Bobby Moore to disappear under advertising again

The tunnel today with original tiling covered

A section of the original tiling

The panels are seen by Stadium, Arena & LDO visitors using Wembley Park Station

Brent Council is to enter a new 4 year contract with Wembley City Estate Management to sell advertising space on the walls of the pedestrian underpass to Olympic Way beneath the Bobby Moore Bridge.

Wembley City Estate were the previous agent and Brent claims they submitted the best value bid that will increase Council income.  Financial details of the contract have been withheld from public scrutiny.

The historic tiling which illustrates many sports, has not been viewable for several years. The tiling is still in place but concealed beneath a dressing on which the advertising is placed. Recently this has most often been used for the London Designer Outlet or the life style luxury flats recently built in the area.

Brent says that it will be able to specify the nature of the advertising and ensure that it is line with its advertising and sponsorship code.

Brent set to approve pilot dockless bicycle hire scheme

The Brent Cabinet is set to approve a pilot dockless bicycle scheme for the borough which would last for one year before review. As the name implies dockless bikes do not require any additional infrastructure and the officer's report LINK says such a scheme would not impact on the present cash generating parking bays in the borough.

Hirers would book the bikes by mobile phone app and 'leave them in an appropriate place'. What constitutes an appropriate place is not explored. Some councils just mark a section of pavement or have special bollards mounted on the pavement.  Brent hopes to learn from the mixed experience of other councils who have already adopted similar schemes.

It is hoped that such a scheme would contribute to the London Mayor's Transport Strategy which aims that 80% of journeys by 2041 will be by foot, bike or public transport.

Call for volunteer teachers of English successful

Just before Christmas we carried an advertisement LINK asking for people to train as volunteer teachers of English for the Unite Community project that will set up classes in Brent.

Robin Sivapalan reports on the first training session:

--> We had a great teacher training session at the weekend, organised by Brent Unite Community and delivered by English for Action. 

In two days such a lot of content was covered, complex issues explored, and a strong team of colleagues formed. Nobody entered the room with no experience, and we have much to still learn as we go along. The EFA approach towards the teacher volunteers is exactly the one they encourage us to take towards the student participants: that respects prior experience, where we are all simultaneously teachers and learners at all times. 

We have one class confirmed, an intermediate class at CVS Brent, Wednesday afternoons. About 5 more are likely to be confirmed soon. Please let me know of any community groups, housing associations etc that would likely want one of our teachers to run a course with them. It is not an accredited ESOL course; it is a space for people to build confidence communicating in English in the situations where they need it; it is to create community; it is towards welcoming migrants into the local labour movement so we can campaign for social justice more united. 

If you want to become a teacher with us, we will run further training in the year. Please go check out the work English for Action are doing in the city, get involved, donate etc, as you can do with this local project in Brent too, especially by joining Unite Community, only £2.19 a month.
http://www.unitetheunion.org/growing-o…/communitymembership/

Wembley ASDA served with Noise Abatement Notice after waking residents at 6am

Since 6am this morning, an hour of this #noisepollution, still ongoing.@AsdaServiceTeam @Brent_Council @noise_abatement @NeighbourNoise @cutnoise @NFHiB @noiselimits @WembleyMatters pic.twitter.com/H5ivvptbGg

 January 9, 2018

Video filmed before dawn this morning

Angry residents contacted Wembley Matters this morning after they were woken at 6am by works on Wembley Asda's car park. The noise, accompanied by shouting, could be heard through double glazing. 

There have been long term problems with noise from Asda disturbing neighbours including the company's home delivery service, Click and Collect and sea gulls on the store roof.  The issue has been taken up through Brent Council, petitions presented, letters written but to no avail.

Cllr Michael Pavey (Labour, Barnhill) told Wembley Matters:

Asda have treated residents with complete disdain. Not only have they failed to reduce the noise they generate at antisocial times - they have refused to even acknowledge the problem. 

They have ignored correspondence, failed to attend meetings organised by Council Officers and have stated that they will only meet with councillors if residents are not invited. 

It is an astonishing display of arrogance by a company which is completely dependent upon the goodwill of its shoppers.

 As a result of this morning's complaints Brent Council have served a Noise Abatement Notice on Asda..

Martin Wood, Emvironmental Health Office wrote to residents this evening with the news:

Further to the noise incident this morning, I have spoken to Asda’s store manager, deputy manager, and to the company’s Compliance Incident Manager.

I have advised that Brent Council will be serving Asda Group Ltd with a Noise Abatement Notice on the basis that we believe there is a likelihood of a statutory noise nuisance arising from non-emergency maintenance works taking place at noise sensitive times.

The notice will be posted to Asda’s head office tomorrow. The notice prohibits the occurrence of a noise nuisance from non-emergency maintenance works and requires Asda to: Cease or cause to cease all non-emergency external store and car park maintenance works likely to constitute a nuisance to the occupiers of residential properties in close proximity to the store between, 9pm and 8am (Monday to Saturday) and 5pm and 10am (Sundays).

Brent Labour Group fail to make clear stand against academisation of The Village School

Forty or so people turned up this evening at Brent Civic Centre to lobby the Labour Group regarding the governing body of The Village School  move to convert to academy status.

The school's Chair of Governors is Sandra Kabir a senior Labour councillor and chief whip of the group.

Phil Pardoe, NEU Regional Official, said the pre-lobby meeting with Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council and Cllr Mili Patel, lead member for children and families had been positive. They had said they could tell parents at consultation meetings that the Council would prefer the school not to academise. Pardoe said that the impact of this was unclear but that pressure needed to be exerted on chair of Governors Cllr Sandra Kabir, a key proponent of the academy bid.

Cllr Jumbo Chan reiterated his opposition to what he called Tory policy on academies and free schools and said that he would try and persuade the Labour Group to express their outright opposition to academisation in line with Labour Party policy.

At the Group meeting  that followed Cllr Kabir adopted a contorted position of supporting and promoting academisation while at the same time claiming she did not want that outcome.  Cllr Butt claimed his first preference was to keep local control of the school and academisation was a last resort but he stopped short of saying the Council would oppose The Village School academisation.

Cllrs Mashari, Miller and Long asked sceptical questions about academisation and Cllr Jumbo Chan and observer Michael Calderbank  opposed.

Cllrs Mili Patel, Shama Tatler andAslam Choudry adopted the position of not liking academisation but said the Council had no choice.

The upshot, rather than a firm decision to state Labour Group opposition, was that the matter would be referred to Scrutiny Committee and that Butt would write to The Village School governors asking them to explore the viability of staying in the 'Brent family of schools'.

Academy conversion of The Village School would complete privatisation of special education in Brent

If The Village School were to academise it would be the third Brent special school to take this route. Woodfield converted in April 2014 and Manor formed the Brent Specialist Academy Trust, along with The Avenue special free school, in April 2017.  This would remove all the borough's  specialist special education schools from Brent Council oversight and open the way to them combingin to form a Multi-Academy Trust. The vehicle already exists in the Brent Specialist Academy Trust.

All three schools co-operated in setting up the free school and claimed that the move was supported by Brent Council.

Brent Labour as represented by councillors has never taken a firm stand against academisation or free schools. It claimed the local authority did not have the resources to support Copland High School when it failed Ofsted and supported Ark taking it over as Ark Elvin. Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, is the local authority representative on the Ark Elvin governing body. The authority has supported Ark in opening a new primary 3 form entry free school on the York House site in Wembley.

The stance taken by Brent Central CLP, Brent Central CLP trade union liaison officers and Cllr Jumbo Chan is therefore a significant departure from this policy of acquiescence.

They are not only up against Muhammed Butt but also Cllr Sandra Kabir (Queensbury) who chairs The Village School governing body - the same governing body that wants to convert the school to academy status!  The lobbying of the Labour Group to oppose the position of its own chief whip is rich in irony.  Cllr Mili Patel, lead member for chidlren and families, is relatively inexperienced and does not appear to have made any statement on the issue.

The lobby of the Labour Group which will include NEU officials and staff from The Village School will take place at 6pm this evening in the antrium of Brent Civic Centre.

For the arguments against academies see the Anti Academies Alliance website HERE    The TUC, NASUWT, NUT, ATL, UCU, UNISON, UNITE, GMB, PCS, MU and FBU are affiliated to the Anti Academies Alliance.

Fryent Country Park in Winter Sunshine

Procurement to be brought back 'in house' after joint service fails to deliver the goods

The Brent Cabinet will be asked to approve a proposal to bring procurement back in-house after a joint service with Harrow failed to deliver the envisaged benefits. A shared service with Harrow and Buckinghamshire was first discussed in January 2016 and at the time I noted the lack of clarity in the proposals LINK.  Officers claimed that a joint service would save Brent £272,000 in 2016-17.

Buckinghamshire dropped out and in  September 2016 Brent Tuped staff over to the joint Harrow-Brent  service followed by Brent Housing Partnership staff just over a year later in October 2017. Now less than 18 months after the first transfers they will be transferred back to Brent.

The Officers' report LINK recognise that this doesn't look good:

Reputational damage: To end the Shared Service so early into its life could potentially be seen as a failure by a range of stakeholders and potentially cause some reputational damage although this should be mitigated by getting member level approval for the dissolution.

The report suggests that the recent resignation of the Harrow Divisional Director of Procurement and Contracts gives an opportunity to review whether to continue the Shared Service and recognises that a decision to end it is best done before the arrangement between the two boroughs becomes more entwined and complex - a case of 'get out now before it's too late!'

The report states:

We are now just over 1 year into the Shared Service and a number of difficulties have been identified. At present Brent requires a level of service that is beyond the resourcing initially envisaged by the parties and available within the funds contributed to the Share Service following the restructure.

In addition it has proved difficult to recruit to many posts in the shared structure and continuity has been difficult to maintain. This has put additional pressure on the Shared Service and levels if service and satisfaction are therefore below what some service areas are expecting.

Reading beyond the mild civil service language it is clear that the joint service was just not paying people enough. Rather than the savings first envisaged it looks likely that costs will increase:

Despite a lengthy recruitment exercise, the ability of the Shared Service to recruit appropriately skilled and experienced staff into a number of vacancies has proved to be challenging. The poor recruitment results are thought to be in the main due to the salaries on offer being £5k below the market average together with a buoyant London jobs market for those individuals.

The regeneration/development area is significantly under-resourced. Although the Shared Service has flexed some resources to support this area. This is barely adequate and not sustainable in the long term. Consideration therefore needs to be given to interim resource(s) to support Capital projects (funded by the Capital programme) over and above the business as usual resourcing requirement.

The report states that for the Shared Serviced to meet these short-comings there would need to be a Head of Procurement dedicated to Brent and a rise of approximately £5k for each of the non-management grades totalling an additional annual contribution of £150,000.

The report is notably vague about the costs of leaving the Shared Service:

Should Brent leave the Shared Service the financial implications would need to be developed as the new organisational structure is designed. Initial  estimates however envisage that it would be of similar magnitude to remaining in the Shared Service.

Any increase in budget will have to be offset by a saving elsewhere in the department, the Council (sic) including greater achievement of procurement savings.

If the original proposal to enter a Shared Service lacked clarity then it appears that the proposal to leave has similar shortcomings, particularly on the financial implications. Can the Cabinet make a decision on the basis of this flawed report?