Muhammed Butt: 'How much clearer do I have to be? I am on your side!'

Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, after Hank Roberts of the NEU read out the letter Butt had written to staff at the Village School, and asked if policy had changed from when Butt had said there was no alternative, made an impassioned intervention declaring his, and the Labour Party's opposition to academisation.

He then left for a meeting at the Ark Elvin Academy where he sits on the governing body.

The exchange took place at tonight's public meeting on the issue organised by Barry Gardiner MP.

There will be a full report on Wembley Matters tomorrow. 

Nursery school accused of 'land grab' of covenanted open space

College Green Nursery School, Willesden, has been accused of a 'land grab' after local residents heard that a 6 feet high fence is to be installed around the College Green Open Space at the junction of College Road and Leighton Gardens.  The College Green Preservation Society claim that this is contravention of the protective covenant  granted by All Souls' College, Oxford in 1913.  It has been used by the 28th Willesden Scout Group since 1967 along with the nursery.

The Society claim that the open space has never been part of the nursery's property and that the predecessor nursery was only given permission to move on to College Green to protect the open space.

A petition is now being circulated (see below) asking Brent Council to stop the erection of the fence which they say will cut the open space in two blocking the view of an open field and have a detrimental impact on the character of the area. It is further feared that enclosing the land may give the Nursery School property rights over the space that could lead to them building on it.

Welsh Harp Spring Clean February 28th

From London Wildlife Trust

Event details

Sat, 24/02/2018 - 11:00am - 2:00pm

Help us clean up this special reservoir in north-west London, for the benefit of nature and wildlife.
Join London Wildlife Trust, Canal & River Trust, Phoenix Canoe Club and Thames21 as we come together to tackle litter on the Brent Reservoir SSSI.

Meet us at the builders’ lot by Cool Oak Lane Bridge (closest postcode is NW9 7BH). All safety equipment and refreshments are provided. Please dress appropriately.

Ths is a free event but please let us know that you intend to join - email ccullen@wildlondon.org.uk

Welsh Harp, also known as Brent Reservoir, is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) notified for its breeding pairs of great crested grebe, overwintering waterfowl, and marginal vegetation. Read more here.

 Elsewere on the Welsh Harp a ramp has now been fitted to the bird hide

Ask Brent Council to divest from fossil fuel companies

I am giving this on-line petition an extra plug. It is a way of making a difference locally by getting Brent Council to divest their pension fund from fossil fuel companies who are contributing to climate change.

Sign the petition HERE


Brent Council should divest its pension fund from fossil fuel companies to protect the people of Brent. So we ask Brent Council to make a public divestment statement committing the Brent Pension Fund to:

1. Immediately freeze any new investment in the top 200 publicly-traded fossil fuel companies with largest known carbon reserves (oil, coal and gas) [0]
2. Divest from direct ownership and any commingled funds that include fossil fuel public equities and corporate bonds in the top 200 list and shift these funds to lower risk, ethical investments before the May 2022 Council elections
3. Advocate to other pension funds, including the London Pension Fund Authority and Local Government Pension Scheme members to do the same
4. To do the above in a timely manner - by setting up a working group to report back on a strategy to bring about divestment within three months from the submission of this petition

Why is this important?

We believe divestment from fossil fuels to be not only ethically and environmentally correct, but also financially prudent. 

Climate change is the greatest challenge humanity has encountered. The 20 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1981 and 2016 was the hottest ever [1]. Higher average temperatures are directly linked to extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, floods and storms. 

Scientists have unanimously concluded that these changes are a consequence of human activity, arising from the burning of fossil fuels [2]. Moreover, this activity has resulted in unprecedented levels of air pollution, now regarded as a major world killer [3].

In a speech at Lloyd’s of London in September 2015, Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England said that by the time ‘climate change becomes a defining issue for financial stability, it may already be too late’. Carney warned investors that policies to address climate change ‘would render the vast majority of reserves ‘stranded’ – oil, gas and coal that will be literally unburnable’ [4].

In order to continue developing fossil fuel reserves – particularly in the difficult areas where the remaining reserves are located (including the Arctic, the mouth of the Amazon and tar sands in sensitive areas) the developing companies need investment – divestment is a way of cutting off the funds needed to carry out these damaging activities. It also sends a powerful signal to the companies and others that it is time to move away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy.

References:
[0] http://tinyurl.com/lmskfgk
[1] http://tinyurl.com/y9tkm4sn
[2] http://tinyurl.com/3e3zv
[3] http://tinyurl.com/pqgdd5q
[4] http://tinyurl.com/ycspl5sg

Eleven Brent councillors call for deferral of Barnet decision on aggregate superhub

Eleven Brent councillors whose wards border on the A5 have written to the Chair of Barnet Planning Committee ahead of tomorrow evening's Planning Committee meeting at Barnet Town Hall in Hendon asking for a deferral of the hearing on the aggregate superhub behind 400 Edgware Road.

Dear Chair,

CALL FOR DEFERRAL
SITE: 400 Cricklewood Railway Yard, Land at Rear Of 400 Edgware Road, Road, Cricklewood, NW2 6ND
17/5383

I write on behalf of eleven Brent councillors whose wards border the A5. As your neighbours we are asking you to defer this item on the Agenda for February 8th.

As a member of the Brent planning committee I realise how you must feel about outside interest. We are also aware of the need for industrial uses in London (strategic industrial land) – but believe that these still need to be on appropriately located sites that are not in such tight knit urban areas with high concentrations of residential, and where people are living in already congested and highly polluted areas. I think most of us share your interest in building the new Thameslink station.

But despite common ground we would urge you to address several material planning considerations which are unaddressed or unresolved. We also note that documents are still being added to the website, leading to the feeling of a last-minute rush.

Should you decide to approve I have added some CONDITIONS for the applicant which would help mitigate some of the worst side-effects of traffic and pollution

1. THE PRINCIPLE OF AN AGGREGATES SITE

Delivery of the Thameslink station is not predicated on the aggregate facility – the site could be used for some OTHER railway-connected use. For instance, the Barnet Council-supported West London Orbital Railway needs a train depot.

2. THE REVISED APPLICATION DOES NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE MAYOR BECAUSE IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONSE FROM THE MAYOR HAD BEEN PUBLISHED.

It is considered that the application should not be determined until a comprehensive response to the Mayor’s Stage 1 report has been made by the applicant.

The Stage 1 report was issued by the Mayor of London on 29 November 2017. That report stated that the proposals did not comply with the London Plan and set out 4 detailed issues that required further resolution regarding Air Quality. Transport, Urban Design and Flood Risk.

Our main concern is that as the entire site would not be fully enclosed, it would not be in accordance with Policy S18 D 4 of the London Plan
This policy states that
“…where a site is likely to produce significant air quality, dust or noise impacts, it should be fully enclosed

3. IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE REFUSED ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE LOCAL PLAN AND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED PLANNING PERMISSION (2014) AND THAT A ROBUST JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS DEPARTURE HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY THE APPLICANT.

Planning Permission for the comprehensive redevelopment of Brent Cross Cricklewood (“BXC”) was granted in October 2010. A Section 73 planning permission was subsequently granted in 2014. For the Cricklewood rail site (the application site) the comprehensive redevelopment envisaged a containerised intermodal facility predominantly contained within a new building.

The planning statement submitted in 2017 with this revised application states ‘The Proposed Development does not comply with the approved parameters in the 2014 Permission’…………… ‘The Proposed Development will replace the existing supplemental strategic freight site occupied by NLWA and will represent a departure from the form of facility that was envisaged in the Development Framework and the 2014 Permission.’

The sole justification for this departure is based on the Strategic Rail Freight Assessment attached to the application, which presents relatively little evidence. Furthermore, the study is inconclusive and stops short of stating that a containerised intermodal facility is not viable, indeed it states;
Network Rail’s market study states that this sector will experience significant growth, with 9.6% annual growth being estimated……………In the medium-term intermodal traffic may be attracted to the site, but this would require changes in external factors such as road congestion charging or lorry pollution restrictions

The study was completed in January 2015 with a final version in March 2016 and there has been significant change in the future likelihood of lorry pollution restrictions since then. In addition, the future of the Radlett site, which was cited as a key reason for reducing demand at Cricklewood, is in doubt as the Council has not yet sold the site to the operator.

4. HIGHWAYS IMPACT

Please see Brent’s two objection documents

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Brent objects to the proposal on this ground. The application would cause harm to the amenities of the premises and neighbouring environment in terms of noise, light and air pollution. The scheme would increase pollution in an Air Quality Management Area.
Please see Brent’s two objection documents

6. LOCAL DEMOCRACY

This site is one of the first areas of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Brent Cross regeneration. The move away from the 2010 proposal for an intermodal containerised facility to a site with unregulated access for the part open storage and transfer of aggregates is regrettable. The justification for this departure is inadequate and does not align with the objectives of the regeneration of Cricklewood. It sets a precedent for the down grading of the wider regeneration proposal that will have detrimental impacts on the local community and should be resisted.

IN CONCLUSION, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT UNADRESSED MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS TO WARRANT A DEFERRAL, PARTICULARLY NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE LONDON PLAN.

Barry Gardiner closely questions Cllr Kabir on Village School academisation proposal

Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP for Brent North, The Village School's parliamentary constituency, has written to Cllr Sandra Kabir (Labour), Chair of Governors, with some pertinent questions about the school's proposal to form Multi Academy Trust with Woodfield School.

At the outset I want to put on record my admiration for the work the Governors and staff have done at both the Village School and Woodfield School each of which have been judged by Ofsted as outstanding. However, I write to express my concerns over the current proposal to form a Multi Academy Trust (MAT). I understand that you are inviting comments from parents and staff at schools, other local schools and elected representatives.

I am aware it is for the governing body of the school to determine who should be consulted but I hope you will consider involving local stakeholders with strong links to the school, in addition to the parents, teachers, other staff and their representatives. Can you provide me with a schedule of those you have contacted or who you intend to contact?

I would also ask if the Village School has already applied to the Department for Education (DfE) to become part of a MAT prior to the launch of the Consultation. If so, when did this happen? Can you provide me with a copy of the application and any other correspondence relating to the formation of the MAT, both with the DfE and any other relevant agencies.

The consultation document available on the Village School website sets out all the arguments in favour of forming a MAT, without setting out any of the problems or pitfalls which might arise in the process of creating a Multi Academy Trust or its subsequent operation. I would ask for a specific undertaking from you that during the consultation all responses will be given due consideration, that records of all consultations/responses and minutes of any further meetings are available, in accordance with the Academies Act 2010 and that any necessary further research is undertaken before a final decision is made. I note the five week consultation period ends on the 9th February and the consultation document says a final decision is expected by the end of March 2018.

Does this allow sufficient time for the following actions?

• Contact with all the parents and carers to explain the proposals, collate their observations and respond to them and publish the observations on line.
• Arrange a meeting with parents/carers or other opportunities to explain the proposals.
• Respond to requests (in writing) to view the proposals and answer questions.
• Discuss with staff about what becoming an academy means.
• Organise face to face meetings.

Can you provide me with a time line in relation to each of those points set out in the paragraph above.

The conversion of local authority-maintained schools to academies is a momentous decision involving legal, financial and structural changes and I have a number of concerns that I trust you will consider carefully.

The Village School benefited from a £29m capital investment from Brent Council to ensure the education of children with complex learning difficulties and disabilities would be transformed. Is it right that this public money and the capital assets should be outside of effective democratic control? In recent years the Village School and Woodfield School have worked together extensively on joint projects and in partnership with others such as the College of North West London (CNWL) for post-16 opportunities. It is unclear to me why why this positive arrangement should not continue.  This is not the case of a failing school being helped out by joining with a more successful neighbour. These are two existing successful schools. As such the case for a MAT must pass a very high threshold to show that the change is necessary.

I note that the school governors say they feel the extra freedom regarding curriculum and budget will help develop the vision for the school and ultimately improve the lives and learning of children. However, the consultation document states the leadership are still exploring the opportunities and checking staffing, finance, contracts lands an buildings. I find it difficult to see how, until the full details of the above are known, it can be sensible to rush into any change of legal status for either school.

Both schools already successfully develop children in all aspects of their lives, and I would question whether changing the status can deliver the value to compensate the extra work and extra risk involved in conversion to a MAT.

London schools within the local government framework have a proud and distinguished record of working together to reduce inequalities and raise academic achievements. This is founded on a high level of capital and revenue investment by councils across the city and, of course, payments out of the MAT budget allocation will need to be made to pay for services no longer provided by the local authority.

The Village School is an outstanding example of a school which has worked successfully with a council framework and benefited extensively from the capital and revenue investment I have referred to.

There is no guarantee that these services will not cost more 'even if taken from the local authority.' Critically the democratic oversight which the Local Education Authority (LEA) currently provides to ensure that the school provides value for money will be lost.

If the Academy were to struggle financially or academically there would be no back up from the local authority.

As a local authority school, staff terms and conditions are negotiated nationally and have protection. The Village School have said they will put in place protections to secure the staff terms and conditions are safeguarded. But what are these protection(s) and how does the school propose to make them legally binding for the future? This should have been clearly set out prior to any consultation, not alluded to during it. I am advised that many staff at Woodfield are agency staff and all staff are required to clock in and out each day.

Have the governors also considered the effect this might have on staff moral and whether it would lead to a high turnover of staff, including those with many years of experience who contribute so much to the school's current success.

I look forward to your full response to these serious concerns as a matter of urgency.

Open letter adds to pressure on the Village School to reject academisation

The following open letter has been sent to local and national newspapers regarding the proposed academisation of The Village School, a special school in Kingsbury. It has been signed by a number of Brent Labour councillors (The Village School Chair of Governors is Cllr Sandra Kabir, the Labour Group whip), union activists and educationalists:

The Village School is an important, valuable local asset. We oppose the unnecessary proposals for its academisation, and strongly believe that it should remain within the direct control of Brent Council.

Having been rated 'Outstanding' in its most recent Ofsted inspection, it is not only one of Brent Council’s flagship special needs school, but represents its very best. Much taxpayers' money, time and energy has been poured into this priceless local institution, and it should be directly accountable to, managed and owned by the people of Brent.

The academisation agenda is another fallacious government venture designed to fragment our state education system, pit quality staff against one another, and remove all semblance of real democratic accountability. The outstanding, hard-working and passionate teachers and support staff at the Village School – who work tirelessly every day to nurture the school’s young students and maximise their potential – have taken action to fend off this threat of academisation. We applaud their actions, and will continue to support them until this unconstructive proposal is dropped.

We implore the governing body of The Village School to halt any further discussions of academisation, and to explore other more sensible ways of working with other schools, such as legal partnerships with other schools whilst remaining in direct control of Brent Council.

Cllr Jumbo Chan, Brent (Lab)

Kevin Courtney, Joint General Secretary of the National Education Union

Louise Regan, President of the National Education Union (NUT section)

Kiri Tunks, Vice-President of the National Education Union (NUT section)

Martin Powell-Davies, London Regional Secretary of the National Education Union (NUT section)

Ian Murch, Treasurer of the National Education Union (NUT section)

Hank Roberts, Past National President of ATL and National Education Union London Executive (ATL section)

Lesley Gouldbourne, Secretary of Brent National Education Union (NUT section)

John Roche, Secretary of Brent National Education Union (ATL section) 

Jenny Cooper, Joint National Education Union Representative at The Village School

Oscar Ayyadi, Joint National Education Union Representative at The Village School

Cllr Claudia Hector, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Roxanne Mashari, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Mikey Pavey, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Sarah Marquis, Brent (Lab) 

Cllr Keith Perrin, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Ruth Moher, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Lesley Jones, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Parvez Ahmed, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Pat Harrison, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Ahmad Shahzad, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Janice Long, Brent (Lab)

Cllr Abdi Aden, Brent (Lab)

Prof Sir Tim Brighouse, Former Honorary Norham Fellow at the Department of Education, University of Oxford

Prof Diane Reay, Professor of Education at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge

Dr Christine Doddington, Fellow Emerita at Homerton College, University of Cambridge 

Prof Stephen Ball, Distinguished Service Professor of Sociology of Education at the UCL Institute of Education

Dr Melanie Cooke, Senior Teaching Fellow at the School of Education, Communication and Society, King’s College London, and Executive Committee member of King’s College London UCU

Dr Martin Dewey, Senior Lecturer at the School of Education, Communication and Society, King’s College London

Dr Nick Andon, Lecturer at the School of Education, Communication and Society, King’s College London

Prof Richard Hatcher, Professor of Education at the School of Education and Social Work, Birmingham City University

Dr Henry Tam, Director of Question the Powerful

Madeleine Holt, Co-founder of Rescue Our Schools

Anne Clarke , Co-founder of Rescue Our Schools 

Jonny Crawshaw, Co-founder of Rescue Our Schools 

Shana Carquez, Joint Chair of National Education Union London Young Teachers Network

Laurence Rose, Joint Chair of National Education Union London Young Teachers Network

Dr Michael Calderbank, Secretary of Brent Central Constituency Labour Party

Colin Adams, Treasurer of Brent North Constituency Labour Party

Dr Mike Phipps, Chair of Kensal Green Branch Labour Party

Alasdair Smith, National Secretary of the Anti Academies Alliance

'Why take a successful school away from local accountability, connections and scrutiny?' Public Meeting 8th February 6pm Brent Civic Centre

From Barry Gardiner MP

Brent North MP Barry Gardiner has called an urgent meeting at the Civic Centre on Thursday 8^th February to discuss plans to join the Village School with Woodfield School to form a Multi-Academy Trust.

6:00pm at Brent Civic Centre Conference Room on Thursday 8^th February 2018.

Senior Staff and governors from the school have been invited to answer questions and explain the proposed move to parents, staff and members of the community. There is a stay and play children’s activity facility in a separate room to allow parents to attend the meeting.

Barry said:  “I was pleased to welcome a group of parents and teachers who came to lobby me at the House of Commons recently. They raised a number of serious concerns about the proposal. It is right that governors should have the opportunity to hear from all the interested, caring and committed individuals who work in the schools or whose children are educated there and of course for the governors to explain why they think this Multi Academy Trust is necessary.

Ofsted, has rated the Village School outstanding in every area of its work, including how it cares for these wonderful, special children.  The governors must explain clearly to the community what the advantage to the children is to take a highly successful caring school away from local accountability, local connections and local scrutiny?   I have already written to the interim executive head of The Village School and Woodfield School asking just those questions.”