Bridge Park community comes out fighting for its rights, Council's new plan offers less than Bridge Park currently offers

“Brent, don’t take our gold and only give us sand. 


You state you offer our Community a friendly hand...

then don’t sell our Land”

The meeting where the BPCC campaign was launched

Statement from Bridge Park Community Council February 4th 2019 about Brent Council's sale of the land at the Bridge Park Leisure Complex

The Restriction

We successfully lodged an RX1 application in September 2017 with the Land Registry, as a declaration of interest in the land on the South West Side of Brentfield Road, Stonebridge, Willesden (“Bridge Park”) Title No: NGL426015.

Brent insisted that unless we withdrew the application, they would escalate matters to the courts. They have continued to reject all our offers of cost-effective resolution, which included negotiation, ADR and HMLR Tribunal.

The Covenant

Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre (BPCLC) is a former 3.5 acres bus depot that was converted into a Leisure Centre in the 1980s using GLA funding. It has been managed by the Council for at least the last 12 years and offers 37 business units, multi-faith centre, nursery, dryside multi court sports hall, 2x Gyms, professional music studio, bar with restaurants, function hall, conferencing and meeting rooms. The Bridge Park site had a protective covenant on it, to keep it in the hands of the community. Brent Council worked with the LB Bromley (as successor body to the GLC) to have this removed.

Proposed Redevelopment of Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre

See the Brent Council Report from the Strategic Director, Regeneration and Growth and the Strategic Director of Environment and Neighbourhoods 17^th February 2014

Planning

Brent Council have hidden the exchanges and correspondence with GMH and Brent Council’s Planning department – Bridge Park is community used, owned and of huge community interest. Brent council’s dealings should be made public and particularly all related planning and pre-planning exchanges. Bridge Park currently has more facilities than that offered by Brent in their latest revised plan announced 1^st February 2019.

Conditional Sale Agreement (CLSA)

We now have possession of the CLSA ‘sale’ document. Brent are supposed to be Publicly accountable – yet, Brent Council are not operating open-handedly. All key information as to the Land sale has been removed and some 95% of pertinent details have been redacted.

The Community have said overwhelmingly that:

•       they do not wish for Bridge Park land to be sold to private developers 


•       they support BPCCs community vision 


•       Brent should observe the protective covenant schedule titled The Community 
Project that was entered onto the original HM Land Registry Title NLG426015 of 1982. 
Brent refers to consultations held in October/November 2017 in Harlesden and Stonebridge. Both meetings were attended by BPCC members, the public and the press was present. The meetings did not cover public consultation on the areas that Brent now states as the reasons for recent changes in their latest plan. The above meetings were in fact Brent Council officers, the Leaders and senior executives, in apparent partnership with the developers GMH, both presenting the Vision for the future use of the land. One contentious area was that 5% affordable housing would be made available to the community 30 of 600 homes. The consultation session and documents presented simply provided the community with options on how they wanted the gym surfaces and facilities arranged, similarly same with the planned swimming pool. The exercise was explained by Brent’s architect with the aid of drawings laying out their proposed redevelopment of the site. 
The community overwhelmingly disengaged with the consultation exercise and demanded that Brent Council not sell Bridge Park. 


The community’s restriction on the land sale places Brent Council under extreme pressure to complete the deal with GMH within deadline. We feel Brent Council have adopted a number of tactics to try to get past the court process and speed up the usual court timetable. The latest of which was an unexpected revised acceptance of our longstanding offer of mediation, in that Brent agreed to look at mediation within the month of February but on the terms that they would alongside, and at the same time apply for Summary/ Strike Out hearing of our restriction. This is set for 11am 27^th February 2019, at the Rolls Building, High Court EC4. The Strike Out is a technicality to get the case thrown out before it can be heard at a full trial, thereby rendering any mediation before 27^th February 2019, non- binding and ineffective. We see this as Brent’s attempt to get around our accusation that they have not made real or reasonable efforts to seek settlement ADR with us. 

The Conditional Land Sale Agreement (CLSA) puts Brent Council in some difficulty with settlement talks, as they will likely face huge issues if they do not go through with this commercial deal.

In summary, Brent knew prior to the sale that the community objected to it. We were not happy with the level and lack of consultation also there was no real community involvement in the process. Brent pushed through with the sale of the land and have now realised that the community effort to block any sale and our wish to be fully involved with the process is to be taken seriously.

Their recent plans do not address the fact that:

•       The community does not want Brent to Sell the land. 


•       Brent should halt the sale and now fully involve the community on the use of the 
land. 


Brent’s latest plan to sell would leave the community with significantly less facilities 
than that which Bridge Park currently offers.


-->

 

 

-->

£20.9m wiped off Brent's budget as younger children and environment lose out

From the report on the budget consultation

Brent Council is to implement a budget reduction of £20.9m out of the total of  £26.2m it recently consulted on. Finance Director, Conrad Hall, claimed that they had gone for the ‘least worse’ of the options in terms of service reduction. Cabinet will consider the proposals at its meeting on February 11^th.

Council Tax will be increased by 5.77% bring it to an annual £1,582.25 for Band D, £30.44 a week.

As with government budget reviews those responsible expect to fight for their departments. In Brent Council’s case Environment, lead member Cllr Krupesh Sheth, seems to have lost out.

ENVIRONMENT CUTS

The cuts most likely to be noticed by the public are ending litter picking in residential streets and  removing their litter bins, reducing parks maintenance to a ‘reactive’ service, dimming street lights, reducing the opening hours of the Recycling Depot and a review of staffing in the Regeneration and Environment department equal to £1.5m in 2019-20 and £450k in 2020-21.  This would remove 48 full time equivalent posts and would be accomplished by voluntary redundancies followed by compulsion if too few people come forward. The report does not make clear what the impact of this staffing reduction would be on services saying only: ‘This would be a ‘downsizing’ exercise that will make teams leaner and would require a remodelling of structures to mitigate the impact on service delivery.’

Officers admit that the proposals on litter would have a negative impact on ‘customer satisfaction’ and that reduced hours at the Recycling Depot  may lead to more dumping of waste.

The report on the outcome of consultation on the proposal notes:

The most popular theme was in relation to the local environment where over 20% of respondents stated refuse collection and clean streets were important to them.

EARLY YEARS HELP CUT

In Children and Young People services there is a proposal to cut Early Years help by two staff and to charge more for the service. The stated risks are:

·      Quality of local provision as measured by Ofsted declines. This is mitigated through ensuring charging is applied equitably and continues to fund high quality training for providers. The potential to join up Early Years services within the existing Setting and School Effectiveness and the Forward Planning, Performance and Partnership services is explored. 

 

·      Nurseries and childminders negative reaction to service changes. Mitigation in implementing the learning from recent Customer Services reconfiguration that provides a greater focus on a digital offer of support to childcare settings. 

·      Challenge to secure and maintain sufficient place provision to meet the 30 hour entitlement.

CHILDREN’S CENTRES CLOSURES

Even more worrying for people who believe that the previous Labour Government’s Children’s Centres were a success in terms of early intervention is the proposal to close Children’s Centres in 2020-21. At present there are 14 contracted out to Barnardos and 3 council run. The total will be reduced to 8 with just 2 council run left. They will be replaced by ‘Family Hubs’:

·      The aims and objectives of the Family Hubs will closely align with the agreed Outcome Based Reviews that considered children on the edge of care and involved in gang activity. The objectives will be closely aligned to key Public Health outcomes related to children and their families. 

This will leave a lot of families with young children out and the report recognises under ‘Key Risks and Mitigations’:

·      Disproportionate impact on most vulnerable families. The risk is mitigated by the creation of family hubs that will widen the age range of support available to families who require support and target the hubs in the areas of the borough that have the greatest level of need. 

·      Early intervention outcomes worsen for children. The risk is mitigated by ensuring the design of the new family hub model uses research findings to make best use of available resources and that these are broadened to cover school age children. This will allow greater reach of new targeted services into families than is currently possible with the existing model. 

·      Public reaction following service redesign. This will be mitigated by ensuring effective consultation and engagement with local communities and engaging them in the design and delivery process. 

·      Quality of work provided to families from the new model deteriorates due to lack of investment. This risk is mitigated by moving to a targeted model, focusing the available resource on those families who most require support

A risk worth taking with young lives when there is so much evidence that early intervention can stop problems occurring later in life? Look what tops the list of the themes (screen grab above) that emerged from the consultation!

Again an extract from consultation submissions make you wonder how much notice was taken:

Other popular choices included Children Centres and services around childcare and children. Over 10% of the respondents so far are in favour of keeping Children Centres. With reference to Children Centres one respondent stated:

‘Children Centres are very important to me and many others. It has been my link to gaining information and advice since my baby was born. I have made friends and shared experiences with other parents, I am a single mum and sometimes you feel so alone. The centre have been amazing I even did a course whilst my child was being looked after to understand how to introduce books to your child.’

Another respondent stated:

‘I believe Brent have some of the best Children’s Centres in the country, and the training and support we offer have a positive impact on the families in our Borough.’

COUNCIL'S ROUNDWOOD YOUTH PROVISION  DISCONTINUED

The proposal to stop council run youth provision at the Roundwood Centre is retained with alternative education provision being provided (it does not say who the provider would be) with the voluntary sector providing youth services as wrap-around. The council’s assessment is that the risk that central government may clawback the MyPlace funding used to build the Centre, if ongoing youth provision does not take place there, is mitigated by the fact that they have not taken action against similar schemes. 

END METROPOLITAN POLICE PATROL FUNDING

These are extra officers funded by the Council.There are two proposals one to reduce the number of officers from 12 to 6 from April 2020 and the other to stop funding altogether:

The 12 Met Patrol Plus officers known as the ‘Partnership Tasking Team’ (PTT) for year 17/18 have recorded over 4000 responses related to the Safer Brent Partnership priorities; namely, Anti-Social Behaviour, Gangs, Serious Violence, Domestic and Sexual Abuse, Child Sexual Exploitation, Offender Management and Hate Crime. Such responses have included various outcomes:

1900 disruptions, over 200 arrests, over 100 weapon sweeps and 200 PSPO/CPN/FPN warnings and fines being issues. As well as enforcement the PTT have also led positive Police engagement in our community, more than 120 times.

Risk and mitigation:

This service is over and above the existing borough Police provision. Borough Police have reduced numbers and focus the asset they do have on MOPAC priorities and more general targeted outcomes.

We will have reduced/zero Police asset to task/deploy and focus on our priorities based on the requests/needs of our residents.

STOP SMOKING SERVICE

The Council will decommission the ‘smoking cessation service’ from GPs and community pharmacies except for pregnant women and mental health service users. in 2017-18 1,143 smokers were supported to quit. Its on-line replacement has not performed well so far.

Key risks and mitigations:

Opposition from GPs due to potential increased consultations and prescription costs for nicotine replacement therapy. However quitters would still result in cost savings to the NHS.

Strong opposition from community pharmacies who would lose income (42 pharmacies received between £50 and £19,000 income from the service in 17/18)

Precedents have been set: Harrow and Havering have discontinued smoking cessation services, Ealing has recently consulted on plans to do so.

The Council would remain part of the London Smoking Cessation Transformation Programme which is testing on line, digital and telephone support. It should be noted the programme has produced very small numbers of quits to date but it has undoubted potential

CUSTOMER SERVICES CUTS

Brent Customer Services have already experienced considerable job cuts and changes in service and this will continue with a switch to mainly digital channels with a total cut over two years of £500k with 6 full time equivalents lost in 2019-20 and 5 more in 2020-21.

There is limited recognition of the danger of ‘digital exclusion of the vulnerable and the elderly:

Some customers unable to utilise digital offer –

·      Officers available to help with self-service 


·      Expansion of Community Hibs to support vulnerable residents 


·      Promotion of IT skills courses 


·      Appointments available for the most vulnerable 


·      Customers experience of self service is poor discouraging use of this

·       Continued improvement and promotion of the Council’s digital offer 


·      Feedback on current self service facilities is used to improve this 


·      Residents are involved in the design and testing of new self service facilities 


These are the headline items but there are is plenty more in the budget papers. I will cover proposals re Council Tax Support separately.  The proposal to cut library hours or close one altogether has been dropped along with the potential closure of all Children’s Centres. Reduction is adult social carers visit times has been dropped but there are proposals to reduce payment to providers which could result in some withdrawing or low wages being reduced further.

The full list of proposals is HERE

-->

NEU survey finds schools at breaking point as funding pressures hit support for SEND pupils

The results of a snapshot survey of 1,026 primary and secondary school teachers in England, shows the alarming levels of inadequate and underfunded provision for pupils with Special Educational Neesd and Disability (SEND). School and local authority budget cuts are making it nigh impossible to provide the quality of education that every child with SEND is entitled to and which teachers, pecial Edcational needs Co-ordintors (SENCOs) and school staff want to be giving.

When asked to describe the situation at their school, and whether there are enough appropriately trained staff to support SEND pupils effectively:

·      81% said that there was ‘less than enough’ staff.

·      Only 14% believed that there was ‘about enough’ or ‘more than enough’.

·       

Respondents went further, describing their personal situation in compelling detail:

·      “Half of the teaching assistants were made redundant. Only seven Teaching Assistants (TAs) for nearly 800 kids.”

·      “Number of SEND support staff is a quarter of what it was ten years ago.”

·      “Cut by over 50% due to budget cuts.”

·      “Class sizes too large, so even when support is available, it’s ineffective.”

·      “28 students on SEND register and no support. I teach a practical subject where it is dangerous.”

·       

When asked if there has been a change in the number of learning support assistants or TAs at their school since 2017, as a consequence of real-terms funding cuts:

·      73% confirmed there were now fewer posts.

·      As a consequence of these staff cuts, 94% of respondents confirmed that it was having a negative effect on the support which schools are able to give SEND pupils.

·       

The survey also asked what barriers are faced by SEND pupils in the school environment:

·      Excessive waiting times for access to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), speech and language or behaviour support, is true for 95% of primary schools and 75% of secondary schools, according to respondents.

·      The situation is generally worse for primary schools. 84% reported excessive waiting times for assessment of need/Education. Health and Care plans, compared to 65% in secondary schools. 56% of primaries confirmed there are no local specialist services available to them, compared with 40% of secondaries.

·      Over one-third of primary school respondents (38%) said that a school or parent must personally fund pupil assessments as the local authority cannot. This compares with a quarter (25%) of secondary respondents.

·      Across the board, 82% of respondents confirmed that SENCOs do not have enough time to support classroom teachers.

90% of respondents said these barriers conspire to make it harder for pupils to access the curriculum or succeed in learning. 94% confirm that the pressures on teaching are increasing as a direct result and 59% said pupils miss school, part of the school day or part of the curriculum.

Finally, we asked respondents to consider the National Audit Office’s question as to how support, and outcomes, for pupils with SEND could be improved within current funding levels. 

The responses were overwhelmingly of a piece:

·      “Not within current funding levels. It’s impossible.”

·      “Less paperwork? But really, they can’t. Funding must be increased for improvement.”

·      “We need more people on the ground.”

·      “To be honest maintaining current funding levels is out of the question – education is in crisis.”

·      “Within current funding? No way. Schools are stretched tight!”

·      “Teachers want to meet the needs of all children but we are not experts. We now have to buy in to   essential services and we cannot afford to do so.”

·      “We have children on part-time timetables as adequate support cannot be given. We have staff off on stress as adequate support cannot be given. Both of these could be alleviated 

           by better funding.”

Reacting to the findings, Dr Mary Bousted, Joint General Secretary of the National Education Union, said:

“These are shocking reports from the frontline of teaching. The infrastructure to support SEND pupils is wearing away. Schools do everything they can, but the barriers and waiting lists created by this Government’s actions, are having terrible effects on pupils who need help now. It is alarming that excessive waiting times are more pronounced in primary schools, where early intervention is so vital, and that so many children are on part-time timetables.

“These facts are plain to schools and parents. It therefore beggars belief that in spite of successive reports showing the real experience of teachers and school leaders, the Department for Education simply digs its heels over funding. The NEU will continue to campaign for our schools to get the funding they need to give children the education they deserve.”

Brent NEU condemns 'abject failures of governance' at Woodfield School - £400k in wrongful payments uncovered

Brent National Education Union responds to the ESFA report on Woodfield School financial irregularities. NEU statement below:

Damning ESFA Report exposes abject failures of Governance at Woodfield School.

£400,000 in wrongful payments uncovered.

An investigation by the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) into financial irregularities related to the academy and Multi Academy Trust (MAT) conversion process between Woodfield academy school and The Village school in Brent has just been published.

£400,000 was wrongly paid to two consultants, one of whom was Greg Foley who acted simultaneously as Chair of Trustees, Member of the Finance Committee and Chief Financial Officer. (All this information can be found out from public records.) Those in charge at Woodfield failed utterly in their duty of oversight and care of monies that should have been spent on their special needs pupils.

Going onto the school Website and looking at the names of Trustees reveals that Kay Charles has been an ex-officio Trustee since September 2017. Kay Charles became the Executive Head of The Village and Woodfield school on the same date. Records show that she was in attendance at every Governing Board meetings for 2017/18.

Kay Charles Ex-officio (appointed 01.09.17)

Resources Committee

Evaluation & strategic development Head Performance management

Brent Schools Partnership

The Village School

None

In the ESFA report there are repeated references to the Chair and Chief Finance Officer (CFO) breaching and not complying with the financial regulations of academy trusts. This was under her oversight.  

Hank Roberts, Brent NEU President and National Executive member said:

“As whistleblower I feel totally vindicated by the findings of this report. The bankrupt academy system is an open invitation to help yourself to school funds. Kay Charles has proved herself inadequate to the task of halting this corruption. If she won’t put the interests of state education above her own, she should go. 

“Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council and Sandra Kabir, Chair of Governors of The Village were warned that there were questions over the finances at Woodfield a year ago, yet neither expressed opposition to the proposal that Woodfield and The Village become a MAT. Now is the time they should show leadership and call for this proposal to be dropped rather than support this disaster in waiting. This is the agreed policy of Brent Constituency Labour Parties and recently was unanimously confirmed by the Local Campaign Forum (LCF) and fully supported by the local Labour MP Barry Gardiner.” 

Governors and trustees of the two schools were aware of the financial situation and failed to act on NEU members’ concerns. Despite this, the majority of these governors and trustees are proposed as trustees and governors of the new MAT where they will be overseeing a budget almost twice as big.

Cllr Jumbo Chan, who has supported the campaign to stop the academisation throughout, said:

“The decision by the governing body of The Village to academise the school was wholly unnecessary and misguided. In light of the ESFA’s damning report into Woodfield School, it has further highlighted a dearth of wisdom at the heart of the decision.

“In addition to offering no concrete benefit, the decision to academise ignored completely the swathes of concerns voiced by parents, campaigners, and the school’s own outstanding teachers and support staff.

“Nearly a year later, the academisation process has left The Village School in limbo, demoralising and sowing uncertainty amongst its committed staff.

“That the ESFA has now produced a litany of gross failings with regards to Woodfield School – including procurement, related party transactions, governance regulations and register of interests, including large payments of thousands of pounds of public money to consultants – corresponds to problems in the academisation process elsewhere.

The ESFA report is a wake-up call that leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the whole academisation process should immediately cease. I urge the governing body to now finally listen to its staff, and withdraw its application to academise, and remain within the Brent Council family of schools.”

-->

Brent Council launch PR bid to win back angry Stonebridge residents over Bridge Park proposals as campaign prepares for the High Court

A press release on the Brent Council website today, entitled 'Building Bridges in Stonebridge', sets out revised proposals for the site but appears unlikely to satisfy those residents who accuse the Council of stealing  a Centre that was started by the community and owned by them. The artist's impression of the proposed building seems to rub that in with the Brent Council logo clearly visible on the facade.

Meanwhile the campaign will be going to the High Court in the Strand on Wednesday February 27th (10.30am) to challenge Brent Council's sell-off of the Bridge Park Complex: LINK

Neither the press release nor the report for the February 11th Cabinet mention the disputed ownership or the recent Raheem Styerling intervention.

 THE PRESS RELEASE (Unedited)

Bridge Park residents could see a new community hub on their doorstep if the revised proposals for the site are approved by Brent Council this month.

An enhanced proposal to replace the old leisure centre with a new community hub - including new leisure facilities, business space, a large community hall, accommodation for Brent's older residents and much more for the community - will be put to the council's cabinet on 11February.

The improved plans, which take on board feedback from a wide ranging consultation with residents in 2017, now seek to deliver a better environment, with modern flexible community facilities, affordable work spaces, jobs and much better leisure facilities

Subject to getting the necessary planning and legal approvals, the New Bridge Park Centre will contain:

• More than double the originally allocated community space - which will include meeting rooms and flexibility for other functions
  
• A modern enterprise space to support local businesses and jobs
• Up to 104 new homes to help vulnerable residents live independently
• A swimming pool - now with 6 lanes
• Additional space for a 'clip and climb' climbing wall
• A bigger car park - now with 72 spaces
• A larger gym with at least 80 stations and the ability to divide the space to create a separate gym to meet local needs
• 4 court sports hall
• Toning suite
• Consultation rooms
• Children's soft play area & party room
• Sauna and steam rooms
• Studios
• Changing facilities
• Café

Cllr Krupesh Hirani, Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture & Leisure, said: "We know that Bridge Park is much loved and we now need to build bridges and work together to create something new and really special which caters for the needs of all of the residents in the Bridge Park and the wider Stonebridge area.

We've taken into account residents' feedback and the council is now proposing to deliver much more than a replacement leisure centre. We want to deliver a modern community hub that offers much more than was originally asked for. These revised plans include double the amount of community space, more affordable work spaces and much better leisure facilities.

It is only by working together that we will be able to create this community hub and provide much more for residents.

If approved, the council is keen to get residents involved in the detailed planning stage to finalise the specification for the community spaces. To view draft concepts and for more information visit www.brent.gov.uk/bridgepark

The report proposes an independent advisory group but significantly does not state how its chair would be chosen. Will the local community have a say on the appointment?

In order to fully involve the community to work alongside the Council’s Bridge Park development project team on the design, development, future operation and management of the new leisure centre and enterprise space, it is proposed to form an advisory group whose membership would be drawn from Brent residents. 
The purpose of the group is:

To bring an independent, community-focused perspective to discussions and decisions about the future specification and use of the new leisure centre and enterprise space. 


To engage with current and future users of the site and be an advocate and conduit for key messages about the progress of the development. 
The group will be chaired by an independent person drawn from the local community who is knowledgeable, credible and capable of bringing together a focused group of 6-8 individuals to undertake the role of an advisory group. 


 The full report is below. Click bottom right for a full-screen version:

ESFA find 'failings & weaknesses' that breach the Academies Financial Handbook at Woodfield School



Whistle blowers who raised concerns about financial mismanagement at Woodfield School, an academy, have been vindicated by a report into a review by the Education Skills Funding Agency (ESFA).  The National Education Union had cited these issues as one among many reasons to oppose the academisation of the Village School and the formation on a Multi Academy Trust (MAT) with Woodfield.  Village School education workers have taken strike action against the academisation proposals. In addition to to the finance problems there have also been concerns over equality at the school and the treatment of BAME staff. LINK

The review found that Woodfield, with a current roll of only 157 pupils, had paid consultants £400,000 since 2013-14 for various HR and financial services. They also found breaches regarding procurement, related party transactions (when a governor or trust member sells servics to the school), governor regulations and register of interests.

The NEU had repeatedly requested Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt to meet with them to discuss their concerns about the school.

The Executive Summary states:

Multiple concerns were received on 24 April 2018 in relation to Woodfield School, (hereafter referred to as the trust), raising concerns about financial management and governance. As a result, ESFA commissioned a financial management and governance review of the trust which took place from 25 to 27 June 2018.  

The ESFA review identified a number of failings and weaknesses in financial management and governance arrangements that breach the Academies Financial Handbook (AFH) 2017, the accounts direction, the charities SORP and potentially tax legislation. These also validate the concerns raised. Key findings of the review have confirmed: 

•           in relation to procurement practises, non-compliance with the at cost requirements and the trust’s scheme of delegation (paragraphs 11 to 17 refer) 

•           failure to declare related party transactions with the former chair’s limited company in the audited accounts, as required by the accounts direction in relation to disclosure of material transactions with related parties and the Charities SORP relating to the disclosure of the remuneration and benefits received by charity trustees (paragraphs 18 to 21 refer) 

•           the trust engaged the services of two consultants, one from 2013/14 and the other from 2014/15 to July 2018. One of which held the role of chief financial officer (CFO) off-payroll, between 1 December 2015 and 26 June 2018, as well as being appointed as the chair of trustees and a member of the resources committee (paragraphs 22 to 24 and 31 to 34 refer) 

•           the trust have not reported their current governance arrangements and structure on their website and Get Information about Schools (GIAS) (paragraphs 25 to 30 refer) 

•           the trust’s register of interests has not been kept up to date (paragraphs 35 and 36 refer) 

It is likely that the MAT proposal will be delayed until the ESFA are satisfied that the issues have been dealt with or perhaps the whole MAT project will be abandoned.

The full report is available below - click bottom right for a full-size version: