NEU urges Butt to follow Labour Party policy and act on Village School academisation

The Brent National Education Union passed the following resolution unanimously at their meeting last night:

Brent NEU note that The Village school is still a Local Authority school and that Brent Labour Party policy is to urge LA schools to remain within the LA family of schools. We further note that the overwhelming majority of staff and the community have called for the school remain in the LA family of schools. 

Brent NEU also note that the Labour Party Conference in September 2018 agreed the following.

“That in government, the Labour Party will bring all schools back under local democratic control including academy and Multi Academy Trusts. Therefore, proposals to wind up MATs and turn over control and management of schools to local democratically controlled structures should be developed urgently.”

Brent NEU therefore call on the leader of the council Muhammed Butt to urgently;

1. Write to the Chair of Governors and the Governing Board at The Village urging them to withdraw their proposal to become an academy as part of a Multi Academy Trust and remain as an LA school. 
2. Write to the Secretary of State for Education to urge the Government not to proceed with the proposal due to the difficulties accompanying this proposal to join Woodfield in a MAT.

Could you help create a community garden in Northwick Park? November 13th, Windermere Pub, South Kenton

One man's 18 month struggle to get a lamp repaired results in...

Broken lamp April 2017

ACTION! ? November 2018

In January this year South Kilburn resident Pete Firmin write about the problems he'd had trying to get a lamp repaired on the footpath way adjacent to Kilburn Park Station LINK.

Apparently the delay in repair was down to a dispute between Brent Council and Catalyst Housing about which organisation was responsible.  You can't fault Pete Firmin in his efforts to get the light repaired:

As the nights draw in one would hope someone would get around to actually repairing it so that pedestrians have the benefit of lighting as they walk along the path - but no!

Instead someone has taken action but only to seal off the light. Is it an artistic prelude to something even more exiting - a repaired light?

 It's a lovely neat sticky tape job but not much to show for more than 18 months of procrastination!

Candlelit vigil at the Kiln (Tricycle) Theatre's White Teeth first night

Production photo - White Teeth (Kiln Theatre)

Opponents of the change of name of the Tricycle Theatre, Kilburn are organising a candlelit vigil at Monday's first night of Zadie Smith's White Teeth LINK.

Martin Fisher of the It's our Tricycle Not Your Kiln campaign told Wembley Matters:

Out of respect for our local author, we decided on this rather than a noisy demo. 

To be clear, this campaign has no argument with the artistic direction of the theatre but we - and nearly all of the thousands of people we have encountered over 6 months - strongly object to the change of name. 

The Tricycle was loved locally and hugely admired abroad. The change and the high-handed manner of the Kiln has alienated a significant part of its former supporters and most of the local community.   

The vigil will begin at 6,15pm on Monday.

Big changes for St Raphael's Estate on Brent Cabinet agenda

The Brent Council Cabinet is poised to approve a consultation on the redevelopment of St Raphael's Estate at its meeting on Monday November 12th (4pm, Brent Civic Centre). LINK

The estate borders the North Circular Road and the River Brent and consists of around 1174 properties of which Brent Council manages 807. Network Housing also manages some and others are private following Right to Buy. The estate was constructed between 1967 and 1982 with little intervention since.

'Limited' shops

Open views on to green space

Space for small gardens and lawned common areas

Green space between the estate and the River Brent

The officers' report states:

St Raphael’s estate was built when land was in abundance and therefore the build density is low. This presents an opportunity, for the Council to consider what options are available to maximise housing supply on the estate. By doing so, the Council can start to address the housing needs on the estate, as demonstrated above. Initial indications are that, with careful planning and support of residents on the estate, redevelopment options could produce significantly more homes, of the right size and which are genuinely affordable, than the current residents of the estate require. 

Options: 


1. Refurbishment with Limited New Build– This option would retain but increase the height of the existing blocks but could also possibly add new blocks on available land as in-fill to the existing estate. This option would not likely to be able to deliver the best outcomes for St Raphael’s that a re- development could as it would eat into and not re-provide greenspace. It would not facilitate the reprovision of better community facilities. 


.         

2. Re-development - This option would be the most radical and would likely involve the re-modelling of the estate and also increase the overall numbers of homes located on the Estate and at the same time, address the socio- economic issues affecting residents on the estate through improvements to the infrastructure on the estate. This would require a ballot. 


If Option 2 is not to eat into the green space on the estate and between the estate and the river, it appears likely that there will be high rise development.

In the past the estate had a difficult relationship with the residents of the private houses just over the River Brent in Monks Park. At one stage Monks Park residents asked that the bridge linking the two should be removed so that St Raphael's residents couldn't access their streets. Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt declares two residences on Monks Park in the Register of Interests and Dawn Butler has a house there.

Brent Council recognises the socio-economic challenges the estate faces:

The Council is committed to improving the housing, environmental and economic outcomes for those who live on the St Raphael’s Estate. The Council is aware from both the feedback and from its own knowledge of the Estate that there are environmental, safety and socio-economic issues for St Raphael’s. For example, the Community Profile for St Raphael’s identifies some specific challenges for its residents:

·      38% of children are living in poverty in St Raphael’s compared with 19% across England 


·      25% of people have no qualifications in St Raphael’s compared with 22% across England, 18% in London and 19% in Brent 


·      27% are in full time employment compared with 39% across England, 40% in London and 36% in Brent 


The Council also knows that there are other issues.

·      St Raphael’s is identified as having a low PTAL (public transport accessibility level), and only 56% of households have a car (compared to 74% nationally). 


·      The nature of the roads and river surrounding St Raphael’s can make it feel isolated even although it is relatively close to Wembley, which is exacerbated by the limited retail offer on the Estate. 


·      There are also issues in regards to the air quality and noise from the North Circular. The parts of the estate immediately beside the North Circular have high poorer air quality (65-90 NO2 (ug/m3) – reducing down to 75 dB) - reducing down to 0-55 dB further into the Estate. 


The Council is also aware that personal robbery is a prevalent crime on St Raphael’s estate, which increased by 107% from last year, compared to an increase of 52% in the rest of the borough. Also increasing, but to a lesser extent, are assault of wounding/Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). There is also recorded gang activity on the estate. The Council’s Community Safety and Housing Management teams are working very closely with the Metropolitan Police to try and tackle these issues. However, the design and nature of the estate is likely to be a contributing factor in these crimes. 

The redevelopment option would introduce private housing into the St Raphael's mix in order to finance the redevelopment and provision of additional affordable housing and the South Kilburn regeneration is cited as an exemplar. However there are differences in terms of involvement with private developers:

Whilst the South Kilburn model has worked through the Council engaging with delivery partners to deliver and manage new private and affordable housing, on St Raphael’s the Council will seek to explore with its partners and Council wholly owned companies such as I4B and First Wave Housing, to be able to deliver/manage private sale or market rent housing products, as well as retention of social housing by the Council alongside Network Homes and Peabody Trust.

Unlike the South Kilburn development any redevelopment of St Raphael's will have to go to a tenants' ballot following GLA rules. 

Here are extracts from a residents' survey about the estate (click on images to enlarge):

Given the report's mention of gang activity it is noteworthy that 'facilities for youth' is top of the residents' agenda for improvement but that of course is not just a matter of providing a building but also the provision of ongoing funding. The Roundwood Centre is a great building, the last one left in Brent, but the latest Brent Council budget proposes no longer funding its youth service activities.

The high priority given to parks and green spaces by residents is also significant and it is likely that any proposals that eat into that space will be opposed.

Overall of course concerns that the redevelopment is a cover for gentrification will have to be addressed by councillors and council officers.

Save the Queensbury Campaign gears up for another round of their battle for the pub as the developer applies for an inquiry into Brent's refusal of planning permission

Campaigners fighting to save the Queensbury pub in Willesden Green from the bulldozers are urging supporters to attend a consultation on the developer's plans at St Gabriels Church on Chichelle Road (off Walm Lane) on November 8th. 4pm-8pm.  At the same time the developers, Redbourne (Queensbury) Ltd have given notice of an appeal against Brent Council's refusal of planning permission and asked for an inquiry LINK.

A statement on the campaign's website

It’s been quiet since May, then shock and horror for Halloween week.

In a leaflet drop over the weekend the owner / developer of 110 Walm Lane gave notice of a public consultation at St Gabriel’s Church Hall next Thursday 8th November. This is an exhibition of a “new plan” and an opportunity to “have your questions answered” yet the leaflet bizarrely fails to mention the pub nor include any further detail on what is planned. Likewise the dedicated website (www.walmlane.co.uk) provides just a date and map, so we have no clue how much of nightmare the New Plan will be.

Save The Queensbury is easily confused. At the same time the developer has applied to the government’s planning Inspectorate (cynically just days before the legal deadline) for a six day public inquiry into Brent Council’s decision to save the pub from demolition – based on the plan kicked out in May by Brent Council.

Please tell your neighbours, Councillor, friends and others about this and encourage them to pop along and give their views.

Cllrs Tariq Dhar and Lia Coll have pledged their support:

 The Queensbury has always claimed it is more than just a pub - it is a community asset and this is just one of the activities that takes place there:

 These are the grounds on which Brent Council refused planning permission:

.        1  The proposed development, by reason of its massing, poorly designed front elevation and lack of articulation, would appear unduly prominent and out of character in the street scene and in the wider locality. The development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Mapesbury Conservation Area in which the site is located. As a result, the proposal fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Policies 3.4, 3.5 and 7.4 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016); Core Strategy (2010) policy CP17, Development Management Policies (2016) DMP1 and DMP7; Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 “Design Guide for New Development”, October 2001; and the Mapesbury Conservation Area Design Guide. 

 


.        2  The proposed development would not provide an adequate overall standard of accommodation for future occupiers, by virtue of the lack of amenity space for all units, the undersized nature of units AF3, AF5, AF8, AF11 and AF15, the poor outlook of units 2.06, 3.06 and 4.05 and the poor layouts, narrow widths and usability of the units which would be contrary to Development Management Policy (2016) DMP1 and DMP19, Policy 3.5 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) and the Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standards (2015). 

 


.        3  The proposal would fail to provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing which would be contrary to Core Strategy (2010) policy CP2 and Development Management Policy (2016) DMP15, policy 3.12 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) and policies H5 and H6 of the draft London Plan. 

 


.        4  In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter the proposal would result in additional carbon dioxide emissions within the borough in an Air Quality Management Area, without any contribution to carbon reduction measures in the area. The proposal would also fail to demonstrate that a BREEAM rating of at least ‘Very Good’ could be achieved. As a result the proposal would be contrary to London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) policy 5.2, 5.3 and 7.14, Core Strategy (2010) policy CP19, Development Management Policy (2016) DMP1 and the Mayors Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2014). 

 


.        5  In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter, the development would result in additional pressure on servicing, parking demand and transport infrastructure to the detriment of the free and safe flow of traffic and pedestrians which would be contrary to Development Management Policies (2016) DMP1 and DMP12. 


Follow Save the Queensbury on Twitter @QueensburySOS

Website LINK

Women during WW1 talk at Barham Library November 17th

Chris Coates (from Preston Community Library) will speak on the subject of Women during WW1 on Saturday 17th November starting at 5:15pm.  Paul Lorber will also make a short contribution on the Suffragette Campaign including an interesting connection with Wembley.

 Barham Community Library is at 660 Harrow Road Wembley HA0 2HB with buses 18, 92, 182, 204 and H17 stomping nearby. Wembley Central station is 15 minutes walk away with most of the above buses stopping nearby.

Brent Council's 'deep and sincere regret' over Cassie's adult social care experience & commitment to learn from the case

Following on from Tuesday's story (see below) about 'Cassie' an adult on the autistic spectrum, who contracted HIV while in the care of Brent Council at a home provided by an Independent Provider, a Council spokesperson has given Wembley Matters the following statement:

“All of the partners on the Safeguarding Adults Board, including the Council, have expressed our deep and sincere regret to both Cassie and her family.   We can confirm that Cassie is now safe and happy and is having all her health and care needs met. 

“As soon as the Council became aware of the situation the Safeguarding Adults Team took immediate action to ensure that Cassie was safe and receiving the support she needed, and further steps were taken to ensure no other person was at risk.  The matter was reported to the police, who undertook a full investigation. 

“Following these immediate actions, the Council asked the Safeguarding Adult Board to consider commissioning an independent Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR).    A SAR is a nationally recognised process, under the Care Act 2014.   The Board and the Independent Chair agreed this met the criteria for a SAR because there had been serious harm in a complex case which involved a wide range of statutory and voluntary agencies.  The purpose of a SAR is to ensure the independent consideration of the facts, and to use these facts to identify and promote effective learning across all agencies.  It is a key part of improving services in order to prevent serious harm occurring again.  The function of SARs is not to apportion blame or make judgements about negligence.

“As a result of the SAR, the Safeguarding Adults Board has a multi-agency action plan.  This will be monitored by the Board and the Board’s Independent Chair, who will ensure that the lessons have been learnt across all the agencies involved.   

“The Council has fully supported this process.  We have already delivered a range of actions to improve the support we provide to vulnerable adults in Brent, including setting up a team that specifically focuses on reviewing the quality of care and support for individuals in residential placements, and integrating the health and social care learning disability teams into a single team providing holistic support to adults with a learning disability. 

“Cassie continues to do well in her new home and we continue to ensure that she is getting the support that she needs.”

-->