Local activists and Brent TUC joined St Mungos strikers on the picket line in Willesden this morning to show solidarity with their struggle for a decent pay rise to address the 25% real terms reduction in their wages and the erosion caused by inflation.
Outside the St Mungos facility in Pound Lane
Like many charities St Mungos has left its roots to be more of a corporate enterprise with highly paid executives and low paid workers actually on the front line working with the homeless. The changes, as with housing associations comes about as charities and the third sector are called upon to perform functions abandoned by the welfare state.
The support from the public for the strikers came over loud and clear as passing traffic tooted in solidarity.
That support will be demonstrated again when a Solidarity Rally, addressed by Dawn Butler, takes place at noon on Friday June 16th outside Brent Civic Centre in Wembley Park.
The Civic Centre is an appropriate venue as St Mungos gets the majority of its funding from local authorities, many London boroughs, including Brent. The strikers are keen that councils put pressure on the St Mungos management to negotiate a fair deal. Half the workforce of 1,600 are unionised and many taking part in strikes, leading to agency workers with little experience attempting to deliver the service for which the borough pays.
If the contract is failing to deliver there may be a case for councils to suspend their contracts.
This post reflects my personal involvement but of course the most credit must go to the Chalkhill Residents' Association and especially their chair Kathleen Fraser who held on to the vision through thick and thin and played a much larger part, as well as Brent Council Parks Department and the local councillors at the time.
Early Plan 25.03.2010
The official opening of the new Chalkhill Park was on June 8th 2013, 10 years ago today, but as you will see there were other 'unofficial'openings.
The park resulted from a 'pay-back' arrangement when Asda took over some of the estate land for its superstore and the the site of the medical centre and car park on Chalkhill Road was ear-marked for a park.
There were hitches on the way and at one time there were rumours on the estate that the site would be used for flats rather than a park.
The site in 2011
In October 2011 I wrote:
I think my readers deserve some (fairly) good news in the midst of the recession gloom and the closure of half our libraries.
I attended a meeting last week in my role as a school governor regarding
the proposed new Chalkhill Park. The Chalkhill Residents' Association
have been concerned about the park and a proposed Multi Use Games Area
(MUGA) in St David's Close on the estate. The Chalkhill Pupil School
Council had written to ward councillors to expression concern about the
lack of progress on the park and had been told work would commence this
month. In fact nothing seemed to have happened and the weeds were
getting taller and taller.
We were told that work was behind schedule by 4-6 weeks and may fall
further behind if soft planting is delayed by poor weather. However we
were assured that the park should open in May 2012. Bids are still
awaited from contractors who will construct the park.
The residents' concerns about the budget for the project were not fully
answered. It appears to have reduced from £1.3m to something over £0.8m
and there was some confusion over whether the money was from planning
gain following the building of Wembley ASDA on a section of the estate,
and whether the money had originally been held by Metropolitan Housing
Association, the managers of the estate, and late handed over to the
Council. If the latter is the case there may be an issue over the
reduction in the amount.
Putting that aside, we were assured that the promised children's
playgrounds (one for older children and one for younger) and an exercise
area for adults would be built. There would also be a 'kick-about' area
rather than a formal football pitch and a wildlife nature garden.
Residents asked questions about the 'water feature' that had
incorporated into the plans. They had never asked for one and it
appeared to be an expensive item. They said that if anything had to go
because of budget constraints the water feature should be abandoned. It
appears to have been added as a landscape features that would extend the
vista from Brent Town Hall steps, down the avenue of trees, and into
the park. It was unclear whether it was purely ornamental or something
the children might play in: echoes of the fiasco over Lady Di's Memorial
Water Feature!
As by 2013 the Town Hall will have been replaced by the new Civic
Centre, and may have been converted into a hotel, it does appear to be
redundant. It would also use electricity to generate the pumps which
would involve an ongoing cost. We were told that solar panel electricity
generation for the pump wouldn't be suitable. Not very green...
When the MUGA came under discussion we were told that existing
installations at Poplar Close Youth Centre and Chalkhill School's play
area which was shared with the community, made a new one unnecessary.
However Gerry Kiefer, the new head of parks and sports services, said
that she would like to 'start a conversation' about St David's Close
open space. Previously that had not been developed because it was not
overlooked by housing and therefore deemed unsafe for unsupervised play.
However, the newly built flats in the close were now occupied and this
objection no longer stood.
Ms Kiefer offered to look at the possibility of:
1. Erecting goal posts for a football pitch (size to be decided after a
survey), levelling the surface and marking out the pitch. Future mowing
and marking out would have to be borne by the users who were expected to
be the Chalkhill Wanderers football team.
2. Restoring the overgrown BMX cycling course with help from local youth.
3. Looking at the possibility of building a skateboarding facility in St David's Close.
4. She also undertook to look at the Poplar Close MUGA, in particular
the state of the pitches and whether the floodlights were working.
The meeting was facilitated by Councillor Shafique Choudhary (Barnhill
ward councillor) at the request of Kathleen Jackson, Chair of Chalkhill
Residents' Association.
Looking at those undertakings the BMX track was restored and a circuit installed for cycles and scooters in St David's Close (both were consulted with Chalkhill Primary pupils). No skateboarding park was built although some children use skateboards on the BMX. Unfortunately after drug-taking and other anti-social activities in the Chalkhill School community playground during out of school hours, the police advised its closure for unsupervised activities.
The water feature was abandoned although some parents told me this week that they'd love to see at least a paddling pool in the park.
The rain-swept site in January 2012
In January 2012 with little sign of progress I blogged again (extract):
Earlier in 2011 children from Chalkhill School Council had lobbied
ward councillors after repeated delays and this was taken up by the
wider community of children and youth on the estate during the summer
holiday. They were all angry that once again Chalkhill young people had
been deprived of a park during the long summer holiday. They were
determined that they would have a park by Summer 2012.
When I saw that no work had started after the forecast delay of 4-6
weeks I started nagging the ward councillor in my role as Chair of
Governors of Chalkhill Primary School.
Chris Walker, head of planning wrote to all the interested parties
yesterday, January 12th 2012 ( to say that it had been anticipated that work would start in
December 2011/January 2012 (more than 4-6 weeks behind) but that now the
contract will be not be awarded until March 2012 with a six month
contract to completion. On my reading this means that the park will not
be completed until at least September 2012 leaving the local kids with
no park for yet another summer.
Mr Walker explains that this is because all the tenders submitted in the
autumn were unaffordable without reducing the park specification and
that it became apparent that they did not fully comply with the
Council's internal standing orders - so they are going out to tender
again 'and hope that this time we will receive affordable and suitable
tender submissions'. Even that sounds pretty uncertain...
Chris Walker says he realises the situation will be a big
disappointment but says that the Council is doing all it can to minimise
delays.
Eventually a contract was awarded and there were some delays due to bad weather but the new park began to take shape. Progress was eagerly watched by children on their way to and from school, bothe primary and secondary.
The wait was too much for some and on April 25th 2013 I wrote:
25th April 2013
I was greeted by whoops of excitement and shouted greetings
as I passed Chalkhill Park at 6.15pm this evening. As you can see the children
have taken it over and made it their own. It is not yet officially open
and a pensive child outside whispered, 'You know this is illegal'. But a
parent said, 'How can we tell them they can't go in. They have been waiting for
the park for 3 years and here it is now and they just love it!'
A decision will be made tomorrow about a possible earlier opening. There are
concerns that the grass sown between the gaps in the safety matting of the
children's playground, which is at an early stage of growth, will be damaged
but anyone wanting to keep the children out now that they have had a taste of
the park will have quite a job on their hands!
Garth McWilliams who designed the park should be thrilled by the children's
reaction.
This was followed by another post soon after:
The recent warm weather has resulted in children and families making use
of the new Chalkhill Park despite it not yet being officially open and
still surrounded by builders' fencing.
The temptation of green grass and exciting play equipment proved too
much of a temptation after three long years of waiting. A bit of low key
spontaneous direct action resulted in an unofficial entrance being
created.
I recently saw parents sitting chatting while their children played, a
teenager doing her homework on a laptop at a picnic bench and young
people chilling out. It demonstrated to me how badly the park was needed
and how keen people are to get in there and use it.
Today there were 10 labourers working on the park. I checked and was
told that the play equipment has received its final safety check and
that a decision will be made tomorrow on whether the park should open
now with any uncompleted areas being fenced off temporarily,
I think that would be a sensible decision as public use by families
would be likely to deter any misuse of the park and why on earth
shouldn't it be open if it is largely complete?
The official opening by the new Mayor of Brent will be on Saturday June
8th and plans include special activities, performance, bouncy castles,
talent show and much more on the Saturday, outdoor gym equipment
training on Sunday and Chalkhill Primary School pupils will take it over
for a Carnival procession and other activities on the afternoon of
Monday June 10th.
Following April's activities the Council decided to open the park to the public on May 3rd 2013 ready for the Bank Holiday.
May 3rd 2013
Builders' fences were removed from Chalkhill Park today after a final surge of
activity to get the park ready for the Bank Holiday.
News reached Chalkhill Primary School at lunchtime and spread like wildfire
around the playground to cheers from the children.
The weekly School Walking Club were the first to officially use the new
facility. A landscape gardener, stripped to the waist and pushing a laden
wheelbarrow, stopped me and said, 'This makes it all worthwhile. The children's
faces as they swarmed into the park were wonderful. It was amazing It was worth
all the work.'
Parents and children rushed to the park after school and there was widespread
praise from the former for the design. Children were too overcome with
excitement and breathless from trying everything out to say very much but their
big smiles told their own story.
June 2013 preparing for the opening
The plans to build a new park
close to the school presented a great opportunity for work across the
curriculum. More than three years ago children were involved in
submitting possible plans for the park with ideas for the kind of
equipment that should be installed. They had to think about provision for all
ages and safety issues.
The School Council got involved when plans for the park were delayed. They
wrote letters to local Brent councillors, e-mailed them and spoke to them face
to face to urge action to complete the park, emphasising how important it was
for children on the Chalkhill Estate to have somewhere safe to play and the
importance of exercise and play in adopting a healthy lifestyle.
When completion neared they were again involved in putting forward ideas
for the opening ceremony and pupil delegates went to one meeting where
activities, within budget constraints, were planned. In School Council they
came up with the idea of a Junior Friends of Chalkhill Park to litter pick and
take care of the equipment. Within the school there was a competition to make
posters to urge the public to look after the park, pick up litter and clear up
after dogs. The best of these were placed on the park notice boards.
For the opening ceremony the children and staff worked with Mahogany Arts to
create carnival costumes, the staff steelband rehearsed, a pupil samba band was
formed, Bollywood dances created and the school choir chose pieces to sing on
the day.
Meanwhile Year 3 pupils collaborated with the Brent and Kilburn Times to
produce a page of the newspaper about the park:
As you can see there was the 'direct action' by school pupils that opened the park on April 25th 2013, and then the council opened it to the public on May 3rd 2013. Finally the official opening was 10 years ago today on June 8th 2013 with the Mayor attending and performances by community groups and school children. Those childen are now at work, college or university!
Chalkhill Primary involved the whole school the following Monday, June 12th 2023 with a Carnival Procession around the park in costumes they had made with the assistance of Mahogany and were accompanied by the staff steel pans band.
By August 2013 the park was contributing to the life of the estate:
August 2013
It was good today to see Chalkhill
residents enjoying their first summer in the new park. The Chalkhill Champions'
Summer Camp was in session with children learning how to put up a tent. The
Camp for children on the estate takes place on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays
1-4pm. It will culminate with an entertainment put on by the young people on
Friday August 30th.
Chalkhill Residents' Association have organised a Family Summer Trip to
Littlehampton later in the holiday.
Future 'Happy Dayz Family Fun' activities in the park for Chalkhill
residents include:
August 10th 3pm Scavenger Hunt
August 11th 3pm Family Rounders
August 17th 3pm Family Beat the Goalie
August 18th 3pm Family Picnic/Campsite
August 24th 3pm Family Treasure Hunt
Look for the Green Tent in the park this weekend and sign up.
The new park is having a really positive impact on the local community
according to one resident I spoke to. He lives opposite the park and apart from
some occasional late night rowdiness, he described a friendly atmosphere where
adults accompanying their children and others using the park for chilling out
or exercising on the outdoor gym, are getting to know each other, chatting and
then greeting each other in Asda or elsewhere in Wembley.
For me it underlines the importance of safe and beautiful public spaces which
everyone can enjoy at no cost and where informal social contact can develop in
a natural way. With increasing development and the privatisation of existing
public spaces it is important to safeguard such neutral free spaces.
10 years on June 2023
I popped into the park earlier this week and talked to parents and their children about the park. They were very positive about the facility but there were two main concerns. One was anti-social behaviour of the type that led to the closure of the school community playground to the public. Parents were used to seeing alcohol misuse but were very uneasy about drug-taking and possible dealing. I had heard that the police had been clamping down but it was evidently still happening in a thicket of trees and shrubs. One parent said that she felt safe if there were lots of others in the park but not if there were only a few people.
Another concern was maintenance of the park and especially the flower beds. Although these are not formal there were too many brambles and tree suckers amongst the flowers. There is an ongoing problem with litter. A new parks maintenance contractor comes in this summer so it will be important for residents, the residents' association and ward councillors to monitor performance.
The park is too precious to be allowed to fall into neglect or to be taken over by one age group.
Kathleen Fraser, now a councillor for Barnhill ward that includes the Chalkhill estate said:
It was hard work for the Residents' Association to move the Council to give us trees and hills in the lovely park we have now.
Having admitted earlier this week that the letter to residents encouraging them to attend next week's vital Planning Committee online was a mistake - an old format that cited covid restriction, the Council said that residents could attend in-person.
However, the council website front page notice of Monday's Planning Committee states, 'If you wish to attend this meeting we ask that you join online using the live webcast.'
It's enough to turn this 76 year old into Victor Meldrew!
UPDATE - Brent Council has amended its announcement on the website but it is not exactly encouraging the public to attend in-person as is their right! Anyone would think they really do not want the public there.
Brent Trades Council is urging local activists to support workers at the homelessness charity St Mungos when they strike tomorrow. The workers are striking for a decent pay increase after what was described as a 'pitiful' offer. That is contrasted with high salaries for the bosses of the charity.
The picket is at Pound Lodge at115 Pound Lane, Just opposite Willesden bus garage.(nearest tube Dollis Hill on the Jubilee line.
A rally in support of the St Mungo workers is planned for later this month on June 16th at noon outside Brent Civic Centre. Look out for final details on Wembley Matters.
I am writing on behalf of the Barham family to object to the building of even
more houses within Barham Park.
As you will know Barham Park was the family home of the Barham family from
around 1895 to 1937. From 1913 it was the home of Titus Barham and his wife
Florence who spent a great deal of time and money to plant and improve the
gardens. While it was a gated and fenced private home and gardens Titus would
open it to the public on a regular basis. As supporters and founders of the
then recently built Wembley Hospital, Titus and Florence held many fundraising
events in their home and gardens.
As you will also know Titus and his wife were major benefactors, supporting
many worthwhile causes in Wembley and Sudbury. In recognition of this Titus was
selected to become the Charter Mayor of the newly formed Wembley Borough
Council. Sadly he died on the very day the Charter was to come into effect.
Prior to his death in 1937 Titus had arranged to gift his home and gardens
expressly “for the enjoyment of local people” . This gift became Barham Park.
As you will also know this charitable endowment placed responsibility on Wembley,
and later Brent Councils, to manage and look after the Park in the best
interests of local people.
The two houses in the Park close to the railway were built specifically to
house Parks Department workers who helped to maintain and look after the Park.
The building of those two houses, although maybe questionable at the time,
could be justified because of the link with the Park and it’s purpose. No such
link exists now and will not certainly exist if and when the two houses are
replaced by the proposed 4 taller buildings whose sole purpose is not to house
Parks Department workers working in Barham Park, but simply to generate a
rental income for their owners.
I also understand that the Council has had a long-standing policy of protecting
Parks from intrusive development. While the original building of the two houses
may have been questionable the proposed building of 4 larger and taller houses
is an affront to the wishes of Titus Barham.
As Councillors, you and members of the Planning Committee reflect on the action
of one of your predecessors, namely Titus who was a Wembley Councillor for 4
years, and continue to respect and protect his generosity specifically for the
enjoyment of local people.
On behalf of the Barham family I would therefore urge you and your Council
colleagues to REJECT the latest Planning Application and to uphold Titus
Barham’s express wish that his gardens should be used for the enjoyment of
local people and nothing else.
Please present my appeal as outlined in this message to all Councillors in
Brent and especially to the members of the Brent Planning Committee.
Today (Tues 6th June), the general secretaries of
teacher and school leader unions, including NAHT, ASCL and NEU [and NASUWT], have
written to their members in all schools in England encouraging them to
hold joint-union staff meetings on industrial action.
The unions have previously announced their intention to co-ordinate
industrial action going forward. Speaking at school leaders’ union
NAHT’s Annual Conference last month, the general secretaries pointed out
that their combined memberships would mean action if taken would affect
nearly every school in England.
All the unions are currently balloting their members to take strike
action in the Autumn term, with NEU and NAHT’s ballots currently
running, and ASCL’s due to commence this month.
The letter sent today calls for staff meetings of all union members
eligible to vote in any of the ballots to be held the week commencing 19
June, to discuss how to maximise turnout and encourage members to
return their ballot papers.
The letter reads:
The education system has faced years of real-term pay erosion; a
funding crisis; enormous recruitment and retention challenges;
escalating workload and working hours; and an inspection system that is
doing more harm than good.
As a result, the four largest teacher and leader unions are in the
process of balloting members in order to secure a mandate for industrial
action.
We have worked incredibly hard to engage with the government on
these issues and to try to find satisfactory solutions, but it simply
refuses to listen. We believe that a mandate for industrial action
across all of our unions is the only way we can get your voice heard.
In an almost unprecedented show of solidarity, all four of our
unions have agreed to work together on this campaign. This shows not
just the sense of unity among the profession but also our determination
to make sure this government starts to engage properly with us in order
to address these crucial issues.
Regardless of which union you are in, it is absolutely essential we
all work together to ensure everyone eligible casts their vote. This
really is a time to stand together and stand up for the profession.
Whether you are in the same union or in different unions, these
staff meetings will provide a perfect opportunity to come together and
show your solidarity for one another in this ongoing campaign.
We are all clear that we are now in a battle for the very future of
education – stand with your colleagues and join us as we strive to bring
about real change.
Philip Grant informed readers of this objection on a comment to the earlier article on the Barham Park planning application. With his permission I am publishing it as a guest post:
Barham Park objection comment on Officer Report to 12 June Planning Committee:-
This is an objection to a misrepresentation made in the Committee Report by Planning Officers
to the Planning Committee meeting on 12 June 2023.
A Supplementary Report to the meeting should be prepared, setting out IN FULL the grounds
for this objection, and the Officer response to it.
The heading of the Report states that the Planning Area for application 22/4128 is “Sudbury
Town Neighbourhood Forum”. The misrepresentation occurs over the Sudbury Town
Neighbourhood Plan, referred to in paragraphs 11 and 13 of the Committee Report.
Paragraph 11 correctly states that: ‘It is set out within Neighbourhood Plan policy BP1 (Barham
Park) that any proposals for the re-use or redevelopment of park buildings for residential use
(Use Class C3) will not be supported.’
That should be the conclusion of the matter, with a recommendation that application 22/4128
should be refused, because the application proposes the redevelopment of park buildings,
increasing their size, height and number of dwellings for residential use.
However, paragraph 13 seeks to turn the clear policy position over the Sudbury Town
Neighbourhood Plan (as set out in paragraph 11) on its head!
It begins the attempt to do this by saying that: ‘Neighbourhood Plan Policies LGS1, LGS2 and
BP1 ARE RELEVANT to the proposal ....’ (note: my capital letters, for emphasis). Those
policies are more than just relevant. They are what should decide the matter, for the reason I
will explain at the end of this objection comment.
Paragraph 13 goes on to say: ‘... the proposal is not considered to result in the redevelopment
of park buildings.’ However, at the top of the Officer Report “The Proposal” is described as:
‘Demolition of 2 existing dwellings and construction of 4x new three storey dwellinghouses.’
The definition of “redevelopment” in ordinary English usage is: ‘the action or process of
developing something again or differently.’ The proposal should clearly be considered as a
redevelopment of park buildings, and the Officer Report has misdirected the Committee on that
point.
Following on from this misdirection, paragraph 13 states: ‘The proposal is considered to accord
with policies LGS1, LGS2 and BP1.’ The proposal DOES NOT accord with those policies,
because those policies in the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan, specifically policy BP1
relating to Barham Park, state:
‘Proposals for the re-use of the existing Barham Park buildings to provide a new
community facility (D1 or D2 Use) or any other use that would support and complement
the function of the park will be supported. Any proposals for the re-use or redevelopment
of park buildings for residential use (Use Class C3) WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED.’
Paragraph 13 concludes by trying to counter the point I have just made: ‘if one contended that
Policy BP1 relates to all buildings within the area designated Local Green Space as opposed
to all buildings within the park itself, it is noted that the fall-back position for the applicant would
be the continued use of the houses and their curtilages for their current lawful use, for purposes
within Use Class C3.’
Yes, the applicant can continue to use the two existing houses in the park, built originally as
homes for park-keepers, but no longer required for that purpose, for their current Class C3 use.
But that does not entitle the applicant to demolish those two houses and redevelop the site for
four new houses. To do that would require planning consent, which is what application 22/4128
is seeking to achieve. However, policy BP1 clearly states that such a proposal ‘will not be
supported’. It should not have been supported, and recommended for approval, by Planning
Officers, and it should not be approved by Brent’s Planning Committee.
The Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan was adopted by Brent Council in 2015, and forms an
integral part of Brent’s current Local Plan. When the idea of neighbourhood plans was put
forward in the original version of the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), this stated:
‘Local communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able to identify
for special protection green areas of particular importance to them. By designating land
as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other
than in very special circumstances.’
There are no ‘very special circumstances’ which would support the proposed development in
application 22/4128.
The most recent version of the NPPF (July 2021) states in paragraph 30:
‘Once a neighbourhood plan has been brought into force, the policies it contains take
precedence over existing non-strategic policies in a local plan covering the
neighbourhood area, where they are in conflict; unless they are superseded by strategic
or non-strategic policies that are adopted subsequently.’
There is no evidence that policy BP1 in the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan has been
superseded by policies adopted subsequently. Therefore, policy BP1 takes precedence over
any other Local Plan policies covering the neighbourhood area of which Barham Park forms a
part. As a result, application 22/4128 MUST be refused.
.jpg)
