Transparency and Accountability: Ask a Brent Council Cabinet Member a Question - email by 5pm on Tuesday 30th August

 

 

From Brent Council

Do you have a question for a Brent Cabinet Member?

Did you know that you could submit a question to Brent’s Full Council to be answered by a Cabinet Member?

If you would like to ask a question at our next Full Council meeting on 21 September 2022, please send this over by email by 5pm on Tuesday 30 August 2022. You’ll receive a written response and will also have the opportunity to ask a follow-up question at the meeting itself.

Meetings are now being held in-person but you still have the option of tuning in virtually via the live stream if you'd prefer.

They’re back! – Heritage tile murals in Olympic Way now on permanent display

I am pleased to publish this 'Good News' guest post by Philip Grant and congratulate him and his heritage colleagues for their persistent campaigning to save the historic murals for Brent residents and visitors to Wembley Stadium.

 

Three sporting heritage murals on the east wall of Olympic Way, 23 August 2022.

 

It was April 2018 when Wembley History Society first called on Brent Council and Quintain to put the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals, celebrating Wembley’s sports and entertainment heritage, back on permanent public display. They’d been covered over with vinyl advertising sheets since 2013, under a secret advertising lease deal between the developer’s Wembley Park subsidiary and Council officers.

 

In August 2017, Brent’s planners finally got round to approving advertisement consent for this “cover-up”. Although Quintain’s application had asked for five years from September 2013, it was given for five years from 27 August 2017!

 

When Council officers extended Quintain’s advertising lease in 2019 (in a very “dodgy deal”), they did get an agreement to have the tile mural scenes on the east wall of Olympic Way “revealed” for 21 days each year. This was first done at the start of Brent’s year as London Borough of Culture in January 2020. 

 

However, local historians and many local residents wanted more than that! We did not want Quintain renewing the advertisement consent for the Olympic Way murals, due to expire on 27 August 2022, so I started the year by sending a letter to their Chief Executive Officer. I asked for Quintain’s agreement to put the murals on the walls of Olympic Way back on permanent public display once the advertisement consent ran out, and in March I received a letter confirming they would do that.

 

On Tuesday I was passing through Wembley Park, so went to take a look. And yes, they are back on display, and will stay that way! Residents, and the tens of thousands of visitors to Wembley every year, can now enjoy the American Football, Rugby League and Ice Hockey mural scenes all year round. That is what they were specially designed for, back in 1993!

 

The drummer mural on the west wall of Olympic Way, awaiting restoration.

On the west wall, the “drummer” tile mural (the last remnant of a scene celebrating the “Live Aid” concert at Wembley Stadium in 1985) is still waiting for new tiles to be added. Most of the original design was lost when steps down from the then bus stop were built for TfL around 2006. Quintain have commissioned an artist to design a suitable “infill” for the triangular section (now just concrete) down to the bottom of the steps, using the same type of tiles as the original. I’ve been told that this should be in place by November 2022.

That just leaves the Bobby Moore Bridge subway. There are colourful tile mural scenes along the walls on both sides of the underpass from Wembley Park Station. In 2019, Brent’s planners persuaded Planning Committee to allow the vinyl adverts to be replaced by light panels, which could be used for advertising, despite strong local opposition. The only concession to Wembley History Society’s call for all the tile murals to be put back on display was the framing and display lighting for one mural, showing England footballers at the “Twin Towers” stadium.

 

The England footballers mural in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway, 23 August 2022.

 

Brent Council’s current advertising lease with Quintain, which includes the right to advertise on the subway walls (except for the footballers mural), expires in August 2024. Perhaps then we can have all of the tile murals put back on permanent public display. The progress we have made so far shows that it is worth standing up for Brent’s heritage!

 

Philip Grant.

Will the London Assembly Transport Committee Make Time for Bus Driver Toilet Dignity? Guest post by Lorraine Robertson

Guest post by retired London bus driver Lorraine Robertson first published on 'The Bus Stops Here: Safer Oxford Street for Everyone' blogspot. Thank you to Lorraine and Tom Kearney for permission to reproduce this post on Wembley Matters.

Siân Berry, Chair

Transport Committee

The London Assembly

City Hall 

The Queen’s Walk

London SE1 2AA

20 August 2022

cc: Transport Committee Members

RE: Will the London Assembly Transport Committee Make Time for Bus Driver Toilet Dignity?

Dear Siân Berry,

You may recall that we had a chance to meet on 14 December 2021 when I gave evidence for the Transport Committee’s Investigation of the Mayor’s Vision Zero Programme led by Caroline Pidgeon AM.  

Given the good quality of your questioning of me in December 2021, I was looking forward to your leadership of the Transport Committee’s Investigation of London’s Bus Network in the hope that you’d use your leadership position to scrutinise more closely the poor working conditions and practices that make TfL’s contracted Surface Transport Operation—in the apt words of former TfL Board Director and Safety Panel Chair Michael Liebreich— “Institutionally Unsafe”.  But—since at the 24 May and 29 June sessions (a) the safety critical issue of Toilet Dignity was pushed to the very end of the discussions and (b) you cut short further discussion about the issue at both public meetings—I was extremely disappointed. So that you might consider putting London's scandal of Lack of Bus Driver Toilet Dignity back on the Transport Committee’s radar screen, I'm going to provide with two specific examples of what the Mayor’s and TfL’s failure to provide adequate toilets on over a quarter of London’s Bus Routes really means for Bus Drivers. 

Example 1. TfL is Gaslighting the Assembly about Toilet Availability, because even the toilets TfL says are available to Bus Drivers aren’t guaranteed. 

Stockwell tube station has a Toilet a Bus Driver can use, but the tube station hours are 0630-2330 on weekdays and 0700-2300 on Sundays.  And the first bus down to Stockwell is 0430 and the last is 0130, so that’s at least 4 hours where we don’t have access to a toilet TfL tells the public is there for us when it’s not.  In Croydon, Bus Drivers are permitted to use the Council offices after 1800, but whether we’re allowed to depends entirely upon the willingness of security personnel to let us in.  There is also a public toilet up the road which costs 20p (if you remember to have your purse on you!), but these toilets have a bench outside which—in the evening—attracts local addicts waiting for the food truck to arrive: so, frankly, it’s unsafe for us drivers. There is also a toilet that can be used at Fairfield's Hall (a theatre in Croydon), but—again—it's up to security if we are allowed in and this venue is only open from about 0900 to 2300.  

Example 2. Lack of Toilet Dignity Disproportionally Discriminates against Women Bus Drivers [TRIGGER WARNING: This narrative contains graphic descriptions that might make more sensitive readers uncomfortable—Tough! Welcome to a woman TfL bus driver’s world!]

I suffer from endometriosis and fibroids: let me tell you about my experience driving a route from Croydon to Stockwell. On this shift I was having my period and, due to the nature of my condition, I had to use tenner lady's and pads together, but this time I guess it was my night from hell: I flooded myself and the cab with my menstrual blood. At the time, I was not aware of the ‘accident’ because I didn’t have any access to a toilet and had been driving for four hours straight on the second half of my shift.  That night, I consider myself lucky because I was told to run the bus light [i.e., empty of passengers] back to the garage and I had a chance to explain to the cleaner what had happened.  The cleaner was also a lady (so she understood and sympathised), but I offered to clean it myself after I sorted myself out. I then spent an hour in the garage loo cleaning myself up and bagging up my soiled cloths—luck would have it I always have a spare pair of trousers in my locker, but the downside was that I had to wait for another female driver to come in the garage so she could get my trousers out of the locker and hand them to me in the loo. As promised, I then went back to the bus to help clean up my mess but was then told the whole seat was ripped out and put it in the skip. 

I’m afraid that this kind of indignity is a regular occurrence for us women TfL bus drivers. In the end, I begged the hospital to give me a hysterectomy because otherwise I would have to give up my job: I could not keep working as a London bus driver knowing future humiliations were in store for me just because TfL chose to deny us any Toilet Dignity. 

And this is just not my story: I reckon most lady bus drivers have similar or worse tales: I know of at least one lady bus driver who had a miscarriage on the bus, but I will save that one for the Transport Committee should you deem the Lack of Toilet Dignity worth the Committee's further public scrutiny.  If asked, I will pleased to provide evidence.

Kindly note that I have requested Bus Safety Campaigner and Businessman Tom Kearney to post this email as Open Letter on his blog:

Will the London Assembly Transport Committee Make Time for Bus Driver Toilet Dignity? 

An Open Letter from London Bus Driver Lorraine Robertson

Yours sincerely,

Lorraine Robertson

London Bus Driver (Retired)

Fuel Poverty Action and DPAC condemn Ofgem’s abusive standing charge policies

 

Fuel Poverty Action and Disabled People Against Cuts have together written to Ofgem CEO Jonathan Brierley about the gross injustice of the present standing charges, including loading the cost of failed suppliers onto this part of people’s bills. [1] They say   "It is appalling that yet again Ofgem is punishing low income customers for its own failed regulation and the upside down priorities of the energy industry. …This is consistent with the blinkered approach that has led you to give “too much benefit to companies at the expense of consumers”, in the words of Christine Farnish, the Ofgem director who resigned last week.   Ofgem has claimed (2) that high standing charges are the only way to protect high users, some of whom are people with health needs for electricity, eg for electrical medical equipment. But the two groups suggest that Ofgem’s obligation to vulnerable customers is being abused as an excuse for policies that impoverish and endanger thousands of people, including many who are disabled people. They name instead several alternative ways to protect people with high energy needs - without impoverishing vast numbers of low income customers.   With Fuel Poverty Action’s proposal of Energy For All (e4a) each household would be entitled, free, to enough energy to cover basic needs, but people would pay a higher tariff for what they use above that amount. This would offer much needed security to all - including those who need more because of their health, disabilities, housing conditions, or family size. It would be paid for by the higher per-unit tariff on excess use, by windfall taxes and by ending the millions of pounds now poured daily into fossil fuel subsidies.   Other options listed include extensions of the Warm Home Discount, social tariffs, better disability benefits, and good safe insulation for vulnerable customers. And they say that companies that cannot fulfil their purpose of providing the energy people need at a cost they can afford, could - and must - be brought back into public hands.   Ruth London from FPA comments,   Instead of looking at real, proportionate, workable changes to the current upside down pricing framework, Ofgem has chosen to continue hitting low income users harder than affluent neighbours. The standing charge means that however much they cut down their usage many people will never be able to pay their bills.   Paula Peters of DPAC says,   I’m a low energy user because I am terrified to switch it on and worrying about costs all the time. It’s making me permanently anxious as it is all of us. Last winter I was in a lot of pain with a cold house. I needed NHS intervention: a steroid injection and a Nebuliser at A & E.   [1] https://www.fuelpovertyaction.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Letter-to-Ofgem-re-decision-on-Standing-Charge-August-2022.pdf [2] https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/follow-our-review-arrangements-recovering-costs-supplier-failure

Ukrainian Day at Brent Civic Centre Thursday August 25th 4-6pm for Ukrainian guests & their hosts - information, support, advice, socialise, refreshments

 

Brent pensioners: Are you missing out on Pension Credit? Deadline tomorrow if you want to get £650 winter cost of living grant

From Brent Council

Pension credit deadline - WEDNESDAY!

Hundreds of pensioners in Brent are not claiming the Pension Credit they are entitled to. This means they will miss out on an additional £650 cost of living grant from the government this winter.

 

Please speak to anyone you think may be eligible to make sure they’re registered by this Wednesday!

 

Friends and family members can assist with the application and this can be completed online or via telephone - www.gov.uk/pension-credit/how-to-claim or 0800 99 1234.

Brent Council insists change from London Afforable Rent to Shared Ownership at Watling Gardens is still affordable despite latter needing an annual income of £60,000

 Comment from Philip Grant in a personal capacityL

Brent's Head of Planning has issued a letter on 18 August 2022 granting consent to the change from London Affordable Rent to Shared Ownership for 24 homes in the new Watling Gardens scheme.

I've included an extract from the Final Delegated Report on which the decision was based, but basically Brent's planners are saying that both LAR and Shared Ownership are "Affordable Housing".

They also say that as there is (or was, in 2018) an identified need for Shared Ownership homes in the borough, it doesn't matter that the Council wants to replace homes which would be "genuinely affordable" with homes which require the shared-ownership lessee to have an annual income of up to £60k!

This argument ignores the fact that there are thousands of people on Brent's housing / homeless list who need genuinely affordable housing, and that Brent's planners have approved hundreds of other shared ownership flats as part of the "affordable housing" requirement on applications by private developers or housing associations in recent years'

Extract:

'Regarding comments on the affordability of intermediate units for Brent residents, the definition of 'Affordable' comes from the Brent Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF. Intermediate (Shared Ownership) is treated as an Affordable Housing product in Brent, but the significant need for those on lower incomes is recognised by the 70 % target for Social / LAR homes. 

However the Brent Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2018), which forms part of the evidence base shaping the housing policies contained in the Local Plan, outlines that there is a proportion of residents within the Borough who require homes which would be classified at an Intermediate level. Therefore, introducing an element of shared ownership units into the proposal ensures this need is met.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the non-material amendment procedure as there would be no material change to the type or quantum of development approved under the original permission, nor the overall amount of affordable housing which will remain at 100%.'

New Homes at 1 Morland Gardens – but not the ones Brent promised! Has Brent Council shot itself in the foot?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

In January 2020, Brent’s Cabinet approved proposals for a new adult education college, and 65 affordable homes, on the site of the existing Brent Start building at 1 Morland Gardens in Stonebridge. They delegated authority to make all the Key Decisions for this project to the then Strategic Director for Regeneration (in consultation with a Lead Member). His report told them that work on the new building should be completed by the summer of 2022:-

 

Morland Gardens “Delivery Timetable” from the report to Cabinet, January 2020.

 

In fact, the scheme had already been informally approved by the Leader, and then Deputy Leader and Lead Members for Education and Housing, at a meeting with the project team in February 2019. Then they were told that 89 new homes could be built on the site. That number was later reduced to 65, as even Brent’s planners would not agree that the impact on neighbouring residents (loss of light, etc.) of the 89-home design would be ‘acceptable’.

 

The proposal had started off in 2018 as an updated college and some new housing. The original design by the architects would have retained the locally-listed Victorian villa, and developed the site in phases, so that there was no need for Brent Start to by decanted. There was a viable alternative to the scheme which the Cabinet approved. However, it seems that the Council were determined to build as many new homes as they could on the college site, even though it meant demolishing a valuable heritage asset their own policies promised to protect, and that was the first of many mistakes they have made on this project.

 

Architect’s image of the proposed new building (viewed from across Brentfield Road).

 

In August 2020, the Council controversially obtained planning consent for the development, despite strong local opposition. It was soon celebrating its “award winning” Morland Gardens scheme, and the 65 new homes it would deliver. Two years later, there are new residents at 1 Morland Gardens, but in the original building, not the new one pictured above. 

 

The Brent Start college was moved out earlier this year to a “temporary home” in the former Stonebridge School Annexe. (The adaptations to the annexe cost at least £1.2m, and the building will be demolished once the college leaves, as it is on the site of Brent’s Twybridge Way 67-home housing scheme, which was given planning consent in May 2020, and should be nearing completion now!) That left 1 Morland Gardens vacant.

 

What do you do with a large empty building, when the catalogue of mistakes you’ve made means that you are still not ready to go ahead with its redevelopment? In May 2022, Brent contacted Live-in Guardians, and by early July this organisation was housing mainly young single people in the former college building.

 

An Instagram advert for Live-in Guardians at 1 Morland Gardens, July 2022.

 

I was first aware of Live-in Guardians (“LIG”) there when I attended a site meeting with Brent’s Project Manager on 26 July, to discuss my objections to the proposed Stopping-up Order for the highway outside the property. There was a sign on the gateway to say that they were providing live-in protection for the building, and a resident would not let us enter because the Officer had not arranged access in advance. 

 

I’m interested in all aspects of the Morland Gardens project, so I put in an FoI request for a copy of the Council’s agreement with LIG. This has been supplied to me, and as live-in guardianship is an idea which may be of wider interest, to single people (or couples) in need of an affordable short-term home as well as to property owners, I will include some information and extracts from it below.

 

The opening paragraphs from Brent’s agreement with LIG.

 

These “new homes” would not be for people on Brent’s housing waiting list, so who were they for? The agreement says that up to 26 “Guardians” would be provided with accommodation at 1 Morland Gardens, and gives details of the type of person and how LIG selects them.

 

It sounds from this extract that the Guardians living here will be people who do need relatively inexpensive accommodation, at a stage where they are not in a position to rent or buy somewhere more permanent. But how long can they stay in the building?

 

The paperwork makes it clear that the Guardians only have a licence to occupy the premises, subject to the right to 4 weeks’ notice to leave after the 26-week contract period. Their legal status is explained to them on the LIG website.

 

From the LIG website.

 

1 Morland Gardens has been used as a college since 1994, when it was sympathetically designed around the restored Victorian villa. Turning it into living accommodation would require some alterations, but as part of the agreement LIG paid the initial fit-out costs, for things such as installing a kitchen, 4 extra showers, and carrying out all of the necessary safety checks. The cost of this work was estimated at up to £17k.

 

It appears that Brent is getting a good deal out of allowing Guardians to live at 1 Morland Gardens. The Council would not have to pay a security company to look after the vacant property. The only expenses they would incur during the contract period would be the Council Tax or Business Rates, and any repairs or maintenance which the agreement made them responsible for. And, at any time after the 26 weeks, they could get vacant possession of the building and land within its garden walls by giving only four weeks’ notice.

 

I have to say that I approve of Brent’s decision to allow 1 Morland Gardens to be used for providing temporary accommodation, rather than remaining empty after they had moved the Brent Start college out of the building. The presence of Live-in Guardians will hopefully prevent the beautiful heritage building from being vandalised (and among the potential vandals, I include Brent Council and the contractors it has recently hired, perhaps unlawfully, to demolish it!)

 

1 Morland Gardens, the former Brent Start college, June 2022.

 

Another reason why I like Brent’s agreement with LIG (although, on refection the Council may regret it) is that the 26-week period will last until at least the end of December 2022. At a Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9 June, Brent’s Strategic Director for Regeneration justified the urgent award of a c.£38m contract for the Morland Gardens development on the grounds that if work did not begin on site by August ‘the Council stood to lose the £6.5m GLA grant towards affordable housing.’

 

The site is in two parts. They can’t build on the land outside, because there are open appeals against the proposed Stopping-up Order. Now they can’t begin any work inside the boundary, because that is legally occupied by Live-in Guardians. Brent can’t “start on site”, within the terms of their GLA grant agreement, this month (or this year), because they have no site to start on! 

 

Philip Grant.