Monday 2 July 2018

Wembley’s hospitals and the NHS 70th Birthday

Guest blog by Philip Grant

July 5th 2018 sees the 70th anniversary of the founding of the National Health Service, and there will be a community tea party in Wembley’s Yellow Pavilion the following day (Friday 6th July, from 1pm to 4pm) to celebrate the event:-



But what medical facilities did the ordinary folk of Wembley have before the NHS was set up, and who provided these? I was invited to provide some “local history” information for this NHS70 event, and I would like to share some of it with “Wembley Matters” readers here.

Ever since Tudor times (after Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries who had often provided some health care to the areas around them) the Church of England parishes were expected to provide care to poor people within their district. Every year each parish appointed two or three local men to serve as Overseers of the Poor, raising money to meet the costs of providing “relief” and (if they were lucky) some basic medical care.

Most of Wembley was in the Harrow parish, but in the 1840’s two spinster sisters, Anne and Francis Copland, who had inherited their father’s estate at what is now Barham Park, campaigned for Wembley and Sudbury to be made a separate parish, and paid to have St John’s Church built in Harrow Road, not far from their home. They were great philanthropists, providing money for a school, and a workmens hall (including a small library).


Anne Copland, c.1860

In 1871 (the year before she died) Anne Copland gave money to build and endow a Village Hospital. The site is now Wilkinsons, in Wembley High Road, near the junction with Park Lane.

Charles Goddard, 

Unfortunately, Anne had said that only the interest (at 4%) from the investments she had given the hospital could be used to fund its running costs, and the hospital had to stop taking inpatients in 1883. After that, the building became a doctor’s house, at which the sick could be seen, and given medicines from a dispensary.

The doctor living in the former cottage hospital, Charles Goddard, became Wembleys first Medical Officer of Health, when it was made a separate District Council in 1895. He held that post for around forty years, and in 1924 he called a public meeting to propose that a new hospital be built. There was a lot of support from local people, and Titus Barham (who owned the Express Dairy Company, and lived at Sudbury Park, which had been the home of the Copland sisters) donated land at Chaplin Road, which was part of his own dairy farm, as a site for the new Wembley Hospital. Barham also donated £2,000 towards the cost of building it, and he and his wife Florence were active in organising fund-raising events for the project as well.

The foundation stone for the hospital was laid in October 1926, a Board of Management for the hospital was set up, and the new hospital was opened on 2 June 1928 by the Duke and Duchess of York (later King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, who became the Queen Mother when their daughter succeeded to the throne in 1952).


Wembley Hospital, around 1950.

When Titus Barham, who had been the hospitals president, died in 1937, he left a further £20,000 to Wembley Hospital in his will. But as a charity (a bit like St Lukes Hospice today), it needed to regularly raise money from other sources. One of the ways this was done was by holding an annual hospital carnival week, with a Carnival Queen, street parade and various fundraising events. Another important source of funds was a “hospital savings scheme”, where by paying contributions of sixpence a month (made by 20,000 of the 90,000 residents in Wembley and Kingsbury in the late 1930’s) local people were entitled to free treatment in the “public wards”.


The Anne Copland Ward at Wembley Hospital, around 1950.

When the NHS was set up in 1948, Wembley Hospital was absorbed into this new service, but although its management had changed, it still provided the same type of care to its patients. Like many other hospitals, as well as training local young women as nurses (under the supervision of the Matron), Wembley also benefitted from some who came from the Caribbean (another 70th Anniversary! – LINK
 
 
Christmas time in the Children’s Ward, Wembley Hospital, 1950’s

Wembley Hospital’s role diminished over time, especially after the new District Hospital at Northwick Park was built in the late 1960’s, but its site in Chaplin Road is still providing a range of health services for local people (me included!) as the Wembley Centre for Health and Care. So, Happy 70th birthday NHS, and thank you.

Philip Grant

Acknowledgement
All images are  from the Wembley History Society Collection at Brent Archives.

-->

Sunday 1 July 2018

Lorber invites Brent CEO to take a walk in the park & survey residents' views on the meadows issue

Paul Lorber in Barham Park
Paul Lorber, former Lib Dem councillor has taken up the issue of the state of Brent's parks and the council policy to allow meadows to develop to encourage biodiversity - and to save £450,000 in grass cutting costs. Wembley Matters alerted readers to the proposal and critiqued it nearly a year ago. LINK

Dear Ms Downs

On a sunny summer day Barham Park in Wembley is usually full of people relaxing on the grass, playing games and chasing around with their children.

None of these is happening anymore since Brent Council to stop cutting the grass.

What has been created are not ‘wild meadows’ as has been claimed as these need planning, preparation, proper planting and cultivation - but a mess full of uncut grass and weeds. As a result of Council action local people are being deprived of usable access to the Park - at the height of the summer.

There was of course no proper consultation about this and no proper consideration of the consequences. All the talk of encouraging local people to participate in recreation and exercise is of course a lot of Brent hot air.

As you know schools will break up soon and our Park will be needed by families and their children.

As I was advised that the next cut in a Barham Park will not now take place until October it would seem that Brent Council is happy to ignore the needs of families and their children over the 6 week summer holiday and keep our parks overgrown and neglected.

I cannot imagine that officers could be so irresponsible to recommend this course of action and Councillors so stupid as to accept this advice.

I strongly recommend that you undertake a tour of all the Parks Brent and ask local people what they think of the state of their parks and the current Council policy of effectively keeping them out.

Hopefully such a tour will persuade you that the current position is not acceptable and you will recommend immediate action to get the grass cut and the parks open spaces brought back to an acceptable standard so that local people can once again use and enjoy them.

I look forward to your prompt action on this scandal.

Yours faithfully

Paul Lorber
Local resident and taxpayer and user of Barham Park

Friday 29 June 2018

Show some #NHSLove tomorrow & celebrate 70th anniversary



Message from Larry Sanders, Green Party Health Spokesperson

Tomorrow, I will be taking part in a demonstration in London celebrating the 70thanniversary of our wonderful NHS.

The event has been organised by a range of health and campaign organisations, including Health Campaigns Together (of which the Green Party is an affiliate), the People's Assembly and the Trades Union Congress.

We assemble at 12 midday at Portland Place, London and will march together to Downing Street.

The marchers will include Greens, including Deputy Leader Amelia Womack, as well as people of all parties and none. Together we will affirm our support for a publicly owned and properly funded NHS, that is free for all, and show our appreciation of our amazing NHS workers.


Yours in solidarity
Larry Sanders
Green Party Health Spokesperson

UNISON - 'It is time to re-build Barnet Council & start process of bringing services back in-house'

Today Barnet Council have published a financial report detailing three options for the two Capita contracts in Barnet LINK

The options are as follows:

  1. Maintain the status quo in relation to the CSG and DRS contracts;
  2. Re-shape the contracts to better align service delivery to the council and Capita’s strengths and priorities, within the context of the existing contractual structure; and
  3. Bring the partnership to an end, and either bring services back in house or re-procure them.
The senior officers preferred option is Option 2.

They have identified the following services to be brought back into Council control

CSG (Customer Support Group)

  • Finance and Accounting (excluding transactional services provided from the Darlington shared service centre)
  • Estates (Property Services, Building Services and Facilities Management)
  • Strategic HR
  • Safety, Health and Welfare
  • Insight
  • Social Care Direct
Re (Regional Enterprise Ltd)

  • Regeneration Commissioning (including commissioning the Brent Cross programme)
  • Highways
  • Economic Skills and Development
  • Cemetery and Crematorium
  • Strategic Planning
John Burgess, Branch Secretary of Barnet UNISON, said:

I could say we, told you so, and we did. However the Council is in a financially critical situation and now is not the time to for rhetoric. It is time to start rebuilding our Council. I welcome the report going to Policy and Resources Committee on Thursday 19 July 2018.
However, Barnet UNISON will be supporting option 3 with qualifications. We support bringing the partnership to an end, and beginning the process of bringing services back in house. It is simply not feasible to contain to peddle the Commissioning Council model. Pragmatism driven by the financial crisis has to mean that the Council needs to include in their business case a major restructuring of senior management across the Council including the Barnet Group. The Commissioning restructure 2012 is not fit for purpose. The Council need to look at how services best fit including those within the Barnet Group. There must not be a silo approach to insourcing. 
NOTES FROM BARNET UNISON

Footnote: On 26 June 2017 Capita share price was 705.50 now six months later the share price closed today at 202.09 which represents a 72% drop in their share price over a six month period.
On Wednesday 31 January, 2018 the Capita share price opened up at 347 and closed at 182.50 which represents a 47.53% fall in share price.

Links.
Damning report into EasyCouncil, Outsourcing including forward by John McDonnell
http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Barnet-UNISON-Capita-report-2018.pdf
Below are three short video messages from Dexter Whitfield on his report.
Dexter Whitfield on campaigning against outsourcing
https://youtu.be/zDt8VKKQ-Vs
Dexter Whitfield on outsourcing failures
https://youtu.be/IiD17Pt7OwY
Dexter Whitfield on true costs of Barnet easyCouncil
https://youtu.be/V0SytYCj1HA


Thursday 28 June 2018

CHANGE OF VENUE & TIME: Brent Stands Up to Trump! July 7th Harlesden TAVISTOCK HALL 12.30pm


Brent Momentum, Brent Stand Up to Racism, Brent Central Labour Party and Brent Stop the War  are holding a meeting from 12.30pm - 2.30pm  Tavistock Hall  25 High Street
Harlesden,
London NW10 4NE
  on Saturday July 7th to organise support for the demonstration on Friday July 13th when Donald Trump comes to the UK.



Speakers include:

Cllr Muhammed Butt (Leader, Brent Council)

Sabby Dhalu (National Co-Convenor, Stand up to Racism)

Ian Hodson (McStrike/ President, Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union)
Shaka Lish (Brent Green Party & Greens of Colour)
Seema Chandwani (Haringey TUC)
Mary Adossides (Chair, Brent Trades Council)
The organisers are at pains to emphasise that attendance on July 7th is not restricted to Labour Party members.  Free places can be booked HERE


Tavistock Hall is 8 minutes walk from Willesden Junction or Harlesden stations. 18, 260, 266, 206 buses.

International Reggae Day Sunday in Willesden


Wednesday 27 June 2018

UPDATED-PLANS APPROVED Brent Planners blagging for blocks in Wembley Park

Olympic Way today
UPDATE THE SCHEME WAS APPROVED BY BRENT PLANNING COMMITTEE LINK

I have suggested here before that Brent planners seem rather too accommodating to developers and the report for the Olympic Office Centre development application by Network Housing (Planning Committee July 4th LINK) has a number of examples of the developer getting the 'benefit of the doubt.'

The application is by a housing provider but contains only 30% affordable housing by household - the report claims 35% affordable but this is based on rooms occupied rather than the housing unit.  A slight difference perhaps, but significant.

A part 21 storey,  part 15 storey development will replace the present 8 storey building on the site bordered by Fulton Road, Rutherford Way and Olympic Way.

The new development
The existing 8 storey building is on the left. It will be replaced by a 21/15 storey building wedged up against the Unite Student building on the right

The report reveals a difference of opinion between Brent Labour Council and the Labour GLA in whether more affordable housing should be expected from what was once seen as a social housing provider. Out of the 253 units 34 will be a London Affordable Rents level (the use of this definition is welcome) and 43 shared ownership where the rent should not exceed 40% of net household income.

The rest will be private and presumably at market rents. The officer's reject the GLA's argument (Para 54 onwards of report LINK ).

A new  strategy is to cite the 'high density', 'densely built', 'highly urban' nature of the area - all consequences of what I consider poor planning decisions in the past but now used to justify more of the same. 


The cumulative impact of proposed schemes from Wembley Park station
Here are just some of the quotes from the officers (my emphasis):

Whilst the bedroom windows on this side of the development would see a lesser standard of privacy than other windows in the development, the windows on to which they face serve student flats occupied by transient populations not warranting the same level of protection as permanent residences. Furthermore, it is conceded that the general scale of development in this highly urban part of Wembley would inevitably necessitate some tighter relationships between buildings in places and given that this is the only relationship between another building and the proposed development which falls short of standards, the relationship is considered to be acceptable.

Overall, the impact of the proposal on surrounding daylight and sunlight levels for existing and emerging buildings is considered acceptable. There are instances where reductions would be felt (and they would be noticeable in some cases). However, the overall number of discrepancies is considered to be relatively minor considering the scale of the development. Your officers are of the view that given the benefits associated with the development of this site (the provision of a number of new homes in the borough) and the dense urban nature of the subject site and surrounding sites, the benefit of the proposed development was considered to outweigh the harm associated with the loss of daylight and sunlight. It is not considered that the matter would warrant a reason for refusal 


The LPA (ie the Local Planning Authority - the officers) agree (with the developer) that the availability of nearby open space and emerging social infrastructure will be numerous and that such provisions would justify a shortfall in total provision of play space. The lack of full onsite adherence to playspace is to be expected with the high density of the scheme proposed. 

The current offer of 35% affordable housing per habitable room falls below the 50% Local Plan target. However, it is a strong offer and Network Homes have improved the affordable rented provision as requested while maintaining the total original provision despite it being agreed by all parties that the scheme results in a financial deficit. Officers and BNP Paribas view this revised offer as the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing the scheme can deliver, in line with planning policy, subject to securing an appropriate post-implementation financial review mechanism in the s106 agreement. 
 
Considering the benefits of the scheme, it is considered that the small reduction in the visibility of the eastern part of the arch is an acceptable consequence of this development and it is noted that the western part of the arch is already obscured to broadly the same extent, helping to bring symmetry to the view of the Stadium along the Olympic Way corridor. 
 (We've already messed up the view on one side so let's make it symmetrical.)

-->

-->