LBOC 2020 - Will we be allowed to see the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals next year?

The east side of the subway, with new illuminated panels and one mural scene displayed, 5 Nov. 2019.

Guest post by Philip Grant

I have written a number of guest blogs about the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals in the past year, including one saying ‘now you see them, soon you won’t.’ LINK  For those who are interested, I am trying to get Quintain and the Council to let you see at least some of the murals for a few months during Brent’s year as London Borough of Culture 2020.

Last weekend, I wrote to Quintain’s recently appointed Cultural Director for Wembley Park Arts, Josh McNorton LINK , setting out my suggestions for how the murals (or full size images of them) could be put on display. To make this happen would involve working with the Council, so I have now sent a pdf copy of my letter to Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, with copies to the Lead Member for Culture, the Artistic Director for LBOC 2020 and other officers and councillors who should be interested. This is my letter to Josh McNorton:

(I believe that the photograph of the east wall murals, on page 3 of my letter, is the work of local photographer Amanda Rose.)

In my email to Ms Downs I have said:

‘As you are aware, from previous discussions with representatives of Wembley History Society, the murals are a Council-owned public work of art, specially commissioned for the subway between Wembley Park Station and Olympic Way in 1993. They colourfully celebrate a wide range of sports and entertainment events held at the stadium and arena. They are a heritage asset, reflecting the cultural history of Wembley Park, which deserves to be seen again by residents and visitors during our year as London Borough of Culture.

I hope that you will forward this email and attachment to the officers and councillors who need to be involved, and encourage them to work with Wembley Park Arts / Quintain to ensure that the murals are displayed during 2020, and that the Council and LBOC 2020 actively publicise when they will be on display, so that as many people as possible can enjoy seeing them.’

The mural scene showing footballers and the old ”twin towers” stadium is now back on display, after six years of being covered-up. That will be of interest to thousands of fans coming to the stadium for Euro 2020 matches and other games, but there is far more to Wembley Park’s sports and entertainment heritage than just football.


I know that there are a number of Brent councillors who would like to see all, or at least as many as possible, of the tile murals displayed next year. I hope that they will use their best efforts to ensure that this happens. But whether we will see the tile murals again for a time during 2020 remains an open question

Give Brent Council your ideas on how we can combat climate change in the borough

Brent Council is going to set up a Climate Assembly following its declaration of a Climate Emergency. It has launched a website to  collect residents' views on what can be done in the borough.
Comments on link below should be sent in by November 17th. There were only 66 comments at the time of writing.

Extract from the website LINK

How can we work together to limit climate change and its impact while protecting our environment, our health and our wellbeing? Consider the council, businesses and organisations, individuals.

Have a read of how councils, businesses and other organisations, and individuals can help limit climate change and its impact and then let us know what you think at the bottom of this page.

Climate Action at Home:

There are 121,250 homes in Brent, of which 41% are owner occupied, 37% private rented and 22% social rented. These contribute 43% of Brent’s carbon emissions.
72% of these emissions are from gas and 27% is from electricity use.
Carbon emissions from households in Brent fell by 35% between 2005 and 2017.
Save energy by switching off lights and appliances when not in use and reduce, reuse and recycle your waste.
If you are lucky enough to own your own home and want to reduce your carbon emissions, you could:

• Check your loft and cavity walls are properly insulated
• Look into installing solar panels
• Consider replacing gas boilers and hobs with greener alternatives
• Install a water butt. Use the rain you collect to water your plants, clean your car and wash your windows

Household lifestyle decisions can also make a big difference to carbon emissions. Walking, cycling or using public transport instead of using a car will reduce transport related emissions and improve local air quality. What you eat, buy, wear and the choices you make about flying all have a big impact - more about these in the About the Climate Assembly section.

Climate action in my neighbourhood:

In our neighbourhoods other sources of carbon emissions include buildings such as businesses, institutions and schools. These non-domestic buildings in Brent account for 34% of our emissions, 61% of this from electricity use 30% gas, and 9% other fuels.

Carbon emissions from non-domestic buildings in Brent fell by 41% between 2005 and 2017.
The council is currently exploring how it can increase its support for businesses and other institutions to help them reduce their emissions and to help grow the green economy in Brent.
Low energy lighting, insulation for older buildings, renewable energy systems, community energy projects and zero carbon new development can all help reduce carbon emissions at a neighbourhood level.

Road transport accounts for approximately 23% of the carbon emissions in the Borough. Reductions to transport emissions also have a major positive impact on local air quality via non-climate related emissions such as nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. Driving less by walking, cycling and taking public transport more often is the best way to reduce your carbon emissions.

Climate Action by the Council:

Our council buildings, street lighting and vehicle fleet contribute just 1% to Brent’s overall emissions. Our Civic Centre is one of the greenest buildings of its type and we have the most energy efficient street lighting in London. We are reviewing our fleet to see how we can lower emissions from our vehicles.

CO2 emissions from the council’s non-housing estate and operations have seen a reduction of 56% from April 2010 to March 19. Our target is to reduce by 60% by 2021 and we are assessing how we can achieve net zero carbon by 2030.

Read more about green initiatives by Brent Council in the second half of the About the Climate Assembly section.

USEFUL COMMENT

FoE are doing surveys of LAs and the key issues that they have identified for Brent are:

1. Tree cover. As a built up area we have challenges with this. At the moment we have 3% tree cover. The best result for a comparable area is 13%. In Greater Manchester they are doing a survey of all existing trees and identifying every potential site for planting more. Worth looking into what they are doing and seeing if we can do the same.

2. Transport. Planning with TFL for integrated public transport beyond the tubes. How do we reduce car use and the space taken up by cars? This is often a precondition for increased cycle use. Can we try out "mini Holland" schemes like those in Walthamstow - which have reduced car use in residential areas and not had a displacement effect onto main roads. Can we roll out School Streets more broadly? Currently 68% of commuter journeys are by public transport. can we get that up to 80% by 2030?

3. Housing. At the moment 41% of Brent homes are well insulated. The private rented sector is likely to be the main problem here and this will require national legislation for minimum standards - which will require a change of government. Can the council work with the GLA to retrofit existing social housing and build new council housing to passivhaus standards on the model of the RIBA award winning Goldsmith St development in Norwich? Fitting solar panels and heat pumps at the same time would help generate more renewable energy - and - because they are right there - cut out the waste involved in transmission through the grid. If there is a change of government this will be financed through the Green Industrial Revolution programme. 

4. Renewable energy. Brent currently has 3 megawatts of renewable energy available. The best similar local council areas have 28 megawatts. What are they doing and how could we do it? Can we make sure that all public buildings are insulated and fitted with renewable energy? Schools could be particularly important here as an exemplar.

5. Waste. 37% of household waste in Brent is reused, recycled or composted. Litter is one of the most visible expressions of a wasteful society with no collective self respect. The key thing here is to reduce the materials at source - so there's less of it to start with. 

6. Education. We need a review of the national curriculum to make it fit for purpose in retooling society to combat climate change. That requires a change of government and/or a massive campaign to that effect. The LA can help by organising cross borough insets on different aspects of sustainability education that can be built into the limited curriculum we have now. A review of apprenticeships available in the borough, so there are more on the skills we need to make the transition.

Northwick Park and Central Middlesex hospitals still require improvement - some child services 'Inadequate'

The Care Quality Commission inspected the London NW University Healthcare NHS Trust, which covers Central Middlesex Hospital and Northwick Park Hospital, in the summer.  The report has now been published and makes worrying reading.

Of most concern will be the red light 'Inadequate rating' for three areas of Services for Children and Young People at Central Middlesex Hospital.

The Commission said:

·       We found a lack of clarity over where the overall responsibility and accountability of children and young people services lies within Central Middlesex Hospital. We also found a lack of clarity for how and where this service feeds into the trust. 

·       Governance in children and young people services at Central Middlesex Hospital was weak. The risk register for the recovery ward was out of date. There was a lack of up to date policies and associated audits demonstrating that the care being delivered was compliant [with] national standards and best practice. We were not assured that the service was guided or supported via a paediatric surgical network. 

·       There was no clear evidence that areas from the last inspection for children and young people services had been addressed or necessary improvements made. 

·       In medical care, risks were mitigated and managed but there had been limited action to address risks directly.

·       The senior leadership team for medical care at Central Middlesex Hospital recognised the sometimes poor relationship between its staff and local authority staff, but there had been no action to address this

There were many issues regarding safety. The report says:

·       Our rating of safe stayed the same. We rated it as requires improvement because: 

·       The trust provided mandatory training in key skills however there was some confusion among midwifery staff as to the correct length of mandatory training and its content. Compliance rates for mandatory training and safeguarding training were below trust targets in the surgical services at Northwick Park Hospital and Central Middlesex Hospital. Not all clinical staff in children and young people services at Central Middlesex Hospital caring for children were trained to safeguarding level three however, plans were in place to ensure all staff received this training. 

·       In medical care at Central Middlesex Hospital, some staff did not always report incidents and, in particular, near misses. 

·       The trust did not always control infection risk well. Hand hygiene was not consistently being undertaken in maternity services. In children and young people services, the Rainbow Unit at Central Middlesex Hospital was found to be untidy and we could not be assured that children’s toys were regularly cleaned. 

·       Due to capacity issues in the emergency department at Northwick Park Hospital, patients were still being cared for on trolleys in the corridor which meant private conversations could be overheard. 

·       At our last inspection we found that the clinical decisions unit (CDU) was being used inappropriately to treat level two patients. Whilst the service assured us that this was no longer the case we did find that the area was being used as overflow for patients requiring inpatient beds and patients within the CDU could be there for over four hours and sometimes up to three days. In children and young people services at Central Middlesex Hospital, staff we spoke with in Recovery Stage One told us that children were cared for in a mixed four bedded recovery bay with adults. 

·       Staff at Central Middlesex Hospital did not use a nationally recognised tool to identify deteriorating patients, such as Paediatric Early Warning Signs (PEWS) or a validated acuity score system to assess patients. We were told that not all medical staff had European Paediatric Life Support (EPLS) or Advanced Paediatric Life Support (APLS) training. There was no paediatrician available on-site at Central Middlesex Hospital. Staff had to refer to the consultant of the day or week, who was based at a different hospital in the trust. Some staff were not aware of this arrangement. 

·       Some medicine storage areas did not meet national guidance for security for controlled drugs in the Northwick Park surgical service. 

However:

• Mandatory training compliance rates at Northwick Park and Ealing emergency departments had improved. Staff monitored patients who were at risk of deteriorating appropriately.

 The Commission fournd 'Outstandin Practice' in Urgent and Emergency Care at Northwick Park Hospital:

In Urgent and emergency care at Northwick Park Hospital-

The department had developed a patient sepsis video for parents whose children attend the paediatric emergency department with a fever or suspected infection. The video was a four minute video aiming to educate parents about the warning signs to look out for sepsis. 

The department had done a rotational shift with the local mental health trust. The purpose of this was for staff to get an ideas how the other service was run, learn and share knowledge and understanding to improve the way they worked together.

FULL REPORT HERE

--> -->

Green Left rejects the Green Party’s remain pact with Liberal Democrats

Only a few days ago

Green Left says ‘no’ to supporting Jo Swinson’s second rate Tories. The Liberal Democrats nationally oppose our Green values.

Green Left believes a step forward for the green movement in the UK has taken place recently, with many people joining both the Green Party and Labour Party, reflecting real concerns about the threat of climate change to our very existence on this planet.

Green Left welcomes the fact that the Green New Deal is gaining support on the left, especially in the Labour Party,  and we believe that Greens should engage with others who share the same policies as us, to build the green movement for change which is the only way to save the planet. 

Green Left believes the mass movement of Extinction Rebellion and the Youth Strikes shows up the pro capitalist parties for what they are – gambling with the planet. The Lib Dems are part of the problem not the solution.

The Liberal Democrats are a party whose leader, Jo Swinson, received funding from a major fracking company and voted for fracking. She and her party also voted for the bedroom tax, benefit cuts and the introduction of Universal Credit, the scrapping of the education maintenance, increased tuition fees, opposed increasing the tax rate on those earning £150,000, supported cuts to the police and emergency services, supported zero hours contracts, supported the badger cull and did little to challenge climate change, preferring instead nuclear power.

The Lib Dems are also uncritical supporters of the EU, unlike the Greens who want major democratic reform and accountability. The Lib Dems reject a proper further referendum that allows people a democratic say on any EU deal or no deal.

Green Left believes Caroline Lucas was right to warn how dangerous the Lib Dems position of ignoring the Referendum result, and instead going for Revoke, is  : “I certainly think that the Lib Dem way out is arrogant, self-indulgent, cynical and very dangerous. I think that will put fuel on the fire.” LINK

Green Party policy has been for a second people’s vote, and in this case is closer to that of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, who also support a second  referendum, than the Liberal Democrats’ Revoke position.

Green Left is very concerned that the implied call to support Liberal Democrat General Election  candidates where the Green Party is not standing and where the Labour candidate was either the sitting MP or is the best placed candidate to defeat the Tory MP is  an incorrect position to take - especially if that person supports anti-austerity, proportional representation, a Green New Deal and a people’s vote.

Therefore, we urge Green Party members and supporters to support the Labour Party candidate in these areas.

The UniteToRemain pact contradicts the Green Party’s initial position that this should be a Climate Emergency election. Instead the pact makes it a Brexit election.

Editor's note: I am a member of Green Left and was involved in writing this statement which I fully support

Details of budget proposals going to Brent Cabinet on Monday

Brent residents will face another rise in Council Tax in 2020-21 (3.99%) under the budget proposals going to Brent Cabinet on Monday while council rents will be increased by 1% above the CPI (Consumer Price Index) measure of inflation over the next few years.

The officer led proposals will go out for public consultation if agreed by the Cabinet and will be discussed by the Brent Connects meetings and considered by the Scrutiny Committee.

As Brent Council front-loaded many of the 'savings' in previous years the cuts this time are not as attention-grabbing as previously and cover decisions already made last year such as the closure of Children's Centres. There are projected increases in income through marketing of services and increases in fees to external bodies, builders and developers.

A key aspect is expected savings through re-procurement and bringing services in-house but that is balanced by a welcome commitment to paying those working in services such as homecare the London Living Wage.

Throughout discussion of the various proposals the officers insist there will not be a negative impact on service users and the Equality Impact Assessments record that protected groups will not be affected.

The level of Council Reserves is discussed in the officers' paper. The Tory opposition and some activists have previously urged the Council to 'raid the reserves' to reduce cuts but no change is suggested apart from some internal shifting of the reserves to different headings.

There is a down-grading in the expected rate of growth of the Council Tax base (the number of people who pay Council Tax) and the report points out that most claims on services are made by the young and the elderly. (The 'life style' occupants of the Wembley high-rises make little demand on services while paying high services charges to their managing agents.)

The 'savings' which include cuts, efficiencies, digitising services and income generation,  will balance the budget for 2021/22-2022/23 and amount to £6.1m which includes a contingency of £0.5m:

The Direct Schools Grant is separate from the main budget and comes direct from the government. Its distribution is decided by the Council in  consultation with the Schools Forum. Brent pupils are funded above the Government minimum standard so are unlikely to gain. The recent pay increase for teachers is not fully funded by the Government so school budgets will be under pressure. Meanwhile the Special Education and Disability (SEND) budget faces increased demand and there appears to be a potential cut in the money for Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) for the most needy pupils.

An interesting and likely controversial proposal is for the Council to develop a commercial training arm for apprenticeships that would deliver the Apprenticeship Standards. This would require initial investment of £20k in 2020-21 and £80k in 2022-23 but generate an income in the longer term. The Council says this would be delivered via the Council, local schools, health sector and the care sector. Previous attempts have foundered on questions over the quality of provision and allegations that these are not 'real apprenticeships' but cheap labour.

OVERALL  POSITION

The officers' report can be found HERE and I have inserted the list of savings below. A more detailed list is available HERE  

Click bottom right corner for full page version.

UK government's fracking 'ban' has a convenient loophole

Keith Baker, Glasgow Caledonian University and Peter Styles, Keele University
 
With a general election underway, Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, recently announced that fracking has been halted in the UK – but a closer look at this moratorium covers reveals a loophole. The suspension applies in the north of England, but the smallprint reveals that similar fossil fuel exploration in many traditionally safe Conservative constituencies in south-east England will be just as open for business as before.

The term fracking (from “hydraulic fracturing”) has come to describe a range of methods of drilling for oil and gas that are more correctly known as unconventional extraction. These are techniques reserved for oil and gas that is hard to access. Fracking – the injection of sand, water and toxic chemicals at high pressure to widen small fractures in shale rock, releasing trapped gas or oil – is just one of them.

The government’s moratorium makes clear that fracking in Lancashire is a no-go. After government agency the Oil and Gas Authority reported that it was not possible to predict the probability or size of tremors from fracking, Cuadrilla’s operations at the now infamous Preston New Road site – which caused a magnitude 2.9 earthquake – are no longer lawful. The same is true for other fracking sites in earlier stages of development in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.

How fracking works. jaddingt/Shutterstock

But the north of England is not the only region in the UK that unconventional exploration for oil and gas is afoot. In the rolling hills south-west of London, work is also underway to extract gas and oil using similar methods. At numerous sites in Surrey and Sussex, companies are in the process of – or are planning to – inject acid in boreholes to widen fractures in the rock below.

This may be at a low pressure (a technique termed acidisation) or a higher pressure (acid fracking). But, crucially, both of these techniques tend to use pressures lower than the threshold at which the government’s moratorium outlaws fossil fuel extraction. So, fossil fuel exploration in south-east England usually encompassed under the term “fracking” is in fact exempt from this “ban”.

Similar to the opposition to fracking in Lancashire, many local residents in Surrey have expressed serious concern at earthquakes as strong as magnitude 3.2 in the area. Researchers at the British Geological Survey and Imperial and Bristol universities ruled out a link to oil and gas exploration, but the earthquakes alone indicate that there are faults, or cracks, underground that could potentially be further destabilised by fossil fuel extraction. As such, there is strong local opposition to the operations.

Interestingly, the constituencies surrounding these sites are largely safe Conservative seats that are expected to be held relatively comfortably. In contrast, Leave-voting seats in the North are key targets for the Conservatives this election.

Dinner at the gates of Preston New Road, where fracking is no longer allowed. Reclaim the Power, CC BY

The party may struggle to reverse its distant second to Labour in the constituency of Preston itself, which houses the epicentre of local resistance to fracking in the Preston New Road protest camps. But in a region largely opposed to fracking, the ban may well be a boost to efforts to win over the so-called “Workington Man” – older, white, Leave voters who could be tempted to deviate from their usual Labour leanings.

---

Read more: Can the Conservative Party win in the North of England?

---

Consistent with the notion that government policy on domestic fossil fuel production is aimed at winning votes rather than coming from a desire to cut emissions, it has just approved the opening of the Woodhouse Colliery coal mine. The mine sits in the Cumbrian constituency of Copeland, where the Conservatives hold a marginal lead over Labour and the Liberal Democrat vote barely registers. Importantly, unlike the broad opposition or ambivalence to fracking, the promise of new jobs from the coal mine has helped build local support.

Deliberately or not, the current party of government’s “ban” on fracking hears local opposition in seats it is targeting in the north of England, but ignores similar opposition to unconventional extraction in its southern strongholds. Whether this will help the government to remain in their position come election day remains to be seen.

---

Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.
Keith Baker, Researcher in Fuel Poverty and Energy Policy, Glasgow Caledonian University and Peter Styles, Professor Emeritus in Geophysics, Keele University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

High rise leaseholders warned about Advice Notice 14 impact on selling their home

Letter from a Wembley Matters Reader

Dear Martin,

Are you aware of 'Advice Notice 14' resulting from the Grenfell inquiry. It covers owners of all types of homes across Brent but specifically for leaseholders living in high rises.
Until they have a safety certificate issued by the council, all homes are valued at £0.

The council have published a tender (see below) for the work that checks the composition of all wall material in high rises for fire safety.  Once each building is passed as safe, then a certificate is issued but it is likely to take several months, if not years to pass every home across Brent.

It affects 500,000 owners across the whole of England and hardly any of them are aware of it.

They only find out if they try to sell their property, as no buyer can get a mortgage unless the home they are buying has a current safety certificate, covering all the flats within each block.
The problem in Brent and everywhere else is that there are no fully trained inspectors.  So the council tender is trying to find a company to do the work and then pass the buildings by issuing 'a certificate of safety' saying the wall material does not have any Combustible material within it. This material was often used as packing around the steel embedded in the concrete in buildings erected in the 1960's.

But most of the suspect buildings have been built recently and will have to be checked for cladding that is combustible.

I think this is the biggest story to come out of Grenfell so far and hardly anyone in the country is aware of it.

An article in the Guardian on Saturday November 2nd LINK covered the plight of what it called 'mortgage prisoners':

They have all become caught up in the confusion over cladding on tower blocks – specifically, whether or not buildings meet new fire safety standards introduced following the Grenfell disaster, how much it will cost to put any problems right, and who will ultimately foot the bill.

All of this is feeding through to thousands living in “high-rise” (defined as more than 18 metres) apartment blocks, as well as many living in smaller blocks, because property valuers are taking the view that unless they have all the facts at their fingertips – for example, is there any chance the cost might fall on the leaseholder? – they can’t put a valuation on the property. That means these owners can’t sell up or switch to a cheaper mortgage.

This is the decision notice published by Brent Council on October 31st 

This decision seeks approval for the appointment of a building consultancy to complete a data collection exercise to identify external wall materials and insulation used on high rise residential buildings over 18 metres in height within the London Borough of Brent under Contract Standing Orders 88 & 89.

Decision:

To approve:

(1)      Inviting tenders under a mini competition via the NHS SBS Construction Consultancy Services 2 Framework on the basis of the identified pre-tender considerations.

(2)      Officers evaluating the tenders on the basis of the identified evaluation criteria.

Reasons for the decision:

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is requesting that Brent Council complete a data collection exercise to identify external wall materials and insulation on all high rise residential buildings over 18 metres.  The Council is therefore seeking suppliers to submit a proposal for carrying out the requirement.

Alternative options considered:

The procurement options for this requirement were either an OJEU procurement or a mini-competition from a framework.  Given the estimated value of the procurement and limited time available to procure a contract in order to commence in December 2019 it was considered that the NHS SBS Framework offered the most appropriate mechanism to procure.

Interests and Nature of Interests Declared:

None
Wards Affected: (All Wards)

UCU calls for submissions to the union's response to the Government's Prevent review

From the University and College Union (UCU)

The government recently announced that it would be carrying out a formal review of Prevent, part of which includes the duty on universities and colleges to have 'due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism' which was imposed as part of 2015 terrorism legislation.

A review of Prevent is something that UCU and others have repeatedly called for since the statutory duty was introduced and we want your views and experiences of how Prevent impacts on both staff and students across England, Wales and Scotland.

UCU has a number of objections to the Prevent duty, including its threat to academic freedom and freedom of speech, the risk that the broad definition of terrorism could stifle campus activism, damage staff/student relations and discrimination against BME and Muslim staff and students.

The specific questions being asked by the review can be found in the formal online Home Office survey but it will look broadly at the following areas:

• Is Prevent achieving its objectives?
• How effectively is Prevent being delivered at local and national levels?
• How effectively does Prevent interact with other safeguarding and vulnerability strategies?
• How effective is the statutory Prevent duty; and how effectively is it being implemented?
• How could Prevent be improved to respond to criticisms and complaints?
• What should the government consider in the development of Prevent over the next 5 years, as the threat evolves, in order to best engage with and support people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism?

If you have experience of Prevent in the workplace and would like to inform the UCU response, please send your views and examples to Will Pickering by Monday 18 November. We are also interested in hearing from members who are studying the impact of Prevent.

The review is also welcoming individual responses from those with direct experience of, or views on, Prevent. A summary of the review and questions can be found here and the full survey is here if you want to respond to it in person as well as through UCU.

Jo Grady
UCU general secretary