CHILE: 'Cruel Separation' film and Q&A with Director Sarah Boston - 9th September Preston Community Library

 

Barham Park Trustees (aka Brent Cabinet) to face barrage of protest and criticism tomorrow at Brent Civic Centre

Anger is building amongst residents and community organisations over the Barham Park Trustees management of the park and its assets, as more issues have emerged. The Cabinet members who make up the Trustees Committee are charged with what amounts to arrogance and disdain of the local community.

Despite the 1,000 signature petition calling for the Covenant that prevents building development of the park to be honoured in the spirit of the Titus Barham bequest, and Brent parks to be protected the Committee will be making decisions on:

1. Removal of the Covenant in order allow George Irvin to go ahead with building four three story houses on the site of the present modest pair of two storey houses. The amount to be paid for the removal of the covenant has been kept secret. The removal of the covenant has previously been opposed by ward councillors and Barry Gardiner MP. There have been questions about the influence on Brent councillors of the developer, fun fair owner George Irvin.

2.  Plans for major development of the present cluster of one and two storey buildings used by voluntary  community organisations to displace most of those those organisation in favour of a development that includes  a boutique hotel/AirB&B and four retail units. There has been absolutely no consultation about the plans which have come as a shock to those organisations. The £25,000 study is framed around the Trustees' briefing aimed at achieving commercial rents for the properties.

3. A review of Governance arrangements that keeps all power in the hands of the Cabinet and rejects any independent or community representation on the Trustees Commiuee.

4. Published accounts that includes errors and omissions, particularly around income from George Irvin's uses of Barham Park for fun fairs.

As a correspondent from elsewhere in the borough remarked in an email to Wembley Matters: 

Local people and community groups being disregarded and the possibility  of losing their meeting spaces—is shameful. 

Brent Council, to me have neglected Wembley High Road over the years in terms of design and the “shopping offer” and for them then to suggest to have hotels/ supermarket in a park which was bequeathed to locals,  is an obscene idea

Parks to me, belong to Brent residents and we need the green open spaces. I am very angry about what is being considered. Also the potential for this to be replicated 

My words don’t actually sum up all my concerns but it is more than well covered in your blog. 

Unfortunately the Brent and Kilburn Times has not picked up on this issue at all so do spread the word and get along to the meeting tomorrow (Tuesday September 5th) at 10am at the Civic Centre Conference Hall to show your concern or observe on-line HERE 

Barham Park Trust Accounts - Two questions that need answering

 I am publishing, with permission, the text of an email sent to Brent's Head of Internal Audit and Investigations:

 

 

Dear Mr Armstrong,

 

 

I am sorry for the short notice, but I have been reading the papers for the Barham Park Trust Committee meeting on Tuesday 5 September at 10am.

 

 

There are a couple of points arising from the Trust accounts for 2022/23 which I believe need to be explained to the Committee and the public at that meeting (even though I will only be able to watch it when the webcast is available to view online later in the week).

 

 

You were the Independent Examiner of those accounts, and at para. 4.2 of your Supplementary Audit Review, you have stated that:

 

 

'No matter has come to my attention, which gives me reasonable cause to believe that, in any material respect, the requirement:

...  To which, in my opinion, attention should be drawn in order to enable a proper understanding of the accounts to be reached.'

 

 

Although I have been accustomed to reading accounts for many years, there are two points with the 2022/23 Barham Park Trust accounts which I think are material for a proper understanding of them:

 

 

1.    Fun Fair Receipts - The 2022/23 accounts show no Fun Fair receipts (previous year £28,172), but the Trustee's Annual Report (6a Appendix 1) states that 'The park hosted a Fun Fair on two occasions.' 

The General Update Report to the September 2022 Trust Committee meeting gave these details: 'Irvin’s Fun Fair were at Barham Park: Operating days between the 20th May to 5th June 2022 (on site 12th May to 6th June); Operating days between the 19th August to 4th September 2022 (and will be on site until a few days later).'

How much was payable by Irvin's Fun Fair for its use of Barham Park for those two periods in 2022/23, and why does this amount not appear in the Trust's 2022/23 accounts?

 

2.    Consultancy Payments - The 2022/23 accounts show Consultancy payments of £21,244 out of the Trust's unrestricted funds. The Officer Report to the Committee on the Trust's Annual Report and Accounts refers to: 'additional one-off costs have been incurred associated with commissioning a Barham Park Feasibility study to consider the use of the Barham Park building and its condition in the long-term.'

It is clear from earlier meetings of the Barham Park Trust Committee, particularly that of 27 January 2022, that the Trust had agreed to appoint Rider Levett Bucknall ("RLB") architects to produce a feasibility study on the future of the Barham Park buildings. It was also clear that it had been agreed the £25,000 cost of this would be met as capital expenditure by Brent Council.

The results of the RLB report are to be considered at the Trust Committee meeting on 5 September, but to understand the 2022/23 accounts properly, more explanation is needed. The meeting on Tuesday should be told, and the answers minuted, on who the £21,244 was paid to, what services were provided to the Trust in return for that payment (and where is the evidence for those services?), who authorised this expenditure and where that authorisation is recorded.

 

 

Thank you, in advance, for your prompt attention to the points I have raised. I am copying this email to other Council Officers who may need to be involved in ensuring that these points are dealt with at Tuesday's meeting. 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

 

 

The Barham Park Trust – there is another way to run it!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Minute of the previous Review of Future Governance, 7 March 2018.

 

Although it is not the headline item on the agenda for next Tuesday’s Barham Park Trust Committee meeting, the periodic review of the way in which the Trust is managed is still an important one. Brent Council is the sole Trustee, and all of the Trust’s decisions are currently made by a sub-committee of Brent’s Cabinet, whose members are appointed by Brent’s Cabinet, and can only be Cabinet members. 

 

In April this year, as part of an Open Letter to Brent’s Governance Chief, Debra Norman, about the implications of free fun fair tickets from George Irvin to Brent Councillors, I raised the suggested that the membership and voting rights for the Barham Park Trust Committee should be the subject of an independent review. I followed this up with further suggestions for including local people in the decision-making process.

 

I was pleased to see that a review of the Trust’s governance was on the agenda (item 9) for the 5 September meeting, but disappointed to see that it made no mention of the suggestions I’d made. In fact, the Report on this subject is virtually a “copy and paste” of that made in 2018, when the Committee voted for Option 1, to maintain the status quo (see minute above).

 

The description of Option 1, from the Report to the 5 September 2023 meeting.

 

As I think there is greater scope for involving the local community than that which I’ve highlighted in the current Report above, I wrote to the Committee’s Governance Officer, seeking an opportunity to have my ideas considered at Tuesday’s meeting:

 

‘Dear Ms Shinhmar,

 

I am writing to request that I be allowed to make a short statement to next Tuesday's (5 September) meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee. I am copying this email to Cllr. Muhammed Butt, the current Chair of the Committee, for his information, as you will probably wish to check with him before replying.

 

The item I would like to make a representation on, please, is item 9 on the agenda, the Review of Alternative Administration & Governance Models. 

 

Earlier this year, I wrote to the Corporate Director for Governance with some suggestions which would be relevant to the Committee's consideration of Option 2 (paras. 4.3 to 4.5 of the Report), but these do not appear to have been passed on to Chris Whyte and Bianca Robinson, the authors of the Report. 

 

I think it would be helpful if those ideas could be brought to the Committee's attention, before they decide on the recommendation at 2.2 in the Report.

 

Unfortunately, because of a prior appointment, I will not be able to attend the 10am meeting, either in person or online. I would therefore ask that I be allowed to submit a short written statement, which would be read to the Committee, by yourself or another Officer, at the start of item 9 on the agenda.

 

I understand that members of the public speaking at the meeting are normally allowed two minutes to make their presentation. I would make my statement no more than 250 words long, which is what I would expect to present if I were speaking.

 

I hope that this will be acceptable to you, and the Committee, and look forward to receiving your confirmation as early as possible. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.
(A Brent resident for 40 years).’

 

Option 2 (of five) was to “Appoint additional Trustees alongside the Council”. The Report appears to advise against that option, but I think it could be made to work (with “independent advisors”, rather than formal Trustees).

 

The disadvantages of Option 2, from the Report to the 5 September 2023 meeting.

 

After an initial holding reply, I received this response to my request on Friday 1 September:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant

 

Following on from our exchange of emails yesterday, if you can let me have a copy of the representations you wish to submit for consideration in relation to Item 9 on the Barham Park Trust Committee agenda (Review of Alternative Administration & Governance Models) I’d be happy to ensure these are circulated to the relevant officers and Trust Committee members in advance of next week’s meeting.

 

Having consulted with Councillor Butt, whilst advice will be taken from officers (as considered to be relevant) on the points included within any submission it has not been agreed that the submission should be read out in full at the meeting.

 

Although I know you’re unable to attend the meeting, you will be able to follow proceedings via the live webcast or to view the recording following the meeting via the following link: Home - Brent Council Webcasting (public-i.tv).

 

I hope this helps to clarify the position and look forward to receiving any representations you wish to make.

 

Kind regards,

Abby Shinhmar
Governance Officer’

 

It appears that Councillor Muhammed Butt does not want my views to be “on the record” at the meeting. My suggestion for a better way to run the Trust will only be mentioned if the Council Officers advising them consider them relevant!

 

Nevertheless, I sent Ms Shinmar my submission on Friday evening. I’ve had no acknowledgement from her, and as it may be Monday before she is able to deal with it, I sent copies of the document ‘to the relevant officers and Trust Committee members’ myself, on Saturday afternoon. I hoped it would give them the opportunity to consider my short submission, ‘(250 words, so it will only take a couple of minutes to read)’, in plenty of time before the meeting.

 

As my submission will not be made public by Brent Council, here it is, for anyone to read, and know the alternative to “maintain the status quo” which is available to the Trust Committee:

 

‘Thank you for agreeing to consider this submission.

 

Chris Whyte’s Report sets out five options for the future governance of the Trust. It does not include an idea I suggested to Brent’s Corporate Director for Governance earlier this year, which I believe would improve the present arrangements.

 

Option 2, to appoint additional independent trustees alongside the Council, is shown to have several advantages, such as allowing individuals to be selected for their particular skills or expertise. 

 

The Report seems to warn against this option in para. 4.5, but my suggestion does away with most of the disadvantages, by using a model which already works well at Brent - the pairing of the Audit and Standards Committee with its Advisory Committee. 

 

In this case, the existing Trust Committee would meet immediately following on from the Barham Park Trust Advisory Committee, of which they would be members, to take the formal decisions legally required to be made by the Council as Trustee.

 

The Advisory Committee would have an independent Chair (preferably someone with a parks background) and independent members, including some nominated by local community groups and Barham Park users.

 

This would provide both expertise and local knowledge among Advisory Committee members, who could easily be consulted by Council staff engaged in the day-to-day management of the park, whereas Trust Committee members must prioritise their Cabinet portfolio and Ward responsibilities.

 

Please recommend this version of Option 2 ‘for further consideration and consultation’ under para. 2.2 of the Report. Thank you.’

 

If you have a view on this, please feel free to put a comment below. 

 

But the Committee Report, when describing Option 1, states that: ‘members of the community have been accustomed to being consulted on decisions’. Has anyone been consulted about the decision the Trust Committee will be making about its future governance arrangements? Para. 5 of the Report answers that question:

 

Paragraph 5, from the Report to the 5 September 2023 meeting.

 

If, having read this post, you feel you would like to have been consulted, there may still be time (up to 5pm on Monday?) for you to let the Committee know your views.

 

For example, if you wanted to support the suggestion I have made, you could send a short (but polite, please) email to the Committee members (not Cllr. Mili Patel, as an “out of office” message I received says she is on maternity leave until Spring 2024), saying something along the lines of: 

 

I support the suggestion in Philip Grant’s submission on the future governance of the Barham Park Trust.

 

If you don’t have their email addresses handy, they are: 

cllr.muhammed.butt@brent.gov.uk ,
Cllr.Fleur.Donnelly-Jackson@brent.gov.uk ,
cllr.krupa.sheth@brent.gov.uk , and
cllr.shama.tatler@brent.gov.uk .

 

So that the key Council Officers know that you’ve shared your views on this, you could copy your email to:

The Director, Environment and Leisure, whose Report it is: Chris.Whyte@brent.gov.uk
Corporate Director – Governance: debra.norman@brent.gov.uk , and
Brent Council’s Chief Executive: Kim.Wright@brent.gov.uk .

Philip Grant.

 

 

Brent Council's Strategic CIL £4.5m spending plans for Alperton parks, Kilburn Medical Centre and Harlesden Picture Palace

There's a bit of a spending spree on the Cabinet Agenda for  September 11th. The Stragetic Community Infrastructure Levy (gained from a levy on new developments)  is in  a fairly healthy state and there are proposals in the meeting papers for spending on three major projects. (Extracts from Cabinet papers):

Cabinet Reports Pack

Parks Improvements in the Alperton Growth Area - £525,466

The growth in the Alperton Growth area, with 1,400 new homes delivered in the past 10 years and at least 6,500 new homes expected by 2040, is resulting in increasing demand on local parks and open spaces and the need for improvements to them. The parks and open spaces in Alperton have long been identified for investment, initially in the 2011 masterplan and again in the Local Plan. There are also proven public health benefits from improving access to parks and open green spaces. 

The estimated cost for the improvement works in the parks and the sports ground is £625,466 and includes 10% contingency and 10% future maintenance cost allowance. This report seeks approval for a budget allocation to this value of £625,466, with an allocation of £525,466 Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL) and £100,000 from the public health reserve to fund this spend.

South Kilburn Medical Centre - additional £600,000

 Cabinet agreed in April 2020 a SCIL contribution of £3.47 million for the 3 medical centres proposed in growth areas (Wembley Park, Grand Union, and South Kilburn). The funding was towards the physical fit out of the medical centres. The South Kilburn contribution was agreed at £1,104 million. A funding agreement was subsequently entered into with the then CCG.

The Integrated Care Partnership (ICP) now advise that due to the increase in costs the South Kilburn medical centre is no longer viable, with a viability gap of £1.2 million. The ICP have agreed to contribute half of this, if the Council agrees to match fund this at up to £600,000 from SCIL.

 

Harlesden Picture Palace  -  £3,300,000

This report is part of the Council’s ongoing commitment to create long lasting positive change to Harlesden for the benefit of the communities that live there.
 

The Picture Palace building is expected to become a significant cultural and community use anchor for the community and the Council has been working with a consortium of local organisations to deliver this exciting project. By approving the use of SCIL for the building refurbishment, it will allow the
project’s ambitions to be realised and for the Harlesden communities to be able to operate and utilise the building in the future.

The refurbishment project helps to meet outcomes within the Borough Plan, namely Strategic Priority 3 Thriving Communities to allow the local community to be involved in and lead on activities for their communities. The project also delivers on an objective within the Black Community Action Plan by developing a community space to be run and managed by local communities. It also helps to achieve objectives within the Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan by providing community facilities for Brent’s growing population

Chalkhill Community Centre Open Day - Saturday 1pm-4pm

 

Staff and students left in the lurch after Wembley Skills Training Centre goes into liquidation

 

Skills Centre 328 Wembley High Road

A watchful Wembley Central resident got in touch with Wembley Matters earlier today saying:

The Skills Centre (housed in what used to be adoption/fostering service on the HIgh Road opposite Elizabeth House) is no longer in operation. There is a sign on the front door to the effect that no education studies are to be conducted in the near future.  This has been operating for about 3 years, mostly 16-18 year olds, mostly children from recently settled families (very nice young people from Iraq, Afghanistan, India ) wishing to take GCSE's again or trying to achieve a passing grade, or access to BTEC in English and Maths.

Someone mentioned to me that they believe their funding has been withdrawn or they lost it?

She is not wrong. The parent company Skills Training UK has gone into liquidation.

 According to FE Weekly LINK  staff were old a week ago that they would only be paid for 7 days work in August. 

The article was written before the appointment of a liquidator and FE Weekly reported:

 

While they wait for the appointment of a liquidator, employees can’t make a claim for unpaid wages, notice pay or redundancy pay. Meanwhile, staff are also worried learners could miss out on getting their qualifications this August as they’re not at work to liaise with awarding organisations.

 

Stunned staff, some in tears, told FE Week they had been “left drowning” and out of the loop at a time when living costs are spiralling and after they have worked at the provider for years.

 

“We’re just broken, some of us have children and mortgages, it’s completely crazy. Management went completely quiet on us.”

 

More than 200 staff members will be made redundant if the provider does go under. In an update issued on its website, Skills Training UK said it expects to appoint liquidators on August 2, and that all delivery to all learners has stopped. 

 

Importantly the students, some vulnerable, have been left in the lurch with the report continuing: 

 

There are also concerns that learners will not receive the qualifications they were studying for, as staff have been locked out of their computers and systems and are not able to communicate with the learners or awarding organisations such as Pearson. As emails were shut down, staff could not tell learners that the provider is about to shut its doors.

 

“They’ve abandoned them,” one staff member said. “Some of the learners that I started working with a year ago have behavioural issues, and now they are going to get nothing after a year’s work. And there’s no one to be held accountable.”

 

For the benefit of local businesses who may be owed money, staff and students, this is infromation from the liquidators LINK :

 

Appoinment of Liquidators Matthew Roe and Richard Hawes were appointed join liquidators over the Company on 2 August 2023, accordingly the Company is no longer trading. If you have any queries, please contact STUKCreditors@teneo.com
	Guidance for former Skills Training UK learners Guidance for learners, apprentices and employers undertaking an Apprenticeship or other ESFA-funded training programme (such as study programme or Traineeship) with Skills Training UK Limited, is available on gov.uk at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/termination-of-esfa-funding-agreements
	If you were undertaking a Gateway Qualifications’ qualification, please visit: https://www.gatewayqualifications.org.uk/learners/ If you were undertaking a Pearson qualification, please visit: https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/support/support-for-you/results-for-students.html If you were undertaking a City and Guilds qualification, please visit: https://www.cityandguilds.com/teaching-learning-assessment-and-results/students-and-parents If you were undertaking a Ascentis qualification, please visit: https://www.ascentis.co.uk/news/arrangements-for-assessing-and-awarding-qualifications
	If you are a London resident and were undertaking an adult course, please direct any enquiries to:  aeb@london.gov.uk
	Apprentices If you were being supported on an Apprenticeship with STUK you will be contacted directly either by your employer who will help you find an alternative supplier, or you may receive contact directly from the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). If you are an employer who has been working with STUK, the ESFA are making direct contact with you to identify a new provider to support you.
	GCSE Resit Result Contact Information: Please note results will be released on Thursday 24th August 2023. London Learners: your results should be emailed directly to you by London Brookes College. Exam Office: exams@londonbrookescollege.co.uk

RAAC affected St Gregory's School desperately searching for portacabins for next week's school start

 St Gregory's Catholic Science College - Kenton

 

inews is reporting that St Gregory's Catholic Science College is desperately trying to get portacabins for Tuesday's return to school after being informed that they are one of the school's affected by the  government announcement on lightweight concrete (reinforced autoclave aerated concrete - RAAC)  in school buildings. 

I understand that it is the Maths Block at the school that is affected.  Brent Coucil said that efforts are being made to prop up the affected areas and children should be able to return on Tuesday as planned.

Help from the Department of Education has not been quick enough, Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North, told inews.

The MP said the Department of Education should have been working to help the school, and others affected, to put measures in place swiftly over the summer break.

That work is going on tomorrow and over the weekend – but this is what I mean, the department is leaving this absolutely to the last minute and is trying to say it’s the responsibility of the schools.

No it’s not, it’s the responsibility of the department to be helping the schools. The schools have no budget for this.

 He said three other schools in his constituency were suspected of having RAAC – St Joseph’s Primary, Michael Sobell Sinai School and Kingsbury High School. Those schools require survey work to investigate whether they contain the at-risk material.

Wembley Matters has contacted the school for a statement once parents have been informed of arrangements. 

None of the school's named are the direct responsibility of Brent Council being voluntary aided or academies, but the council does have overall responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of the borough's children.