Brent to set up Knife Crime Task Group - where's the youth representation?

The Resources and Public Realm Committee of Brent Council is to set up a Knife Crime in Brent Task Group. Members will be councillors Kabir (Chair), Gbajumo, Johnson, Chappell & Stephens plus Richard Harrington, Senior Policy and Scrutiny Officer.

A Public Health approach to the issue is advocated:

Give that Brent Council has closed most youth provision in the borough, including infamously the Stonebridge Adventure Playground, I am surprised that an assessment of impact of closures is not in  the terms of reference and that youth organisations (or even the Youth Parliament) are not listed as consultees. It would have been useful to have representatives of the YP on the Committee itself.

KNIFE CRIME IN BRENT TASK FORCE

A.         CONTEXT

KNIFE CRIME IN BRENT MEMBERS TASK GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE

In London, the total number of offences involving knife crime has increased by 4%, and in the last year in Brent, it increased by 18% to 755 knife crime offences. This was the 3^rd highest level of knife crime of the 32 London boroughs.

Knife crime is not only an offence; it impacts on the health of victims, and their families and peers. The cost to the NHS of each stabbing is upwards of £7,200.

Violence acts like an epidemic disease, and can be tackled using a multi-agency public health approach. This involves treating violence as a preventable public health issue, using data and analysis to identify causes and focusing on prevention through multi-agency systemic approaches.

In Brent there are a number of interventions already in place for older children and teenagers, while early intervention programmes for younger children are currently being developed.

B.         OBJECTIVES

The aim of the task group is gain a better understanding of knife crime in Brent and how interventions can reduce knife crime, and which ones will work locally. With this knowledge the task group can make recommendations that will help in reducing rates and mitigate negative impacts on Brent residents.

According to the constitution and the 2006 Police and Justice Act the group can make recommendations to the Community Safety Partnership through Full Council when discharging their duties as the Crime and Disorder Committee.

The task group will:

Review the links between knife crime and gangs in Brent

Review partnership working arrangements

Review what can be done locally to complement the wider London public health approach, including:

The use of Red Thread and other violence interrupter schemes

Street based interventions
Education and employment opportunities for ex-offenders
Using education for nurturing children to prevent crime

Early intervention scheme for different ages, including younger children

RED THREAD

Monday Jan 14th: Brent Council - it's time to talk Brexit

From Brent Council

Brexit will affect Brent. Brent has many European residents and Brexit will have far reaching implications particularly for them, but also for all residents in Brent. As such, Brent Council is holding a Time to Talk Brexit event, to discuss the issues and concerns facing the local communities, and to investigate ways the council could help support people affected by Brexit.

Brent Council would like to invite all members of the community and voluntary sector to Time to Talk Brexit, which takes place at Brent Civic Centre on Monday 14 January 2019 from 6.30 for a 7pm start.

This event is part of the Council’s wider Time to Talk campaign which aims to empower residents and community leaders to talk about difficult issues like this one and work together with partners to tackle them. If you would like to have your say on the issues, please come along to this FREE event and help us create a stronger, safer Brent.

To register for the event please book a ticket on eventbrite, HERE or alternatively email anne.kittappa@brent.gov.uk.

If you have any questions or would like to find out more, please contact us on anne.kittappa@brent.gov.uk or 020 8937 6060

NOTE: 60 per cent of Brent residents voted for the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union in the referendum.

72,523 residents voted for the United Kingdom to remain in the EU, whereas 48,881 voted to leave, with 267 spoilt ballots.

The turnout was 65 per cent.

Need to safeguard our allotments as development proposal made for Roundwood site

The triangle ear-marked for development - allotments top right

Several people have drawn my attention to the development plans for the Roundwood triangle formed by Longstone Avenue and Harlesden Road.

The plans involve building on the allotments that can be seen on the ariel view above (top right) and, because the site is under-utilised replacing them with a site of fewer plots elsewhere in Roundwood Park.

I have covered concern from several allotment sites about the Council's failure to re-let plots quickly leading them to be overgrown and hard to bring back into cultivation when they are eventually let.

In a posting in June 2018  LINK I wrote about the issue and said:

Meanwhile, following other examples of neglect of council resources such as garages on estates, there is a fear that pictures of neglect and low use rates such as those above, could lead to justification for a policy of selling off  allotments to be used for housing developments.

The proposal for Roundwood has been put into the project mainstream with £0.5m to be spent and  in 2019-20, £20m in 2020-21and £24.5m in 2021-24:
 

The allotments and 1-47 Longstone Avenue will be two relatively rough sites sitting between two brand new developments in Knowles House and an existing new development that has been completed and sold off.

The proposal is to buy out the lease holders in 1-47 Longstone Avenue and develop a new corner block. The massing Visual does not include the allotments that are located at the rear which have no overlooking and could be developed up to four storeys, with the allotments (half dozen in use) being relocated on to a small portion of Roundwood Park directly to the back, this allows us to not lose the allotment use as part of the scheme as allotments are considered to be a leisure activity.

The worry is that if this is conceded other lucrative allotment sites could be threatened by a land-hungry council with a potential reduction in the size of sites because of the number of unlet plots.

Precedent was set in the famous case of Farm Terrace in Watford which I covered HERE.

All may not be lost as Brent Council have tasked an officer from the Parks Department with looking after the borough's allotments and I hope that he will be proactive in letting plots. Clearly there has been a problem when we are told that there are hundreds on the allotment waiting list and so many are at present unlet.

Meanwhile allotment holders should keep an eye out for people in hard hats, high vis jackets and measuring tapes!

Apply by January 25th for funds to create or refurbish local pocket parks

 

Wooden sculptures in Tubbs Road Pocket Park

The government, through the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government,  is inviting applications from community groups interested in establishing a new pocket park or refurbishing an existing one. The government has unfortunately given a very tight deadline of 5pm on Friday 25 January for applications but, if you would like to make one, please visit the government’s website for full details and an application form. LINK

From the Prospectus:

What is Pocket Parks Plus?

The scheme provides grants to community-led bodies working in partnership with their local authority with the aim of creating new pocket parks or bringing existing green spaces up to a safe, usable standard and ensuring long-term support for those initiatives. 

For the purposes of this scheme we will define a pocket park as a piece of land of up to 0.4 hectares (although many are around 0.02 hectares, the size of a tennis court) which may already be under grass, but which is unused, undeveloped or derelict.

Why is this support available?

Building safer, stronger communities and creating places which are ‘owned’ and valued by everyone within local communities are key to the aims of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 

We know that communities value the green spaces around them and their positive impact on social well-being and physical and mental health is well documented. This programme will focus on providing spaces that are tailored to address the needs of a local area. Providing spaces where people can enhance their wellbeing, have access to healthy exercise, meet other people and find companionship are vital in addressing issues such as increasing health costs, loneliness and division within local communities. Parks and green spaces provide a wealth of opportunities to get closer to nature, meet up with friends, play, take physical exercise, walk the dog or even just have some quiet time in the fresh air with a cup of coffee from their local high street. They could also be used to hold community events such as street parties or music events which support local retailers. 

Parks can also contribute to wider government outcomes, including delivering a quality natural environment and increasing opportunities for people to overcome isolation and engage with their communities. 

To help achieve these aims we will prioritise our support to communities who can provide evidence of local needs that can be addressed through the creation or refurbishment of a green space.

Pocket parks – locally identified, smaller areas of green space ultra-local to where people live and work – can provide those wellbeing opportunities, as well as helping to improve community integration, community pride and social action, especially where communities are involved in the upkeep and development decisions of the park. 

In this scheme we will consider projects for refurbishment of a park or part of a park where this will bring those currently in a state of disrepair back into public use for the long-term and provide a safe accessible place for people in the local community to use. This could include improving access for those with limited mobilty or building or refurbishing a children’s play area, enabling the park to be a focal point for young families. This does not include funding of general maintenance or repairs which remains the responsibility of the local authority. 

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is therefore providing a £1 million fund to support the development of new pocket parks and to refurbish existing parks that have fallen into disrepair where their restoration could have a significant positive impact on the local community and address a specific local need. This funding will help put communities and their partners in a position to take on the management of green spaces of value to them, and contribute resource towards upgrading spaces so that they are in good condition and communities can focus on managing them for the future. 

Applications must reach us by email at pocketparksplus@communities.gov.uk by 5:00pm on Friday 25 January 2019

-->
-->

A new twist in The Village School-Woodfield saga?

Readers will know that The Village School Executive Headteacher hoped that academisation would go through by February this year but a new factor has entered the proposed Multi-Academy Trust with Woodfield School, which may delay things,

Woodfield had been under investigation over alleged financial irregularities LINK and I now understand that a separate independent equalities investigation is taking place over alleged lack of reporting and addressing of racist incidents and the treatment of BAME staff.

Brent's Council estate cleaning to be brought in-house

Officers are recommending that Brent Council brings the cleaning contract for its council estates, currently held by Wettons, in-house.  The contract covers the cleaning of communal areas in purpose built flats, windows and hard-standing areas. Veolia cut the grass and maintain (chainsaw) shrubbery.

 

Veolia's handiwork

The report to Cabinet outlines feedback from an analysis of complaints to Wettons and Brent Housing Management that includes a slow response to cleaning issues associated with environmental anti-social behaviour such as removal of litter from communal areas, lack of compliance with the cleaning visits schedule and over-spilling of residual waste in surrounding bin areas,

The GMB union is currently in dispute with Wettons despite winning a minimum wage legal claim in Autumn 2018:

Employees at Wettons, are to finally receive the minimum wage after a legal claim supported by their union the GMB. The union announced the victory on their website:

GMB were made aware, by their members, that Wettons Cleaning Services Limited, who hold the contract for cleaning on housing estates, from Brent Council, were using their London Weighting Allowance, in calculating the minimum wage. Recent Employment Tribunal cases make this practice illegal.

When originally challenged on this Wettons refused to budge, but when the GMB solicitors started proceedings at the County Court and Employment Tribunal, Wettons finally backed down and agreed to settle the three test cases brought by the union. Following this, Wettons have now agreed to settle all outstanding claims for the rest of the workforce and they will be receiving back payment of up to six years this month.

Despite Brent Council being a registered London Living Wage employer (as defined by the Living Wage Foundation), and one of the first to develop a scheme promoting all businesses in the borough becoming Living Wage employers, the cleaning company chosen as their contracted partners were found to not be paying even the minimum wage themselves.
Despite this victory the GMB remain in dispute with Wettons who have refused to enter into discussions on a reasonable pay claim submitted by the union for nearly six months.

The union called on Brent Council to either put pressure on Wettons to comply with Brent's London Living Wage policy or bring the cleaning service in-house.

There are two options before the Council 1) in-sourcing 2) going out to competitive re-tendering. Both would requite payment of the London Living Wage. Option1 would set pay at Scale 4 of the GLPC pay scheme.


The report criticise the procurement process undertaken by Brent Housing Partnership, the arms length organisation that previously managed Brent council housing:

A review of the service, which is discussed later in this report, has uncovered that the procurement did not appear to have fully taken residents’ needs into consideration, as the specified standard of service and their inspections are not fit for purpose. It appears that the procurement was focused on reducing costs to residents without fully engaging them to understand their needs and adequately taking into account their expectations about the quality of service. This has led to a misalignment between residents’ expectations of the service and the cleaning specification Wettons are contracted to deliver. 


In addition, the contract was not well managed under BHP and there was insufficient investment made to the service by Wettons, which led to a deterioration in the quality of service. This manifested itself through high levels of complaints from residents, members’ enquiries and high numbers of corrective actions identified by the estate services team. Improving the estate cleaning service therefore became a key improvement priority when the Housing Management Service came back in-house. 

The report notes: 

The operational interface between Wettons and Veolia have also played a major role in poor service delivery. This is driven largely by lack of collective ownership by both contractors for the delivery of the overall estate standards. In addition, poor communication in agreed responsive solutions to the operational issues such as the handling of fly-tipping/bulk items, missed refuse collections and management of refuse bins were identified as key challenges during the review.

 The current contract is worth almost £2m annually and officers estimate that Option 1 would add costs of £0.8m. It is fully funded from service charges paid by tenants and lease holders. Officers envisage future savings on the contract  as a result of integration with other council services,  the removal of the profit requirement of out-sourcing, a better motivated workforce with more direct control by the Council and other 'efficiencies'.

I imagine if these factors  do not reduce costs there may be increases in service charges, albeit for a better service. Krissy O'Hagan, GMB London  Region organiser, told gWembley Matters, 'GMB Trade Union welcomes Brent Council's decision to discuss bringin this service back in-house and we hope that the council make the right decision and that the service is returned to Brent Council.'

Brent Council to adopt new prioritising system for capital projects

Brent Council is set to introduce a permanent pipeline for capital projects with some moved into the main programme when 'strategically and economically advantageous to do so but always subject to the submission of detailed business cases and Cabinet approval where applicable. LINK

The list makes interesting reading with some projects only at early stages of development. Clues to the Council's long-term thinking are apparent in some of the proposals including, for example, Proposal 28 William Dunbar/Saville House (South Kilburn) which hasn't been moved to the main programme at present:

28. William Dunbar/Saville (ERSK) - £10M  

Proposal to bring forward a development in South Kilburn to accelerate delivery of the programme. Build on space around existing buildings, decant tenants, then demolish and build. Will require earlier buy back and a higher level of affordable than envisaged in theMasterplan (as end of programme no decants were expected to this site so more private were due to be built) due to decant requirements. 

Pipeline projects with those moved to main programme highlighted in yellow.(Click lower right corner for full page)

Anger as developer lobs in an extra storey on Dollis Hill proposal pleading viability

Less than a month after Alice Lester, Brent Council Head of Planning, sent formal permission for the development at  4-9 Gladstone Parade, the developer has come in with a new application to add an additional storey and an additional 16 units to the proposal. LINK

Their knowledge of the local area is a little suspect when they can't spell the name of the road correctly!:

In comparison with the previous scheme, the proposal introduces an additional storey to the Edgeware Road frontage as well as a partial additional storey at both the Dollis Hill Avenue and Gladstone Park frontages. The raising of the height of the building by 712mm is minimal in the context of the overall development and will barely be perceptible in the wider street scene. The proposal is of a similar, albeit smaller, height to the Fellows Square development on the opposite side of Edgeware Road and therefore the increase in height is considered accepting  (sic) in terms of the emerging local context.

The increase in the number of units is based on a viability assessment:

The Development Appraisal, prepared by James R Brown and Company Ltd, assess the financial viability of the proposed scheme and the residential market in London. 


 Since the viability review of the previous scheme, dated March 2017, the new homes market in London has increasingly and significantly weakened. Residual land values are therefore reducing due to weaker new homes values and increased build costs. Subsequently, the viability of the 38-residential unit scheme is now substantially challenged (due to the weaker market conditions) and therefore in order to improve the viability and efficiency of the site a larger scheme of 54 units its proposed. 


The residential content of the new proposed scheme contains a 34.4% affordable housing provision by habitable room, detail in paragraph 9.2 of the viability report. The appraisal demonstrates that the proposed scheme drives a negative residual deficit and falls marginally short of being viable with 16 affordable housing units in comparison to the consented scheme which is significantly unviable with 10 affordable housing units. 


The revised proposal is already garnering opposition on social media: