Willesden Town Square Inquiry to be held by independent Inspector

The French Market on part of the proposed Town Square

Brent Council has decided to to appoint an independent Inspector to conduct a non-statutory local inquiry in the application for the plaza between the current library and  the now closed bookshop, and the Victorian Library, to be designated a Town Square.

The decision was made on the basis that it will be a simpler and clearer process if the Town Green/Square application was decided before the library redevelopment planning application goes to Planning Committee. If  planning permission had been granted before a successful Town Square registration then the planning consent could not be implemented. This is because the plans submitted by developers Galliford Try build on the space concerned to make room for  the building of flats to the rear of the new building.

An Inspector has been appointed and is expected to hold the local inquiry in the week commencing 17th December 2012. Currently the closing date for comments on the planning application is December 6th 2012 but this is subject to revision.

Planting started in Chalkhill Park as it nears completion

Planting of trees and shrubs has started at Chalkhill Park which is due to be completed this month. However some residents have expressed concern about ground conditions with signs of depressions where the top soil has settled and flooding in the area of the children's playground. This along with the need for grassed areas to be completed and robust enough for thousands of little feet, may delay the opening.

The park notice board is now in place and some park seats have been installed. Although there is great excitement about the park some people are worried about it being treated properly by residents and fear for  the survival of young saplings. Obviously the local community has  a vital role to play in ensuring that the park is respected. In the longer term a proper maintenance plan by the Parks Department or out-sourced gardeners, will be essential.

Johnson: Bring London fire engine contract in house after PFI failure

Darren Johnson, Green Party Assembly Member for London has called for the London fire engine contract to be brought back in house as a ‘sensible long term solution’. He was esponding  to news that the private company which owned the contract for London’s fire engines has been put into administration. A temporary arrangement for the contract with a new company is in place for the next 18 months.

Darren Johnson said:

The sensible long term solution is to bring the contract in house and scrap the PFI arrangement. Many other fire authorities have a straight forward leasing arrangement. I hope that both the Mayor and the Government will see sense and recognise that the experiment with PFI has failed. We shouldn’t be taking financial risks with something so essential as our fire engines. Government funding guarantees for PFI credits could be better spent on developing an in house contract.

Pop idol banished from Wembley's Arena Square

 The planning application by a group of Norwegian fans to have a 2 metre high statue of Cliff Richard erected in Arena Square has been withdrawn. LINK

Only one objection had been received which read:

Objection: Why do we need a statue to Cliff Richard in Wembley? What connection does he have with Wembley or Brent? The applicant doesn't even live in Brent, but Norway. If the Council really wish to erect a statue to someone who has contributed locally, then they could do far worse than erect a statue to the late Jayaben Desai, the most prominent of the Grunwick strikers who has had little recognition.

There were emotional scenes at Brent Town Hall when the news was released. Many Brent Council workers had looked forward to gazing at a two metre high bronze Cliff smouldering  in the Wembley sunshine as they  lunched on the Civic Centre steps.

Butt: Early Years Centres threatened by grant cut

Muhammed Butt's office issued this press release today:

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council has demanded that an urgent inquiry is opened to determine what has happened to the £150 million that has reportedly been ‘siphoned’ off from the Government's Early Intervention Grant settlement for 2013-14 by the Department for Education.[i]      

The huge funding gap represents a shocking 10% of the entire Early Intervention Grant, which was established two years ago to fund projects that prevent vulnerable families from developing further problems by giving them the help and support they need.

In Brent, early intervention projects were allocated just over £15 million through the Grant for 2012-13[ii] with a similar amount expected for 2013-14, so in real terms a cut of 10% would translate into over £1.5 million taken away from schemes designed to help the most vulnerable people in society. 

One of the main services the Council currently uses the grant funding for is to run several Early Years Centres in the borough that provide vital child development support to parents, many of whom have no network of friends and family to support them and cannot afford expensive childcare classes. Other beneficiaries of the grant include youth centres and Children’s services.

The news of the cut comes despite a commitment by local Brent MP Sarah Teather, who was recently sacked from her post as Children and Families Minister, who claimed to be championing Early Intervention programmes both in Government and at a local level.

 

Speaking in a Commons debate in February this year, Teather said, ‘I think that everybody throughout the House agrees on the importance of early intervention….Government Members believe that the best way [to deliver it] is to devolve decisions to the local level.’[iii]

Cllr Butt said: ‘Sarah Teather has broken yet another promise to the most vulnerable people of Brent. It’s vitally important that we find out what’s happened to this funding. This grant was supposed to help crack the cycle of deprivation that traps our residents and give them brighter future. It’s a tragedy that it’s no longer available to them.’ 

‘If Michael Gove does not step in immediately to restore this money to the fund it was allocated to, he and his Coalition partners are robbing thousands of children of the very future they promised them by setting up this grant.’

Cllr Butt also said that he is dedicated to making sure that no child in the Borough is left behind at a time when impossible choices have to be made due to the highly punitive cuts imposed on local authorities by the Coalition.

Notes: The Government is now also considering withdrawing the £760m promised to local authorities to fund free nursery provision for up to 40% of all two-year-olds by 2014. The Grant is also under significant threat from further deficit reduction cuts and the Government’s plans to revoke the grant’s ‘ring-fenced’ status.[iv]

---

[i] Reported by Graham Allen MP, 25^th October 2012: http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=21245

[ii] £15,113,721: http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/early%20intervention%20grant%20determination%202012-13.pdf

[iii] 27rd February 2012, Hansard: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120227/debtext/120227-0001.htm

[iv] Reported by Graham Allen MP, 25^th October 2012: http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=21245

Brent Executive meets in private after Counihan protest

Following a protest by the Counihan Family Campaign in Committee Rooms 1-2 this evening, the Brent Executive adjourned to another room to meet in private. Although I had a public gallery ticket for the meeting I was not admitted.

Apologies to readers for the lack of a report on the important decisions due to be made tonight.

A 'Green' white elephant is still a white elephant

Tours to show off the New Civic Centre's green credentials ere held on Saturday

Cllr Powney accuses Brent Greens of being against any new building. Strangely something that Gareth Daniel accused me of last year when I had criticised the Civic Centre project. Nonsense of course.

When I was a headteacher we had a wonderful new green children's nursery built at Park Lane Primary with a green roof, underfloor heating etc LINK and it replaced a wooden hut that was falling down. The nursery was necessary  as the then Labour Council eventually agreed after a campaign by parents, governors, teachers and children. In contrast Brent council tax payers were never consulted about a new civic centre.

Park Lane nursery, recently demolished to make way for school expansion

From the inside

 The issue with the Civic Centre as far as I am concerned is whether a building of such grandiose design, on a prime site (that nonetheless will make it inaccessible on event days and evenings),  is necessary, or desirable, in an era of austerity and a shrinking council labour force. How 'green' it may be is not the main issue but all the same the carbon cost of mining materials and transporting them should be part of the balance sheet and the alternative of refurbishing an existing building (say Unisys House) should have been considered.

It is with us now and we will see if it is still a great idea in 25 year's time when it will have repaid the £102,000,000 spent on it. I'll have to stay alive that long just to have the pleasure of telling Cllr Powney 'I told you so!'.

Meanwhile Coalition proposals increase risk to abused children claim experts

In all the controversy over Jimmy Savile and Newsnight the media have ignored proposals from the Coalition that, as part of their anti-red tape anti-health and safety agenda and privatisation agenda, could increase risks to children.

In a piece of research for the trade union Prospect LINK Dr Liz Davies, reader in Child Protection at London Metropolitan University and Roger Kline, Social Care spokesman for the Aspect group of Prospect. claim that the Working Together revision documents are 'not fit for purpose'. These documents have been the backbone for child protection work for many years.

In the light of recent revelations and in the current economic climate where there are increased pressures on adults through benefit cuts, low wages and unemployment, children are likely to become more susceptible to abuse and neglect.

Summarising their concerns, Davies, Kline and their co-authors argue:

1. The current proposals to revise Working Together are seriously flawed and dangerous. There are significant, and fundamental misunderstandings of what is required to protect children from harm. We are convinced the proposals will undermine multi-agency and multidisciplinary working. The failure to be sufficiently prescriptive and mandate certain measures will lead not only to confusion and mistakes but will undermine the ability of staff within each agency to prioritise and access resources to support the work of child protection.

2. The proposals appear to be driven by a desire to, ‘cut red tape’ but are undoubtedly part of the Government’s localism agenda. Through deregulation and the privatisation of services the proposals are just one aspect of the rolling back of the Welfare State. No evidence has been provided that such fundamental changes will improve child protection or responses to children in need, or that even the status quo will be maintained. We believe that, in fact, the proposed changes constitute a serious risk to vulnerable children. We strongly recommend that this revision be withdrawn so that a more considered, evidence based discussion can take place about what changes might be needed to Working Together in order to support good practice by the national provision of proportionate and relevant statutory guidance that is fit for purpose.

3. The objectives of the Revision include, ‘to provide the essentials that will enable and encourage good cross-agency working – so that all organisations understand what they should do to provide a coordinated approach to safeguarding’ (DfE 2012). In this submission we argue that, should it be approved as guidance, it will achieve the exact opposite. It is a non-evidence based attempt to drastically reduce the statutory guidance and we believe it will certainly leave the most vulnerable children at risk of harm unprotected as well as risk a reduction in services for those assessed as children in need.

4. The Revision promotes a form of professional dangerousness where children are placed at risk by the actions and omissions of policy makers. For reasons, presumably, of expediency, the guidance appears to have been cut merely to reduce page length and the impact assessments (2012 a&b) are clear that the changes would lead to cost cutting. The Revision sits well with government agendas of privatisation, deregulation and cuts. As the campaign Every Child in Need cites, ‘basic minimum national standards and requirements are essential. A hands-off approach, allowing local authorities to do what they want, when they want, is dangerous. Even the Government’s own impact assessment recognises this – it accepts that, “there is a risk of negative impact on children if central government is less prescriptive (DfE 2012b) That is not a risk we should be taking’ (Every Child in Need Campaign 2012).

5.. These changes come at a time when there is evidence of unprecedented increase in serious crime against children. Child abuse occurs within families and this context provided the focus of the Laming and Munro reviews (2009 and 2011). However, there is a vast international child abuse industry that exploits children and includes trafficking for commercial, domestic and sexual exploitation, online abuse, the illegal adoption trade, the illegal organ trade, forced marriage and the trade in abusive images. These are not marginal issues but are addressed by child protection professionals on a regular basis and yet the Laming and Munro reviews (2009 and 2011) were narrow in focus relating only to abuse within the family. Therefore the Revision, which is based on models of practice recommended in these recent reviews, omits examination of complex joint investigative work required to identify and target perpetrators and protect numbers of children in the context of organised crime. Ironically, the government only recently published an action plan with regard to child sexual exploitation (DfE 2011a) and yet comprehensive, existing Working Together guidance is being discarded (DfES 2009).

With the history of serious child abuse cases in Brent, and indeed deaths of children such children, it is imperative that Brent Council takes on these concerns and ensure that their procedures are effective and go beyond the Coalition's suggestions and urge the London Safeguarding Board to do the same.

 

Department for Education (DfE)(2011a) Tackling child sexual exploitation. Action Plan. London. DfE . Available from: http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/safeguardingchildren/a00200288/tackling-child-sexual-exploitation

Department for Education (2011b) Tim Loughton M.P. response to parliamentary question by Andrea Leadsom M.P. 13th December 086572. Available from; http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/423978/Munro_report_progress_15kb.pdf

Department for Education (DfE) (2012a) Impact assessment. Revision of Working Together to

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/i/impact%20assessment%20managing%20individual%20cases%20%20%20framework%20for%20assessment.pdf

Department for Education (DfE) (2012b) Impact assessment. Managing individual cases.Framework of Assessment. Available from: http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/i/impact%20assessment%20%20%20working%20together%20to%20safeguard%20children.pdf

Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2009) Safeguarding children and

young people from sexual exploitation. London. The Stationery Office