New councillor Ryan Hack spearheads drive for a Brent without foodbanks - 'hunger is a result of political choices'

 

 

Brent Foodbank

 

Earlier this year in March I was one of many crowded into Cardinal Newman College in Harlesden for a Right to Food summit bringing together politicians, experts, the people who run food banks and especially the public  to discuss ways of tackling food poverty in the borough.There was recognition of the tremendous work done by volunteers during Covid to make sure no-one went hungry and food was delivered in safe conditions.

 

The launch at the Granville Community Kitchen and Garden

 

The campaign goes back even earlier to July 2021 when it was launched at the Granville in South Kilburn, Alex Colás, acting co-convenor of the Brent Right to Food campaign, said them :

Food poverty is the result of structural injustices connected to health, housing, employment and wider social inequalities. It needs systemic solutions that empower communities with public resources, including land, retail space and procurement directed toward a more just and sustainable local food system.

Beyond the immediate demands of Covid,at the summit, he food banks in particular were keen that the need for them should not be normalised and that the deeper reasons for food poverty should be tackled. The 'sticking plaster' approach was near breaking point and anyway, not the answer.

The summit wa organised by Alex  Colás and a young Labour Party member Ryan Hack. Ryan was elected a councillor in  May and at Full Council this week lost no time in gaining  Liberal Democrat[s leader Anton Georgiou support for a Food Justice Strategy for Brent just a year after the launch. An excellent example of cross-party working.:

 

A Food Justice Strategy for Brent

Full Council notes that:

We are seeing a national food poverty emergency borne out of political choices and systemic failings from successive governments since austerity began in 2010. Recent Food Foundation data has recorded 7.3 million adults and 2.6 million children in UK households going without food or physically unable to get food in the past month

a) Food poverty should never be seen as inevitable: from 1997 to 2010 poverty reduced significantly (1), can be tackled.
b) The UK is in the midst of an economic recession, compounded by a cost-of-living crisis as energy bills soar, and the end of the £20 uplift to benefit payments. Food aid organisations are already far busier than before the pandemic, and they are braced for a steep rise in demand in the months ahead.
c) The result is an increasingly institutionalised food aid infrastructure, effectively now part of the welfare system. This system is subsidised by the public to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds in Brent alone. Food aid organisations
act as a critical safety net for anyone unable to make ends meet – including those receiving all the benefits they are entitled to and many who are in work and still experiencing crisis.
d) The long-delayed Government Food Strategy was lauded as the plan to help address this growing crisis. It was supposed to lay out a vision for how we create, enhance, and protect sustainable food supplies. However, even the government’s own lead advisor Henry Dimbleby, whose review of Britain’s food system formed the basis for the document, said the White Paper did not amount to a strategy and could mean even more children going hungry.
e) The pandemic disproportionately impacted Black and racially minoritized communities in Brent. It underscored the injustice of food poverty for thousands of residents across the borough who were dependent on food banks and other forms of charitable food aid (including food parcels and vouchers from the council) for their day-to-day survival. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, there is a mushrooming of newly established food banks, and other forms of food support for vulnerable people provided by mutual aid groups, businesses and faith groups many of which still remain active.
f) Brent Labour stood on a local election manifesto to develop a ‘Right to Food’ pledge to confront spiralling food poverty by bringing together existing food aid organisations, growers, and other stakeholders to address rampant inequalities in accessing affordable, culturally appropriate, nutritious food in Brent.
g) A Brent Right to Food Summit was held in March 2022 at Cardinal Newman Catholic College with the participation of multiple Borough stakeholders, including Sufra NW London, Granville Community Kitchen, Brent Growers and Brent CVS. The Summit clearly reflected widespread concern over the urgency
of tackling the ongoing food emergency, both nationally and locally in Brent.

Full Council also notes the work that is already being done to address food insecurity across Bent, including:

a) The appointment of Brent Council’s Food Justice Cabinet Champion.
b) The commitment in Brent Council’s recent Health and Wellbeing Strategy to ‘work with partners on a food strategy’ for our Borough.
c) The identification in the Health and Wellbeing Strategy of potentially positive food-related initiatives, ranging from healthier catering commitment to rolling out Incredible Edible schemes; diabetes prevention programmes, and guaranteeing a fair job for a fair wage across the food sector.
d) The publication in July 2020 of the Brent Poverty Commission’s Report which included sections on food poverty, recommending that the Council ‘supports the future sustainability of food aid agencies in the borough including by further developing community garden schemes’.
e) The continuing efforts by local mutual aid groups, the Brent Food Aid Network, Growing Brent, among countless others to mitigate food insecurity across our Borough.
f) The celebration in March 2022 of a Brent Food Summit aimed at identifying the various solutions and coordinating effective responses to the food injustices in the Borough.

 

Full Council therefore resolves to:

a) Declare Brent a Right to Food Borough, joining other local authorities across the country calling for the Right to Food to be enshrined into national law.
b) Request the inclusion within a Cabinet Member portfolio of responsibility for co- developing a Brent Food Justice Strategy with representatives of local food security stakeholders, aimed at addressing the structural causes of food poverty and inequality in Brent.
c) Strive toward a Brent without food banks, where food aid is drastically reduced to an emergency response to crises through ‘cash first’ solutions such as the scaling up of welfare advice services across the borough, as well as improved
access to welfare assistance grants, school meals and supermarket vouchers for anyone in need. We want an end to normalising emergency food aid as a routine form of addressing food insecurity.
d) Support existing food aid providers through the allocation of land and suitable premises to establish or improve access to urban agriculture, community food gardens, social supermarkets and community kitchens among other initiatives; and ensure market space is available – especially in or near areas of deprivation
– to distribute nutritious, affordable and culturally-appropriate food to local residents
e) Work towards a ‘Right to Food’ dimension when formulating policy so that food becomes part of the Council’s decision-making equation.

Councillor Ryan Hack
Brondesbury Park Ward

 

 In his speech to Full Council, Cllr Hack said:

 

Last July, I launched the Brent Right to Food Campaign with a group of local activists who are mobilising against a food poverty crisis in Brent and the rest of the country, where children and nurses are using food banks in our borough.

This is a food poverty crisis which is entrenched in Tory austerity and predates the pandemic, which saw over 16,500 emergency food parcels be prepared by the Brent Food Bank for people seeking help last year.  

Tonight with that same sense of optimism of bringing change to end child poverty in Brent, my party has pledged to work toward a Brent without food banks, and to call for the Right to Food to be enshrined into national law. 

We will champion  a food justice strategy that supports the development of community gardens, social supermarkets and community kitchens for local residents. 

Hunger is a result of political choices made by the Government, and I will never stop fighting for a society where every child has access to year-round universal school meals. It is in our hands to redress this unacceptable situation. With the powerful mandate handed to the Labour Party at the recent local elections, the first step in this long process will hopefully begin tonight when Brent declares itself a Right to Food Borough.

Affordable Housing – what is the truth about different rent levels?

Guest post by Philip Grant, in a personal capacity

 

Extract from a Brent Council press release in June 2022, after Cabinet had decided to change 24 of the 125 homes on its Watling Gardens development from London Affordable Rent to Shared Ownership.

 

Martin’s blog about the 9 June Call-in Scrutiny meeting, about the award of a contract for the Council’s Morland Gardens development, mentioned a claim made by Brent’s Strategic Director (Regeneration and Environment), Alan Lunt, that London Affordable Rents were only £10 a week more than Social Rents. 

 

I was at that meeting, and was incredulous when I heard him say that. It also attracted some attention on social media. Now that the minutes of that meeting are on the agenda for the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting next Tuesday, 19 July, I have taken the opportunity to challenge that claim. 

 

This is the full text of an open email I sent to Councillor Rita Conneely, the Chair of that committee (with copy to Alan Lunt, and all members of the committee), on the afternoon of 14 July:-

 

Dear Councillor Conneely,

 

                                       This is an Open Email

 

This email will not be as long as my email to you on 12 July, on matters arising from the minutes of the 9 March meeting. 

 

It does, however, raise the same point that I made: it is important for proper scrutiny that Lead Members and Senior Officers should be honest when dealing with matters being considered by Brent's Scrutiny Committees, and should not try to mislead you in what they write in reports or say at committee meetings. 

 

The minutes of the Call-in meeting on 9 June include the record of an answer given by the Strategic Director (Regeneration and Environment) to a question from a member of your committee:

 

'In response to a question from Councillor Ahmadi Moghaddam referencing affordable rents, it was noted that these rents were only £10 more a week than social rents.'

 

That is a correct record of what Alan Lunt said about the difference between London Affordable Rent and Social Rent levels. However, there was incredulity among a number of members of the public watching the meeting (and by some councillors) over that answer.

 

I can show why many felt that your committee were being misled by that answer, by using an extract from the Affordable Housing Statement, submitted one year ago as part of Brent Council's planning application for the Watling Gardens redevelopment (21/2473), which gives a comparison between Social Rent and London Affordable Rent levels for that scheme:

 

 

You will note that both SR and LAR rent levels had been provided for this document 'by the Applicant' (Brent Council), and that the London Affordable Rents are around £50 a week more than Social Rents.

 

I am copying this email to Alan Lunt, as well as to the members of your Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee. 

  

I would strongly suggest that Mr Lunt is requested to address your committee, under item 4 of your agenda next Tuesday, as a matter arising from the minutes of the Call-in Meeting on 9 June, either to correct the answer that he gave about the difference between London Affordable Rent and Social Rent levels, or to provide the evidence that LAR 'rents were only £10 more a week than social rents', if he still maintains that to be the case.

 

On a final point, I welcome the note at the end of these minutes of 'a commitment from the Committee to want to see genuinely affordable homes for residents going forward.' 

 

As mentioned in my earlier email, Social Rents and London Affordable Rents are the only genuinely affordable rents. Lead Members and Council Officers should not be allowed to pass off Shared Ownership or any tenure other than SR of LAR as "affordable homes". Thank you.

 

Best wishes,

  

Philip Grant.

 

Clement Close residents set out the reasons they oppose Brent Council's in-fill proposal

 

 Cllr Promise Knight sets out the Council's case for in-fill

 

View of the estate currently

 

In-fill highlighted

Residents of the Clement Close estate in Brondesbury Park have set up this petition opposing the Council's development proposals put forward as as part of their estate in-fill programme. 

The consultation is due to close tomorrow, July 13th, 2022.

 

Re: New Council Homes Programme – Clement Close, Brondesbury Park (NW6 7AL)

 

Dear Cllr Promise Knight,

On Friday 24 June 2022, leaflets were distributed across Clement Close and neighbouring properties to inform residents of the proposed redevelopment of Clement Close. 

Although we understand the need for more affordable housing and agree with Brent’s Council aspiration to make the most of its under-used land and property assets, we argue that Clement Close is NOT under-used, nor is it suitable for the outlined development, and we strongly oppose this proposal. 

After careful review of your proposal, we the residents of Clement Close have put together the following summary of our concerns. The proposed development would result in:

1.    Substantial loss of privacy for many residents of Clement Close and neighbouring properties: The windows of the new buildings would be overlooking the windows and/or gardens of existing properties.

2.   Substantial overshadowing of adjoining buildings: The importance of natural light on physical and mental health has been well-established. Cramming 22 new family homes in “gaps” would have a severe impact on the wellbeing of all Clement Close residents.

3.   Loss of trees: Clement Close boasts many beautiful mature trees, which would need to be removed if the proposal goes ahead. The role of trees in a city cannot be underestimated. Not only do they absorb excess CO2 and slow down the rate of global warming, but they release oxygen, reduce wind speeds, cool the air, prevent flooding and boost wildlife. Removing these trees from the estate while increasing human occupancy by 25% would go against Brent Climate & Ecological Emergency Strategy and Brent Corporate Environmental Policy Statement, which specifically state Brent’s commitment to “enhancing the ecological value of land for which the Council is responsible”, and “integrating environmental and sustainability considerations into all decision making considered to have significant environmental implications”.

4.   Adequacy of parking/loading/turning and concerns around access for emergency vehicles: With the proposal to narrow the road to a single lane to make space for a row of new houses on the eastern side of Clement Close, parking, turning and road access would be severely impacted. Access to the far end of the site by wide vehicles, such as emergency vehicles or refuse collection trucks would be seriously compromised. The Cabinet for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security is probably aware that #1 Clement Close is a recently redeveloped, council-owned facility for adults with special needs, and that ambulances have been called to the site regularly. In addition, refuse collection trucks are already struggling with access.

5.    Increased road traffic: The increased vehicle traffic resulting from 25% more occupancy of Clement Close would result in increased congestion, noise, air pollution, directly contradicting Brent Healthy Neighbourhood scheme. It would also pose a threat to the numerous children, elderly and disabled currently living in Clement Close.

6.   Substantial impact on visual amenity resulting from the layout and density of building: the addition of new buildings, combined with the loss of green spaces, would turn Clement Close into a concrete jungle. The overcrowding would also result in higher levels of noises and disturbances, which would be detrimental to the wellbeing of all residents – current and new. This would again go against Brent’s commitment to “improving the quality of life”, as highlighted in Brent Corporate Environmental Policy Statement.

7.    Loss of existing services: the current plans appear to threaten existing amenities relied upon by many residents including: ground-floor storage cupboards for upper-floor flats, bicycle storage (some of which has only just been installed), recycling facilities. There is no clear plan for where these existing services would be rebuilt/moved to on the current plans. Most importantly for our youngest residents the plans seem to involve building over the existing climbing frame/slide and a bench which form a central part of community life for Clement Close children.

We also condemn the way Brent Council delivered this information to Clement Close residents:

• The leaflets were unenveloped and not specifically addressed to the residents who will be severely impacted by the proposal. They were delivered by hand, through the letterbox, like advertising leaflets and flyers.
• The leaflet looks innocuous enough to be ignored. The front page gives a high-level description of Brent’s programme and makes no mention of Clement Close.
• The summary of proposed development, starting with “Landscape improvement for all residents”, is deceptive.
• The leaflet does not clearly describe where the newbuilds will be located. It only makes mention of one bungalow to be demolished (#54 Clement Close). The only way of understanding the proposal is by carefully examining a map with no caption.
• The residents of #54 Clement Close were unaware of the proposal to have their home demolished and heard about it from their neighbours. It is completely unacceptable for the family whose lives would be turned upside-down by eviction and demolition of their family home to have not been properly consulted and reassured of their security.
• The time frame of under 3 weeks until the closing of the consultation phase is inadequate for the magnitude of the changes proposed.
• The feedback form provided with the leaflet is not specific to Clement Close.
• The QR code and URL provided on the leaflet link to Brent’s Community Engagement Hub, and not to the consultation page. It is not straightforward to find the consultation page from the hub.
• The questionnaire is inappropriately structured and includes leading questions such as “do you agree with …?”, which could influence respondents’ views and comments on the proposal. Such bias goes against the standards of ethical conduct and reporting of survey research.
• There is no confirmation email or acknowledgement that the completed consultation form was received by Brent after submission.

We, the residents of Clement Close and neighbouring properties, are hereby firmly opposing the current development proposal.

 

LINK TO THE PETITION

LINK TO BRENT COUNCIL'S CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSALS

Brent launches consultation on recycling and street cleaning as Veolia contract comes to an end - details

From Brent Council website

We want to hear your views on changes we want to make to recycling and street cleaning in the borough.

The contract we have to pick up your waste and recycling and to keep streets clean is coming to an end next spring. We have invited companies to bid for the new contract.

We want to take this opportunity to make some changes to the service you have received for the past few years. There are a few reasons for this:

1. The government is likely to change the way it asks us to provide recycling services over the next few years, to align with changes to national policy contained in the Environment Act 2021.

2. We are working together with local people to make Brent a carbon neutral borough by 2030. We know lots of you want to do your bit to live more sustainably and through the Let’s Talk Climate conversation, you told us that we could help by making it easier to do the right thing and recycle – including making it easier for you to know what can and can’t be recycled.

3. The council’s budgets have been stretched by the pandemic, rising prices, a growing population and a reduction in the funding we get from the government. We need to save money and so have to think differently about how these services are delivered in the future.

Proposed changes to recycling include separating certain materials in to weekly collections. The adjustment to the recycling service will save the council money and evidence suggests that it will also improve recycling rates within the borough.  

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

 

These changes will mean that the council can save money and keep running service the residents need the most. This is so important after drastic funding cuts from the government since 2010. We all know that times are hard at the moment and difficult decisions have to be made to improve services in the present day, whilst also having a lasting impact for future generations.

Evidence from other councils show an increase in recycling rates when using this collection method. This is just one way of us improving in our fight against climate change.

The council has committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030 and we are serious about making changes that will benefit the residents, the borough and the planet. 

I urge residents to share their views and help to shape how their recycling is collected.

This consultation asks for your views on the changes we are proposing, please complete the survey now.

Current process for collecting recycling

At the moment, you put all your cardboard, paper, plastic, tin cans and glass recycling into one bin and we collect it once a week.

Proposed changes

We’re proposing giving you a sack to separate out ‘fibre’ (mixed paper, cardboard, newspapers etc.) from ‘containers’ (e.g. plastic, tin cans, tubs).

We would collect the two sets of materials on alternate weeks. For example:

Week 1 - we collect your containers in your existing blue top bin.

Week 2 - we collect your fibre sack, and repeat.

You will therefore still have weekly recycling collections.

With this option, general waste would continue to be collected fortnightly and food waste weekly – remaining as they are now.

Other London boroughs have tried this and found that people recycle more – this is better for the planet and on balance would likely save the council money because it’s costly to dispose of general waste and we can sell recycling to providers.

We are also looking at introducing a new free bookable Small Items Collection Service to make it easier for you to recycle textiles, small electrical items, batteries, coffee pods and paint.

Changes to street cleansing

We are also looking at moving to an intelligence-led approach to street cleaning. This means that teams will be deployed where it is needed most, supported by rapid response teams who will be on call to clean areas when needed.

This will be a move away from the current approach that focuses on teams being deployed to different streets on a rota system, regardless of whether they need sweeping. 

There  are further details of proposed changes in a document on the consultation website site HERE

How to turn a bi-partisan motion into party political propaganda

Yesterday's Full Council meetin was a curious affair, not least because although the Council recommend the public view on a live stream a technical problem meant that proceedings were all but inaudible. A long-distance static camera means that it is often impossible to know who is speaking (even if you could hear them).   There are no captions identifying the speakers.

Not transparent.

An audible recording is promised which will help to clarify what exactly was said by Brent Council Labour, Muhammed Butt, to so anger Conservative councillor  Suresh Kansagra.

A Liberal Democrat motion on Refugees, that sough cross-party support was amended by the Labour Group.  Some of the amendments were sensible but others inserted statements of self-praise for the Labour Party. Am amendment on Morland Gardens seemed to have been inserted just to make propganda for the Council's controverial proposal for the building.

Despite the propagandist elements of the amendment the motion is very welcome.

Here is the motion, Labour amendment in red. The motion as amended was passed.

Click bottom right for full page

Motion on Support for Refugees and Asylum Seekers - to be heard shortly at Brent Full Council

 

Support for Refugees and Asylum Seekers

 

Liberal Democrat Resolution for tonight’s Full Council.

This Council notes:

Liberal Democr
That refugees and asylum seekers are human beings who deserve our full respect and support.

The way in which Boris Johnson’s government talks about and presents refugees, who face their plight through no fault of their own, is deeply un-British, offensive and shameful.

Our own borough is home to people from all corners of the world and all wish to make a valuable contribution to our international community.

Brent must remain welcoming of refugees and asylum seekers and offer required leadership from a local government level by ensuring refugees who arrive in our community have access to needed support and are given the basic opportunities afforded to all in order that they can make a contribution to society.

Organisations like Care 4 Calais, English for Action, Salusbury World, Young Roots, amongst others, are doing crucial work in our community to help settle refugees and offer basic support, whether through English classes that they run or by seeking to address the immense mental trauma many refugees have and are experiencing.

This Council therefore calls on the government to:

1. Drop its shameful, un-British Rwanda policy.
2. End the hostile environment that seeks to criminalise people who have been forced to flee their homelands through no fault of their own.
3. Acknowledge asylum seekers are making dangerous, tragically, all too often, fatal journeys across Europe to seek sanctuary and safety and therefore must allow asylum seekers the legal right of passage into the UK.
4. Give refugees and asylum seekers the ability to play a full part in our society and economy by giving those who arrive in the UK a right to work quickly under defined and reasonable terms.

 

This Council also resolves to:
1. Immediately establish and publish a directory of ESOL provision within our borough on the Council website and also provide easy access benefit and other advice to those who need it.
2. Extend free bus travel to asylum seekers through the existing payment card system.
3. Organise a Brent Refugee Summit by the end of this year (2022), bringing together organisations, mainly in the voluntary sector, who are currently working to support refugees and asylum seekers locally. This will show a united and concerted effort from this Council that people who arrive locally are welcome here and that Brent will play our part in helping to settle people who given the tools will make hugely valuable contributions to our borough - as those who came before them always have.

Councillor Anton Georgiou
Alperton Ward

 

Brent Council announces it has to cut a further £28 million from its budget

 In a press release published today, just fefore Full Council, Brent Council warns that it has to cut an additional £28 million from its budget:

Rising costs aren’t only hurting ordinary people. Most organisations are also feeling the strain of inflation, especially after the financial shock of the pandemic and Brexit.

 

The things that Brent Council needs to deliver – from building new council homes and maintaining the borough’s roads to statutory services like adult’s and children’s social care – are all becoming more expensive.

 

With the prices of basics, from food to fuel, rapidly increasing – many more families are also being pushed into poverty, meaning there are more people asking for both financial help and other forms of support from the council.

 

At the same time that demand for council services is rising, the money Brent receives directly from central government has been falling. 

 

In the 12 years since April 2010, Brent Council has needed to save £196million from its budget – as the money the council receives directly from central Government has been cut by 78%. 

 

Now, to make matters worse, the Government has said it will only confirm the money it plans to give local authorities for the next two years in December 2022, which makes it difficult for councils to plan. 

 

All of this means Brent now needs to save even more money in order to balance its budget. It is estimated that an extra £28million needs to be saved by 2025, according to a report that went to the council’s Cabinet in July.

 

 

Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said:

 

The problems with the UK economy and the cost of living crisis are hitting hardworking people in the pocket and councils are no different.

Massively rising costs, increasing demand for what we do and less money from central government means we now need to make cuts. There is no doubt that finding £28million in savings on top of the £196million we have already saved will not be easy.

 

We are in a better position than many councils thanks to the massive strides we have taken over recent years to modernise and transform the council. We have recently saved money by streamlining senior management but there is more to do.

 

We will need to change how we work in many areas while trying to protect the frontline services that you or your mum, dad, grandparents or children rely on as much as possible.

 

In the autumn we will be launching a full budget consultation and we will need residents to be active participants in helping us to make the tough choices facing us.