Tuesday, 12 December 2023

Brent Council cite 'budgetary constraints' on providing a quality service after hearing petition on problems with the school transport service for children with special needs and disabilities

A presentation was made at Monday's Cabinet  regarding problems with school transport for Special Educations Needs children and those with a disability (SEND.  It is a joint service with Harrow Council who have the lead role.

Wembley Matters reported on the issues that had been raised by parents and carers at a Brent Fiightback meeting HERE

 

THE PETITION PRESENTATION

  • Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak today. My name is Zaynab Alfadhl and I am a parent of a child with special educational needs attending a special school in Brent and residing in the borough.

  • I raised this petition to plea that councillors listen to the voice of the most vulnerable; our children and young people with SEND and their families who represent their voice.

  • I have spent approximately 4 years battling with Brent Council regarding the transport service not meeting my own child’s needs, and exacerbating my child’s SEND needs.

  • Like many other families, I am a working parent with another child to take to and from school. It is not possible for me to take my SEND child to and from school and I heavily rely on this council service.

  • In multiple complaints over the years, Brent council have failed to consider the wellbeing and their duty of care of my child in their decision making. Examples include my child being strapped in a harness which worsened his difficulties, against my wishes where I have been told ‘if I do not agree to a harness then the council will no longer be able to transport my child to and from school’. I have felt I was given no choice as I would have to consider leaving my job to take my child to and from school.

  • Not at any point has the council looked at the number of children on the routes and the journey times being too long as a contributor to the distress he has been facing on the journey to and from school.

  • Health professionals have been ignored including CAMHS recommendations for a shorter journey time and safeguarding concerns raised. This is a continuous concern raised by other parents.

  • I have made complaint after complaint and I have not been listened too. The transport staff are rude, unsympathetic, bringing their personal lives into conversations, and refusing/resisting to give emergency telephone numbers for after hours when children are still not home. It left me no choice but to start a petition in the hope that the council will now act on this.

  • Having recently joined parent forums it has come to my attention that I am not alone in this, and that many other families in the borough are experiencing the same problem with the journey times being too long, with too many children on route.

  • Due to lack of specialist SEND provision in Brent many children have to travel outside the borough to school, or across the borough as there is little specialist provision in the North of the borough.

  • Many SEND Children are not able to attend their most local mainstream primary or secondary school due to their complex special educational needs and are being forced to sit on buses in immense traffic conditions while being transported to and from school. Families have told me that this can range from 2-3 hours per journey, each day.

  • The council state that the increase in travel times is due to the traffic and roadworks and have disregarded that there are too many children on the bus routes which is a significant contributor to travel times.

  • The maximum journey time for a child of primary school age should be 45 minutes each way, and 75 minutes each way for a child of secondary school age. The council is no where near meeting this requirement.

  • Brent buses have increased the number of children on buses to 12 on some routes in a ploy to save money at the expense of these vulnerable children.

  • Our children are often not attending school on time and missing essential statutory education and not coming home at a reasonable time and missing essential family time. They are spending more time on the road than in school which is totally unacceptable.

  • Our children’s SEND needs are being impacted by these long journeys with significant traffic delays and roadworks which is heightening their anxieties and causing immense distress both in school and at home.

  • These SEND children are in need of routine, safety and predictability and are left anxious and upset while parents also wait anxiously for the service that they rely on.

  • Children are not arriving to school in a state where they are ready to learn as they have already had a bad start to the day, which makes them dysregulated. My son is also an example of this. This would therefore result in behaviour difficulties, dysregulation and he certainly is not in state ready to learn.

  • Another example is my son would arrive home some days between 6pm- 6.30pm. School finishes at 3pm. My son on occasions has soiled and wet himself on this long route and would come home extremely distressed as a result of being stuck on transport for 3 hours on the way home. This is one example of many that parents have too shared similar experiences.

  • We urge the council to review the distress this is causing vulnerable young people and their families, and place some extra buses with less children on each route to reduce the journey times and conditions that the most vulnerable in Brent are experiencing.

 

BRENT COUNCIL'S RESPONSE

As a council we take the wellbeing of our children with special educational needs very seriously and are conscious of our obligations to provide suitable travel arrangements to help eligible children get to school.

 

All routes are planned by the Brent and Harrow Transport Hub using specialist software and local knowledge to arrive at school on time, no matter how many children are in the vehicle used.

 

The service uses both directly owned and operated buses, and vehicles provided by a robust group of approved contractors to ensure there is always enough capacity available to meet our obligations to provide suitable travel arrangements within the budgets available. For example, at present our directly operated routes currently run on average at two-thirds of vehicle capacity to reduce journey times.

There are however factors outside of our control that can cause journey times to be longer than planned, such as unscheduled roadworks and children not being ready to board the vehicle on time.

 

As every route, and the children on it, are unique, there can be teething issues when a new route is set up despite the best efforts of route planners, drivers, and passenger assistants. The performance of any new routes is therefore closely monitored and where required adjustments are made.

 

While we appreciate that the number of pick-ups on a route does influence the total journey time, we do have to be conscious of our responsibilities to use taxpayers’ money wisely and run efficient services within budgetary constraints. While this can be a difficult balance to get right, ensuring a good quality service is delivered for children and young people within reasonable journey times will always be our top priority.

 

Speaking to parents about the issue  it became clear that some were concerned that their children's human rights were not being recognised. IPSEA who offer independent advice to parents with SEND children wrote about the importance of parents being able to challenge local authorities over SEND provision last year. HERE

My Winter Wonderland Fun Day - Ark Elvin Sunday 17th December Noon-4pm

 


Monday, 11 December 2023

Global Human Rights Day: Open letter to the Prime Minister and political leaders, urging them to protect universal human rights in the UK.

 On global Human Rights Day, 75+ groups from across the UK issue an open letter to the Prime Minister and political leaders, urging them to protect universal human rights in the UK.

On the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) have coordinated an open letter to the Prime Minister and political leaders signed by 75+ organisations from across the UK.

Published on 10th December 2023, global Human Rights Day, the letter highlights the United Nations’ call for a “movement of shared humanity” - a sentiment reflected by the breadth of organisations that have signed it. Grassroots groups, local charities, international organisations, professional bodies, advocates and lawyers all working in different fields and for different causes have come together to call on the UK Government to reaffirm the commitment to universal human rights, honouring the fundamental principle that human rights are for everyone.

As well as celebrating the incredible mobilisation of civil society to speak up against the UK Government’s unprincipled and unworkable Rights Removal Bill, which was ultimately scrapped this year, the letter highlights the impact that human rights have in the “small places close to home” – a phrase coined by UDHR architect Eleanor Roosevelt. It reflects on the role of the UDHR in inspiring the European Convention on Human Rights and ultimately the UK’s own Human Rights Act.

Together, the organisations tell politicians, “Anchored by common fundamental values that reach beyond divides, the UDHR makes it clear that universal human rights are part of what it means to be human, and not gifts granted by the state.”

Speaking on the release of the open letter, BIHR’s CEO, Sanchita Hosali, said:

Global Human Rights Day should be a time for us all in the UK to reflect on the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agreed across nations in the aftermath of World War II 75 years ago to protect the equal dignity of each of us. Whether in our schools or workplaces, in community centres or housing offices, at police stations and courts, in hospitals and care homes, social work departments and Government offices, our universal human rights, shared by each and every one of us should be respected and protected by those in power.”

Sadly, here at home political debate is characterised by hostility to people’s human rights and a government intent on removing its accountability to us all. Having seen off the very real risk from the Government to scrap our Human Rights Act in favour of a Rights Removal Bill, groups from across the UK have joined together to call on our Prime Minister and political leaders to do better. Yet just days ago we see the Government seeking to set down in law the removal of human rights protections for a whole group of people seeking safety in it’s latest Rwanda Bill. As we mark the 75th anniversary of the UDHR, the Government must move beyond the popularist, often dog whistle politicking around human rights, and commit to realising the vision of universal human rights as a global blueprint for international, national, and local laws and policies.

The letter:



Sunday, 10 December 2023

Barham Park accounts, Council tax on empty and second homes, Vale Farm contract - decisions coming soon

 The Brent Forward Plan gives a note but no details on decisions to be made in the near future.


Coming up in 2024:


Reconsider the accounts of Barham Park Trust 2022-2023

 

To reconsider, following their reference back by the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee under the call-in process, the accounts for the Barham Park Trust 2022-23.

 

 24 Jan 2024 by Barham Park Trust Committee 

 

Lead member: Leader

Lead director: Corporate Director of Finance & Resources

 

Council Tax - Empty and Second Homes Premium 

 To consider a recommendation to charge 100% on empty homes from one year, rather than two years as at present, and to provide 12 months’ notice of the Council’s intention to charge a premium of 100% on Second Homes from 1 April 2025.

 

5th February Cabinet

 

Vale Farm Leisure Centre Procurement Options 

to consider the various methods of providing the Leisure Centre facilities from 2025 onwards and agree on a method of service provision. 

 

8th April 2024 Cabinet

 

Friday, 8 December 2023

Vale Farm Swimming Pool closed while a gas leak is repaired

The swimming pool at Vale Farm is currently closed. This is because of a local gas leak; which has meant that the supply to the leisure centre has had to be temporarily halted whilst Cadent repair the pipe.

 

The centre are contacting all who have booked to use the pool and making them aware of alternate local facilities. As soon as Cadent have repaired the leak; the pool will be able to open again. The rest of the centre remains open for use. 

 

Chalkhill Christmas Celebration Saturday 9th 12 - 4pm


 

BIG UP HARLESDEN Saturday 12 noon - 4pm, Tavistock Hall, Harlesden

 

A 'One Love' community event.

EVENTBRITE BOOKING

Thursday, 7 December 2023

Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – open and transparent?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 


I’ve already written about the Morland Gardens parts of the Affordable Housing Supply Update report to next week’s (11 December 2023) Cabinet meeting, and Martin has also posted a blog about the temporary accommodation proposals in its South Kilburn section. In this article I will cover some of the other points that caught my eye from that report.

 

I am not seeking to underestimate the “challenges” which the Council faces over meeting current housing needs, particularly over the shortage of Central Government funding, rising construction costs and higher interest rates since the disastrous mini-budget during the short-lived Truss premiership. Brent has aimed to do more over housing than many other London Councils, and the recommendations in this report include to ‘approve the use of usable Capital reserves to fund’ the New Council Homes Programme (“NCHP”), and to provide extra resources to tackle the current temporary accommodation crisis. 

 

A recent feature of such reports is a “Cabinet Member Foreword” (though whether these are written by the Lead Members, or for them by a Council Officer, is unclear). I was struck by these words from this Foreword’s para. 3.5: ‘this report emphasises the importance of being open and transparent with all ….’ I agree that openness and transparency are very important, but does this report deliver on those words?

 


In the report, are the Council being honest about what they have achieved so far? The Cabinet Member for Housing says: ‘we are on track to meet our target of 5,000 homes by 2028’. When the NCHP target was first launched five years ago, the aim was 5,000 affordable homes built in the borough between April 2019 and March 2024 inclusive. As part of that aim, the Council set itself ‘a strategic target of delivering 1,000 new council homes at genuinely affordable rent by 31 March 2024.’ So, they’ve missed that target, and replaced it with another!

 

 

Table 1 in the report (above), which should be accurate because the “numbers” have been “cleansed”, shows that 3,901 affordable homes will have been finished in the borough in the five years to March 2024 (although the “by tenure” column totals 3,943! - see my corrections in red). 812 of those are shown as delivered by Brent Council. But only 560 (those described as “General Needs”) of the new Council homes will be “genuinely affordable”, and of those 235 were for existing Council tenants being moved from older blocks due to be demolished. 

 

The affordable homes provided by RPs (Registered Providers of social housing, such as Housing Associations) make up 3,089 of the 3,901 total, but only 940 of those homes appear to be “genuinely affordable”. That is just over 30% of the total, with the rest being “intermediate” homes, such as shared ownership. Although most of these will have received planning consent before Brent’s Local Plan came into force in February 2022, that is the opposite of the tenure split for affordable housing which is now supposed to apply: 70% genuinely affordable and no more than 30% “intermediate” affordable housing.

 

More details about the types of “affordable housing” can be found in an article, Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – figuring out Cllr. Butt’s reply, which I wrote after a previous Cabinet update in November 2022.

 

The report has a section headed “Schemes on site and in main works contract”, and there are two schemes in particular from this that I would draw attention to. The first of these is Watling Gardens, the Council’s positive publicity over the start of work on which was mentioned in another article on Brent’s Council housing in October.

 


 

While the report says that this scheme ‘is currently on track’, it would cost more than the £38.5m which Brent’s Cabinet approved as the contract award price in June 2022. Brent’s answer is to issue an instruction that the project must be “value engineered”. What does that mean? It means that it will still have to built as planned, but using some materials which are less expensive than those originally intended. Previous examples of “value engineering” which come to mind are the use of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) in some public buildings during cost saving measures in the 1960s to 1980s, and the £300k “saved” by using cheaper cladding when Grenfell Tower was being refurbished!

 

The stage and TV drama, where all the words were taken directly from Inquiry transcripts!

 

I’m not trying to suggest that the cost saving at Watling Gardens would result in anything as life-threatening as Grenfell Tower, but in the interests of transparency the public, and particularly future residents of the development (including those whose homes were demolished with the promise of a replacement there), deserve to be told what cheaper materials will be used as part of this “value engineering”.

 

I have written about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone project on a number of occasions, including about the extra GLA funding it received, and about the 152 out of 250 homes on the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue which Brent’s “developer partner” will get for private sale, rather than being Council homes for Brent people in housing need. The report now says there will be less than 250 homes, because of the need for extra staircases, as a result of fire safety changes following the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

 


 

I’m pleased to see that Brent appears to have learned one lesson from Morland Gardens (the need to begin work before planning consent expires), but why has it taken nearly three years to get to this stage? However, the report does not say how many of the new figure of 237 homes will be for private sale, and how many of those left for the Council will now be for “genuinely affordable” rent, rather than shared ownership. A lack of openness, which I will try to remedy!

 

You need to read to the end of the report, on page 21, to find out what it means by ‘the importance of being open and transparent’, which I quoted near the start of this article. It appears that, to Brent Council and its Cabinet, this is more to do with the messages it gives out, rather than a commitment to being genuinely open and transparent about everything:

 


 

In other words, it is the usual “spin” that Brent Council puts out, either only sharing “good news” stories (usually with the Leader and/or one of his Cabinet colleagues getting the credit for something positive) or giving the reasons (excuses?) for why they can’t do what they had originally promised to deliver.


Philip Grant