Brent Scrutiny request key information on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

 

 Cllr Roxanne Mashari's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee did a pretty thorough job on the Healthy Neighbourhoods (Healthy Neighbourhoods and School Streets) issue considering it came up under Topical Issues at their recent meeting without a report from officers.

The Low Traffic Neighbourhoods issue which has aroused controversy was inevitably the main focus and there was close questionning of Cllr Shama Tatler with minimal contributions from Cllr Krupa Sheth. Cllr Tatler admitted to problems with implementation and blamed these on government/TfL requirements and a rushed timeline. Left to itself Brent Council would not have approached it in this way, it was claimed.

Cllr Mashari quoted the detailed critique submitted by thye Brent Cycling Campaign.

You can hear the full meeting above and make up your own minds.  The main outcome was that Scrutiny requested a full breakdown of money spent on the schemes and the amount left to spend. In addition Scrutiny wanted a full account of the lessons learnt.The aim was that the objective, supported by the majority of residents for clean air and a healtheir neighbourhood, would be fulfilled by better planning, engagement and consultation.

Queens Park Community School 3G pitch at Planning Committee on Janary 26th - chief planner recommends approval

 BRENT COUNCIL NOTICE

Re: Queens Park Community School, Aylestone Avenue, London, NW6 7BQ 

 

I refer to the planning application for the above site which proposes:- 

 

Construction of an artificial turf pitch, ball stop fencing with access gates, acoustic all weather timber fence, flood lighting units 2 x double floodlights on the half way masts and single floodlights at each of the 4 corner masts (mounted onto 6 steel columns) and a dry pond detention basin and earth bund in a designated area within the school grounds 

 

The application will be formally considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 26 January, 2022 starting at 6pm. 

 

As a result of the current regulations allowing the Council to hold meetings of the Planning Committee remotely coming to an end, the Council is now required to hold this as a socially distanced physical (face to face) meeting. 

 

This meeting of the Committee has therefore been arranged to take place in the Conference Hall, at the Civic Centre. 

 

As we are still operating under existing Covid restrictions, capacity within the meeting venue has been strictly limited to ensure compliance with the necessary social distancing guidelines. 

 

We are therefore encouraging those who wish to observe proceedings to continue doing so via the live webstream which we will continue to make available on the Council’s website: 

 

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/democracy-in-brent/local-democracy/live-streaming/ 

 

It is possible to speak at the Committee Meeting, which (in advance of the current restrictions coming to an end) can continue to be undertaken online (including via the telephone) or now, as an alternative, in person at the meeting, subject to the restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or representing a group of people. 

 

To address the committee you must notify Executive and Member Services by 5 pm on the working day before the committee meeting. Please email committee@brent.gov.uk or telephone the Executive and Member Services Officer, Mrs Dev Bhanji, on 07786 681276 during office hours. If you would prefer to attend the physical meeting to speak in person then please could you indicate this when notifying us of your request, as attendance will need to be strictly managed on the night. This may involve you having to wait in a separate area outside of the meeting room until you are called to speak.

The Chief Planner's recommendation for this application is to Grant Consent

 

Tokyngton residents receive no response from their neighbours, Muhammed Butt and Dawn Butler, over littering, street drinking & women's safety in their ward

 

Residents of Tokyngton concerned about littering and other issues are to present a 320 petition at the next Brent Cabinet meeting on February 7th.

They have received no response to a November petition letter to Dawn Butler MP and Cllr Muhammed Butt despite them both being resident in the ward. Zack Polanski, Green Party All London Assembly Member and chair of the Assembly's Environment Committee who did respond sympathetically but has limited power on the issue as it is a borough matter.

 The residents' petition calls for more rubbish bins, improved lighting, anti-littering enforcement and loitering and public drinking restrictions.

The area affected stretches from the Kingdon Hall at Wembley Triangle,  Neeld Parade down Oakington Manor Drive, Vivian Avenue and Vivian Gardens.  The greens at the junctions of  these roads are particular hotspots.

The petitioners write:

Sadly many Tokyngton residents feel badly let down by our council representatives. We see our streets contantly strewn with empty alcohol cans, bottles and litter of every kind. Places feel unsafe especially for women and girls, with now darker nights.  In the listed areas (above) we have constant male loitering and drinking. Here we ask for more neighbourhood/community police officers and the installation of CCTV cameras.

We did not vote for unsightly blue bags stuck on trees. They blow upside down in strong wind, and are difficult and unhygenic to open. We did not vote for an unworkable no-bin policy.  Cllr Butt is placing public bins in 'flag ship areas' and ignoring us and our environment. We ask for proper public bins to be properly collected, especially on our 'hot zones'. Also better lighting in these zones.

Our area of Tokyngton is NOT cared about. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

The petition is addressed to Dawn Butler MP, Muhammed Butt, Michael Gove (Secretary of State) and Zack Polanski.

LETTER: Richard Evans and Copland payments - the true story

 Dear Editor,

 

This is the true account of Richard Evans’ involvement in what was at the time the biggest misappropriation of state school funds at Copland Community school in Wembley (£2.7 million) in the UK history.

 

I was the whistleblower who investigated massive misappropriation of school funds from a school.  For this I was suspended, alongside two other school union reps, Shane Johnschwager, NASUWT Rep and Dave Kubenk, NUT Rep. We all faced disciplinary charges and dismissal. 

 

During our suspension we continued to collect evidence.  The DfE was slow to react.  However the evidence eventually was so overwhelmingly they were suspended – i.e. the Head, the deputy (Evans who was head of finance), the chair and vice chair of governors, the head’s PA and the school bursar.

 

We were reinstated and the disciplinary charges overturned.  A wide-ranging police investigation took place.  They were charged with conspiracy to defraud, money laundering, conspiracy to commit false accounting and fraud by abuse of position. A criminal trial took place.  

 

The crown prosecution service, headed by Keir Starmer, brokered a plea bargain.  If the head Sir Alan Davies (knighted for ‘services to education’ - more like self-service!) pleaded guilty to the six charges of false accounting the other charges would be dropped.  Davies received a 12-month prison sentence suspended for two years.  He was ultimately stripped of his knighthood.  

 

Remember, the others were not found ‘innocent’ of the charges, just as Davies was not found ‘innocent’ of the more serious charges. Charges were dropped as part of the Davies plea bargain.  I was informed that the police were gutted that the case regarding the serious charges which they had spent months meticulously collecting evidence was for, were dropped. 

 

I, staff, union members, ratepayers and parents at the school were furious that not only had they escaped from the most serious charges, but they had also kept their ill-gotten gains.  We petitioned/ lobbied the Council to seek to get the money back.  To their eternal credit the Council decided to take them to the financial High Court to seek to get them to have to pay the money back.  The High Court Judge found they were all complicit in the overpayments and other financial irregularities.  

 

Evans claim that he didn’t know he was being overpaid is risible.  Truth and justice are not cheap, but they are precious, indeed priceless.

 

Hank Roberts,

Previous teacher at Copland Community school, recently retired NEU Executive member

 

Please note the following conclusions reached by Judge Zacaroli in his judgement on 16.08.18 [Numbers refer to the paragraphs in the judgement]:

 

1.    Dr Evans received over £600,000 in overpayments (13)

2.   The vast majority of those payments were unlawful (125)

3.   The Judge found that Dr Evans’ evidence was ‘not credible’ (237) in regards to how those payments were made and ‘did not stand up to scrutiny’ (421)

4.   The Judge notes that many of the payments to Dr Evans were double payments (383)

5.    The Judge goes on to note ‘the payments to Mr Davies and Dr Evans represent obvious double counting’ (430) and there were ‘simply not enough hours in the week’ to have undertaken claimed additional duties (425)

6.   He also notes ‘a lack of any possible justification’ for payments (506)

7.    Crucially, Justice Zacaroli found there was knowing receipt of funds by Dr Evans paid in breach of fiduciary duty (565)

8.   Other findings by the Judge regarding payments to Dr Evans are that they were ‘unconscionable’ (592) and that Dr Evans must have been aware of the risk that payments ‘could not be justified’ (593). He goes on to say Dr Evans ‘must have appreciated that there was no proper justification’ for another payment and ‘the retention of this sum was unconscionable’ (594).

9.   Justice Zacaroli ordered that Dr Evans pay back all unlawful payments that are not outside the limitation period.

Stonebridge Community Trust considering its position over Supreme Court legal clarification in Bridge Park case

Huge community meeting at the start of the campaign to save Bridge Park for the  the African and Caribbean community

 

 Following the Appeal Court Judgment on the Bridge Park case LINK and Muhammed Butt's reaction LINK, Stonebridge Community Trust (SCT) has made the following statement:

 

The three judges complemented Peter Crampin QC on the forcefulness of SCT's legal argument on behalf of the African and Caribbean community, but unfortunately they have judged in favour of Brent Council.

Jay Mastin (SCT) said:

 
We have studied the Judgment and whilst we have lost this Appeal hearing, SCT feels the argument remains in Law that by the actions of how the Land was purchased in that it took several different entities to contribute and raise the purchase funds to buy the disused Bus Garage. Those monies were given for the stated purpose of the social and beneficial needs of the African and Caribbean Community. A Charitable Trust existed by act of Law regardless of whether Brent intended this or not.

The three Justices appears to avoided making a clear ruling in relation to whether;

 
i) A Charitable Trust existed in Law

 
ii) Given the legal facts that the same Bridge Park complex is still in existence today; the needs of the community remain. It was argued that in Law a Charitable Trust must still exist and continue today even after the GLC's interest and the covenant was removed by Brent. No legal decision on whether a Charitable Trust still continues after one of the contributors/ settler is removed.

iii) The Judgement appears to say even though there was a covenant and separate agreement on the stated purpose for the Land for the African and Caribbean community, once the land was purchased as intended Brent could then immediately do whatever they wanted with the Land eg. Use it as a Council Staff Admin building. They had no further obligation to carry their stated commitments to the Community for the land.

The above leads SCT to believe that the Appeal Courts judges appear to have remained politically safe and avoided making the tough Legal Judgement that would give clarity in Law on these matters.

The judges appear to have left this to the Supreme Court to make the final decision on these points of Law.

SCT are considering its position in relation to the Supreme Court clarifying the legal position, on behalf of the African and Caribbean Community of Brent.

 

FULL JUDGMENT

For further background to the case search for 'Bridge Park' in the search box on right of this post which willbring up many articles and also see the video.

Planning Inspector turns down Pocket Living's appeal against Brent Council for refusing development on Sudbury Town Station car park

 

 

Cllr Tom Stephens posted this on the Next Door website earlier today

As one of Sudbury’s local Councillors, I’m pleased to confirm that the planning inspector has today *REJECTED* Pocket Living’s proposal to build 1-bedroom flats in Sudbury Town station car park. Residents will recall that Brent Council’s own Planning Committee refused the development on 11 June 2020. Alongside Sudbury residents, myself and fellow Councillor Mary Daly spoke against the development and sent strong written objections. Like you, we were concerned about the impact the would have on parking in the area - especially disabled parking - and the lack of any genuinely affordable, family housing. The developer then appealed to the Planning Inspector and the inspector has been considering the case for several months. 

 We argued the Planning Inspector should reject Pocket Living’s appeal and refuse the development, as did Brent Council. We attended the hearings and the site visits and spoke against the developments then. We are delighted to inform you that on 19th January, the Planning Inspector dismissed Pocket Living’s appeal and rejected the development. They argued that the development won’t provide the appropriate level of affordable housing or mix of housing unit types - a clear breach of a Brent Council’s local plan. We hope this will come as good news. We are pleased to have opposed this development from day 1 and to have worked alongside residents to send in objections. We will continue to oppose it. 

There is quite a history to this development proposal see LINK and confusion over deferral LINK.

Paul Lorber raised an official complaint about how the application was handled LINK

Following the deferral the developer came back to Brent Planning Committee with a revised proposal and Wembley Matters reported:

After a lengthy discussion Brent Planning Committee again rejected the TfL application for a development of 'pocket homes' on the car park at Sudbury Town Station. Despite a £600k offer by the developer towards the build costs of 6 three bedroomed homes outside the area, the committee stuck to their original objection on grounds of lack of family homes for the site itself,  the loss of the car park and its impact on acessiblity for people with protected characteristics; and the applications lack of compliance with Local and London plans. Three members of the public and two councillors made very persuasive presentations opposing the application.

 TfL are intent on developing other station car parks so the result of this appeal and the grounds for refusal will be widely studied.

Muhammed Butt hails High Court's Bridge Park Appeal ruling that Brent Council is the sole owner of the Centre

 From Brent Council website

Plans for a new community centre in Stonebridge Park can now go ahead after the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling that Brent Council solely owns Bridge Park Leisure Centre.

Leonard Johnson (first Defendant) and The Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Limited (second Defendant) were granted permission to appeal the High Court decision by the Court of Appeal in March 2021. However, the Appeal was unsuccessful and has been dismissed in a judgement released yesterday.

The plans to create a new community centre – with much improved leisure facilities, community spaces and modern workspaces – in addition to new homes can now progress.

“The council is pleased with this outcome,” said Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council. “It means we can now continue working with local communities in Stonebridge and surrounding areas to realise the potential that’s been trapped in this treasured, but crumbling, site for far too long.

“It is time now for everyone to work together to help create a fairer and more equal Brent by providing the fantastic new leisure and employment centre that local people need and deserve.”

For more information visit: www.brent.gov.uk/bridgepark

UPDATED WITH COUNCIL RESPONSE: Brent Council must exercise its duty of care and fix the non-operating self-closing fire doors at South Kilburn block. Have they not learnt lessons from Grenfell?

 This 3rd floor self-closing fire door has not been working since 2017 despite notification to Brent Council

A week ago Wembley Matters published a letter from John Healy who lives at William Dunbar House on the South Kilburn Estate. LINK

He had resorted to writing the letter to ask Wembley Matters for helf after his attempts to get Brent Council to repair what are supposed to be self-closing fire doors that have remained open. One since 2017!

John Healy wrote:

At the Grenfell Inquiry, self closing fire doors that did not self close were identified as the second highest issue after unsafe cladding and as a result I have been emailing the council to fix 2 self closing doors that do not self close and which are part of my only fire escape in my high-rise, one on the 3rd floor & one on the 5th floor but after 3 years, they still have not been fixed and everyone's safety is under threat because of this.

I had a response to one of my emails from a housing officer who said "Fire Safety is not included in my job description" and he failed to pass it on to another officer, who did have Fire Safety in their job description.

After 3 years I decided to ask the London Fire Brigade to solve the issue but I was shocked by their reply, which said they were not responsible for Fire Safety in council blocks and they forwarded my email back to Brent Council who failed to take any action as usual.

I hope that now the evidence of failure to rectify is public that Brent Council will exercise its dury of care to residents and quickly fix the problem on the 3rd floor and the more recent 5th floor problem (below) and check every self-closing door in the block.

 As I  was was completing this article I received another email from John Healy that speaks for itself:

Can you ask Brent Housing to carry out a full inspection of all the fire doors in William Dunbar House, as I have only checked those doors up to the 5th floor and for all I know, there may be many others in the floors above me.

At the Grenfell Inquiry Mr. Stokes the Fire Risk assessor carried out his FRA's without actually going into the tower.  Since I began emailing the council, my block has had 2 FRA's, with the last one in 2019 and neither of them noticed the damaged doors.

II can only assume that the FRA's in my block were carried out using the same method as Mr. Stokes, where the assessor never actually visited my block.  The last one even got the location of our only fire escape wrong. He said it was next to the lift shaft and anyone entering the building could clearly see the stairwell began at the far side of the building.

When I reported this to Brent Housing they said "they had full confidence in the FRA assessor and it did not matter that he got the location wrong".

It is worth recalling that a resident of Grenfell had written a series of blog articles drawing attention to the fire danger in the block. He was ignored.

 RESPONSE ON TWITTER SHORTLY AFTER THE ABOVE ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED