GLA say Woodfield Nursery development at Welsh Harp does not conform with the London Plan

The GLA have raised objections to the controversial plan LINK to build on the Woodfield Nursery site, Cool Oak Lane, Barnet, near the Welsh Harp Metropolitan Open Land. This means that if Barnet Council make a draft decision in favour of the planning application they have to give 14 days to allow the Deputy Mayor for Planning, Jules Pipe, to decide whether to allow the application to proceed unchanged, direct the Council to refuse the application, or to take over as planning authority himself.

The conclusions of a much longer report (available BELOW) are:
 

London Plan and the Mayor’s Intend to Publish London Plan policies on Metropolitan Open Land is the key strategic issue relevant to this planning application. The development constitutes inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land and very special circumstances have not been demonstrated in this case. The application therefore does not comply with the London Plan as set out below:

• Principle of development: The proposed residential development in an inaccessible location constitutes unsustainable development contrary to London Plan and intend to publish London Plan
  
• Metropolitan Open Land: The development would have a substantial impact on the openness of the MOL and would be inappropriate development; the development does not therefore meet the NPPF exceptions tests and no very special circumstances have been demonstrated. The proposals thus fail the requirements of Policy 7.17 of the London Plan, Policy G3 of the Intend to Publish London Plan and the NPPF.
  
• Housing and affordable housing: 41 units proposed. Notwithstanding the objection to the unsustainable location of the housing proposals, the principle of 35% affordable housing is supported, but this provision does not constitute ‘very special circumstances’ that would justify the development with substantial impact on MOL. The application currently does not fully comply with Policy H5 to be eligible for a Fast Track Route. The applicant should clarify the affordable housing offer by habitable room, and appropriate tenure split in favour of affordable rent. The on-site playspace provision should be appropriately demonstrated and secured by condition.
  
• Urban design: The development would significantly reduce the openness of MOL and is thus inappropriate in principle. Notwithstanding this, the applicant should provide information on equal distribution of affordable and market units within the site to avoid segregation. The application should re-consider the positioning of single aspect north facing units.
  
• Climate change: Further information has been requested on the energy strategy, urban greening and air quality.
  
• Transport: An entirely car dependent development in a PTAL 0 area is unsustainable and contrary to London Plan and Intend to Publish London Plan policy. 

Click on bottom right corner to enlarge document

CBI call for urgent sick pay measures during Coronavirus crisis

From the CBI

The CBI is today (Thursday) calling for urgent action on five areas of sick pay to support employees and businesses in light of Coronavirus. These reflect firms’ determination to ensure that people are able to follow public health guidance without fear of not being paid.

Business supports the Government’s decision that, in these extraordinary circumstances, Statutory Sick Pay will begin from day one. But there are five additional temporary measures that would support workers even more: 

1. Extending Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) to all workers (e.g. agency staff and others on flexible or zero-hours contracts) who self-isolate themselves in accordance with public health guidance
2. Clarifying in law that being unable to work because you’re self-isolating to comply with public health guidance - even if you are otherwise healthy - entitles a worker to statutory sick pay
3. Clarifying that workers who are following public health advice on Coronavirus are entitled to SSP even if they don’t have a GP’s ‘fit note’
4. Removing the need to earn over £118 a week to qualify for SSP, which is unfair to part-time employees. The Government proposed this in a 2019 consultation - which the CBI supported - and these plans should now accelerate
5. Introducing emergency relief for business – especially small businesses – if the total cost of sick pay becomes unsustainable. Small businesses may be particularly susceptible to cash-flow problems meaning that prompt reimbursement will be key to their ability to continue supporting staff. 

The priorities for business in the coming weeks will be to ensure that staff are supported if they need to self-isolate, to work with the Government at a time of national need and to ensure the investment in supporting the UK economy is fairly shared between business and the Government. 

Josh Hardie, CBI Deputy Director-General, said:

“Businesses know they have an important part to play in making it easy for people to comply with public health guidance. It’s vital there are no incentives to ignore the advice because of a fear of not being paid. Fairness and upholding their duty of care for the health and safety of their staff is at the heart of firms’ plans for responding to coronavirus. That’s why the CBI is calling for the extension of Statutory Sick Pay. 

“There are many jobs where self-isolating means not working. Paying sick pay in this situation is clearly the right thing to do, and some businesses have already said that they will. But the law is unclear, leaving some workers unsure if following public health guidance risks not being paid.

On support for businesses:

“While businesses can help shield workers from the financial cost of coronavirus, there may be situations in the future where some come under extreme pressure and will need support from the Government, especially smaller firms. 

“If a situation develops where a large proportion of people are unable to work at the same time, repeatedly, or for a sustained period, that is a heavy burden to take on. If costs become too great, the Government can look at options for emergency relief measures for businesses and to support jobs.

“We are all in this together. Businesses, Government and public health authorities will need to work closely over the coming weeks to best protect and inform people.”

5 March

Amazing line-up for 'Stand Up for Gaza' comedy evening March 20th

From Brent Friends of Palestine

We have about 80 tickets to sell for the comedy night we are organising on Friday March 20th at 7.30 pm at the Yaa Centre, W9 2AN. It will be a good evening out so PLEASE come and  buy your tickets as soon as you can. 

 

Tickets are £18 for adults and £12.50p for students. 

Tickets are not available on the door but can be purchased from https://www.wegottickets.com/brentpal

Comedians taking part , who are all giving of their time and comedian skills free are:-

 

Nish Kumar from BBC's The Mash Report and Radio 4 News Quiz:

Angela Barnes from BBC's Mock the Week and Radio 4 News Quiz:

Daphne Baram from Laughing for Palestine:

Michelle de Swarte who has a range of TV credits as a comedian on a number of different channels

MC: Ian Saville ; socialist magician, ventriloquist and comedian

PLEASE come if you can .. and bring a friend..Buy tickets in advance from the above website

 

Its probably suitable for children over 14 as some comedians do seem to swear at times from our experience !

Brent Council, councillors & Network Housing fail to deal with 'extraordinary' flytipping and litter problem in Neasden

A Brent resident who moved from south Brent across the North Circular to Press Road, Neasden has met a brick wall when trying to 'Love Where you Live' and getting something done about the 'extraordinary' amount of litter that he has found in the area.

He told Wembley Matters:

In the last 15 months or so and after I moved to Neasden, something quite extraordinary caught my attention and that was the staggering amount of rubbish, fly-tipping and plastic waste. It is particularly bad around Press Road, near Neasden tube station and Neasden Lane on both side of the North Circular.
 
I have done everything I could to improve the neighbourhood. To my disappointment, my endless efforts have had very little effect if any. 
 
I communicated the issue with Brent Council first over a year ago and many times after. The Neighbourhood Manager from Brent Council was assigned to deal with the matter. They agreed that the situation with litter is very bad. But unfortunately they didn’t do much to tackle the problem.

In addition we have a huge problem with litter around our building, Printworks Apartments, on Press Road. The council advised that it was our building management's responsibility to deal with litter. But again, to my disappointment the management, Network Homes, could not care less despite charging a generous amount of service charge for maintenance and cleaning.

I think I have exhausted every possible option. I spent a considerable amount of time and energy trying to report the problem and work with both the council and our housing association to improve the situation, but the more I try the less improvement we see. Out of desperation, I contacted our  Welsh Harp ward councillors. But again they either didn't respond or didn't take any action. One of them mentioned that they are aware of the problem and they're looking into it. That was last summer.

Needless to say  the problem with litter and fly-tipping is not only very unpleasant, but also poses a serious health and environmental hazard.

 I hope Wembley Matters  can help to raise awareness and assist me to tackle this tragic situation in Neasden.  

It appears that the slogan should be 'Ignore those that want to Love Where they Live' ! Let's see some action on this.

Councillors move to improve Brent Council's scrutiny process

Scrutiny is more than just a band!

Following my article about failures in Brent Council scrutiny processes LINK local resident and Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant took up the issue with councillors. Concerns centred around the Council not meeting the standards outlined in the Centre for Public Scrutiny's  Good Scrutiny Guide.  Indeed the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee's Recommendation Tracker showed only ONE response from the Cabinet to the Committee's 18 reports for 2019-20 and that was merely to 'note' the committee's recommendations on the vital issue of air quality, rather than provide any responses and action commitments.

The Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee does not appear to have a Recommendation Tracker so it is difficult to assess the impact of its recommendations which are often made after very detailed questioning of officers and lead members. At the last meeting which I attended the committee members did not raise any issuers under 'Matters Arising' from the Minutes which would be one way of checking on any actions arising from recommendations.

These are the responses Philip  Grant has received which indicate that the matter is being considered by at least two councillors.

Philip writes:

Cllr. Miller  Lead Member for Community Safety and Engagement, responded to my email  but he did not say whether he was writing on behalf of the Council Leader and fellow Cabinet members, or just in a personal capacity.

Among the points in his email, I welcome his statement that:

'I wish to agree with the point that Scrutiny reports should not simply be ‘noted’. Often when there are 20+ recommendations etc it can be difficult to go into great detail in responding, but generally where an action or decision is requested I feel that the cabinet should record its response, if not its basic reasoning.'

He went on to say:

'... if cabinet disagrees with a scrutiny recommendation, then we should make an effort to say why. My officers will shortly report back to the Chair of the knife crime scrutiny task group, Cllr Kabir, on progress against her report recommendations, for this reason. I would like to see this embedded in our practice more officially.'

I have replied to Cllr. Miller, saying:

'I welcome your agreement that the Cabinet should do more than just "note" recommendations from Scrutiny Committees. The findings of those committees, who have the time to consider particular issues far more closely than the Cabinet can do, should be respected and implemented by the Leader and Cabinet, unless there are very good reasons why that should not be the case. Scrutiny is one of the important "checks and balances" which a well run Council democracy needs.'

Hopefully, the points raised by Councillors Nerva and Mashari at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 29 January, and Martin's highlighting of them , will see better treatment by Brent's Cabinet of recommendations by the Scrutiny Committees in future.

I have received the following email from Cllr. Matt Kelcher, Chair, Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, which suggests that Martin's efforts in highlighting this matter in his blog, and mine in sharing my concerns with councillors, may not have been a waste of time:

'Thanks for your continued interest in this matter:

I have had several meetings on the subject with the most senior officers in the last couple of weeks. I can assure you that it is something I take very seriously.

A new system will be in place for the next couple of meetings of my committee and I am sure you will see a significant improvement.'

Palliative care services under scrutiny tomorrow

Proposals to address short-comings in palliative care in North West London will be interrogated by the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee tomorrow (Tuesday March 3rd, 6pm Brent Civic Centre). AGENDA

A well as Brent other CCGs involved are Central, Hammersmith and Fulham and West. There has been an in-depth involvement of patients and carers to address the problems and 4 scenarios have been put forward.

The main report sets out the context:

Access to services -only 48% of people with a palliative care need are accessing services when they need them. Reaching only 48% of patients is not good enough. It is paramount that we increase the reach of palliative care services to all patients who need it, regardless of their condition.

Inconsistency between services–depending on where you live you will have more or less access to specialist palliative care services and this is not acceptable. For example, while some hospices can support people to die at home if they wish, others do not. There is also variation in what services can be accessed out of hours and how quickly, for example in the middle of the night or at the weekends.

Underinvestment in community services contributes to differences in what services are available for people to access. Our vision is that everyone gets the palliative care that they need. We aim to increase this number up to a minimum of 75%initially. Investing in community services will enable us to reach more people in their last phase of life. A lack of co-ordination between services can result in care being delayed or interrupted which causes anxiety and stress for patients, carers and families and unnecessary discomfort to the patient.

National staff shortages in palliative care specialists -this has been a challenge locally and due to a specialist palliative consultant not being available led to the suspension of the in-patient unit at the Pembridge palliative care centre, highlighting the fragility of our local system.

The scenarios:

Currently spending by Brent CCG is split into three areas.

Councillors will be keen to see how the three areas cited by patients and carers are being addressed. Of particular interest are the issues around 'talking about death', access for different ethnic/cultural communities and the seemingly mundane but vital issue of travel cost and convenience for carers' travelling to a hospice.

Brent accused of misleading the public with its Borough of Culture library posters

 

Paul Lorber, of the volunteer-run Barham library has challenged Brent Council over posters which appear to suggest that the council run ten libraries.

He wrote:

The posters about Borough of Culture at London Underground Stations has been drawn to my attention especially this item about 10 libraries in Brent.

The implication is that Brent Council runs 10 Libraries which of course is not the case.

Brent Council could have done so but Labour Councillors decides almost 10 years ago (2020 is the 10th anniversary) to close 6 (half) of its public libraries.

They also refused to hand over the 6 library buildings (many of them donated and free of rent commitments) to local people who volunteered to run them.

In the case of Barham every effort possible was made to deny the building donated by Titus Barham to the local community. It is only through our hard work that we managed to get back into a much smaller building in another part - for which (the only one if the 4 community libraries) Brent charges us a rent.

While we have agreed to participate with the Borough of Culture 2020 we are doing this for the benefit of our community.

We do not however want our position misrepresented or for Brent Council to imply that they are running or managing 10 libraries in Brent - which is clearly not the case.

In view of this can you please arrange for the Posters (and any other references to libraries in Brent) to be changed to reflect the true position.

The correct description is 6 Council run Libraries plus 4 Community Libraries run by local volunteers.

I would appreciate an early confirmation that this change will be made.

Thanks
Paul Lorber

1 Morland Gardens: there IS an alternative

A Brent councillor asked on Facebook for further information on Philip Grant's reference to possible alternative plans for 1 Morland Place. LINK

Philip had written: 

But there is an alternative, as the architects were asked to submit two possible schemes, one of which included retaining the Victorian villa, which is a locally listed building. That scheme would provide around 30 homes (with the same 32% of 3 and 4 bed units), and virtually the same extra facilities as the other scheme.

Philip has responded:
 

The information on the alternative was provided to Willesden Local History Society by Matthew Dibben, Brent's Head of Employment, Skills and Enterprise, following a meeting between them at 1 Morland Gardens on 12 February.  Explaining how the retention of the building was considered, he said that:

'the council asked the architects, Curl La Tourelle Head, to consider two options, one to retain the Victorian villa and another to remove it. Retaining the building meant losing a number of benefits to the scheme.  The proposed retention of the villa in the above plan wraps around 3 of the 4 sides of the villa in order to deliver more floorspace for homes and education use.    It would mean that the view of the villa would only be from Hillside. As highlighted when we met, the real challenge with this site is the central location of the villa so that it cannot be incorporated into the perimeter of the scheme.'  

Setting out what the option to retain the villa would mean, he said:

'the following can be delivered in this iteration.

-       Circa 30 homes (with the same proposed balance of 32% 3 and 4 bedroom accommodation)

-       1800 square metres of adult education space split across 3 floors

-       600 square metres of affordable workspace.'

The 32% of around thirty new homes would mean either nine or ten 3 and 4 bedroom flats and/or maisonettes. If councillors want to see more detailed documents and plans about the alternative option for retaining the Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens they should ask for these from Amar Dave, Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment. Amar.Dave@brent.gov.uk