him since September 2014. A number of these have included important questions, such as in February 2015, when I asked him (and repeated this in a blog, and in a letter published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times”) why he was still “protecting” two senior Council officers, Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert, when he had known about their misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case since at least September 2014? [I have previously suggested, only half-jokingly, that the reason he won’t reply is because he is afraid that anything he writes to me may be used in evidence against him!]

However, on 3 October I received an email from Brent, thanking me for my Freedom of Information request (I didn’t know that I had made one!) and saying that it had been forwarded ‘to the relevant department’. A few hours later, I received an email from the Chief Legal Officer, Debra Norman, giving the Council’s response to my FoI request. I don’t know why the Council Leader could not just provide the information himself, but at least the Council’s Monitoring Officer (Ms Norman’s “other hat”) realised that the points I had raised needed to be answered fully, and quickly. This is what she wrote (the numbered paragraphs begin with the six questions, in bold type, I had asked Cllr. Butt, so the answers are as if from him):-

Dear Mr Grant 

I set out the council’s responses to your request for information sent to Cllr. Butt which has been allocated to me via the council’s FOI system.  I have spoken to relevant senior officers concerning your request and the members and officers declarations of gift and hospitality have been reviewed.

1. Who else from Brent Council (members or officers) attended that "Terrapin Communications" meal with you? 

·      Cllr Tatler  [Author’s note: Lead Member for Regeneration etc.]

·      Aktar Choudhury  [Note: Operational Director Regeneration]

·      Amar Dave  [Note: Strategic Director Regeneration and Environment]

The officers concerned declared the hospitality on 23.5.17 and 10.5.17 respectively.  Cllr. Tatler declared the hospitality on 10.5.17. Cllr Butt declared the hospitality on 09/05/17.

2. Which companies were the 'developers from the construction industry' who were at that meal with you?

The guest list indicates the following companies sent representatives to the event: 

·      London Square

·      Dukelease

·      Dandi Living

·      Pinnacle

·      Henley Homes

·      R55

·      Stanhope

·      Countryside

·      The Collective

---

3.    What current or proposed developments in the London Borough of Brent are those companies (in question 2) involved with?

The relevant developer and addresses are included below.

·      London Square - 60 Neasden Lane

·      Dukelease and Dandi Living - York House – this is a permitted development

·      Pinnacle - Shubette House aka Pinnacle Tower

·      Henley Homes - Brent House

·      R55 - 255 Ealing Road and Minavil House

·      Countryside - Barham Park Estate

4. What reason did Terrapin Communications give for inviting you to that meal?

To engage and enable developers to better understand the Borough and our aspirations. 

It is important that the council’s Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills (who is not the chair of the Planning Committee and who has a different role) promotes a clear understanding of the council priorities in respect of affordable housing and quality of design.

5.    Were any past, present or proposed developments in Brent discussed at the meal, and if so, what developments or proposals?

The discussions consisted of generalisations about the borough aspirations and what the council wants to achieve. Only one developer (Dukelease) raised a particular development, which was York House.

6.    Were any of the matters discussed at the meal passed on afterwards to any other Brent Council member or officer, and if so, to whom were they passed?

Aside from requesting a relevant officer to respond to a transport issues raised by Dukelease, no information was passed on as operational matters were not discussed.

Best wishes 

Debra Norman 

Chief Legal Officer

Now that we have the information, what are we to make of it? I will give a few thoughts of my own, and I would invite anyone who wishes to, including Ms Norman and the councillors and officers who attended the meal, to add a comment in reply, giving their own views.

I will start with the reply to question 4, the reason that the PR company gave for inviting the Council Leader, and Brent’s top “Regeneration” people, to a meal with a number of their developer clients. The first sentence may be what they said, but the rest looks like a “gloss” put on that, to justify the attendance of Cllr. Tatler. 

Frankly, there was no need for a get together over dinner, especially if (as the answer to question 5 states) ‘the discussions consisted of generalisations about the borough aspirations and what the council wants to achieve.’ Brent’s Regeneration aspirations, and the planning guidance in respect of them, are set out clearly on the Council’s website. For example, this is the online package for regeneration in Wembley LINK .

Terrapin Communications could also have given their clients the information they needed on these issues from its own experience the previous year, in advising Hub Group over its successful planning application for the “Twin Towers” development at the corner of Wembley High Road and Park Lane. This was the proposal for two blocks of flats, up to 26 storeys high, which Planning Committee approved in April 2016 by four votes to two, with two abstentions. It was opposed by hundreds of local residents, but recommended by Planning Officers, despite it not complying with Brent’s and London’s policies on density, carbon emissions, living space, open space, play space and the proportion of affordable housing.  LINK .

Terrapin, as a PR company, of course put a positive “spin” on this decision, when reporting it on their website shortly afterwards:

‘Residents in Brent are set to benefit from an exciting new community centre along with other public improvements thanks to a new development in the Borough.  Terrapin Communications helped Hub Group secure planning consent for the scheme.  Designed by Macerator Lavington, it will also include 239 new residential units in two new buildings, one twenty six stories, the other twenty one stories. Commenting on the success at the Planning Committee, Terrapin Senior Adviser, Christian Klapp, said "It was hard work but rewarding knowing the benefits the new scheme will bring for people in the local area".’

In my opinion, Terrapin’s reason for arranging the meal and inviting Cllr. Butt and others was to “engage and enable developers” to meet, and hopefully influence, key decision makers in the borough. I agree that Cllr. Tatler ‘is not the chair of the Planning Committee’, but she, and particularly the Leader of the Council (and of the Labour Group, which has seven on the eight committee members) are in a position to influence the decisions made by that Committee (even though it would be a serious breach of Brent’s Planning Code if they were to do so).

Turning to the answers to questions 2 and 3, the developers at the meal with Cllr. Butt and the other Brent attendees, and what developments in Brent they are involved with, there are definitely some areas of concern. I will focus on the developer R55. They are not a potential developer who needed to ‘understand the Borough and our aspirations.’ They already had at least one development under construction, and other planning applications “in the pipeline”. 

The meal took place on 9 May 2017, and at the Planning Committee meeting on 24 May 2017 R55’s application 16/2629, for a large mixed-use development (including blocks of flats up to 26 storeys high) at Minavel House, Alperton, was unanimously approved, even though the Council’s regeneration masterplan for this area had set a height limit of ‘up to 17 storeys’. In the declarations of interest at the start of the meeting, under “approaches”, the minutes record: ‘Minavil House - All members and officers received a brochure from the applicant’s agents.’ Although not opposing the development in principle, a speaker against the application ‘expressed concerns on behalf of the residents in the development to the south of the site regarding the scheme’s scale, massing, height and obstruction to light.’  LINK

Although not listed in the response to question 3 above, R55 also have a pre-planning application, 16/0445/PRE, on the agenda for next Monday’s (9 October) Planning Committee meeting. This is in respect of ‘land at 370 High Road, London, NW10 2EA and 54-68 Dudden Hill Lane’, ‘for a mixed use development consisting of 224 residential units, a supermarket, nursery, gym, café, workshops and amenity space.’ A previous pre-planning presentation had been made to the committee on 15 March 2017, when it appears that some councillors may have expressed concern over the proposed height of some of the blocks of flats, in the vicinity of Willesden High Road.

Many Brent residents, and residents’ groups, have been disappointed by Planning Committee decisions in recent years, allowing developments which seem to go against the borough’s own agreed planning policies. An opposition motion calling for an investigation of this issue was put to the Full Council meeting on 18 September, but lost – although the details are not yet available on the Council’s website, it appears from the webcast that most of the Labour Group’s large majority of councillors voted against it. Yet a number of Labour councillors have told me privately that there is “political interference” within Brent’s planning system.

In his email to Cllr. Allie, the Chair of Standards Committee, the comments on which gave rise to this blog, Cllr. Duffy said:

‘In my experience its best to keep clear of hospitality from developers as “When you dance with a developer, it’s always to their tune".’

I hope that Brent’s Monitoring Officer will endorse that view, when she considers the lessons which should be learned from this episode. The Codes of Conduct for both members and officers include a requirement to comply with the seven general conduct principles in public life. If citizens of our borough are to have confidence in the Council, a key principle is:

‘Integrity: you should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.’

How does accepting an invitation to dine with developers, who may want you to help them get their planning applications approved, fit with that principle?