UCU: Why we are striking. Interview from the picket line at University of Westminster, Harrow Campus

 

 

 

 

Brent Educators Rally for a Pay Rise outside Brent Civic Centre

 

 

A strike ballot is in progress for educators in schools and the Rally was designed to draw attention to the case for a fully funded pay increase.  This means that the Government would give schools extra funding to meet the cost of the increase. Without that extra funding cash-strapped schools, if not already in deficit due to increased energy costs and inflation, could go into deficit. 

As the major portion of school budgets goes on staffing costs, in order to tackle a deficit schools are likely to try and reduce those staffing costs. Redundancies would hit support staff including teaching assistants and Special Needs support staff who have played an increasingly important role in improving achievement in our schools over the past few decades.

The National Education Union urged members to  support strike action in the current ballot:

Over the past decade, teacher pay has suffered a 20% decline in real-terms and support staff pay by 27%. Educators are leaving the profession in their droves. 

 

The NEU has provided strong evidence that a fully funded, above-inflation pay increase is needed but this Government has not listened. 

 

Vote now in our formal ballot. It's time for Government to #PayUp as #EducatorsDeserveBetter

Conservative Motion on Flooding in Brent

 Conservative motion currently being heard

Measures to tackle Flooding in Brent

In the past few years, flooding in Brent and other areas is getting more frequent and severe. Whilst this is partly due to climate change and global warming, it also reflects the massive level of regeneration, development and building on green and brown fields sites which is detrimental to the drainage of rainwater and it is felt future planning policy must reflect.

We are losing more green and open spaces which used to soak up the rain water.

 

The Council’s policy of tarmacking footpaths also does not allow water to permeate in the ground. Just a little rain and we observe streams of water flowing on the roads and pavements.

We notice that flood water collects in low lying areas and does not recede for a few days after it rains which means that in the current situation more frequent and severe flooding will take place.

We appreciate that Brent alone cannot stop global warming and climate change and recognise that the borough has a Flood Risk management Strategy in place, however we can take further steps to mitigate the consequences and protect our residents’ lives and property.

As a result this Council calls on Cabinet to:

1) Reverse the policy of tarmacking the footways and replace with paving slabs and bricks which allows more water to soak in the ground, especially in known flood risk areas;

2) Reverse the policy of large scale developments which are reducing the green
open spaces and making Brent a concrete jungle;

3) Implement a regular gully cleaning and leaf collection program, especially in the flood prone areas;

4) Implement a regular program of inspecting all drains and gullies in areas
identified as flood risk and repair as necessary and the Council’s responsibility,
including Brent’s brooks and rivers;

5) Introduce a policy that makes it’s illegal to concrete over the whole of a rear
garden as this also impedes the draining of rainwater. We suggest a maximum
of 20% of the rear garden can be paved or concreted over.

If Brent is serious about global warming and climate change and wants to protect its citizens now and for future, it's the least it can do.

Councillor Suresh Kansagra
Kenton Ward

 

SHARED OWNERSHIP – Let’s have a debate!

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

 

By the time you read this, item 13 on Monday evening’s Full Council meeting will probably have happened. Martin has already shared a copy of the motion on “Building the Homes our Community Needs”, put forward by Lib Dem councillor Anton Georgiou, which deals with affordable housing, and whether Brent Council should make some of its New Council Homes shared ownership properties, rather than for letting at genuinely affordable rents. 

 

It is certainly ‘an issue of relevance to Brent’, but the chances are that it won’t get a proper debate on the actual issues the motion raises. Although this is a meeting of all the councillors, who are supposed to represent the views of the residents in their Wards, across the borough, what will be played out is a game of party politics.

 

A small extract from the Labour Group amendment to Cllr. Georgiou’s motion.

 

When the agenda for the meeting was updated on Monday, it included an amendment to the motion by the Labour Group. The word ‘amendment’ is perhaps an understatement (see extract where red = Labour). Although I suspect that few Labour Group members were consulted over it (perhaps just the Leader and a couple of Cabinet members?), it is likely they will be “whipped” to support the many amendments, then to vote for the amended motion.

 

The amendments have been proposed to change the motion completely, so that it promotes the policies which the Cabinet adopted on 14 November. I set out many of these in a guest blog on 11 November, “Brent’s New Affordable Council Homes promises shredded!”, and Martin’s blog on 14 November, and comments on it, give a flavour of what happened when the Cabinet approved the recommendations of the “Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes” report, without any noticeable discussion of it.

 

 

One of the key issues in all this is whether Brent Council should “convert” some of the affordable housing it plans to build from the “genuinely affordable” London Affordable Rent to shared ownership homes. That is something which does need a proper debate, which it won’t get at a Brent Council meeting, so I’m offering this opportunity for you to have your say. Here are the two versions of the shared ownership issue, from the motion and the proposed amendment to it. 

 

Proposal 1:

 

This Council believes: Shared Ownership schemes are not a ‘genuinely affordable’ housing model and are not something that should be promoted by Brent.

 

This Council resolves to: Ensure all new developments taking place on existing estates within our borough must be seeking to provide more Social Housing and not Shared Ownership or Market Sale units.

 

Proposal 2:

 

This Council believes: Shared Ownership schemes are not a top priority for Brent Council, but do form a valuable part of an overall housing mix, as they allow some people to get onto the housing ladder when they otherwise would not be able to afford a full deposit.

 

This Council resolves to: Continue to work with the GLA and DLUHC to secure the funding needed to ensure all new developments must seek to provide as much social housing as is financially viable.

 

If you have a view on whether Brent should provide some shared ownership homes, rather than those homes being for affordable rent to Council tenants, please share it in the comments below. Even if you are a member of a political party, please just give your personal views. 

 

You can just “vote”, for Proposal 1 or Proposal 2, if you wish. You don’t have to give your reasons, although it would help to properly understand how Brent residents feel about this subject if you do.

 

You can comment as “Anonymous”, although if you do, it would help if you can give some indication of what angle your view is coming from. But please comment honestly, so that we can have a proper debate on ‘an issue of relevance to Brent.’ Thank you.

 

The Labour Group amendment was submitted by Cllr Shama Tatler, Kingsbury ward.

 

The full Labour Amendment in red and black is HERE, 

Philip Grant.

 

'Show me your motion, tra-la-la-lah' Will tonight's motions to Brent Council make any beneficial difference to residents if passed? You judge.

 Towards the end of every Full Brent Council Meeting (Item 16 on tonight's agenda) there is a Motions item. By the time they are heard most of the public have stopped watching but it is a ritual where members of the council can enjoy castigating each other and rehearse for their hoped for future in Parliament. The Labour Group have two bites at the cherry, tabling two motions, and an Opposition Group table one.

There are some motions which receive cross-party support and these are usually those that take a principled stand on an issue such as climate change or domestic violence,

The test of a worthwhile motion  is whether:

1. it actually asks for an action which is within the remit of the council 

2. whether that action can be implemented within financial  constraints and 

3. whether it being adopted will actually change any Brent residents' lives for the better.

You can use the same criteria to judge any amendments to the motion.

The Liberal Democracts are proposing a motion on Brent Council's relationship with Housing Associations and Labour has one on the proposed changes to the voting system that  would mean voters having to produce ID to vote,  and another on Adult Social Care.

I have embedded the motions below so that you can judge for yourself.

Holding Housing Associations to Account (Liberal Democrat) 

 

Our Home Our Vote (Labour) 

 

Backlog Britain: Waiting for Care (Labour) 

Call for staffed public toilet on Kilburn High Road to end the toilet crisis

Yesterday was World Toilet Day and campaigners were out on Kilburn High Road  questioning why this busy shopping road, nearly one mile long, has had no public toilet since  2004. 

Kilburn Older Voices Exchange (KOVE) in a leaflet distributed to shoppers said:

Toilets cost a lot to run, but this is a major town centre. There are only four publicly accessible facilities on the street. One is run by Transport for London. The other three are part of Camden's Community Toilet Scheme (business allow us access in return for the annual maintenance fee).

We don't think many people know where these facilities are.

Many of us remember the toilets that have been closed - in Willesden Lane, Kilburn Grange Park and Victoria Road, Marks and Spencer.

This lack of toilets is an issue for all of us. It's a matter of public and environmental health. Disabled visitors and older shoppers stay away. Local residents report high levels of fouling. The situation should not continue.

Surely this is affecting business and sociability and recreation.

What could be done? We've started with a survey of all the local provision.

There could be better toilets on any of the Transport for London sites.

The two boroughs - Brent and Camden - could improve the Community Toilet Scheme.

We believe it's time for something ambitious - a staffed accessible public toilet that reflects the human need for relief, decenecy, hospitality and care,

The Greater London Authority is investigating London's public toilet crisis. They could help bring everyone together - public bodieswith business and community representatives - to come up with an innovative proposal.

Let's make Kilburn High Road a place to be proud of!

Keep in touch. www.kove.org.uk

Call for Brent Council to deliver more council homes for social tenants and end confusion over their use of the term 'affordable'

 

Wembley Matters has consistently raised the issue of Brent Council's obfuscation of the term 'affordable housing' and the need for clarity in the use of the term was highlighted recently by Cllr Rita Conneely, Chair of Scrutiny.

The issue has become more prominent as a result of the Council's intention to change the tenure of many of its planned infill housing on the council's own estates  to shared ownership and open market sale.  Brent Council's CEO, when denying that the council was building any shared ownership homes, has recently confirmed that shared ownership is not affordable for most Brent residents in need of housing.

Cllr Anton Georgiou (Alperton)  has tabled a motion for debate at Monday's Full Council Council meeting that seeks clarity on the use of terminology, but much more importantly a commitment that projects on estates should be  seeking to provide genuinely affordable social housing and not shared ownership or open market sale.

The Motion

Building the Homes our Community Needs

This Council notes:

The pressures on Council Housing stock are immense and will not ease in the coming months and years, rather they will grow even more.

The Cost of Living Crisis, coupled with the disastrous macroeconomic situation in the UK, means it is increasingly likely that more local residents will turn to the Council to assume responsibility for their housing needs. As an authority, we need to be prepared for this.

Whilst we are grateful that Brent has made progress in seeking to supply Council Homes we need to see greater, more urgent resolve to deliver more Council Homes for Social tenants.

The latest report to Cabinet, entitled, ‘Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes’, sets out where Brent is when it comes to the delivery of the New Council Homes Programme (NCHP).

On the 14th November, the Cabinet was asked to formalise a change of approach that would allow Brent Council to deliver only 50% of new stock at Council Rent and London Affordable Rent level in its own developments. While this approach will deliver some Social Housing on Council owned land, this will be at the expense of current Estate residents, reduction of amenity space, and will not achieve our overriding ambition to reduce the ever-growing housing waiting list in a meaningful way. Council Land will be de-facto used to build housing out of reach for most Brent residents.

There are also a growing number of local people in our area, who have been life-long residents of Brent and who are now being priced out of the borough, because housing is too expensive.

Developers, who are granted consent for their private schemes by Brent’s Planning Committee, are not providing our area with the type of housing our community desperately needs.

This Council believes:

 

1.    There needs to be greater clarity on terminology around housing, particularly what constitutes being ‘genuinely affordable housing’.

2. Targets and policy around house building, must be focused on seeking to reduce the housing waiting list and reduce the number of local people currently in temporary accommodation

3. Shared Ownership schemes are not a ‘genuinely affordable’ housing model and are not something that should be promoted by Brent

4. We need to be holding developers accountable and ensuring that a greater proportion of new stock built in our borough is genuinely affordable for local people

This Council resolves to:

1. Guarantee that the banner term ‘affordable housing’ is not used in communications, and instead council communications only refer to “genuinely affordable housing”.

2. Amend the Local Plan to ensure Affordable Housing is defined as being purely Council Rent, London Affordable Rent, London Living Rent, which would exclude Shared Ownership and Affordable Rent (below or equal to 80% of market value rent).

3. Ensure all new developments taking place on existing estates within our borough must be seeking to provide more Social Housing and not Shared Ownership or Market Sale units.

4. Increase the target of affordable units within private developments to match neighbouring Camden at 50%, with a split of 40% social rent and 60% others, in order to ensure we are building the homes our community really needs.

Unhappy Windmill Court residents put Brent Council Lead Members on the spot over infill proposals, estate neglect and fire risk

Residents from Windmill Court, Shoot Up Hill, Brent, have tabled written questions for Brent Council's Full Council Meeting on Monday.These are the questions and replies. The questioners are allowed to ask a follow-up question based on the Lead Members' responses.

 

Question from J. Audrey to Councillor Knight, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness & Renters Security

You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court. Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?

Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court? Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?

How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?

How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?

Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.

How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?

Response:

You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court.Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?

How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?

The Council has brought these proposals forward in response to the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable housing in Brent. There are 24,000 households on the waiting list, over 1,700 families currently living in temporary accommodation and a further 240 families in priority need for a transfer because of issues such as overcrowding. Every home we develop is an opportunity for a family to have the security of a permanent home that meets their needs.

Whilst building council homes is a priority for us, so is ensuring that any new council development also works for people who already live in the area. That's why we have engaged with residents living on Windmill Court early on, to hear their views and create proposals that balance the needs of existing residents with those that do not have a safe, secure and affordable place to call home.

 

We appreciate the concerns voiced about the development proposal at Windmill Court and acknowledge that the building close to existing homes will have some impact on existing residents. The Council is working hard to mitigate the impact of new homes being built where reasonable.

Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court?

Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?

The New Council Homes development at Windmill Court will deliver improvements for existing residents, this includes security improvements such as boundary fencing and CCTV, which we know are a priority for residents as well as landscaping to improve the communal green space.

Alongside the development of these new homes, it was recognised the need to improve standards for existing residents.

The Council will be spending approximately £40m over the next three years on its tower block refurbishment programme of which approximately £14m will be spent on Windmill Court, and we are already consulting with residents on this.

The proposed specification is comprehensive and includes repairs to the building fabric; new energy efficient cladding; new windows; roofing; upgraded heating; upgraded mechanical and electrical services; internal refurbishment of the dwellings; and refurbishment of the internal communal areas.

How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?

Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.

As part of the development process and planning application, a detailed assessment of the impact the proposed development at Windmill Court will have to existing residents light was carried out. This assessment ensures that the proposed development is in line with local, regional and national planning policy, which is clear about not permitting any new development that will cause an unacceptable loss of daylight or sun light amenity to the surrounding properties.

The findings of the assessment compiled in the report concluded that the vast majority of the neighbouring habitable windows and rooms will retain good levels of daylight and that the development is consistent with the British Research Establishment guidance and relevant planning policy in terms of daylight and sunlight.

 

This will be reviewed and considered as part of the planning application submitted for Windmill Court.

How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?

Our commitment is to balance the building of new affordable family homes with improvements that will benefit existing residents whilst mitigating potential impact this will have on them. Whilst we understand and appreciate the concerns voiced, we are confident that the development project team will implement the necessary measures to minimise any disruptions or inconvenience to achieve a positive outcome for all.

 

Question from S. Culhane to Councillor Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Planning

The Transport Consultant's document submitted as part of the full Planning Application for the Windmill Court proposed infill development contains swept path analysis showing how vehicles can access and negotiate the site layout.

This analysis does not include high-reach fire appliances, and the main tower is over 40m high.

 

Did anybody in the Planning Department ask why?

Did anybody in the Planning Department ask or direct the Transport Consultants to conduct such an analysis?

 

Response:

It should be noted that the fire service does not use very large vehicles as a starting point for firefighting, there are many other ways that they approach a fire, working mainly from the inside. A very tall appliance would only be used in the case of very significant failure of the other fire safety measures, and it would not be a requirement of Building Regulations (which is the main regulatoryframework for considering fire safety measures, rather than planning).

The assessment of vehicular access for fire safety has been made based on the likely vehicles that would attend a fire at the site.

IMPORTANT EDITOR'S NOTE

Windmill Court was one of the infill projects mentioned in a recent Cabinet paper for the 'conversion' of up to 50% of the  tenures from London Affordable Rent to Open Market Sale or Shared Ownship, neither of which are truly affordable for Brent residents. LINK

Letter to Wembley Matters on  Windmill Court infill proposals HERE