The Greens and Trade Unions - deputy leadership candidates questioned

 

 

For those depressed by the prospect of a summer of debate between the candidates for the Tory leadership, the contest between candidates for the Deputy Leadership of the Green Party may offer some  hope. 

The Green Party Trade Union Group has achieved increasing prominence within the Green Party through its activities in support of trade union struggle and its insistence that the transition to a low carbon economy can only be achieved through working with trade unions. 

Here the four candidates respond to some searching questions from members. 

The candidates are:

• Shahrar Ali
• Nick Humberstone
• Zack Polanski
• Tyrone Scott

 

Bear hunters spotted on Olympic Way and Chalkhill allotment

 

I could not resist posting these photographs of what is developing into an annual event from community group Daniel's Den. The pictures by professional photographer Amanda Rose capture the joy and fun of the event.  Michael Rosen, author of the picture book Going on a Bear Hunt was so impressed that he retweeted them.

Clement Close – how Council housing began here

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant.

 

Clement Close was the subject of a recent blog, about residents’ opposition to Brent’s proposed in-fill scheme for this Council housing estate. But how did this estate come to be here, surrounded by suburban homes in Brondesbury Park? The answer lies in another time of acute housing shortage.

 

 

Some prefab homes in Clement Way, 1950s. (Photo courtesy of Brent Archives)

 

Even though they were in the middle of a major conflict in 1942, some members of the Churchill’s National Government were thinking ahead to how they would rebuild the country after the war. Housing people whose homes had been destroyed would be a major problem. One solution they came up with was the idea of temporary factory-made houses, and by 1944 local Councils were instructed to consider how many they would need, and where to put them.

 

One of the sites identified in the Borough Engineer’s report to Willesden Council on 15 January 1945 was the playing fields at Okehampton Road, where he thought there would be space for 135 “prefabs”, as they came to be known. The Council ‘noted’ the objections received by residents adjoining the playing fields, to the erection of emergency housing there, at its meeting on 19 February 1945. Despite this, at the end of May 1945 the Council applied for a loan of £31k from the Ministry of Health, for a period of ten years, and accepted tenders from two local companies to prepare a number of sites, including the Okehampton Road playing fields.

 

News of German P-o-Ws clearing a site for prefabs near Roundwood Park.
(From “Willesden Chronicle”, 22 June 1945 – Brent Archives local newspaper microfilms)

 

Because of the shortage of workers, German prisoners of war were used as additional labourers for preparing the sites, and work was underway at Okehampton Road by mid-June 1945. They would have been brought to work by lorry, probably from a large P-o-W camp near Watford. The concrete bases for prefab homes were laid out along a new street, called Clement Road (possibly after the new Labour Prime Minister!), linking Okehampton Road and Milverton Road, and a shorter road called Clement Way which came off of it.

 

The Clement Road prefab estate, from a 1959 O.S. map. (Source: Brent Archives maps collection)

 

There were several varieties of prefabs, and Willesden Council had expressed a preference for the Arcon design. But they had to take what was available, and what the Ministry of Works supplied for Clement Road was a “flat-pack” bungalow, made of timber and chipboard, supplied by America under the wartime Lend Lease agreement. While they had “all mod cons”, they’d been designed as married quarters accommodation for large U.S. Forces bases in the south of that country, so were not ideal for the British climate.

 

An American wooden prefab at 70 Clement Road in the 1960s. (Photo courtesy of Irene Ottaway)

 

 Despite this, the prefabs on the Clement Road estate provided popular homes for around 130 local families, for far more than the ten years they were originally expected to last. As they were made of timber, it’s surprising that only two (as far as I know) were destroyed in house fires – but when a fire took, hold the effects could be devastating. These photos from Clement Road in the 1960s were taken by a schoolboy who lived there. What he did not know at the time was that a baby had died inside this burning prefab.

 

Firemen tackling a blaze at a Clement Road prefab in the 1960s. (Courtesy of, and © Brian Aris)

 

Families on the estate were gradually being rehoused into permanent Council homes, but as late as 1962, some were being relet to other families in housing need. Eventually, the prefabs at the northern end of the site were cleared, and the permanent Council homes of what was to be called Clement Close were built in the 1960s.

 

 

Mrs Maisey, in the back garden of her Clement Road prefab in the late 1960s,
with Clement Close homes in the background. (Courtesy of Irene Ottaway)

 

The Clement Road and Clement Way prefabs were finally removed by the early 1970s. Most of the Okehampton Road playing fields, which Willesden Council had requisitioned for post-war emergency housing in 1945, returned to their original use, but this time as additional grounds for the adjacent secondary school (now Queens Park Community College). The northern end, accessed from Milverton Road, was kept for Council housing, as Clement Close.

 

Philip Grant.

 

(With thanks to the former residents of the Clement Road prefab estate, who shared their stories and photographs with the Brent Archives “Prefabs Project” in 2011.)

 

Editor's Note:

If you are interested in the extent of the bombing locally during the London Blitz (7th October 1940 to 6th June 1941) that led to the destruction of many homes go to this interactive site. The information goes to street level.

Climate change means extreme storms will produce significant London flooding in the future, Independent Review concludes- even if all its recommendations are implemented

 The Stage 4 report of the Independent London Flood Review, commissioned by Thames Water, has now been published.

 

After reporting on its recommendations (see below) it is noteworthy that it concludes:

 

An important finding of the Review is that, even if all of our recommendations were taken up by the relevant organisations, we would still predict significant flooding when this type of extreme storm events occur, and due to climate change these events are predicted to become more frequent. As a result, the various organisations that have responsibility for managing flood risk will need to plan, work and invest together to reduce the impacts of flooding in the future.

 

As Kilburn was hit by the double whammy of surface water and sewer water lfooding, and there are other potential flood areas in the borough as posts on Wembley Matters have indicated, it is imperative that Brent Council Scrutiny investigates the issue further in the light of the Review's recommendations

 

Non-technical summary  (Full Report HERE)

1 Morland Gardens – Brent’s new contract, clever or unlawful?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

1 Morland Gardens, June 2022.

 

A month ago, I wrote about ‘yet another twist’ in the saga over Brent Council’s plans to redevelop 1 Morland Gardens, including the demolition of the heritage Victorian villa which had been carefully restored and extended in the 1990s to become the borough’s adult education centre.

 

They could not award the contract which had been the subject of a Key Decision on 20 May, because the time limit for awarding it had run out at the end of May. [It appears that Brent’s Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment, “forgot to mention” this important fact to the Scrutiny Committee considering the “call-in” of his Key Decision on 9 June.] Brent had to conduct a third procurement process to find a contractor to carry out the work. 

 

Cabinet approved the “third attempt” on 20 June, and late on the afternoon of 14 July another Key Decision was published, to award the contract for the Morland Gardens Development. The proposed award looked rather familiar. In May, it was to award the contract to Hill Partnerships Ltd for the sum of £37,933,491. Now the award would be to the same contractor for the sum of £37,933,561.

 

Extract from the tender evaluation grid for the 14 July 2022 Key Decision.

 

The evaluation grid above is part of the process required in assessing which tender received provides “Best Value” (a statutory duty) to the Council. The fact that only one tender had been invited for this “competition” concerned me, over whether the process used was legally valid, so I raised these concerns in an urgent email to Brent’s Legal Director on 15 July.

The Officer Key Decision Report said that the award of the contract was governed by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (“PCR 2015”), and that it had been procured in accordance with those regulations, but it did not explain how that was the case. It had been awarded under the Network Homes Contractor Framework (“NHCF”), which it claimed allowed a direct award. 

 

I wanted answers, and received this from Brent’s Legal Director on 18 July:

 

‘I would confirm that Regulation 33(8) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 permits inviting a single contractor from a framework to bid for a contract where appropriate and permitted by the framework.  Inviting a single contractor is permitted under the Network Homes Contractor Framework and the Council had permission from Network Homes to use its framework in this way for the Morland Gardens contract.’

Part of Regulation 33, Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

 

I had been researching PCR 2015 and the NHCF over the weekend. I was not satisfied that this clever move by Council Officers, to effectively shift a tender already received from one “framework” (which had expired) to a new procurement process under a different framework, would comply with the requirements of PCR 2015. I replied to Ms Norman, also on 18 July:

 

‘I presume you are referring to Regulation 33(8)(a). Even though this does cover inviting a single contractor within a framework to bid, that still leaves a responsibility on the Council, under Reg. 37(6)(c), to fulfil all of the other obligations under Part 2 of PCR 2015 in determining which of the 'economic operators, party to the framework agreement' should be invited to bid.

 

It seems that the procurement procedures used for the public contract which the Key Decision seeks to award has clearly been made with the intention of unduly favouring one economic operator, Hill Partnerships Limited. This would breach the principles set out in Reg. 18. If there was no consideration of the other Lot 3 (eight or nine) contractors, then the proposed award does not accord with PCR 2015, and should not go ahead.’

 

As well as PCR 2015, any “High Value” contract awarded by the Council has to satisfy Brent’s Contract Standing Orders (“CSOs”), which are part of the rules set out in the Council’s Constitution. CSO 88 includes a requirement that where approval for the award is obtained from the Cabinet, ‘the Cabinet shall receive and consider a report setting out all relevant information necessary to enable it to give such approval.’

 

In a guest post last March, I posed the question: are Cabinet Meetings a charade? That was because many of the decisions made have been discussed in private beforehand, with the official meetings which the public are allowed to watch just used as an opportunity to tell us what a wonderful job they are doing. For the Morland Gardens contract award approval, there was not enough time for it to be properly considered before the Cabinet Meeting on 20 June.

 

Brent’s Legal Director is also the Monitoring Officer responsible for ensuring that the CSOs are followed. This is what I wrote to Ms Norman on 18 July, about that possible irregularity in the contract award:

 

‘I also believe that there is a strong case for saying that the approval given by Cabinet on 20 June does not meet the requirements of Contract Standing Order 88(c). I am attaching an extract from the letter I was about to send you which sets out my reasons for that belief, for your consideration and response, please.’

 

I will ask Martin to include the document I sent to Brent’s Legal Director, about the Cabinet approval, at the end of this post. If you are interested enough to read it, you’ll find that it includes a transcript of the 59 seconds that it took Cllr. Butt to deal with this item at the 20 June meeting, without any contributions from Council Officers (who were given the chance to speak) or other Cabinet members (who were not).

 

In my view, the contract which Brent Council proposes to award this week does not meet the requirements of either PCR 2015 or Brent’s Contract Standing Orders, in which case it would be unlawful to award it. We will have to see whether they actually go ahead and award it. 

 

1 Morland Gardens and the community garden in front of it, June 2022.

 

To me, it would be a grave error, not just legally, but because it would be a big step towards the demolition of a valuable heritage building, and the destruction of the green space in front of it, which is important for both environmental and public health reasons.

 

Philip Grant.

 

LETTER: ‘The pollution of the Wealdstone Brook with untreated human sewage is a clear and present danger.’

 Dear Editor,

‘A clear and present danger’ said President Biden recently with regards to the Climate Emergency,.

 

A clear and present danger says the various Brent Council documents and press releases with regards to the Climate Emergency.

 

So why is the presence of untreated human sewage in the Wealdstone Brook as it runs through Brent on its way to the River Brent and then onto the River Thames not declared Code Red for the local residents? Why was a ‘Major Incident’ not declared by Brent Council using its Formal Executive Powers?

 

The presence of untreated human sewage along with unknown toxic gases vaporising at low temperatures from the water surface would surely be regarded as a ‘clear and present danger’ to all but the ignorant.

 

As a retired Brent Secondary School teacher I will have a worksheet available for every Brent Councillor at the next full Brent Council meeting (absentees will be set it as homework).

 

Write out 100 times;

 

‘The pollution of the Wealdstone Brook with untreated human sewage is a clear and present danger.’

 

John Poole

Brent Council answers WM's questions on Fryent Country Park use as a car park and the July 31st road closures for a procession

Brent Council has responded to questions from  Wembley Matters on the event day car parking in Fryent Country Park. SEE LINK

The questions:

1. Was this arranged as a consequence of the RMT rail strikes?

2. If not when was it decided to use the park for this purpose?

3. What was the reason for installing a car park on Fryent Country Park open space?

 4. Is it intended to do this again and on what basis?

5. Where will the revenue (£25 per car) go?

The answers:

The event field at Fryent Country Park is available for commercial hire and events are very common there. Wembley Stadium approached the council to rent it on the basis the rail strike would create additional parking and traffic pressures in the Wembley area. The council agreed to its rental on the basis this would provide sensible relief across the wider area.

 

As well as a rental income to the council, the parking revenue was agreed to be ring-fenced to improve future event day management arrangements in the Wembley area, for example, more council enforcement, toilets and better fencing.

 

This is unlikely to be a regular occurrence, but the field is available for commercial hire as has always been the case.

 

Organisers make a deposit that can used to reinstate grounds in the event of any damage.

 

 We also asked about the notice of road closures in Wembley Park on July 31st for a 'procession'. SEE LINK

 

 

 

The questions:

 

1. Can you give further information on the nature of the procession and its duration?

2. What will be the hours of the road closure?

3. Will Fryent Way or the Country Park be used for car or coach parking on that day?

 

The answers:

 

The July road closures are to facilitate a fan march on the day of the Women’s Euros Final. It will be a rolling closure to minimise any disruption and is very dependent on which teams compete in the Final. Only two nations have indicated their fans will want to march. It is intended to be a fun and colourful pageant ahead of an important sporting event.

 

As always readers can decide for themselves if the questions have been satisfactorily answered.

Wembley Fire - 50 people evacuated before Fire Brigade arrived

 From London Fire Brigade

 

Twelve fire engines and around 80 firefighters tackled a fire on The Broadway in Wembley.

Half of the ground floor of a shop with flats above was alight. Part of the ground floor of a neighbouring shop was also alight, along with outbuildings at the rear of the properties. Around 50 people were evacuated before the Brigade arrived.

Seventeen gas cylinders were cooled and removed as a precaution as some can explode when exposed to heat.

The Brigade's 999 Control Officers took more than 40 calls to the blaze.

The Brigade was called at 1409 and the fire was under control by 1823. Fire crews from Ealing, Wandsworth, Poplar, Mill Hill, Tooting and surrounding fire stations attended the scene.

The cause of the fire is under investigation.