The Pageant of Empire, 1924 – Part 2: Eastward and Southward Ho!

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

Extract from the programme cover for Part 2 of the Pageant. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

Welcome back to my second article about this Pageant, which took place during the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley Park in 1924. If you have not read Part 1, you will find it here.

 

The Pageant was performed in three parts, and I have already dealt with the opening section of Part 2, “The Days of Queen Elizabeth”, which was played by local people from Wembley. Here are a few more pictures of that, which are screenshots from a British Pathé newsreel film. I found that on YouTube, incorrectly described as Wembley Exhibition Reel 3 (1925). It is definitely from 1924, and was almost certainly filmed at the matinee performance of Part 2 of the Pageant of Empire, on Saturday 16 August 1924.

 

More scenes from Wembley’s Elizabethan Episode. (Screenshots from a British Pathé newsreel film)

 

Part 2 continued with a scene from 1655, in which Admiral Blake and his naval squadron defeated Barbary pirates, making the Mediterranean safe for British ships and rescuing some sailors who had been captured and put to work as galley slaves. The commentary in the programme concludes: ‘The English flag has broken the power of the Corsairs’.

 

Although Part 2 was entitled “Eastward Ho!”, its next section was about, and staged by, the Dominion of South Africa. Its prelude depicted Phoenician sailors landing at the Cape, on a voyage around the coast of Africa on behalf of the Egyptian Pharoah Necho, around 606BC, ‘two thousand years before the first white man set foot in Africa.’ Scene 1 depicts the first Europeans to land on this coast, Portuguese sailors, including Vasco de Gama in 1496.

 

Scenes 2 and 3 show the first Dutch settlers arriving at Table Bay in 1652, and being joined by French Huguenot refugees, at the invitation of the Dutch East India Company, from 1688. It is not until scene 4 that South Africa’s first British settlers arrive, in 1820, under a Government financed scheme to claim “Cape Colony” for Britain. 

 

Two images from scene 4, showing British settlers arriving in South Africa.
(Screenshots from a British Pathé newsreel film)

 

It is this scene which helps to show the scale of the scenery used in the Pageant. It was all designed by the artist Frank Brangwyn R.A., and used 25,000 square feet (over 2,300m2) of Baltic timber. The full-size replica sailing ship did move across the scene, and the artificial sea at one end of the stadium, on which real boats were rowed, held 220,000 gallons of water.

 

Zulu warriors preparing to attack the Boers at Blood River. (Screenshot from a British Pathé newsreel film)

 

Scene 5 shows the British meeting the Zulu King Tchaka in 1824, and getting permission to start a small coastal colony in Natal. Moving on to 1886, scene 6 shows a breakdown in relations between the Dutch Boer community, who wish to move further inland, and a later Zulu leader, resulting in a staging of the Battle of Blood River (on Wembley’s “hallowed turf”!). The Boers defenders overwhelm the native warriors’ spears with gunfire, and ‘demoralise the Zulus and completely rout them. Thus the Boers are left to settle where they please.’

 

The British were also trying to settle where they pleased, and push north into what is now Zimbabwe. Scene 8 is described in this extract from the Part 2 programme, and it is this patriotic version of how our country treated the lands of other peoples that I find so distasteful.

 

Scene 9 shows Cecil Rhodes, a leading figure in the expansion of the British Empire in Southern Africa, travelling without an army to negotiate with the Matabele kingdom in 1896. He is successful in getting agreement for British settlers to come and start farming in their lands. The fruits of his success were seen at the Exhibition less than 30 years later, when the South African Pavilion included a section for Southern Rhodesia (a country named after him), showing the produce of its British-owned tobacco plantations.

 

Postcard showing Southern Rhodesia tobacco at the BEE in 1924. (Brent Archives online image 9961)

 

The final scene 10 of this section of the Pageant is entitled “An Allegory of the Union of South Africa”. It portrays the benefits of a federal state, in which both British and Boers can govern their own provinces, within the British Empire, and the scene ends with the choir and orchestra performing “Land of Hope and Glory”. The Pageant’s history of South Africa does not include the significant (but uncomfortable to the storyline!) episode of the Boer War, 1899-1902.

 

Part 2 of the Pageant, “Eastward Ho!”, ends with India. It has only one scene, “The Early Days of India”, but that puts on a spectacular show. It depicts the Mogul Emperor Jehangir receiving Sir Thomas Roe, an envoy from the British East India Company, in 1626, seeking to set up trading ties. The scene begins in a busy eastern bazaar, then a parade featuring seven elephants shipped in from the subcontinent, and camels from Egypt. We also see Sir Thomas having his audience with the Emperor.

 

Some scenes from the Indian section of the Pageant. (Screenshots from a British Pathé newsreel film)

 

Most readers will know that there was more to the history of Britain’s relations with India than trading between equal nations! Yet this is how the Pageant’s programme notes move on from this scene to sum up that history in two short paragraphs:

 

Extract from the Part 2 Pageant programme. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

You may recall that in an article at the start of this BEE centenary year I wrote: ‘It was an Act of Parliament in 1876, not any rulers of its many states, which awarded an additional title to Queen Victoria: Empress of India!’

 

Moving on, Part 3 of the Pageant was “Southward Ho!”, performed on Wednesday and some Saturday evenings between 27 July and 30 August. Its prologue shows King George III at Windsor Castle, sending Captain Cook on an expedition to “the Southern Seas”, where he has heard ‘there are great new lands there which may be added to our Realm’. Sure enough, the first scene of New Zealand’s section shows Captain Cook “discovering” the North Island of that country in 1769. After an initially hostile meeting with a Maori tribe there, his crew are allowed ashore to fill their water barrels. Cook takes the opportunity to stick a pole in the ground, hoist ‘the British Flag’, and take possession of the land ‘in the name of His Most Gracious Majesty’.

 

New Zealand’s scene 2 shows the first British settlers arriving in 1840, after ‘an attempt by French adventurers to establish a claim on the islands finally drove the British Government into a formal annexation.’ A New Zealand Land Company had been set up, which ‘bought a vast tract of land from 58 Maori chiefs.’ The programme notes record that this was soon followed with ‘the Treaty of Waitangi, by which the chiefs ceded the sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria, receiving in return a guarantee of the rights and privileges of British subjects.’

This section of the Pageant is quite frank in revealing that the Maori people of New Zealand did not understand the “bargain” they had made with the British. I will include the programme text for scene 3 in full, because it does show the reality of how the Empire treated the indigenous people of the lands they annexed, if they resisted.

 

Extract from the Part 3 Pageant programme. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

New Zealand’s final scene 4 is entitled “Peace and Prosperity”, and begins with these words: ‘The Maori rebellion died out after many years. Much of the land of the rebel tribes which had been confiscated was returned to them, and under tolerant and tactful administration their troubles were soon forgotten.’ That may be largely true, but when King George V visited the Maori house, beside the New Zealand Pavilion at the Exhibition in 1924, a Maori delegation complained to him that Britain had not honoured its side of the Treaty of Waitangi!

 

Postcard showing King George V, with Queen Mary and his officials, visiting the Maori house in 1924.
(Brent Archives online image 969)

 

The Maori’s had rebelled in the 1860s because of the growing number of emigrants from Britain settling on their land. But at Wembley Park in 1924, the New Zealand Pavilion was still handing out leaflets, like this one, encouraging more people to come!

 

Outside cover of a New Zealand promotional leaflet from 1924. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

The Australian section of the Pageant followed on from New Zealand, but I will not spend much time on it. It begins with the first settlement in the newly-created Colony of New South Wales in 1788, passes through an “era of development” in the 1800s, before ending with a great parade celebrating the produce and resources that Australia wants to trade with the rest of the British Empire, and the world. 

 

Unlike its New Zealand neighbour, there is not a single word in Australia’s Pageant about the aboriginal people of this southern continent, and how appallingly they were treated (and in some ways, continue to be treated). For an insight into their story, we have had to wait for programmes like The Australian Wars (still available on BBC iPlayer).

 

Part 3 closes with a finale, featuring all the nations taking part in the British Empire Exhibition, and the people from them. This is how the programme describes it, although history shows it would be a few more decades before there was a true ‘Commonwealth of Free Nations’:

Extract from the Part 3 Pageant programme. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

The Burmese contingent on their way to the Pageant finale. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

I am lucky that, in 1964, Wembley History Society received donations of several albums put together by people involved in the Exhibition forty years earlier. One featured Burma (above, now Myanmar), and another was from Mr Beck, who had been the Resident Superintendent of the Nigerian Village at Wembley. In his album were copies of photographs taken by a daily newspaper of the Nigerians rehearsing in the stadium for their part in the Pageant’s finale. 

 

The Nigerian “horse race” at the stadium rehearsal, with Mr Beck arrowed. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

Mr Beck had annotated some of the photographs, and in the one above he had marked himself (disguised in Nigerian robes) with a “x”, which I have replaced with an arrow, for clarity. His caption shows that he was meant to be leading the group of horsemen (plus a horsewoman in disguise, Mrs Cumberbatch – any relation of Benedict?) at a trot. Instead, Bala, a silversmith from Kano, led a charge down the stadium, just for fun, during the rehearsal!

 

There were other photographs showing the Nigerians in high spirits, but the “News Chronicle” chose to print just this one, showing Mamman, Bala’s young brother and apprentice, in a more docile pose from the Pageant rehearsal, with two donkeys.

 

Mamman and two donkeys, at the rehearsal in the stadium. (Source: Brent Archive – Mr Beck’s album)

 

In all, the Pageant made use of fifty donkeys, which when not taking part in performances were kept at the nearby Oakington Manor Farm (known locally by the farmer’s name, as Sherren’s Farm). Wembley’s police force became familiar with them, when every available policeman was called out to round them up, after they escaped from their field one night in August!

 

Article from “The Wembley News”, 14 August 1924. (Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

On that lighter note, I will end my description of Part 3, and of the Pageant of Empire at the British Empire Exhibition in 1924. But what are we to make of that event? The “Daily Express”, at the time, described it as ‘the climax of centuries of British heroism, pride, endeavour and struggle.’ My own view is less glowing, as you will have gathered from reading these articles.

 

Yes, the history is important, but we need to look at it honestly, the bad as well as the good. We need wider education about it, seeking and listening to the views of people from the countries which were part of Britain’s Empire, in order to get a wider perspective and understanding of the past. This centenary year of the Exhibition at Wembley Park provides a good opportunity to start doing that.

 

You will have the chance to share your views, and your family’s stories of Empire, through the “Becoming Brent” project. You can find details of its events on the Brent Libraries, Arts and Heritage Eventbrite site, or read about it on the Museum and Archives blog. Or, if you prefer, add a comment below.

Philip Grant.

Barnet Unison mental health social workers remain in year-long dispute after talks with Barnet Council break down. 50% of permanent workforce have left since January

 

Photo: Barnet Unison

Mental health work is one of the most under-funded and under-valued part of the public sector. Here Barnet Unison explain what their year-long dispute is all about.

Barnet UNISON mental health social workers dispute with Barnet Council since 1 September 2023 has been over the failure to agree a recruitment and retention payment due to high turnover of staff across three mental health social worker teams.

On Monday 15 July 2024 UNISON wrote to Barnet Council suspending strike action and agreeing to go into talks to try and resolve the dispute.

Unfortunately talks broke down as it became clear in the meeting that Barnet Council was not prepared to reconsider their position.

The following facts provide a glimpse of the scale of the crisis facing Barnet Council.

• 50% of the permanent workforce will have left one of the three mental health social work team workforce since 1 January 2024.
• 31 mental health social workers will have left one of the three mental health social work teams in the last two years.
• 12 mental health social workers have left the mental health social work team North in the last two years.
• 19 mental health social workers have left the mental health social work team South in the last two years.
• Did you know that 40% of AMHPs have left the AMHP team in the last two months.
• 100% of AMHPs across the North and South mental health teams resigned and left the Council by the end of August 2024.
• In July 2023 Barnet Council informed UNISON that they had a budget of £266k to resolve this dispute.
• In a meeting with Acas in March 2024 with UNISON they doubled their budget to £532k.
• It would cost £150k to settle this dispute

You can read more facts about this dispute here on our website h

At our last meeting with Barnet Council our reps informed senior management that they were leaving because it had become clear that Barnet Council does not value their staff or service users. Our members strongly believe that it is not safe to practice as a mental health social worker in the three frontline mental health teams.

 John Burgess, Branch Secretary, Barnet UNISON said:

It has become apparently clear that Barnet Council has chosen confrontation rather than negotiation to resolve this high-profile dispute. It is not about the money because we know there is a pot three times bigger than what would be needed to bring this dispute to a close. The sheer scale of the numbers of social workers leaving these three teams should have set alarm bells ringing with senior management. The fact that they appear unconcerned about the risks of the chronic levels of turnover has left mental health social workers feeling deeply unsafe. We still have some members who are currently still working but feeling very scared about what could happen in terms of risks. Failure to end this dispute will leave Barnet Council exposed as an uncaring and unsafe workplace for mental health social workers.

I have recently reached out to the Chief Executive and Leader of Barnet Council to come back with a revised offer which may be able to retain some of the current staff and encourage experienced mental health social workers to come and work for Barnet.

Until there is a credible offer the Barnet UNISON mental health social worker dispute remains live and we will continue to report on the dispute. It is our duty to advocate for a safe working environment for our members and no one will silence our voice for our members.

 

Brent refuses Woodcock Hill 20 metre mast application but Appeal possible

 

Brent Council has refused permission for the siting of a 20 metre tall telecommunications mast on green space on Woodcock Hill. The refusal was based on the siting and appearance of the mast:

Although the proposal would bring benefits in terms of technology and communications, its siting, together with its height and appearance in an area of open character, would result in a harmful impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and the surrounding area.

 

The proposal is therefore considered unacceptable in terms of siting and appearance. Prior Approval is therefore required and refused having regard to Part 16 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended.

It should be noted (as set out below) that some of the issues raised by objectors (see LINK) including CPRE, Friends of Woodcock Park, Northwick Park Residents Association and Cllr Michael Maurice have not been supported  in the officers' report. A request to send the application to Planning Committee by Cllr Maurice was refused on the ground that it would delay a decision beyond the statutory period which would have the effect of granting automatic approval - 'deemed consent'.

Nevertheless, the 31 objectors will be pleased with the decision but will note that the applicant can appeal.  The refusal on just one major ground (siting and visual appearance, impact on the street scene) could lead to an Appeal.

From the officers' report:

Assessment

 

This application has been submitted as a prior approval submitted under Part 16 of the GPDO 2015 (as amended). The application therefore requires whether prior approval is required from the Local Planning Authority regarding the siting and appearance of the proposed development.

 

The proposal meets the requirements as set out in Class A1 of Part 16. However, the siting and appearance is required to be taken into account, as assessed against Condition A.2 Part (1) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended).

 

Appearance, Design and Location:

 

Paragraph 119 of the NPPF (2023) emphasises that sites for radio and telecoms masts should be kept to a minimum. Where new sites are required, equipment should be sympathetically designed and camouflaged where appropriate.

 

Brent's Local Plan policy DMP1 states that 'development will be acceptable provided it is retaining existing blue and green infrastructure including water ways, open space, high amenity trees and landscape features and providing appropriate additions or enhancements where possible'. An appropriate addition may be 'of a location, use, concentration, siting, layout, scale, type, density, materials, detailing and design that provides high levels of internal and external amenity and complements the locality'.

 

The current application is primarily concerned with the installation of a 20 metres high monopole supporting associated antennae, transmission dishes and equipment cabinets to the site.

 

The application site is designated as SINC Grade II (Wealdstone Brook) that constitutes an area of protected open space and therefore is also of ecological value. The location is considered to act as a physical connection between the green corridors in the area, which contribute to sustaining biodiversity in the area. Although an Ecology Report was not submitted, the council’s Ecology Officer has reviewed the application and considered that, whilst located close to the SINC, no direct impact on the watercourse is likely to occur. The Ecology Officer states however that the construction works should follow best practice and maintain a no work zone within a minimum 10m buffer from the watercourse.

 

With regard to its siting, the proposed development would be positioned to the centre of this strip of land, which is short grassland surrounding by trees between Woodcock Hill, Woodgrange Avenue and Retreat Close. It would be located to the south of Wealdstone Brook and, on the opposite side, a row of family dwelling houses. The proposed development, particularly the mast, due to its height and location, would be visible from long views across the area, whereas the cabinet would primarily be seen from Woodcock Hill. The site is located on an open section of road, as explained above, where a portion of lawn provides a clear view, unobstructed by street furniture that might have otherwise helped to reduce the perceived size of the development. Additionally, while there are trees on the site, they would not provide a reliable or consistent screen for the structure. This is due to seasonal changes that affect the trees' foliage and the sizes of the trees, which are insufficient to offer permanent coverage.

 

Based on the assessment provided, the proposed telecommunications equipment would indeed create a visually incongruous and overly dominant structure that would negatively affect the visual appeal, character, and overall appearance of the streetscape and the broader area. Consequently, the proposal is considered to have a detrimental impact on the surrounding streetscene, and it is recommended for refusal on these grounds.

 

Transport Considerations:

 

The applicant proposes to locate the equipment approx. 6.8m from the back of the footway. The equipment will be sited on the riverbank of Wealdstone Brook, rather on the footway.

 

The location of the equipment, being clear of the Public Highway, does not therefore give rise to any highway and pedestrian safety concerns. The doors of the equipment would not open out onto the Public Highway. The transport team has also advised that for any maintenance, vehicles would not be able to stop on Woodcock Hill due to the restricted parking, so vehicles would need to stop further afield. The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the safe use of the public highway at this location and therefore considered acceptable in transport terms.

 

Tree Considerations

 

The trees on the site are not subject of a TPO or growing within a designated Conservation Area, however they are growing directly adjacent to Wealdstone Brook which is a site of importance for nature conservation (SINC).

 

The application is accompanied by a Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment incorporating Arboricultural Method Statement by ACS Consulting. The survey identifies several trees such as T1 a category A Oak tree, T2 a category B Prunus and G1 a category B group of trees growing adjacent to the brook. There is also T3 a category C Prunus tree. The RPA of all trees and the current canopy area are all protected by the proposed development and associated Arboricultural Method Statement. T1 particularly does have scope to grow quite significantly, however its current canopy is taken account of in the proposals. Confirmation has been provided by the applicant that hardstanding is not needed in

relation to site access for maintenance purposes. Should the application be approved, an Informative would be attached to remind the applicant that the installation should fully comply with the Arboricultura Method Statement in terms of protection measures including fencing

 

Non-ionizing radiation (NIR) considerations

 

Paragraph 122 of the NPPF (2023) specifies (in relation to communication infrastructure), that Local Planning Authorities must determine applications on planning grounds and should not determine health safeguards if the proposal meets International Commission guidelines for public exposure. A certificate has been supplied stating that the equipment complies with the requirements of the radio frequency public exposure guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP) as expressed in EU Council recommendation of 12th July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields up to 300 GHz. The remit of the local authority is to ensure that a certificate has been provided and as this has been done, health considerations are not further considered.

 

Equalities

 

In line with the Public Sector Equality Duty, the Council must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity, as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. In making this recommendation, regard has been given to the Public Sector Equality Duty and the relevant protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation).

 

Other matters

 

As noted above, neighbouring occupiers did not receive their notification letters and a Ward Cllr requested that the application be considered at planning committee. In this instance, because the General Permitted Development Order requires that a determination is made before the expiry of 56 days beginning with the date on which the application was received, otherwise the application will have "deemed consent". Delaying the application for consideration at the next planning committee would have taken the determination beyond 56 days.

 

In relation to letters not being delivered, this is beyond the control of the Council. Records confirm that the letters were issued. Notwithstanding, a site notice had been erected.

 

Conclusion

 

Although the proposal would bring benefits in terms of technology and communications, its siting, together with its height and appearance in an area of open character, would result in a harmful impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and the surrounding area.

 

The proposal is therefore considered unacceptable in terms of siting and appearance. Prior Approval is therefore required and refused having regard to Part 16 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended.

 

Wembley Stadium's 9 extra non-sporting events application to be heard on September 11th. Brent Chief Planner recommends 'GRANT CONSENT'

 From Brent Council

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (as amended) THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Re: Wembley National Stadium, Olympic Way, Wembley, HA9 0WS

I refer to the planning application for the above site which proposes:-

Variation of conditions 1 (Event Cap) and 2 (Temporary Traffic Management) of Variation of Conditions reference 20/4197 dated 21 June, 2021, for Proposed variation of Condition 1 (event cap) of planning permission reference 18/4307 (varied permission for the construction of the stadium, dated 07/03/2019), to allow up to 9 additional major non-sporting events per event calendar year.

The current application includes the submission of an Environmental Statement.

The application will be formally considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 11 September, 2024 starting at 6pm.

This meeting of the Committee has been arranged to take place in the Conference Hall, at the Civic Centre.

Those who wish to observe proceedings may either do so in person or via the live webstream which we will make available on the Council’s website:

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/democracy-in-brent/local-democracy/live-streaming/
 

It is possible to speak at the Committee Meeting, which can be undertaken online (or via the telephone) or in person at the meeting, subject to the restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or representing a group of people.

To address the committee you must notify Executive and Member Services by 5 pm on the working day before the committee meeting. Please email committee@brent.gov.uk or telephone the Executive and Member Services Officer, Mrs Dev Bhanji, on 07786 681276 during office hours. Please indicate if you intend to speak at physical meeting or online.

The Chief Planner's recommendation for this application is to Grant Consent subject to Legal agreement

Yours sincerely

Sean Newton
Neighbourhoods & Regeneration

Brent Council delivers ultimatum to Lime over badly parked and abandoned e-bikes: 'Respond to our requests or remove your bikes from the borough by October 31st'

 

Lime bikes outside St Andrew's Church, Kingsbury

Brent Council Press Release

Lime has been notified that it must remove its dockless e-bikes from Brent by 31 October if it continues to ignore Brent Council's safety concerns and suggestions for improvements to the scheme.

Brent has partnered with Lime since 2019 and currently hosts 750 e-bikes in the borough as part of its commitment to promoting sustainable and active travel and reducing pollution.

While the partnership has supported this ambition, e-bikes have also come with significant safety concerns, which Lime has not currently addressed to the council’s satisfaction.

Of particular concern is the already high and increasing number of incidents of inconsiderately parked and abandoned e-bikes reported to the council daily and the often slow response time by Lime to remove these.

Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council said:

 

Lime bikes left scattered across our streets are causing havoc for other road users, especially for pedestrians and disabled people. Residents have gone sour on Lime and the council is receiving repeated, regular complaints about the bikes left across paths and roads in a haphazard way. This is putting unsustainable pressure on council staff who are spending time cleaning up after Lime. Something needs to change as the current situation is unsustainable and leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

The council has written to Lime proposing several changes to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the scheme in Brent, while also meeting its wider transport and environmental objectives of creating healthier, more resilient and more welcoming streets and neighbourhoods.

These requests included:

• The introduction of dedicated e-bike parking bays: This would ensure e-bikes are parked safely in dedicated, cordoned-off areas which attract a high number of journeys and with high footfall, such as stations, town centres, employment areas and other visitor attractions. A ‘no parking zone’ would be introduced in all other areas of the borough with any e-bikes left in this zone removed by Lime in an agreed timeframe. This would also support a new London-wide e-mobility contract being developed by Transport for London, London Councils and boroughs to make the usage of e-bikes and e-scooters safer and more consistent across the capital. Planned to launch in 2026, a central element of the scheme is a requirement to provide dedicated, controlled parking for rental e-bikes and e-scooters.
  
  
• Dedicated in-borough resources to manage day-to-day operations: Dedicated local resources would help ensure that any e-bikes reported to be inconsiderately parked or abandoned be removed swiftly, which is not currently the case. Brent has also requested that Lime increases penalties for users who fail to leave their e-bikes in the correct location from the current fine which is set at £10 and which the council does not feel provides an adequate deterrent.
  
  
• A commitment from Lime to give back to the local community: In line with the council’s commitment to all its partnerships adding value to the local community, the council asked Lime to consider providing local training and employment opportunities and community engagement events as part of its activities in the borough. This would include a Brent Resident Forum where users and non-users can meet with the council and Lime to share their views on how the scheme is working locally and any improvements.

 Lime’s response to Brent Council’s above requests has not been satisfactory. Muhammed Butt said:

To date, Lime has not satisfied our proposals, which we consider vital to ensuring the safe and efficient operation of the scheme in Brent. Unless Lime changes the way it works with us, we are out of road for its activities in Brent.

The council is awaiting a response to its latest letter to Lime with its position. Pending this response, Brent Council has provided formal pre-emptive notice to Lime that all e-bikes must be removed from Brent by 31 October 2024.

Councillor Butt concluded

It’s high time Lime takes responsibility for its service and users. We want Lime to take ours and residents’ concerns seriously and amend its operating model to account for the common-sense asks we have made.

Bobby Moore Bridge – formal complaint submitted over advertising lease award

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The Question and Answer from the Full Council meeting agenda papers.

 

When I wrote my 10 July guest post “Bobby Moore Bridge murals – where will the advertising money be spent?” it was on the basis of a fairly vague answer given by Cllr. Muhammed Butt to a Full Council meeting question from a member of the public. It looked as if some or all of the rental income from the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease would be spent on Brent’s “communications”, which help to promote the Council Leader and his Cabinet. 

 

The Report to the 28 May Cabinet meeting, which recommended the award of a lease which provided slightly more income but left the tile murals in the subway covered up for at least another four years, had been written by Brent’s Head of Communications. That appeared to be a serious conflict of interests, but I did not think I had strong enough evidence of where the money would be spent to make a complaint.

 

I did not know the person who had asked the question, but did manage to make contact with him. As he was also keen to get a more specific answer, he agreed to ask a supplementary question, and at the Council meeting on 8 July the Mayor promised that he would receive a written answer to it. It took a few weeks, but this is the response, which he has shared with me:

 

So there it is, from the Leader of the Council himself (who is also the Cabinet Lead Member for Communications, so probably knew where the money was going when he announced, without a vote, that Option B had been accepted). ‘All of the income generated from the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising revenue is allocated to the communications service budget.’

 

Now that I had the evidence to back up the case set out in my 10 July guest post, I sent an open letter to Brent’s Chief Executive on 30 August, making a formal complaint about how the award of the advertising lease had been dealt with. I will ask Martin to include a copy of my open letter at the end of this post, for anyone who would like to read it in full, but this is the text of the email that I sent it with, which summarises the position. (I have already received an acknowledgement to it, and a promise that Kim Wright will respond to my complaint):

 

‘Dear Ms Wright,

 

I am attaching an open letter to you, making a formal complaint about bias and a conflict of interests by a Council Officer (or Officers) in the Report and Recommendations to the 28 May 2024 Cabinet meeting on the award of the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease.

 

I am also attaching, as it gives further background and detail on my complaint, a pdf document copy of an online article I had published on 10 July, in response to the answer given to a public question at the 8 July Full Council meeting. 

 

That answer gave an indication of where the rental income from the advertising lease would be spent, but as the Mayor said, at the meeting, that a supplementary question had been asked, to which a written reply would be provided, I have waited for further clarity on the facts before making this complaint.

 

Please see the suggested remedies section, on page 3 of my letter, as urgent action may be required if the new advertising lease from 31 August 2024 has not yet been signed and sealed by the Council. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.’

 

As the Chief Executive is only responsible for the actions of Council staff, not councillors, I had to restrict my complaint to that side of the award. But I also wanted to publicly express my views over the actions of Cllr. Butt, and this letter from me was published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” on 29 August. They published my letter in full, but did not use my suggested heading for it: “Leader abused his power”!

 

Philip Grant.

Forced academisation remains a possibility but other school improvement methods may be used in the future

 The DfE press release about Ofsted changes seems to indicate that forced academisation remains a possibility when a school receives an Inadequate Ofsted rating but other methods may be used by the Secretary of State giving her more leeway. Over the summer holiday Bridget Phillipson gave the go ahead for the takeover of Byron Court Primary School by the Harris Federation. This took effect from yesterday.

The Press Release (my highlighting)

Single headline grades for schools will be scrapped with immediate effect to boost school standards and increase transparency for parents, the government has announced today.

Reductive single headline grades fail to provide a fair and accurate assessment of overall school performance across a range of areas and are supported by a minority of parents and teachers. 

The change delivers on the government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity and demonstrates the Prime Minister’s commitment to improve the life chances of young people across the country.

For inspections this academic year, parents will see four grades across the existing sub-categories: quality of education, behaviour and attitudes, personal development and leadership & management.

This reform paves the way for the introduction of School Report Cards from September 2025, which will provide parents with a full and comprehensive assessment of how schools are performing and ensure that inspections are more effective in driving improvement. Recent data shows that reports cards are supported by 77% of parents.

The government will continue to intervene in poorly performing schools to ensure high school standards for children.

Bridget Phillipson, Education Secretary, said:

The need for Ofsted reform to drive high and rising standards for all our children in every school is overwhelmingly clear. The removal of headline grades is a generational reform and a landmark moment for children, parents, and teachers.

Single headline grades are low information for parents and high stakes for schools. Parents deserve a much clearer, much broader picture of how schools are performing – that’s what our report cards will provide.

This government will make inspection a more powerful, more transparent tool for driving school improvement. We promised change, and now we are delivering.

As part of today’s announcement, where schools are identified as struggling, government will prioritise rapidly getting plans in place to improve the education and experience of children, rather than relying purely on changing schools’ management.

From early 2025, the government will also introduce Regional Improvement Teams that will work with struggling schools to quickly and directly address areas of weakness, meeting a manifesto commitment.

The Education Secretary has already begun to reset relations with education workforces, supporting the Government’s pledge to recruit 6,500 new teachers, and reform to Ofsted marks another key milestone.

Today’s announcement follows engagement with the sector and family of headteacher Ruth Perry, after a coroner’s inquest found the Ofsted inspection process had contributed to her death.

The government will work closely with Ofsted and relevant sectors and stakeholders to ensure that the removal of headline grades is implemented smoothly.

Jason Elsom, Chief Executive of Parentkind, said:

We welcome the decision by the Secretary of State to prioritise Ofsted reform. The move to end single-word judgements as soon as practical, whilst giving due care and attention to constructing a new and sustainable accountability framework during the year ahead, is the right balance for both schools and parents. 

Most parents understand the need for school inspection, but they want that inspection to help schools to improve as well as giving a verdict on the quality of education their children are receiving. When we spoke to parents about what was important to them, their children being happy at school was a big talking point and should not be overlooked.

Parents have been very clear that they want to see changes to the way Ofsted reports back after visiting a school, and it is welcome to see a clear timetable being set out today for moving towards a report card that will give parents greater clarity of the performance of their children’s school. We need to make sure that we get this right for parents, as well as schools.

There is much more we can do to include the voice of parents in Ofsted inspections and reform of our school system, and today’s announcement is a big step in the right direction.

Paul Whiteman, General Secretary of National Association of Headteachers, said:

The scrapping of overarching grades is a welcome interim measure. We have been clear that simplistic one-word judgements are harmful, and we are pleased the government has taken swift action to remove them.

School leaders recognise the need for accountability but it must be proportionate and fair and so we are pleased to see a stronger focus on support for schools instead of heavy-handed intervention.

There is much work to do now in order to design a fundamentally different long-term approach to inspection and we look forward to working with government to achieve that.

Where necessary, in cases of the most serious concern, government will continue to intervene, including by issuing an academy order, which may in some cases mean transferring to new management. Ofsted will continue to identify these schools – which would have been graded as inadequate.

The government also currently intervenes where a school receives two or more consecutive judgements of ‘requires improvement’ under the ‘2RI’ policy. With the exception of schools already due to convert to academies this term, this policy will change. The government will now put in place support for these schools from a high performing school, helping to drive up standards quickly.

Today’s changes build on the recently announced Children’s Wellbeing Bill, which will put children at the centre of education and make changes to ensure every child is supported to achieve and thrive.

2nd Brent Reggae Album Covers Exhibition Curator's Talk tonight: Harlesden Library - drop-in for free from 6.30pm - 8.30pm

 

Highly recommended, The first one was informative. hilarious at times and very, very friendly.