WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Undaunted by Brent Council Cabinet's inability to intervene in the forced academisation of Byron Court Primary, campaigners will protest on Monday as the Harris Federation visit the school.
Parents and supporters will meet at the The Link off Nathan Road outside South Kenton Station at 2.45pm on Monday April 15th (opposite side of the station to the Windermere pub).
Venue: Crowndale Centre, NW1, near Mornington Crescent tube (many thanks to Camden Unison for hosting us).
Timing: 11am-4.30pm (registration from 10.30)
The climate crisis is more real, and has a bigger impact on our lives, every day. Around the world, those who have contributed least to the crisis suffer the most.
The climate crisis is a class issue and a trade union issue. There is an urgent need to reduce global carbon emissions to ensure we are not engulfed by temperature rises which make our societies, lives and livelihoods impossible because of the impact of extreme weather.
The biggest block to this change is the power and influence of corporations and governments representing them. They make huge profits for a minority out of an economic system wedded to fossil fuels.
Fighting for a huge transformation of the economy in the interests of people and the planet should be at the top of the trade union agenda. But it isn't. So how do we make sure the strength of the working class and trade union movement is at the heart of tackling the climate emergency?
Part of the answer is in knowing what arguments and battles currently divide and weaken us and how we win these. Part of the answer lies in being part of a global movement of international solidarity standing with the struggles of the oppressed for justice. Come and join us for this important conference.
Discussions to include:
Opening plenary:
- What’s the balance sheet on climate in trade unions? Are we going backwards in the trade union movement? With Sarah Woolley, General Secretary, BFAWU; John Moloney, Asst Gen Sec, PCS; Tyrone Scott, War on Want; Ian Mitchell, formerly Silverwood Colliery; Suzanne Jeffery, Campaign against Climate Change
Workshops (morning)
- A National Climate Service - why the market can’t deliver a plan for the climate. Round table trade union discussion with speakers including John Moloney, PCS; Sarah Woolley, BFAWU; Liz Wheatley, Unison; Les Levidow, UCU; Jenny Patient, researcher and former TUC Project Officer for Just Transition in Yorks & Humber
- Greenwash and Jobswash - the false solutions which trade unions should oppose, not support, and why it matters. Speakers including Merry Dickinson, Stop Burning Trees Coalition; Pascoe Sabido, Corporate Europe Observatory; Ellen Robottom, CACCTU and Leeds TUC; Jonathan Essex, Green House Think Tank
- Climate Justice and Palestine - no climate justice on occupied land. With Ellie Kinney, Conflict and Environment Observatory; Anne Alexander, co-founder of the MENA solidarity network; and Manal Shqair, Palestinian researcher, author and contributor to the book "Dismantling Green Colonialism"
- Climate, Jobs and Public Services - fighting for public services and public ownership that delivers for people and planet. With Pallavi Devulapalli, Keep Our NHS Public; Simon Pirani, Fare Free London; Fran Postlethwaite, Better Buses South Yorkshire; Katrine Williams, PCS; Stephen Smellie, Unison
Workshops (afternoon)
- Sustainable food production and decent work - organising across the food system. With Sarah Woolley, Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union; Martin Empson, CACCTU, and author on class struggle, landwork and environmentalism and a speaker from Platform's food justice project.
- War, fossil fuels and climate - why defence diversification is a key battle for the climate. Speakers including Khem Rogaly, Common Wealth, Sam Mason, CND
- Ending fossil fuels and renewable energy - what would a workers plan for energy look like? With Ruby Earle, Platform; Pete Cannell, Scot.E3; and Professor Linda Clarke
- Racism and migration - social justice and climate justice for North and South. Speakers including Zita Holbourne, Joint National Chair of Artists' Union England and BARAC UK (Black Activists Rising Against Cuts); Zamzam Ibrahim, Students Organising for Sustainability, John Sinha, Campaign against Climate Change
Final Plenary:
- Summing up the day and looking ahead - an election year for the climate
Workshop speakers and details being added over the coming days - check back for more!
You can buy a ticket at our Sumup online store
Select the appropriate option from the drop-down menu:
£12 - standard price
£5 - low wage or unwaged (also suggested for anyone travelling from outside London with significant travel costs)
£20 - solidarity ticket
Note that your purchase will be confirmed by email, so make sure you select zero postage cost at the checkout! The quickest way of doing this is by selecting 'Pick Up'
We don't want anyone to be unable to attend because of the cost - please email us for a free ticket if this is the case.
Matt Paul, parent and one of the coordinators of the Save Byron Court campaign, yesterday presented a 1,300 signature petition to Brent Council Cabinet opposing forced academisation and calling for the Cabinet’s.
He spoke about staff and parent concern over how the inspection had been carried out by Ofsted, the minimal parent involvement and the failure to take into account the instability of the senior leadership over a four year period.
Over two-thirds of parents and a majority of staff in a survey opposed academisation and wanted it to remain a community school.
There was particular concern that the Harris Federation had been named to take over the school given that it is led by a Tory donor, has a CEO paid half a million a year, is known for poor industrial relations and a has problematic approach to pupil behaviour management.
He asked that the Council in line with Labour policy:
1.Provide and support the recruitment of additional members of the school leadership team, recognising the immediate lack of capacity and significant pressures faced by existing staff.
2. Ensure the work by the Rapid Improvement Group is succeeding and being monitored – something that does not appear to have been happening for some time.
3. Push the Department for Education and Ofsted to reinspect the school to reflect improvements and its upward trajectory and thus delay the academy order being implemented.
Cabinet Lead Member for Schools, Cllr Gwen Grahl’s response was interesting and seemed to reflect an inner battle. At times there were passages that sounded like cautious officers’ briefing notes on the legal position followed by passionate political comments,
She said she understood how parents would feel that it was unjust that they had not had any say in what happened to their school. That is why she had written to the Local Advisory Board urging them to consider delaying academisation but disappointingly had received no response.
On the Rapid Improvement Group (RIG) she said:
The local authority has been aware of inadequacies in some areas of the school for several months and indeed established a RIG back in September 2022 [more than a year before the Ofsted Inspection] which was chaired by Shirley Parks. The group has provided detailed and structural support across many areas and that includes early years. Safeguarding. SEND, leadership and pupil progress. In addition, we’ve helped to recruit three really experienced school governors following the resignation of the chair and vice chair.
It was our hope and our best intention that this support would in time be successful in resolving the problems, leading the school towards resilience and a high quality of leadership and attainment.
Addressing the campaigners’ first demand she said:
On your first request I can confirm we will be building additional leadership capacity at the school, and I think we can assure you that will be in place following the Easter holidays. We have been providing substantial support through monitoring and challenge and are meeting really regularly with the senior leadership team and the governors.
Stressing that academisation was not a local authority decision, in a key passage that will disappoint campaigners, she said:
However strongly parents and pupils feel committed to Byron Court remaining a community school, the academy order makes it clear that local authorities must take all reasonable steps to facilitate academisation. It’s for that reason that the Cabinet, officers, and the local authority as a whole cannot oppose or even delay this decision. We have very little input into the timing of academisation or indeed when the school will be next inspected.
She went on to express her political views:
This process has no doubt been a heart-breaking one for parents and at the political level I feel that it highlights a number of areas where education policy has been undemocratic and highly counter-active to delivery of high-quality education for pupils. First of all it highlights the lack of trust in the chronic problems of the current Ofsted system which we know places undue pressure on staff and simplistically, at times cruelly, reduces the complexities of running a school to a single word judgement. The tragic death of Ruth Perry is emblematic of how brutal this process can be for hardworking teachers as well as for the wider community.
I have long argued that the inspection framework is not fit for purpose and Labour have already pledged to abolish single word judgements and to bring about a much needed overhaul of the system. I will continue to make these argument and emphasise that teaching staff deserve better. It also lays out plainly how illogical and punitive forced academisation is, tying the future of the school to an inspection system that has been so openly discredited, naturally feels draconian.
Cllr Grahl went on to promise to carry on the fight for inclusive education at the school even when academisation too place.
She finished:
If you do have any specific questions or concerns do please email me and I will respond. I am happy to meet up with you separately as well.
Cllr Gwen Grahl’s contact details:
Correspondence
address:
c/o Labour Group Office
Brent Civic Centre
Engineers Way
Wembley
HA9 0FJ
Email: Cllr.Gwen.Grahl@brent.gov.uk
Mobile: 07741767590
Cllr Grahl's tweet sequence after press coverage:
I missed this Press Release when I was abroad for a month in February-March. It is worth publishing now and may even save a life.
From Raheem Sterling Foundation
Created in collaboration with Brent Council and the Metropolitan Police, #TheBoyFromBrent campaign has been launched by the unveiling of amnesty knife bins across the borough and a range of community partnerships designed to help bring about a positive change in communities.
To launch the campaign, seven branded knife bins have been strategically placed around key areas in Brent, each bearing a specific message from Raheem Sterling and displaying information, support and guidance from Raheem Sterling Foundation partners. Each call to action is aligned with one of the Raheem Sterling Foundation’s Power of 7 objectives – social mobility, employment, education, community, creativity, leadership and enterprise.
The Foundation is committed to providing a robust youth engagement intervention to reduce knife crime figures in Brent, where knife crime rose in Brent by 7% last year, with 549 incidents recorded in 2023.* By providing access to organisations that can provide support systems for at-risk young people, the project aims to help young people strive for better opportunities and overcome barriers they may face in their lives.
The knife bin at Park Lane, Wembley - adjacent to King Edward VII Park
Commenting on the partnership, Raheem Sterling said:
“I want this project to make a real difference to young people in Brent by guiding them to take positive actions and have better access to a powerful support network of opportunities. Growing up in Brent, I understand the challenges that young people experience every day. I truly hope our work enables change and I’m grateful to all our partners and the organisations supporting us to help improve the lives and increase opportunities for young people.”
The Raheem Sterling Foundation is committed to greater social mobility, providing better education, and furthering employment opportunities for young people by funding and working with key partners, community initiatives, inspiring mentors, and groups who are committed to driving change to make a long-lasting impact in Brent.
Clive Ellington, Chair of Trustees added:
‘’At the Raheem Sterling Foundation, we believe that all young people, regardless of their background, should have access to support and guidance as they pursue opportunities to improve their future careers and quality of life. It’s this vision that drives the Foundation and we are dedicated to breaking down barriers to success, helping young people find their voice and realise the power of their potential as they make their mark on the world.
“The Foundation’s project in Brent will open up new opportunities for communities to come together and tackle the issues in knife crime collectively while providing practical ways to open up a roadmap of opportunity for young people.”
Alongside information, support and guidance on the bins, people can also scan a QR code. This takes them to a website signposting them to support to help people move away from knife crime and connect them to a more positive path, including mentoring opportunities or getting into work.
Councillor Harbi Farah, Cabinet Member for Safer Communities and Public Protection, said:
“Sadly knife crime exists across all towns and cities in the UK, and Brent is not immune to this.
“We are proud to be working with Raheem Sterling and Word 4 Weapons to install these lifesaving amnesty bins, the first of their kind in Brent, and will continue to work with our partners to raise awareness of where they are located and the support available for those affected by knife crime.
“Every knife taken off our streets is potentially a life saved. If these bins help one person to change their behaviour, it will make our community safer.”
To find out more about #TheBoyFromBrent project, please visit the campaign page here
*Statistics provided by Metropolitan Police Crime Dashboard
The Amnesty Knife Bins are located at:
The ‘Village Mews’ housing next to St Andrew’s Church, Kingsbury, at first looks an idyllic enclave, surrounded by trees and in the shadow of a beautiful church spire, but closer inspection reveals a different story.
I was invited by residents to see for myself the conditions they live in caused by general neglect, lack of maintenance and roots from overgrown trees.
The development is more than 30 years old and was started by Paddington Churches Housing Association (PCHA), and then handed on to Genesis, which later merged with Notting Hill Housing Trust to become Notting Hill Genesis. This series of landlords presided over gradual deterioration and neglect.
Now residents are being consulted on a further takeover by an entity known as Springboard Two Housing Association Ltd, a rather mysterious offshoot of Notting Hill Genesis, that proposes to decant residents into temporary accommodation while a survey and works take place. Initially residents were told it would be for 3 months, but this was later extended to 13 months. Of course, as no detailed survey has been carried it this could be far longer.
Residents are concerned about the suitability of the temporary accommodation for the residents of the 16 properties involved and whether it would be suitable for those with a disability or pets. They shudder at the thought of temporary hotel accommodation which appears a possibility as Notting Hall Genesis does not have enough property of its own to decant everyone into.
Residents are suspicious of the role of Springboard Twoand fear that when a proper survey is carried out (they claim that there has never been a thorough one and the latest consisted only of a ‘visual walkabout’ and desktop exercise) it may conclude that the whole lot should be demolished. With 14 garages on site and a car park space, redevelopment could include infill housing as well as rebuild with the prospect of private sales. The proposals for Chalkhill Estate infill, sponsored by Brent Council, are seen as relevant.
One resident pointed out that their rent had risen by £40 a week over two years and that their accommodation is so poorly maintained that the electricity bill is £600 a month with a bath costing £3. Residents gain little from service charges with minimal gardening and maintenance of lighting.
As a green I am committed to safeguarding our trees, especially those with a Tree Preservation Order. Village Mews is in St Andrews Conservation Area, and this offers further safeguards. However, the lack of action on maintenance of the trees means, according to residents, that they have caused damage to drains, walls, doorways, roofs, and the driveway. Unfortunately, because of the lack of surveys, Notting Hill Genesis failed to produce sufficient evidence when an application was submitted to Brent Council for the felling of poplar trees and only a reduction of an ash and two oaks was approved. They failed to mention huge branches that had fallen. Even then the actual works that took place removed less of each tree than had been granted. Residents said because of this ineptitude they have been left with an unenviable choice between safe and comfortable homes and protecting trees.
All this might have been unnecessary if there had been proper maintenance of the trees on the site over the last few decades by the various housing associations. The same would go for the church authorities and the maintenance and control of the trees on their land that abutts Village Mews.
The driveway, poplar trees on right. No evidence of damage according to Brent Council
St Andrew's Church tree roots go into the back gardens of Village Mews and extend to back walls.
Leaf fall from overhanging branches creates moss growth and subsequent roof problems
The following pictures are from the main house fronting Church Lane which accommodates four flats only one of which is occupied and you will see why.
Porch roof collapse over front door
Crack in house wall
Boarded up flat
Heavy iron drain pipes that luckily did not fall on anyone
There are 14 garages, only some of which are in use and a lot of uncertainty about how residents can apply to rent them. If they are left to deteriorate, as happened on Kings Drive Estate and Newlands Court, it could be used as justification for demolition and subsequent development.
Below is the 2022 Brent Council response to a request for cutting back several trees and felling the poplars. Perhaps the evidence in the photographs above will encourage a review by Notting Hill Genesis, St Andrew's Church and Brent Council regarding a joint approach to tackling the issue.
The Notting Hill Genesis consultation ends on April 26th and while residents understood that they could decide whether Springboard Two should take over their property, the statement from Notting Hill Genesis appears to see it as a done deal.
I asked Notting Hill Genesis about:
1. The failure to address and rectify the structural damage cause by neighbouring trees over a long period.
2. The results of any site surveys carried out and plans to rectify the problems.
3. The requirement that tenants move out into other accommodation while works are carried out - the period, the type of accommodation offered, whether the needs of disabled or elderly will be taken into account, whether pet owners will be offered pet friendly accommodation
4. The role of Springboard Two - there is very little information available on this organisation. Please provide details.
5. Whether there are plans to redevelop the site, including the 14 garages - perhaps in partnership with Brent Council
6. Anything you can say that will reassure tenants
A Notting Hill Genesis spokesperson said:
We know the structural issues at Village Mews are having an impact on residents. While there is no immediate risk to the safety of the buildings, significant work needs to happen to resolve the issues and so we can provide the comfortable homes our residents deserve. Everything we do at Village Mews will be in support of that.
We acknowledge that our messaging has not always been as clear as we aspire to. We’re now working closely with everyone living there to ensure they understand both the approach we’re taking, and why we’re taking it.
Nothing happening here affects residents’ security of tenancy, the right to live in their home or their rents. If households need to move out temporarily, we will speak to them individually to fully understand their needs for an alternative home and make sure their requirements are met.
Background:
- We are in discussions with Brent Council and our contractors about the trees at Village Mews to seek a solution that works for all parties
- Work that could be required includes underpinning the foundations of homes, replacing any unstable walls to ensure structural integrity and drainage works to protect the drains against tree root growth
- A full plan will be provided to residents by our contractors once it has been completed
- Residents will not face any costs relating to this work
- We will be transferring the homes to our subsidiary, Springboard Two, which is still part of Notting Hill Genesis. This technical solution allows us to free up extra funds that can be spent on the structural improvements, cyclical works, and enhanced energy performance
A Village Mews resident reacted:
That response is as expected and they’re making it seem they’re being transparent and have our best interests at heart (blah, blah, blah) but they’re being exceptionally sneaky glossing over the Springboard Two aspect. It’s interesting they say they WILL transfer to SB2 as from our understanding this current consultation period is to get views about this, and we oppose it. So, if they go ahead, how exactly do they have us in mind?! No transparency at all and I’m extremely concerned to be honest.
Guest post from Philip Grant in a personal capacity. Open Email to Debra Norman, Brent Council Corporate Director and Monitoring Officer. Also see report on the proposed community space HERE,
Subject: Political publicity in an Officer Report to the 8 April Cabinet meeting
This is an Open Email
Dear Ms Norman,
I am writing to you, in your roles as both Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance and Monitoring Officer, to complain about part of the content of a report published on the Council’s website which, I believe, clearly represents political publicity, in breach of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 (“LGA1986”).
The report is under item 9 of the agenda for the Cabinet meeting on Monday 8 April, “SCIL request for a new Publicly Accessible Courtyard and new Community Centre in Wembley”, and the part of that report I am complaining about is section 3.1, headed “Cabinet Member Foreword”.
Under the Standing Orders [13(e)] in Brent’s Constitution, Cabinet decisions ‘shall be taken following the consideration of a written report …’, and those reports are prepared and submitted to Cabinet by Council Officers. The report I am complaining of is such a report, from the Interim Corporate Director of Communities & Regeneration, and has been signed off by her, as shown by these screenshots from the online version of the report:
 |
| Heading |
Although the title heading of the report does identify Councillor Tatler as the Cabinet member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth, the report is, as it should be, a Council Officer report, giving information to Cabinet about the matter they are being asked to consider and decide, including the necessary legal and financial details, and making recommendations based on that information.
In many ways, a Cabinet Member Foreword is superfluous, as it does not give any details which are not, or could not be, included by the Council Officer(s) in the report. Additionally, the Lead Member has the opportunity to make any additional comments she/he may wish to when introducing the agenda item at the Cabinet meeting, and having those comments recorded in the minutes.
In this case, the seven paragraphs of the Cabinet Officer Foreword, covering 1¼ pages of the report, are more in tone and content like a political manifesto. Section 2(1), LGA1986, specifically states that:
‘A local authority shall not publish, or arrange for the publication of, any material which, in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party.’
Any claim that the text of this “Foreword” is simply reflecting policies adopted by Brent Council is undone by this sentence from paragraph 3.1.1.:
‘A Labour pledge met to continue using public assets for public good – balancing regeneration projects in the interests of the many in search of a new home, not the few that decry change.’
The specific mention of the pledge being a ‘Labour pledge’ means that, if such a pledge was actually made, it must have been made in words or a document published by the Labour Party. (Was such a pledge made, and if so, where is the evidence for it?). The use of the words ‘in the interests of the many … not the few’ is also clearly drawing on a slogan previously used in an election campaign by the Labour Party.
Section 2(2), LGA1986, explains how to identify political material which a local authority is prohibited from publishing:
‘In determining whether material falls within the prohibition regard shall be had to the content and style of the material, the time and other circumstances of publication and the likely effect on those to whom it is directed and, in particular, to the following matters—
(a) whether the material refers to a political party or to persons identified with a political party or promotes or opposes a point of view on a question of political controversy which is identifiable as the view of one political party and not of another;’
I have already pointed out that the ‘content and style’ of this Cabinet Member Foreword is similar to that of a political manifesto, and the words ‘a Labour pledge’ clearly refers to a political party.
The Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity (“the Code”), which applies to all local authorities and is included in Part 5 of Brent Council’s Constitution, makes clear that Section 2, LGA1986, must be followed, and that Section 6, LGA1986, ‘defines publicity as “any communication in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or a section of the public”. Although it could be claimed that this report is addressed to Brent’s Cabinet, it is a publicly available document, which I have already seen quoted in local online blogs and newspapers, so it must be 'addressed to the public at large.'
Para. 33 of the Code says: ‘Local authorities should pay particular regard to the legislation governing publicity during the period of heightened sensitivity before elections …’ We are in a so-called “purdah” period before the London Mayoral and GLA elections on 2 May, and the opening sentence of Councillor Tatler’s “Foreword” actually begins: ‘Working in partnership with Wates Construction and the Mayor of London ….’, while later in the paragraph referring to a ‘Labour pledge’, as I have shown above.
I hope I have shown why the Cabinet Member Foreword is ‘political publicity’, which should not have been allowed to be included in this report. The Council Officers compiling, checking and signing off this report should have identified it as such, and insisted on it being, at the very least, amended, so that it did not include party political content.
Council Officers should not be afraid to point out to elected members, and particularly Cabinet members, when they are overstepping the mark. They should also know that the Council’s most senior officers will support them when they do stand up against such attempted abuses of power, which is why I am copying this email to Brent’s Chief Executive.
The remedy, when this complaint is upheld, should be for the report document appearing on the Council’s website to be amended, so that the Cabinet Member Foreword is removed entirely from it, or at least the parts of it referring to party political matters.
The inclusion, a fairly recent feature, of Cabinet Member Forewords in Officer Reports to Cabinet, should also be reviewed. There seems no valid reason for them. If they are allowed to continue, there should be clearer guidelines to Cabinet members and Officers over what can, and cannot, be included in them.
I look forward to receiving your response to this complaint. Thank you. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.
