Brent Council consultation on wide-ranging prohibitions in public spaces and Quintain estate

 A Brent Council consultation is is progress on the merger of Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) across the borough which will include the private, Quintain owned, Wembley Park, the continuation of some prohibitions and the introduction of some new ones. 

Some prohibitions are straight-forward but others raise questions. The ban on leafleting or leafleting only with permission or licence, came up as an issue 10 years ago when concerns were raised about the freedom of political groups and campaigns to leaflet the public. There was a full discussion at Brent Council Scrutiny Committee. Cultural groups and charities were concerned about the controls limiting their ability to inform the public of events and small businesses in marketing start-up ventures.

Leafleting is a key civic freedom, with a long tradition in this country, and should not be restricted without good reason. Litter can be dealt with through the proper provision of litter bins and other common-sense measures, rather than restrictions on people’s rights to use public space. (Manifesto Club)

The ban on model aircraft and drones in parks calls into question a long tradition of model aircraft flying from Gotfordes Hill in Fryent Country Park.

The Council claims that their list of issues was informed by 550 members of the public and 40 plus 'professionals' but do not elaborate how they were chosen and their demography. 

Brent Council does supply a Q&A which I publish below but this does not explain some proposals such as banning ebikes in parks that already allow push bikes and have a speed limit.  The proposals to end some prohibitions in Wembley Park seem bizarre, especially those that harm the public such as idling car engines or present a danger such as sky lanterns. 

The elephant in the room is of course, eforcement. We know that there is a lack of enforcement of current prohibitions, neither the council or police have the resources to enforce such a large number of prohibitions so prosecutions or Fixed Penalty Notices when applied will be fairly random.

Responses to Council consultations are often very low, and may not exceed the 550 who infomed the council of issues, so I hope readers will take the trouble to respond. 

LINK TO CONSULTATION

Brent Council commentary:

 

Why are we consulting?

In accordance with the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, Brent Council is conducting a consultation over the proposed merger of three existing Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO). The current PSPOs include:-

• A Borough-wide PSPO to tackle street drinking
• Brent parks, open spaces, cemeteries and graveyards
• Wembley Park

As part of the merge, the PSPOs are being reviewed to agree whether additional prohibitions are required and whether some prohibitions may be removed altogether.

The new unified PSPO if granted, will continue to be split into the three sections as above with varying prohibitions as determined by the evidence gathering and this consultation.

The PSPO would apply to any area within the London Borough of Brent, including, Cemeteries, Graveyards, Parks and Open Spaces maintainable at the public expense or managed by the Local Authority and which is adjacent to the carriageway or footway of a highway, including adjoining footpaths. The proposed duration is 3 years.

This order has been informed by evidence from over 550 members of the public and in excess of 40 professionals, which demonstrates the scale of the issues for the local community.

The main issues in the responses to date are:-

 

1. Across the entire Borough in our streets

• Street drinking (drinking alcohol)
• Psychoactive substances (formerly known as legal highs or balloons)
• Cannabis smoking
• Littering (urination or defecating)
• Littering (cigarettes)
• Littering (spitting)
• Use of megaphone or microphone with speaker
• Illegal trading (food or other items on the street)
• Leaflet distribution including the giveaway of free samples
• Dog fouling
• Aggressive begging
• Busking without prior consent
• Illegal trading (food or other items on the street)
• Charity collecting
• Leaflet distribution

2. Issues specific to Brent Parks, Open Spaces, Cemeteries and Graveyards (POsC&G)

• Park drinking (drinking alcohol)
• Psychoactive substances (formerly known as legal highs or balloons)
• Cannabis smoking
• Littering (urination or defecating)
• Littering (cigarettes)
• Littering (spitting)
• Littering (bottles, cans, packets, food)
• Use of motor vehicles including e-scooters and electric bikes
• Dog fouling
• Loss of control of dogs (dog not within eyesight of owner and/or do not respond to recall)
• Dogs that are in a banned area
• More than four dogs being walked at the same time
• Flying drones and other model aircrafts
• The lighting of fires or use of BBQs
• The use of fireworks in a banned area
• Defacing or damaging fixtures, furniture or other items
• Wild animal feeding inclusive of birds
• Unauthorised sporting activities

3. Wembley Park (particularly issues surrounding Wembley National Stadium events)

• Street drinking (drinking alcohol)
• Psychoactive substances (formerly known as legal highs or balloons)
• Cannabis smoking
• Littering (urination or defecating)
• Littering (cigarettes)
• Littering (spitting)
• Use of motor vehicles including e-scooters and electric bikes
• Dog fouling
• Use of megaphone or microphone with speaker
• Illegal trading of merchandise
• Illegal trading of tickets (ticket touting)
• Illegal trading (food or other items on the street)
• Ambush Marketing (where an event is used to promote another business)
• Leaflet distribution including the giveaway of free samples
• Fireworks, including flares and smoke emitters
• Busking and use of loudspeakers causing a nuisance without authorisation from the landowner and/or the London Borough of Brent.
• Charity Collections
• Obstruction of the public highway which prevents a free flow of a person’s movement
• Climbing of street furniture

The PSPO, if granted would include all of the prohibitions mentioned in 3. above in relation to open spaces owned by Quintain, particularly the area surrounding Wembley National Stadium.

Proposal to remove the following current prohibitions:-

• To play games or competitions which may cause an obstruction or nuisance to members of the public (Wembley Park PSPO)
• To fly drone(s) without written consent from the land owner and/or the London Borough of Brent (Wembley Park PSPO)
• Launching sky lanterns that rely on an open flame to heat the air inside the lantern (POsC&G PSPO)
• To leave the engine of a vehicle idling without reasonable excuse, which is continued when asked to be stopped by an authorised Council officer (Wembley Park PSPO) 

Please note: The evidence gathering was based on the wards prior to the name changes made in June 2022. The proposed prohibitions will be based on the new wards.

The PSPO will give the Police and Council officers greater flexibility in dealing with this problem borough wide.
These issues affect your community, and we want to involve you in tackling them. With this consultation, we hope to:-

• Make you aware of the reasons for making an application for a PSPO
• Allow you to make any comments on the proposal
• Support local residents in improving their quality of life
• Prevent further anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder

The consultation period will run for just under six weeks from 11 July 2022 until 18 August 2022 and if successful will be implemented by January 2023.

Brent Council's Q&A

PSPO - Frequently Asked Questions 

Why do we need a PSPO for drinking? 

Excessive drinking can lead to behaviours that make people feel intimidated and unsafe; rowdy behaviour, noise nuisance, public urination and littering. When these behaviours arise, authorities need to be able to respond swiftly and prevent them escalating. Being able to prevent continued drinking is an effective, low level intervention. 

What about drinking alcohol outside pubs and bars? 

The order is not designed to interfere with the conditions that apply to licensed premises. However, drinking beyond the legal boundary of the premises would mean that the order applies and an authorised officer would have the power to issue a requirement under the order. 

Why do we need a PSPO for charity collecting? 

Before a charity collector can collect in any London Borough, they must first seek approval from the Police and the local authority. This gives Brent the ability to check that a charity is collecting for genuine purposes and not obstructing the public highway when they interact with members of the public. 

Why do we need a PSPO for psychoactive substances (nitrous oxide formerly known as legal highs or balloons)? 

These drugs are designed to replicate the effects of other illegal drugs, and have the capacity to stimulate or depress the central nervous system. This is due to one or more chemical substances used in the manufacturing process, and the effects of taking them can cause erratic behaviour which can be anti-social. 

The sale of nitrous oxide for its psychoactive effects was made illegal after the Psychoactive Substances Act in 2016, but it is not currently a crime to be caught in possession of the drug. The government has concerns that this could be a significant factor resulting in the increasing consumption of the substance. 

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) had previously provided advice on nitrous oxide in 2015 and concluded that it did not seem to warrant control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. However, given the increase in use among young people and concern over potential long-term effects, the Home Secretary has requested an updated assessment. Being able to prevent the use of nitrous oxide is an effective, low level intervention.  

Why do we need a PSPO for smoking cannabis? 

It is illegal to smoke cannabis anywhere in the United Kingdom. The smell of cannabis and the anti-social behaviour related to smoking can be seen as a nuisance to members of the public. 

Why do we need a PSPO for leaflet distribution? 

In order to distribute free matter including sampling, prior consent must be sought. The consent includes a fee to clean up matter that is littered in the streets. The cost of cleaning up this type of matter where consent has not been given, can be costly to local authorities.  

Why do we need a PSPO for aggressive begging? 

Members of the public can find aggressive begging intimidating. Where persons are vulnerable and/or homeless, the intention is not to fine them, but to refer them to appropriate services. However, where persons refuse assistance, further action can then be undertaken. 

Why do we need a PSPO for busking? 

Busking is not a licensable activity. However, a minority of members of the public who carry out busking do not take into consideration that they are obstructing the public highway or causing a noise nuisance to local residents and businesses. 

Why do we need a PSPO for the illegal trading of goods (including food items)? 

In order to trade on the public highway or in parks and open spaces, you must first apply for consent. Unfortunately, there a minority that choose to set up the sale of items, which are often of substandard quality, not fit for purpose and there is no opportunity for recourse. In relation to the sale of food items, there may be no food hygiene preparation in place or labelling with a risk of allergies being present. 

Why do we need a PSPO for the use of megaphones or microphones with speakers? 

Members of the public are free to speak in public (with a few exceptions). However, the use of a megaphone or microphone with a speaker can cause a nuisance to members of the public using the same space or neighbouring residents and businesses particularly when this can go on for prolonged periods of time. 

Why do we need a PSPO for littering (urination & defecating)? 

Persons who are relieving themselves at will in public do so in close proximity to restaurants, fast food outlets and coffee shops. It also takes place on the public highway at entrances to resident’s homes and in parks and open spaces where members of the public often sit. The smell of such littering can be overwhelming, not to mention the alarm it can cause to those passers-by that witness such activity. The removal of urinating and defection is costly to the Council, businesses and residents. 

This has historically been seen as something that only the homeless do but this is not the case.  

Why do we need a PSPO for littering (spitting)? 

Members of the public report spitting as anti-social. It also has the ability to spread disease. 

In Brent the level of paan-spitting in some locations is high and causes staining to the public highway. The effects of this can cause permanent damage to the public highway’s pavements and is costly when attempting to remove the stains. 

Why do we need a PSPO for littering (cigarettes, bottles, cans, packets, food)? 

Littering of the public highway, parks and open spaces is unsightly and attracts vermin. Members of the public should take any litter home or to a nearest receptacle where a bin is not available in the immediate area. The culture surrounding littering needs to change so that all members of the public take responsibility for their own waste in order to keep the streets clean and our parks and open spaces maintained. 

Why do we need a PSPO for bird feeding? 

Bird feeding is unsightly and attracts vermin. It also prevents other members of the public from using parks and open spaces for their intended use. 

Why do we need a PSPO for unauthorised sporting activities? 

Use of areas specified for sports often require booking. When a member of the public turns up for their booking and someone is already using the space and refuses to leave, this can be frustrating. 

In other areas in parks and open spaces, members of the public set up sporting activities without taking into consideration others that may be using the same space. 

Why do we need a PSPO in relation to dogs? 

Those who use the Council’s parks and open spaces to exercise their dogs, need to do this in a responsible manner. As a dog owner, you may understand your dog’s behaviour but not all members of the public feel the same about this. It is therefore a matter of balancing the need of exercising dogs without having a negative impact on others using the same space.  

It is therefore important to keep dogs under control, on leads where required and prevented from entering areas where they are banned. You also told us that dog fouling is a big issue across Brent where owners are not picking up after their dogs. 

Why do we need a PSPO for the lighting of fires or use of BBQs ? 

The cost of replacing furniture is costly; a new picnic table is over £650 to replace. The use of BBQs in our parks and open spaces also pose the risk of causing a fire.

 

 

Why do we need a PSPO for the use of fireworks in a banned area?

 

Anti-social behaviour involving fireworks ranges from them being set off late at night, in areas where they are banned, to deliberate physical harm or threat of harm caused to people, animals and property. Not only is there a danger from fireworks exploding, they can also pose a serious fire risk as well.

 

Firework displays when carried out correctly can be enjoyable. Unfortunately a small minority of people are using them irresponsibly.

 

It is an offence to throw or set off any firework (including sparklers and category 1 fireworks) in or into any highway, street, thoroughfare or public space.

How would the PSPO be enforced?

·       Breach of a PSPO occurs when a person does not comply with the requirement made under the order

·       Breach of a PSPO is a criminal offence subject to, up to a level three fine on prosecution (up to £1,000)

·       A Fixed Penalty Notice can be issued for £100 for failing to comply with an officer's request. This fine is payable within 14 days.

·       If paid within ten days, a discounted charge of £75 is applied

·       Payment of the FPN discharges liability to conviction for the offence

·       The police will work in partnership with the council to ensure the effective enforcement of these new regulations.

A by-product of the consultation is a reminder of how much former public space around Wembley Stadium  is now private space owned and policed by Quaintain. I have been moved on from Olympic Way and Wembley Boulevard by private security when leafleting about climate change. See LINK.

The following are the proposed locations owned by Quintain to be included in the Public Space Protection Order:- 

·       Pocket Square  

·       Elvin Gardens lawns (not including the dog run) 

·       Samovar Space 

·       Market Square 

·       Arena Square 

·       Event Pad 

·       White Horse Square 

·       The Meadows 

·       The Lawns  

·       Union Park 

·       Southern Terrace 

·       Olympic Way (pedestrian area) 

·       Wembley Boulevard (pedestrian area)

 

 

1 Morland Gardens – Brent’s new contract is lawful, says Council.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

“Altamira” and the community garden - a rare traffic free moment at Hillside, July 2022.

 

Last month, Martin published a guest post I had written asking whether or not the new contract Brent proposed to award - for the demolition of the heritage Victorian villa, “Altamira”, at 1 Morland Gardens, and construction of a new college facility and flats – was unlawful.

 

On 18 July I wrote to Brent’s Legal Director, questioning whether the proposed contract complied with the Public Contracts Regulations, 2015 (“PCR 2015”). I also questioned whether the requirement in Brent’s own Contract Standing Orders (“CSOs”), that Cabinet had ‘received and considered a report setting out all the relevant information’, before they authorised the Strategic Director to make the award, had been followed.

 

I received the Legal Director’s response on 1 August. As I believe in openness and transparency in my dealings with the Council on important issues, especially where other residents have shown an interest in the matter (and thank you all for that interest), this is what she wrote:

 

‘I have now had an opportunity of liaising with Officers and will seek to address the issues you raise in your email.

 

I would confirm that reference in my previous email to Regulation 33(8) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015) was indeed to Regulation 33(8)(a) and that when inviting a single contractor to bid from the Network Homes Contractor Framework (Framework), the Council complied with its obligations under Part 2 of the PCR 2015 in accordance with Regulation 37(6)(c).

 

I note you indicate: 

 

None of this was actually made clear in the Officer Key Decision Report, which the record of the Key Decision confirmed it had relied on (‘the report sets out the reasons for the decision.’).

 

Whilst the Officer Key Decision report does not expressly refer to the particular Regulations referred to above, paragraph 3.5 of the report does indicate:

 

In accordance with the Framework’s rules for a direct award process, the council identified Hill Partnership Ltd as the framework bidder that demonstrated best value for this opportunity.

 

Paragraph 5.2 of the report confirms that participation in the Framework is legally permissible, which involved a review of the Framework to confirm that it complied with the requirements for frameworks set out in the PCR 2015.  Further, paragraph 5.4 confirms that the Council followed the rules for tendering.

 

In the circumstances, it is considered that the report contained sufficient information for the Strategic Director of Regeneration & Environment to make an informed decision on the award of the contract.

 

With regard to the process operated in selecting a contractor to bid, Officers followed the direct award procedure set out in Schedule 1 of the Framework, comparing all contractors on Lot 3 and concluding that Hill Partnerships Ltd. best met the criteria set out in Schedule 1.  All contractor’s qualitative responses to the framework tender were reviewed and all met the council’s requirements. However, the other contractors on the framework did not have the resources available to meet the timescales the council required in order to meet the GLA grant funding requirement to be in contract and the project beginning in August 2022 and did not have the same level of knowledge and experience of, or relationship to the project site.

 

As it is considered that the direct award procedure set out in Schedule 1 of the Framework was used appropriately, it is not accepted that the award has been made with the intention of unduly favouring one economic operator.

 

You state you believe that there is a strong case for saying that the approval given by Cabinet on 20 June does not meet the requirements of Contract Standing Order 88(c). The Standing Order requires that Cabinet should receive and consider a report setting out all relevant information necessary to enable it to give such approval(s) as it considers necessary. I have responded to the points raised in the attachment to your email below.

 

You are concerned that Members of the Cabinet had from 4.30pm on Thursday 16 June and 10am on Monday 20 June when the Cabinet meeting began to consider the report on this particular issue.  None of the members of Cabinet expressed any concern as to the time they had had to consider the matter or raised any questions which indicated they had not understood its content.  There is no reason to think they would not have raised queries if they had had any. I have no reason to doubt that they diligently considered the content of the report prior to the meeting at which the decision was taken and were not reliant on comments by the Leader in order to understand what they were being asked to agree.  It was perfectly in order for the Leader to present the report. 

 

You are correct that there is an inconsistency between the legal implications section of the report and the recommendations in terms of the Cabinet member with whom consultation would take place.  However, the content of the recommendation itself clearly takes precedence and is what Cabinet members agreed to in making their decision. I have no doubt cabinet members were perfectly clear as to the cabinet member with whom they were agreeing the Strategic Director would consult.

 

The Protocol to which the Scrutiny Committee is required to have regard required it to come to one of the following conclusions:

 

§  That the matter should be referred back to the decision maker for reconsideration with reasons for its request and what the committee wants the decision maker to do.

 

§    That it does not object to the decision and the decision can be implemented. 

 

In this case, the committee determined that it did not object to the decision and the decision could therefore be implemented. 

 

The essence of the call in was a concern about the timing of the award of the contract and as to any inclusion of pre-construction demolition of building in stage 1 of the contract.  On the basis of discussion at the meeting, the committee decided it did not object to the award at this time of a contract for the Morland Gardens development.  The issue of which framework would be used for that award was not a part of the call in nor of the decision made by the committee. 

 

I do not consider there is any reason for supposing member of the Cabinet were confused as to the decision that the Scrutiny Committee had considered at its meeting.  It is perfectly clear in the report that Cabinet is being asked to agree a new process for awarding the contract as soon as possible.

 

You are concerned that the previous mini competition was too long ago to provide a reasonable price comparison and that the price may have significantly increased.  This is not the case.  With a direct award under the Network framework, the contractor is required to submit a project specific price, with overhead and profit figures not exceeding those they tendered for the framework.  The price that Hill Partnerships Ltd submitted complies with these requirements and was a similar price to that submitted during the November 2021 tender.

 

Paragraph 5.2 of the report refers to Standing Orders and summarises the relevant content of Standing Order 86 in respect of Frameworks.  I do not consider not including the number of the Standing Order has any implications for the report or the decision made in relation to it. 

 

Having considered the various points you have raised I do not consider there is any reason why the award should not now proceed.’

 

Cabinet authorising the award of a new contract on 20 June, in 59 seconds. (From Brent’s webcast)

 

The Legal Director has stated, about the Cabinet decision, ‘I have no reason to doubt that they diligently considered the content of the report prior to the meeting at which the decision was taken.’ My reply was: ‘I have to admit to some scepticism over your response in connection with the Cabinet's consideration of the Report on the Authority to Award, both before and at the meeting on 20 June.’ I’m sure there will be others who share my scepticism!

 

I am also sceptical about the claim that Council Officers considered all of the contractors under Lot 3 of the Network Homes Contractor Framework (“NHCF”), before deciding that Hill Partnerships Ltd was the one who best met the criteria for the direct award of the contract. The bid they made in response to the invitation under the NHCF just happened to be the same* as the one they’d made under a different framework, which Brent would have accepted if they had not run out of time to do so!

 

If Council Officers did do all that consideration and review of the other contractors, there should be documentary evidence, so I have requested that “audit trail” under Freedom of Information. 

 

“Altamira” from the community garden – the corner of Brent’s proposed new 9-storey building would be where the Sundisc sculpture (a Harlesden City Challenge public artwork) now stands.

 

My FoI request will not stop the award of the contract, which may have been done already. The Legal Director’s reply refers to ‘the project beginning in August 2022’, but can it really begin straight away, especially “on site”? 

 

The former Brent Start college building, including the Victorian villa, is now being used as a home by “Live-in Guardians” (I’ve told Brent’s Capital Projects team that I am quite happy with that, as it should protect the heritage asset from vandals!). And the land in front of 1 Morland Gardens, which Brent’s plans need, so that they can build out over it, is still the subject of objections to the Council’s proposed Stopping-up Order. It is likely to be Spring 2023, at the earliest, before those objections are resolved, hopefully by an independent Inspector, and the decision could go against the Council.

 

Philip Grant.

 

* Hill Partnerships Ltd November 2022 tender bid was £37,933,491. Their July 2023 bid is £37,933,561. Perhaps the extra £70 is an “admin. fee” for re-submitting the same paperwork?

High Court challenge on Government failure to implement Grenfell Inquiries recommendations on PEEPs

 From Bhatt Murply Solicitors

Bhatt Murphy clients issue High Court challenge to government failure to implement Grenfell Inquiry recommendations on personal emergency evacuation plans (‘PEEPs’) for disabled people

Bhatt Murphy Solicitors have issued an application for judicial review against the Secretary of State for the Home Department on behalf of Sarah Rennie, Georgie Hulme and CLADDAG, an organisation founded by Ms Rennie and Ms Hulme which campaigns for disabled leaseholders and tenants in residential buildings impacted by the building safety crisis.

The Claimants are seeking permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the Government’s refusal to implement October 2019 recommendations made by the Chair of the Grenfell Inquiry mandating PEEPs for all residents whose ability to self-evacuate in an emergency may be compromised.

Mark Scott and Joanna Khan at Bhatt Murphy act for the claimants.

 

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 report: recommendations at paragraphs 33.22 (e) & (f):

“…the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law…to prepare personal emergency evacuation plans for all residents whose ability to self-evacuate may be compromised (such as persons with reduced mobility or cognition)” and

“…the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building be required by law to include up-to-date information about persons with reduced mobility and their associated PEEPs in the premises information box” (“the PEEPs recommendations”)

 

The The Claimants argue that the outcome of the PEEPs consultation (i.e. the Government decision not to implement the PEEPs recommendations) is unlawful, including because:

 

a.     The failure to implement PEEPs constitutes a breach of disabled residents’ right to life and to freedom from discrimination under Articles 2 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty, under which the Home Secretary must have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination against disabled people;

b.     The consultation process was unfair, including because the Home Office held follow-up meetings with representatives of local authorities and housing associations after the consultation responses had been received, allowing concerns to be raised to which the Claimants and others had no opportunity to respond;

c.     The government has failed to understand the rationale behind the PEEPs recommendations: evidence heard by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry concerning the need for all residents to be able to evacuate in certain situations, even in buildings with a ‘stay-put’ strategy.

 

The Claimants have made an application for the court to consider the case urgently. They expect to hear in around September 2022 whether permission has been granted to proceed.

 

72 people died in the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017. A disproportionate number of those who died were disabled persons whose ability to evacuate via the sole means of escape, the single staircase, was compromised. There were no plans or arrangements in place to assist these residents to evacuate in the event of a fire

 

 

Kids' Summer Fair in Canons Park on Sunday with tempting healthy 'fun day' food available

 Easily reached from Canons Park station on the Jubilee line.

The Good Friends Cafe in the park has sent this message:

We will be serving a special 'fun day' menu which caters for all dietary needs. Lots of vegan and gluten free options; beef or vegan hotdogs, served with/without cheddar or vegan cheese and the option of GF rolls; our own egg-free dairy or vegan ice-creams; filled wheat, or GF bagels; our own pure fruit (no added sugar/colouring/flavouring) smoothie lollies and our immensely popular and refreshing, vegan snow cones as well as tea and coffee. Our 'express station' opposite the cafe, (cash payments only), will have cold drinks and our own choc-chip cookies and vegan/GF flapjacks on offer.

Dr Laptop at Wembley Library (Brent Civic Centre) on Saturday August 5th 10.30am to 15.30pm

 

You don't need a book a slot if you're coming down to donate a device. We take GDPR very seriously. The Fixing Factory has strict GDPR protection measures in place to prevent misuse of data. Our staff are fully vetted, trained and inducted to reset and wipe laptops without accessing the data contained on the devices - so you can rest assured that even if you haven't wiped it before donation, it will be wiped during our refurbishment process.

If you're having problems with your device and don't know what's wrong, our friendly IT experts are on hand to help answer all your questions. Don't despair - choose repair!

We've opened the UK's FIRST EVER Fixing Factory in Brent to tackle the major problem of discarded tech.

Last year, west Londoners threw out 116,000 tonnes of electrical items – that’s over 68 Wembley arches worth of stuff! We're fixing our relationship with tech by:

- Saving laptops & tablets from waste by refurbishing and repairing them

- Teaching FREE repair skills to local people in the process

- Empowering local communities by giving FREE fixed devices to those without access

Book a slot to come down and receive a free diagnostics check and repair advice on your laptop or tablet. Our expert volunteers will need the full hour so don’t be late!

Location: Brent Civic Centre Library ( Wembley Library)

 

REGISTER HERE  (Note only 14.30-15.30 seemed to be left when I checked)

Rally to Stop London Bus Cuts - Wednesday 11am Waterloo

 

We need to firm up proposals for the future of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre or it will be our children's loss

 

Representations were made both by councillors and the public at the last meeting of the Welsh Harp Joint Consultative Committee about the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre (WHEEC)  and its future.

The Committee covers both Barnet Council and Brent Council and the chairing alternates between the two. This year Barnet chairs.

The Centre has been a well-used resource for educating primary school children about the environment for decades. Thames21 was chosen to take it over when Brent Council stopped funding as a result of government funding cuts. However, after operating the Centre for a few years they decided they could not continue. Following local campaigning they decided to continue for a year, albeit with a reduced offer, while a long-term solution was found to ensure the future viability of the resource.

At the Committee's March 10th meeting it was recorded:

..it had been agreed for Thames 21 to continue activities  [at WHEEC] for a further year, with a full programme to be confirmed. It was noted that the centre required some infrastructure work in order to make the centre viable, which would incur a revenue cost. The Committee would continue to be kept updated regarding progress on the ongoing discussions regarding the future of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre. 

Questions and comments were then invited on the update, with the following issues raised:
· It was noted that expressions had been raised to extend the remit of classes at the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre, including sessions for secondary schools and evening classes for adults. It was asked if these plans were still in place to be explored. It was explained that this was still being explored and had worked in other similar centres in London, but would rely on a viable consortium to bring people, resources and organisations together to make it happen.

Brent Council's report to last last week's meeting indicated little progress:

Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre:

Discussions have continued between Brent Council and external partner organisations who have or may have an interest in creating a viable environmental education centre. Thames 21 have agreed to provide some services for another year while discussions continue for a longer-term solution for the future of the Centre.

Committee members asked for further information stressing the importance of the Centre in the context of the Council's declaration of a climate emergency. No details were available of the organisations that had expressed an interesting in forming a Consortium to run the Centre, the reduced programme that will be offered by Thames21, whether local firm Carey's an original bidder to run the Centre had been approached again, or the status of the former chapel, known as Planet House, which shares the site. 

When passing the Centre's classrooms and toilet block on the way to the Garden Centre it is easy to discount the Centre's most important resource. This is the extensive woodland (see photograph above) that stretches to the Barnet border north of the classrooms and the woodland on the other side of the access road that  abuts the Welsh Harp Open Space. The towering mature trees and shrubs beneath  provide an amazing unspoilt habitat for wildlife and add to Brent's quota of green space.

When I tweeted about the Centre yesterday these were some of the responses:

 

 Any organisations or projects interested in joining a consortium should write to  brent.parks.services@brent.gov.ukwith a brief summary of their interest/proposal.

Audit raises potential conflicts of interest in Brent Council's companies

 This evening's Audit and Standards Advisory Committee will consider an update on the Council's Internal Audit arrangements.  It includes a section on the Council's companies that although not named I presume are Brent's housing companies,  First Wave Housing and I4B Holdings Limited (previously Investing4Brent).

Five areas are raised as representing a 'Medium Risk' including a potential conflict of risk when directors are council employees.   This is the releveant section from the Appendix and the management response LINK.

Five Medium risk issues were raised within the following areas:
1) Responsibilities for Council employees working for the companies: The management and two of the five directors of the companies are employed by the Council and line managed within the Council. This may create a conflict of interest as management may feel they need to represent the interests of the Council rather than the companies. These responsibilities need to be clarified to ensure that these conflicts are effectively managed, and the companies are robustly represented in disputes with the Council.
Management Response: We will review job descriptions to identify and mitigate conflicts of interest.
2) Absence of Shareholder Panel Risk Register: The Companies share their risk register with the Council and the Shareholder Panel. However, while the Shareholder Panel reviews this risk register biannually, it does not hold its own risk register on behalf of the Council. This means that the Council is not formally considering the risks to itself from the companies, for instance, the risk that the Council may need to provide additional financial support to the companies.
Management Response: The need for a risk register will be reviewed at the next panel meeting.
3) Formalisation of Stress Testing: Whilst stress testing is undertaken for the preparation of the business plans and used to inform the setting of performance indicators, there is limited documentation of this process including how the outcome impacts the Business Plans.
Management Response: Stress testing will be included in the revised business.

Although the report mentions council employees it  does not mention councillor directors and possible conflicts of interest.  Cllr Saqib Butt is recorded as a director of both First Wave Housing and I4B. He is also a member of the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee considering the report tonight. In addition he is vice chair of the Brent Planning Committee and a member of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

Cllr Saqib Butt is the brother of Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council.

Wembley Matters has previosuly raised potential conflicts of interest in  the article 'Probity and Planning in Brent.'