Friday 13 February 2015

Audley Harrison condemns Brent Council's decision to stop funding Stonebridge Adventure Playground


Boxer Audley Harrrison has just left this message on Instagram about the decision to cease finding Stonebridge Adventure Playground:

My comments on Stonebridge Adventure Playground. Worth a read 🔥 The people in power fail to understand that people in the rougher, tougher neighborhoods in England, lose their way as it's difficult to stay motivated when surrounded by crime, unemployment, & lack of opportunities to better oneself. 

Without hope, without options, many choose the easy Road & start following the crowd and start the bad boy business. A shining light In my community for over thirty years, Stonebridge Adventure Playground (SAP) lost its funding today.

 I'm scratching my head as this senseless decision, when SAP was the one place in the community that was a safe haven for the troubled youths. Makes no sense... Seriously, this will affect the community in such a negative way, these elected official don't even know. #FBF me as a youngster in SAP ... Wishing for brighter days in #NW10 🇬🇧😩👊

Brent Council: those who survived the axe (for now) and the victims

The cuts recommended to the Cabinet have now been published LINK. As expected the gap between the cuts of £54m required over two years and the £60m actually tabled during the consultation enables the Council to claim to have saved some services.

Despite recent moves by some backbench councillors to propose a rise in Council Tax of 1.99% to save some services, Council Tax is frozen for the 6th year. The councillors' move may have been too late to meet statutory deadlines.


The Budget Report itself does not refer to the petition from Stonebridge Adventure Playground in detail or, as far as I can see on first perusal, does not mention the number of signatories, and instead the future of its funding is dealt with in a separate report which ties the funding into the issue of the expansion of Stonebridge Primary School, which serves to complicate the matter.

It refers to alternative provision with a complete lack  od evidence or detail and it is hard to see how they could make up for what the playground provides (from their report):

The SAP enables children and young people to take part in a range of outdoor and indoor play experiences. Outdoor activities at the SAP include: outdoor adventure play, go-karting, gardening, and sports.


Indoor activities at the SAP include: games, arts and crafts, a ball pond, Wii games, and cooking. Other linked activities include trips, access and use of a narrow boat.
The scheduled opening hours are:

• Monday – Friday term-time, 2-7pm;

• Saturdays, 11am-4pm;

School holidays (summer, Christmas, Easter, and during the three School half-term breaks), 7am-6pm.
Some of the services which appear in the above list as 'not agreed' have other actions which will still impact on services.  Despite concersn about the capacity of the voluntart sector to take over Council functions this is a strategy adopted by the Council.

For example both CYP16 (Closing 10 children's centres) and CYP17 (Closing youth services) have agreed options (CYP1 and CYP3) that will out-source them to the voluntary sector and have the potential to reduce provision by the back door.

The proposal to transfer the management of the library services to a trust (ENS18) is to go ahead.

Energy Solutions will be expected to become self-financing but will receive a cushioning grant of £50,000 for 2015-16  during the transition,

It is worth looking at the rather contradictory statements in the Cabinet report on supporting people, that appear to doubt the capacity of the voluntary sector to provide the service but nonetheless recommend the cuts:
Proposal R&G27a would reduce the supporting people budget by £1m in 2016/17. This would be in addition to proposal R&G27, which would reduce the budget by £1.8m over two years. The current budget is £7.1m.
6.75    This additional saving would mean a significant reduction or selective cessation of services to provide supported housing and floating support of vulnerable individuals and families to assist them to maximise their independence and prevent homelessness. The service provides support to individuals with mental health needs, homeless families, ex-offenders, victims of domestic violence, young people at risk and isolated older people.
6.76    However, these services are not statutory requirements. There may be potential for VCS organisations to take on a greater burden of support for these client groups but it is very doubtful that there is capacity to do so to the extent implied by this saving in addition o the significant savings identified elsewhere in this area.
6.77    Supporting People services is a catch-all term for a variety of housing support services aimed at people who do not meet the council’s eligibility threshold for social care services. The services provided are intended to prevent clients developing greater caneeds by addressing housing issues. No significant comment has been received from the general public on this proposal, although  this may be because the term ‘supporting people’ is not well understood
6.78    Taking all of this into account leading Members have requested that officers prepare the budget on the basis that proposals R&G27 and R&G27a are agreed
The bulky waste original proposal has been modified to one free collection a year and  £25 for each additional collection.

Despite petitions opposing the cutting of school crossing patrols (ENS21) the Cabinet are recommended to approve it with schools expected to pay for the patrols themselves if they wish to retain the service. The fact that school budgets have not been reduced is cited to justify this.

The report outlines the devastating impact of the cuts on particularly groups but also argues that some have no equality implications as they affect all equally:
-->
The proposals for budgetary savings are extensive and will affect everyone living and working in Brent. The Council h as already made extensive efficiencies and is now at a point where it is not possible to achieve the level of savings required without impacting on service delivery. It is inevitable that there will be a significant impact on those vulnerable people who are the greatest users of council services, particularly older people, disabled people and children. Many of the proposals would also have some negative differentia l impacts in relation to ethnicity or gender; one or two proposals would have a severe impact on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and in relation to pregnancy and maternity. The collective set of proposals will only have minimal impacts in relation to religion o r belief.

 Some of the proposals will have a negative impact on large numbers of people, regardless of their equality characteristics. Although these proposals will be unwelcome and are likely to attract significant public reaction, they are not considered to be problematic from an equalities perspective as they will not unfairly impact on any equality group
This is necessarily only a summary of a complex document but I hope that readers will feel moved to attend the 'Brent Fight Backs' meeting on Tuesday February 17th 7pm, at Tavistock Hall, off Harlesden High Street where people affected by the cuts will have a chance to speak out.

Lastly it is worth noting the very low number of individual written responses which totalled 37 but because some covered several topics have been counted altogether as 54. Day Centres and Adult Social Care (12), School Crossing Patrols (6) and Council Tax (5) were the highest.








Stonebridge Adventure Playground remains defiant -the fight goes on despite being presented with a fait accompli

A Valentine's Day from Stonebridge chidlren to Brent Council
The Cabinet will be finalising the budget and cuts package at its meeting on February 23rd and it will then go to Full Council on March 2nd. Well, that's the theory but it appears that things have already been decided with Muhammed Butt, at his Leader's Briefing, saying that the cuts will go ahead.  In addition Stonebridge Adventure Playground have been told that their funding will definitely stop.

This is a letter from one of Stonebridge ward councillors posted on the Adventure Playgrounnd's Facebook Page LINK:
Dear Glynis,

It was unfortunate that all efforts to keep our cherished Adventure playground open was unsuccessful with the decision of withdrawal of the funding. It will be a devastating news to the Stonebridge community and environs who use this facility.

Regarding your concerns and some information you requested,I'll email you later today for those request and also enquire if their will be room for time to sort out the Staff that work in the Adventure playground instead of March 31st deadline.

Kind regards,
Ernest
Cllr. Ernest Ezeajughi
Stonebridge Ward
Clearly the hope is that the campaign will accept this but the struggle will carry on until the last Stonebridge kid whizzes down the zip wire crying out 'Stonebridge will Stay Forever!'.

I wrote a message on the Facebook page amongst the messages of sadness:
We should not accept that funding is to be stopped until we have exhausted all campaigning opportunities and lobbied all councillors, MPs, candates etc Exactly as you have been doing so well. The Cabinet does not offically decide its recommendations until February 23rd and then they have to be approved by Full Council on March 2nd. Muhammed Butt may have decided funding will cease but are we saying that the rest of the process is therefore meaningless? It doesn't say much for local democracy if so. Let's not give up yet - look at the Kilburn Times fron page today.
The Kilburn Times story is about a rise in youth cautions in the borough and includes a quote from Colin Hunter, a playground worker:
Without youth services it's far too easy for young people to be swayed by peer pressure and get involved with gangs and go down the criminality route, so the figure will rise.
And Doug Lee wrote a message of defiance on the Facebook page:
IT IS NOT OVER We will fight on and even harder for JUSTICE . The gloves are off now and we at Bridge know how to fight and WIN There are at least three rounds to go .Come on everyone lets finish the job and finish it well We are not some walkover We stand our ground and always will . Bless all our supporters .


Thursday 12 February 2015

South Kilburn residents face barely affordable rents hike - (if our sums are right)

South Kilburn resident Pete Firmin has been giving himself a headache trying to work out what Brent Council's 'affordable rent' policy really means. In this Guest Blog, after studying Council documents, he give it his best shot. We would be happy to hear from anyone who can show the conclusion is wrong (with workings!).


-->
At the Council Cabinet meeting on 26th January, a report from the “Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth” headed “South Kilburn regeneration Programme” was adopted. This concerned the approvals needed for the the next stages of redevelopment and regeneration. LINK



One of the recommendations in the document is:

“2.1. That the Cabinet agree to set rent levels for the affordable homes at Gloucester House and Durham Court once complete, at a rent equivalent to the Homes and Communities Agency Target Rent levels.”

The Gloucester House and Durham Court redevelopment involves:

“3.1 The redevelopment of Gloucester House and Durham Court site involves: a. the demolition of Gloucester and Durham and the development of 236 new homes for a mix of market sale (134 new homes) and affordable social rented (102 new homes) accommodation;”

On the rents:

“Target Rents

3.5 On 18 July 2011 the Executive agreed to adopt a rent equivalent to the HCA Target Rent levels for affordable developments in South Kilburn until Borough wide rent levels were reviewed. The 18 July 2011 Executive report set out the background to the rent level change and concluded that setting HCA Target Rent levels on phases 2 and 3 and subsequent phases is the only realistic way of affording the South Kilburn regeneration
programme and avoiding the requirement for large amounts of grant that would not in themselves be certain of being awarded and, if awarded, would require rents to be increased to the new 'affordable rent' levels.
3.6 The Target Rent regime controls rent levels in the social sector. Target Rents are calculated by a formula, the basis of which is set out below. Increases in Target Rent levels are also pegged to inflation and subject to an overall cap.

• 30% of a property’s Target Rent is based on relative property values compared to the national average

• 70% of a property’s Target Rent is based on relative local earnings compared to the national average

• A bedroom factor is then applied so that, other things being equal, smaller properties have lower rents”



“3.7 Between 2010/11 and 2014/15 increases in Target Rent levels and caps have been linked to RPI as set out in the tables below:”

[for tables on caps you will need to refer to the document via above link]

“Last year Government introduced a new rent policy, and for the ten years 2015/16 – 2024/25, increases in rents in the social sector will be limited to CPI +1% and increases in rent caps will be limited to CPI + 1.5%.”

BUT

“3.8 It should be noted that new social rented properties being developed in South Kilburn have a higher capital value than existing Council properties and therefore will attract a higher Target Rent under the formula outlined. Inflationary rent increases on these newproperties, whilst governed by the same rent policy and same CPI +1% limit, will therefore also be higher in monetary terms (i.e. in pounds sterling). This is because 1) inflation will be applied to a higher base Target Rent and 2) the Council will sometimes (and more commonly than the Registered Providers managing the new properties in South Kilburn) not apply a full inflationary increase to rents across its own housing stock.

3.9 In line with the Council's commitment to maintaining current HCA Target Rent levels in regeneration areas it is recommended that the Cabinet agree to set the rent levels for the affordable units at Gloucester House and Durham Court and the Post Office Plus Site once complete, at rents equivalent to the HCA Target Rent levels.”



Problem is, of course, that this is fairly impenetrable for those who want to know what this actually means in terms of real rent levels for the “affordable” new flats.



A Councillor helpfully enquired what this actually means and got this response from a Council officer:

Your enquiry regarding affordable rents has been forwarded to me for reply. I have provided a brief explanation of the position below but please let me know if you would like any additional information or technical detail.



Target rent levels relate to Social Rented Housing, whether owned by a Council or by a Housing Association. These are based on a national formula that takes account of the capital value of the property and a factor for regional (London) earnings. They do not directly reference private rented sector rents. Target rents therefore vary across properties and boroughs. In Brent, as in many authorities current rents are below target rents but have been gradually moved towards them recent years under the government’s rent restructuring formula.

Current average rents for Brent’s council properties (which for larger properties are below target rents) are:



Bedsit - £93.91 / week

1 bed - £107.07

2 bed - £119.43

3 bed - £130.80

4 bed - £141.63



New affordable housing development is typically at Affordable Rents. These are directly based on market rents and are the lower of the maximum Local Housing Allowance (Housing Benefit) rate and 80% of the market rent (including service charge). Brent Council has a published Tenancy Strategy, that housing associations are required to have regard to, which provides guidance on maximum Affordable Rents. These set lower limits in order to support affordability, particularly for households who may be affected by the Overall Benefit Cap. The guideline limits are as follows:



1 bed – 70% market rent

2 bed – 60% market rent

3 and 4 beds – 50% of market rent”



Still with me? So what are local market rents?



This is where an internet search comes in.



To be as fair as possible (?) to Brent Council I’ve restricted myself to flats actually in South Kilburn, i.e. not even Kilburn High Road, Camden Kilburn or Brent Kilburn North of the Watford line and definitely not Queens Park.



Some results:



1 bed flat, Malvern Road (described by Estate Agents as Queens Park, but then they do that all the time) £260 pw

2 bed flat, Cambridge avenue, £425 pw

2 bed flat, Malvern Road, £385 pw

2 bed flat, Cambridge Gardens, £425 pw,

2 bed flat, Cambridge Avenue, £400 pw

3 bed, Chichester Road, £475 pw

2 bed flat, Canterbury Road, £375 pw,

1 bed flat, Malvern Road, £295pw,



enough, my brain hurts.


Anyway it should be clear from this search of just a small part of one estate agents website what the range of “market rents” is in the area.



Even taking the lowest market rent for each size of flat. this would give the following



1 bed flat Target rent (70% of market) £182pw. current average Brent council rent £107.07

2 bed flat Target rent (60% of market) £225pw, current average Brent Council rent £119.43

3 bed flat Target rent (50% of market rent) £237.50 pw, current average Brent Council rent £130.80



So, it appears that Brent Council aims to charge new tenants double or nearly double current rents. As well as new tenants, these will also apply to those previously in Council accommodation moved in to new properties.



Brent Council has always denied that regeneration amounts to social cleansing, but surely this proves the opposite.:



In addition to the fact that well over half of the new properties are for market sale (and a new 3 bed flat in South Kilburn was recently on sale for £850,000!) this amounts to a massive hike barely affordable for those currently living here.















THEIR CUTS-YOUR HEALTH Deadline for submissions to Independent Healthcare Commission extended to February 24th

From Brent Fightback

The Independent Healthcare Commission set up by four boroughs and chaired by Michael Mansfield QC to look into the effects so far of the implementation of the Shaping a Healthier Future proposals has extend the deadline for submitting evidence to February 24th. This is the evidence Brent fightback has submitted:

In addition to the points made in the BTUC submission which Brent Fightback endorses, we would like to add that effective out of hospital care, care in the community, cannot be provided if social care provided by the Council is slashed.

Brent Council's funding has been drastically cut and among their proposals to achieve a balanced budget are many cuts which will severely damage the quality of care available - in particular the reduction in time from 30 to 15 minutes for carers' visits which has been widely criticised by elderly peoples' charities as ineffective and dehumanising. Also the closure of the (ironically titled New Millenium Day Centre which caters for 80 plus people with complex mental and physical needs - the group SAHF proposals are supposed to focus on.

Also the withdrawal of any provision for rough sleepers who have a high level of unmet health needs and already a disproportionately high level of A&E attendances because they lack alternative means of care.

At the other end of their residents' lives, Brent Council proposes to close ten of its seventeen children's centres. As well as providing facilities for play and education, children's centres often host health services for under-fives including baby and child clinics and advice on health and diet for parents and their small children. Brent has a very poor record on child immunisation, dental health, child mental health and obesity. If these facilities are lost, the NHS primary care services will be put under even more strain.

This is the Submission made by Brent Trade Union Council
 
-->
Over many years the Brent Trade Union Council has campaigned with other concerned organisations and the local trade union movement about the cuts to the local health service.Our colleagues in the health service unions warned us that the removal of services from Central Middlesex Hospital (CMH) would lead to the eventual closure of A & E.

Central Middlesex Hospital was rebuilt and extensively modernised at a cost of more than £62 million, reopening fully in 2008. This modernisation was funded in large part by PFI and was specifically designed for emergency medicine.

In spite of this, over the intervening years, many services have been moved from CMH to Northwick Park Hospital in a far more prosperous area. Services were transferred without consultation, because there was no obligation to consult since the two hospitals were part of the same trust. Staff were often given only a few days' notice that they were required to transfer and eventually Central Middlesex was left without the back up services needed for its A & E to remain viable. So we have a situation where management moved the services, then used it as a justification for saying that A & E was no longer safe or effective as maintaining an A & E service is dependent on the full range of hospital services being available to patients. Yet, right up to the day of its closure the A & E department at CMH was still being sent patients from the overstretched departments at both Northwick Park and St Mary's.

Having moved so many services to Northwick Park and closed the A & E at Central Middlesex, the CCG is now responsible for a splendid modern building which they will have to pay for until the end of the PFI contract and the dilemma of how to make use of it.

Throughout these years, Primary care services have been severely overstretched and continue to be so despite the Shaping a Healthier Future organisation and the local CCG having a “vision” of improving those services by investing to prevent illness, lessen the need for hospital admissions and shorten the length of time patients need to spend in

hospital. Of course the BTUC supports improvements in primary care, but promises were made that these improvements would be in place before radical changes were made to hospital services. However, they remain, to quote the CCG's own documents, “visions” and “aspirations”.

There is a crisis in recruitment of GPs, community nurses, health visitors and other staff needed to transform these visions and aspirations into reality, just as there is a crisis of recruitment for hospital staff and an expensive and destabilising reliance on agency staff. BTUC believes that the government's refusal to pay NHS staff even the 1% advised by their own pay review body and the housing crisis which is extreme in Brent, contribute to the recruitment crisis in the NHS, while cuts to the Council's budget threaten the provision of adequate social care, essential if patients' needs are to be met in the community.

The two Brent wards closest to the hospital, Stonebridge and Harlesden, are some of the most deprived in the Borough. The Locality Profile for Harlesden makes for grim reading. Harlesden is ranked in 30s for deprivation for England.

Despite having a young population 32% below the age of 20 years, in Harlesden ward, life expectancy is 13.4 years for men and 9.6 years for women less than the highest expectancy rate in Dudden Hill ward. It can be described by a tube train journey. If you take the train from Harlesden station and travel a few station north you will gain a decade in life expectancy.

Chronic Illness is significantly higher when compared to London and England figures, the biggest killers are Cancer, Circulatory and Respiratory diseases.

Mental illness affects one in six residents, TB is the second highest in the Borough and HIV is “considered to be very high” (Locality Profile).

Too many Children are found to be obese in their reception year when starting school and teenage pregnancies are also high.

We have only outlined a few items from the Brent Locality Profile for Harlesden Ward but we want to emphasise how completely unacceptable it is to close the A&E and other services in the middle of a population that so desperately needs a proper A&E and the important the general health services that go with it.

To compound this misery the facilities at Northwick Park which is the A&E that is suppose to replace the CMH facility, cannot cope with the extra load from the CMH and was rated as the worst A&E in the country.

The near impossibility of using public transport to go to Northwick Park. The difficulty of taking a sick child in the middle of the night to the A&E does not bear thinking about. Again the Harlesden and Stonebridge wards have the lowest levels of car ownership and minicab costs are prohibitive for those on low incomes.

Brent Trades Council also want to support and be associated with the submission from The Hammersmith and Charing Cross Save Our Hospital Campaigns.

On behalf of the Brent Trades Union Council please place our submission before Mr Mansfield.


 Brent Fighback adds:



In addition to the points made in the BTUC submission which Brent Fightback endorses, we would like to add that effective out of hospital care, care in the community, cannot be provided if social care provided by the Council is slashed.


Brent Council's funding has been drastically cut and among their proposals to achieve a balanced budget are many cuts which will severely damage the quality of care available - in particular the reduction in time from 30 to 15 minutes for carers' visits which has been widely criticised by elderly peoples' charities as ineffective and dehumanising. Also the closure of the (ironically titled New Millenium Day Centre which caters for 80 plus people with complex mental and physical needs - the group SAHF proposals are supposed to focus on.


Also the withdrawal of any provision for rough sleepers who have a high level of unmet health needs and already a disproportionately high level of A&E attendances because they lack alternative means of care.


At the other end of their residents' lives, Brent Council proposes to close ten of its seventeen children's centres. As well as providing facilities for play and education, children's centres often host health services for under-fives including baby and child clinics and advice on health and diet for parents and their small children. Brent has a very poor record on child immunisation, dental health, child mental health and obesity. If these facilities are lost, the NHS primary care services will be put under even more strain.
 
Submissions should be made to: Peter Smith, Clerk to the Commission, at Hammersmith & Fulham Council. Submissions should be addressed to him at Room 39, Hammersmith Town Hall, London W6 9JU or sent by email to peter.smith@lbhf.gov.uk. Later submissions will be forwarded to the Commission but may not be given the same attention as those received by the deadline.

Ark Schools, Tory donors, tax evasion and HSBC Scandal

Guest blog by Nondom
Lord Fink
Wembley parents will have noticed that two of the most important men in the Ark organisation which runs two of their local schools, Ark Academy and Ark Elvin, have been named in the HSBC bank/Tory party donors ‘tax evasion’ scandal.

Arpad Busson, past contributor to Tory party funds, is a Founding Chairman of Ark Schools.

Stanley (Lord) Fink is a member of Ark’s ‘Global Board of Trustees’ (and recently the Tory party Treasurer). Lord Fink is the billionaire hedge-fund manager who claimed he was referred to (with Cameron) as ‘dodgy’ in Parliament on Wednesday. He is Chair of Governors of Ark Burlington Danes Academy.
·       Wembley Ark school’s website claims: ‘You will see our motto ‘Civitas’ everywhere around the school. We are first and foremost citizens and this is what binds us together’.  

·       £70 billion is lost to the UK each year in the sort of tax evasion revealed in the HSBC scandal. If collected this would cut the annual deficit by half and make frontline cuts to schools, hospitals and local services unnecessary 

·       Brent’s Budget Report states that, as a result of cuts in government funding, ‘Savings of at least £53.9m will need to be agreed, most of which will fall due in 2015/16.’
When contacted, HSBC was unable to provide any advice on cuts evasion

15.00 Water Supply Problems Kingsbury and Wembley-Update

Affinity Water have posted this information on their website


Carlton Avenue/Preston Road HA9, Belverdere Way HA3, Church Lane NW9 8 - We have successfully repaired the burst water mains and anticipate full restoration of your water supply within the next 30 minutes.

Salmon Street NW9 - repairs are on going to fix the burst water main, we will provide an update as soon as one becomes available.

Should you experience any discoloured or aerated water, which is not uncommon following a mains interruption, we recommend that you leave a mains fed tap running for approximately 5-10 minutes. Discolouration of the water is caused by small particles of iron which are within the mains and disturbed during interruptions. Cloudy water is caused by air that becomes trapped in the mains, neither of these are harmful to your health.

Where it has been necessary to excavate the area we will continue to work with the local Highways Authority to return the road surface area to normal  and ensure that the road or footway is safe for all vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This may mean that we have to maintain the site and any necessary traffic management until this is the case.

We apologise for the inconvenience caused by this incident and thank you for your patience today.
This message will be updated after 17:30.





During this time we ask you not to use any electrical appliances, that require a water supply, like washing machines or dishwashers, and to conserve water from storage tanks during the time your water supply is interrupted.

We apologise for the inconvenience caused and thank you for your patience.


Follow this link to their website for updates AFFINITY

Wednesday 11 February 2015

Willesden C of E Primary School consulting on academisation

St Andrew and St Francis Church of England Primary School in Willesden is consulting on converting to academy status.

The long established schoool was put into 'special measures' after an Ofsted report at this time last year found that Achievement of Pupils, the Quality of Teaching and Leadership and Management were all Grade 4 Inadequate.

An Interim Executive Board replaced the previous governing body and an interim headteacher was appointed.

The latest Ofsted monitoring report published last week concludes that the school is making 'reasonable progress towards the removal of special measures' LINK:

The interim headteacher has added much needed capacity to the senior leadership team. Senior and middle leadership has been restructured to better match leaders’ skills and expertise to areas of the school. Staff and parents appreciate the greater clarity of communication which this has brought about. Staff morale has improved and staff express renewed confidence in leaders’ capacity to offer the support and development they need. Teachers and middle leaders feel increasingly empowered to develop new approaches in their work.
Despite this progress the IEB is consulting with parents on becoming part of an academy trust:
The Interim Executive Board believes that the best way to make sure that St Andrew and St Francis C of E Primary School continues to improve is for the school to become an academy, sponsored by the London Diocesan Board of Schools (LDBS) Academies Trust on 1 April 2015. The school would remain as a Church of England school, and the current staff and pupils would transfer to the academy.

We believe that becoming an LDBS academy is the best way forward for our pupils and staff, and will ensure that the St Andrew and St Francis quickly becomes a good school again whilst retaining its strong Christian ethos.  The LDBS Academies Trust is a charity which already runs six primary schools in north London. Of the six LDBS academies which have been inspected by Ofsted, all have been judged good.  Some of the Christian values which the Trust thinks are important and should underpin the work of all of its schools are: Reverence, Thankfulness, Humility, Endurance, Service, Trust, Peace, Forgiveness, Friendship, Justice, Hope, Creation, Koinonia (Partnership).

Although St Andrew and St Francis would be a standalone school, it would benefit from strong links with other academies in the LDBS network. For instance:
·       Staff would be able to share resources and ideas with staff in other LDBS Academies Trust schools.
·       The school will benefit from links with Grow Education Partners which offer an extensive range of educational support services to Trust academies.
To find out how the LDBS Academies Trust schools work, visit: ldbsact.org

The members of the IEB have researched what the LDBS Academies Trust can do for our pupils and staff.  This included visiting an LDBS academy which had been in similar circumstances to St Andrew and St Francis.  The school has rapidly improved as part of a federation with two other Trust academies. We were able to see the improvements first hand and talk to staff including the headteacher.  We have also met with LDBS Academies Trust staff to find out about the support that is provided by the Trust to its schools. This research, along with our consideration of the Trust’s track record, has led us to make our proposal.
The proposal is that if it goes ahead the school would become an academy on April 1st 2015. The LDBS Academies Trust would enter into a funding agreement with the Secretary of State. The deadline for responses is Monday February 23rd.