TUSC sweep to victory

The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) may not have stood in the General Election but this did not stop them sweeping to victory in the election held at Queens Park Community School on Wednesday.

The result was:

TUSC                              123
Labour                              83
Womens Equality Party   56
Liberal Democrats           49
Green Party                      42
Sinn Fein                          17
Spoilt papers                      6

The TUSC candidates Femi and Sean will now meet with the headteacher to discuss their policies asking for shorts to be allowed as regular uniform in hot weather and for the freedom to eat lunches anywhere in school.

Help clean up the River Brent at Chalkhill on Saturday

From Thames21

June 10 @ 11:00 am - 1:00 pm

Come help clean-up the River Brent at Chalkhill Open Space.

Create an inviting space for people and wildlife. No experience necessary and all tools provided-  just be prepared to get stuck in! Finishing up with well deserved refreshments.

All welcome but under 16s must be accompanied by an adult.

Meet Waterside Close, just off Barnhill Road, HA9 9PB.

Locals challenge Brent Council's 'vision' for South Kilburn regeneration

The Brent Cabinet of June 19th, starting at the earlier time of 6pm, has a full agenda with several items relating to the controversial South Kilburn regeneration. The main item is adoption of a revised South Kilburn Supplementary Planning document. I receommed a full reading of the Officers' responses to representations made by local people (report embedded below) and others but here is a taster:

Leslie Barson and Dee Woods representing users of Granvill Plus Centre and the Carlton Centre

The vision is not the vision of the people of South Kilburn. It is an imposed vision whose prime purpose is to maximize housing. This has no long term benefits for the people of South Kilburn nor does it address the council’s own aims such as “improved public realm” (Masterplan Consultation Website) building for health and happiness. In fact it feels that the views are used to justify the decisions the Council wants with those decisions not necessarily in the interests of those who live and work in South Kilburn. They may coincide but they may not. The document has so many inaccuracies that it is hard to believe the people writing it really knew or were interested in South Kilburn. Its platitudes and disingenuous statements skew the reader to the decision the Council would like to see but don’t show the full picture. Brent Council should sign up to Community Engagement Principles as defined in the National Standards for Community Engagement (http://www.scdc.org.uk/what/national-standards/) putting these into action in South Kilburn to make some recompense for the years of bad practice. 

Officer response

The vision is an update of the original South Kilburn SPD, informed by the New Deal for Communities work. It has been subject to extensive engagement and reflects the opportunities that the area provides taking account of the area’s social, environmental and economic assets within the wider macro context that exists; particularly the need for viable delivery of new social rent dwellings, greater tenure diversity in the area, update of and additional provision of social infrastructure, increased opportunity for residents plus updated London planning policy which requires the efficient use of land.
Identifying that the masterplan has no long-term benefits for the people of South Kilburn is clearly inconsistent with the evidence of what has been achieved so far, including feedback from tenants who have moved into new dwellings, or accessed new/updated facilities. It also ignores the external validation of the work achieved for example by the Mayor of London. The Council recognises that regeneration is more than just a physical process ‘done’ to the local community; it complicated and requires engagement/support/participation and covers a multiplicity of issues. The Council has sought to follow good principles of regeneration wherever it can and for the vast majority of resident’s/local community groups, this is evidenced by a positive feedback. Inaccuracies have not been identified by the respondent and their response contains the type of sweeping generalisations it identifies the Council exhibit in the SPD. The masterplan process since 2005 and regeneration of the estate has quite rightly given the proposed level of change exhibited substantial levels of sustained engagement.

South Kilburn Trust

There is a risk of creating a divided community – on the one hand of people in social housing, set against private housing - very expensive to buy, or at high rents on short tenancies. There are a huge swathe of people in between - people who are working, and can’t get into social housing, but increasingly can’t afford to live in South Kilburn, let alone buy or rent a space big enough for their family. Different tenures and opportunities needs to seriously be considered so as not to end up with community of, bluntly speaking, rich and poor. And so it needs to be considered whether making the most amount of money out of a site is the best thing to do for the regeneration of an area.

Officer response

This scenario is one which officers are well aware of and is recognised in the SPD. The SPD identifies that ideally a wider range of tenures should be provided in the area. Nevertheless, it also identifies that firstly that the Council must make good on its promise to replace the number of existing social rented homes lost to the regeneration.
Unfortunately in the financial climate within the public sector currently, without grant/additional external funds opportunities for provision of alternative tenure types will be very limited. Social rent properties are extremely expensive to subsidise. The only other alternative would be to increase density to create greater subsidy. The Council is not using South Kilburn as a money making exercise; all proceeds are recycled within the regeneration of the area. The Council takes a whole life view of its assets and functions balancing up commercial property values with its role as a wider supporter of the community a significant number of which are reliant on many of the services it provides. 

Residents will be concerned about another proposal on the Agenda which  'appropriates' the green space to enable the redevelopment of Gloucester House and Durham Court to go ahead. A 'quality' replacement is promised:

-->

The redevelopment of Gloucester House and Durham Court site consists of:

·      The demolition of 209 residential units and garages contained within the Gloucester House and Durham Court site 


·      Erection of 236 new residential units - market sale (134 new homes) and affordable social rented (102 new homes) 


·      Relocation and improvement of the public open space and play area at the north of the Site 


·      New public realm and improved routes through the Site 


·      Landscaped private and shared gardens 


·      Basement car park providing 91 spaces 


·      Space for an energy centre for the South Kilburn District Energy System. 


·      Market and affordable dwellings including a range of 1 to 4 bed flats and 3 
and 4 bed duplex family units 


·       

The appropriation includes open space with a public children’s play area, however a new replacement play area will be provided. The Planning Committee Report of 20 August 2014 identified that in order to justify the proposed redevelopment it is important that the replacement facility is of a significantly improved quality. The report found that overall, the proposals appear to be of sufficient quality to justify the redevelopment of the existing play area and inconvenience that will be caused during construction when no play area will be provided. 


It should also be noted that Paddington Recreation Ground is around 330m away, South Kilburn Urban Park approximately 400m away and in May 2016 the new Woodhouse Urban Park in South Kilburn opened which is just over 500m away. 


Brent General Election Results

Figures in brackets is for that party's candidate in 2015

HAMPSTEAD AND KILBURN

·      Siddiq, Tulip – Labour Party, 34,464 votes  (23977)

·      Leyland, Claire-Louise – The Conservative Party Candidate, 18,904 votes (22839)

·      Allan, Kirstie Roberta – Liberal Democrats, 4,100 votes (3039)

·      Mansook, John – The Green Party, 742 votes (2387)

·      Easterbrook, Hugh Laurence – Independent, 136 votes (-)

·      Weiss, Rainbow George – Independent, 61 votes (-)

Turnout for the election was 70.6 per cent which is 3 per cent up on the 2015 General Election.

BRENT CENTRAL

·      Butler, Dawn - Labour Party, 38,208 votes (29216)

·      Bhansali, Rahoul - The Conservative Party Candidate, 10,211 votes (9567)

·      Georgiou, Anton - Liberal Democrats, 2,519 votes (3937)

·      Lish, Shaka - Green Party, 802 votes (1912)

·      North, Janice Marion April - UK Independence Party (UKIP), 556 votes (1850)

Turnout for the election was 65.25 per cent which is 4 per cent up on the 2015 General Election.

BRENT NORTH

·      Gardiner, Barry - Labour Party, 35,496 votes (28351)

·      Jogia, Ameet - The Conservative Party Candidate, 18,435 votes (17517)

·      Lorber, Paul - Liberal Democrats, 1,614 votes (2607)

·      Lichten, Michaela Mary Constance - Green Party, 660 votes (1539)

·      Jeffers, Elcena - Independent, 239 votes (197)

Turnout for the election was 68.61 per cent which is 5 per cent up on the 2015 General Election.

Greens: Scrap prescription charges - just what the doctor ordered!

Caroline Lucas has announced the Green Party's plans to scrap prescription charges as part of its commitment to a national health service that’s genuinely free at the point of use.

Lucas said  the Government is fining people for being sick and creating barriers which stop people accessing the medication they need.

GPs have warned that the £8.60 prescription charge in England is forcing some people to make a choice between food and medication.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have already scrapped prescription charges, and the Green Party wants to adopt the same scheme in England.

Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green Party, said:

Every day this Government is fining people for falling sick by charging for prescriptions. GPs have warned that prescription charges force some patients to choose between spending their earnings on food - or essential medical treatment. This is not acceptable. It’s also a false economy because not taking prescribed mediation can cause people to miss work and lead to additional GP or hospital appointments.

Molly Scott Cato, Green South West MEP and Bristol West candidate, added:

The NHS was founded on the principle of universal access to free, publicly funded and provided health care at the point of use. Prescription charges in England undermine that principle and the Green Party would not make people pay for access to vital medication.

Scrapping prescription fees would cost an estimated £550 million annually The Green Party argue these costs could be more than met by getting rid of the NHS internal market – a move which would save an estimated £4.5bn according to the Centre for Health and the Public Interest.

'The air we breathe' special Brent meeting on July 6th

Brent Council and new coalition group, Clean Air for Brent, are inviting everyone to a high-profile public meeting "The Air We Breathe: how  pollution is affecting us and what we can do about it" at Brent Civic Centre, Thursday 6th July, 7-9pm. Speakers to include world-renowned health expert Sir Michael Marmot and Simon Birkett, Founder and Director of Clean Air in London. Inter-active discussion with a panel and news of what we can do locally. Please join us.

Tickets can be booked here: Tickets for 'The Air we Breathe'

or using this URL HERE  Enquiries cafbrent@gmail.com cafbrent@gmail.com

Climate Change: 3 reasons to be fearful of a Tory victory

From the Greener Jobs Alliance

 In the final days before the election the GJA is sending out a stark warning for climate change and the environment about the consequences of a Conservative victory. Their manifesto ‘’Forward Together’ makes some startling claims, as well as failing to address the key challenges facing the UK.  LINK 
 
This has now been compounded on the international stage with the pathetic response to Trump’s decision on the Paris Agreement

1. Global leader? – The Tories state in their manifesto that ‘We will continue to lead international action against climate change’ (p.38). What attempts are made to justify this claim? This leadership role is apparently demonstrated by the UK ratification of the Paris Agreement! (p.40).  In fact, we were one of the last of the countries to ratify. Hardly leadership. Another bizarre claim is trying to take credit for the introduction of the Climate Change Act. The Act was introduced by a Labour Government in 2008. In a desperate attempt to get some reflected glory we are told that the Conservatives ‘helped to frame it’ (p.40)
2. Defending the Paris Agreement – Now that Donald Trump has withdrawn from the Agreement how has May shown her leadership? A phone call from the prime minister supposedly expressing ‘our disappointment’. Real leadership would have been to sign the protest letter making it clear that the agreement cannot be re-negotiated and condemning the decision. Theresa May’s subservience to the US has led to a failure to provide strong leadership yet again.
3. UK domestic policy -Air Quality is the biggest public and occupational health risk and is covered in one sentence (p.25). ‘Action’ is promised with no indication what that will be. If their proposals in the consultation paper released just before the manifesto are anything to go by then we know it will be very limited. A new Clean Air Act as proposed by the Green Party and Labour Party is not included as an option even though a clear national direction is essential. Energy policy is framed in a strange assertion that it ‘should be focused on outcomes rather than the means by which we reach our objectives. So, after we have left the European Union, we will form our energy policy based not on the way energy is generated but on the ends we desire – reliable and affordable energy, seizing the industrial opportunity that new technology presents and meeting our global commitments on climate change’ (p.23). The manifesto then contradicts itself by focusing on fracking as a way of generating energy even though the reality suggests that it will not be consistent with any of the 3 ends identified.

Air quality and climate change finally surfaced as an election issue at the leaders debate on May 31st.  Between now and June 8th we must keep exposing both the Government record and their ‘vision’. We need a strong and stable environment and we’re not going to get that from the Tories.

Crunch time: 5 reasons to vote Green in #GE2017

This unofficial video by Green Party member Ousman Noor throws out a challenge to voters - 5 reasons to vote Green in the General Election.