North Ealing vigil after racist attack Friday 6th September

Total of £1.47m Brent Neighbourhood CIL payouts announced

Brent Council Cabinet is set to approve a £1,471.608 total payout in the latest round of Neigbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy bids. The allocations are:

£366,975 to support the refurbishment of a new building for the Refugee Support Network in Harlesden. 

 

£250,000 to support the refurbishment of Challenge House in Harlesden for Crisis UK. 

£210,000 to support the refurbishment of the Silver Jubilee Park Clubhouse for Kingsbury Town Management Co. Ltd and Hendon Youth FC in Willesden. 


£109,833 to support the running of The Sanctuary Café for Hestia Housing and Support across neighbourhoods. 


£134,800 to support the installation of central heating of a community facility for St Michael and All Angels Church in Harlesden.

£170,000 to support the refurbishment of a community hall for St Cuthbert’s Church in Wembley 


£150,000 to support the building of a new Community Café and outdoor Space for St Catherine’s Church in Neasden 


£80,000 to support tree planting in the Dudden Hill area. This would be in addition to £30,000 allocated to tree planting in this area in NCIL’s 2018/19 round one, bringing the total spent by NCIL on tree planting in Dudden Hill to £110,000. 


Full descriptions of the projects can be found HERE

-->

Queensbury Public Inquiry Day 3: 'Trojan Horse' still alive and kicking

Cllr Tom Miller in his statement to the Queensbury Public Inquiry made it clear that he was speaking as a ward councillor and not a member of the Brent Council Executive.  He said that his ward, Willesden Green, went right up to the railway border with Mapesbury. He described how Walm Lane was seen as an extension of the High Road and said that this was also the view of the Boundary Commission. The Queensbury pub was the most likely place for his ward residents to drink, eat and socialise.

He had been an early supporter of the Save the Queensbury Campaign. Planning is a quasi-judicial process and had ensured that that proponents of the scheme were part of the process.  He said that the new scheme was a step forward and didn’t wish to belittle the proposers. However at the consultation residents were keen on their local pub and wanted to preserve it.

The main reason for preserving the Queensbury building was that it is an important piece of local architecture and in its position particularly welcoming  - it was a soft boundary between Mapesbury and Willesden Green and incorporated a soft area for social drinking between the street and the pub building.

He was concerned about the failure to provide the maximum amount of social housing and the under-sized nature of some of the housing units.  This was an important decision in terms of the public need for housing.

He did not agree with some objectors that the scheme was ‘all bad’. He recognised that the developer had been ‘on a journey’ and had been willing to adapt their plans.  If the objectors win there is no reason why the developer could not return with a revised scheme. He thought there was a possibility of a viable compromise.

He was concerned about the lack of distinction between pub and flats above in the scheme and suggested that there could have been a positive conversation about how adaptions could have been made to give it a bit less of a ‘bar feel.’

Addressing the issue of how representative the Save The Queensbury Campaign is he said that councillors engaged many people in face-to-face conversations in the ward, and although not formally recorded, he would say the Campaign reflected widely held public opinion.

The QC for the Appellants responding, claimed that the issue of distinction between the ground floor space and accommodation had been addressed in Plan B. He then went on to call the developer’s last expert witness who testified to the benefits of the scheme: a larger pub space and formalisation of the community space. Under questioning by Brent Council’s QC the witness agreed that it was no part of government policy that affordable housing should be provided at the expense of design and that there were other possible designs that could have provided affordable housing.

Ian Elliott for the Queensbury campaign asked why there were no plans for a kitchen  – provision of food was essential to make the pub viable. He was told that there were no details but the kitchen would be part of the ‘back office’ detail in the basement. Elliott went on to the press the witness on how he had come to his conclusion regarding the positive social value of the plans - it turned out he had made the judgement via 'guidance' and not through actually speaking to anyone in the area. He conceded that local people at the consultation were against the proposal.

A detailed discussion followed on what Conditions should be applied if the Inspector were to find for the Appellant.  Among issues were discussed was the provision of disabled parking when 5 units had been designed as wheelchair accessible but the development designated as ‘car free’, the opening hours of the pub starting at 11.30am when Busy Rascals would want access from 9.30/10am, and the closure of the pub garden at 9pm when currently it closed later. The latter point arose from provision of flats above the pub in the new scheme but Ian Elliott pointed out that this was another aspect of the scheme that affected the viability of the pub. Elliott put forward a list of Conditions that the Campaign wished to be applied in the event of the Appeal succeeding. These were essential to avoid a ‘trojan horse’ where the introduction of a pub to conform to Pub Protection policy is agreed but set up for failure so that other uses can be made of the space.

These issues will be discussed on Tuesday when Busy Rascals will give evidence and the owner of the pub contacted for his views.

The Public Inquiry will be reconvened in a different room* at the Civic Centre at 10am on Tuesday September 3^rd. Busy Rascals will give evidence first and community aspects of Obligations in the event of the Appeal succeeding. There will also be discussion of the 5-year Housing Land Supply target and its relevance to the scheme.

In between the Inspector and representive of the Appellant and Brent Council (and possibly Save the Queensbury Campaign) will make a site visit to the Queensbury (no discussion allowed) and later the Inspector will visit the area on his own.

*This is likely to be a Committee Room on the third floor of the Civic Centre and should be indicated on the notice board at reception and at the ground floor entrance to the red lifts.

Do please follow @QueensburySOS on Twitter for updates and see the website http://savethequeensbury.info/

Queensbury Public Inquiry Day 2: 'If the conservation area can't protect residents from a cheap and nasty block, then what is it for?'

The 'one man' Save the Queensbury Campaign

Cllr Lia Colacicco, a Mapesbury resident for 27 years, Mapesbury councillor since  2014 and now Deputy Mayor, opened today's proceedings with her statement of opposition to the proposed Queensbury development.  The Mapesbury Estate was a unique neighbourly  estate, particularly for London. She described the Mapesbury Residents' Association with its multiple activities and its key Planning Sub-Committee trusted by their peers to preserve and enhance the conservation area.

Living in a conservation area brought its own rules and responsibilities and a design guide that residents had to follow making maintenance more expensive than elsewhere. Since the proposal resident have threatened non-compliance with the guide asking, 'If they allow that big block why can't I do just as I wish.'

Cllr Colacicco asked, 'If designation as a conservation area cannot protect residents from a cheap and nasty block, then what is it for?'



The Appellant's  QC often with a lofty disdain tried to undermine Ian Elliott  of the Save the Queensbury Campaign asking him if he was a professional planner, lawyer or architect and later if he was qualified in Environmental Health.  Clearly frustrated the QC asked Ian what his role was in the Campaign. Ian thought for a minute and then said with a grin, 'ring leader I suppose' and went on to vehemently deny the suggestion that he was  a politician.

The QC asked about Save the Queensbury's constitution, officers etc as if it was an organisation such as the National Trust. Elliott deadpanned saying that not many oub campaigns had such a structure.  The QC clearly implying that Save The Queensbury was a one-man operation then went through a rigmarole about  the number of Queensury Campaign's Twitter followers, whether Twitter followers were tracked to see where they live (he suggested they might just be people defending a real ale pub they felt was under threat, rather than local residents) and then attacked the Save the Queensbury website as misleading.  It was clear that the Campaign had the appellants rattled with the QC resenting the intrusion of a mere local resident into the professional club. Ian later proved his mettle in his presentation and cross-examination of the scheme's architect.



The architect claimed that there were 'not many' similarities between the 2015 Fairview proposal and the current application. The architect said that he had a different approach and 'contextualised' the scheme to reflect the local area. Brent Council had not been interested in a vernacular design. Regarding the roof he claimed that 'if you stand opposite a building with a set back roof you can hardly see it.' He had tried to 'do something different' with the roof but with a similar tone and colour but  different texture to slate roods on Walm Lane buildings, It could be changed to grey slate under Conditions.

There was considerable debate over whether the proposed building would 'urbanise' suburban Mapesbury amidst fear that one 'urban' building  over the railway line would set a precedent for others to be built in the area.

It took about 5 minutes for the Appellant's QC to read out the qualifications of their next expert witness, Mr Stewart, who said the Queensbury was a pleasant building that benefited more from its site than any particular architectural merit. He suggested it did not have a strong relationship with the conservation area while the proposed building had been designed with the conservation area in mind. He commented that the buildings in the conservation had a greater variety than usually found in such areas. Under cross examination by Brent Council's QC he said that the proposed building was at the 'possible end' of potential harm rather than 'substantial.'  Brent's QC highlighted the fact that Stewart disagreed with aspects of both the previous Inspector's report and the Heritage Impact Assessment.

The Public Inquiry will convene earlier tomorrow, at 9.30am, and will hear a contribution from Cllr Tom Miller followed by a technical discussion on 'Conditions' what will be required of the developer if the Appeal is successful.

Brent moves towards paying London Living Wage to care workers but rejects moving to in-house provision

The Community and  Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee will consider a report LINK on September 4th outlining the issues facing the provision of child and adult social care in the borough. The Council wishes to fund private providers sufficiently to pay their workers the London Living Wage, wants them to move away from zero hours contracts (unless workers prefer them) and comply with Unison's Care Charter. To do this they want to introduce a 'patch model' with fewer providers in particular areas so that there is improved performance and better quality relationships with care recipients as well as support some specialist care providers.

The change will be costly with Adult Social Care costing £10million more if the changes are implemented in 2020-21. The report rejects bringing Social Care in-house (the Council running the service) on grounds of viability and risk.

Key extracts from the report:

Paying the London Living Wage

The current cost model allows for providers to pay at or above the National Living Wage, which is £8.21 per hour, but does not enable them to pay London Living Wage, which is £10.55 per hour. Therefore, there are clear cost implications to the Council in paying at London Living Wage levels. 


The Council has a clear commitment to paying LLW where possible, and no one would argue this is not the right thing to do. However, it is worth noting that there is no evidence, locally or nationally, that paying care workers above NLW has any impact on the quality of care. Regardless, discussion at PCG and at CMT has concluded that the Council will offer LLW as part of the new homecare model. The debate therefore is how quickly this can be delivered. 


Within Adult Social Care we have a strong record of price control, although expenditure has increased year on year due to increases in complexity of packages and hours of homecare clients are receiving. However, both the external price analysis and intelligence from our own commissioning function has indicated that Brent now pays one of the lowest hourly rate in North West London. Other boroughs that have re-commissioned services are paying in the region of £18 per hour. The combination of a lack of available home care workers (The Institute of Public Policy Research estimates that nationally the industry will need 400,000 additional carers by 2028) and the fact that Brent is now one of the lowest paying boroughs in NW London have both contributed to the need to review our existing model to ensure the market remains sustainable in the future. 


Ending Zero Hours Contracts 

Currently 38% of care workers in Brent work on zero-hours contracts. To mandate that providers don’t use zero-hours contracts and instead offer minimum-hours contracts would inevitably have an impact on the way that they are able to organise their staff rotas to deliver care. There are peaks in the demand for homecare services. Unsurprisingly they are in the morning, lunchtime and evenings. Providers don’t want to have to pay care workers when they aren’t delivering care; the council doesn’t want to pay providers more than is necessary to deliver quality services. 


Through discussion with providers, we are also clear that the biggest incentive for a reduction in the use of inappropriate zero-hours contracts will be being able to offer providers a guaranteed level of hours and funding. This can be achieved through reducing the number of providers and implementing a patch based model. This would give providers a clear and consistent number of hours to work with so that they can plan their workforce requirements accordingly. The more confident the council can be in guaranteeing hours of work, the easier it will be for providers to plan their rotas and not have to fill in gaps in provision with zero-hours workers. 


However, it is known that in some instances, zero-hours contracts are the preferred option of homecare workers. Our aim is that where workers would prefer a standard contract and a guaranteed minimum number of hours, this is available to them, but that we allow providers the flexibility to offer other contractual mechanism such as zero-hours contracts, or casual and short term contracts where appropriate (for example for when individuals wish to work during term time only, or to cover extended leave or maternity cover) 


Providing Social Care In-house 

Consideration has been given as to whether homecare services could be brought back in house. The challenges of doing this would be considerable. Firstly, the cost of an in-house service has been modelled, focusing on staff costs alone (not including other overheads, such as premises, equipment, etc). Officers estimate than the annual cost of an in-house homecare service for Adult Social Care only would be £34.4m per year by 2023/24, compared to £27.9m, which is the modelled cost of a commissioned service including LLW. More work would need to be done to model the costs of a Children’s service, but it is likely to be more expensive than a commissioned service. 


The modelling is based on needing 750 carers, 50 supervisors and 14 additional managers (Team Leaders up to a Head of Service) which is an extremely conservative estimate of the staffing required. Staffing ratios would need to be considered – the service has been modelled on the basis of 1 supervisor to 15 staff. Officers have also assumed that staff would be working on permanent contracts, and there would be no use of zero hours’ contracts. 


There are a number of factors that make in-house homecare services more expensive than services commissioned from external providers. It needs to be recognised that many homecare providers are working with few overheads and little organisational infrastructure. It is not uncommon for smaller providers to be led by a manager / owner, who will perform a number of roles within the organisation, and also directly deliver care when needed. The flexibility that this gives providers can’t be replicated if the service was to be brought back in-house. 


Providers are also able to manage their workforce so that they are not working during parts of the day when demand for homecare is much lower. There are peaks in demand in the morning, lunchtime and evening, with little demand between times. Whilst providers use zero-hours’ contracts to help manage this (and it’s agreed we want to reduce their use), the council would not have this option. Therefore, an in-house service would be paying for staff 
at times when they would not be working to full capacity, adding to the cost of services. 

Market sustainability would be an issue if Brent was reliant on one, in-house provider and would bring into question our ability to meet our Care Act requirements with regard to market sustainability and choice. There would also be considerable risk in having one provider, and whether we could ensure we could manage the various issues that arise when delivering homecare, such as safeguarding issues, quality management and workforce considerations and customer satisfaction. 


Given that homecare services have been commissioned from other providers in recent years, the council has no experience in managing a homecare service. This expertise would need to be brought in to ensure that services were run in line with rules and regulations, (for instance, the service would need to be CQC registered before care could be delivered) as well as ensuring it was as efficient as possible, making best use of staff time and resources. At this stage, progressing this option is not recommended. 


The report argues that the proposed changes would meet Unison's Care Charter but these claims rest on successful re-procurement and will need to be probed at the Scrutiny meeting.

Unison Care Charter

-->

-->

-->

VIdeo of first day of Queensbury Public Inquiry

 
;

I suppose there are two elephants in the room at the Public Inquiry at Brent Civic Centre. One is the fact that Brent Council planning officers had previously recommended approval of the planning application for the Queensbury pub site LINK and the other is that Brent Council, in South Kilburn, is arguing that social housing on the Carlton-Granville site is essential and there is no alternative, but arguing that there are sufficient deliverable sites in its evidence to the Inquiry. LINK

In an increasingly rare move the Brent Planning Committee had gone against officer advice and rejected a series of planning applications for the site to the delight of Save the Queensbury campaigners, the Amesbury Residents’ Association and local councillors.

I was only able to attend the morning session of the Inquiry yesterday but it was good to see Ian Elliott of the Save The Queensbury campaign more than holding his own amongst the expensively coiffured Queens Counsel and residents breaking through the legalese to denounce the developer’s design for the new building.  It was ‘unattractive and dull like a hotel you would find at Heathrow Airport’, ‘something you would see from the train travelling through South London’ (!)  it could be ‘any old building’ and did not preserve and enhance the Mapesbury Conservation Area.  No one mentioned that ‘any old building’ designs could be found round the corner on Wembley High Road or even across the road from the Civic Centre – but then they are not in a Conservation Area: rather the reverse.

Brent Council’s expert design witness, Daniel Reece, tore into the design which was unsuitable as a ‘gateway’ building to the Mapesbury Conservation Area and would dwarfed the Willesden Green underground station. He presented a series of slides to details criticism of clumsy attempts to conceal the height of the building by pushing the higher storeys back from the road, poorly designed gables, the ‘tin roof’ that reflected nothing of the Conservation Area and its sheer bulk. It was a block with added features that half-heartedly tried, unsuccessfully, to reflect the conservation area.

Ian Elliott questioned the viability of the pub space integrated into the building reminded the Inspector that this building was not just a proposal of immediate concern but one that would be there for ever and affect our grandchildren.

Today (Thursday) the Inquiry will hear from some local councillors and Busy Rascals. The session  starts at 10am.

 

-->

South Kilburn lobbies Brent Council to save Carlton and Granville Centre community spaces

Brent's child obesity crisis - special public scrutiny event September 10th

With a McDonald's expected to open soon in the Wembley Asda superstore it is a good time to examine the issue of the childhood obesity crisis in the borough. 2018 statistics showed 28.6% of Year 6 children were obese on transitioning to secondary school. This is 4% higher than in 2013 when recording started.  The full report is available HERE.

Scrutiny Event on Childhood Obesity in Brent

A Brent Council Scrutiny Task Group which has been reviewing childhood obesity is inviting residents to a special Scrutiny Open Session on Tuesday 10 September 2019.

The event, which will feature a panel discussion and Q&A, starts at 6.30pm in the Conference Hall at Brent Civic Centre HA9 0FJ. The event is for parents, community organisations and other residents to inform the task group’s review, and to find out more about the issue. The task group has been set up by Brent Council’s Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee.

To attend register on Eventbrite at

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/childhood-obesity-in-brent-scrutiny-open-session-tickets-69866585839

You can also register by calling 020 8937 1068 or email scrutiny@brent.gov.uk. For more information about the evening, community organisations can call James Diamond at Brent Council on 020 8937 1068 or email james.diamond@brent.gov.uk

Some significant tables from the 2018 report.