Spurs v Barcelona road closures and bus diversions

The month is wrong but these are the arrangements for tomorrow's Spurs v Barcelona match at Wembley.

Note road closures and disruption to local buses.

Have your say on Copland/Ujima House redevelopment Oct 4th and 6th

Locals will be aware that the demolition of the old Copland High School building is in progress. Brent Council is holding a public consultation at Ujima House 388 Wembley High Road on October 4th (4pm-7.30pm)  and 6th (10am - 2pm).

Ujima House

Copland High School

According to the council the consultation is about the proposed redevelopment of Ujima House and the former Copland buudling and improvements to the public realm along Wembley High Road.

The council has been working with Karakusevic Carson Architects and Easy to develp ideas for the redevelopment if the sites, including new community facilities, workspace and new homes.

Residents will be able to meet council officers and the architects and give their views on the High Road and the design proposals to date, ideas for uses of the community spaces and feedback on proposed new play facilities and public realm improvements.

UPDATED: Wembley Stadium’s vanishing arch – more evidence on Brent Council's failure to protect 'iconic' views

 

View from Bobby Moore Bridge May 2011

 

View from Bobby Moore Bridge September 2018

Last month, I reproduced a letter from Philip Grant which had been published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” on 6 September LINK . This challenged the Council to explain why it had allowed its own planning rules to be broken, and why it had failed to protect the iconic view of Wembley Stadium, despite its promise to do so.

Philip sent a copy of the letter to Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs. Ms Downs replied that she had forwarded it to the Council’s Head of Planning, for attention and action, and that a response would follow. Here is the text of the Council’s response:-

‘Dear Mr Grant

Case 10658297

I write in response to your e-mail to Carolyn Downs within which you seek a response to the matters that you raised within your letter to the Kilburn Time. Within this letter, you have set out that you consider that the Council has failed to protect the view of Wembley Stadium and that you consider that the Council has allowed its ‘own planning rules to be broken’. Within your e-mail, you provide a link to an article that you have published on Wembley Matters which refers to two planning applications for developments within Wembley.

Policy WEM6 of the Wembley Area Action Plan relates to views to Wembley Stadium. This sets out that ‘Regard should be had to the impact of development on the following views … of the National Stadium’ with specific viewpoints referred to within the policy and on a map. The pre-amble to the policy discusses the contribution the Stadium makes and the importance of views to it. It sets out that the Council will protect a range of views to the Stadium.

The potential impact on the views to the stadium are considered within planning applications that could affect those views. This includes the provision of information to demonstrate whether the proposal will affect a protected view to the stadium and the extent of any effect on that view.

The submissions for the two planning applications that you referred to within your internet article do set out the effect of those proposals. As you have highlighted in your e-mail to Carolyn Downs, those reports (and the discussions at the planning committee meeting itself) highlighted that those proposals will result in a small reduction in the view to the arch. This matter was considered by officers and members, and the level of harm associated with this reduction was evaluated. On balance, it was considered that the extent of the reduction was such that it did not warrant the refusal of planning permission.

It is clear from the report and the discussion and debate at the planning committee meeting that regard was had to the potential impact of proposed development on the views to the Stadium. These proposals would result in a slight reduction in the view to the stadium. However, the level of reduction was considered to be small and the level of harm associated with this reduction also small. This is not a matter of rules having been broken. Due regard was had to the policy, with a slight impact occurring should those proposals going ahead. That impact was considered and weighed against the benefits of the proposals, and on balance, planning permission was granted.

Yours faithfully

Development Management Manager’

Philip has decided not to waste his time in trying to argue his point further, but has sent me this comment:

‘This response is typical of the sort of excuse that Brent’s planners come up with. They admit that their planning policy recognises the importance of views of the Stadium, and says that it will protect them. They say that ‘this matter was considered by officers and members’, and then they say that it was only a ‘small / slight reduction’ in the view of the arch, so planning permission was granted. 

Brent must be seen as a “soft touch” by developers. They have planning policies, but it seems they are willing to allow developers to ignore them, as long as they only breach them by a small amount each time! But those breaches are cumulative, and would not happen if Brent stuck to policies the Council had adopted, after public consultation.

The Council’s response does not answer my second question, on why it has failed to protect the iconic view of Wembley Stadium, despite its promise to do so. It HAS failed to protect the view. The evidence is plain to see, from these two photos  above) taken at the same spot on the Bobby Moore Bridge, in May 2011 and September 2018.’

The "protected view" of Wembley Stadium from the White Horse Bridge, on 2 November 2018. If only it was a case of No.13 being an unlucky number for the Stadium views supposedly "protected" by Brent's Planning Policy!

The view from Barn Hill (the road not the open space)

Brent rallies to Palestinian cause

In a move of great significance for the movement supporting the Palestinian's quest for justice

Brent  & Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Brent Trades Council organised a joint  meeting on 'Solidarity with the Palestinian People'. Local people crowded into the meeting addressed by national speakers showing the strength of feeling on the issue in our community. The meeting ended on a high note with participants urged to deepen and widen the Palestine solidarity movement.
Brent & Harrow PSC can be contacted at brent2harrowpsc@outlook.com email to join the mailing list or for further information. New members welcome.


Hugh Lanning, Chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign speaks, introduced by Mary Adossides, Chair of Brent Trades Council. 


Kiri Tunks President, National Union of Teachers section of the National Education Union.



David Rosenberg, Jewish Socialists' Group


Salma Karmi Ayyoub, criminal lawyer and external consultant for Al Haq, Palestinian human rights organisation


Graham Durham of Brent Central Labour Party


Questions and discussion part 1


Questions and discussion part 2

Solidarity with the Palestinian People - tonight Learie Constantine Centre 7pm - national speakers

Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Brent Trades Union Council have brought together a panel of nationally known figures for tonight's meeting at the Learie Constantine Centre.

Everyone is welcome to hear about the situation on the ground in Palestine and how people in Brent can take action in solidarity with the Palestinian people. The meeting in itself will assert our right to speak about these issues at a time when an atmosphere has been created that put this right at risk.

Brent NEU call on Brent Council to lobby for halting of Woodfield-Village Multi-Academy Trust

The following motion was adopted unanimously at the meeting of Brent National Education Union on Tuesday. It refers to the proposed Woodfield/Village Multi-Academy Trust:

‘We commend The Village staff on their ongoing campaign to fight against an imposed academy conversion. We note the [allegedly] corrupt practices that have been exposed in Woodfield academy and are subject to an Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) investigation. A further business consultant is now being bought in to work on finance at the school without any record of their business at Companies House. This was and is being overseen by both the former Headteacher and the existing Executive Headteacher.

We welcome the decision by the Labour Party at their Conference to halt all academy conversions and new free schools. We note with regret how out of touch the Brent Labour Party Chief Whip Sandra Kabir is, who pushed forward the academisation as Chair of Governors. This despite the overwhelming opposition by staff, parents, the community and local Labour Party members. The Conference vote underscores the fact that she did not, and does not, have Labour Party support for her stance.

There is still time for her to act and the proposal to be withdrawn. We hereby call on Brent Labour Council to lobby the Government and the DfE to halt the deeply flawed proposed Woodfield/Village multi-academy Trust. Should this not happen, we urge Brent Council to call on any new Labour Government to take The Village back into local authority control as a first priority.’

-->

Labour adopts Green Party policy on academies but there is more to be done

There was a welcome move at the Labour Party Conference towards the Green Party’s long-standing policy of opposition to academies and free schools and a commitment to reintegrating existing ones in the local authority school system. There is still a long way to go including the abolition of the SATs tests that narrow the school curriculum and stress both children and school staff unnecessarily, and the scrapping of Ofsted and its replacement by a peer-based method of school improvement such as that pioneered by the London Challenge and provided by Challenge Partners.

Unfortunately the change in Labour Party policy came after an article I had written for Green Left’s Autumn Conference Water Melon had gone to the printers. 

However, I think the following passage though is still relevant:

The concept of a National Education Service is relatively vague and still being worked on by the Labour Party.  At its worst it could be top-down, restrictive and bureaucratic at its best it could set up an entitlement framework across all sectors. 

Both Labour and Greens have to face the problem of the decline of local government both in terms of finances and democratic structures. The Cabinet system has meant very little open debate about local schools, which used to take place in Education Committees and scrutiny is often poor. Alongside this is a lack of public involvement with poor election turnout.

How will national government, local government and governing bodies interact in the future and how can democratic accountability be enhanced?

This is the statement issued by the Anti Academies Alliance:

Angela Rayner’s bold speech has put an end to the era of ‘cross party consensus’ on academisation that has dominated the education policy of the main parties for over a decade. In a move that will send shock waves through the board rooms of MATs and academy chains, there is now a realistic chance that the whole privatisation bandwagon will be halted.

Rayner’s speech to the Labour Party conference highlighted many of the problems and gave a glimpse of solutions through creating a democratic and locally accountable National Education Service. She tore into ‘fat cat’ pay and obscene profiteering. She put the needs of children and their families back centre stage of the debate. It was a genuinely refreshing vision. At last a politician has stepped outside the Westminster bubble and started listening.

Some may worry that there is insufficient detail as yet, but a new direction of travel has been set. Our job is to work together to help build this vision of a National Education Service, to help solve the detailed problems of “de-academisation” and to help carry the news of this important change into every school community.

That means challenging every academisation proposal. No school should academise this side of the next general election. It would be a costly, reckless and probably futile decision. The process consumes resources that would be better spent on ameliorating the effects of cuts to school budgets. Governors should refocus on real school improvement and local councils should scrutinise all plans for academisation and propose alternatives.

But it is also time for some introspection from the fat cat CEOs. The writing is on the wall. The least they could do is acknowledge how inappropriately they have been rewarded and offer serious pay restraint. But the likes of Sir Dan Moynihan, Sir Steve Lancashire and other fat cat CEOs should get out of education altogether. Their model of leadership has corrupted public services values in education. We need leaders in our school system who are committed to a National Education Service, who welcome local democratic accountability and who refuse to line their own pockets with exorbitant salaries. We need education for the many not the few.

Statement of Interest: I am a member of the Steering Group of the Anti Academies Alliance and a member of the National Education Union

Greens hail jailed Frack Free 4 as heroes

VIDEO Jailed anti-frackers speak out HERE


Responding to the news that four environmental campaigners have been jailed for peacefully resisting fracking in Lancashire, Keith Taylor, Green Party MEP and a vocal critic of the policing of fracking protests, said:

The frack free four are heroes. These people put their lives on hold to defend our environment and climate from the destruction imposed on it by a government blindly committed to fracking at any costs. The latest cost being the liberty of three peaceful protesters whose only crime is resorting to peaceful direct action to resist an industry after every democratic route of opposition was ignored and overturned by the government. The people of Lancashire and their democratically elected representatives repeatedly said no to fracking.

It has been almost a hundred years since Britain jailed its last environmental campaigners. Since then, the theory goes, we have developed into a mature liberal democracy that can accommodate dissent. Today's decision blows that myth wide-open; authoritarianism has become a favourite tool of a minority government that lacks the public's support to force through its environmentally destructive agenda by any other means. Any government that conspires with the dirty fossil fuel industry against its own people is rotten to the core.

Dissent is not a crime in any country with a political system fit to be called a democracy. Consequently, the sentences handed to the frack-free four are chilling.

-->