Is Brent's Long Term Strategy Review document 'deliberately confusing'?

 

Local resident Rishi Shah has reviewed Brent Council's Long Term Transport Strategy  LINK in detail and has written to Cllr Krupa Sheth (Lead Member for Environment, Infrastructure and Climate Action) with his comments:

 

1.    How many iterations did this document go through before the final version?

2.    On Pages 4 and 5 the LTTS is described as a strategy between 2015 – 2035 yet all targets on page 36 are aimed at 2041. Why? How can a strategy be aimed between a certain time frame yet all key indicators and goals are set beyond that time limit?

a.    Why are there no incremental targets between 2022 – 2041?

                                i.      This allows consecutive failures and allows for a “Hope for the best by 2041” where you are relying on consumers changing their habits without incremental delivery

3.    Page 4 – The document states “Services and a safe and pleasant cycle network” What does a pleasant cycle network mean? This is just an ambiguous word without any reference to it means for a cyclist 

4.    Cycle lanes/ Cycle networks are mentioned 14 times throughout the document yet no goal, metric or targets are attached – why not? If funding is a requirement as per appendix 3 then why has the £xxm Cost not been attached? 

a.    If you do not know the funding requirements, why not? Surely knowing how much something is going to cost will allow you to plan for the future adoption and budgeting of spend

b.    Appendix 3 – “Expand the cycle network beyond planned schemes” – Why is a metric or target not attached to this? Something as simple as “We will expand the cycle network by xxKM/ Miles by dd/mm”

c.    There is no mention of cycle lanes owned by TFL vs Council (E.g. Brook Avenue) – which the council enables anyone visiting the borough on NON event days the ability to park without fear of tickets, meanwhile there is an approved barrat homes building to be built in the station car park, thus introducing more people and cars to the street.

5.    Page 7 – There is a mention of the LTTS public consultation and feedback yet no link to the raw data and findings, nor any references in the appendix. Why not?

a.    There is no mention of the number of participants who responded, so %’s imo are hiding the reality, I suspect low response rate. Am I right?

6.    Pages 8 – 11. All data is pre pandemic, in parallel the section on the impact of covid (page 11) is “travel in London” – do you not think this is confusing because you have Brent level data up to 2020 meanwhile reference London travel as a whole up to 2021. Surely this confuses the reader.

a.    Is there not any local level data in Brent on traffic trends (obviously increasing in traffic build up), number of speeding fines, traffic infractions?

                                i.      If not, why not? Why has the council not studied changes in levels of above?

7.    The document seems to consistently not mention and clearly not understand the financial benefits of reducing traffic and car usage in the borough, by enabling less spend on road network maintenance thus freeing up spend and budgets for other initiatives. Why is this not taken into consideration? Surely its in the interest of the council to spend less on fixing pot holes

a.    And the reduction of financial burden when actively travelling, e.g. A daily driver of a small city car would save £xx because of not using fuel. Etc.

8.    Pages 14- 19 – Why has the doc not got any data, mapping or heat maps to show the worst polluted areas of Brent?

9.    Page 21 – The only mention of CPZ’s yet there is no mention of areas that do not have them and the contribution of on street parking problems for residents, causing further traffic because all these non residents drive into the borough and have the ability to park anywhere for free. Why was none of this negative impact assessed or documented as a negative impact on each community/ local area? (Same as point 4 above). E.g. Parking on surrounding roads by both Wembley Park and Preston Road station. Surely a mention should be for Barrat homes development to fund this for 10 years, or an ask for them to do so as part of the CILs?

10.Pages 28-29 – The document mentions inclusive areas, but this is a disguised mis-truth. For example all the public areas around the Stadium are not public, they are privately owned with access to the public. Why has the document not made this obvious? Seems disingenuous because private security can ask you to leave thus making not inclusive.

11.There is no mention of parking on single and double yellow lines, no data on the number of parking fines on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly average. Nor any data around whether they have increased or decreased over the past few years

12.There is no mention of initiatives and costs for example adding TFL bikes which I know require sponsorship but this will radically reduce car usage and increase active travel. Why has this type of initiative not been considered, costed with uptake predictions based on other boroughs?

13.Referenced data for London has been used, rather than the improvements boroughs in East London have seen through their initiatives and changes. Why were these not referenced?

14.What about bad/ dangerous driving? – I met with you on Elmstead Ave and you literally witnessed a car mount the pavement, drive through the pavement to get around a blocking vehicle.

 

My overall comment of this document is that it seems to be deliberately confusing, mixed data without any baselines nor references to most of the data are missing from the appendix. The biggest benefit to the council is a reduction of maintenance costs which has been omitted from this document without any clear reason why? A simple argument will be “If we reduce private vehicle usage we will reduce our £xx budget thus enabling spending in social care” or whatever, why have costs and benefits analysis not been completed? 

 

My biggest concern is the performance targets and indicators which are not in the stated LTTS timeframe, and there are no indicators whether the council is on target or not YoY. This to me reads as if you are hoping for the best because consumers will change their habits – and sure in a small % they will, but without a YoY indicator whether the change is occurring means you are hiding from the facts, additionally cherry picked targets seem to have been used. Some missing data e.g. “Planting X trees will reduce CO2, Co2 reduction YoY etc etc etc”

 

 

UPDATE: Brent megaphone ban could undermine the right to free speech and protest

 

Megaphones in use at Saturday's Renters Protest and yesterday's Living Wage action by Brent Citizens

 

There have rightly been concerns expressed in the labour movement and amongst campaign groups about Conservative government plans to restrict public protests, including provisions around noise nuisance LINK.

Unfortunately proposals by Brent's Labour Council, perhaps inadvertently, could potentially impose limits on protest by prohibiting the use of megaphones or amplified microphones across the borough.

The Cabinet on Monday will be considering a long list of prohibitions under Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) that includes the following:

Prohibition 8: Use of megaphone or microphone with speaker

It is an offence to use loudspeakers for any purpose in the street at night between 9pm and 8am under S62 of The Control of Pollution Act 1974. Further, it is an offence to use loudspeakers at any time for advertising any entertainment, trade or business.

Exceptions when a loud speaker can be used are in emergencies, as a public address system or if Council gives consent. In an emergency loud speakers can be used by the police, fire brigade, ambulance service, environment agency, water and sewage companies or public transport companies.

However, there have been several instances when individuals come to Brent with their loudspeakers to preach sermons and advertise their services. This is common in High Road, Wembley, Wembley Park on event days and Kilburn High Road. This causes significant distress to local residents when this practice continues for hours on end and prevents them from enjoying the use of their own communities/homes. It also causes a nuisance to those that are using the same public space, as they can feel harassed by the noise. Therefore, a prohibition is sought to address the nuisance in the use of loudspeakers.

The following is feedback from the evidence gathering exercise and consultation:

In the proposed PSPO Order this is reduced to (they appear to have megaphone and microphone round the wrong way):

8. Use of megaphone or microphone with speaker

Any persons that uses a microphone or megaphone with a speakers without the written authorisation from the landowner and/or the London Borough of Brent

 

In previous versions of PSPOs regarding distribution of literature we have sought exemptions for political literature protecting the democratic right to free speech. This is recognised in the Order:

10.  Distribution of free literature

Any person who distributes free literature which includes leaflets, the giveaway of free items/samples etc. without authorisation from the London Borough of Brent. The following are exempt;

a. Political, charitable and religious purposes but must not obstruct the public highway

The right to protest and make our voices heard as campaigners, trade unionists or other activists using a megaphone should be similarly protected. In the current political situation with action by many trade unionists it is essential that our right to protest, including the use of megaphones is not restricted.

As a footnote is is worth noting that Quintain have agreed that Brent will be able to enforce prohibitions on its private estate around Wembley Stadium, including Olympic Way.  I have asked Brent Council officers whether this means that political literature can now be distributed. Hithertoo we have been stopped by Quintain security who say written permisison from the owners is required.

UPDATE December 7th. Brent Council has confirmed that Quintain at Wembley Park and Talisker at Central Square, Wembley, could still stop the distribution of exempt literature on their land.

The full list of prohibitions is below. As often stated  they mean little without the resources to enforce them.

 

Local community leaders, including school pupils, put Brent Council on Santa’s Naughty List following u-turn on Council Leader’s election pledge to make Brent a Living Wage Borough

 

Leader of Brent Council, Muhammed Butt,  surrounded by young Brent citizens calling for him to act on the Living Wage (Photo: Amanda Rose @amandarosephoto)

 

Over 50 members of Brent Citizens – including school pupils, teachers and parents on minimum wage jobs struggling to make ends meet – gathered in the foyer of  Brent Civic Centre tonight dressed up like Santa to sing Christmas carols and to put Brent Council’s Leader Cllr Muhammed Butt and the Cabinet Lead for Employment, Cllr Eleanor Southwood, on the community’s “Naughty List” this Christmas, following the Council’s u-turn on their public pledge to make Brent a Living Wage Borough. 

 

School students remind Cllr Butt of his public pledge (Photo: Amanda Rose @amandarosephoto)

 

They urged the councillors to renew their commitment and champion the Living Wage across the Borough, including at the Old Oak Common and Park Royal regeneration site in the south of the Borough, which is set to generate 56,000 new local jobs, though it remains unclear whether those jobs will guarantee a Living Wage or not.

 

As the cost of living crisis continues to push more people into poverty, Brent Council has backtracked on their pledge to work hand in hand with community leaders, workers on low pay and local Living Wage Employers on a 3-year collaborative journey to make Brent a Living Wage Borough.

 

This commitment was made by the re-elected Council Leader Muhammed Butt to over 150 local residents at a Brent Citizens Accountability Assembly held at Ark Academy in Wembley just two weeks before the local elections on 5^th May this year. Moreover, this same commitment was printed black on white on Brent Labour’s own Election Manifesto, shared with thousands of households in the run up to polling day.

 

With 24,400 workers earning less than the London Living Wage, Brent suffers from one of the highest rates of residents earning less than the London Living Wage, which increased from £11.05 to £11.95 this year in line with the rising cost of living, and which is significantly higher than the minimum wage of £9.50 an hour. 

 

Singing Living Wage themed carols to the tune of Jingle Bells, the diverse community group donned Santa hats and Christmas jumpers to encourage Brent Council to rethink its plans. Students from Brent Citizens’ member schools have hand-made two sets of Christmas stockings: some filled with sweets, others filled with coal. Which ones Cllrs Butt and Southwood will receive, will depend on whether they renew their commitment to tackle in-work poverty together.

 

 

Tarik El Farjani, Y11 student at Ark Academy and Maryam Syed, Y10 student at Al Zahra School, both leaders with Brent Citizens, said: 

 

Brent’s Labour Manifesto published ahead of the local elections is entitled ‘Moving Forward Together and Leaving No One Behind’, but Cllr Butt and Cllr Southwood’s actions speak louder than words and are anything but that. We are extremely disheartened by the Council’s shocking u-turn. The two of us stood on stage in front of Cllr Butt at the Brent Citizens Accountability Assembly, when he looked us in the eye and publicly committed to making Brent a Living Wage Borough and the Old Oak Common site a Living Wage Zone

 

Brent Labour's Manifesto pledge

 

 

Marlon Legister-King, teacher at Newman Catholic College and leader with Brent Citizens said: 

 

At our College, we are proud to teach our young people that commitments matter. The Council has set a bad example that lowers young people’s faith in politics and democracy. They are the workers of tomorrow, as well as the voters of tomorrow. We are all already feeling the impact of this cost of living crisis. Now is the time to do more, not less, to tackle poverty at its roots and make Brent a place where workers are guaranteed a Living Wage.

 

Mina, cleaner on the minimum wage at a school in Brent, said: 

 

I’m a cleaner at a school in Brent which does not pay the Living Wage. When the Council first committed to working with Brent Citizens and the Living Wage Foundation, I was filled with hope. Employers like mine need to be encouraged to accredit as Living Wage Employers. To hear that Brent Council is making accreditation optional is an incredible shame. It is only through accreditation that employers are compelled to increase wages year on year, in line with the cost of living. My rent and bills have increased, whereas my wage is still the same. We need more accredited Living Wage Employers in Brent!

 

After speaking to the the students Cllr Butt agreed to at least meet with Brent Citizens again to revive the plan to 'Make Brent A Living Wage Borough.' 

Following the Brent Citizens' Action he tweeted:

 

 

 

Brent Renters call for 'RENT FREEZE NOW!'

 

As part of a Day of Action called by London Renters Union, Brent Renters were outside Willesden Green Station today.

On Twitter they said:

Brent renters came together. There IS power in a union! By coming together in our communities we can win. We need a rent freeze now! We went to Foxtons and made our point then to an agents who've failed to act to deal with rat infestation Tenants! Join.

 

 

Pics from @Brentrenters

 

A new tile mural at Olympic Way, Wembley Park

Guest Post by local historian Philip Grant 

 

Back in March, I shared the news with you that tile mural scenes on the walls of Olympic Way (part of the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals, celebrating Wembley’s sports and entertainment heritage) would be back on permanent public display by August (which they were).

 

The letter from Quintain’s Chief Executive Officer, agreeing not to seek an extension of the advertisement consent, which had seen these murals covered in vinyl advertising sheets since 2013, included a promise to replace a missing section of tiles on the wall beside the “drummer”. The drummer was the only surviving part of an original mural scene celebrating pop music concerts at Wembley Stadium, particularly the 1985 “Live Aid” concert.

 

The ”Live Aid” mural, before it was destroyed c.2006.

 

Quintain’s CEO said that they were ‘keen to reflect aspects of the original design, where possible’, and that they would ‘like to engage with you and the Wembley History Society to find the best solution for that area of the walls.’ In my March 2022 blog, I threw it open to the local community to suggest ideas for a design which would reflect the “Live Aid” or Wembley Stadium pop concerts theme.

 

The west wall area, beside the “drummer”, in need of new tiles, March 2022.

 

The “canvas” for the design was a difficult one, as TfL had taken a large section of the original mural away when they built steps down from the bus stop (now moved!) on the bridge in 2006. Instead of a rectangle, the blank space (after the poor replacement tiles had to be taken off in 2016, before they fell off) sloped down to nothing, in stages. 

 

I’m pleased to say that I did get some responses to the request for input on the replacement. One local resident suggested two possible artists, at least one of whom had designed murals for a local history community project at Cricklewood Station. A lady suggested a different piece of local cultural history for the design. And Gary, from Wembley, submitted his own draft idea, working from the photo of the original mural scene above.

 

Gary’s design idea for a replacement section of the “Live Aid” mural. (Courtesy of Gary!)

 

I passed all of the suggestions and ideas on to Wembley Park’s Cultural Director. As Quintain / Wembley Park would be commissioning and paying for the replacement mural, they had the final say, although they said they would let me see what they had in mind before going ahead with any design. In the end, they did not take up any of the offers I had put their way, and last summer I was sent a copy of a design from the artist Paul Marks, who they’d commissioned for the job. 

 

The Paul Marks design for the new tile mural beside the “drummer”.
(Courtesy of Quintain / Wembley Park)

 

I was told that I was being shown the design “in confidence”, and could not share the image until the new mural was finished. It was explained that the abstract design represents 'the sound wave (graphic equaliser) referencing the beat of the music'. My initial reaction was that this did not reflect the history of concerts at Wembley Stadium, such as “Live Aid”, and I suggested adapting Paul’s design to include some of the musicians from the original scene (Mark Knopfler and Freddie Mercury in this possible version).

 

One of the possible adapted designs I submitted.

 

The answer came back that this would not be possible, for a variety of reasons. The new mural would go ahead, as designed by Paul Marks, and by early November the wall was being prepared ready to receive the new coloured tiles.

 

Preparing the wall for the tiles. (This and top photos courtesy of Martin Francis)

 

Now the new tile mural is in place. It may no longer be a mural scene celebrating “Live Aid”, but it can be seen as the drummer sending out the beats of a rock anthem towards Wembley Stadium, where both the old and new versions of this famous venue have hosted some historic concerts. And it is certainly a much better sight than a bare concrete wall, or the “patched up” TfL version that I include a picture of in my March 2022 blog!

 

Philip Grant.