Brent NEU set out criteria for wider re-opening of schools in context of the number of local Covid19 cases, test results delay and BAME vulnerability

Following a meeting of Brent National Education Union yesterday, the union has written to headteachers summarising the membership's position on wider school  opening. It has set out what it wishes to see in place in risk assessments in order for members to support wider re-opening.  If they are not in place they do not think it will be safe to return.

The NEU says that its position is based on their evidence from members' meetings and advisers that it is typically taking 2-3 weeks to get Covid19 tests results. The NEU state that there are still over 1400 live cases in Brent and a huge proportion of the school workforce and families are from BAME backgrounds and have suffered the loss of loved ones close to them over the last few months as a result.

BRENT NEU STATEMENT ON THE WIDER REOPENING OF SCHOOLS:

• We request that all schools push back wider reopening to at least 15th June
• We request to see in the whole school risk assessment a statement that if one person develops symptoms, they are isolated then sent home. ALL their "bubble" goes home at the end of the day and does not return for 14 days UNLESS there is a negative test result. IF there is a positive test result the whole building is closed while there is a deep clean.
• We request to see in the risk assessment a statement that all staff in vulnerable categories and living with people in vulnerable categories, as well as people with BME backgrounds, are allowed to opt to continue to work from home until this is reviewed. In addition we request individual risk assessments, where staff would like them, for males over 55 and for staff that have no option but to use public transport
• We request the school to allow staff to use PPE in all situations where social distancing is not possible, and train staff in the correct use of this, and provide sufficient PPE for this
• We request to see in the risk assessment an agreement to have at least weekly reviews of the risk assessment with union reps. If there is no rep we would like to be invited to recruit one in your school

Save Bridge Park Community campaigners welcome a 'powerful decision' in their favour

From Bridge Park Community Council Steering Group

 

BRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL STEERING GROUP

PRESS RELEASE

SAVE BRIDGE PARK CAMPAIGN

Community campaigners welcome a powerful decision in their favour

Appeal Court agrees to hear Stonebridge Community Trust case for being allowed to make its Charitable Arguments:

On 30 July, Master Clarke accepted the local authority’s argument that as the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, MP, had not joined the proceedings, then the Charitable Trust argument had to be struck out from the defence.  That result would have dealt a blow to the community campaigners’ defence.

On 13^th September, leave to appeal the decision was refused by Master Clarke, so the community campaigners applied for permission to appeal this legal point to a higher Judge, resulting in this latest successful outcome. 

On 6^th November 2019, at the High Court Appeal Centre, the Honourable Mr. Justice Birss ruled that the community campaigners be granted permission to appeal the orders of 21^st March and 13^th September 2019.

At the Appeals Centre, the Honourable Mr. Justice Birss, explained that “…..the decision of the Attorney General not to join the proceedings does not prevent the community and those who represent them from maintaining a Charitable Trust argument.  He concluded by saying, “.the arguments put forward as grounds of appeal on behalf of the defendants have a real as opposed to fanciful prospect of success at trial. 

 ‘Community campaigners welcome TWO powerful decisions

 in their favour’.

1.    Feb 2020 – “Community Activist threatens Community’s Legal Defence”

In the Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday Feb 6, 2020 -

Patricia Grace Guthrie a local activist based in Camden, states that she teamed up with a Daniel Galimore and Nigel Goodison, as they thought that they could fight the Save Bridge Park campaign better than BPCC (who have blocked the sale for three years and fought and won the legal case at the first key test hearing February 2019).  Grace tried to persuade the High Court to let her join on behalf of her new team and she submitted privileged BPCC evidence and made erroneous statements in support.

Her legal arguments, were in effect against BPCC, so would have helped Brent to sell Bridge Park by attempting to remove our claim that

 *1.* HPCC were promised the Freehold (Estopple by convention), and;

 *2.* of there being a Charitable Trust by the actions and method of the purchase (in 1982) demonstrated by the protective GLC covenant which Brent removed.

Fortunately, The High Court agreed with our legal position (this without making any judgement on the merits of the main case in relation to Brent and ourselves, to be heard later this hear circa July 2020). The Judge threw Grace's arguments and case out (stating amongst other things.... that it had no basis in Law)! Brent won their costs against her. Whilst she was hostile towards BPCC/ HPCC we still persuaded our lawyers to show goodwill and not to apply for their entitled similar costs. So ONLY Brent Lawyers were awarded their costs £14,000 (within 28 days) against Patricia Grace Guthrie.

We have the full backing of the Cllrs, Lawyers, Press, Public and most importantly, our Community - proof backed up by their signed and written questionnaires also a petition.

www.bridgeparkcomplex.com/our-vision

Jay Mastin, Chair, Bridge Park Community Council Steering Group (BPCC) said

“This is a very powerful decision in favour of the community.  BPCC recognises the commitment from the community to support the Save Bridge Park campaign.  We also recognize our accountability to the community.  To that end, BPCC have produced the Chair’s Report covering the start of the campaign in June 2017 to date.  (see our website: www.bridgeparkcomplex.com).

The Current Position

We are pleased to report we have gone on to win our appeal hearing (attached) and will now go on to full Trial, with a window between July - Nov 2020. 

The Save Bridge Park campaign lost a decision in relation to the Attorney General and being able to continue our Charitable Trust arguments in our defence. We put in an application to the High Court to appeal that decision and the costs awarded A copy of the 29th April 2020 Judgement, Order and Attorney General's letter can be viewed on our website www.bridgeparkcomplex.com.

I trust you will agree our case is unique and maybe legally exceptional, please consider supporting in our favour www.bridgeparkcomplex.com/donations . Our appeal hearing was granted on 9th November 2019. This was the opening to a potentially landmark moment.    

 “This successful Appeal which was heard during the Covid-19outbreak in March 2020, is another big step in our steady fight to victory for the Community. No one believed in our arguments but we know the story, gathered our own evidence and slowly persuaded those in the know. Bridge Park Land & Complex is unique and is the largest project of its type in Europe. I feel our fight for justice may go on to create a legal precedent. Please see our story visit us on - www.bridgeparkcomplex.com”.

Jay Mastin, Chair, BPCC Steering Group and Director, Stonebridge Community Trust

NEU survey shows realities of wider opening of schools

From the National Education Union

Respondents to a survey conducted by the National Education Union between 31 May and 1 June, reveals the pragmatism of schools when asked to open more widely under easing of lockdown.

44% of schools did not open more widely to the any of the year groups suggested by the Prime minister on 1 June - with the vast majority of them remaining open to key worker/vulnerable children as they have been since 23 March.

35% of schools opened on 1 June on the terms expected by the Prime Minister.

21% of schools opened more widely, but on less than the terms expected by the Prime Minister.

By the end of this week, an additional 6% of schools will have opened more widely, but more than two-thirds of them to less than the eligible set of year groups.

The regional variation in school openings tracks closely with the levels of Coronavirus in each region. Just 12% of schools in the North East and 8% in the North West – where levels of coronavirus are higher – opened fully to all eligible year groups in their school.

23,045 members responded to the survey. One representative from each school was used in the final weighting. In total 10,953 schools are covered by the sample, amounting to 63% of nursery and primary schools in England (17,322). Results have been filtered where relevant to exclude ‘don’t know’ or ‘no answer’, resulting in a smaller sample for some questions while remaining a reflection of schools not members.

Pupil numbers expected:

Less than 25% 16%
Between 25%-50% 41%
Between 51%-75% 32%
Between 76%-99% 9%
100% 1%

Commenting on the results, Kevin Courtney, Joint General Secretary of the National Education Union, said:

Schools have been open throughout lockdown, caring for children of key workers and vulnerable children. It is clear from our latest survey, marking the start of lockdown easing, that many schools intend to delay wider opening. Some are not extending their opening beyond key workers and vulnerable children this term. Many have delayed wider opening until later in June. Others will be opening for some but not all the age groups recommended by Government. All this will make our communities safer.

It was always reckless of Boris Johnson to set an arbitrary date and expect schools to fall in line. Heads and their staff know far more about their individual challenges than Whitehall ever will. As the regional variation according to Coronavirus levels show, schools are listening to the science rather than politicians.

This disconnect should be a wake-up call for Government. Not only is the safety of the Government’s plan in question but also the feasibility of it and confidence of headteachers in what the Prime Minister requested. The Prime Minister should now act to ensure that education unions are involved in the planning of further steps as they are in Scotland and Wales.

The NEU and many prominent scientists, including Independent SAGE, believe it would have been safer for all schools to begin the move to a wider opening in a couple of weeks from now, when the number of new cases per day should be lower and the system of testing, tracking and isolation of new cases is bedded in.

Our survey shows this continues to be a complex, challenging situation for schools. Heads, teachers and support staff are using their professional judgement, working with the children they teach in circumstances where official guidance has been published long after planning needs to start.

North Brent School (Neasden Lane) planning application at Planning Committee next Wednesday

The proposed building on Neasden Lane

Chancel House

The school plan

The planning application for the new school in Neasden lane (currently, rather confusingly called North Brent School) goes to the on-line Planning Committee on Wednesday June 10th. LINK

The school will be part of the Wembley High School Academy Trust and some children are expected to travel down from the north of Brent and from Wembley High itself, as well as from Harlesden and neighbouring areas.  There has been some parental demand for a secular secondary school in the area in the past and Brent Council's pupil projections indicate the need for two more secondary schools - although that may change post-Brexit and post-Covid.

The building design looks like many of the period and there is more outdoor space than schools such as Michaela.  However, one of these spaces is a Muga (multi-use games area) on the school roof overlooking Neasden Lane.

Those familiar with the area know that Neasden Lane is one of the most polluted roads in Brent and also has heavy vehicles, including skip trucks, accessing the industrial area between the proposed school and the station.

Industrial area off Neasden Lane

Wembley Matters has already expressed concern about the proposed Ark Somerville, with a roof top playground overlooking a busy road, and this application follows a similar pattern. The question arises is why, when the Council is attempting to mitigate the impact of air pollution on existing schools, is it permitting the building of new schools on polluted roads?

The answer is partly the lack of other suitable sites and also the desire to build near transport links. There is little in the officers' report about air pollution but the Velocity Active Transport report looks at the routes to the school:

Route 1
This route connects the site to the residential areas located north of the Dudden Hill Lane / Neasden Lane roundabout. This route also connects the site to Neasden Underground Station north of the proposed development.
Clean air – According to the London Air Quality Network, this section of the carriageway fails the annual mean objective for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) air pollution indicating unacceptable air quality. This is likely due to the high volume of vehicles that travel along this main road. An investigation could be done into how the timing controls at the junction along Neasden Lane could be improved to reduce exposure to air pollution from motor vehicles. 

Route 2
This route connects the site to the residential areas located east and west of Church Road, southwest of the proposed development.
Clean air – According to the London Air Quality Network, this section of the carriageway fails the annual mean objective for NO2 air pollution indicating unacceptable air quality. This is likely due to the high volume of vehicles that travel along this main road. An investigation could be done into how the timing controls at the junction could be improved to reduce exposure to air pollution from motor vehicles. Adding some planter boxes with low level planting would also help mitigate the impact of air pollution. 

Route 3
This route connects the site to bus stops (Willesden Magistrates Court) on High Road southeast of the proposed development.
Clean air – According to the London Air Quality Network, this section of the carriageway fails the annual mean objective for NO2 air pollution indicating unacceptable air quality. This is likely due to the four signalised junctions. An investigation could be done into how the timing controls at the junction could be improved to reduce exposure to air pollution from motor vehicles. Adding some planter boxes with low level planting would also help mitigate the impact of air pollution. 

Route 4
This route connects the residential area beyond Dollis Hill underground station the east of the proposed development. This route also connects the site to the bus stop on Dudden Hill Lane (Chapter Road stop DK and DG).
Clean air – According to the London Air Quality Network, this section of carriageway fails the annual mean objective for NO2 air pollution indicating that the air quality is unacceptable. This is likely due to the high level of traffic present in this area. To further reduce air pollution, improved footway infrastructure could be introduced to encourage walking

I don't find the mitigation proposals very convincing but more worrying is not the walk to school but the exposure to pollution of both staff and pupils over a long period while in the school and its grounds.  The school building is closer to the main road than Chancel House, but the report states that these will be the 'noisy areas', with classrooms towards the back.

A proposal in original plans that 4 coaches should transport children from the north of Brent to the school in the morning and back again in the afternoon has been reduced to one after opposition from TfL and £750,000 will be paid to them to improve existing bus routes.  The 297 route is on Neasden Lane itself, 260 and 266 on Willesden High Road, and 226 and 302 on Dudden Hill Lane. Neasden Station on the Jubilee line is close by.

The proposal includes space for staff and pupil cycle parking (up to 172 for pupils)g but I challenge the planners to attempt to cycle from the Civic Centre to Chancel House and, if they survive,  report back on the experience.

Apart from the obvious positive of a brand new secondary school for Brent children, is that in an area without many mature trees, the landmark willow on the bend of Neasden Lane will be retained.

UPDATED: Controversial deferred planning applications return to next week's Brent Planning Committee

While most Brent Council committee meetings have been cancelled or postponed, as well as the Council's AGM which was due to be held this week, the Planning Committee continues via the internet.

Nex Wednesday's meeting considers a number of heavy-weight planning applications, worth millions, including two that were deferred at the May 6th meeting.

The application for Ujima House, on Wembley High Road, was deferred after a late objection was received from the landowner of neighbouring Lanmor House. His email objecting is not available on the Planning Portal (it is just noted) and of course as usual the 'Consultee' comments are linked but not actually published.

The email's contents can only be gleaned from the Planning Officers' summary LINK:

Additional objection 

Objections have been received on behalf of the owner of the adjoining site at Lanmor House (370 to 386 High Road) and part owner of 26-29 Ecclestone Place. 

A summary of the concerns are set out below: 

1. Consultation

The objector considers that there was a lack of consultation with the adjoining land owner during both pre-application and application stages. 

With regards to consultation requirements for the planning application itself, the Council did post site notices outside the application site and the application was advertised in the local press. In addition, consultation letters were sent to all nearby occupiers. This included the commercial space and all flats within Lanmor House, and 26 to 29 Ecclestone Place. 

The Council therefore exceeded its statutory duty for consulting on the planning application.

Further details of the comments received (including an objection received from 27 Ecclestone Place) are discussed within the “consultation” section below. 

The NPPF paragraph 40 states that local planning authorities should encourage applicants to engage with the local community before submitting their applications, and Brent's adopted Statement of Community Involvement reinforces this by setting out recommended pre-application engagement for planning applications. For an application of this scale, discussions with neighbours and public meetings and exhibitions are recommended. However pre-application engagement is not a statutory requirement. In this case, local residents were invited to attend two public exhibitions and give feedback on the proposals, although non-resident property owners were not explicitly invited. 

2. Accuracy of reporting

The objector considers that there was a lack of consideration of the proposal upon Lanmor House, taking into account the recent planning history and works carried out to Lanmor House. They also raised concern about the scale of surrounding buildings not being accurately reported and inaccurate reference to the building line being in line with adjoining sites where in fact it projects forward, and the resulting impact of the forward projection upon neighbouring amenity. 

The above matters are discussed within the "remarks" section below. 

3. Building scale and mass of envelope parameters

The objector has expressed concern about the footprint and resulting depth of the building and the impact on neighbouring occupiers, specifying that there would be an overdevelopment of the site. 

4. Separation distances, privacy and outlook

The objector is concerned about the potential for overlooking and a loss of privacy and outlook to Lanmor House and 26 to 29 Ecclestone Place. 

Once again, this is expanded upon within the "remarks" section below.

5. Daylight and Sunlight

The objector considers that there are inaccuracies within the daylight and sunlight report in terms of the reporting of the windows within Lanmor House and no consideration of the impact upon the communal roof top garden in Lanmor House. 

This is expanded upon within the "remarks" section below.

6. Right of Light

The objector has highlighted that whilst outside of the remit of planning, the Council should be aware of its legal position regarding rights of light. As highlighted by the objector, this is outside the remit of planning. 

7. Highway matters

Matters have been raised with regards to construction traffic, servicing and delivery traffic, and access to the proposed building.

This has been discussed within the remarks section below. 

8. Streetscene

The objector considers that the assessment of the impact on the streetscape does not consider the curve in this part of the High Road and the potential for a “canyoning” effect along this part of the High Road with the nine storey building on the opposite side. Concerns are raised with the impact on the micro-climate wind tunnelling effect. They also believe that the Design and Access Statement misrepresents the building when viewed from the east as it is only shown as nine storeys.

These matters are discussed within the "remarks" section below. 

The  officers find reasons to reject the objection (see report linked above) and recommend approval of outline planning permission but it appears likely that the owner of Lanmor House will take things further.

The second deferred item is the development at Sudbury Town Station. This was initially rejected outright by the Planning Committee but officers' quickly proposed that it be deferred so that they could talk with the developer, Transport for London and this was, controversially, accepted by Committee members. LINK

These discussions have resulted in an offer by the developer  to contribute £600,000 to 'enable the provision of six 3 bedroomed houses' off-site. Committee members may wish to explore the mathematics involved.

The developer has also offered one additional blue badge parking space and confirmed that the offer of contributing to the cost of a CPZ would be available for 10 years.

The officers report LINK  gives a blurb for the Committee to adopt if they are minded to still refuse the application.

Residents reaction:

Brent Council to give households on Council Tax Support £150 towards their bill

From Brent Council

Today Brent Council is implementing a scheme that will provide over 7,000 households in need of emergency financial support with a one-off payment of £150 towards their Council Tax bill.

The credits will be made to accounts of working-age Council Tax payers who are eligible for Brent’s Council Tax Support scheme. The emergency funding will also apply to eligible new claims made for Council Tax Support from 1 April 2020 until 31 March 2021.

These households will shortly receive an updated Council Tax bill, showing reductions in payments totalling £1.3 million.

The money that enables the council to do this was made available by the Government and is ring-fenced for this purpose.

Councillor Eleanor Southwood, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, said:

Households across Brent have been hit extremely hard by this pandemic. Already, over 750 additional households have joined Brent’s Council Tax Support scheme, which just goes to show that money is a big worry for lots of people at the moment.”

This Government grant makes it possible for us to help out that little bit more. The economic and emotional costs of the pandemic are huge and growing and I look forward to working with the Government to find other ways to support Brent’s residents.”

The Coronavirus pandemic has shone a light on the deep rooted economic insecurity and inequalities our residents face. Earlier this year, I launched an independent Poverty Commission and, through this work, we are exploring what else needs to change to make a difference.”

I also want to reassure all residents that if your circumstances have changed or if you’re struggling and you need financial support, please look to us for help – visit our website or get in touch and we’ll let you know what options are available to you.

Visit our website for more information about the financial support available to residents during the Coronavirus outbreak or to apply for the Council Tax Support Scheme.

Challenges facing school leaders over phased return to school - NFER findings

From the NFER by Caroline Sharp, David Sims, Simon Rutt

On 10th May the Prime Minister announced a phased return of some children to school In England from 1st June. Schools have been closed to all but vulnerable and keyworker children since 20th March, meaning that most children have been educated at home for a period of ten weeks, and some year groups are not expected to return to school until the autumn.

Nevertheless, opening their schools to selected year groups (Nursery, Reception, Year 1 and 6 in primary schools and Year 10 and 12 pupils in secondary schools) as well as continuing on-site provision for vulnerable and keyworker children and providing distance learning for others is a considerable challenge for school leaders. In this report we set out our initial findings on how prepared school leaders are for opening more fully, what challenges they face and what guidance and support they need.

This report is based on findings from a national survey of 1,233 senior leaders in publicly-funded, mainstream primary and secondary schools in England. Responses between 7th and 17th May have been weighted by phase and free school meal (FSM) eligibility to provide a nationally representative picture. Note that because senior leaders were answering  questions over a ten-day period, some responses pre-date the Prime Minister’s announcement on the 10th May and the publication of DfE guidance from the 12th to the 25th May
(DfE,2020a-f).

Key Findings

School leaders have fewer teaching staff available at a time when they need more:In May, school leaders were operating with 75 per cent of their normal teaching capacity. Over a fifth (29 per cent) of teachers who are available to work are only able to work at home. Senior leaders explained that they will need extra staff to teach and supervise pupils while on site, provide distance learning for pupils at home and/or cover for absent staff, plus additional funding to pay for this. This will affect schools’ ability to provide the same level of teaching quality and curriculum breadth, as well as managing more teaching in school alongside continuing support for remote learning.

Senior leaders predict that when schools open to more pupils, 46 per cent of families, on average, will keep their children at home:Senior leaders with the highest proportion of free school meal (FSM) pupils estimate that more of their children’s families will keep them at home (50 per cent on average) compared with an average estimate of 42 per cent from leaders with the lowest proportion of FSM pupils. This raises concerns that pupils in most need of access to education will be least likely to receive it. In line with the advice from SAGE (2020), clear messages will be needed from Government to encourage families to allow their children to return.

Before schools were closed to the majority, the pandemic had the greatest impact on schools serving the most deprived pupils:Before 20 March, leaders from schools with the highest proportion of FSM pupils were more likely to report that they had experienced a significant drop in numbers of pupils attending school (73 per cent) than those with the lowest proportion of FSM pupils (57 per cent). This suggests that the differential impact of the pandemic on disadvantaged pupils dates back to the period before lockdown.

Most school leaders feel unprepared for resuming a range of activities when more pupils return to school:
School leaders feel least prepared for managing pupil movement around school (66 per cent) and organising school space to enable social distancing (65 per cent). However, 65 per cent of primary and 73 per cent of secondary leaders think it would be at least somewhat feasible to operate a rota with different year groups or classes in school on different days. This suggests that school leaders might be willing to adopt the option explored by SAGE (2020) for schools to split classes and rotate attendance every one or two weeks.

Opening to more pupils in June considered less feasible for primary schools:In May, only 18 per cent of primary school leaders felt it was very/entirely feasible to open their schools to more pupils this month. Some commented that it is simply not possible for them to ensure social distancing because children are too young to understand the rules and/or their school buildings are unsuitable. Recent Government guidance has aimed to address some of the concerns of primary schools, particularly around enforcing social distancing for young children.

Primary school leaders will also find it harder to manage a combination of face-to-face and distance learning (66 per cent of primary leaders felt unprepared for this compared with 52 per cent of secondary leaders). Secondary leaders are more positive about opening their schools’ to more pupils, with 37 per cent saying this is very/entirely feasible. It should be noted that secondary schools are being asked to take fewer year groups and not every day.

The findings suggest that the pandemic has had a greater impact on schools in the West Midlands, North West and London:School leaders were most likely to report some impact from Covid-19 on their schools in terms of the availability of staff and pupil attendance prior to 20 March if they were based in the West Midlands (84 per cent), London (82 per cent) and the North West (79 per cent) compared with school leaders in the East Midlands (61 per cent). School leaders were also more likely to estimate that a higher percentage of families would keep their children at home if they were based in the North West (50 per cent on average) compared with leaders in the South West (41 per cent on average).

Frequent cleaning and handwashing most essential safety measures:Most senior leaders say that frequent cleaning (96 per cent) and regular handwashing/sanitising (94 per cent) are very necessary/essential for safety when opening their schools to more pupils. Over half (56 per cent) consider it very necessary/essential to have access to personal protective equipment (PPE), although recent government guidance has sought to address this issue. Most feel at least somewhat prepared for maintaining hygiene when they open their schools to more pupils (66 per cent).

Senior leaders want the Government to provide clear, detailed and realistic guidance to schools on opening to more pupils:
Senior leaders want information from the Government (and to a lesser extent from local authorities and trusts) on how to manage social distancing. They want to know what is expected of schools, and under what circumstances there is flexibility for leaders to reduce the number of pupils on site. Recent government guidance may have addressed some of these issues.

Public Health Directors: Government misjudgement in lifting too many restrictions, too quickly will risk spike in Covid19 cases and deaths

I am publishing below the full text of the statement by the President of the Association of Public Health Directors on the proposed lifting of restrictions. LINK


COVID-19 has already taken a huge social and economic toll on our nation – and the reality is that it will continue to do so for some time.

We are at a critical moment. We need to weigh up the balance of risks between easing restrictions, to enable more pupils to return to school, more businesses to open and more social connections to happen, with the risk of causing a resurgence of infections.

Directors of Public Health are increasingly concerned that the Government is misjudging this balancing act and lifting too many restrictions, too quickly.

This is a new disease; evidence is still emerging and there is much uncertainty. However, based on what is currently known, several leading scientists and public health experts have spoken out about a string of recent national policy announcements affecting England which project a degree of confidence that many – including ADPH members – do not think is supported by the science.
Over the weekend we have seen signs that the public is no longer keeping as strictly to social distancing as it was – along with this, we are concerned that the resolve on personal hygiene measures, and the need to immediately self-isolate, if symptomatic, is waning. A relentless effort to regain and rebuild public confidence and trust following recent events is essential.

At a local level, Directors of Public Health (DsPH) consider that honest and open dialogue with their communities is integral to effectively containing COVID-19 and managing outbreaks. That focus must be echoed at the very top of Government.

The Government has set five tests, each of which must be regularly reviewed as restrictions are adjusted and eased. Here is our current assessment:

Firstly, the pressure on the NHS – and those that tirelessly and expertly work within it – has been significant but it has been able to cope with those who unfortunately need hospital treatment for the effects of COVID-19. The number of people in hospitals with COVID-19 is falling, and beds are available for those that require them.

Secondly, there must be a sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rate. While the first peak in deaths has passed, the downward trend is slow – particularly in care settings. Deaths are a measure of what happened roughly two weeks before – the effect of easing measures now will only become evident in two weeks.

The critical debate is about the third test – ensuring the rate of transmission of the infection continues decreasing to manageable levels (taken to mean R being well below 1). The rapid and multiple ways in which measures are being eased is likely to make it difficult to judge the cumulative impact on R.

As we saw in March, R can go above 1 in a very short space of time – and once it does it can take many months to bring it back down. The room for manoeuvre is tight.

The fourth aspect, ensuring supply of tests and PPE is able meet future demand, remains an enormous challenge. PPE manufacturing and supply chains are stronger, but shortages are still being reported and it is not clear that supply can meet new demand as different parts of society, public services and the economy open. While testing capacity has undoubtedly increased, we are not yet confident that the current testing regime is sufficiently effective in getting the priority tests done and the results to where they are needed to enable swift action.

Finally, the fifth test. A second peak cannot be ruled out – whether it will overwhelm the NHS is an important question to ask. But perhaps the even bigger one is, do we really want the same number of deaths again? The scale to date represents an unimaginable tragedy and we must do everything possible to limit further loss of life.

The ADPH has argued that an effective contact tracing system is vital to keep R consistently below one. We set out a ‘Statement of Principles’ to outline what needs to be in place to make this work. A huge effort is underway to establish such a system. We would pay tribute to valued colleagues at Public Health England, who have built on the contact tracing work they conducted at the start of the pandemic – and Dido Harding and Tom Riordan who have shown great energy and leadership in recent days. We also welcome the new Joint Biosecurity Centre to support action based on intelligence and there are welcome signs that local knowledge, insight and capabilities are more widely understood and recognised by the Government.

As ever, the ADPH will continue to be as constructive as possible and as challenging as necessary.

But, let’s be clear, the NHS ‘Test and Trace’ programme is currently far from being the robust operation that is now urgently required as a safeguard to easing restrictions. Directors of Public Health are working at extraordinary pace to develop Local Outbreak Plans. The ADPH will shortly be publishing a briefing paper setting out the guiding principles needed to shape – and implement – them. It is important to recognise that these plans will largely build on the health protection duties that DsPH already have. The work that has been going on throughout this pandemic, including managing outbreaks in settings such as schools and care homes and support for vulnerable people, continues day in and day out.

DsPH have proved themselves capable and ready to take on this leadership role and will develop and deliver local plans with the support and collaboration of local government colleagues and PHE regional teams, as well as the NHS, third sector and business.

Now is the time for steady leadership, careful preparation and measured steps.

The ADPH is calling for full implementation of all Phase 2 measures to be delayed until further consideration of the ongoing trends in infection rates and the R level gives more confidence about what the impact of these will be. There also must be a renewed drive to promote the importance of handwashing, social distancing and self-isolating if symptomatic, positive for COVID, or a contact of someone who is. And, additional assurance is required that the NHS Test and Trace System will be able to cope with the scale of the task.

The risk of a spike in cases and deaths – and of the social and economic impact if we have to return to stricter lockdown measures – cannot be overstated; this needs to be understood not only by the public but also by the Government.