Brent Council Tax to rise by £71 to £1,496.54 for Band D

The Cabinet will approve a 5.01% Council Tax rise at Monday's Meeting will is expected to be rubber-stamped by Full Council.  The report going before Cabinet states:

The provisional local government finance settlement unexpectedly increased the ‘referendum limit’ for council tax from two to three per cent and, like last year, the Government’s financing assumption was that all councils would act on this. The rules on increasing council tax for the social care precept were unchanged. This means that the council could choose to increase council tax by up to 5% in 2018/19 without the need for a referendum, of which 2% would be ring-fenced for adult social care (the social care precept). The previous intention was to raise council tax by 4% in 2018/19, which at the time of the February 2017 Council report was the maximum permitted by the legislation. 


Taking into account the inflationary pressures that the council is subject to (which Ministers have confirmed were a significant factor in their decision to increase the referendum limit), the financial position in the round and the results of consultation through the Brent Connects and other meetings held by the date of despatch of this report leading Members have instructed officers to prepare the budget on the basis of a 4.99% increase in the Brent element of the council tax. The Mayor of London has announced plans for an increase in his precept of 5.07% (slightly different rules on the limits for the GLA apply due to its role as the police authority) making the overall increase in council tax 5.01%. This equates to £1,496.54 at Band D, or the equivalent of £28.78 per week, and the overall increase equates to £1.37 per week.  


The Council's Budget Counsultation via Brent Connects Meetings drew a very thin response, not helped by being conducted in the winter months. Only 114 residents attended in total and only one business association  responded according to the briefing just posted on the Council's website:

Five consultation events were planned between January and February 2018 at locations throughout the borough. At the date of the Cabinet meeting on 12 February 2018 four out of five meetings were held and had the following levels of attendance: 

Date	Location	Attendance
17 January	Brent Connects Wembley	27
30 January	Brent Connects Kilburn	23
6 February	Brent Connects Willesden	44
8 February	Brent Connects Kingsbury & Kenton	20
19 February	Brent Connects Harlesden

  

1.2  At the four meetings attended at the time of dispatch either the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Council delivered a presentation outlining the overall financial position and the difficult budget choices faced by the Council. The Leader then took questions from the audience and provided answers, supported by senior officers where appropriate for matters of technical detail. 


1.3  Feedback and opinions offered from these events varied considerably. As an example of the range of opinions expressed: 

 One resident asked how the proposals affect Brent’s Council Tax Support Scheme. The question was answered at the meeting, that the scheme will not be changing. 
                              

One resident asked if the proposals have impacted on school performance. The question was answered at the meeting, that 96% of schools in Brent are good or outstanding. 


 Other points raised were generally questions of clarification rather than specific feedback on the budget proposals. For example, one resident made a statement of support for the funding provided to families with no recourse to public funds, whereas another asked about the budget used to support people with dementia. 


 A number of queries were raised about the council’s reserves and how we compare to other London Boroughs, which were answered at the meeting. The Council has relatively low reserves compared to other London boroughs but current level is deemed adequate. 
  

1.4  Feedback and views from the final meeting to be held on 19 February 2018 will be provided for the Full Council meeting on 26 February 2018.


Business Consultation

1.5  Consultation with local Brent businesses was carried out by writing to the following organisations:

                  West London Business (a non-profit business leadership forum),

                 The Federation of Small Businesses, 


                 The Town Centre Business Association, and 


                 The Business Board. 


1.6  At the date of dispatch one response was received, which asked for further clarification on the budget setting process rather than a specific comment on the budget proposal.

Brent Labour Council backs anti-academisation stand at the Village School

Key speeches from last night's Public Meeting about academisation

Press release from the National Education Union

Yesterday evening (8^th February 2018) a packed conference hall at Brent Civic Centre with parents, staff, and local residents listened to a range of contributions in a meeting hosted by Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North. He was questioning the proposal to turn The Village school in Kingsbury into a Multi Academy Trust (MAT). Mr Gardiner clearly was extremely concerned that there was a complete lack of detail in this proposal and could see no reason why Governors should agree. 
There were no benefits for the school to go down this route yet many reasons raised by the audience as to why it should not. The audience was shocked that no one from the school who is backing this proposal was present – apologies had been received from the Headteacher Kay Charles, the Chair of Governors Cllr Sandra Kabir and Gail Tolley, Strategic Director Children and Families. 

During the meeting, Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council stated, “The academisation of any of our schools is the wrong process. … We want all our schools to remain within the (LA) family of schools. … How much clearer do I need to be I am on your side?” which was greeted by loud applause. Other Cabinet members and Councillors also made it clear that the Labour run Council were against the proposed academy. 

Cllr Jumbo Chan, who has been in full support of the campaign to stop the MAT since the start said after the meeting,

“I would like to thank Barry Gardiner and his office for organising tonight’s very useful, well-attended meeting at the Brent Civic Centre.

In addition to the many probing, productive questions put forward by members of the community, it was extremely encouraging to hear the council leader and cabinet members express plainly their absolute support for The Village School’s outstanding teachers and support staff, and their complete opposition to the unnecessary academisation of the school.

It would be a very positive step if parents, staff and other concerned stakeholders of The Village School can now be reassured through a public statement by all members of the cabinet reiterating their stances”.

Members from Woodfield school which is already an academy and would join The Village as a MAT if this proposal goes ahead, spoke out about the fact that there was already lots of collaboration between the two schools across a wide range of services and subjects so why change. Staff had different contracts at Woodfield and worse conditions since becoming an academy. 

There was a call from a local resident and Labour Party member for Cllr Sandra Kabir, Chair of Governors at The Village and Brent Labour Group Chief Whip, to either resign or agree with her fellow Labour Councillors and speak out against the academisation of the school. This was greeted by loud cheers. 

Finally, Mr Gardiner called on the Governors meeting on 28^th February where the decision is to be made to be open to the public to attend. He said that as the school is currently a maintained community school an open democratic meeting was essential.

Fury as Barnet Council approves Cricklewood Aggregate Superhub

I couldn't be at both the Academy and Cricklewood Aggregate Superhub meeting tonight so here is the sad news from the Barnet Planning Committee as conveyed by Twitter postings:

2. NW2 Res Association‏ @NW2_RA 30m30 minutes ago

   Barnet Council voted along party lines, 6 Conservative councillors approved the aggregate superhub, 5 Labour against. It passed. We’re furious. How dare they?

   
   
3. Fordwych Residents‏ @FordwychRA 7m7 minutes ago
This is terrible news for Cricklewood and surrounding areas. Surely it must go to appeal? There are so many flaws in the reports done by Capita and Barnet. We are extremely concerned about increased traffic and pollution. They didn’t listen to residents.


  Lorna Jane Russell‏ @lornajane2 58m58 minutes ago
Really disappointed that Barnet Tories ignored resident concerns from three London boroughs and voted to approve the Cricklewood super hub. Well done to @BarnetLabour for voting against it, and to everyone that spoke passionately against it this evening! @NW2_RA @FordwychRA


Fordwych Residents‏ @FordwychRA
Replying to @lornajane2 @BarnetLabour @NW2_RA
Thanks Lorna. We really appreciated you speaking against this proposal on behalf of Camden residents. Raising important issues on additional traffic and HGVs using Fordwych Road and other roads in our area. So disappointed it was passed.

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.