What future for Brent's ash trees?

An ash plantation in Fryent Country park earlier today

It won't really be clear until next Spring and Summer how many of the ash trees in Brent have been affected by ash dieback disease. A considerable number have been planted in Fryent Country Park over the years and contribute greatly to the beauty of the woodlands. With their own open canopy they encourage rich growths of small trees, shrubs and plants beneath the trees.

Brent Parks Department told me:

The spread of the disease, knowledge and best practice are in a fast-changing situation.  Obviously we are vulnerable due to the large number of Ash trees in the Country Park and elsewhere in Brent.

There is very little that we can do protect trees if the disease does spread.  The movement of Ash trees is prohibited so we won't be planting any.  Dried timber is thought to not carry the disease and can continue to be used for timber or fuel; and on my reading of the government Order, felled greenwood can also still be moved for these purposes providing it is not from an area where Chalara is present.  The Government has accepted advice that diseased mature trees should not necessarily be removed in woodland.  Experience from continental Europe is that 10-20% of Ash trees are resistant. 

In practical terms the main protection is not to move Ash material from site to site; and certainly not infected material.  If the disease is also air-borne, then there is little that can be done to directly stop movement through the air.  Longer-term, the important of diversifying woodland would be a good policy, though there are some areas of Britain where Ash naturally dominates woodland, and also in secondary woodland.

Brent Parks will be monitoring the health of ash trees in the Country Park and elsewhere in the borough.

Caroline Lucas, Green MP, has expressed concern and called for changes in government policy to deal with the issue on the Guardian Environment website LINK

To stand a chance of safeguarding our trees and plants, the government must respond to calls from the scientific community for far more radical controls on biosecurity.

According to a growing number of tree disease specialists, this should mean using quarantine for other iconic trees such as oak, pine and plane, and banning imports if necessary.

If plants known to be carrying pathogens were quarantined, as they are in Australia for example, we might be able stop at least some diseases spreading and slow down others. If quarantine conditions are not met, then an import ban should be urgently considered.

Furthermore, as set out in an early day motion by Zac Goldsmith which I co-sponsored, we need guarantees from Defra that the forestry authorities will get the resources they need to ensure both a rapid response to other disease outbreaks and improved screening in future.

Finally, ministers should also look again at the forestry grants system, which perversely seems to encourage imports from overseas and perpetuates the great tree trade. In particular, late decisions by the government on the grant agreements mean that UK growers are often left with no time to grow the saplings here, forcing them to source from abroad.

The potential cost of inaction on these issues is incredibly high. With the Woodland Trust warning that ash dieback could wipe out between 70-90% of our ash trees, it's more urgent than ever that the government listens to the warnings and takes the long-term view – recognising that investment in resources now to safeguard our natural heritage is money well spent.

Teather 'terrified' of impact of benefit cap on Brent families

Sarah Teather, Liberal Democrat MP for Brent Central has spoken out today on the impact of the benefit cap on her constituents. LINK

This is an extract from the Observer's story:

In an outspoken interview with the Observer, the Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather, who was sacked from the government in September, says the policy will have devastating effects on many thousands of children whose lives will be disrupted as their parents are forced to uproot from their homes.

Teather predicts that there will be a "reverse Jarrow march" in the run up to next April, when the cap comes into force, as families head out of London in huge numbers, in search of new homes.
Accusing ministers of a deliberate attempt to denigrate those who cannot find work, Teather says she saw clear evidence while in government that the policy would not save money and that it would inflict immense social damage.

While accepting that the wider aim of encouraging people off benefits and into work is the right way forward, she says that imposing a cap on people who live in areas such as her own Brent Central constituency in north London, where rents are high, will have a "horrible" and "traumatic" impact. She also claims that the primary motive behind the policy, which has strong public support, was a desire to court popularity by unfairly demonising the poor.

"There are all sorts of things you have to do when times are tight that have negative consequences but you do them for good purposes. But to do something for negative purposes that also has negative consequences – that is immoral," says Teather. She praised Nick Clegg for showing "immense courage" in limiting some of the effects of welfare cuts and urged her party to fight as hard as it possibly could to prevent more. She said many people in her constituency, which is one of the most ethnically diverse and deprived in the country, did not realise what was about to hit them next April.

Middle-class families were also ignorant of the huge impact of the changes on those around them, particularly on children, because of the caricatures peddled by government and the rightwing press about those on benefits. She believes the effects may only sink in when children from "nice middle-class families who send their kids to the local primary school come home and say 'my friend has just disappeared'. I think then it might hit home and they might realise a whole set of children have disappeared from the class."

Teather added: "I am frankly terrified about what is going to happen. A lot of these families do not know what is going to happen to them … How good is the education system at working out where that child has moved to? How good is the child protection system going to be at working out where children have moved to? I don't feel confident of that."

The local council estimates that more than 2,000 people in Brent will end up losing at least £50 a week when the cap comes in. At the top end, 84 families will lose about £1,000 a week. Many will be driven out of the area, including thousands of children.

She accuses parts of government and the press of a deliberate campaign to "demonise" those on benefits and of failing to understand that those in need of state help are just as human as they are. With vivid outrage she describes the language and caricatures that have been peddled.

"Whenever there is any hint of opposition they wheel out a caricature of a family, usually a very large family, probably black, most likely recent immigrants, without much English, lots of children, apparently chaotic, living in a desirable neighbourhood that middle-class people would like to occupy. That is the caricature and of course it is a partial spinning of the truth and it allows the demonisation to take place.

"I would really urge particularly Conservative colleagues but people in all parties to be careful. I don't think we can afford to preside over a society where there is a gradual eroding of sympathy for people at the bottom end of the income spectrum and a rapid erosion of sympathy for people on benefits."

The background to Brent's 2013-14 budget

Mike Bowden. Assistant Director of Finance for Brent Council, gave a PowerPoint presentation to the Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Thursday setting out the background to Brent's 2013-14 Budget. This does not appear to be available on the council website so I have extracted some of the key points below.

For clarity any explanations or comments from me are in italics (ie words in italics are not Mike Bowden's responsibility).

BUDGET MONITORING 2012/13

• Quarter 1 forecast was overspend of £2m
• Latest forecast is small underspend of £0.1m
• Departments are on track to deliver within budgets
• Need strong foundations to manage risks from 2013/14 onwards (this implies radical actions including cuts and possibly council tax rise)

 NON-EARMARKED RESERVES

Target for 2013/14 of £12m

• Reserves at 31/3/12                £10.3m
• Budgeted increase 12/13           £1.0m
• Projected increase in 13/.14       £0.7m

External audit - acknowledged improved financial resilience and recommended that we should should continue to build level of reserves (It was revealed more than a year ago that Brent had some of the lowest reserves in London and Audit Commission followed this up with recommendation for increase)

BUDGET GAP:

Medium Term Financial Projections:

• 2013/14      (£0.2m)
• 2014/15        £2.5m
• 2015/16        £7.5m

BUDGET GAP - July 2012

Assumptions for 2013/14 included

• Council tax increase 3.5% (it now looks as if Eric Pickles will trigger local referenda for any increase over 2%. Any rise will impact on the poor as well as meaning more people default on payment)
• Existing planned savings of £7m are delivered
• Cost avoidance included through one council projects
• New Council Tax Support Scheme would meet shortfall in Council Tax Benefit Funding (scheme going before Special Council Meeting on December 10th)

UPDATE ON 2013/14 BUDGET

• Government Autumn Statement will not now  be delivered until 5th December 2012
• Provision Local Government Settlement will not be known until 20th December 2012 ?? (subject to confirmation)
• Impact on council's  decision making timetable
• Government's regular announcements - uncertainty over true impacts

Developments

• Council tax free - New one off grant offered by Government
• Top -slicing - EIG (Early Intervention Grant) £4m (includes provision for 2 year olds but see Muhammed Butt's statement LINK) Academies£7m (partly to council and partly to schools)
• Census - £4m (due to increase in Brent's population but it is not certain we will get it)
• Council Tax Surplus - £1.8m (one-off) (Council more successful in collection this year - uncertainty that will continue after council tax benefit changes and increasing economic pressure on families).

Uncertainties and risks

• Further changes by central government
• Housing Benefit subsidy regime/Temporary Accommodation (shift of costs of housing crisis to local government)
• One Council Savings (presumably whether they are successful)
• Review of pressures (housing, adult and children's social care)
• Opportunities for additional savings  (I interpret this as 'What's left to cut without causing damage or merely shifting pressures within the council's budget)

COUNCIL TAX

Temporary council tax freeze spending:
2011/12   £2.6m for 4 years
2012/13   £2.6m for 1 year
2013/14   £0.8m for 2 years

Ongoing income foregone of 3 year tax freeze = c£7m per annum (what will lost if council puts up Council Tax. Previous reports by Clive Deaphy (ex Director of Finance) referred to the need to strengthen the council's Council Tax base)

KEY ISSUES FOR 2013-14

• Late settlement = decision making later than usual
• Need to maintian focus on long-term position > Recognise that funding will continue to diminish > Fundamental change to Council's approach and services required (this again implies cuts, decision to no longer deliver some services, more out-sourcing etc. Bowden commented that a 'resilience budget' was required and the council needed to ensure that short-term decision did not affect long-term prospects)
• Flexible approach to ensure capability to withstand risks
• Opportunities for tactical savings that do not undemine future prospects
• New commitments to be funded by offsetting savings

______________________________

Readers will see that there are plenty of issues to raise questions about here and hence the public's disappointment at the Scrutiny Committee that councillors failed to ask searching questions. Labour councillors had probably been briefed already so thought it unnecessary to question in public. Conservative councillors did attend and Lib Dem Alison Hopkins was in the chair.  However Cllr Brown did not attend and nor did his Lib Dem alternates Cllr Green or Lorber. There were no questions about how the compressed timetable would now include consultation with the public, community organisations and trades unions. Councillors asked only one question of Muhammed Butt who, along with Cllr Ruth Moker, specifically attended to answer questions after Bowden's presentation.

BUDGET DECISION MAKING TIMETABLE

Before funding announcement:

19th November - Full Council - first reading debate

10th December  - Executive - council tax surplus

10th December -  Special Council - council tax support scheme

After funding announcement

22nd January 2013 - General Purposes Committee - Council tax base - business rate base
5th February - Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee

11th February 2013 - Executive - council tax level recommendation
25th February 2013 - Full Council

There's more to solving London's housing crisis than just building houses

Darren Johnson, Green Party Assembly Member for London has produced a thought provoking report on London's housing crisis LINK

This is an extract:

There is no doubt that housing in London is far too expensive, whether you want to buy or rent. The Mayor says this is because we haven’t built enough homes, and that building more is the single-most important thing we can do. But my evidence shows that we are unlikely to make housing affordable through supply in the next decade, meaning continued pressure on house prices and rents. Other solutions therefore have to be looked at. 

Government figures suggest we should have built more than half a million homes in London since the GLA was set-up in 2000 in order to keep up with a growing population and rising demand. In fact we built half as many.

Combined with irresponsible lending, this sent prices rising two to three times as fast as incomes. Prices are now so high that:

·   Half the population is unable to buy three quarters of the homes in London, with housing increasingly bought by investors rather than owner-occupiers.

·   Minimum wage workers can’t afford to rent the average room in a shared flat in any borough in London, and they struggle to get social housing as the stock has shrunk.

If supply were the main answer, the Mayor could push for two options:

·   Flood the market with enough homes to make house prices fall by at least 40% overnight to affordable levels.

·   Build enough to keep prices flat and wait up to 30 years for incomes to catch up with prices so that homes are affordable again.

Given our track record in the last decade, the current scarcity of mortgage finance, constraints on land supply and the shortage of people able to affordable any newly built homes, it is unlikely that private developers will build enough homes in London to achieve either of those options. Even if we kept prices flat, we can’t leave people stuck in overpriced and insecure private rented housing for 30 years while their incomes catch up.

For these reasons, I believe the Mayor needs to consider other solutions in addition to supply. Here are just a few other ideas that think tanks, academics and campaigners have put forward:

·   Constrain demand by putting controls or extra taxes on overseas investors and second home owners, or even by putting a tax on all land values to dampen speculation and stop developers sitting on large, unused land banks;

·   Give councils an incentive to release land for housing with community land auctions;

·   Build more social housing that can stay affordable regardless of supply and demand in the market, which would require either a dramatic increase direct subsidy, redirecting the Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme into housing, or freeing up councils to borrow at prudential levels.

·   Give private tenants continental-style rent controls and protections to slow the rise in rents and give people more stability than the current minimum of 6 month contracts.

Some ideas, such as taxing and auctioning land, are long-term policies to restructure our housing market and improve the level of supply. Others, such as rent controls, could also help tenants struggling with high housing costs today while we wait for supply to catch up.

Darren has published an article on Left Foot Forward elaborating his argument: 

Brent Greens oppose Harlesden incinerator plans

The site

Brent Green Party has joined opponents of the Energy Recovery Plant (locally known more directly as the Harlesden incinerator)  proposed for the Willesden Junction site on the borders of Brent.  They have sent the following objection to Ealing Council Planning Committee  LINK

CONTEXT

Brent Green Party is concerned about the negative environmental impact of the major part of the planning application, relating to the pyrolysis plant. We do not have equal objection to the anaerobic digestion part of the plant, since we recognise the potential benefit of utilizing CH4 released by biomass for energy rather than putting it in landfill, where it would be released anyway, contributing to climate change.

However, we cannot support the application taken as a whole and state our OBJECTIONS here:

AIR QUALITY

-         Insufficient modelling of potential air quality impacts and their assessment and foreclosure of the need for additional health impact assessments in line with Environmental Agency stipulations.

-         Insufficient assessment of the need for appropriate mitigation measures in light of potential air quality impacts at the planning application stage in line with EA stipulations.

CO2

-         Pyrolysis produces bio-oil and syngas which when combusted for energy, produce vast amounts of CO2, wholly inconsistent with the achievement of EU emission targets.

WATER COURSES

-         Contamination of London canals from run off pollutants during construction, not sufficiently mitigated by drainage measures.

-         Region is water stressed in terms of supply of mains water and site water demand will exacerbate this, in excess to the rainwater-harvesting techniques designed to reduce onsite mains water demand.

PEDESTRIANS

-         During construction, adverse effects on users of playground in Harley road, residential properties and pedestrians in Old Oak Lane Conservation Area, users of the Grand Union Canal and pedestrians walking through Metro Multi Trading Estate.

CONSTRUCTION

-         Adverse noise pollution during construction.

-         Medium to low risk impact of dust generated during construction.

-         Potential for ground contamination during construction period.

-         Potential for ground contamination from storage/handling of oils, chemicals & waste materials from the new plant, not met by proposal to place in storage facilities.

For these reasons we strongly object to the proposal in its current form.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Shahrar Ali, Spokesperson for Planning and Environment
Brent Green Party, PO Box 54786, London NW9 1FL
Contact shahrar.ali@greenparty.org.uk

'Transformational thinking' response to unfair Coalition budget cuts

In his speech to the Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee last night, Graham Durham drew attention to the unfairness of the central government cuts imposed on Labour local authorities compared with those run by other political groups.

Over the last 3 years Labour councils have lost an average of £107 per head, Lib Dems £38 and Conservative £36. The highest loss is the London borough of Hackney at £266 and the lowest North Dorset at £2.70.

The figures for Brent was £120.21 per person.

Durham, stating that this was a concerted attack on Labour councils asked councillors , "What job are we doing?"  and answered himself, "We should not be carrying out cuts on behalf of the Coalition posh boys!"

Condemning the council for complying with Coalition policies by sending families to Hastings he reminded Cllr Helga Gladbaum that she was once one of the councillors who alongside him had fought against making cuts.

He concluded by arguing that a Labour Council should not do this to the people of Brent and instead should set a needs budget.

Isabel Counihan was given her first opportunity to address councillors about the light of her family. She described the background to her family losing their housing in Brent and the impact of localised payments of Housing Benefit.  The family had launched a campaign which had received widespread community support.

She said that her family were one of thousands of homeless families in the borough and asked how the council could justify spending £102m on a Civic Centre in these circumstances. Isabel described how there had been another attempt to evict the family from their temporary accommodation where they could not afford the rent. At the same time she claimed that social services had threatened to take her five children into care. She had told them how expensive that would be, particularly a some would need special needs support,  compared with helping them with their rent.

Isabel Counihan concluded by saying that Brent had got its priorities wrong and backed calls for them to set a needs budget.  She invited councillors to join the Counihan Family March on December 1st.

After the deputations there was a presentation by Allison Elliott on the Adult Social Care budget. She claimed that the council, through a West London Alliance procurement had not 'reduced the service but had reduced the costs'. However she said that the reduction in costs could not be sustained and that there would be a budget gap of £6.87m in 2014/15 if nothing was done.  She said that the council would have to think differently in order to reduce the budget and that this would require 'transformational thinking' - which drew 'You mean cuts!'  and 'What's going to happen to the old people' from the audience.

There were sharp exchanges between Graham Durham and the chair of the committee, Alison Hopkins (Lib Dem) over the availability of committee documents for the public. At one point the police were called into to remove Durham when he protested  but Hopkins managed to procure some copies of the documents for the public.  However police were called again when Graham Durham asked questions from the floor about the council budget, claiming that councillors were failing to ask challenging questions of Mick Bowden, or the council leader or deputy who were present. He demanded, 'You are here to scrutinise - do your job!'. Five police officers and CPOs remained in the public seats for the rest of the meeting which worked out at about one for each member of the public present,

The case for refusing to make 'impossible choices' in Brent budget

This is the speech I made at this evening's Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt and Deputy, Ruth Moher, attended but were asked only one question. Muhammed Butt confirmed that carers working for the private companies provided adult social care for Brent would not necessarily get the London Living Wage. All other questions on the Budget were addressed to Mick Bowden, Deputy Director of Finance.

I paraphrased towards the end of my speech when my 5  minutes deputation time began to run out.

I start with the assumption that none of the present administration stood for election in order to make cuts that would be to the detriment of the quality of life and the life chances of Brent residents.

I also accept that the Coalition Government’s increasingly discredited approach to austerity is the motor for local authority cuts. I would further argue that this is an ideological attack on local government and local democracy which leaves councils with the job of local implementation of the Coalition agenda.

Under Ann John’s leadership it seemed that the Council was seeing itself in the role of ‘managing’ these cuts with the argument that they could do this without harming services. After the leadership change there has been a slight change of emphasis but there appears to be a contradiction in the stance of Muhammed Butt, the new leader.

In his Priorities statement for the Full Council, Cllr Butt says:

The first priority must remain protecting the integrity of the Budget and making savings.

 But in his blog, he likens the Council’s task to the ‘impossible decisions’ that would have to be made in cutting a third from a household budget.

Again in his press release on the Early Intervention Grant Cllr Butt 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.

The issue is clear: maintaining the integrity of the budget and making cuts will mean making ‘impossible choices’ that will inevitably, whatever the council does in mitigation, damage the most vulnerable.

Of course Council officers will stress the legal requirements during the budget process but councillors are not just ‘managers’, they are also politicans and need to adopt a political response both to protect local government as a democratioc entity and to protect local people.

I have likened their position to that of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who, despite having his limbs cut off one by one and left (‘Tis but a scratch’ ‘Your arm’s off’ ) as just a bloodied torso, remains defiant and totally unware of the impossibility of his plight. The cruel twist is that the Coalition gives the Council the job of cutting off its own limbs!

The question for this year’s budget making is should the Labour Council continue to make ‘impossible choices’ and continue to cut off its own limbs.

My answer to that quuestion is ‘No’. Doing the ‘impossible’ is also doing the morally unjustifiable.

The impossible is compounded by the constant moving of goalposts by the Coalition, the Council Tax Benefit changes which will not only put more families into poverty and increase the number of defaults, the increased temporary housing costs caused by homelesslessness after the Housing Benefit cap, increased costs for Adult Social care, the permitted (but not encouraged)  increase in Council Tax without a local referendum now established at 2% (3.5% envisaged in forward planning) and anyway such an increase would again hit the poorest in the borough. Only yesterday I heard that in one month 63 children, affected by the housing benefit cap, have moved from a local primary school.

To truly represent local people the Council needs to devise a ‘needs budget’ which reflects the true cost of services that the people of Brent need to maintain their quality of life, consult on this in imaginative ways including going to the community in schools, community centres, places of worship and publicise it, and make sure that people understand who is responsible for the cuts being imposed and the implications of more cuts. Gathering mass support in this way through local action, and working with other councils, especially London ones, for a common approach, could begin a concerted campaign against Coalition policies.

Ken Livingstone, back in the days of the GLC, mounted a fierce challenge against Margaret Thatcher from his County Hal base.  Yes, it didn’t succeed in its immediate aims but did help undermine her in the long-term with an alternative popular agenda.  Brent Council could be in the forefront of such a campaign.

Tributes pour in for Jeff Bartley champion of the environment

Environmental and fair trade campaigners across Brent have been paying tribute today to Jeff Bartley, the Brent Council officer who led on these issues who died on Monday. Along with others  I was due to meet with him this afternoon to further plans for a School Climate Change Conference to be held in the Spring.

I have sent the following message to his colleagues at Brent Council:

I am so sorry to hear about Jeff's passing. He was an unfailingly kind and considerate man who in his understated way was passionately committed to the environmental cause. It was a pleasure to work with him on the Schools Climate Conference and on other issues within the borough.  He was a good man who will be greatly missed.

Here are other tributes that have been sent on to me:

Peter Moore, Vice Chair of Brent Fairtrade Network::

I am shocked and saddened to hear the news of Jeff’s death. As the former Chair of Brent Fairtrade Network I have greatly valued working with Jeff over the last 5 years. Jeff was such a reliable supporter and friend of our work. The strength of his values was clear and his personal commitment to causes such as Fairtrade and his loyalty to the work of the Council as a whole shone through. I shall miss him greatly and his family and colleagues are much in my thoughts.

Jayanti Patel, Chair of Friends of Eton Grove Park:

For many years Jeff has been one of our strongest supporters among Brent Council staff. He was a strong supporter of our annual "Queensbury Eco-cultural festival" in Eton Grove Park and always pointed us to the right department in Brent Council where he could not help us. Being members of the Executive committee of Brent sustainable forum we worked closely with Jeff on environmental issues in Brent.

On behalf of Friends of Eton Grove Park, we would like to express our most sincere and heartfelt condolences on Jeff's passing. He was the senior Council Officer liaising with and offering support to Friend of Eton Grove Park and we are extremely grateful for all that he did for us.

Ken Montague, Secretary of Brent Campaign Against Climate Change:

Jeff was a good man and will be sorely missed. He was completely committed to his job and to fighting climate change.

Viv Stein, Co-ordinator, Transiiton Willesden and formerly Brent Friends of the Earth and Green Zone board member

During the past 8 or so years I have known him Jeff was keen to involve community groups in Brent in environmental projects, and always asked me how the various groups I was involved with were getting on.  Whether it was setting up the Brent Sustainability Forum, the Green Zones project or developing Brent's Climate Change strategy, he has overseen a raft of programmes designed to make a difference in Brent.  He will have had a tough job to tackle these areas of work at a time of harsh budget cuts across the Council, and his passing will be a great loss to the Borough and its residents.

The Brent and Kilburn Times has posted  story about Jeff on their website HERE

I will be happy to post messages from any other individuals or groups. Please send via e-mail.