The Green Party bids farewell to Natalie Bennett and will have new leader in September

 

A very human leader Pic: documentary.com

Announcement from the Green Party

Natalie Bennett, Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, has announced that she will not to stand for re-election in the Leadership elections, which take place this summer and culminate at the Green Party’s Autumn Conference.

During her hugely successful two-term, four-year stint as leader, Natalie has guided the Party through a period of extraordinary growth and increasing impact.

Under Natalie’s leadership, the Party has increased its number of MEPs by 50% in the 2014 European Elections, recorded its best-ever result in a General Election in 2015 (amassing over one million votes for the first time and saving 123 deposits compared to 4 in 2010) and, most recently, recorded its best-ever performance in London elections, where Greens are now the undisputed third party.

Membership of the Green Party of England and Wales has increased five-fold under Natalie’s watch, supported enormously by her efforts to engage with and inspire local and regional parties from Stroud to Solihull, Sunderland to St Ives.

The party broke in to the televised Leaders’ Debates ahead of the May 2015 General Election and Natalie used the high-profile media opportunities to share widely Green Party values and policies.
Reflecting on her successful spell at the helm, Natalie said:

I have been proud to lead a party through a period of phenomenal expansion and increased impact. With the support of our passionate members and supporters we have been able to achieve much in a relatively short period.

The Green Party offers a genuine alternative to the tired status quo and I am proud that Greens do politics differently.

There’s greatly increased public understanding that when you want the honest, caring, committed view – one that isn’t guided by the views of the latest focus group or fear of a tabloid backlash but by fundamental principles and values – you should come to the Green Party.

Looking to the future, in which I intend to remain fully engaged in Green Party politics, I’m confident the Green Party is going to become increasingly influential on the political scene. We’re the only party with a platform that recognises the essential interrelationship between economic and environmental justice – that we must have a society in which no one fears hunger or homelessness while we collectively live within the environmental limits of our one fragile planet.

 Richard Mallender, Chair of the Green Party Executive, commented:

On behalf of everyone in the Green Party I thank Natalie for her outstanding leadership over the past four years. Without Natalie we would not have been able to achieve all that we have achieved. I am delighted that Natalie will remain active in the party - her support will be invaluable to the new Leadership team as we continue to grow.

Nominations for the Green Party Leadership elections open on 1st June 2016 and close on 30th June. A campaign period will run from 1 July until 24 July, at which point the one-month balloting period begins. The new Leadership team will be unveiled at the Green Party’s Autumn Conference in early September.

Note from Wembley Matters

The leadership of the Green Party is rather different from the more traditional leadership of other political parties.  The Greens previously did not have leaders ,but 'Spokespeople', and the leadership model was only adopted after a vigorous debate.

However in many ways the leader is still a spokesperson as policy continues to be made by the twice yearly conference, with positions in between decided by an elected committee of the party.  This means that the leader cannot make up policy on the hoof and causes problems when TV or radio interviewers expect immediate answers assuming the role is the same as that for traditional parties. The process is sometimes cumbersome but in my view more democratic.

With policy decided by Conference there is less scope for a leadership contest based on policy differences, although differences in emphasis will be significant.  In some ways, Caroline Lucas, the only Green MP, has been more free to put forward policies such as the 'progressive alliance' and this creates some tension at times with some members wary of being bounced into post facto policy.

Within the party there are different perspectives ranging from 'deep greens' very much concerned with prioritising the environment and eco-socialists who see capitalism,  by its very nature, as not being able to deal with the challenge of climate change.  A particular issue that differentiates the green left from the Labour Party is the latters emphasis on economic growth, which is also the basis of capitalism's need for ever expanding markets. The eco-socialist left looks to a socially useful economy rather than a natural resources gobbling, climate change inducing, consumerist economy.

The Party's decision to give equal weight to environmental and social justice has informed the development of policy over  last few years and contributed to the 'Green Surge' of new members in reaction to the neoliberalism of the Labour Party pre-Corbyn.  The Green Party Trade Union Group and Green Left have been reaching out to sections of the labour movement. The Green Left Facebook has nearly 8,000 members and is a lively forum for eco-socialist ideas in the movement.

Inevitably perspectives on the Labour Party under Corbyn, assessment of Labour's developing policies on the environment, economy and voting reform will inform the Green Party's summer of debate, but the unique nature of the Green Party will shape the discussion.

London Mayor's Deputy approved 'Twin Towers' two days before election

It has emerged that Sir Edward Lister, Deputy Mayor and Chief of Staff of the then London Mayor, Boris Johnson, decided not to intervene in the 'Twin Towers' development on the site of Chesterfield House, Park Lane, Wembley. just two days before the GLA election.

The borough's decision was subject to a Stage 2 referral to the Mayor's Office.

This was one of several decisions made in the last few weeks of the previous administration.

Butt narrowly retains Brent Labour Group leadership - Margaret McLennan will be his deputy - cabinet details

Despite the furore over the alleged concealment of the  death of Tayo Oladapo and the row over the  double Planning Committee to approve Quintain's Wembley development  Muhammed Butt retained the Labour Group leadership at today's AGM by just four votes.

Margaret McLennan, having stood on a platform that the role is 'non-political', was elected Butt's deputy following a re-ballot when the initial vote was a tie with Michael Pavey.

Their names now go forward as nominations to the Full Council meeting on Wednesday.

One councillor commented that there were now two factions in the Labour Group with no middle ground between them adding that strong whipping was evident.

Michael Pavey, (Barnhill ward)  who had challenged Butt, survived as a Cabinet member and others elected to Cabinet were Roxanne Mashari (Welsh Harp), Harbi Farah (Welsh Harp) Krupesh Hirani (Dudden Hill), Wilhelmina Mitchell Murray (Wembley Central) and Eleanor Southwood (Queens Park).

This means that Ruth Moher and James Denselow leave the Cabinet.

Roles will be allocated later.

Other key posts will be Chairs of the two Scrutiny Committees and Chair of Planning Committee.

Although Cllr Butt won the election, albeit by a narrow margin, he may not be out of the woods yet as there is likely to be an internal Labour Party inquiry over the Tayo Oladapo allegations and a possible reference to the Brent Council Standards Committee.

Has the time come for a People’s Forum on Planning? It surely has.

An amazingly speedy response to my  previous blog from Jaine Lunn
 

I am hoping you will publish the blog in response to final paragraph contained in your most recent post regarding how the council should operate when they own the property.

Recently Wembley Youth Centre was closed, citing that Brent Council had held a consultation on Youth Services and could no longer fund this particular centre.  As a Council owned building, Wembley Crime Prevention who were running most of the projects, quickly realised that the youth of Wembley would have nowhere to go and submitted an Expression of Interest for a Community Asset Transfer.  Whilst this was accepted and acknowledged that it met with the Borough Plan objectives, it was refused on the grounds that this land had been earmarked for a housing development (!) butthey  may consider leasing it in the short term, until the property was put up for sale/lease and planning applications and consultations were submitted. 

Contrast this will the Tokyngton Library which Labour closed in 2011.  Brent Council Officers prepared a detailed Housing Plan of up to 20 units inclusive of a Shared Community Facility for the local community.

In round one of consultations one of the highest bidders was a developer who accepted the Councils plans in full.  However, this was not to be, amazingly a second round of bidding was allowed and the former Library was sold to a party associated with Councillor Butt and his family LINK, with no housing or community centre for the local residents/public.

In King Eddies Park, only a year ago when the Bowls Club Pavilion was  was rescued from development, an Expression of Interest for Community Transfer for the Pavilion  rejected, and the interested parties were told, this is not an option and will not be listed as an asset of community value as “the council need to make money”.

This Bowling Pavillion and associated land is now up for lease at £25,000 per annum along with parking allowance and unlimited access to the Park!

And finally,  what happened to the last remaining public use Green Open Space in Wembley Central, now part of the new development of Ark Elvin Academy.  This was public land that in 1998 was transferred to the Governing Body of Copland Community High School, a grant maintained school of which the infamous Sir Alan Davies KBE was head.  No public consultation, no exchange of money for land that is worth millions and certainly in double figures.  Which now belongs to Ark Elvin Academy whom I assume also haven’t paid any money for it.  LINK

At the same time despite Brent Council receiving objections to the removal of the Public Right of Way, Footpath 87, people in the the wards of Wembley Central and Tokynton are prevented from entering or crossing the land, which they have had use of for over 50 years.  The objection has been sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment and is yet to be decided.  Keir the Constructor of the new school has chosen to ignore the rules and traffic order and quite happily sealed off the Public Right of Way, and installed a temporary footpath which is higgledy piggeldy over the field, a muggers’ paradise if ever I saw one and very unsafe.  On calling the Council regarding this I got the response “Oh well I’m afraid there is nothing I can do, but it won’t look good for them with the Secretary of State”!
 

So yes Martin, we do need a peoples’ panel to stop them running rough shod over us with regard to the planning committee decisions.  It is obvious they read little or even try to understand what is being conveyed in the committee reports,  evident when listening to the questions they ask and observing who votes for what.

Has the time come for a Brent Planning for People Forum?

The above statement was made by Brent Council in response to a discussion on the London Live TV channel on  the Lucozade Powerleague proposals for Kingsbury High School.

It has been received with some cynicism by local campaigners who have been at the receiving end of decisions made by the Planning Committee.

Reporting regularly on planning issues from Wembley Matters I have repeatedly seen residents go along to Planning Committee in the belief that their objections to applications will be taken seriously, only to come out having given their 2 minute speech, listened to the often barely audible proceedings, angered that the Committee had then tamely voted in favour of the developer.

Residents are now realising that the time has come to make links with others in the same predicament.

Recently there have been some more independent decisions by the Committee and the chair, Cllr Sarah Marquis, has stuck her neck out but this seems to have earned her the ire  of Muhammed Butt the Council leader.  The latest manifestation of that was his intervention to ensure that proposals from Quintain for the area around Wembley Stadium, in his own Tokyngton ward, were rushed through at two Planning Committees last week.

That doesn't sound as if the Planning Committee is 'separate from the Council' and appears to be an attempt to get the Planning Committee back into line.

One of the problems is the Council's policy of 'smoothing the way for developers' promoted by Andy Donald, former Director of Regeneration and Major Projects.

Brent Council is in effect a partner with Quintain in the redevelopment of the Wembley Stadium area through the Wembley Masterplan.  This presents difficulties for planning officers' and councillors' independence.

It was reported to me last week that one councillor had allegedly remarked, 'It's Quintain - we have to vote for it.'*

Last week Brent residents were by-standers as Brent Council, Quintain and the Football Association deployed all their resources and experts on a battle that will impact on residents for decades to come. Our voices were barely heard. When one particularly preposterous claim was made and I couldn't suppress a response, a Quintain suit turned round and told me to be quiet. I replied, 'No I won't - I live here.' The exchange summed up our powerlessness.

The Roe Green Village residents challenging Lucozade have found that their ward councillors offer no support and so have mounted their own public campaign while the rsidents challenging the Wembley twin Towers are appealing to Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor.

It is just not Quintain of course but a whole range of developers and multi-national companies as well as Brent Council itself that we are faced with - what they have in common is that they have the money, resources and time. Residents squeeze their research into spare time in the evenings and weekends and have to go through a rapid self-education process in planning law and procedures.

I think it is time to consider setting up an umbrella group that will bring individuals, residents associations and voluntary organisations concerned with these issues together so that experience and expertise can be shared and proposals made to reform the consultation and decision making processes in Brent Council.

In time the group could perhaps pool resources to get their own professional advice as well as hold a 'People's Panel' to consider particular planning applications.  It would be strictly non-party political.

What do people think?

* This is from a previous posting on changes to the Planning Committee Code of Conduct. The issue of pre-determination is particularly relevant:

-->

Members of the Planning Committee are warned:

If a member does not abide by this Code the member may put the Council at risk of proceedings on the legality or maladministration of the related decision; and the member may be at risk of either being named in a report of the Audit and Governance Committee or Council; or if the failure to abide by the Code is also likely to be a breach of the Member Code of Conduct, of a complaint made to the Monitoring Officer.

The disclosure of 'disclosable pecuniary interests' is added to the requirements and members are told that decisions should not be influenced by the interests of Councillors or because of pressure exerted by applicants, agents or third parties. A new paragraph is inserted:

Members of the Planning Committee must take decisions in the public interest and take account of only of material planning considerations. They should not allow themselves to be influenced by members of the public and applicants, agents or third parties who might approach them and they should not be influenced by party politics.

My comment: There is something rather odd about having to take decisions in the public interest but also not being influenced by the public. This is reinforced by the duty to follow the 'rules of natural justice' and give people a hearing: 

The rules of natural justice include the duty to act fairly, the duty to give all those who will be affected by a decision the opportunity of a hearing before a decision is made; and the principle that no person should be a judge in his or her own cause. That principle means that members must be and be seen to be be impartial and without bias, and that members should not take part in any decision that affects their own interests.

A section of 'Bias and Predetermination' has been added:

Members should not take a decision on a matter when they are actually biased in favour or against the application, or when it might appear to a fair and informed observer that there was real possibility of boas, or where a member has predetermined the matter by closing their mind to the merits of the decision before they come to take it.

 ...A member taking part in a decision on a planning matters must be open to any new arguments about the matters up until the moment of a decision. A member should not comment or make any commitment in advance as to how they intend to vote which might indicate that they have closed their mind. Any planning decision made by a member who can be shown to have approached the decision with a closed mind will still expose the council to the risk of legal challenge.

The section on Interests has been amended to allow a member with a disclosable pecuniary interest to have a right to attend a meeting:

...where a member of the public has the right to attend the meeting, make representations, answer questions, or give evidence, then a member will have the same right. Once the member has exercised that right then they must withdraw from the room for the rest of that item and play no further part in the discussion or vote,

At present many planning decisions are made by officers alone but Council members have the power to 'call-in' decisions so that they will be decided by Committee. The Code is amended:

A member considering using the 'call-in' power should consider whether their objective could be achieved by an alternative means, for example by discussing the matter further with the relevant officer or facilitating a meeting between the objector and an officers, bearing in mind the additional cost to the council when a matter has to be considered by Committee. 

The key issue of planning submissions where the council is the applicant or landowner is covered by this paragraph:

Where the council itself is the landowner or planning applicant then a Planning member should consider whether he or she has had such a significant personal involvement in advocating or preparing or submitting the planning proposal that the member would be likely to be perceived as longer able to act impartially or to determine the proposal purely on its planning merits. A member would not be required to withdraw simply because they were, for example, a member of both the Cabinet, or a proposing committee, as well as the planning committee, However a member with a relevant portfolio or individual  responsibility for implementing a particular policy should carefully consider whether that role makes it inappropriate for them to participate in a particular planning decision.

My comment: Does this sufficiently deal with the wider conflict of interest over the Planning Committee being the  judge of the Council's own development schemes?

Barham Community Library volunteers meeting this afternoon

From Barham Community Library
 

We are making progress in getting our new building at 660 Harrow Road Wembley HA0 2HB ready to open as a community library in Barham Park.

Our negotiations with Brent Council are progressing and we hope to sign the Lease for the building before the end of May.

We are keen to organise our volunteer rotas and agree on our initial opening hours and activities. We will therefore hold a meeting for volunteers on Saturday 14 May at 2:30 in the afternoon at our new premises in Harrow Road. Please come along and bring anyone else you know who might be interested in getting involved.

If you cannot make it on the 14th please let me know as we plan to have other meeting days for our volunteers.

We also have some events at the Library that you may be interested in:

Tuesday 31 May - 7:15p.m. - Shakespeare's Hamlet

The Librarian Theatre are coming back to perform their 80 minute version of Hamlet. tickets are just £7 (or £4 concessions for students, children and senior citizens). Please let me know if you are interested.

Saturday 4 June at 2:30 - there will be a 60 minute talk about the 150 years of Fire Brigade in Wembley.

Philip grant from Wembley History Society will present the history of the fire brigade in Wembley. The event is free (although Philip would welcome small donations to support our Library Charity). Please let me know if you are interested ion coming.

Sunday 12 June - BIG Lunch - a picnic in Barham Park - from 11am 

We are encouraging local people to have a picnic lunch (you bring your own and share) with your friends and neighbours. we plan to open the Library and to have a stalls selling books, records, CDs and other stuff to raise some much needed cash.

What Brent's Chief Executive said about the death of Cllr Oladapo

Following a series of comments on the blog on the situation regarding the death of Cllr Tayo Oladapo  I reprint below an article I posted on April 28th  LINK which first made public the doubts about the Council's announcement.  After publication I was contacted by insiders alleging that the delay was an attempt to put off the by-election.  I could not find any evidence for this and at the same time could not see how a by-election delay would be of political benefit to Muhammed Butt. I also thought that such an action would have been so beyond the pale as to be unbelievable.

This is what I wrote to Carolyn Downs, Brent CEO:

I have been contacted by a number of people who expressed concern that the true picture regarding the death of Cllr Oladapo has not been given by Brent Council.

The claims are:

1. Cllr Oladapo actually died in January 2016 (January 29th has been given as the date).
2. That almost a month later Full Council on 22nd February agreed to approve his continued absence from meetings on the grounds of ill health.
3. That his death was not publicly announced  by the Council until March 11th
4. That his body is still in a morgue.

2 and 3 are a matter of public record.

Could you confirm the facts and explain the misinformation of February 22nd and the delay in the death announcement. In particular what checks had been carried out by officers/Brent Council with the hospital or Cllr Oladapo's family before seeking approval for continued absence on 22nd February?

 I recognise that there may be family reasons for 4.

Many thanks,

Martin Francis, Wembley Matters

This is Ms Down's response:

 Dear Mr Francis,

Thank you for your email.

In response to the point you have raised:

1. I have not received any formal documentation to confirm the death of Cllr Oladapo but understand that he died in late January.

2. The report which went to the Full Council meeting on 22nd February was drafted as the Full Council report which went in January 2016 stated that Councillor Oladapo's absence would be reviewed at Full Council in February if required. We believed Councillor Oladapo to be alive as we had not been informed of his death and therefore required a further exemption on this basis.

3.  I can confirm that Cllr Oladapo's death was announced by the council on 11th March which was as soon as I had been able to obtain certainty as to Councillor Oladapo's state of health.

4. The arrangements in relation to Cllr Oladapo's remains are a matter for his family as you suggest and I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on this.

Kind regards,

Carolyn Downs

Brent Council hails Wednesday's Planning Committee decisions

This is Brent Council's press release which I am sure everyone will find really reassuring.

Plans for 4,850 new homes, a new school and student accommodation around Wembley Stadium have been given the green light.

The creation of 7,000 new jobs, new retail and leisure space as well as new community facilities and parking spaces around the national stadium all formed part of the planning applications, which were submitted by property developer Quintain. More than £80million will also be provided by Quintain to improve local infrastructure.

After listening to a number of representations about the proposals, including hearing speakers from The FA, the council's Planning Committee granted approval to the applications yesterday evening (May 11).

During the three and a half hour meeting, Members discussed in detail matters relating to transport, safety and design and found that, on balance, the plans should be granted approval subject to a number of conditions including ones to improve transport, safety and the exit of fans from the stadium.

A council spokesperson said:

"These plans mark the next phase in the regeneration of Wembley and will create much needed new homes, jobs, leisure and educational facilities around the iconic home of football.

"While these plans will help accelerate the transformation of Wembley, the committee did consider all representations in detail and these concerns have been taken on board with the series of additional conditions which were imposed."

"Safety always comes first and we are confident that the plans will ensure that fans and other visitors to the national stadium can continue to enjoy these facilities while providing the significant regeneration which the area needs."

Quintain's plans will now be subject to consideration by the Mayor of London.

To view details of the planning applications, see the Planning Committee report.