Medirest staff to protest outside Northwick Park Hospital on Thursday 5 September over issues of wages, bullying and over work

Staff working for Medirest at Northwick Park Hospital in Harrow are set to protest outside the hospital on Thursday 5^th September from noon to 4pm over poor wages and what they say is overbearing management and heavy workload.

 

Porters, cleaners, ward hostesses and kitchen staff who are employed by the multinational facility management company Medirest say that they have had enough.

A recent meeting organised by GMB heard many workers from the 80 strong crowd tell of how their workloads have increased and that many were being paid the National Minimum Wage £8.21 an hour.

Other concerns over a bullying supervisor were raised following the GMB presenting a petition signed by over half of the staff of 400.

Tahir Bhatti, GMB Regional Organiser said:

Last year we started to speak to the Medirest about increasing the wages from the minimum wage, as well as other issues.

Medirest have a lot of staff paid only the minimum wage, staff who clean up after patients, transport deceased patients and make sure the hospital functions. We feel that there should be respect and fairness for all Medirest workers. 

The union are calling for equal wages and a root and branch investigation into the concerns of the workers. 

Workers will stage a respectable protest outside the main entrance to the hospital.

Messages from the crowd at yesterday's Stop the Coup protest at Westminster

GMB London Region to protest outside Wembley ASDA tomorrow against imposed contract

News

GMB to hold Asda protests against Contract 6

GMB London Region are holding a number of demonstrations in September across London and the East of England in protest against Contract 6. Asda employees are being faced with the sack if they do not sign the contract which strips away many of their terms and conditions.

Despite having a 63 pence per hour increase on the original contracts, Contract 6 would leave GMB members on other Asda contracts worse off due to changes to paid meal breaks, the loss of hours, changes to the night shift window and a flat rate for bank holiday work.

The flexible contract also means the company has the ability to change the number of staff working days, hours and their department with just 4-week notice.

GMB have undertaken two demonstrations at Asda House, in Leeds, on 1^st May and 14^th August to make the feelings of GMB members clear that they will continue to fight for better pay, terms and conditions.

The GMB will be demonstrating outside Wembley ASDA tomorrow September 5th 9am-4pm

Why Busy Rascals need space in any new development on the Queensbury site

Sharmine Choudhary-Tse of the community group Busy Rascals gave evidence on the last day of the Queensbury Public Inquiry at Brent Civic Centre yesterday.

In a powerful statement Sharmine told the planning inspector how the group had begun in response to a need to provide activities for the children of parents who were often socially isolated.  It not only provided children's activities but addressed  mental health problems associated with isolation by putting in place a supportive network where the problems as well as the joys of parenting can be discussed.

Busy Rascals provides dance and music classes for children as well as classes and information for adults. Ian Elliott, who has been speaking for Save the Queensbury at the public inquiry was himself a user of the service and Sharmine praised his support - without it Busy Rascals would not exist.

The group has won numerous awards for its work and any profit from money paid for classes is invested back into the provision.

Although Busy Rascals had spoken to the developer they had received nothing in writing assuring them that space in the new development would definitely be allocated to them. Such an assurance was needed for peace of mind. The developer had undertaken to undertake 'best endeavours' to provide an alternative space ,should the appeal succeed, while the redevelopment took place.

The QC for the appellant was at pains to point out that the new development would provide a bigger indoor space and an outdoor space superior to present provision. He also said the developer would pay any rent etc payable on the interim space.

I asked  a question from the floor on whether rent would be payable on the community space in the new development, particularly as it had been suggested that other community groups could use it as well as Busy Rascals. The inquiry adjourned so the QC could consult with his client on the issue.

I had to leave but closing statements followed from both sides and in the afternoon the Planning Inspector visited the site with the parties.

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.