Tuesday 11 June 2019

'Socially Useful Work' - the Lucas Plan and its current relevance - film & discussion Monday 17th June


Informal consultation reveals strong support for Strathcona School but formal closure consultation to go ahead

A report going to the next Brent Cabinet meeting reveals overwhelming support for retention of the Strathcona school which the Council has earmarked for closure but recommends that Cabinet go ahead with formal consultation on closure:

RecommendationL Cabinet approves a period of formal consultation, through publication of a statutory notice, on proposals to:·change the age range of Roe Green Infant School from 3-11 to 3-7·reduce the school’s Published Admission Number (PAN) from 150 to 120 for September 2020·implement a phased closure of the provision on the Roe Green Infant School Strathcona site.
The Council's handling of population projection data and its competence at planning school places was questioned by respondents with many asking why the authority had created large 3-5 form entry schools. There are calls for the scrapping of the controversial new Ark primary school due to be built on the car park of York House on a busy road in Wembley Park.

The Council was criticised for not promoting the school enough and questioned as to why it was choosing to close high quality provision.

Concern was expressed oveer the impact of closure on individual pupils and their families.


Brent Council responded that the closure was due to falling demand and not about the quality of education.

Full Consultation Report (Click lower right square to enlarge)



Brent planners recommend Queensbury pub demolition scheme despite vociferous local opposition


This pub will be demolished unless Brent Planning Committee reject planning officers' recommendation
The fears of the Queensbury Pub campaigners that Brent Council will give in to the developer of the Willesden Green site and agree to the demolition of the well-loved pub appear to have been realised.

Two almost identical schemes have been put forward and the planners reject Scheme A and recommend acceptance of Scheme B.


The developer is currently at Appeal over the Council’s rejection of the earlier scheme, Campaigners claim that their FOI request revealed that the developer agreed with Brent Council that the appeal will be dropped if the Planning Committee grant the Scheme B application.  The Planning Committee papers do not note that agreement.


Officers note (claim?) that ‘less than substantial harm has been identified in the loss of the building’ housing the public house and that the identified harm is ‘outweighed by the significant public benefits’ of the scheme.


The scheme does not meet the Council’s 50% affordable housing target but that is glossed over by a vague reference to a ‘post-implementation’ review.


There is no guarantee that the replacement pub space would have a kitchen despite the fact that the survival of public houses these days depend on their offering meals and the food offer is a strength of the current pub.


The development would yield a sum of  £890,000 in Council Infrastructure Levy (CIL).


Officers’ Conclusions (FULL REPORT HERE)

The proposed development is considered to have addressed the issues identified with the scheme currently at Appeal. Whilst less than substantial harm has been identified in the loss of a building which is viewed as making a positive contribution to the character of the Mapesbury Conservation Area, the identified harm is outweighed by the significant public benefits which arise from the scheme. These include: the removal of visible negative public realm features such as signage and poorly designed extensions; direct street-level access; an increase in housing provision and affordable housing provision, the provision of a formal community space/ function room. 

Whilst design will always be a subjective matter, the removal of the bulky and intrusive front elevation results in a building which appears more coherent in the streetscene and in keeping. Internally, the standard of accommodation of individual units is improved with more regular shaped rooms proposed and units meeting with the Technical Standards; and outlook and amenity space provision is also considered acceptable. No issues are again raised in relation to neighbour impact. 

The overall design of the public house is now considered to be suitably distinctive from the residential elements. The applicant has reviewed other design options such as retaining the existing building, however as discussed above, a viable scheme would result in a scheme which would completely dominate the existing building, have unacceptable impacts on neighbouring occupiers or unacceptably alter the existing building. 

The affordable housing offer of 35 % does not meet the 50 % target set out in current Council’s adopted policy and there remains some disagreement in relation to the some of the variables and the associated potential surplus generated by the scheme. However, it is considered that this can be resolved through a post implementation review which would use actual sales values and build costs as opposed to hypothetical values. Any money received will contribute towards much needed affordable housing elsewhere in the Borough. It is also noted that the current offer by the applicant of 35% affordable by habitable room would comply with the draft London Plan and with emerging local policy. 

The Planning Committee will decide on the application on June 19th, 6pm at Brent Civic Centre. If you wish to speak on the application email:
joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk


The Save The Queensbury Campaign  told Wembley Matters:

Once again we rely on members of the Planning Committee to take an objective view of the three schemes before them. Members are asked to back a scheme they’ve effectively Refused and now subject to Appeal. Members are not told that granting the scheme will take the Appeal off the table; that deal has been done.
None of the schemes meet Affordable housing targets and worryingly, there are no plans for the community groups using the pub six mornings a week. Much is promised in future reviews and legal paperwork but that will be done behind closed doors and without community involvement.
Neither the developer or officers have offered any evidence that the community welcomes this decision.

Members should not fear going against their officers. They did this before and Brent went on to win the Appeal and we are confident that the same can happen again.

Second Permablitz at Northwick Park Community Garden on Father's Day Sunday June 16th

The Community Garden is taking shape
From Northwick Park Community Garden

On Sunday 16th June - Father’s Day - we will be all set up to start the 2nd Permablitz at the community garden - we will be completing planting and mulching the beds we dug at the 1st Permablitz, and digging and mulching new beds, with the future aim of,by this time next year, eventually making our way towards our end goal of the footbridge across the railway. 

It is due to the hard work of our wonderful volunteers, in association with Permablitz London, that this is happening, and if you would like to volunteer there is still time to sign up by emailing us at Northwickparkcommunitygarden@gmail.com.

 The day runs from 10am until 5/5.30pm. We provide drinks, snacks and a great cooked vegetarian lunch so BOOKING IS ESSENTIAL not only for catering but to also ensure we have enough tools etc

Brent Scrutiny to examine progress since the 'Adult B' Safeguarding Adult Review

The Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee will tonight (6pm Brent Civic Centre) receive an update and progress report LINK resulting from the Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR) of Adult 'B' whose case was covered on Wembley Matters and in some of the national press. The Review was triggered because there was evidence that Adult B had experienced abuse and/or neglect and that there was concern about how agencies had worked together to safeguard and promote her well being.

The report to Scrutiny by Michael Preston-Shoot, Independent Chair of the Brent Safeguarding Adults Board, sets out in details what has been done locally as a result of the Review as well as the national context.

His final remarks summarise the current position:
 
The purpose and terms of reference for the Adult B SAR are detailed in the review itself, which is an appendix to this report LINK. Put succinctly, the SAR’s purpose was to identify good practice and shortcomings in Adult B’s care and support provision and to learn lessons about the care and support provided to a person with learning disabilities, protection planning and the use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

It is clearly laid out in the SAR that what had been provided to Adult B over a considerable number of years had been very limited. She had been provided with accommodation and her basic needs had been met. However, with reference to the components of wellbeing in section 1 (Care Act 2014), provision had been limited. The SAR therefore challenges all those involved with arrangements for the care and support of learning disabled people with respect to what the vision and ambition is for service provision.

 If residential care is to be provided to people with learning disabilities, then this needs to be accompanied by other forms of service provision in order to deliver on all aspects of wellbeing. It is questioning whether, in all cases where care and support is being provided, relying just on annual reviews is sufficient to ensure that people’s needs continue to be met and their wellbeing enhanced.

Concerns about provision for learning disabled people are not unique to Brent. There have been other SARs that have highlighted shortcomings, of which Winterbourne View (South Gloucestershire SAB) and Mendip House (Somerset SAB) are particularly noteworthy.

In relation to the recommendations, detailed advice was taken by Adult Social Care in relation to the other residents in the care home and that advice has been acted on, with plans implemented to ensure their health and wellbeing. The first recommendation has, therefore, been completed although work obviously is on-going with respect to monitoring the quality of the new arrangements.

Adult B now has an allocated social worker. Adult B and her mother were provided with considerable support in the run-up to her move and this support has continued. Adult B is safe and well, and is making good progress in her new placement. The second recommendation has, therefore, also been completed but work is on-going with respect to monitoring the quality and outcomes of the new arrangements.

The third and fourth recommendations relate to the development of services generally for learning disabled people and the SAB’s role in seeking reassurance that the lessons from the Adult B SAR have been embedded. The SAB will receive regular updates from Adult Social Care and the CCG regarding the development of services for learning disabled people, the management of provider concerns, and the provision of primary care healthcare checks. The SAB also receives regular updates of the outcomes locally of reviews of deaths of learning disabled people (the Learning Disability Mortality Review Programme), which means that the case of Adult B is not seen in isolation.

The responsibility for overseeing the outcome of the recommendations rests with the SAB and ultimately myself as Independent Chair. I have facilitated dissemination events and will continue to do so in order to ensure that the lessons from the Adult B SAR, and from other SARs nationally involving learning disabled people, are known and the findings reflected in good practice locally. 

The last SAB annual conference deliberately included a keynote presentation on SAR findings and another on good practice with learning disabled people. The SABs strategic plan, a statutory requirement from the Care Act 2014, is being updated for 2019/2021 and there will be a strategic priority that focuses on learning disabled people to ensure a focus on service improvement in this field of practice.

Adult B and her mother will continue to receive support from a social worker and GP to ensure that her health and social care needs are met. Adult B’s mother was consulted during the SAR process, so that her views were incorporated fully. She was also fully involved in discussions about publication of the SAR and was supportive of publication to ensure that lessons are learned both locally and nationally.


This is Carers Week 2019- lots of Brent activities


Life in Brent to become even more of a gamble


Monday’s Brent Council Cabinet meeting is set to approve plans for a Community Lottery in the borough.  The aim is to raise funds for the voluntary sector in the borough.  The Cabinet report includes full details and can be read HERE.

There are currently 50 or so local authorities that run such schemes.  Brent Council has in the past turned down plans for a giant casino in Wembley Park and there are sections of Brent’s religious communities that are opposed to gambling on principle. The key question will be whether a local lottery could compete with the myriad other products on offer and as the Cabinet report states much will depend on successful marketing.

There is of course a wider issue as to whether this is the way that local services, often handed over to voluntary organisations in the wake of cuts to local authority funding, should be provided at all.

The running of the Community Lottery would be out-sourced to a private company.
The report gives the following details:

How does it work?

·      ·  Tickets cost £1 per week
·      ·  All players must be aged 16 or over
·      ·  Players can buy multiple tickets for multiple causes
·      ·  Draws are conducted every Saturday at 8pm and results are posted online
·      ·  Players sign up via direct debit or payment card; payments are taken on a monthly plan or a 3, 6 or 12 month one off payment
·      ·  Winners are notified by email and receive the prize directly into nominated account or can donate the prize to a good cause
·      ·  Good Causes are paid their income on a monthly basis
·      ·  Good Causes and the council promote the lottery to their supporters
·      ·  The Central Fund is administrated by the council

Local Lottery Good Cause Criteria

Your organisation must: 
·      Provide community activities or services within the London Borough of Brent which support the ambitions and actions of the Borough Plan 2019-2023. 

·      Have a formal constitution or set of rules. 

·      Have a bank account requiring at least two unrelated signatories. 

·      Operate with no undue restrictions on membership. 

·      Have a detailed plan as to how the lottery will be promoted. 
And be either:
·      A constituted group with a volunteer management committee, with a 
minimum of three unrelated members, that meets on a regular basis (at 
least three times a year) 

·      A registered charity, with a board of trustees. 
Or:
·      A registered Community Interest Company, and provide copies of your 
Community Interest Statement, details of the Asset Lock included in your Memorandum and Articles of Association, and a copy of your latest annual community interest report.

The council will not permit applications to join the lottery from:
·      Groups promoting or lobbying for particular religious, political beliefs or campaigns. 

·      Organisations that do not work within the boundaries of the London Borough of Brent. 

·      Individuals. 

·      Organisations which aim to distribute a profit. 

·      Organisations with no established management committee/board of trustees 
(unless a CIC). 
 

The council reserve the right to reject any application in line with the criteria above and to cease to licence any organisation with a minimum of seven days’ notice for any reason. If fraudulent or illegal activity is suspected cessation would be immediate. 




-->