A North Brent Residents Assocation and Parks Group Forum was set up this week to further cause of making London a National Park City. The move has been supported by ward councllors in Barnhill, Northwick Park, Kenton and Kensal Green with John Billam Tenterden Parks and Neighbourhood Group taking the lead. The initiative has been supported by Cllr Southwood, lead member for the environment. More endorsements by wards councillors are required to set up London as a National Park City. It requires all councillors in a ward to support the application.
National
Parks are special places where people work together to protect natural beauty,
wildlife and cultural heritage. As well as looking after these things, National
Parks promote the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities by both
residents and visitors. They also create new business opportunities in
hospitality, travel and other sectors. Making London a National Park City would
be to apply these same principles to all communities and areas in London.
A
declaration to make London a National Park City is a belief in Londoners
working together to:
1.Make London greener
✔ Improving the richness, connective and biodiversity of London’s
habitats
✔ Improving London’s air and water quality, year on year
2.Make more of London’s outdoor
heritage
✔ Improving health and connecting 100% of London’s children to
nature
✔ Ensuring 100% of Londoners have free and easy access to high quality
green space
3.Make a new National Park City identity for
London
✔ Inspiring new business activities
✔ Promoting London as a Green World City
Sir Terry
Farrell has described the idea as being “one vision to inspire a million
projects”. It is a large-scale and long-term vision that is achievable through
lots of small and everyday actions. Many of these things are already happening,
but there is the potential for so much more. What makes a National Park City
very different from a rural National Park is the number of people who live in
the capital. Every Londoner has the potential not only to enjoy London as a
National Park City, but actually contribute to making it a success.
A
National Park City would be privately and commercially funded. No public sector
funding is needed. It will not cost the council anything, but the council will
be able to leverage the National Park City to attract new investment. A
National Park City status would not mean restrictions for planning permissions.
A National Park City would want to conserve London’s ability to grow, develop
and remain the dynamic city it is.
London
can become a National Park City once two-thirds of councillor teams (436 of 654)
have declared their support. So far 218 teams have already declared their
support.
The Green Party has criticised the appointment of Cressida Dick as the next Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Shahrar Ali, Green Party Home Affairs spokesperson, said:
The appointment of the new commissioner by Amber Rudd is an insult to the memory of de Jean Charles de Menezes and adds further injury to the still grieving family.
It’s vital that the officer heading up the Met is trusted by Londoners – and we’re deeply concerned that Cressida Dick’s role in the shooting of De Menezes will further erode trust between local communities and the police.
Far from exonerating her the IPCC report of 2007 criticised her actions in failing to clarify the meaning of her STOP order to armed police. Dick will struggle to command the confidence of the citizens she would serve whilst the campaign for her accountability remains unaddressed.
Sian Berry, Green London Assembly member, said:
This is a very controversial choice. Assembly members will want questions answered about the lessons the new Commissioner learned after the Jean Charles De Menezes shooting.
This was the most serious and shocking single mistake the Met has made in the last 20 years. For the Mayor to appoint the officer in charge on that day to run the whole of the Met when community cohesion is his priority for London does potentially put this at risk.
Londoners must have complete confidence in their police force and its leaders – I will be questioning the Mayor about this appointment.
University and College Union (UCU) members at the College of North West London are calling on the college's Governing Body to put into abeyance public consultation on the possible merger with Westminster College, pending an independent inquiry into a fraud carried out at the college by a subcontractor and the publication of its findings. LINK
The union has given notice that if guarantees are not forthcoming by Thursday March 2nd they will seek Regional Office support for the declaration of a trade dispute with the college. The branch express the hope that if a trade dispute is declared that it could be resolved through negotiations without having to resort to lawful indistrial action.
Backing the unanimous decision of his branch members for an independent inquiry, Indro Sen, suspended Branch Secretary, said.
When students are 10 minutes late, managers instruct the class teachers to monitor their attendance. When teachers do not dot the "t) and "i" in their marked work, they are monitored by their managers and some end up under capability procedures, but when a fraud as large as £356K can take place under the very nose of SFA auditors, borough police chief, Governors and senior management teams, who monitors their performance?
Only an independent public enquiry can get to the bottom of this. Can any students' life chances be said to be in safe hands unless each and every sub-contractor is thoroughly checked out on the Government declared Sub contractor list and those checks are made public for students to see what they are getting into. Until such time, Mr. Boles should consider putting the levy scheme into abeyance.
Sen, a popular maths teacher awaits a decision of the dismissal panel into his fate. Two of his students had this to say about him and are attending the Public meeting on Friday 24 February 2017 at Willesden Library at 6pm. Speakers include Hank Roberts the Copland High School whistleblower:
Hello Sen,
I am sorry to hear that you have suspended for helping others. You are great teacher and we are with you on this difficult moment. I will be coming to the meeting on Friday and also my colleagues are coming as well. I will see there .
With kind regards
FH
Hi Sen,
You probably dont remember me, your classes were always so rammed with students! But I certainly remember you and your teaching style, you helped me make sense of so many concepts that surpassed my understanding in school. I was in your weekly evening adult maths classes almost 4 years ago, you gave me a chance to retake my maths GCSE when most other collages turned me away. I passed because of your teaching. And due to that; I'm now a specials needs teacher in Harrow. I love what I do, and I'm eternally grateful to those that helped me get here - you being one of them.
I'll be there to support you on Friday, I stand by what your doing and respect the fact that you refuse to back down. It must feel like it'd be so easy to give up the fight - but don't. The world needs teachers like you.
My thoughts are with you
NN
I can reveal that the sub contractor concerned. Keyrail, also had contracts with Focus Training and Development of over £100K but my enquiries came to dead end when it turned out they had gone into voluntary liquidation on November 29th 2016. It appears that there is no way to find out if a similar fraud was perpetrated on them. This puts the spotlight on the SFA, who holds all records, and could investigate any potential fraud.
In an email to fellow councillors, Cllr John Duffy, has raised key issues about the Kingdom littering contract, LINK which he expects to be officially deemed a failure by officers:
I am sure you are aware about the way the Issuing of
the £80 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) contracts was given to a company by
"word of mouth" tendering. I am sure you remember my objections at
the time because the contract showed complete disregard to Equal opportunities,
VFM [Value for money] and the terms and conditions of excising agreed staff
/posts. The officers also failed to make any attempt to negotiate and allowed
to company to collect £46 for every FPN issued by them whether they were paid
or not.
It's clear now a March report to cabinet will say the
contract has not been successful and costs too much and will try and cancel the
contract. Unfortunately the contract will have cost us over £100k, which could
have been spend on other enforcement activities or environmental improvement.
It seems crazy to me that when Brent is now identified as the sixth worst Local
Authority for fly tipping in the country. Which is an all time low. So Instead
of dealing with fly tipping we gave this private contract over £202K (Brent
received £27K) to issue 4000 PFN to fag -butt litter outside tube stations and
Bus stops. This contract was the lead members folly (which we will all have to
pay for ) and was against my advice and costings at the time.
I asked the CEO to carry out an independent
investigation, but she has refused. However she did release information to me
about income from the contract. The information shows we have paid £11k for 160
tickets that were written off by the council because of reasons like they were
issued to the incorrect address or incorrect person. The 160 includes 25 that
were written of because the person had Mental Health Issues.
Firstly let me thank the council officer who did not
send these 25 cases for prosecution (presumably after seeing the CCTV) and
saved Brent council the shame of taking people who have Mental Health issues
to court. However in our efforts to maximise the profits for the private
company , we still paid them £46 for every ticket issued including the
residents with Mental Health Issues.
In my opinion this payment was not only morally wrong
is was also illegal. In the report that was sent to both the Cabinet and
Scrutiny Committee in part 4.10 of the report under responsibilities to be
undertaken by the contractor , they were not to issue them to persons
under the age of 18 or those suspected of suffering from mental health issues.
I am asking the CEO and head of legal to confirm
(1) Is the payment to the contractor legal, if so why.
(2) if not what steps are they taking to redeem the
money.
(3) What penalty will the contractor pay for issuing
tickets to persons with mental health issues.
I am also concerned many more FPNs were have been
given to persons with Mental health issues , but were paid by them. I believe
we should review all the CCTV evidence ( whether they paid or not) as the % of
mental health cases in the non payers is approx. 15%,. If that is reflected in
paid tickets it could be as high as 500 tickets which were wrongly issued.
I hope the CEO and Legal officer will treat this issue
with the importance it deserves. I believe the CEO should get back to all
council members ensuring them the issuing of FPN to persons with Mental
Health Issues has stopped.
After a poorly attended and advertised consultation event at Challkhill Community Centre earlier this month, attended by Tottenham Hotspur and the Football Association, it appeared that there would be little opposition to plans to increased the number of major and full capacity events at the Stadium during Spurs' tenure:
As approved, [planning] condition 3 stated that for two
years following completion of the stadium, subject to the completion of
specific improvement works to Wembley Park Station and construction of
roads known as Estate Access Corridor and Stadium Access Corridor, the
number of major sporting events held at the stadium in any one year was
restricted to no more than 22 (to exclude European Cup and World Cup
events where England/UK is the host nation), and the number of major
non-sporting events to 15. After this, additional events over and above
this were permitted subject to the number of spectators being limited to
the capacity of the lower and middle tiers of the stadium.
The proposal
would allow for up to an additional 31 major sporting Tottenham Hotspur
Football Club (THFC) events between 1 August 2017 and 31 July 2018. A
major event (which may or may not include THFC) would be considered to
be an event in the stadium bowl with a capacity in excess of 10,000
people
A glance at the consultation page LINK now shows that opposition is building. Most of the objections centre on the impact on the quality of life of nearby residents of increased number of events and capacity in terms of traffic density and pollution, crowded buses, overground and tube lines - basically a curtailment of residents' freedom to move easily around their own area. A particular concern is congestion between Forty Lane/Wembley Park, Wembley Hill Road and Wembley High Road where traffic often grinds to a halt. Other concerns are over littering and the alleged anti-social behaviour of Spurs fans. In answer to the suggestion that 'you have chosen to live near a major international stadium - it goes with the territory' residents respond that they acknowledge the contribution the stadium makes to the vitality of the area, a reasonable amount of disruption is to be expected but that these proposals go too far and breach undertakings previously given.
I sense that there are wider concerns underpinning some of the objections. Residents feel out of control of the development of their locality and, moreover, that when they do express a view they are ignored. Residents are pitted against an alliance of the Football Association, anxious to maximise income to pay off the costs of the new Wembley Stadium, Spurs keen to finance their new stadium, US owned Quintain wanting to maximise profit from what increasingly looks like speculative and unfettered development and Brent Council wanting to maximise income to make up for the local government cuts imposed by central government.
Brent Council fails to champion the needs and interests of local residents and instead is an ally of the football and developer 'big boys'. This was not helped recently when Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, and Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, took part in Quintain's public relations blitz over the Tivi private rent build at Wembley Park - ignoring the fact that the apartments are in no way affordable to local people.
How can the Council make balanced decisions on behalf of residents if they are firmly in the arms of Spurs, the FA and Quintain? How can Sadiq Khan make balanced decisions using his call-in powers over major developments?
I publish below just one of the contributions to the consultation site. Consultation closes on March 2nd 2017.
-->
1. There is already substantial
disruption to the area surrounding Wembley Stadium caused by the large numbers
of people that descend on the area, especially during football matches. It
stands to reason that almost doubling the number of events would result in a
substantial INCREASE in disruption to the immediate and surrounding areas.
2. When football events are held at Wembley Stadium, fans do not respect the
area, local shopkeepers or residents, leaving the area considerably dirty with
excessive littering that isn't cleared up for several days following any event.
3. Traffic disruption caused by events is already difficult to bear, both in
the immediate Stadium area and in adjacent areas such as Kingsbury, Blackbird
Hill, A406, etc. The area and the existing road transport infrastructure just
cannot cope with more events. Brent Council has failed to improve this -
there's no money left.
4. Public transport is not usable on match days. Trains are packed (i.e.
passengers cannot get on trains until matches have started) and fans are often
drunk or behave badly (personally witnessed a drunk fan urinating on a Jubilee
line platform). Regular users of public transport are shut out by hoards of
fans who don't really show any consideration for local residents using public
transport regularly. Over 50% of visitors to Wembley Stadium events (higher for
football events) use LUL and Mainline Rail services - the existing
infrastructure can barely cope on non-event days, let alone on event days.
6. Air quality - all air quality monitoring locations are some distance away
from the stadium, presumably to skew the results and provide a favourable
outcome for THFC. It would be better if some monitoring sites were closer to
the stadium.
7. Noise pollution - I simply disagree with the assessment that because the
proposed changes are only for a year or so, the increase in overall noise
pollution should be borne by residents. This is just silly. More events = more
noise. There's no justification for that. The absence of mitigates beyond
"continued monitoring" is equivalent to kicking the can down the road
when nobody will pay attention. Locals are not stupid so show greater
consideration please.
8. The assessment of the effects of the proposed changes (Socio-economics:
moderate beneficial; Transport: minor adverse; Air Quality: Not significant;
Noise: negligible) and the judgement of their cumulative effects as "no
change" is purely subjective. There is simply no empirical evidence
carried out by INDEPENDENT assessors to verify these. If you are paying the
so-called experts (for the avoidance of doubt, Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners
is acting on behalf of the applicant), of course they'll give you the answer
you want! Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
Furthermore, the additional creation of c.31k jobs is highly speculative and
there is no guarantee that these would be filled by local residents or if
there's any local benefit whatsoever. Many of the companies used to provide
catering and stewarding services bring in staff from other areas of London/the
UK so there's NO BENEFIT whatsoever to the local economy.
9. The benefits of the proposed changes do not pass onto local residents. c.67%
of the anticipated additional expenditure would be on travel and transport in
getting to/from the stadium. Only 1/3 of the anticipated benefits would likely
accrue to the local area, of which Wembley Stadium would stand to gain a large
share. I'd be interested to learn more about how the £43.5m and £14.5m figures
area arrived at and the assumptions behind them which, interestingly, are
nowhere to be found in the report(s) made available.
10. Brent Council should conduct its own in-depth report to verify each and
every claim made by the applicant. This should be made available to all Brent
residents to read and then make their own minds up.
I would also highly recommend holding a public meeting for residents to ask
questions of the applicant and the Council before a decision is made.
Then of course there is the expectaion that Chelsea will follow Tottenham at Wembley - the precedent will have been set.
I thought it worth publishing in full the speech made by Green Party peer, Jenny Jones, on the EU Withdrawal Bill, in the House of Lords:
My Lords, one of the deep delights for me in your Lordships’ House is the
fact that we have such deep divides in opinion and yet we can still stay
polite. That was the position that I found myself in during the referendum
campaign, when I was campaigning to leave the EU. I found myself in some
unsavoury company at times, with some people with whom I share not a single
view, apart from the fact that the UK would be better off outside the EU.
I believe passionately that we have made the right decision, but at the same
time we have to be absolutely sure that we go about it in the right way. The
Bill that the Government have presented to us is simply inadequate. Had there
been a decent White Paper with some detail about the
things that many of us care about, I would have felt calmer about voting for
the Bill as it exists. However, the Prime Minister is approaching these
negotiations with a blank sheet of paper. Where are the underlying principles?
There are underlying principles in the EU, but where are the underlying
principles that we will maintain during negotiations, or are there to be no
principles at all?
The Green Party is particularly concerned
that the Cabinet will attempt to dump protections
for everything from wildlife and the countryside to the social protections that
we see as normal in society nowadays. The Government could use a combination of
exit negotiations and secondary legislation to do all sorts of things that the majority of people who voted leave would
not want to happen. It is wrong to use the referendum result as cover for
bypassing proper parliamentary procedure and scrutiny. The
Lords has the job of ensuring that a democratic process is followed
throughout the different stages of the negotiations.
As somebody who has advocated leaving the EU ever since we joined as a
result of the 1975 European Communities membership referendum, I resent people
suggesting that I am out to wreck the Bill by seeking to amend it—someone even
said that it would be “traitorous”. That is an unpleasant thing to say about
people who are trying to improve things. As for threats from the other place to replace the House of Lords with a different sort of
Chamber or abolish it altogether, for me, that would be a welcome bonus. I
believe that it is time for us to be abolished and replaced by a democratically
elected Chamber. For me, therefore, that is no threat at all. However, it is
bullying.
What do we do with bullies? We stand up to them.
I will try to amend this Bill. I have put down five amendments that I feel
would definitely improve the Bill and I will support amendments from other
Members of your Lordships’ House. It is our job to advise and to reform and
improve the sometimes very poor legislation that comes from the other place. My
five amendments cover the following areas: transitional arrangements; legal
enforcement; environmental regulators; access to justice; and employment and
equality protections. These are self-evident. They will ask for detailed plans,
lots of preparation and proper funding, which I know this Government have a
huge problem with.
I am going to keep my remarks brief because some of what I would like to say
is probably best left unsaid. However, before finishing, I would like to add
that I also commend the amendment from a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which will
protect the residence rights of EU citizens legally resident in the UK on the
day of the referendum— 23 June 2016. It is a precautionary but self-evident
amendment and it would be cruel not to include it. I cannot see why the
Government would have any objections to it being in the Bill.
Finally, although the outcome of last year’s vote was what I wanted, I have
not taken a moment’s pleasure from it in the intervening time, partly because
of the way in which the campaigns on both sides were conducted and partly
because of the conduct since. There has been so much hatred and vile rhetoric,
which has inflamed people. I am sure that many of us here have had abuse. That
is a normal part of any progressive politician’s inbox but it has now reached
levels that are just incredible.
We should take pleasure in issues such as immigration, because it is good
for our country: it is good for the economy and it is good for our culture. I
also believe that if you accept free trade, then why not accept the free
movement of people? When we look at the Bill and vote on it next week, I hope
that the Government will understand that we must not lower our standards.
Whether it is on food, social protection or protecting our countryside, we must
not go down the route of making things worse. In a sense, society is already
worse because of the referendum and the Government must do everything in their
power to heal as much as possible.