UPDATE: VEOLIA APOLOGISES Veolia's cheek at claiming credit for an award to a conservation garden they don't maintain

 

The long establised Barn Hill Conservation Group were put out when they saw a tweet from Veolia congratulating themselves and Brent Council for a London in Bloom Gold Winners award to Roe Green Walled Garden in Kingsbury for the best Small Conservation Area.

In fact the Garden is wholly maintained by the volunteers who work there on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturday - Veolia has no involvement.

A volunteer commented that there are two questions: 

 

Why did London in Bloom send the certificate ( on the right  in photograph above) to Veolia rather than to Barn Hill Conservation Group? 

 

Why did Veolia not only accept a certificate for something to which they were not entitled  but then publicise it?

The Conservation Group do an amazing job in the garden, as the photographsbelow shows, and have been doing so for far longer than Veolia has managed the parks contract.

Roe Green Walled Garden

The Conservation Group also does immensely valuable voluntary conservation work in the vast Fryent Country Park every Sunday: 

 

 Fryent Country Park won a Gold in the Country Parks category.

I hope Veolia have the grace to tweet an apology.

Shortly after this story was published Veolia apologised. Thank you.

 

Cressida Dick: Response on Nicole and Bibaa was 'below standard' and 'compounded the distress' of family and friends

 

 

Statement from Metropolitan Police

The Metropolitan Police Service will apologise to the family of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry for the way we responded when the sisters were reported missing.

We agree with the findings of a report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct that found the level of service provided over the weekend when they went missing in June 2020 was below the standard that it should have been.

No misconduct was found for an officer and two members of police staff but there will be action taken over their performance, which was found to be inadequate. There was no suggestion racial bias played any part in how the missing persons reports were dealt with.

Commissioner Cressida Dick said:

 My thoughts and deepest sympathies are with the family and friends of Nicole and Bibaa for their tragic losses.

The way we responded to information that Nicole and Bibaa were missing that weekend was below the standard we should have achieved and compounded the distress felt by their loved ones.

While we know that very sadly Nicola and Bibaa had been murdered in the early hours of Saturday, 6 June 2020, before they were reported missing, if we had responded better we may have saved their friends and family immeasurable pain.

I am very sorry that the level of service we provided fell short. We have contacted the family to ask if they will allow me or, if they prefer, another senior officer to visit them at a time that is right to apologise in person.

 

The MPS made a mandatory referral to the IOPC around how we responded when the sisters were reported missing. The IOPC then launched an independent investigation.

As a result of the findings an inspector, from the North West Command, and a member of police staff, a communications supervisor attached to Met Command and Control at Lambeth, must undertake ‘unsatisfactory performance procedures’. They will both attend formal meetings to discuss their performance and appropriate action going forward.

A second member of police staff, a call handler based at Met Command and Control at Hendon, will receive ‘management action’. This means they will have a performance discussion with their line manager around what they can learn from this matter and how they can improve.

Following calls on the evening of 6 June to report the sisters missing, a police log was created and a missing persons investigation opened for Nicole, and then the following day for Bibaa.

The IOPC investigation found that the inspector closed the police logs after receiving information about the sisters’ possible whereabouts from a family member. This information suggested she was not overly concerned about them and would call back in the morning if needed. The inspector believed the information provided was a justifiable explanation for the sisters’ disappearance.

However, this information had been inaccurately recorded on the police log by the communications supervisor.

The closure of the police logs did not close the missing persons report at that time created for Nicole, but did prevent the deployment of officers to Nicole’s home. The inspector subsequently did not properly progress missing persons enquiries for Nicola or Bibaa.

The inspector told the investigation that this had been one of the most challenging shifts of his career with 16 missing persons reports open and the North West Command Unit under capacity by almost 50 per cent during the Covid pandemic.

A call handler, also a member of police staff, based at Met Command and Control at Hendon, will receive ‘management action’ for the conversation they had and their “dismissive” response when a friend of one of the sisters called police. This means they will have a performance discussion with their line manager around the learning from this matter.

The IOPC investigation considered whether the police response was affected by the sisters’ ethnicity. After a comprehensive examination of police records, no evidence was found of stereotyping or biased assumptions based on the sisters’ race or where they lived.

The IOPC also recommended we review the processes and separate computer systems used by different call handlers, and consider whether further training should be provided to ensure all fully understand how systems operate that they might not use as frequently.

We have already addressed this recommendation by producing an enhanced training information pack for all call operators.

We understand the IOPC are considering further recommendations; these considerations are ongoing.

 

 In an interview with Channel 4 News, Mina Smallman, the victims' mother rejected the statement and said said that she fel there was still a racist element in how the case was managed. See LINK

1 Morland Gardens and Twybridge Way – Brent’s response challenged

 Guest post by Philip Grant

“Altamira”, through the trees of the Community Garden, December 2020. (Photo by Irina Porter)

 

It’s a couple of months since I wrote my previous guest blog about “Altamira”, the locally listed Victorian villa in Stonebridge which Brent Council wants to demolish. This beautiful heritage asset was restored in 1994, and is home to the Brent Start adult education college.

 

In August, I asked ‘when (if ever) will Brent’s redevelopment happen?’ This followed a previous guest blog in June, when I revealed how the Council’s failure to take action, over a risk they had been warned about in December 2018, meant that their 1 Morland Gardens project would be delayed.

 

As mentioned in comments under those blogs, I sent copies of those articles to the Stonebridge Ward councillors, pointing out the knock-on effect the delays were having on another (and better) Brent Council housing project at Twybridge Way, further down Hillside. They forwarded my emails and articles to Council Officers for a response. This was finally received in mid-October, and I would like to thank Councillors Ernest Ezeajughi and Promise Knight for their efforts to get that response.

 

I believe that, as well as letting councillors and Council Officers know what we think about matters that are important to us, we should also consider their views. Here is the full text of the Council’s response:-

 

RE: Proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens, NW10

 

Thank you for your email of 30 September 2021 regarding the proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens, NW10. I am responding to yourself in the first instance so that you may share this with the resident and I have copied in the other Ward Councillors to this response.

 

As per the January 2020 Cabinet report, the former Stonebridge School Annexe site (“the Annexe”) was identified as temporary site for Brent Start whilst the development at 1 Morland Gardens proceeds. In order to deliver the full benefits of the 1 Morland Gardens development, the site requires vacant possession and so during the initial tender for the development, the Council needed to start works on the Annexe site so that Brent Start have their temporary location in place prior to any demolition works at Morland Gardens. 

 

Whilst the delays to the development at 1 Morland Gardens means that the Annexe will be used for longer than first proposed and beyond that of its current planning permission, this will not change the Council’s intentions for the Annexe site. Furthermore, not using the site for Brent Start would mean a significant reduction to the service which provides a vital service to Brent residents. Therefore, once the Morland Gardens moves forward under its current proposed trajectory, the Council will recommence project delivery on the Annexe site to deliver the required homes and NAIL accommodation as soon as it is practical to do so.

 

The Council continues to deliver its new Council Homes Programme across a number of sites in the borough. The Council shares the frustration that the original tender process did not yield the desired outcome which has caused some of time difference between the programme submitted to Cabinet in January 2020 and the current programme as per the report in August 2021. Nevertheless, officers are working to deliver the scheme and its benefits for the local community, this includes working on the planning strategy.

 

Kind regards

Operational Director – Property and Assets

 

The ‘former Stonebridge School Annexe site’ is properly known in Brent Council’s new homes programme as Twybridge Way. It is meant to provide 14 family-sized houses (with gardens), 13 smaller flats for people on the Council's waiting list, and 40 1-bedroom flats for supported living. This is what it would look like:-

 

 

Site plan for the Twybridge Way development (This and image below from planning application documents)

 

Though I am ready to consider the Council’s position, I have to consider it critically (that’s what scrutiny is meant to be about!). Having done so, this is the reply I have sent to the Stonebridge Ward councillors, with copy to the Lead Members and Council Officers involved:-

 

1 Morland Gardens and Twybridge Way - my answer to the Council's response

 

Thank you for your email of 15 October, and for obtaining and forwarding a response from Brent’s Property and Assets section about the Council’s proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens.

 

The letter you received on 12 October, in response to the points I raised with you on 14 August, concentrates on the need to use “the Annexe” as a temporary home for Brent Start while the site at 1 Morland Gardens is being redeveloped. It sidesteps the two main issues:

 

1.    The catalogue of mistakes over the 1 Morland Gardens scheme, which has resulted in ever-increasing delays to that ill-conceived project.

2.   The effect this is having on the Council’s plans for the Twybridge Way site (originally the Stonebridge Health Centre, now known as the former Stonebridge School Annexe, or “the Annexe”).

 

I will deal with the second point first.

 

 

The plans for affordable housing at the Twybridge Way site are Phase 2 of Brent Council’s Stonebridge Redevelopment project. This was meant to be completed by 2021, and if work had got underway promptly after the revised scheme for this site had received full planning permission in May 2020 (three months before the flawed 1 Morland Gardens application), completion would only be a few months later than that.

 

 

As it is, the Twybridge Way scheme, including its 40 “NAIL” independent living flats, cannot even begin before the summer of 2024 at the earliest, IF the Annexe has to be tied up for use as a decant site for Brent Start.

 

The 1 Morland Gardens project got off to a good start, in the summer of 2018, when CLTH architects submitted a winning tender for the design work. Their outline scheme would have retained the locally listed Victorian villa, and provided a new college and some housing on the site, without the need for Brent Start to be decanted.

 

 

Things started to go wrong towards the end of 2018, when the architects were pressed to maximise the number of new homes that 1 Morland Gardens (together with the community garden in front of it) could deliver.

 

 The delays have got worse ever since then.

 

·      The architect’s January 2019 Stage 1 report said that 89 homes could be delivered, as well as the new adult education college on the ground floor and some affordable workspace. At that stage, construction was anticipated to begin around September 2019, but it would need Brent Start to vacate the site.

·      That was the prospect which was given to a group of Cabinet members (the Leader, Deputy Leader and Lead Members for Housing and Education) in February 2019.

·      However, when the project was put to a full Cabinet meeting in January 2020 for approval, the number of new homes had reduced to 65, and they were told that work was likely to begin on site in September 2020, and should be completed by July 2022.

·      By August 2021, when proposals to re-tender for the project were approved, even if everything with this process runs smoothly (and that is far from certain), the best that the Council can hope for is that work on site will begin in July 2022, and take two years to complete.

 
 

Because the Twybridge Way scheme has been shackled to the 1 Morland Gardens project, its delivery is being delayed by at least 3-4 years. I put it to you, and to Council Officers, that the sooner Twybridge Way is freed from that link, the better for new Council housing delivery in Stonebridge.

 
 

Yes, Brent Start does need more modern facilities, and Brent Council has agreed to ring-fence £15.2m of the Strategic CIL funds which it already holds to pay for those. They don’t need to be delivered through the current plans for 1 Morland Gardens. They could be provided at another site locally (such as the Bridge Park / Unisys redevelopment), or as part of a revised scheme for 1 Morland Gardens, which would not require a decant to the Annexe.

 
I believe the reason that the present ridiculous situation is being allowed to continue is that Council Officers are afraid to admit their mistakes over 1 Morland Gardens. The project has become a Juggernaut, which they insist must be driven forward, even though it means sacrificing the timely delivery of the Twybridge Way homes, and the beautiful heritage villa, under its wheels.

 
 

I hope you can understand why I feel the need to use such strong language. Please do your best to persuade your fellow councillors, Cabinet members and Council Officers to seek a better way over 1 Morland Gardens. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

 

P.S. I will be putting the texts of the Council's response letter (copy attached for ease of reference) and my email above into the public domain. This is too important a matter to be "swept under the carpet". 

 

 

If you have any (printable!) thoughts on this situation, or any suggestions on ‘a better way over 1 Morland Gardens’, please add a comment below.

 

 

Philip Grant.

Were Brent councillors not informed of consultation on council estate parking proposals?

It certainly seems to be so from this letter circulated to Brent Councillors the Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods:

Dear Councillors,

 

You may be aware of a consultation launch by the Project Centre on behalf of Brent Housing Management to introduce off street controlled parking to all Brent Council Estates. 

 

I firstly want to apologise for the breakdown in communication between yourselves and us. I understand this must make it particularly difficult when residents come to you for information and briefing should have been sent to you ahead of the consultation launching.

 

Additionally, there has been interest from the local press and I am working with the communications team on this. A key concern raised via the local media outlets is whether this is a scheme to make money. Please see the link to the Cabinet report and supporting documents:  LINK which includes the financial information associated with this project.

 

I have attached a briefing outlining the key points on the introduction of off street controlled parking and the motivations for this proposed change.

 

All residents have been posted a hard copy of a leaflet (see appendix 1), have the opportunity to attend a face to face meeting and / or submit their comments online. We will be extending the consultation to the end of November to ensure everyone has the opportunity to express their views. We will also be organising a members specific briefing session with our consultants and details for this will follow shortly.

 It appears that the not univerally respected Serco will be enforcing the new arrangements. The briefing indicates that Wing Parking was contracted to undertake parking enforcement in 2012 but then (highlighted in yellow) says Wing is not taking any enforcement action. I wonder how much that lack of action is costing?

Off street controlled parking on Brent Council Estates – Councillor Briefing

Introduction

Prior to transferring back to the Council, Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) contracted Wing Parking to undertake enforcement action on council owned housing estates and this has been in operation since August 2012. In 2012, the government introduced The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which reduced Wing Parking’s ability to take any meaningful and effective enforcement action. The Act stopped Wing Parking from accessing information from the Driving Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and as such, any parking tickets issued cannot be pursued unless driver’s details are already known. This has made it difficult to control parking from non-residents on council owned housing estates. This means that, perversely, Wings can only enforce parking tickets against the residents who have purchased permits. The system is therefore only punishing those it was meant to protect.

Following on-going complaints from residents, Councillors and emergency services regarding obstructive and inconsiderate parking by both residents and non-residents of the estates, BHM set out to review alternative options for parking enforcement on Council housing sites and it was approved in July 2020 for Brent Housing Management to proceed with introducing Traffic Management Orders (TMO) across all Brent Council Estates subject to consultation with residents.

BHM has to date piloted this approach on five Council Estates and implementation on these estate is now underway.

Key points to note

•   Under the existing Wing Parking arrangement, residents pay £10 per year for a parking permit. Under the new proposal, residents will pay £50 per year for a parking permit. Whilst this is a increase compared to £10 per year, Brent Housing Management negotiated a reduced rate for residents living on Brent Council estates.

•   Currently under the existing arrangement with Wing there is no enforcement that takes place, whilst the signage and presences of Wing Parking officers does act as a deterrent, the effectiveness is limited and has resulted in continued complaints from residents affected by unauthorised parking on estate. The new arrangement will be managed by the Councils contractor Serco and deliver effective enforcement on estates and tackle abandoned vehicles and anti-social behaviour linked to non-residents vehicles on estates.

•   An example of the consultation leaflet sent to each of the residents accompanies this briefing (see appendix 1) and the contractors carrying out the consultation are called the Project Centre (link to FAQs is prepared by The Project Centre) https://consultprojectcentre.co.uk/brenthousingestateparking/widgets/18431/faqs).

•   This leaflet outlines the position on visitors, as implementation must firstly prioritise residents living on the estate. This means visitors in the short term will not be able to park on the estate but it will be reviewed once the scheme is live and availability can be reassessed.

•   Through discussions with Wing Parking, it is apparent that the legislation has affected their financial viability for the type of contract with Brent Housing Management. Brent Housing Management currently subsidises that lack of income generated through penalty charges. Wing Parking have also confirmed that due to further upcoming Government changes current schemes would become inoperable. If residents choose not to go ahead with the new parking controls on their estate it is not possible to continue offering Wing Parking as an alternative.

 Through the consultation, residents do have an opportunity to influence whether and how the traffic management order is applied. Statutory stakeholders such as the emergency services also have an opportunity to comment. We encourage ward members to submit their views via the following link Project: Brent Housing Estates (pclengagement-hub.co.uk).

Communications going forward

•   All Councillors will be notified of the outcome of the consultation for each estate within their Ward prior to any communication going out to residents. Should Councillors wish to attend, the dates of face to face meetings with residents are available Project: Brent Housing Estates (pclengagement- hub.co.uk)

•   Questions can be sent directly to Estate.Parking@brent.gov.uk this applies to both residents and Councillors. 

•  

  Note: Some council homes have been left off the list Brent Council published (see previous post) These include Gauntlett Court, Summers Close and Saltcroft Close.
  

Brent Council attempts to clear up confusion over Wembley High Road improvement works that are due to start on Monday and last beyond April 2022. They promise disruption will be 'kept to a minimum.'

 

Work will start on Monday on improvements to Wembley High Road and is organised in four phases. The first 3 phases are expected to be completed in April 2022 but depending on delivery of materials:

Phase 1 – From Ark Elvin Academy to Park Lane (both sides of the road)

Phase 2 – From Park Lane to Wembley Central Square (both sides of the road)

Phase 3 – From Wembley Central Square to Ealing Road (both sides of the road)

Phase 4 – From Wembley Triangle to the Ark Elvin Academy (both sides of the road) and from Ealing Road to Napier Road (both sides of the road)

This is the document sent to local residents and businesses:

 

In an email update sent yesterday, Brent Council said:

 

We do understand there is some concern and confusion around these works so hopefully the following information can help clear up any confusion

 

The purpose of these works is to improve the look and feel of the Wembley High Road area to help encourage more shoppers into the locale and thereby help businesses. Please click on the following link to learn more -  Brent Council - Revitalising our high streets

 

As with any town centre improvement works, there will be some disruption however, we can confirm that steps will be taken to ensure any disruption is kept to a minimum and that your business can continue to operate in a ‘Business As Usual’ manner. FM Conway, the contractors conducting these works on our behalf will ensure that:

 

Loading bays

Although some loading bays may need to be suspended during the works in that specific location, the site team will ensure that you will still be able to receive deliveries so your business remains unaffected. Any loading bay closure will be kept to a minimum and be re-opened once the work in that specific location has been completed. FM Conway have a Business/Residents Liaison Officer employed on the scheme. She will keep you updated on the works and work with you regarding any specific delivery requirements. Her contact details are:

Cate Green Catherine.Green@fmconway.co.uk telephone number 07443 077444.

Should you have any further questions relating to this information or the scheme in general please do not hesitate to contact her.

 

Business As Usual

All customers will continue to access your business during the works. The site  teams will NOT block entrances to business premises during opening hours. Direct access into properties might not always be possible, however. This is to enable larger sections of sett laying/paving to be completed, without too much stone cutting, but more importantly, to provide a safe width of footpath for pedestrians. 

 

In addition, where premises have larger entrances, half the access may be worked on during working hours. For those businesses that have more than one entrance it may only be possible to retain one point of access or egress during opening hours.

 

Fencing will be erected to ensure any dust and debris from the works is kept to a minimum. We will attach boards onto the fencing so anyone passing through the area will know your business is still open during the works.

 

 

Businesses With Private Forecourts

We are aware that some businesses have a private forecourt. If you do have a Private Forecourt and you would like your forecourt upgraded in keeping with the wider works this can be done free of charge. There is a twelve month defect period during which time, any issues relating to the surface will be repaired by Brent Council, however after this period, any future maintenance will revert back to the landowner. This is standard practise and is currently the case for Wembley and other town centres across Brent and London. 

 

Will junctions be closed?

All junctions will remain open, however St Johns Road will be closed so materials and equipment needed for the works can be stored, however it will remain open for emergency vehicles to have access and for delivery vehicles that use this location to make deliveries to businesses in this location.

 

 

As mentioned previously, FM Conway have a Business/Residents Liaison Officer employed on this scheme. Please do not hesitate to contact Cate Green via email on Catherine.Green@fmconway.co.uk or by phone on 07443 077444 should you have any further questions relating to this information or the scheme in general.