UPDATED WITH TORY REPLY: Brent Tories asked 'Where's the money coming from?' on their schools policy

 I received an election leaflet cheekily called 'Barnhill Ward Matters' through my door last week from Brent North Conservatives last week and was puzzled by their education policy. I am awaiting a response to my email below:

I have had your leaflet through the door and would like you to clarify Point 5 of your plan for Brent:

INSPIRING FUTURES THROUGH BETTER EDUCATION

The Conservatives will invest in schools to deliver a higher quality of education to exceed neighbouring boroughs and bring aspiration to all the students in Brent, ensuring all individuals are given an equal opportunity for for life goals.

Local authority schools and academies are funded through the National Funding Formula government funding. The money for local authority schools goes to the Council who then distribute it to schools based on a number of factors agreed with Schools Forum. Academies and free schools are funded directly from the government with the appropriate amount then taken from the LA's schools budget.

There is no direct funding of the running of schools from the Council’s own Council Tax/Business Rates income.

The government is aiming to reduce the role of LAs in deciding how the national funding is allocated to schools:

Since financial year 2018-19, a new National Funding Formula (NFF) has been used to determine how much mainstream schools attract in core revenue funding. There are separate formulas for sixth form, high needs, and early years funding. Pupil Premium (additional money to support disadvantaged children) is also paid via a separate grant.

Currently, the NFF is only being used to work out notional allocations for individual schools. These are then aggregated, adjusted, and passed to local authorities, who then draw up local funding formulas for onward distribution. This is known as a soft NFF.

The government has said it remains committed to introducing a hard NFF, i.e., one with a reduced role for local authorities in deciding allocations. In July 2021, it consulted on completing the NFF reforms, proposing a gradual move toward a hard NFF, but with no deadline for doing so. A further consultation is expected to follow.

My question then is how  will a Brent Conservative administration increase investment in schools so that they exceed the quality of education of neighbouring boroughs?

This is the answer to my email received today (April 12th)  from  Sai Karthik Madabhushi of Barnhill Conservatives. Readers can judge for themselves whether this answers the question:

Dear Martin,

Thank you for your email. I take your point on the changing NFF formula, but the consultations need to run their course and I believe the government will take decisions based on the outcome of these consultations and subsequent deliberations.

Our thoughts in the Manifesto around "Better Education", are centered around the fact that the LA has sufficient funds and resources to ring-fence additional money for education in Brent. We need to help institutions move from Needs-improvement to Good and Good to Out-standing. It bothers us that we are building more homes in the area without planning ahead for more school places for children or the stresses this will place on the existing system.

If representations have already been made to DFoE and they have been unsuccessful or if the LA deems a certain request critical to care or education in a particular school, the LA should consider releasing additional funds on a case-by-case basis. This we believe is critical to helping schools in Brent achieve, if not exceed their goals. 

We are open to suggestions and guidance to do the best thing for the community.

 

NEU launches petition to replace Ofsted

 

The National Education Union (NEU) today launched a petition calling for the replacement of Ofsted.

The petition says:

Teachers and leaders work under the shadow cast by Ofsted. An unfair and unreliable inspectorate. 

As Ofsted approaches its 30-year anniversary, now is the right time to examine what effect its inspections have on the quality of education that teachers and leaders are able to provide and, in particular, for our most disadvantaged pupils. 

 In 2017, the National Audit Office concluded that: "Ofsted does not know whether its school inspections are having the intended impact: to raise the standards of education and improve the quality of children's and young people's lives." 

Ofsted has never published any research to prove that its inspections accurately reflect the quality of education schools provide. Comprehensive, independent analysis of Ofsted judgements show they discriminate against schools in deprived areas – awarding 'outstanding' grades to four times more secondary schools with better-off pupils than schools with students who are worse off. A major research study showed that, even when schools in deprived areas are making excellent value-added progress, they are still more likely to be given poor Ofsted judgements.

Teachers and leaders know that working in disadvantaged areas is likely to be harmful to their careers because of the unfairness of Ofsted judgements. It is harder to recruit and retain teachers in these schools. Poor children, who most need qualified and experienced teachers if they are to fulfil their potential, are least likely to get them. 

School inspection must be fair. It should be supportive. It should not be, as too many Ofsted inspections are, punitive. 

The stress and unsustainable workload generated by Ofsted is a major factor in the appalling teacher retention rates that blight English education. Nearly 40 per cent of teachers leave the profession within ten years. No education system can improve while it haemorrhages school leaders and teachers. We must create a new approach to school and college evaluation which is effective and fair.

 

We are calling on the Government to:

• Replace Ofsted with a school accountability system which is supportive, effective and fair.
• Work with teachers, leaders and other stakeholders to establish a commission to learn how school accountability is done in other high performing education nations.
• Develop an accountability system which commands the trust and confidence of education staff as well as parents and voters.

 

Both the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats have policy to replace Ofsted in its current form.

Sign the petition HERE

How Stonebridge ward nearly got a non-Labour councillor!

 

Cllr Ezeajughi in his Mayoral robes

 

It was announced on March 21st that the Governor of Anambra State, Nigeria, Prof. Chukwuma Soludo. had appointed Stonebridge councillor and former Brent Mayor  Ernest Ezeajughi, as the Chief of Staff of his administration and that Ernest would be relocating to Nigeria. LINK

 

The news took Brent Labour by surprise, only hearing about it from a magazine article, and they spent some time trying to contact him.  With the April 5th deadline looming for signed nomination papers to be submitted to the Civic Centre, there was a flurry of activity on March 31st, three working days before the deadline, and Labour's London Region got involved. They arranged to re-interview him for the nomination that evening.

He was late for the re-interview and it took place without him.  The panel decided that following his appointment he would not be able to carry out his role as councillor if re-elected and that it was against the rules not to live in the borough he serves.

Additionally Labour was worried that when it was revealed that he was not living in the borough an embarassing by-election would result - not for the first time.

 

Fearing that they would not be able to field an alternative candidate, thus conceding the seat to another party, a new panel was hastily convened on April 1st and the current Brondesbury Park councillor,  Tony Ethapemi was selected and duly signed the nomination papers.

As a former local party agent I have to sympathise with the plight the agent and colleagues found themselves in. I hope their blood pressure is back to normal!

 

 

Let's talk as a community about the future of our Brent primary schools

The Government has issued an Education White Paper that expresses the intention that all schools should be academies by 2030.  In Brent most secondary schools have academised, either as a stand-alone conversion from a local authority school or becoming part of an academy chain or multi-academy trust (MAT).  They are directly funded by the Department for Education and no longer under local authority oversight. This removes local democratic accountability and in some cases reduces the role of local governing bodies and parental representation.

The story with  primary schools is quite different with only a handful academised, often as a result of 'forced academisation' when the school has a poor Ofsted report. Readers will remember the battle over the forced academisation of Gladstone Park Primary School. The low number of voluntary primary academisations has frustrated the idealogues in the Conservative Party.

The position of special schools is mixed but there was a major battle over  The Village School in Kingsbury.

Recently  Brent primary schools have formed informal geographical clusters that cooperate and support each other, sharing expertise and able to underatke moderation of pupil work. 

One potential way of keeping some sort of local authority input and accountability would be for the local authority (Brent Council) to itself become a MAT or for the clusters to form a network of several MATs. This would require new powers and thus legislation and schools have been urged not to panic and rush to academisation for fear of being left behind, but to stand back and research the potential opportunities as well as the pitfalls.  2030 is some distance away. 

Like the NHS schools have much to deal with in the Covid era and all the disruption involved, without the diversion of a massive reorganisation,

Sustained cross-party opposition to the proposal could lead to a government u-turn and we could have an entirely new government at the next General Election.

Brent Green Party would like to see a full public debate in the borough about future organisation involving schools, education unions, governors, parents and pupils to produce a vision that would address the specific needs of our young people, families and the wider community.

Meanwhile the Anti-Academies Alliance have produced the briefing below for the Easter education union conferences that considers academisation and the wider issues in some depth.

Disabled campaigners sickened by government refusal to ensure they are issued with Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) post Grenfell

 From Disability News LINK

Disabled campaigners say they are “horrified” and “sickened” by the government’s “unconscionable” refusal to ensure that disabled people living in high-rise buildings have the right to a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP).

Fire minister Lord [Stephen] Greenhalgh told fellow peers on Monday that the government had to question how much it was “reasonable to spend” on ensuring that disabled people have a PEEP as ministers “seek to protect residents and taxpayers from excessive costs”.

He was speaking on Monday as the House of Lords finished its examination of the government’s building safety bill, which will now return to the Commons for MPs to consider amendments made by peers.

The bill approaches its final parliamentary stages nearly five years after the Grenfell Tower disaster, in which 72 people lost their lives, including 15 of its 37 disabled residents.

The ongoing Grenfell Tower Inquiry has already recommended that owners and managers of high-rise residential buildings should be legally required to prepare PEEPs for all residents who may find it difficult to “self-evacuate”.

But the government has refused to back such a proposal in its bill.

As well as the cost of making PEEPs mandatory, Lord Greenhalgh  said on Monday that a government consultation also raised other “substantial difficulties”.

He said: “On practicality, how can you evacuate a mobility-impaired person from a tall building before the professionals from the fire and rescue service arrive?

“On safety, how can you ensure that an evacuation of mobility-impaired people is carried out in a way that does not hinder others in evacuating or the fire and rescue service in fighting the fire?”

He said the government would now launch another consultation, this time looking at its new plans for “emergency evacuation information-sharing” (EEIS), although it has yet to explain how EEIS would work.

It plans to publish the proposals next month on the same day that it releases its response to its PEEPs consultation.

A government spokesperson  on Wednesday declined to provide any further details about ministers’ EEIS plans.

The minister’s comments have horrified campaigners from Claddag, a disabled-led leaseholder action group that is fighting for disabled people within blocks of flats to have the right to an evacuation plan.

Claddag said the new consultation was a “shameful attempt to evade the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s recommendations” and described the government’s continuing refusal to accept the PEEPs recommendation as “unconscionable”.

A Claddag spokesperson said they were “horrified and deeply dismayed” by Lord Greenhalgh’s comments.

She added: “We were sickened to hear the minister question whether any associated costs of evacuation plans are reasonable as he ‘seeks to protect residents and taxpayers’ from costs.

“Lord Greenhalgh has repeated the tired myth that every evacuation plan involves a cost.

“[He] is provoking fear and resentment among cash-strapped leaseholders against their disabled neighbours, based on a dangerous generalisation.

“The final blow was Lord Greenhalgh’s attempt to shame disabled people into ‘staying put’ in a fire to avoid ‘hindering others’ from evacuating. Please let that sink in.

“It is preposterous for the government to assert that it is ‘committed to supporting the fire safety of disabled people’ when it rejects the use of evacuation plans on the basis of costs, convenience and ableism.”

Claddag said Lord Greenhalgh was wrong to suggest that it was not possible to evacuate mobility-impaired residents before firefighters arrive.

To demonstrate why he was wrong and to highlight Claddag’s concerns about the government’s “absurd” position, Claddag co-founder Sarah Rennie  has given Disability News Service permission to publish details of her own PEEP.

She said: “I presented my own evacuation plan to my managing agents, despite their fire safety advisors urging them to refuse to accept a plan for me and leave me to the fire service. A friend who specialises in evacuation plans helped me put mine together.

“I live on the 13th floor and moved in to my flat on the understanding I could use the lift in a fire.

“As part of the building safety crisis, we discovered my lift was not constructed properly and could not be used in a fire.”

Sarah Rennie:

“We are able to hear our fire alarm clearly. If we are in the flat, my personal assistant (PA) collects my evacuation chair and hoists me into it. All my PAs are trained how to use it and practice regularly. Many of my neighbours have my phone number and check on my whereabouts as we descend the flights of stairs so they can keep the fire service and building management briefed on my location.

“We had a real fire in January on the eighth floor. Despite the time it takes me to transfer and move down the stairs, I had managed to get to the floor below the fire before the fire service arrived. This massively improved my risk of survival. What’s more we barely passed anyone on the stairs as they’d all long gone, so I don’t understand how Greenhalgh thinks I hinder anyone.

“Whilst not everyone has a full time PA like me, not everyone needs this to evacuate. Some people simply need a guiding arm from a neighbour or to check they heard the alarm.

“I have all the components I could possibly need to evacuate safely, so it’s absurd that the government’s policy against evacuation plans would stop me if my managing agents were not responsible and progressive.

“Without my evacuation plan, I would be forced to stay put. Research shows it takes 27 minutes for the Fire Service to intervene. Being rescued in a rush to save your life, without appropriate training or equipment for your impairment, may lead to significant or life-changing injuries. But by rejecting the opportunity to evacuate with time and planning, we’re making these unnecessary injuries virtually inevitable, not to mention the pressure being put on the fire service.”

 Addition from Wembley Matters:

Locally,  John Healy, who lives on the South Kilburn Estate and whose battle to get a PEEP from Brent Council has featured on Wembley Matters tells us:

 

My mobility issues are no longer as bad as they were in September 2020 when I really needed a PEEP, as I was housebound with Long Covid fatigue.

But my block -William Dunbar House, as well as all high -rises in South Kilburn, does not have any fire alarms to alert me, or any other tenants to a possible fire.  

In the two serious fires in my block I never heard my neighbour's shouting "Fire" outside my flat, or for one of the fires, I did not hear a fireman banging on my door telling me to evacuate my building.

I only learned  later on about these warnings and I only became aware of both fires when I smelt the smoke.  Fortunately neither fire turned out to be as bad as they could have been.

As for other residents helping me in a serious fire situation, the chair of my Resident's Association told me. "You are on your own mate, as we will all be making our own escapes as quickly as we can and if you need any help, why not ask the council to see what support they can give you".

If you care about Wembley Central get along to this exhibition on Saturday and make your views known

 

Fairgate House today

 

 

The building that will replace it

 

EXHIBITION SATURDAY APRIL 9th 10AM-1PM

 

 4TH FLOOR, UJIMA HOUSE

388 HIGH ROAD, HA9 6AR

 

A handful of locals attended the first exhibition of the proposals for the redevelopment of Fairgate House and Pitman House in High Road, Wembley . In the unlikely surroundings of Stonebridge Boxing Club (punchbags may come in  handy) in Ujima House, a few easels displayed panels outlining the proposals that are still at an early stage.

 

There have been pre-application meetings between the developer Regal  and Brent planners but the PR agency insisted that there was still much to play for.

They encountered a sceptical audience who had seen their area transformed by concrete blocks with little benefit to long-term residents. Residents were particularly concerned that early promise of community facilities at the 'Twin Towers' on the Chesterfield House site, now marketed as 'Uncle' did not come to fruition and the Bowling Club pavilion in King Eddie's park is not available to the community. 'How can you build a community when there is nowhere for the community to meet?'

 

 

 

The agency said that this was a need that they could convery to Regal but there were doubts over the potential for shared student-community. The company that took managment of the building of the building may not be sympathetic even if the developer was. 

Roof terrace

 

Other developers' promises of accessible outdoor space had come to nothing with the spaces provided scrappy, litter strewn and inaccessible to the public.  Would the roof garden survive into the final stages of planning?

 

Clearly the current Fairgate House has little or no architectural merit but will it's replacement really make most of the opportunity offered by its demolition?

 

 Distribution of student accommodation

 

Residents also questioned the building's function as student accommodation asking what the area offered to students compared with the Quintain development in Wembley Park.  The agency was unable to provide evidence  there and then of the demand for such accommodation in Wembley Central but said that the developer must have done some research to establish the viability of the proposal.  There was scepticism over the ease of student travel into central London given the poor quality of service and frequency of the ageing Bakerloo line compared with the Jubilee.

 

The  context of the development is important as it is part of an 'intensification corridor 'and close to the the 'tall building zones' designated in Brent's new Local Plan. There is a continuous ribbon of new development starting at the massive Quintain, Wembley Park,  site reaching down to Wembley Stadium station and along High Road to the Twin Towers with additional buildings  further along around Wembley Central station. Then Ealing Road leads to the very dense high rise developments in Alperton.

Any opposition gains are likely to be limited to tweaks in plans rather than outright rejection.

The large bulky yellow building in the above image is to be built on the former Copland school site and will face the proposed Fairgate House development. Together the two sides of the High Road will present a sort of concrete canyon with less distance between the two sides of the road than you find on a European boulevard.

I pointed out at the exhibition the 3 storey buildings that line the High Road on the left side of the picture and wondered how  long they would survive. As you can see the blue high rises being built next to the Chiltern railway line tower over the low rise on that side of the road.

This image would make more sense if you could also see the heights of the buildings on the  west side of the High Road.

 

What was obvious from our vantage on the 4th Floor of Ujima House was the loss of vegetation on the  High Road side of the Chiltern Line compared with the suburban side. The High Road side has lost much of what was a 'green corridor' and more is likely to go with the developments in the pipeline despite promises of a 'linear park'.

 

 Between the railway and High Road

The view across to the other side of the railway line, trees and shrubs still intact on the bank

 

Opposite Ujima and Fairgate House is the huge ex-Copland School site where the yellow building in the above 'Emerging Context' illustration will be built - a prime example of densification along with the nearby Brent House development.

The ex-Copland School site

 

On leaving the area I was struck by two of the children's paintings that adorn the green hoarding around the Copland site.

 

They rather neatly sum up the different views of Wembley's future.

 

 

lnvestec Real Estate provides Quintain with a £45 million investment secured against The Hive

 

The Hive

 lnvestec Real Estate has provided Quintain, developer  of the  mixed-use  Wembley Park regeneration specialist, with a £45 million investment facility secured against The Hive, a Grade-A office building in Wembley Park.

The loan refinances an existing facility and represents the first transaction between the two companies.

The Hive, which was completed in 2019, has 10,684m² of 'state-of-the-art' office space across nine floors, of which Casio occupies 929m² and Network Homes occupies 5,017m². There is  929m² of ground floor retail space.

Brent Cabinet to approve major housing acquisitions from developers in South Kilburn and Alperton on Monday

 Monday's meeting of the outgoing Brent Cabinet is set to approve housing acquisitions from developers totalling more than £40,000,000.

The first acquisition on the South Kilburn estate is 1-8 Neville House, 1-64 Winterleys, 113-128 Carlton House and Carlton Hall - collectively known as NWCC.

101 affordable housing units will be acquired from a preferred bidder selected as a development partner and will be subject to GLA funding of £100,000 per unit. A total of £10.1m.

The overall purchase price has been withheld under the Local Government Act:

By Virtue of Paragraph 3

Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

The developer has been asked to review the housing mix of the development so as to provide a greater number of family units but the Appendix 1 referring to the mix is not available to the public. I have asked Brent Council in the public interest to make that available.

The Report before the Cabinet says that these will be secure tenancies let at South Kilburn Social Rent levels.

The Report states:

The purchase of the affordable units will be achieved under the terms of a  development, sale and purchase agreement with a developer partner. The recommendation to purchase is subject to the Preferred Bidder being selected as the developer partner. The council has proposed to the Preferred Bidder that subject to its selection, this agreement must be entered into by 30 September 2022. If it is not then the Preferred Bidder (assuming that they are the developer partner) can then sell the affordable units to another registered provider.

The development, sale and purchase agreement will also contain all the appropriate development obligation from the developer partner in relation to the affordable homes. The council will have the right, inter alia, to include its specification for the affordable homes, its nomination agreement, details of the handover protocols and the defects liability and snagging procedures in the development, sales and purchase agreement. The freehold development, sales and purchase agreement will also include the council’s specific delivery measures and set payment terms.

 

Detailed negotiations are delegated to the Strategic Director for Community Wellbeing and the Lead Member for Housing.  

The other acquisition is the second one to be made at the St Georges Development Ltd (developer and freeholder) Grand Union Phase 2 site in Alperton.

This is the purchase of 115  'affordable' rent flats on a 999 year lease at a price of £30.27m (including fees).  The rent would be capped at the Local Housing Allowance level.

The mix is:
 

The price per unit at £250,000 is below the £280k level of the New Council Homes Programme.

Liberal Democrat councillor for Alperton, Anton Georgiou, told Wembley Matters,

Whilst I welcome the news that the Council are seeking to increase their own housing stock, I’m concerned that this purchase is of too many 1 bed units and not enough large units - which is what we know Brent is desperately short of.

We have always been told that the Council has a surplus of 1 bedroom flats, so why are they buying more? 

The Council should be negotiating a better mix of units to help families in the most need. Until they do, we won’t even begin to make a dent in our huge housing waiting list.

Negotiations are delegated thus:

Delegate authority to the Strategic Director of Regeneration & Environment in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning, to negotiate and agree the terms and thereafter enter into a contract with the developer for the purchase of the scheme and make any necessary additional amendments required to the contract thereafter.

The exchange of contracts  is targeted for May 2022.

 See this Minute from the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny discussion of 'affordable' housing for information LINK