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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
