Waste, Pavements, Crime, Clean Air, Parks, Trees, Litter, Parking etc - have your say on future of Brent's vital services

 

Brent Council are consulting on the delivery of essential basic services from April 2023. As these affect us every day (you should see my email in-box!) it is worth making an effort to respond:

In May 2019, the council set up a programme called ‘Redefining Local Services’ to explore how some of the most important local services could be delivered from 1 April 2023. This is when existing contracts for many of these services are due to end. 

 

We’re talking about the delivery of services that have an impact on:

 

• How your recycling and waste is collected and processed
• How our roads and pavements are maintained
• How we work to prevent anti-social behaviour and crime
• How we improve local air quality and tackle the climate emergency
• How businesses like pubs and casinos are licensed
• How Brent’s parks and trees are maintained
• How we keep our streets free of litter and illegal rubbish dumps
• How illegal parking is enforced
  

 

A decision must now be made on how services that are currently being delivered by contractors will be delivered in the future, once those contracts end. For example, the council could continue to pay outside organisations to provide these services (outsourcing), or it could deliver some of them itself (insourcing), or the council could do a combination of both these things.

 

The documents we are consulting on summarise the research that has been done to date and outline the pros and cons of a number of different delivery model options for these services. 

 

Ultimately, our ambition is to design a model which delivers the services residents, businesses and visitors need. This means a cleaner, greener environment and more jobs for local people, as well as opportunities for local businesses. We also want to build in greater flexibility, control and innovation.  

 

Whichever option is chosen, the council must make sure that the way services are delivered is affordable and secures best value. 

 

We are now asking for your views on the future delivery of these local services. 

 

Why we are consulting

 

We are consulting with you to help us make informed decisions about the future delivery of these important services. We want to know what your priorities are when thinking about service delivery and how you feel we should choose between the different delivery model options. 

 

We also want to know which delivery models you prefer, your reasons for choosing them and whether you agree with the two competing options we are currently favouring. 

 

Who are we consulting with?

Under Section 3 of the Local Government Association 1999 (LGA 1999), the council has a duty to consult with representatives of the following groups of people:

• Local taxpayers (i.e. Brent residents)
• Local ratepayers (i.e. local businesses, including SMEs)
• Service users (i.e. people who use Brent services)
• People with an interest in the borough (this could include organisations who have contracts with the council)
• Local voluntary groups
  

 

When is the consultation and how can I respond?

The consultation will run from Tuesday 18 May 2021 until Monday 21 June 2021.

 

We ask that you please complete the online survey by Monday 21 June.

 

We also want to talk to a handful of people from across the borough in a bit more detail about these issues – if you’d like to get involved in one of those conversations do please let us know by registering. As a thank you for your time, we’re offering a £20 LDO (London Designer Outlet) voucher to all who attend.

 

Please note that individual replies on the consultation will not be provided. However, we will post a summary of all views received on the portal after the consultation has closed.

How will we use your data?

A report summarising all views received will be produced after the consultation period for consideration at a future meeting of Cabinet. This report will help inform Cabinet’s final decision on the delivery model for these services.

All feedback received through the consultation will be anonymised, and any identifiable information removed before the summary report is produced.

 

As part of the online survey, we also need you to confirm that you fall within one of the groups of people that we are consulting with. 

 

We will not use the information you provide for any other purpose other than that stated above, nor will we share it with other council departments / external bodies.

We will always process your information in accordance with the law. For more information on how we process, use and store your information, please refer to the Council’s Privacy Policy.

 

Further Information

 

If you have any queries on the consultation process, please email them directly to redefininglocalservices@brent.gov.uk 

For more detail on the services in scope and the delivery models being considered, please refer to the documents provided alongside the survey.

 

COMPLETE THE SURVEY VIA THIS LINK

Brent Borough briefing with AT Medics - 2.30pm this afternoon

 This will be of interest to anyone concerned about takeovers of GP surgeries

 

FROM  NORTH WEST LONDON COLLABORATION OF CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUPS

Brent Borough briefing with AT Medics

 

A briefing has been arranged with AT Medics so that Brent patients can hear about their future plans for practices in the borough and answer any questions that they have.

 

The briefing will take place on Friday 21 May, 2021, 2:30pm – 3:30pm via MS Teams:

·         Welcome and introduction by M C Patel

·         Introduction and context by Julie Sands

·         Presentation by AT Medics

·         Questions and Answers

 

 

CLICK HERE TO JOIN THE MEETING

Please donate to help stop the takeover of GP surgeries by US giant Centene

Rcent Brent demonstration against takeovers

The take over of GP's surgeries by US company Centene, including three in Brent, has been covered on Wembley Matters.  LINK Now a legal challenge has been launched and I hope readers will contribute.

DONATE HERE

The Appeal

Help us to stop the takeover of GP Surgeries by the giant American corporation Centene!

Centene (through its UK company Operose Health Ltd) has taken over dozens of GP surgeries in London including eight contracts in Camden, Islington and Haringey. Hundreds of patients, councillors and members of the public have written letters, protested outside surgeries and have made their feelings clear. We do not want our GP practices taken over by large profit-seeking American corporations.

 

The decision to allow the takeover of the GP surgeries with over 375,000 NHS patients on their lists, was taken by the Clinical Commissioning Groups who are responsible for commissioning General Practice services for patients.  

 

Following public outcry, a patient at one of the affected practices has decided to challenge the decision of her local CCG (North Central London) in court. Ms Anjna Khurana is a local councillor, representing Tollington Ward, and is a patient at Hanley Primary Care Centre in Islington.

Anjna said:

“I am so afraid that our NHS is being dismantled bit by bit, with the private sector playing a bigger and bigger part.  The NHS belongs to all of us and it is wrong that it should be run to achieve private profit rather than for the good of everyone. I also worry that my personal NHS medical data will be used by Operose for purposes that I have not been informed about or agreed to.

I need to trust my doctor, and how can I do that if they work for a company like Centene? A company that has a record of fraud in the US.  I am taking this court action not only for me but for all of us, because we all feel the same about the NHS.  Please help me to make this happen.”

Anjna is right to be worried. It's clear that the Centene/Operose Health business model is built around profits not patient care. 

This statement, from public accounts of the UK parent company behind Operose Healthcare, makes it very clear :

"Position at 31 December 2019 and future developments ... Rationalisation of our business activities… Has continued into 2020, as the business seeks to divest of activities that have not met profitability targets. As a result, on 31 March 2019, Operose Health Limited exited the Surrey Borders Partnership NHS Trust CAMHS contract, and on 1 July 2019, Operose Health (Group) UK Limited divested its complex care division, including the contracts and related assets." 

From this statement it's also clear this is not just about London GP Surgeries. Operose Health Ltd have already taken over twenty other GP surgeries across England. The corporate takeover of NHS services can happen anywhere in the country. 

This case affects all of us.   

HOW YOU CAN HELP

Please help to raise £25,000 - £30,000 so that Anjna can bring the case to the Court. This target is on the assumption that the judge will award 'capped costs' because this is a case of vital public interest.

£25K is to cover the 'capped costs'. When the lawyers ask the Judge for permission to bring the Judicial Review, they will ask for this limit to the amount Anjna would have to pay to NCL CCG’s lawyers, if she were to lose the Judicial Review.  

This is the only way Anjna can afford to bring the case to court.

The additional £5K is towards the costs of court fees, solicitors and barristers who are working hard already in presenting Anjna’s case for consideration.

We're sure you can see the public interest in this Judicial Review. Your support will be invaluable. Please contribute whatever you can and share this page now!

NOTE: Should it transpire that a judge says there are no grounds to proceed to Judicial Review, in accordance with CrowdJustice's Terms and Conditions, we will donate any unused funds to another similar legal challenge, via Crowd Justice or the Access to Justice Foundation.

THE DECISION SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE

The hope is that the courts will judge that North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group acted unlawfully in making their decision and that the decision will be quashed. Certainly the process was carried out with little regard for public consultation and certainly no involvement of registered patients.

London GP,  Louise Irvine, of Keep Our NHS Public (KONP) said: "The NHS  Constitution demands transparency and people rightly expect transparency and accountability in NHS decision-making especially about such important matters as who runs our GP practices, and their suitability to be trusted with our health care and our personal health data."

Like Anjna, the public would hope and expect proper patient and public engagement about what kind of people or organisations should get the contracts to run our GP surgeries in the future. The public don't want to see good NHS GP surgeries taken over by companies who do not share a belief in the ethics of comprehensive healthcare for everyone regardless of wealth or status.

Cat Hobbs, CEO of We Own It agrees: "Our NHS belongs in public hands, working for patients not profit. People don't want health insurance giants like Centene taking over GP surgeries. We fully support Anjna and her incredibly important fight for our NHS."

This legal challenge is an important step in stopping more corporate takeovers of the NHS. It also demands transparency and accountability from Clinical Commissioners in the future.

Steven Carne of 999 Call for the NHS said:  “What is most worrying is that the failure of the various CCGs to carry out proper scrutiny means they've allowed a multi-million dollar American corporation to hold a major position within the NHS infrastructure. And the people who will suffer are the patients who, of course, were told nothing."  

THE PROCESS AHEAD

We are working with solicitors Leigh Day and barristers Adam Straw QC from Doughty St Chambers and Leon Glenister from Landmark Chambers.

Anjna's claim has to be submitted to the High Court and a judge will decide whether the case can continue to a full Judicial Review. We are asking for capped costs because this is the only way Anjna can bring this case. A case that is of huge public interest. 

If the Courts grant approval and agree capped costs, we will then proceed to a full Judicial Review hearing.

Brent’s Historic Green Spaces – do you live near one? Make sure it is protected

 Guest post by Philip Grant

In a comment on Martin’s first blog about the planning application to build a block of flats in Barham Park, I said that I had set out the case for the park to be treated as a “heritage asset” in its own right as part of my objections. 

 

 

The site of the Victorian mansion in Barham Park, September 2015.

 

I sent a copy of my case for this to Brent Council’s Heritage Conservation Officer, and his reply was that it already had that status. He said:

 

“I can confirm that Barham Park would be treated as locally designated asset as it is contained on the London Gardens Trust Inventory.  See 10.3 of Brent’s Historic Environment Place-making Strategy.  It states ‘The London Parks & Gardens Trust has identified 38 sites within Brent which have been included on its Inventory of Historic Green Spaces. These sites are treated as Locally listed within the Borough and are identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions.’”

 

The fact that thirty-eight “Historic Green Spaces” in the borough are meant to have the same level of protection as locally listed buildings for planning purposes came as news to me, so I thought that it was something that was worth sharing with you. It is not something that I’m aware of the Council, or its planners, having drawn to public attention. 

 

As “non-designated heritage assets”, any planning application that affects one of these green spaces, or its setting, should include a Heritage Statement, which describes the heritage asset and its level of “significance”, sets out the degree of harm to that significance which the proposals in the application would cause, and anything that the proposals will do to mitigate that harm. 

 

This is certainly something that anyone looking at plans for a development near one of these green spaces in their area should bear in mind, and make sure that it is referred to in any objections they may make. If a heritage statement is not included as part of the application, or is inadequate, this can be drawn to the Case Officer’s attention as grounds for, at least, requiring further information on this heritage aspect of the plans.

 

Here is the list of the thirty-eight Historic Green Spaces, from Brent’s Historic Environment Place-Making Strategy, which is one of the documents (adopted by Brent Council in 2019) which form part of the borough’s “emerging Local Plan”:-

 

Remember, these green spaces are all Heritage Assets, which Brent’s own policies say are a valuable part of our historic environment, and deserve protection!

 

Sadly, as we know from the experience of Brent’s own planning application to demolish Altamira, the locally listed Victorian villa in Stonebridge, the Council and its planners do not always abide by their own adopted policies! But that should not stop us from flagging up those policies, and the level of protection which they are meant to provide, whenever they are relevant to a planning proposal which would have a detrimental effect on one of our Historic Green Spaces.

 

Philip Grant.

Show you are tackling climate change if you want a Brent Council contract

 Brent Council Press Release

Businesses will need to show how they are tackling climate change and working towards zero carbon emissions by 2030 when bidding for Brent Council contracts under new procurement rules introduced this week.

 

The council’s new Procurement Sustainability Policy aims to utilise Brent’s huge purchasing power by requiring potential new suppliers to demonstrate how they tackle the climate crisis by reducing carbon emissions and waste; minimising the use of resources; promoting the circular economy; improving air quality; and enhancing green spaces and biodiversity.

 

All applicable tenders will now include a sustainability assessment to identify how they will reduce Brent’s environmental impact and support sustainability commitments, which will form part of legally binding contracts awarded to successful bidders.

 

Councillor Krupa Sheth, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Environment, said: 

 

The council spends around £400 million every year on goods and services, so we have a great opportunity to use this spending power to make Brent greener and get closer to zero carbon emissions.

 

This is about us putting our money where our mouth is. Improving environmental sustainability through the suppliers we work with is essential if we are going reach the ambitious targets we have set ourselves. By working together, we can all make a difference, and create a greener borough for everyone.

 

The Procurement Sustainability Policy links into the council’s Procurement Strategy 2020-2023 priorities to achieve economic, social and environmental benefits for Brent.

 

•             Procurement Sustainability Policy

•             Procurement Strategy 2020-2023

Barham Park developer will make new proposal to replace two existing houses with new houses

George Irvin, the developer who had proposed a block of flats to replace the two modest house n Barham Park has confimed via Facebook that he has withdrawn the current application and will prepare a new one that will be for two new houses on the site.

He posted an email he had sent to Brent Council Planning Department on Paul Lorber's Facebook page today. I was hesitant in accepting that it was genuine because of the many typos but Brent Council has confirmed the withdrawal.

Ref: 21/1106 - 776 + 778 Harrow Road

 

Further to your email and our discussions yesterday on 18 May 2021, I confirm that we will now withdrawal the above mentioned application today.

 

In order to overcome the concerns you have highlighted, a new application will be prepared for two new houses to replace the existing two houses on site.

 

The main reason for this is keep all the people in Brent we work with, The Local Community, Brent Counsellor, Sunbury Town Residence Association and the Barham Park Trusts happy, as all the feedback with have been receiving is they would prefer us to replace the two existing houses with two new better ones.

 

Regards George

 

George Irvin FInstD

Zenastar Properties Ltd

UPDATED: Triumph for campaigners as planning application to build flats on Barham Park withdrawn

 

 

A triumphant Sudbury Town Residents Association published the above on Twitter this afternoon. The Sudbury Court Residents Association (SCRA) waged a well-researched battle including uncovering covenants to stop the building of a block of flats to replace the present modest houses. 

They deserve credit for this long-running. extremely determined, grassroots campaign  LINK which had latterly been joined by some local councillors.  

Sudbury Labour announced the withdrawal of the application on their website LINK

The painstaking work of Sudbury Court Residents Association (SCRA) can be seen in this exchange of emails that are likely to have influenced the application withdrawal.  Readers may remember that  Wembley Matters drew attention to the fact that Brent Council Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt, appeared to have taken on the chairmanship of the Barham Park Trust Committee since its last meeting.

 

SCRA wrote to the Barham Park Trust Committee:

 Re: Brent Planning Application 21/1106 | Demolition of dwelling houses and erection of a four storey residential building comprising 9 self-contained flats with roof top terrace and associated access, parking and landscaping | 776 & 778 Harrow Road, Wembley

 

Dear Barham Park Trust Committee

 

I am writing on behalf of the Sudbury Court Residents Association.  We represent approximately 2800 households on the Sudbury Court and Pebworth Estates. Some our residents are located less than 850m from the site.

 

We wish to draw your attention to and OBJECT to the above application and we support the objection submitted by the Brent Council Member for Barnhill Ward.

 

In addition, we strongly feel that this will cause numerous problems for our residents, detailed below:

 

1.     Initial soundings of residents have been a resounding rejection of any development over and above the Covenanted limits especially as the site is 'within' the Barham Park boundary.

2.    As our residents use Barham Park for recreation and exercise, their enjoyment and even privacy will be compromised as this large building will completely spoil its view. It is the nearest park for many of our residents, so it is critical that it is preserved as such, especially as we recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and both physical and mental health have been affected.

3.    This development will increase congestion on an already busy road, increasing pollution and road danger.

4.    Vehicles turning into the site will increase danger for pedestrians and cause disruption to traffic flow, including buses. This is at the start of the number 18 bus route and this may delay the bus further and increase danger for pedestrians accessing the bus stop.

5.    There is no provision of delivery parking so this will either lead to obstruction of the road or footway.

6.    Car parking provision is contrary to the Council's policy on parking provision in developments.

7.     There is likely to be significant impact on wildlife, especially bats, which are a protected and rare species.

8.    Damage to the Cedar of Lebanon tree is unacceptable.

9.    There are restrictive covenants placed on the site, which forbid such a development. The covenant limits use on the two separate parts of the site (776 & 778) in each case to 1 single private dwelling houses and garage.

 

Councillor Butt replied that he would pass the comments on to the planning team.

 

SCRA responded:

 

My apologies as I don't think I clarified the purpose of my email to the Barham Park Trustees.

 

Our email was meant to have been addressed to yourself as Chair.

 

We wished to draw your attention to the above application in case you were not aware of it, as it would be the expectation of the SCRA that the Barham Park Trust would be lodging a strong and robust objection to the application.

 

Titus Barnham gifted the site to Brent in 1937, and as a Charitable Trust, it has an obligation protect the endowment.

 

To allow the park to be ruined by permitting the building of a residential block of flats, would be ignoring the obligations of the gift and is in direct contradiction of the restrictive covenants (inserted at the end of my email).

 

The roles of the Barham Park Charity LINK  are:

 

What the charity does:

·       Education/training

·       Arts/culture/heritage/science

·       Amateur Sport

·       Environment/conservation/heritage

·       Economic/community Development/employment

 

Who the charity helps:

·       The General Public/mankind

 

How the charity helps:

·       Provides Buildings/facilities/open Space

 

It does not have a role in providing/facilitating private housing.  

 

We are aware that errors were made when the cottages were originally built and when they were sold, I am sure that the Charity Commission have taken a dim view of the management of this gift to the people of Brent.

 

If the site was to be developed for the benefit of the public, eg a park cafe or other community facility, this would perhaps be acceptable, but to build a private block of flats is, in our view, a direct breach of the covenant.  

 

If any land is disposed of, we envisage that the Trust would seek to obtain a good market value for such a desirable site.

 

Councillor Butt, we trust in your role as Chair of the Board of Trustees, you will be leading a strong objection to this application.

 

Regards SCRA

 

Restrictive Covenants as filed with the Land Registry and belonging to the Barham Trust on 776 Harrow Road (778 is the same)

 

 

12.4

 

Restrictive covenants by the Transferee

 

12.4.1

 

The Transferee covenants with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982 to observe and perform the restrictions contained in clause 12.4.2 ('The Restrictions') and it is agreed and declared that:

 

12.4.1.1

 

the benefit of this covenant is to be attached to and endure for each and every part of the Retained Land that remains unsold by the Transferor or has been sold by the Transferor (or by any person claiming through the Transferor otherwise than by a transfer on sale) with the express benefit of this covenant

 

12.4.1.2

 

the burden of this covenant is intended to bind and binds each and every part of the Property into whosoever hands it may come

 

12.4.1.3

 

an obligation in the Restrictions not to do any act or thing includes an obligation not to permit or suffer that act or thing to be done by another person

 

12.4.2

 

The Restrictions are the following: 

 

12.4.2.1 

 

not to use the Property otherwise than as a single private dwelling house and the garage for any purpose other than as a ancillary private garage

 

12.4.2.2 

 

not to divide the Property into two or more dwellings or residential units

 

12.4.2.3 

 

not to erect or cause to be erected on the Property any building or structure whatsoever except a greenhouse or shed of not greater length than 4 metres and of not greater height than 3 metres or permit or suffer any person under the Transferor's control to do so

 

12.4.2.4 

 

not to stand or support any vehicle, commercial vehicle trailer, mobile home, caravan, trailer, cart or boat on any part of the Property, and

 

12.4.2.5 

 

not to carry out any development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in or upon the Property

 

12.4.2.6 

 

not to park any motor vehicle on or otherwise obstruct any part of the accessway hatched yellow and hatched green or any part of the Retained Land at any time

 

12.5

 

Positive covenants by the Transferee

 

The Transferee covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in title with the Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of the Retained Land and each and every part of the Retained Land and with the Transferor pursuant to Section 16 Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 and Section 33 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1982

 

12.5.1

 

to contribute and pay within 14 days of demand (ll) fifty percent (50%) of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing the accessway shown hatched yellow on the Plan

 

(b) a fair and due proportion of the reasonable and proper cost of maintaining repairing and (where necessary) renewing sewers drains pipes cables party walls and all other structures apparatus or installations which service the Property in common with any neighbouring or adjoining property

 

12.5.2

 

to maintain repair and renew at all times hereafter to the satisfaction of Transferor

 

12.5.2.1

 

a good and sufficient metal palisade fence and timber fence or wall on any of the boundaries of the Property marked with ''T'' (if any) within the boundaries of the said plan.

 

12.5.2.2

 

the pathway hatched brown stippled red and the accessway hatched green stippled red on the Plan to a reasonable standard

 

12.5.3

 

not to transfer the Property or grant a lease of the Property or the Transferee's freehold estate in the Property or any other estate or interest in it to any person without first ensuring that the person has executed a deed directly with Transferor and its successors in title to the Retained Land for the benefit of each and every part of the Retained Land containing the covenants and provisions of clause 12.5. mutatis mutandis including this present covenant 12.5.3.