A modest increase in Brent councillors' basic allowance

 

 

Debating the councillor renumeration proposals

There is always a faint air of embarrassment around the Council chamber when the issue of councillor allowances comes up at the Budget setting meeting of the Council. This year was no exception as councillors were required to vote on giving themselves a rise.

Allowances were introduced to ensure that the role of councillor was open to a wider range of people rather than just those with a high enough income or an independent income tenabling them to subsidise the role.

Some councillors have other employment in addition to being a councillor while others treat it as a full-time job.

A saving grace is that Brent has the Independent Renumeration Panel (IRP) to advise on  renumeration for London councillors. In fact the IRP in its report LINK advocated a higher basic allowance than that adopted by Brent Council (£15,960) against the Brent figure of £13,637 (up from £12,988). This is £649 extra a year for each of the 57 Brent councillors.

 

The IRP in its report said: 

[Our] research showed that basic allowances per annum in London are significantly lower than those paid in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The assessment of members’ allowances in the home nations is carried out by independent bodies whereas in England, the level of allowances is determined by the local authority members themselves. It has also become clear that allowances in many boroughs are considerably lower than remuneration received by workers in London with comparative levels of responsibilities and skills. This comparative contrast in remuneration is juxtaposed against increased workloads, time pressures, accountability, and financial pressures that councillors are presently having to manage. The Panel takes the view that it is important that there is a system of support in place that recognises the vital role that elected representatives play in local government and the full scale of their responsibilities. This support includes appropriate remuneration levels.

 

The Roberts commission considered a wide range of issues but at its heart were the key questions of: 1) how best to ensure that people from a wide range of backgrounds and with a wide range of skills are encouraged to serve as local councillors; and 2) how to ensure those who participate in and contribute to the democratic process should not suffer unreasonable financial disadvantage.

 

Within these broad considerations there can be no doubt that financial compensation or a system of allowances plays a crucial part in making it financially possible for local people to put themselves forward to take on the onerous responsibilities involved in being a councillor and indeed to continue to serve as one.

 

For this reason it is crucial that allowances for councillors across London are pitched at an appropriate level such that they make a major contribution in ensuring diverse and effective local representation. This 2023 review of Member allowances has aimed to take a step back and ensure that the recommended allowances are pitched such that they serve this crucial purpose.

 

We are clear that the Panel can only make recommendations and that each council must determine its own system and rates of allowances. However each council must have regard to our recommendations. We are concerned that a wide variation in the level of allowances between councils across London has evolved over the years.

 

Given that this year’s Panel review has been a significant stocktake and that we have made clear recommendations, with a clear rationale and for the important purpose described in this section, we strongly recommend that the findings of our review and the Panel’s position are adopted across London. This is at the heart of ensuring a healthy, vibrant and representative local government in the capital.

 

Having looked at various options, the Panel has concluded that the most appropriate approach is to determine the basic allowance as a proportion to the remuneration of the people councillors represent and has used the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) data, published by the Office for National Statistics as a basis of its calculation. The Panel has used the median wage for all London workers for this purpose. In 2022-23, this is £38,936.73 per annum. Based on a 37 hour week, and taking into account a 30% public service discount, (as has been the custom and practice) the Panel has determined that the recommended basic allowance should be £15,960.

On top of the basic allowance there are Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs) for councillor roles on committees etc. The Brent proposl this year was that these remained unchanged except for members of the Licensing Committee and chairs of Brent Connects. As Cllr Georgiou pointed out at the Council meeting these have been significantly increased. The Council reports sets out the reasons for the proposed increase:

 

Over the last two and a half years, the number of Licensing Sub-committee meetings have averaged at 20 or more per year with each hearing lasting at least half a day. Serving on the Licensing Committee bears significant personal responsibility as the committee is quasi-judicial in nature. All members are expected to strictly adhere to the Licensing code of practise, with the failure to do so risking reputational damage to the council or the risk of legal proceedings. All members on the licensing committee are expected to regularly attend the Licensing Sub-committee as well as undertake regular training and development sessions provided by the council, in addition to site visits and other applicable work.

 

Similarly with the role of Chairs of the Brent Connects Area Consultative Forums and the increasing pressures on community resilience and power, these forums will be taking on a more developed role in the council, as part of our Borough Plan commitment to enabling communities and encouraging greater involvement at a neighbourhood level in council activities

As commented on previously on Wembley Matters SRAs are an area where a council leader can indulge powers of patronage. Their potential loss via removal from a post can keep a councillor in line.

 

 

Full list of allowances (Click bottom right corner for full page view)

 

Parents, pupils, staff, unions, councillors and the local MP unite to save Byron Court Primary from the clutches of the Harris Federation - 'It belongs to our community'

 

The quiet suburban streets, lined with spring flowers and blossoms, around Byron Court Primary School. burst into passionate life today as the community rose up, united in their desire to save the much-loved school from forced academisation following a poor Ofsted report.

Meanwhile in an anonymous London Department for Education building the fate of the school was being decided by equally anonymous civil servants.

What a contrast!

Those attending were united in their belief that the school could and would improve without being handed over to the Harris Federation academy chain whose reputation is poor. Importantly they wanted the school to remain within the community and accountable to that community.

 

 

JUST 3 WEEKS TO GO: Vital Brent Council consultation on transport to school for children with special needs and disabilites

 

 

Brent Council is asking families with children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) for their views on proposals to update the Council’s Travel Assistance Policy. LINK

 

The consultation is open for another 3 weeks. There have been only 11 responses online so far.

 

The Home to School Travel Assistance policy provides support to help children and young people to travel to school when they might otherwise be prevented by disability or special need. 

 

The service currently supports approximately 1,300 children and young people in Brent. The council must provide travel assistance to children aged between five and 16 who meet the criteria set by the Department for Education. 

 

Parents have previously expressed dissatisfaction with the service that is shared with Harrow, over issues such as long journey times and difficulty in accessing help and called for a review. LINK The draft policy makes no bones about the fact that reducing the cost of the service to the Council is a significant part of the review:

 

Budgetary considerations: Free travel to school is a valuable service for many families, but budget pressures mean the Council often has to make difficult decisions about how to make the best use of the limited resources.

 

Face to face and online sessions are taking place with parents and carers to discuss the experiences and needs of local families, and in particular those with children with SEND.

 

Councillor Gwen Grahl, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools said: 

 

Every child and young person is entitled to education and no one should be prevented from accessing it because they cannot travel to school. We want all of our children and young people in Brent to have the best start in life. It’s really important that people feed into this consultation so that our Home to School Travel policy enables those who need it the right support to travel to one of our great schools.

 

The Council says the proposed changes to the policy also reflect the ambitions of the Brent SEND Strategy for 2021-2025, which focuses on the council’s ethos to allow children and young people in Brent to lead happy fulfilled lives. The consultation is open until Sunday 14 April. Its findings will help shape the final policy that will be approved by the Cabinet later this year. Those interested can read the draft policy and have their say online, on the council’s consultation page

 

There is an emphasis on children travelling more independently rather than relying on the school transport service. However, this will often mean parents escorting their children.

 

EXTRACTS FROM THE DRAFT POLICY

 

The Education Act 1996 and this policy use the phrase ‘travel assistance’ because the form this takes will vary and often does not involve the Council providing any transport at all.  The Council will determine what is appropriate in each case, taking account of its legal obligations, the needs of the applicant, safety considerations, the best use of the Council’s resources, any expressed preference and any other relevant matter.  In order to achieve as much independence and as much active travel as possible, when reviewing travel assistance  applications, we look at the potential options in the following order:

 

 

    Travel pass – This is a free pass in the form of an Oyster Card that is available for use on public transport such as buses and is the most common form of travel assistance provided. Brent Council considers that this will be suitable for the majority of children and young people up to the age of 16.

 

     Personal Travel Budget – This is a sum of money provided to parents/carers/guardians of children who are assessed as eligible for travel assistance. This allows parents/carers/guardians to arrange personalised, flexible travel arrangements that suit the needs of their child and family.

 

The sum provided is based on the safe walking distance between home and school and the number of days per week the child or young person is scheduled to attend school or college.

 

Parents/Carers/Guardians can use a PTB in any way they deem necessary to ensure their child/young person attends school regularly and arrives and leaves on time. Parents will not need to provide any evidence for how the money is spent. PTBs will not affect any of the other benefits the family already receives.

 

If attendance falls, Brent Council will contact the parent/carer/guardian and review whether the PTB is still the best mode of travel assistance. As a result of the review, the travel assistance offered may change to a more suitable mode or PTBs reduced or withdrawn, depending on consultation with the school and family.

 

The parent/carer or adult individual then assumes full responsibility for the travel arrangements and getting the child or themselves to their place of education on time and achieving good attendance. It is anticipated that the use of personal travel budgets can meet most individual needs and the Council encourages their use wherever appropriate. The provision of travel budgets can be offered in a number of ways such as mileage allowance.

 

Provision of a Travel Buddy – A travel buddy may be provided to accompany a child, young person or adult to their place of education whether using public transport or on Council provided transport. A travel buddy will only be provided where they are necessary for the safe operation of vehicles and/or the care of children and young people and where parents or carers are not reasonably able to accompany them

 

 

 

    Transport vehicles – If we have considered and ruled out all other options, we may provide a suitable vehicle, specifically adapted as necessary, to transport the child or young person. Vehicles and drivers are provided by a suitably qualified, registered, commercial provider working to contractual standards set by the Council. 

 

In general, vehicles are routed to pick up a number of children from different locations who attend a particular school. Therefore, journeys can be relatively long, and the child or young person will spend more time in the vehicle than with other forms of travel assistance.

 

Each route will be planned on the basis of the start and finish times of the place of education and the shortest possible route for all passengers on a particular vehicle.  Passengers will be picked up and dropped off at a convenient location, within a reasonable distance from their home, in many cases from recognised bus stops. A home pick up and drop off will only be made where it is deemed essential due to the individual’s significant needs.

 

If your child is accessing a collection point, you will be responsible for ensuring that your child gets safely to and from the collection point at the appropriate time. If your child’s travel assistance offer requires them to walk to a collection point, then it is expected that an adult will accompany them where necessary. You will also be responsible for your child when they are waiting for transport and when they leave the transport at the end of the day.

 

In the event of an emergency, late running of the service, or an adult not being present at a collection point, children will be taken to an agreed safe point for collection.

 

§  Other – The Council may provide any other form of travel assistance which is considered suitable and will consider any suggestions from applicants about any particular type of travel assistance.

 

There is an online consultation session tonight from 7pm until 8.30pm:

 EVENTBRITE BOOKING

 

Other sessions (note the St Raph's event is on Tuesday 26th March - Brent Council omitted the date):

 

Session 6 Booking

Session 7 Booking

Session 8 Booking

Children's Play Area - including Quad Bike course, to open at Birchen Grove Garden Centre in Kingsbury at Easter

 

 

A Quad Bike course is to open at Birchen Grove Garden Centre, Kingsbury, on Friday March 29th in time for the Easter weekend. Rides will be £2.

The course is part of a revamp at the Centre which already provides play for toddlers at Jane's Cafe.

Swings and climbing frames are already open. (Shame about the plastic grass!)

 

 

'Save our School' - Byron Court Primary resists forced academisation and privatisation: Demonstration 8am Thursday+petition

While I have been away from Wembley Matters in Australia,  staff and parents of Byron Court Primary School have moved with impressive speed to resist being forced into becoming a Harris Academy after a poor Ofsted report. Harris itself ha a poor reputation for its treatment of staff and the enormous salary of its boss. Removing the school from the oversight of the local authority (Brent Council) removes democratic accountability. With support from Brent Education Department the school is already making great progress to address the issues highlighted by Ofsted and the process of academisation would in itself be disruptive to those efforts.

The community is mobilising to save its community school.

Joint Secretary of Brent National Education Union, Jenny Cooper, said:

Our position is that the workforce, as major stakeholders in our schools, should be part of the decision making about their future; as things stand, we see our members once again suffering with work-related stress and anxiety as a direct result of the damaging process we call 'Ofsted'. One-word judgements do nothing to support or help improve our schools; all they do is help steer our school staff on a fast-track to mental breakdown.

 

 This is the wording of the petition you can sign at

https://www.megaphone.org.uk/petitions/save-byron-court-primary-school-stop-the-academisation

To: Gillan Barnard, Chair of Governors; Richard Sternberg, Acting Headteacher; Cllr Muhammed Butt, Brent Council Leader; Gillian Keegan MP, Secretary of State for Education; Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Schools

Save Byron Court Primary School - Stop the Forced Academisation

Campaign created by

⮞ JOINT PETITION BY 'SAVE BYRON COURT' PARENT CAMPAIGN GROUP AND BRENT NEU ⮜

Our school is being forced into becoming an Academy and join a Multi-Academy Trust, following a poor Ofsted rating. If this goes ahead:

🢜 everything that has made Byron Court an outstanding school before and a special place within the heart of our community will be lost;

🢜 there is no guarantee that any of the improvements or stability needed will be made; on the contrary, academisation could well bring plenty of new problems, particularly the loss of well-loved and valued teaching & support staff who could be forced out;

🢜 and yet Byron would never return to being a community school for all

Our own surveys have revealed that almost two-thirds of parents want Byron to remain a community school; the overwhelming majority of the staff want this too. Yet, we are currently locked out of any discussions and do not have a vote on the school's future.

How can it be fair or right that those who will be most affected - the staff, the families, the local community - are ignored?

We also recognise:

🢜 the significant failings with the Ofsted inspection itself;

🢜 recent changes introduced by Ofsted to make the inspection regime more supportive but which were brought in weeks after Byron's inspection;

🢜 Ofsted's 'Big Listen' consultation, which includes looking into the "impact of inspections on children, professionals, institutions and parent choices", implying an acceptance by themselves that significant change is needed;

🢜 and the school's progress, both already made and planned, under a Rapid Improvement Plan being closely monitored by Brent Council

The Secretary of State for Education has imposed an Academy Order on our school by force - this means that government officials will be making decisions behind closed doors about the future of our school. This is not fair, transparent, nor democratic.

BUT IT'S NOT TOO LATE!!!! Together we can fight to make things different

WE CALL ON GILLAN BARNARD, RICHARD STERNBERG & CLLR MUHAMMED BUTT TO:

🢜 Listen to parents, staff and the community

🢜 Fight against plans to academise the school without the consent or properly considering the views of parents, governors or the Council

🢜 Push for a delay in the transfer to any Multi-Academy Trust, to give sufficient time for improvements to be made in the school

🢜 Challenge Ofsted - express parent and staff concerns around the previous inspection; fight for re-inspection after sufficient time to review improvements, and under any new framework that comes out of the 'Big Listen' consultation

🢜 Give us the chance to remain a community school

WE CALL ON GILLIAN KEEGAN & DAMIAN HINDS TO:

🢜 Withdraw the Academy Order imposed on Byron Court Primary School

Why is this important?

🢜 Ensure an equal, non-selective environment with a focus on the whole child, an approach that doesn't achieve academic excellence or good behaviour by excluding children or making them scared to be in school

🢜 Give a say to those that it will impact most - the staff, the families, the local community

🢜 Stop the privatisation of our children's education

HOW ELSE CAN YOU HELP?

Write to your local councillors: https://bit.ly/BrentCounc

Write to Barry Gardiner MP: barry.gardiner.mp@parliament.uk

Follow us: https://twitter.com/savebyroncourt
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/savebyroncourt
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/savebyroncourt

Donate to our Campaign fundraising page: https://gofund.me/c696a920

UPDATE: Is the proposal to build 60 social rent infill homes on garage sites on Chalkhill Estate what it seems?

 

 

Is a Cabinet Report LINK about delivering 60 homes for Social Rent at Chalkhill what it seems?

Item 11 on the agenda for the Cabinet Meeting on 11 March is headed: ‘Proposal to deliver 60 homes for Social Rent on the Chalk Hill (sic) Estate.’ That’s great news, surely? But you have to read the Report to find out what it really means.

Social Rent is the most affordable of the “genuinely affordable” rent levels. It is the rent level at which the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report recommended the Council should build as many homes as possible, because most local people in housing need could not afford anything more expensive. And the Council has, so far, failed to build new homes for this rent level, unless they are existing tenants being moved from homes to be demolished.

But, hang on, does Brent own the Chalkhill Estate? Well, no. In the Report’s “Background” information section, it confirms that Brent Council transferred it to Metropolitan Housing Trust in 1996.

[It also claims that ‘Chalkhill was one of the major estates constructed in the borough by the Greater London Council in the 1960’s.’ Either current Council staff don’t know their local history, or they are trying to rewrite history, to distance themselves from the problems that led to the late 1960s “Bison” blocks being demolished only 30 years after they were built!]

In fact, it is now owned by Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing Association (“MTVH”), and it is their scheme which the Cabinet Report is considering. Cllr. Promise Knight’s “Cabinet Member Foreword” still maintains that: ‘we committed to deliver 5,000 affordable homes in the borough and are on track to achieve this.’

Her Foreword goes on to say: ‘This report sets out an opportunity to work closely with one of our strategic partners MTVH Housing to unlock 60 new social homes for residents by repurposing garage sites.’ [Note that these are now ‘social homes’, no longer ‘homes for Social Rent.’]

So, it is another infill scheme (something which Brent has not been particularly successful with so far - see my October 2023 guest post: Council housing – Does Brent know what it is doing?). But this time it is a Housing Association infill scheme, so why is Brent Council involved?

The part of the Chalkhill Estate involved in this scheme is the low-rise brick-built “Scientists” area at the eastern side of the 1960s estate. The land that MTVH want to build on ‘is subject to several outstanding third-party interests’.

It is Brent Council which has the statutory powers to over-ride these “third-party interests”, using compulsory purchase orders and stopping-up orders. As the Report puts it: ‘the scheme will be delivered by MTVH but the Council’s support will be necessary to enable delivery.’

If the proposed infill scheme does go ahead, it may produce ‘around sixty’ new homes. Although these will not be Brent Council homes, the Report does say ‘it is proposed all new homes delivered as part of the regeneration proposal on the Chalkhill Estate will comprise social housing, and the Council will hold nomination rights.’ Possibly some good news for the future.

 

UPDATE:

 This, from the Council's website, is what was decided at Cabinet on March 11th:

'Cabinet RESOLVED:

(1) To approve in principle the Council working with Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing Association (MTVH) to support the development objective of delivering new social housing within the Chalkhill Estate.

(2) To approve in principle to make Compulsory Purchase Orders of land interests within the Chalkhill Estate as identified on Plan 1 under Planning or Housing legislation to bring forward the development objectives, subject to a further specific resolution of Cabinet in respect of the making of each order.

(3) To agree advancing the preliminary stages of the compulsory purchase process on the Chalkhill Estate, including, but not limited to, land referencing, issuing section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 notices (section 16 notices), engaging, consulting and negotiating with landowners, and preparation of documentation and undertake all matters that the Council might need to undertake to inform a further report to Cabinet to make, confirm and implement the CPO, if required.

(4) To approve in principle to appropriate, subject to planning,the land identified on Plan 1 under section 203 of the 2016 Housing and Planning Act, subject to a further specific resolution of Cabinet in respect of the making of each appropriation.

(5) To approve in principle to make stopping up orders using planning or highways legislation for any land identified on Plan 1 and comprising public highway.

(6) To note the potential for the delivery of new social housing illustrated by MTVH’s current design proposals and that the current proposal will be subject to further consultation, design refinement and following that be subject of an application for planning permission to the Local Planning Authority.

(7) To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Resident Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security to enter into an indemnity agreement with MTVH to indemnify the Council for all costs associated with the compulsory purchase process on Chalkhill Estate.'

TONIGHT: How healthy is your prostate? Zoom 6pm

 https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83591739492?pwd=MUVjbThxZ0NBWVZUdlI0dTZHYmJlZz09 (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83591739492?pwd=MUVjbThxZ0NBWVZUdlI0dTZHYmJlZz09__;!!CVb4j_0G!WaJOYxVBOnKKiDiwmr_Z6HvwgRW_IFDn7n4CNrtjg2IMHcm4kvi0G6lShD-Y71delNcqY43L2TlCSZFx5CeCNHdDMt4NKXQ0hD3rRqPjOg$)

 

Meeting ID: 

835 9173 9492

 

Passcode: 487085

LETTER: South Kilburn residents have a right to know what is going on with regeneration

 Dear Editor,

In August last year, South Kilburn residents received issue 1 of South Kilburn Regeneration News. A welcome sign that we might be kept informed of progress, despite the fact that `issue 1' came after regeneration has been going on for nearly 20 years, and in those preceding years there has been no attempt to let us know what is happening.

Rumours abound that the regeneration has hit the rocks and is stalling. Nothing seems to have happened with the Carlton Vale Boulevard scheme.. The medical centre promised for 2015 has yet to materialise, and in the meantime the building in which the Kilburn Park surgery was based has been declared unfit for use and then sold off. Rumours say the new medical centre will be opened early next year, but no information has been circulated, no explanation for the lateness or whether this medical centre will actually be up to the standard originally promised. A further rumour is that developers are pushing for an even smaller proportion of social housing than in earlier stages, with a preference for expensive market flats, would, if true, mean that any idea that this addresses the housing crisis is a bad joke.

Wembley Matters has carried several reports on the disgusting state of some of the blocks which tenants have been decanted to while waiting for new flats. Word has it that the stalling of regeneration means that many who have been promised new flats in South Kilburn will not be able to move into them for years.

South Kilburn regeneration has been plagued with problems throughout, with new blocks having to have scaffold up for years while cladding is removed, heating and mould issues in many new blocks and, most notorious of all, Granville New Homes blocks costing more to put right than the original cost. And the company that botched Granville New Homes given new contracts by Brent Council! On top of which many moved into new blocks find their rents and especially their service charges rising considerably. Many of the problems associated with new blocks have been denied by Brent, and there certainly haven't been issues of Regeneration News to tell us what is going on.

No-one attempts to give South Kilburn residents a truthful account of what is happening. Raising these issues at Brent Connects doesn't get any answers, let alone a commitment to inform residents. South Kilburn Trust, supposedly overseeing the  regeneration of the Carlton/Granville site never reaches out to South Kilburn residents and appears to be totally unaccountable, despite claiming to represent the interests of South Kilburn residents.. Even those few who have time and ability to trawl through - often impenetrable - Council documents are often none the wiser.

Having endured 20 years of living in a building site, compounded by Brent Council persuading HS2 to build their vent shaft in the middle of the estate (with the support of South Kilburn Trust) rather than on a empty car park near Queens Park station, and facing probably another 15 years on a building site, residents really do have a right to clear, truthful information.

Pete Firmin, chair of Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association, South Kilburn