SCANDAL UPDATE: Brent Council's remediation costs for Granville New Homes, puchased from Higgins for £17.1m, could rise to £22m plus VAT. Number of residents due to be decanted during works is uncertain.

 

The buildings known collectively as Granville New Homes sold by builders Higgins to Brent Council for £17.1m now look likely to cost Brent Council taxpayers  £20m-£22m to bring up to standard. Market conditions, including the cost of materials means that officers warn the council that costs could rise further. If more people have to be decanted than allowed for whilst works go on, that will also add to costs.

The whole thing is a scandal and a nightmare for residentts and tenants in which Higgins seem to have got away scot free. They have even been given additional work by Brent Council:

 

The report going to Cabinet on November 14th clearly outlines the poor quality of the build:

4.0  Survey Findings

4.1  There are two main issues with the blocks. These are the water ingress at various locations in the blocks and uncertainty about the fire rating of the external and internal walls and floors. These two issues are interlinked as they are generally related to the same construction elements. Thus, both issues will be resolved in tandem.

Fire Safety

4.2  The fire risk assessment for the blocks, and the subsequent intrusive investigations have identified that the construction is poor. The blocks have two distinct methods of cladding. One is formed of cementitious panels and the other is of brick effect panels. Both of these appear to have a variety of insulation materials, including expanded polystyrene, mineral wool and void spaces. Because of this, the fire rating of the blocks is uncertain. However, they will certainly not comply with current building regulations and are unlikely to have complied with the class 0 requirements at the time of construction.

4.3  The panels and insulation will require to be removed and replaced with A1 or A2 rated materials to comply with building regulations.

Water Penetration

4.4  The properties have suffered from water penetration for many years. Attempts at remediation have been unsuccessful.

4.5  Ridge Consultants were commissioned to undertake an intrusive survey of the blocks and to identify any significant areas of defect.

4.6  Ridge’s findings are as follows:-

o The external envelopes on these buildings have been constructed from relatively inexpensive materials and there is evidence of poor-quality workmanship.

o There is a lack of information available, relating to the original build and it is clear that what has been installed on site has not worked.

o The doors and windows are suffering rot and timber decay, which is not, a defect readily associated with buildings of this age.

o The horizontal surfaces to the external envelopes (roofs, balconies and walkways) have been poorly finished.

o A further note is that none of the components that have been installed should have failed because of age.

4.7  Ridge’s recommendations are as follows:

o   ·  The defects noted in relation to the buildings’ external envelopes are not easily repairable in a way that will offer a guaranteed and satisfactory solution. On this basis, the only available option is to replace the facades, roof coverings and balcony waterproofing systems.

o   ·  All specified systems and products will have long insurance backed guarantees. All designers and the main contractor will provide warranties. The Council’s legal team will review these before making any appointments.

 

4.8  A key to being able to complete these works without decanting residents is being able to work without disturbing the internal blockwork leaf of the system. It is likely that once the cladding is removed, the blockwork wall behind it will remain intact. This may mean that not all residents require being decanted. Only vulnerable residents may require decanting.

Energy Efficiency

4.9  As a consequence of the fire safety works specification. The energy efficiency rating of the properties will also be improved.

5.0  Works undertaken to Date

5.1  It was identified that the blocks have suffered from a number of defects, which included fire safety issues, water penetration, window and cladding defects.

5.2  In addition to the above the Fire Brigade served FWH with Enforcement Notices, which led to a waking watch to be introduced in the blocks.

5.3  A comprehensive communal and dwelling interlinked fire alarm system has been installed into the properties. This has now been set up with alarm monitoring arrangements.

5.4  In addition, combustible materials have been removed from communal areas and additional fire stopping has being installed. The waking watch has been removed as the alarm monitoring has been commissioned and now in use.

5.5  The fire alarm system will be monitored in order that any suspected smoke or fire is alerted to the London Fire Brigade.

6.0  Budget Requirements

6.1  The nature of the works is significant and therefore costly. The estimated cost of the works and associated works and consultancy services is £19,870,804. This includes costs associated with supporting more vulnerable residents such as respite care and temporary decanting, inflation and a contingency. The works are high risk and the market is currently extremely volatile in terms of costs and pricing, hence the large contingency. In addition, it is prudent at this stage to make provision for the potential decant of a significant number of residents who may not be vulnerable but who may not be able to stay in their homes during some or all of the works. Therefore, Cabinet is requested to allocate £22M plus VAT to this project.

6.2 The difference in cost from the 6 December Cabinet report is due to ongoing uncertain market cost conditions, and the addition of VAT. Some allowance has been made for ongoing building cost inflation. However, due to several uncertainties in the marketplace and world events, there may be further building cost increases. Cabinet will be advised of this should this become apparent during the course of the project.

 HISTORICAL INFORMATION

Brent Executive Plans including Wembley and South Kilburn when there was a Liberal Democrat-Conservative Coalition LINK

Impact Needs Assessment completed by Robert Johnson, then Housing and Community Care Project Manager, South Kilburn, now a Labour councillor.  LINK

Reponse to a Freedom of Information Request re the South Kilburn Redevelopment LINK

London boroughs in 2023-24 will face the most challenging financial outlook they have experienced since 2010. Tough choices ahead.

A Parliamentary Briefing by London Councils ('The Voice of London Local Government') sets out in stark terms the choices (or lack of them) that local council, including Brent, will be facing next financial year:

London boroughs have suffered from chronic underfunding for far too long. Boroughs’ overall resources are now 22% lower in real terms than in 2010 – even though there are now 10% more Londoners (almost 800,000) to serve.

The Covid-19 pandemic added £3 billion of financial pressures to London boroughs in 2020-21 and 2021-22 but these were largely funded by national government. However, the high demand pressures in many services haven’t subsided, especially within homelessness, services for children with special educational needs and disabilities, children’s social care, and – most significantly – in adult social care. The impact of long covid, interaction with the huge NHS backlog, and increasing delayed transfers into adult social care, is leading to overspending.

Outer London boroughs, as the lowest funded authorities per capita in the country, have particularly few resources to alleviate these growing pressures.

Rising inflation and cost-of-living pressures

The energy crisis, soaring inflation, the increase in the National Living Wage and cost-of-living pressures on residents have added huge additional financial pressures to London boroughs’ budgets.

Despite the 7% increase in core spending power from the 2022-23 local government finance settlement, London boroughs need to make up to £400 million of savings this year.

That funding gap will almost double to more than £700 million next year (2023-24), based on the plans set out by the government’s most recent Spending Review. The scale of the challenge is colossal.

For context, £700 million is equivalent to:

• What London boroughs spend in total on public health each year (£703m)
• More than London boroughs spend on homelessness and housing services (£615m)
• Retrofitting 27,000 homes to help achieve London’s net zero goal
• Delivering 46,000 apprenticeships to boost young Londoners’ skills and employment opportunities
• A year of care for 64,000 Londoners in nursing homes.

Local authorities are highly dependent on central government funding. There is no realistic way that boroughs could currently raise the £700 million through other means. If boroughs were to try raising the £700 million from London’s council taxpayers, council tax bills would need to rise by around 18%. Without a significant increase in funding, a further £700 million will be required in 2024-25 and 2025-26.

In total, the forecast funding gap is £2.4 billion over the next four years – which is almost £1 billion higher than London boroughs were planning for a year ago. This is the most challenging outlook boroughs have faced since 2010. Any further cuts to council funding will make the situation even tougher.

Difficult decisions for London boroughs

There is no painless way for London boroughs to make savings on the scale required. Any low hanging fruit and basic efficiencies are long gone. Staff numbers have been reduced by a third (80,000) since 2010. Many boroughs have delivered significant transformational programmes, which can only be done once.

London boroughs have worked hard to protect their budgets, but many now face the prospect of having to make severe cutbacks to vital services including bin collections and filling potholes, social care for adults and children, support for low-income households and preventing homelessness.

To deal with this challenge, boroughs are now starting to discuss some incredibly tough choices which they haven’t had to do before. These include:

• Cutting back adults and children’s social care packages to the statutory minimum 
• Cutting back community safety and domestic violence to the statutory minimum 
• Cutting back homelessness services to the statutory minimum 
• Cutting voluntary sector funding 
• Cutting back youth services 
• Withdrawal from the delivery of adult social care day services  
• Withdrawal from the delivery of leisure services  
• Reductions in Home to School transport 
• Turning off street lighting 
• Less frequent waste collection
• Less frequent street cleansing
• Reducing public health support on obesity, and smoking cessation
• Increasing parking charges
• Significant asset rationalisation

How the government can help to protect local services

Cuts to council services will damage our communities. However, they will also undermine the government’s ambitions to boost economic growth, level up the country, and help residents through the cost-of-living crisis.

The pandemic showed what London boroughs could do when adequately funded and given the powers to deliver more for our residents. We need the same partnership approach between central and local government for tackling cost-of-living pressures.

We’re therefore asking for local government to be protected from further cuts by increasing business rates and grant funding in line with inflation next year. The government must stick to the funding plans set out in the Spending Review at the very least, rather than make any further reductions to council budgets.

Boroughs desperately need more certainty over longer-term funding to ensure public money is spent well. Despite the three-year Spending Review, local government only had a one-year settlement (effectively for the fourth year in succession), and there continues to be no clarity about plans for wider reforms to local government funding.

We’re asking for the government to confirm a two-year local government finance settlement and publish it as soon as possible.

Amy Leppänen, Parliamentary Officer

amy.leppanen@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Technical consultancy contract worth £383.5k awarded for Strathcona site's expansion to accommodate 2 forms of Islamia Primary School

Minesh Patel, Brent's Corporate Directot, Finance and Resources, today awarded the £383,554.18 technical consultancy contract to expand the Strathcona site to accommodate Islamia Primary School.

The full professional fees budget  is £0.9m out of a total budget for the project of £10m.

The Islamia Governing Board's consultation about the school's highly contested move from Queen's Park to Preston is still going on but the tendering process began in August 2022. 

The Officer's report states:

Islamia Primary School, currently based at Salusbury Road, has been served
notices to vacate by the Yusuf Islam Foundation, as owners of the site where
Islamia Primary School is currently based by July 2024. The Strathcona site is
a vacant site previously occupied by a primary school (the “Strathcona Site”)
following Cabinet approval in 2019 to close Roe Green Strathcona School by
July 2022 because of falling pupil numbers. The Strathcona Site has been
identified as having development opportunities to increase the site capacity
from a one-form entry primary school to a two-form entry primary school.

In September 2022, Cabinet approved the development of the Strathcona Site
to a two-form entry primary school in order to preserve the future of the Islamia
Primary School.

In order to deliver the required new two-form entry primary school, the Council
is proposing to appoint a contractor using a DfE’s Framework. This framework
promotes early contractor appointment (i.e. following RIBA 1) and so the
technical consultancy services organisation will need to provide the following
services throughout the commission to deliver the expanded school:

1. Employer’s Agent and Project Manager
2. Quantity Surveyor
3. Technical Design Advisor(s)
4. CDM Advisor

The report notes that the brief may have to be changed if the eventual decision is for a new build w form entry school  rather than expansion which is the Council's favoured option. Expansion means  refurbishment of the current block and con struction of a new block. Islamia Governing Board is pressing for the former.

The report notes:

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources & Reform has been consulted as part of the drafting of this report. They have also been kept up to date with progress on the project.

Queens Park and Preston Ward members will be kept appraised on project
milestones such as the planning application submission, statutory consultation and any works on site.

 

Brent Council announces retirement of its Number 1 Manchester United fan, CEO Carolyn Downs

 

Carolyn Downs addresses Brent residents at the most demanding moment in her long career as Covid hit its peak in March 2020 

 

Brent Council has announced the retirement of its Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, who will leave in Spring 2023.

 

The announcement on the Council website said:

 

Brent Council’s long-serving Chief Executive Carolyn Downs has announced that she is to retire in the spring.

 

After a career in local and central government that has spanned more than four decades, concluding with more than seven years as Chief Executive of Brent Council, Carolyn will step down at the end of April 2023.

 

Carolyn’s career in local government began in 1982 in Haringey’s library service. Following 8 years in Haringey, Carolyn moved on to Stevenage and then Calderdale councils before, in 2003, becoming the first female Chief Executive at Shropshire County Council where she lead the Council to become one of the first ever County unitary authorities. After that, she became deputy permanent Secretary and Director General of Corporate Performance at the Ministry of Justice. Carolyn then became Chief Executive of The Legal Services Commission and subsequently Chief Executive of The Local Government Association for four years.

 

Having established herself as one of the most respected leaders in local government, the self-confessed ‘public sector devotee’ joined Brent as Chief Executive in June 2015.

 

During her time at the helm of London’s fifth largest borough and one of the most diverse boroughs in Britain, Brent established itself as a pioneering council that ‘set trends and didn’t follow them’. During her tenure, the supply of affordable housing increased significantly, with Brent delivering more housing completions last year than any borough in the history of the Greater London Authority. The number of people in temporary accommodation has fallen while Brent achieved its best ever Ofsted rating for the quality of its children’s services.

 

Brent was named London Borough of Culture 2020 by the Mayor of London and later that year was crowned the LGC’s ‘Council of the Year’ with the judges commenting: “Brent has embraced its communities in a celebration of diversity, lifting up the whole borough. The council demonstrates how to convene place and communities – an antidote to today’s fractured society. It impressed on multiple fronts, showing leadership in the round.”

 

The council was also often seen as leading the way during local government’s response to the COVID pandemic with Brent breaking new ground on the procurement of PPE, hyper local testing and its approach to engaging with local communities.

 

Current Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt with Carolyn Downs 

 

Carolyn Downs said: 

 

Brent is a very special place and it has been an enormous privilege to work here. Brent truly is the borough of cultures – with a mixture of challenges and opportunities as varied as the residents we serve. From building new council homes to building community cohesion and resilience, everything we do is focused on improving the lives of local people.

 

Despite the challenges faced by local Government we have achieved a lot together and one of the things that pleases me the most is the consistently high levels of residents’ and staff satisfaction over recent years.

 

It will soon be time for me to hang up my boots and spend a bit more time on my other passions including spending some more time with my wonderful family. Nobody can do this job alone and I will be leaving Brent knowing it is in a good place and with fantastic managers in place across the whole council.

 

I have been fortunate to work with a hugely talented group of officers as well as ambitious and supportive elected members and the many amazing voluntary and community groups who all make Brent what it is today. Brent’s diversity shines through both our workforce and elected members. Although there will be plenty of time to say farewell over the coming months, I do want to take this opportunity to say thank you to everyone I have worked with for what have been seven of the happiest years of my career.

 

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Brent Council Leader, said: 

 

 Carolyn’s huge knowledge and experience has been a massive asset to Brent during some of toughest years local government has ever faced. Her central role in supporting our borough get through the Covid pandemic showed her tireless commitment to public service. I would like to thank Carolyn for her stewardship and leadership over the years and the mutual respect that is evident between members and officers is a testament to her approach. I will always respect her wise advice which has helped us to become best in class in a number of areas as we have worked together with our communities to deliver a better Brent.

 

To ensure a smooth transition, recruitment for a new Chief Executive will begin shortly with the council looking to make an appointment early in 2023.

 

 

 000000000000000000000

 

 

Reacting to the news Cllr, Ketan Sheth said:

 

Working closely with Carolyn as Chair of scrutiny in Brent and NW London, she’s been able to bring together the NW London councils and the NHS — a pioneering move to deliver joined-up services, which support residents, and address deep rooted health inequalities. Carolyn’s approach to leadership has helped to transform Brent, particularly during the toughest years we have ever faced. Her pivotal role in supporting the Borough to get through the Covid pandemic exemplified commitment to public service. Her ability to drive forward our plans to regenerate our town centres and support communities across Brent illustrates the talent she has brought to the role. I wish her all the very best for a long, healthy and happy retirement.

 

Recently Ms Downs has attempted to improve the sometimes toxic relationship between members of the different political groups on Brent Council and sought to show the benefots of working togather for the common good of Brent residents. Work that I hope will continue under the new CEO.

 

Perhaps an Opposition councillor or two could sit in on the Appointments Panel for the new CEO?

On a personal note I have encountered Carolyn in my role as Editor of Wembley Matters as well as the Election Agent for Brent Green Party.  Her role as Election Returning Officer is not mentioned in the Council press release but that is where a broader sweep of Brent people meet her.  She has always been polite despite the criticisms I publish on Wembley Matters and as the borough Election Returning Officer her sense of humour helped lighten many a long tedious night. Her communication skills are clear from the above video but not often seen by the public, perhaps mostly when she comes to the rescue with whispered instructions (or suggestions) to the Mayor when s/he is presiding over Full Council Meetings

This is the latest in a list of recent changes at the top of Brent Council including the Assistant Chief Excutive and the Strategic Director of Children and Families.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Volunteers needed to create pollinator garden on derelict site at Kenton Grange

 From Friends of Woodcock Park

 

This beautiful, south-facing walled area is part of the old Kenton Grange gardens to the north of the brook. It had become a magnet for anti-social behaviour, was fenced off and became overgrown. However, we still had issues with anti-social behaviour. We have worked with Brent Council and local volunteers to clear this land since spring 2022. We are now working on autumn plantings to produce year round flowers. We are focusing on pollinator plants for late autumn, winter and early spring, but are grateful for any nectar rich flowering plants and insect habitats. Bulbs, corms, tubers, dwarf fruiting trees, bushes and climbers are all very welcome.

 

Friends of Woodcock Park have worked with local schools and school children for many years and are developing a mosaic for the pollinator biodiversity garden with local children, as well as plantings and other fun activities. We are developing new paths and beds, habitats to support pollinators’ breeding, and have secured funding from a number of sources to help with some of this work. We won Gold in the London in Bloom Awards for Large Park each of the last two years, and have also achieved a Level 5 – Outstanding ‘It’s Your Neighbourhood’ Award from the Royal Horticultural Society and Britain In Bloom this year. 

 

If you are interested in donating to or volunteering on our project, please contact us on projects@friendsofwoodcockpark.uk

 

Brent launch Landlord Licensing Consultation possibly extending licensing to all wards except Wembley Park

 From Brent Council

 

A borough-wide consultation on landlord licensing for privately rented properties in Brent launched today (31 October 2022) for twelve weeks. The consultation is now live.

The online consultation is open to anyone to have their say on landlord licensing in the borough.

Three types of licensing schemes operate in the borough: mandatory, additional and selective licensing. Selective licensing applies to a single household renting a property, be that a family or just one or two tenants.

This consultation asks people whether they are in favour of selective licensing schemes in Brent.

Cllr Promise Knight, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness & Renters Security, said: 

More than a third of people in Brent rent in the private sector. Whilst most landlords provide safe and decent homes, sadly that isn't always the case.

Licensing has helped keep renters safe. Since we introduced our first selective licensing scheme in 2015, we've driven up housing standards, reduced overcrowding and tackled anti-social behaviour. Where landlords have fallen short, we have been relentless in taking action and will not hesitate to throw the full-force of the law at rogue landlords.

All wards, with the exception of Wembley Park, are being considered for selective licensing in Brent. Selective licensing previously applied to Harlesden, Wembley Central and Willesden Green, and presently applies to the old wards of Queens Park, Kensal Green, Kilburn, Dudden Hill and Mapesbury. But this current scheme ends on 30 April 2023.

Have your say on the licensing consultation today.

Wembley Matters asked Brent Council why Wembley Park was not included and they responded:

Although Wembley Park ward has a high level of rented properties, these tend to be relatively new builds and therefore do not have the high levels of housing hazards that we see in other parts of the borough. Wembley Park has required the least number of interventions from the council with only 28 Housing & Public Health Statutory Notices served over a five-year period.

 

Although there has been a small number of ASB incidents, there is negligible repeat ASB incidents. Therefore the evidence to support a designation based on ASB is also lacking. The council considers it more appropriate to be selective in its approach and focus resources on the worst affected areas. However, this ward will be kept under review and a third designation could be considered should the evidence change.

There may be different hazards in Build to Rent properties but there may well be future problems, remembering the Granville New Homes debacle and problems with L&Q and Metropolitan Thames Valley elsewhere.  Large Build to Rent landlords are not immune from problems.

 

Newland Court – trees are at the root of Brent’s “infill” scheme problems

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Diagram showing the general proportions of tree roots to canopy. (Image from the internet)

 

When Martin posted a blog about the Newland Court planning application in September, you could see from the aerial view of the site for Brent’s proposed “infill” houses that they would be very close to a line of trees. 

 

Those trees were in the back gardens of homes in Grendon Gardens, inside the Barn Hill Conservation Area. I added a comment, pointing out that those trees were protected, because they are part of the conservation area’s ‘essential character’, and Martin posted that as a separate item of useful information for Grendon Gardens residents. 

 

Residents with trees in their gardens bordering the Newland Court site were advised to contact Brent’s Tree Protection Officer, Julie Hughes. She has submitted her comments on planning application 22/3124, and these begin by saying: ‘I have significant concerns relating to the impact that this development will have on protected trees.’ Her comments, which were only made public three weeks after she’d made them, conclude:

 

Final paragraph of Brent’s Principal Tree Officer on Brent’s Newland Court application.

 

I will ask Martin to attach a full copy of those comments below, along with a document copy of the objection comments which I’ve submitted. These also deal mainly with the harm which the planning application would do to the protected trees in the Barn Hill Conservation Area, if it were to be approved.

 

The Principal Tree Officer’s comments concentrate mainly on the tree canopies, the branches and leaves. Because the site of the existing garages at Newland Court is so narrow, the houses which the Council wants to build there would need most of the overhanging branches of these protected off-site trees to be cut off. The branches would, if such severe lopping did not kill the trees, grow back again, and so would need frequent cutting back, to stop them blocking the light to rear windows. 

 

The extent of existing protected tree canopies, marked on a plan of the proposed new homes.

 

Because there were trees on and adjacent to the site, the planning application had to be supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (“AIA”). This was prepared for Brent Council by Watermans. When I read this document, one short extract about the trees along the southern edge of the conservation area stuck in my mind:

 

‘… it is considered that their roots are unlikely to have extended below the existing retaining wall which forms the northern boundary of the Site. It is therefore considered that they are unaffected by the development proposals.’

 

I don’t claim to be an expert on trees, but you don’t have to be one to know that where a tree has a canopy above ground, it is likely to have roots in the ground below that canopy! [See the diagram above.] It is very convenient for the Council’s plans to assume that there would be no roots from the protected trees where you want to dig foundations and build houses. But how likely is it that a brick wall would prevent all tree roots from growing beyond ‘the northern boundary of the Site’?

 

Luckily, I remembered a similar situation which occurred as part of the Morland Gardens planning application, where there were trees in a next-door garden, just beyond a retaining wall which marked the site boundary. In that case, the AIA included the results of a ground penetrating radar survey. This discovered that tree roots did extend below the wall:

 

‘The scan line results showed that the off-site trees are rooting within the site, but that the physical barrier of the retaining wall and its footings has provided a partial barrier to root encroachment.’

 

That evidence (rather than the “convenient” assumption by the authors of the Newland Court AIA) meant that the building plans at Morland Gardens had to include a two metre wide tree protection strip, inside the site boundary, where no construction was allowed. But the Newland Court site is so narrow that some of the proposed new houses have walls only 50cm from the boundary. These would cut through both the support and feeder roots of protected trees.

 

On the evidence in my objection comments, it would not be possible to build six of the seven houses without seriously harming, or killing off, both the canopies and the roots of protected trees in the Barn Hill Conservation Area. I’ve sent a copy of my comments document to Brent’s Principal Tree Officer, and asked her to consider it and give her response to Brent’s Planning Officers (as well as to me).

 

If I’m correct, then this planning application should be refused (and there are plenty of other reasons put forward by local residents which also justify its refusal). This is a Brent Council application, but that should not make a difference. 

 

Regular readers of “Wembley Matters” will know of my recent battle with the Council over another “infill” scheme at Rokesby Place, and my insistence that Brent’s Planning Officers must be seen to uphold the Local Government Association’s “Probity in Planning” rules:

 

‘Proposals for a Council’s own development should be treated with the same transparency and impartiality as those of private developers.’

 

Would Brent allow an application by a private developer to build houses so close to a conservation area that it damaged or killed protected trees? I doubt it!

Philip Grant.

 Philip Grant's Objection

 

 

Brent Tree Officer's Report 

 

Brent schools face bleak financial future as budgets fail to keep up with inflation and other costs, impacting on staff and children

 

 

Changes in the National Funding Formula mean that Brent is gradually adjusting to a lower National Funding Formula (NFF) and this along with huge increases in energy bills, the cost of salary increases (which is why education unions are calling for them to be fully funded by the government), inflation and falling pupil numbers means that schools will facing extremely difficult financial circumstances in financial year 2023-24.

 

Many are already expecting an in-year deficit and (if they have them) will be digging into reserves to balance the books.

 

Our secondary schools have been academised and are directly funded by the DfE, so this is recouped from the Schools Block funding.  A proportion of funding is allocated the Higher Needs Block) funding for Special Educations Needs and Disability) where demand is increasing.

 

A report going to the Schools Forum makes sombre reading:

 

Of the total £249.7m Schools Block budget allocated by the DfE to Brent, £131.9m has been recouped and allocated directly to academies. £1.2m has been transferred to the Higher Needs Block (HN and £1.8m has been deducted for National Non-Domestic Business Rates to be paid by the DfE directly to billing authorities, leaving £114.8m directly allocated to Brent maintained schools and to fund centrally retained items including the growth fund.

 

In 2022/23, the number of Brent schools projecting an in-year deficit has increased to 67%. 23% of these schools plan to use over 50% of reserves to balance their budgets. Schools are feeling the impact of rising inflationary costs and increases in energy prices alongside the prospect of teachers pay increasing by 5% in 2022/23 and starting salaries rising by 8.9% to £30k.
 

The DfE expects schools to manage these pressures within the allocated funding increase of 3.6% in 2022/23 and 1.2% expected in 2023/24.

 

A number of Brent schools are also experiencing falling rolls and as a result will have significant reductions in funding. This is requiring schools to make strategic decisions to mitigate the impact of this, including the consideration of staffing restructures.

 

In response to this, alongside measures to support schools, such as capping admission numbers, a School Place Planning Working Group will be established to review the sustainability of provision in some primary planning areas.

Staffing restructuring inevitably means the loss of some jobs and will have most impact on support staff such as teaching assistants and admin staff. These are predominatly women and often ethnic minority. As teaching assistants often have a teaching role through intervention programmes this could affect the quality of provision and pupil achievement.

 

The last paragraph regarding a review of the sustainability of provision could mean a reduction of the form of entry in some schools (i.e., the number of classes in each year group) when pupil numbers have dropped significantly and even, at the extreme, potential mergers or closures. 

 

At first sight it might be assumed that fewer pupils will mean lower costs, but it is not that simple. A class of 24, rather than 30. will still need a teacher and teaching assistant and their classroom will need the same amount of heating and lighting. There may be a marginal reduction in the cost of per-pupil teaching material but that will be eaten up by inflation. Staffing costs take up to 85% of school budgets. A further cost that puts Brent schools at a disadvantage is that schools pay a greater proportion of staff costs to the Brent Council Local Government Pension Scheme that schools in other London boroughs.

 

6 pence extra for 3 and 4 year olds 

 

Similarly, Brent nurseries are facing a reduction in real terms via the Early Years Block. There are government plans to worsen the staff-child ratios, but this would be catastrophic in Brent with its high number of EAL and disadvantaged children who need the best possible provision as a foundation to success in education:

 

Indicative rate increases for the Block are as follows:

Nationally, the 2-year-old rate will see increases ranging from 1% to a maximum 8.6%. The London average is 8.3%, whereas Brent will see an increase of 7.6% i.e., the 2022/23 funding rate of £6.29 will increase by 48p to £6.77.

Nationally, the 3 and 4 year old rates will see increases ranging from 1% to a maximum of 4.5%. The average increase for London is 1.7%. Brent will see an increase of £0.06, which represents a 1% increase i.e., from £5.81 for 2022/23 (including the illustrative TPPG rate) to £5.87.95% of the funding rate is passed on to providers and 5% is used to funding Early Help local authority services.

 Local councils have little power as this Direct Schools Grant comes directly from government so it will need a concerted campaign of councillors, education unions, parents and carers and the support of our local MPs to challenge the government on education funding.