Black Women Then and Now: Chalkhill Community Centre Saturday October 28th

 

Free 3-Day Community Carpentry Workshop Oct 25th - Oct 27th

 

Email billie@sufra-nwlondon.org.uk for more info

New replacement 'Super GP Surgery' to open in Wembley Park providing space for 16 GPs from March 2024

 

Quintain yesterday announced a new GP ‘super surgery’ to open at the heart of Wembley Park. When operational, it will be the largest NHS GP practice in the borough of Brent, serving up to 25,000 patients.

Quintain said:

The 11,000 sq. ft space will be operated by Wembley Park Medical Centre, relocating from Wembley Park Drive to Humphry Repton Lane close to Olympic Way and Boxpark Wembley, a 10-minute walk from their old premises.

The build will create state-of-the-art general practice medical spaces including two clinical suites, 14 consult exam rooms, four treatment rooms, and an e-consult room. It has been designed with a double height reception and waiting area into the ground floor of the Repton Gardens residential development at the heart of Wembley Park.

The announcement of the NHS super surgery is a significant milestone in the delivery of the Wembley Park neighbourhood, which has been planned from the start to provide all the community facilities everyone needs within easy reach. 

The surgery will be delivered by Quintain as part of the Repton Gardens development, designed by architects The Manser Practice, a team with award-winning experience in the healthcare sector. The surgery will provide enough space for 16 GPs and is set to open to the public from March 2024.

London boroughs' budgets on a knife edge due to £500m budget shortfall

 From London Councils

Boroughs in the capital will need to make over £500m of savings next year to balance their budgets, new analysis from London Councils reveals.

Based on its latest survey of council finances, the cross-party group warns that nine in ten London boroughs expect to overspend on their budgets this year – estimated at over £400m in total across the capital.  

London Councils says boroughs face a perfect storm of prolonged high inflation, fast-increasing demand for services, and insufficient government funding – leading to a growing risk of financial and service failures.

Growing pressures on adult and children’s social care, as well as the capital’s worsening homelessness crisis, are the biggest drivers of boroughs’ overspends. London Councils estimates that almost 170,000 Londoners – equivalent to one in 50 residents of the capital – are currently homeless and living in temporary accommodation arranged by their local authority. Boroughs expect to overspend on temporary accommodation by £90m this year.

Ahead of the government’s Autumn Statement in November, where the Chancellor will set out his future spending plans, boroughs are calling for urgent action to boost support for local services and stabilise council finances.

London Councils has launched its key priorities for the Autumn Statement, which include:

• An overall funding increase of at least 9% (in line with what was received last year).
• Investment to reduce homelessness, including through uplifting the Local Housing Allowance and Homelessness Prevent Grant.
• Reforms to the broken local government finance system, such as giving councils longer-term funding settlements and more devolved powers.

Cllr Claire Holland, Acting Chair of London Councils, said:

“Borough finances are on a knife edge – with grim implications for the future of local services in the capital.

“The combination of higher costs due to spiralling inflation, skyrocketing demand for services, and insufficient levels of government funding leaves boroughs in an extremely precarious position. The pressure is relentless – we face a £400m shortfall this year, which rises to £500m next year unless the government provides more support.

“Councils play a vital role in their communities providing essential services and in tackling so many major challenges, such as addressing homelessness, unlocking economic growth, and making faster progress towards net zero.

“The government must use the Autumn Statement to bolster council finances. This will be crucial for helping boroughs stabilise budgets and sustain London’s local services.”

London boroughs’ resources remain almost a fifth (18%) lower than in 2010, despite there now being almost 800,000 more Londoners – broadly equivalent to a city the size of Leeds). This has been exacerbated by over £1bn in unfunded and underfunded new burdens over that period, such as the government transferring responsibility to local authorities for financing Council Tax Support and a host of other measures.

London Councils also highlights a recent report from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank that found London local government funding is 17% lower than its estimated relative need – by far the largest gap of any region in England.

Brent Finance Chief issues grim warning on Council finances

 The Brent Corporate Director of Finance and Resources has issued a grim warning on the Council's financial situation following a significant over-spend on the housing service caused by a high level of demand due to increased homelessness, reduced supply of suitable temporary accommodation and subsequent higher costs. The forecast spend of £16.3m is nearly five times the original budget.

The Director informs the Cabinet that the 'seriousness of the Council's financial position cannot be understated' and stresses the need for more measures than had been planned in order to control expenditure to address the underlying issue that 'the  Council's net expenditure is significanty greater than the available sources of in-year funding'. 

Extracts from the report (Full Report that is available HERE)

The Council’s revised General Fund revenue budget for 2023/24 is £291.2m. The revised budget includes planned revenue savings in-year of £13.5m and the status of these are set out in Appendix A. There is a forecast overspend of £13.4m against the revised revenue budget at Quarter 2. If sustained until the year end, this would require a transfer from unallocated reserves.

 

Equally, any overspending not dealt with in 2023/24 would, potentially, carry over into 2024/25 thereby increasing the requirement for further savings in that year whilst at the same time providing reduced scope to draw on the Council’s reserves.

 

The seriousness of the Council’s financial position cannot be understated.

 

The scale of the financial challenge for 2023/24 and 2024/25 is such that, in addition to work currently underway to implement savings in 2023/24 and to identify new savings proposals for 2024/25 and 2025/26, the Council will need to implement further measures to control expenditure in order to address the underlying issue that the Council’s net expenditure is significantly greater than available sources of in year funding. Further details on these measures are set out below.

 

Local government is facing the most challenging financial environment for many decades. Many councils are overspending and depleting their reserves; most are experiencing the adverse effects of high inflation, high interest rates and significant increases in demand due to demographic changes. Some are even declaring bankruptcy by issuing s114 notices. Concerns about future levels of government funding are widespread. Against this backdrop, Brent has maintained a strong position in terms of financial resilience and sustainability with a good track record of delivering savings and balancing the overall budget. However, the position for 2023/24 has worsened significantly and the current forecast will require the Council to take urgent actions in the short and medium term to maintain financial control.

 

The main cause of the forecast overspend is within the Housing Service, where high levels of demand due to a rise in homelessness and reduction in supply of suitable accommodation are expected to result in an overspend of over £13m. Section 3.8 of this reports sets out the Council’s strategy in dealing with the  significant increase in costs of providing temporary accommodation for those homeless people to whom the Council owe a legal duty. While Brent is not in the financial situation of those Council’s that have recently issued, or threatened to issue, a Section 114 notice (legally required when the council cannot balance its budget, unlike the NHS and other parts of the public sector councils are not allowed to carry a deficit) all efforts must be focussed on positively changing the financial position.

 

In addition to these actions and the additional oversight provided by the Budget Assurance Panel, further measures are considered necessary to prevent the situation worsening. These will include, but are not limited to, controls on new spending decisions, limits on new recruitment, reduction in the use of agency workers, bringing forward in year savings and other mitigations to reduce expenditure. These sensible, proactive and prudent measures will provide more assurance over the Council’s spending decisions and reduce the risk that the budget position deteriorates further. These measures will remain in place until the end of the financial year, and updates provided to the Cabinet in future forecast reports and budget reports.

 

The report also includes updates on the viability of two major projects:

 

The Wembley Housing Zones project is expected to experience a viability pressure when updating the project plans to meet potential fire safety regulations. Work is already underway with the contractor, Wates, to reduce the impact of any changes required. The Morland Garden project is experiencing significant viability challenges whilst also being subject to a significant delay in the project delivery timescales dependent on the outcome of the public inquiry in relation to the stopping up order.

 

Link to 3.8 on action on Temporary Accommodation

Statement from Brent Multi-Faith Forum on current events

 Frank Dabba Smith, Mustafa Field and Danny Maher from the Brent Multi-Faith Forum, said:

We are aware that the trauma of the horrific violence of the last few days will be felt by innocent people in the Middle East region for generations to come. We are aware, too, that there are many people living in the London Borough of Brent who will be mourning the loss of family members, friends, and colleagues. We deplore all forms of violence and find any rejoicing at the suffering of others to be abhorrent.

We understand that this enduring and terrible conflict is deeply complex and embedded in historical trauma occurring to both sides. However the real suffering and pain must feel in a group’s narrative, cycles of abuse and violence must be ended. If not, committing hateful acts including violence, hostage-taking and a myriad forms of discrimination will only result in perpetuating more of the same.

We hold that the root of all faith / no faith must consist of the safeguarding of all life through the exercise of kindness, compassion and love. We support those of all faiths / no faith who are engaged in the struggle for peaceful dialogue, cooperation, conciliation and the equitable sharing of precious resources in the Middle East.

We are deeply committed to the safety and welfare of those of all faiths / no faith in Brent. There is no excuse for antisemitism, Islamophobia or any other hate crime. Exacerbating communal tensions will not be tolerated. We stand with the Metropolitan Police and Brent Council in urging the immediate reporting of any threatening behaviours.

Leopold Primary School, Brentfield Road site, earmarked for eventual closure. A potential site for Islamia Primary?

 

Leopold Primary School, Brentfield Road

Falling school  pupil numbers and subsequent school closures and amalgamations were a feature of my early years in teaching in the 1970s and the issue has returned post-Brexit as pupil numbers fall. 

Camden has already been hit and  there was a local warning when the Strathcona site closed. Now Brent Council is wrestling with managing pupil numbers and school provision. in the borough.  A review of primary provision was promised last year and focused on Planning Area 4:

The above table shows how the actual admissions compared with the PAN (Planned Admissions Number).  30 is one form admitted at reception, 60 two forms and 90 three forms, 45 is a class and a half and results in either two small single age classes or mixed age classes.

The only two oversubscribed schools were Donnington (single form entry - one class per year) and St Joseph's a Roman Catholic school.  There are parents who prefer a small school such as Donnington where vulnerable children feel less threatened than they would in a school with  large numbers of pupils and a big site.  Our Lady of Lourdes is also one form entry.

Single form entry schools are becoming much less common in London but this may change in time. Brentfield, Furness, John Keble, Newfield, St Mary's C of E and Stonebridge are all around or well below one form of entry. They tend to have higher per pupil costs than larger schools.

The two sites of Leopold Primary have a combined form of entry of 4 classes.

 

Brent Council explains the background to their proposal to close the Brentfield Road site of Leopold Primary in phases from September 2025. The site was previously the Brent Teachers Centre andPupil Referral Unit.

Leopold Primary School currently has capacity for 120 places in each year group with 60 on the school’s main site on Hawkshead Road and 60 on the Gwenneth Rickus site (Brentfield Road). Leopold Primary School achieves good outcomes for pupils across both sites and was rated by Ofsted as ‘Good’ in June 2022.

 

Leopold operates as a split-site school with one leadership team and staff who work across both the main school site on Hawkshead Road and the Gwenneth Rickus site.

 

On national offer day in 2023 for Reception places in 2023, 60 places were offered and there remained 60 spare places across the two school sites. As with other schools across the borough, the actual Reception cohort now on roll is higher due to late applications, which would have been diverted to other schools had Leopold’s capacity only been 60. Demand for Leopold Primary School has been falling since 2018 and the Gwenneth Rickus site operates as one form of entry in some year groups, including Reception and Year 1.

 

The Leopold Gwenneth Rickus site was opened in September 2013 as annexed provision in response to increasing demand for primary school places. The site was previously used by the borough as a school improvement centre, running courses for education professionals. Now that demand has reduced, there is no longer a need for this additional site to be retained as there are sufficient spare places on both the Leopold Primary School main site and in other local schools to accommodate future demand for primary provision in the area.

 

In January 2023, there were 628 pupils at Leopold Primary School compared to 767 in January 2019, with 282 pupils educated on the Gwenneth Rickus site.

 

The proposal is for the status of Leopold Primary School to return to that of prior to 2015 when the school operated with two forms of entry from one site only (Hawkshead Road). A phased closure of the Gwenneth Rickus site is recommended to avoid disruption to as many pupils and their families as possible. As the Hawkshead Road site has a central location within the planning area, it is anticipated that over time pupils from the Gwenneth Rickus site would move to the main Leopold Primary School site. Other local schools will be able to accommodate any pupils who wished to move school.

 

Parents of future Reception children would continue to have a range of schools to choose from. Only two schools in the area (Donnington Primary and St Joseph’s RC Primary School) were oversubscribed on national offer day for the September 2023 intake. There are several schools with spare capacity close to the Gwenneth Rickus site.

 

There were built-in problems with operating on two sites that are some distance apart including staff movement and travel time and the difficulty of shaping the two sites into one school with a shared ethos.  Despite the difficulties the  school has been very successful.

Many felt that it would have better if they operated as two separate schools but Government rules did not allow it. School expansion was allowed but not the opening of new community schools - any new school had to be an academy or free school.

The proposal is for a phased closure, as in the Strathcona case. The site would be used for other educational purposes so that it would be available for any recovery in pupil numbers. Several alternative uses are mentioned in the Cabinet paper but not the possibility of it being used by Islamia Primary School.  There is likely be a reduction in staffing as the school shrinks.

Also included in the proposals is a reduction in the size of Mitchell Brook Primary so that it takes 60 pupils a year rather than 90. This proposal is supported by the school:

 

The proposed reduction of the Pupil Admisison Number at Mitchell Brook Primary School from 90 to 60 would help to reduce spare places in other schools in the planning area. Mitchell Brook Primary Schools is rated as ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted (September 2021). It is anticipated that Mitchell Brook Primary School will remain a popular school. However, any children who are unable to secure a place at the school would be able to access places at other local schools in the immediate area.

 

The school is in support of a reduction of the school’s PAN and has raised concerns about the constraints of continuing to operate as three forms of entry due to the school’s confined site. Although forecasts indicate low demand in Planning Area 4 in the short and medium term, the spare building capacity created by reducing the school’s PAN could be brought back into use in the future at a time when demand rises again

 

The proposals would have to go through a consultation process. An indicative timeline is included in the paper. 

 

 

Mumbai Junction and Kilburn Square at Brent Planning Commitee next week

 Campaigners will be sharpening their swords for next week's Planning Committee as two controversial planning applications are heard. (Wednesday 18th October 6pm) Mumbai Junction is from a private developer while Kilburn Square is from Brent Council itself.

Swords may not be much of a match for the developers' bulldozer (soon to be driven by Keir Starmer!) but a lively meeting is in prospect.

 

Mumbai Junction (John Lyon pub) proposal

 

The Mumbai Junction application was deferred at a previous meeting when officers intervened to derail a straight rejection by the Planning Committee. LINK Officers felt that the reasons for rejection put forward by the members were inadequate and would open the Council to an expensive appeal.

Officers have now come forward with a report that still recommends approval of the scheme but suggests reasons that the Committee could give for rejection. There is an air of 'On your own head be it' about the report:

 

Officers remain of the view that the scheme is compliant with the policies that have been set out. It has been clearly demonstrated that the proposed development would deliver the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing (in this case no affordable housing). A late stage review mechanism would be secured within a Section 106 Agreement to capture any off site contributions towards affordable housing in the event that viability improves.

 

Officers do not consider there to be any substantive grounds for refusal based upon the affordable housing provision as the scheme is in line with the relevant policies.

 

If members are minded to go against Officer advice a reason is suggested below:

 

The proposal would fail to provide an appropriate level of Affordable Housing to meet an identified local need within the Borough. This would be contrary to Policy BH5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021).

In summary, the scale and massing of the proposed development is larger than the surrounding context and represents a departure from policy BH4 in this respect and one could reasonably consider that this departure warrants the refusal of planning permission.

 

However, officers consider the overall appearance to be appropriate in light of the site’s specific characteristics. Furthermore, the benefits of the scheme (including the delivery of homes in the borough) are considered to outweigh the policy departure from Policy BH4.

 

Nevertheless, if, bearing in mind the discussion above, the Planning Committee are still minded to refuse the application, then the following reason for refusal could be considered:

 

The proposed development by reason of its scale, design, bulk, massing and siting in relation to the suburban context of the site would appear as an excessively dominant building which would have a detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding area. This would be contrary to Policies DMP1, BD1 and BH4 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021)

 

It is legitimate for Members to ensure that the optimum site capacity is achieved within development proposals. However, officers consider that this has been achieved for the site.

 

Notwithstanding the officer recommendation, if the Planning Committee are still minded to refuse the application for this reason, then the following reason for refusal could be considered:

 

The proposal would fail to optimise the capacity of the site and this would result in a deficit in relation to local needs, in particular affordable housing. This would be contrary to Policies DMP1 and BH5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies D3, H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021)

 

Kilburn Square proposal

The Kilburn Square proposal has also been controversial and changes made since the first version of the application have included the removal of a second tower.  However, issues such as densification, loss of daylight, loss of amenity, loss of green and play space, loss of 13 mature trees and fire safety remain concerns. The officers' report introduces a new concept (to me anyway) of 'doorstep play space' that conjures up visions of terraced cottages opening straight on to the street.

Officers' report:

Following public consultation, objections from a total of 117 people have been received. One objection has been received from MP Tulip Siddiq for Hampstead and Kilburn (objection reflects concerns of residents within this constituency), as well as an objection from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) charity and an objection from the Brent Parks Open Space Forum. One objection has also been received from Sian Berry who is a Green Party member within City Hall.

Four (4) petitions have also been received against the development. These include:

·        Petition containing 21 different signatures representing objections from residents of Algernon  Road

·        Petition containing 103 different signatures representing objections from residents of Brondesbury Road, Brondesbury Villas and Donaldson Road

·        Petition containing 14 different signatures representing objections from residents of Sandwood Court

·        Petition containing 176 different signatures representing objections from residents of Victoria Road, Victoria Mews and Hazelmere Road

 

 The tenure split - See Philip Grant's post HERE

 

After a long and detailed discussion of the objectors' alleged 'harms' of the scheme and what officers see as its benefits  LINK officers' conclude:

Conclusion

247. The proposal would provide 139 new homes including 40 extra-care homes and 99 Use Class C3 homes. At least 50 % of those homes would be Affordable, with 70 % of the Affordable homes provided at London Affordable. The proposal is considered to constitute a well composed series of blocks that fit well within their context. The proposal will result in the loss of some of the amenity spaces within the site and some car parking, but improvements to the remaining amenity spaces and play spaces are proposed whilst car parking has been demonstrated to be sufficient to meet demand. All new homes will be "car free" and will be supported by a Travel Plan. Cycle parking has been provided for existing and new residents along with electric vehicle charging points.

 

248. The buildings will be near to existing heritage assets and 'Less than Substantial Harm' has been identified to the significance of the Kilburn Conservation Area. However, a balancing exercise has been undertaken with regard to paragraph 202 of the NPPF, it is considered that the very limited 'less than substantial harm' that has been identified is significantly outweighed by the public benefits that would be afforded as a result of this development.

 

249. When considering other impacts, the development would result in some impact to the light and outlook of a number of neighbouring occupiers both within and adjacent to the existing site. Although the proposal has been designed to limit the degree of impact , it has been noted that there would be some losses of daylight which would be material to a limited number of windows on existing properties. When considering the impacts on the overall living conditions of these neighbouring occupiers, the would largely be modest and not have a significant effect on the function of the function of the properties as a whole. Furthermore, when considering the site allocation, the requirement to make efficient use of land and the impact of any meaningful development would have in comparison, the proposal would achieve an appropriate balance. The benefits of the new dwellings, a policy compliant provision of affordable housing and the NAIL accommodation, for which there is an identified need.

 

250. In addition, the development would enhance security within Kilburn Square by providing natural surveillance, CCTV and appropriate security features. Landscaping would be improved with additional planting and a layout that would provide an attractive setting for the resultant buildings and more useable areas for recreation.

 

These public benefits are significant and would far outweigh any harm that has been identified and the application is considered to be in compliance with the Development Plan when read as a whole.

251. It is therefore considered that the application should be approved subject to the conditions set out,

 

 If you along to the meeting in person it may be an idea to take a flask and sandwiches - it may be a long one. (Also accessible online).