Two FA semi-finals at Wembley this weekend and Euston Station is closed.

Bus replacement services - Easter Weekend

 It is going to be a busy Easter weekend in Wembley with the Emirates semi-finals taking place on Saturday (Manchester City v Liverpool k.o. 3.30pm) and Sunday (Chelsea vs Crystal Palace k.o. 4.30pm).

Euston Station will be closed throughout the weekend and this will prove particularly difficult for Manchester City and Liverpool supporters who use the West Coast line.

Mayors and supporters of both cities called on the FA to change the venue to no avail. The need for Wembley Stadium to hold as many events as possible to recoup the £757m cost of rebuilding the stadium. Hosting the FA Cup semi-finals was part of that day.

Network Rail say that the FA was given warning of the closure back in 2019.

The upshot is that 50,000-60,000 fans could be heading down to London by road on a Bank Holiday weekend.

On their website Network Rail say:

Over Easter (Friday 15 – Monday 18 April), Network Rail will be carrying out major upgrade works on sections of the West Coast Main Line between London Euston and Scotland. As a result, there’ll be no trains to/from London Euston, some journeys will take longer and may involve a rail replacement service.

We strongly recommend you travel either side of the Easter weekend (15 – 18 April). If you need to travel, please make a reservation, plan ahead, and check the Avanti West Coast website before travelling.

  Fans travelling to the FA Cup Semi-Final are encouraged to consider alternative modes of transport to get to the match at Wembley. Any fans who need to travel by train should plan ahead, allow extra time for their journey, and check the National Rail website before they travel

Things will be easier for Sunday's semi-final as both teams are London-based.

Meanwhile Brent Council states:

We want everyone to enjoy their visit to Wembley and the match. However we will not tolerate anti-social behaviour, so please behave responsibly.

Brent Council and its partners are enforcing a No Street Drinking Zone on Olympic Way and the surrounding area for the Emirates FA Cup semi-finals weekend on Saturday 16 April (Liverpool v Manchester City) and Sunday 17 April (Crystal Palace v Chelsea) as part of the current Public Space Protection Order.

Fans drinking on Olympic Way and the surrounding streets will be asked to hand over their alcohol and enforcement action may be considered.

 

 

XR Meeting Chalkhill Community Centre Thursday April 14th 7pm-9pm

 

Lidding Road planning application near Wealdstone Brook, returns to Planning Committee after Thames Water commentary

 The planning application for the development of garages at Lidding Road in the north of Brent was deferred last December after councillors heard representations from the Friends of Woodcock Park on sewer capacity and flooding in the area of the development which is close to the Wealdstone Brook. LINK

 The application was for demolition of the existing garages and redevelopment to provide 3 self-contained
flats and 5 dwelling houses; with associated car parking, cycle storage, refuse
storage, amenity space and landscaping

The application is back at Planning Committee on April 20th with a detailed response from Thames Water. Officers continue to recoemmend approval of the application.

Officers' Report extracts:

Members will be aware that the application was first reported to Committee at the meeting on 15 December 2021 where the committee agreed to defer a decision on the application in order to:

1. seek further details and assurance from Thames Water in relation to the impact of the proposed development on drainage and the maintenance of the sewerage infrastructure and how these would be mitigated;
 

2. seek further details on the location of the flooding incidents identified within the Flood Risk Assessment; 

 

3. seek further details on the proposals to alleviate concerns regarding the access of construction traffic to the site via Gooseacre Lane as part of the Construction Method Statement and Logistics Plan to be secured via condition.

Impact of the proposed development on drainage and the maintenance of the sewerage infrastructure and how these would be mitigated

 

In the Committee members raised concerns regarding flood risk impacts on the site. Specific concerns were raised regarding the potential for the voids under the houses to be blocked by residents; the ability for Thames Water to access and service the pipes where necessary. Additionally members raised concerns over the potential impact of the development on pollution in the Wealdstone Brook and further details were requested regarding any projects to clean the Brook.

Since the application was deferred, further comments were received from Thames Water regarding impacts of the development. It should be noted that these comments relate only to flooding that may rise from foul or surface water flooding. Flooding from other sources (such as the Brook) fall outside the statutory responsibility of Thames Water.

They consider that there is sufficient capacity and that the flow expected from the development would be exceptionally small. They have specified that they have no concerns over the risk of foul water flooding as part of the development. Additionally, they consider that the development would not result in an increase to the pollution of the Wealdstone Brook.

With regard to the concerns raised by residents about the sewers, Thames Water have specified the following:

We acknowledge concerns raised by residents about the performance of the foul sewers in this area. These have not been caused by the capacity of the sewers but by sewer blockages. Sewers are only designed to take water from toilets, sinks, baths and showers along with human waste and toilet tissue. Everything else should be put in the bin.

Sewer blockages in this area are predominantly due to fats, oils and grease being inappropriately put down the sewer. This then clogs the pipes, which causes the foul water to back up and eventually flood out of the sewer.

Sewer capacity is when the pipe is too small to accommodate flow and it can eventually back up and eventually cause flooding. Increased flow to the foul sewer from new developments has the potential to increase the risk of flooding due to sewer capacity. From our knowledge of the current flow in the sewer in question and the expected increase due to this development we are confident that the receiving sewer has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed flows. If we had concerns that capacity did not exist to serve this development, it would initiate Thames Water funded modelling investigations. Our initial assessment of this site shows this is not necessary.

They also note that with regards to surface water flooding there would be an overall reduction in flood risk due to the increased flow rates identified in the drainage strategy.

With regards to access to the sewers, Thames Water have confirmed that the applicants have engaged with them during the course of the development and a build-over agreement has been proposed. Thames Water raise no objections or concerns in regards to this and note that such matters are usually dealt with post-approval via Building Regulations.

The applicant has also advised that they already have details of the existing line, level and condition of the existing sewers within the development boundary prior to development, from undertaking drainage CCTV condition and utilities surveys in 2020. The flood risk consultant has therefore suggested that a post-construction drainage CCTV and conditions survey is undertaken of the Thames Water assets within the redline boundary to confirm that there has been no damage to the existing sewers during construction. Any damaged and/or blocked pipes could then be reported to Thames Water for repair. Such details could be conditioned to any forthcoming consent.

With regards to pollution in the Wealdstone Brook, colleagues in the Parks team have provided further information on the existing circumstances. They note that most of the pollutants in the water would have originated upstream and flowed down into Brent towards the River Brent.

Brent Parks Service are working on an early-stage scheme to improve the structural and wildlife diversity and amenity section of the Brook through woodcock Park. Additionally, the catchment area of the brook is mainly located in Harrow and Harrow Council has ongoing projects to improve the brook.

Thames Water have an on-going programme looking at addressing the issues with water quality in the Wealdstone Brook, and have specified the following:

We recognise that there is a significant issue with water quality in the Wealdstone Brook. We host a “Friends of the Wealdstone Brook” quarterly meeting where residents, the Environment Agency, Lead Local Flooding Authorities are other interested stakeholders can meet and engage on the issue. This allows us to share water quality data for the watercourse, our operational activity and longer-term investment plans with interested stakeholders. The group is attended by the NERC funded CAMELLIA project (Community Water Management for a Liveable London) consisting of many academic partners including Imperial College, British Geological Survey, and Oxford University. We completed an extensive Catchment Study on the Wealdstone Brook in 2016/17 that assessed the root cause of poor water quality and flood risk in the area. Following that study, we have a long-term list of improvements we propose to make to the sewer system. As water quality and flood risk are intrinsically linked, we have to start by creating capacity in the river system. We are in discussions with Harrow Council about a potential scheme to do that.

 

Once details are available, we will share them. We hope to promote a similar scheme with Brent Council in the future. Thames Water conclude their further advice by confirming that they have adequately assessed the impact  that the proposed development will have on the sewer system and that they are confident that the development will not cause a deterioration to the level of service residents receive at present.

Location of the flooding incidents identified within the Flood Risk Assessment

In the committee members noted that the flood risk assessment identified 66 flooding events at postcode ‘HA3 0’. It should be noted that this postcode zone encompasses a larger area stretching from Kingsbury to Northwick Park and including the area between Kenton Road and Preston Road.

In response to the above, the applicants have requested a Sewer Flooding History Enquiry from Thames Water. This has selected 1 Lidding Road as the centre point but encompasses a wider area around this address. The report notes that there have been no recorded flooding events in the area as a result of surcharging public sewers.

With regards to the potential for the voids to be blocked, the applicants have agreed that a planning condition can be attached requiring a verification report to confirm that the relevant measures have been implemented on site. This is intended to include a drainage maintenance schedule which can incorporate checks to the void structure.

Notwithstanding that, the voids are closed in by ‘hit-and-miss’ brickwork leaving several small gaps for water to escape. The gaps are considered small enough to avoid large objects from being inserted into the void space. Additionally, these voids would be located under all plots 1-6. As such, officers consider that the likelihood of the voids to be fully blocked and therefore resulting in undue flooding impacts is low and suitably addressed by the suggested condition

 

 

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".