Brent's give away of £17,800,000 to Quintain and the FA won't go away as an issue

We're not celebrating Cllr Butt

Since people have woken up to the decision of the Cabinet made last July to the £17.8m allocation of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to Quintain and the Football Association/Wembley Stadium Limited to public realm improvements, including the steps that will replace the current ramps to the stadium, there have been plenty of critical comments on social media.

At its most basic level people cannot seen how Brent Council can repay a large lump of CIL money back to the developer for something that is not of direct benefit to local people when the borough's infrastructure is falling apart.

The lead member for regeneration, Cllr Tatler,  has claimed that people are just 'making mischief' about a decision made long ago.

Paul Lorber has written to Carolyn Downs

Dear Ms Downs

I am very concerned how the Council made the decision to hand over £17.8 million of public money to Quintain for the benefit of Wembley Stadium and the FA without any apparent regard to other important local priorities.

Have you walked down Wembley High Road recently? If you have have you will have noticed the dangerous condition of many of the pavements which represent a major trip hazards to the local pedestrians. The condition and appearance of Wembley High Road - also a major route to Wembley Stadium and surrounding facilities is a major Brent shame.

Local residential areas around Wembley are also starved of resources. Many streets have dangerous pavements, potholed roads, destroyed grass verges and vastly overgrown trees.

Yet the Officer report to Councillors about the £17.8 million makes no reference to other Brent wide priorities on which the £17.8 million could have been spent. There were no options presented to Councillors.

All of this suggests that there was some very effective lobbying by Quintain and the FA to convince officers and Councillors that they should become the main priority for these funds above all the other desperate needs across Brent. 

It seems ironic that while residents and local groups need to go through a rigorous bidding process to bid for any NCIL (Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy) money and then be assessed against competing bids a company such as Quintain (owned by investors via the Bermuda Tax haven) only seem to have to do some persuasion in secret to achieve a massive windfall of £17.8 million.

This decision exposes the Brent Council lie that there is no money to upgrade pavements or resurface roads in Brent. It sadly shows that both officers and Councillors in Brent are out of touch with local realities and are prepared to ignore the needs of local people by giving priorities to large developers operating from foreign Tax Havens.

I note that the agreement for the £17.8 million has not yet been signed. Since part of this is clearly a bribe for Quintain not to build next to the Civic Centre this decision should be reviewed and Councillors provided with other local projects the much needed money could be spent on rather than handed over for the benefit of the FA and a large private developer.

London launches National Park City Week July 21st-29th 2018

A child's view of Fryent Country Park

The London Assembly are to hold a London National Park City Week  from July 21st to 29th July to 'explore London's amazing outdoors and help make the city greener this summer.'

Details from the website below. It would be great if Brent could play their part in organising events (it might even help to tackle the child obesity problem by demonstrating that open air physical activity is fun).

What is London National Park City Week?

From 21-29 July, the city will host the first ever London National Park City Week. There’ll be loads of fantastic events and activities all week long as we celebrate London’s unique green spaces, waterways and natural environment.

We’re working with the National Park City Foundation and our partners across London on the events programme. We want to give Londoners the chance to discover the city with walks, talks, explorations, and family activities, and to help make the city greener.

National Park City Week is part of the Mayor’s plan to help make London the world's first National Park City in 2019. Our ambition is to make more than half of London's area green and blue by 2050. To make this happen, we need your help.

We’ll publish details of the full London National Park City Week programme later this spring. In the meantime, why not get planting or explore some of our wonderful green spaces. Share your experiences using #NationalParkCity.

Host an event for London National Park City Week

Do you want to help us celebrate  London’s unique green spaces and outdoor opportunities, and showcase your contribution? We want to work with partners across London – community groups, environmental organisations, boroughs, businesses – to host events that:

• help Londoners to explore London’s great outdoors, especially less well known green spaces, footpaths and waterways
• offer new and creative ways of exploring London’s green spaces and landscapes
• support Londoners who have limited access to green space, or visit the natural environment less often, to discover green spaces, trees and wildlife
• create new green space, or help people to green their local neighbourhoods or improve habitats for wildlife

Whether your events are free, paid, big or small, they should be as accessible to all Londoners. We’re particularly keen to host family-friendly events. We will include your event or activity in the online programme. You’ll also benefit from a high-profile marketing campaign.

If you’d like to submit an event, please complete the form by 20 April 2018. To talk to us about your idea, please email NPCweek@london.gov.uk.

Brent's child obesity crisis worsens - nearly 1 in 3 obese on leaving primary school

A report to the Brent Community Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee lays out the stark facts. Graphs show the annual trend since 2013 (click on images to enlarge):

The most significant trend is the proportion of Year 6 children who are obese as they make the transition to secondary school. The figures are well above the London and England averages and the latest figure at 28.6% compares with 24.63% in 2013.

4 and 5 year olds in Reception classes have a lower level of overweight and obese children but there the proportion of overweight children has peaked at 14.8% (13.06% in 2013) and the proportion of obese children is almost back to 2013 levels at 13.8% (13.97%) despite a dip in the interim.

The report looks at the relationship between deprivation and obesity and found only a weak link in ward data:

Analysis by ethnic group shows the highest overweight and obese group is the Black group but the Asian increase in obesity rates from Reception to Year 6 is also worth noting.

The report LINK lists initiatives already underway to tackle the problem including promotion of breast feeding, adoption of Maternity Early Childhood Sustained Home Visiting model, the Healthy Early Years Award introduced in 2012, Health Schools London award, Action on Sugar (includes sugar free Tuesdays), Allotment and Food growing Strategy, promotion of physical activity and action on takeaways near schools.

All this hasn't reduced child obesity although there is a slight reduction for 2016-17 in Year 6 overweight children. Clearly more needs to be done to tackle what is an urgent public health issue.

The report outlines what is proposed by the Brent Clinical Commissioning Group:

-->

The proposed Service Delivery Improvement Plan would be:

1)  Review food provided by the Trust in line with guidance on reducing obesity 
and health weight by end of Quarter 1 (30 Jun 2018); 


2)  Develop a local action plan to promote healthier options by end of Quarter 2 
(30 Sep’18), and monitor in Quarter 3 (Oct-Dec 2018) and Quarter 4 (Jan-Mar 
2019); 


3)  Develop a plan for front-line staff to have ‘Make Every Contact Count’ training 
about reducing childhood obesity and local weight management services by end of Quarter 2 (30 Sep 2018), and monitor in Q4 (Jan-Mar 2019); 


         4) Identify conditions where obesity is a risk factor (e.g.CHD, dementia,  diabetes), ensure family members are aware of ways to reduce their risks by being healthy weight, and ensure the family knows how to access weight management support, in Q3 (1 Oct 2018) onwards.

The treatment of childhood obesity

 The new 0-19 children’s public health service includes tier 1 and 2 weight management service. This is a preventive universal service with additional lifestyle weight management services for those children, and their families, who are overweight or obese. This is a new service within health visiting and school nursing and mobilisation has been delayed by difficulties recruiting to the new team. However, the full establishment has now been appointed. 


The CCG commissions tier 3 services for those children who require specialist paediatrician or dietician clinical assessment and advice. A very small number of children will require drug treatment or surgery. 


 The CCG and public heath secured funding from Health Education England which was used to provide tier 1 weight management training to front line staff working with children in Brent. 173 people have attended this training which should ensure a consistent high quality offer across the Borough. 


Help clean up the Welsh Harp tomorrow

Saturday February 24th 11am-2pm

Help us clean up this special reservoir in north-west London, for the benefit of nature and wildlife.
Join Thames21, London Wildlife Trust, Friends of the Welsh Harp, Canal & River Trust and the Phoenix Canoe Club as we come together to tackle litter on the Brent Reservoir Site of Special Scientific Interest (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 SSSI noted for its breeding pairs of great crested grebe, overwintering waterfowl, and marginal vegetation. So you will be making a difference to wildlife by volunteering.

Asbestos row: Duffy accuses Brent Council of sanctioning personal attacks on him

Cllr John Duffy has returned to the issue of asebstos contamination in Paddington old Cemetery with an email to councillors and others accusing the council of sanctioning personal attacks on him in the face of his attempts to unearth the facts over the issue.

Duffy wrote:

Brent Council has taken the extraordinary step of sanctioning personal attacks on me, These attacks  are a complete distortion of the facts and many are  plainly untrue. The Officers of Brent council have published what they call a fact sheet on there Web-site and handed out a similar document at a public meeting, which names me.. 

The officers are suggesting I am the cause of unhelpful rumours, which have left people feeling scared and uneasy instead of responding to the needs of my residents.

This is of course nonsense many of the facts stated are commonly agreed However the document seeks to mislead Brent residents by mixing -up facts to negate the real issues. All the issues I have revealed are all supported by evidence, unlike the officers facts which are based on the their views and have no evidence then other than "The Audit review report concluded that procurement procedures within the Cemeteries Service were inadequate at the time that work was undertaken at the cemetery and that management consider the recommendations from consultants to proportionately mitigate the soil contamination identified" Basically saying they had no control systems at the time  and in layman's terms the contaminated waste that was sent to Paddington Cemetery was not screened. I have been in the waste management business for over 40 years , I can tell you  that the idea that officers cannot not tell the difference between soil ( which would be usual for a graveyard  ) and builders rubble  ( which ended up in Paddington Cemetery) is frankly staggering.

FACT 1

I believe the import of builders rubble including Asbestos  ,instead of  soil has been going on for a number of years ,in fact since 2010/11  and the audit report confirms  that fact.In 2010/ 11 we paid £21K for  work including the supplying and laying of top Soil. The officer who was in charge went of sick  and the  person who took charge queried the quality of the  work and soil. He instructed that the contractor who carried out the work was not to be used for future work". 

FACT 2 

If we move forward to  August 2015 , we sees avery similar scenario another assignment of soil/Clay  which was bound for the section 3D on the mound in Paddington Cemetery.However this time the soil  to back fill a hole following the removal of a tree roots .The  assignment was found to have asbestos within it .The Brent Officers believed  it to be asbestos  and double bagged it and sent it West London Waste Authority for disposal  , the consignment note confirms that fact said it was classified as Hazardous waste and weighted 60 KGs.  

FACT 3

The  scenario continued and further shipments of waste was sent to section 3D in Paddington Cemetery to backfill the hole .During a excavation of 3D  for a burial on the 9th May ( 20 months after delivery of the shipment took place ) and on the 18th May 2017 , asbestos was  discovered and a sample was  sent to Tersus Asbestos specialists for examination and they conclude on the 17th May  that  it was asbestos cement (Chrysotile) the remaining( hundreds of pieces )  weighting 30Kgs was sent to Brentwood Essex .The consignment note confirms that fact saying it was Asbestos cement ( Chrysotile ) .

FACT 4

Every since the area (3D ) was used  for burials the gravediggers have excavated large amounts of builders rubble .However on May 9th Asbestos was found.Brent council     instead of stoping all new work  still instructed the contractor to continue to  excavate for new burials . The test result came back from Tersus Asbestos Specialists confirming Asbestos Cement ( Chrysotile) on the  17th May 2017. A further find of Asbestos took place on the 18th May by the contractor. Brent officers still instructed  the contractor to continued to  carry out burials until May 30th some 21 days after the initial find of asbestos and 13th days after confirmation that the find of up to a hundred pieces was  indeed asbestos cement. The  officers assertion that the gravediggers wore disposable coveralls for these burial is untrue  neither were they informed of the Tersus results  or given any specialised training. Work continued on the mound throughout out the summer and operatives were not given  any protective clothing or breathing equipment. I am sure now that the Brent Council have reluctantly agreed to interview staff, they will confirm the facts.

FACT 5

I produced photographic evidence that operatives were working on the mound .I supplied pictures given to me by a resident which  were taken Monday June 26th *2017 The resident was concerned  that the work-force / public were  not protected from hazardous dust on Mound arising from works that were taking place. Brent council in their attempt to smear me and distortions the facts  they took  the absurd   positions of saying the "Photographs (are) not conclusive. Works and precise location not identified". They are pictures of a graveyard , with gravestones .Its a fact we have  been using stones as historical marker since Stonehenge . How Brent Officers can say gravestones do not a portray a precise location beggars belief.  As for the date of the work you would only need to interview the workforce who were bussed in to do the work and see if they were informed that Asbestos had been confirmed on the mound and were they issued with protective clothing and was  the area sealed off to protect the public. I believe the photographs confirm the fact  that work continue on the mound and residents band the workforce was put at unnecessary risk.

FACT 6

The two specialist reports by Eton Environment ( Sept 2017) and Delta -Simon (Jan 2018)  took place well after the ( around a hundred  pieces of )  asbestos had been removed following their discovery in  May 2017 .The Eton Environment survey  found 28% of their samples were positive for asbestos  including  several large chunks of Asbestos cement which had high content. Whereas both the surveys point to a low risk situation now, the surveys was taken following the removal of around a hundred pieces of the Asbestos found  on the 9th and 18th May 2017 .Furthermore the reports do not comment on the level of contamination/ risk that was present when the  Asbestos was discovered and the risk associated with it removal undertaken by Brent Council. However the reports confirm the fact "No asbestos sampling was undertaken in association with this (those) reports" the only asbestos sampling report was Tersus  and the consignment notes which  confirm the fact that  asbestos was cement (Chysotile) " and the  consignment notes confirm the amount of Hazardous waste found so far has been 90 KGS 

FACT  7

The issue about the council being open is not sustainable. The facts confirm they have been forced to publish the internal Audit report, it is clear they tried to ensure the press and the public were excluded from all meetings . They were forced  to interview staff who were present  at the discovery of the contaminated waste in Carpenders Park. They were forced  to interview the gravediggers who carried out the burials. They also never published documentation from Tersus Asbestos specialists which showed they were aware it was Asbestos Cement ( Chrysotile) on the  17th May 2017. They have been forced to publish  relevant  (not all as at least two consignment notes are missing) documentation. They did not inform the school that work was being carried out  to remove asbestos .The idea they did not contact the school/residents not to raise alarm is nonsense. The councils Audit Report did not mention the School or the affect on residents while the removal of asbestos was taking place. The council had no intention of informing the school or indeed the residents.  They reluctantly called a public meeting where  they ensured no one  but themselves were given platform , instead allowing a panel of four council officers (accompanied by a further eight in the audience)  to put the council view  ensuring only they could be heard.

At the meeting council officers tried to avoid the real issue the which is how consignments of clay changed to builders rubble (with Asbestos)  and did they recklessly put people at risk by continuing  to carry-out works after the Asbestos was found on May 9th and were they right to store the contaminated  waste by the Green Space.

The Audit  report the council relies on, do not address the issues. I  believe that the  evidence bears our the fact that the council instead of preparing soil  that had ben screened for the burial of residents , they knowingly transferred to Paddington Cemetery sub standard soil /rubble including Asbestos. I believe we need an independent Health and Safety investigation (why did the council chose an audit report?), which looks at the facts outlined above and believe the council should be forced to implement that impartial investigation , including the issue of compensation for resident who bought burial plots in 3D section of the mound.

* Not the  24th as originally state 

KUWG urge Brent Labour to reject DWP's justification for job centre closures

Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group KUWG) are urging Brent councillors on the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee not to accept a DWP report tonight which reports on the closure of Kilburn and Neasden Job Centres. LINK

KUWG's case is set out in the leaflet below (Click on image to enlarge):

 The campaign group are organising a demonstration on March 2nd to mark the closure of the Kilburn Job Centre Plus.

 

Police called to Brent Civic Centre as Village School strikers protest

From the Brent National Education Union

The NEU members of The Village school in Brent took their protest to the steps inside Brent Civic Centre again today. As about forty staff, on strike for the second day this week against the proposed academy trust, moved onto the steps with their banners, frantic security staff rushed over. One tried to prevent a banner proclaiming NEU staff say no academy at Village school being unrolled. The campaigners calmly continued, holding up placards and flags, and singing their protest songs. 

Yesterday, after their morning picket, they were seen writing letters on the very same steps without complaint. When the police finally arrived today, the Civic Centre having been regaled with a variety of songs and chants and becoming the centre of attention, the protest was packing away. The security staff called the protesters ‘disruptive’. However, the police saw no breach of the peace and were very sympathetic to the strikers, understanding that privatisation was affecting all public services. 

We have been reliably informed that the responses to the consultation were OVERWHELMINGLY against the proposal (including more than 95% of TVS staff). This further crushing blow to those backing the scheme comes after Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council declared public opposition of both himself and the Labour Cabinet to handing over this valuable Council asset (the new school cost £29 million) lock, stock and barrel to the privateers. 

The Governors meet next Wednesday 28^th to make the decision, but papers sent to Governors clearly recommend agreement to become a Multi Academy Trust. Such is the assumption this will go ahead, the next item on the agenda is a discussion of the Articles of Association and even the suggested name for the MAT. NEU staff are determined to keep up the fight to save their school from being privatised. They will be on strike tomorrow (22^nd) and next week on 27^th and 28^th as well as turning up at the Governors meeting.

Key questions on Wembley regeneration for Scrutiny Committee

£

The Wembley skyline from Chalkhill Park

Tonight's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee is discussing a report on Wembley Regeneration LINK this evening.

The report by Amar Dave, Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment, reads more like a public relations plug for Quintain than an objective, warts and all assessment of the regeneration of Wembley so far.

The Scrutiny Committee are asked merely to note the contents of the report but I hope they will go a lot further in assessing this multi-million project.

Apart from the issue of  the 17.8m payment of CIL money for improvements to the public realm around Wembley Stadium, which includes new steps to replace the present stadium entrance ramps, there are other issues worthy of probing questions from committee members.

The issue of the provision of truly affordable housing looms large for many Brent people and the report claims that over 30% of the housing provided is affordable. This raises the question, aired many times on Wembley Matters, of what is meant by affordable. The committee should seek precise figures on how much has been provided at 80%, 65%, or 50% of marker rent or at the London Living Rent recommended by the GLA. What proportion of the housing could be afforded by Brent residents earning the median family income for the borough?

There is increasing criticism of the way high rise buildings are being squeezed into every available space by Quintain and it is worth assessing to what extent they have departed from the original plans and whether this more speculative build is the result of Quintain's takeover by Texas Star. The report merely notes that the acquisition has accelerated delivery without discussing whether this has led to any deterioration in quality.

Planning officers' recommendation of granting of planning permission even when  buildings do not meet London or Brent planning guidelines on factors such as height, light and density deserve probing as does the controversy surrounding the leader of the council's and lead member's meetings with developers.

The amount of student accommodation in the area deserves consideration following the planning department's decision to move the goal posts. They now assess the proportion against the target in terms of future build rather than current build enabling more applications to be approved.

The report makes great claims for job creation but the committee should be interested in the quality and sustainability of the jobs created, the proportion that are low paid or zero hours contracts as well as the number of jobs that have been lost when small businesses have moved out to make way for more high rise blocks.

There are many more issues but one of the most pressing is the plan to build a new three form entry primary free school, to be run by Ark,  on the site of the York House car park. Its position on a road with heavy polluting traffic and on a small site that necessitates a roof top playground has been criticised, but whether such a school is needed is also subject to debate.