Lead member for schools: Byron Court parents feel 'disenfranchised and distressed by speed and nature' of forced academisation

 Letter to Secretary of State

Stop the forced academisation of Byron Court Primary School, Monday 2.45pm

 

Abuse of Power? Complaint over party political content of a Council report – Brent’s reply and Philip Grant's response to it.

 

 

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Last Friday, Martin published an Open Email which I’d sent to Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance, complaining about a Cabinet Member Foreword included in the report illustrated above. I received a reply from that Senior Council Officer on Monday morning, and sent my response to it just before lunchtime on Wednesday. 

 

It may seem as though I am making a fuss over a relatively minor matter, but when those in power at our local Council seem to be abusing the power that they hold, I think it is important to point it out, and to do so publicly. If they allowed to get away with one abuse, the next one may be bigger, and so on.

 

If the way that “Democracy in Brent” is conducted is of interest to you, the full text of the Council’s reply to my email of 5 April, and of my response to it, are set out below.

 

Email from Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance at 9.03am on 8 April:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I have looked at the section of the report to which you refer and also had a discussion with the Chief Executive.

 

Although, as you rightly say, it forms part of a report addressed to Cabinet signed off by an officer, the Cabinet Member Foreword in the report is separated from the main body of the report and clearly provided by the councillor and not by the officer who has signed off the report.

 

Leaving aside the question of whether there would otherwise be an issue in relation to the publicity related provisions to which you refer, I would point out that they arise under Part II of the Local Government Act 1986.  Section 6 (7) of that Part of that Act states:

 

(7) Nothing in this Part shall be construed as applying to anything done by a person in the discharge of any duties under regulations made under section 22 of the Local Government Act 2000 (access to information etc.)

 

These are regulations relating to publication of papers for, and admission to, meetings of the council’s Executive (Cabinet) and its committees and related matters.

 

The purpose of the introduction of the Cabinet Member Foreword was to provide an opportunity for the council policy context of decisions to be made explicit in reports to Cabinet by the Cabinet Member who is accountable for initiating and implementing council policies within the relevant portfolio. 

 

I am happy to remind officers signing off reports of this intention.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra

My response to that email at 11.50am on 10 April:

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email on Monday morning, 8 April.

 

I have considered it carefully, and have studied the legislation and Statutory Instruments arising from the main point you made on Section 6(7) LGA1986.

 

1. Your claim that ‘the Cabinet Member Foreword in the report is separated from the main body of the report’ does not stand up to scrutiny. Yes, it is headed Cabinet Officer Foreword, but it is subsection 3.1 of section 3 “Detail” in the middle of a document which, as I pointed out, is the ‘Report from the Interim Corporate Director of Communities & Regeneration’.

 

2.0 I admit that I had not considered the possible effect of Section 6(7) LGA1986 on the points I raised in my complaint email to you on 5 April. For that, I apologise. You appear to have used this to justify avoiding any answer over the content of the Cabinet Member Foreword being political material. But is Section 6(7) the “loophole” which allows that otherwise prohibited material to be published?

 

2.1 For ease of reference, I will copy that paragraph again here, but I have emphasised some of the key wording:

 

‘(7) Nothing in this Part shall be construed as applying to anything done by a person in the discharge of any duties under regulations made under section 22 of the Local Government Act 2000 (access to information etc.)’

 

Those regulations are set out in The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/3272) [“the Regulations”]. Under the Regulations, the executive (in this case, Brent’s Cabinet) is the “decision making body”, an individual member of the executive can be a “decision maker”, and the duties of decision makers, either collective or individual, are to make “executive decisions”.

 

Paragraph 11 of the Regulations, “Access to agenda and connected reports” begins by stating:

 

‘(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a copy of the agenda and every report for a public meeting shall be available for inspection by the public at the offices of the local authority when they are made available to the members of the executive or decision making body responsible for making the decision to which they relate.’

 

Subsequent sub-paragraphs make it clear that providing those reports, and managing public access to them, is part of the duties of officers of the Local Authority.

 

2.2 This is also reflected in Brent’s own Constitution. Paragraph 3 in Part 1 illustrates the clear distinction between the roles and duties of Cabinet members and Council officers, and states:

 

‘The Cabinet is responsible for putting policies, which Full Council has approved, into effect. The Cabinet is the part of the Council which is responsible for most of the Council’s day-to-day decision making not delegated to officers.’

 

Standing Order 13 in Part 2, “Meetings and Decisions of the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees”, includes these provisions:

 

‘(e) Any decision taken by the Cabinet or by Cabinet Committees shall be taken following the consideration of a written report and after having taken into account all legal, financial and other relevant implications, the responses to any consultation and the comments received from the relevant Scrutiny Committee and any previous meeting of Full Council where the matter the subject of the decision was considered.

 

(f) Any decision of the Cabinet or Cabinet Committees shall be taken in accordance with all current legislation, these Standing Orders and the other applicable rules contained in the Constitution.’

 

The report which the Cabinet must consider is written by Council Officers, and signed off by the Corporate Director responsible for the Department which deals with the report’s subject matter. That is done ‘in the discharge of’ that officer’s duties. 

 

2.3 It is not part of a Cabinet member’s duties, even a Lead Member’s duties, to write part of such a report. Their duty is to consider the written report, which provides all of the information they need in order to make their decision. For that reason, I do not believe that Section 6(7) LGA1986, applies in this case, so that the Cabinet Member Foreword in the report is still subject to, and breaches, Section 2 LGA1986.

 

3.0 I wrote that I could see no valid reason for Cabinet Member Forewords in Officer Reports to Cabinet. You have provided the following explanation:

 

‘The purpose of the introduction of the Cabinet Member Foreword was to provide an opportunity for the council policy context of decisions to be made explicit in reports to Cabinet by the Cabinet Member who is accountable for initiating and implementing council policies within the relevant portfolio.’

 

3.1 However, section 3.2, “Contribution to Borough Plan Priorities & Strategic Context”, of the very report we are considering here, sets out the council policy context explicitly. It also does so far better, and without the party political bias of Cllr. Tatler’s foreword.

 

3.2 The Report is about Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding to deliver a new publicly accessible courtyard garden and a community centre at the Council’s Cecil Avenue development, part of the Wembley Housing Zone. It is not about the housing project as such, but para. 3.1.3. of the foreword, in particular, concentrates on housing, beginning: ‘The housing crisis did not begin yesterday ….’

 

3.3 In this part of her foreword, the Lead Member for Regeneration, is putting forward views which appear to be different from the adopted Council policy she is meant to promote and deliver. Brent Council’s housing policy, is set out in Strategic Priority 1, “Prosperity and Stability in Brent”, of the Borough Plan 2023-2027. The key references are:

 

‘We will create more accessible and genuinely affordable housing. We want to be the leaders in London for inclusive housing development that works better for everyone. This means buying houses; building new social, accessible and affordable homes and improving our existing estates. We will also continue working with partners to increase the supply of private rented accommodation.’

 

‘DESIRED OUTCOME 2: Safe, Secure and Decent Housing - We will continue with our pledge to deliver 1,000 new council homes and be leaders in London in building inclusive and genuinely more affordable homes. This includes our pledge to deliver 5,000 new affordable homes within the borough, of which 1,700 will be directly delivered by the Council, by 2028.’

 

‘What Success Will Look Like - More council homes and more temporary accommodation provided by the council. More genuinely affordable and accessible homes available to families and residents.’

 

3.4 Cllr. Tatler’s version of the Council’s housing policy is:

 

‘We have a moral imperative to do all in our power to build more housing and communities that last long into the future. The regeneration that underpins the Wembley Housing Zone, is exactly that – an effort to build a better Brent, a place where home ownership is a reality, not just a dream.’

 

I’ve used bold type again to emphasise what she is championing in her Cabinet Member Foreword. Whereas the Council’s policy is to deliver new genuinely affordable Council homes, Cllr. Tatler’s agenda appears to promote homes for sale. 

 

Sadly, that is what the Brent Council development, under her “Regeneration” guidance, on Council-owned land at Cecil Avenue is actually going to deliver, with 150 (out of 237) of the new homes there being built for private sale, and only 56 as Council homes for genuinely affordable rent.

 

4.0 My email to you of 5 April suggested that the inclusion of Cabinet Member Forewords in Officer Reports to Cabinet should be reviewed, because I could see no valid reason for them. I think that our correspondence has confirmed that view (see 3.0 and 3.1 above), and I hope that you and the Chief Executive, to whom I am copying this, will initiate that review and publish its results.

 

4.1 Another reason why such Forewords are unnecessary, given in my email of 5 April, was because: ‘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.’

 

Cllr. Tatler proved this point at the Cabinet meeting on 8 April, when in introducing item 9 she read out large extracts from her Cabinet Member Foreword, including the claim about ‘a Labour pledge met.’ The evidence is on the webcast, published on Brent Council’s website.

 

4.2 If ‘the Cabinet Member who is accountable for initiating and implementing council policies within the relevant portfolio’ wishes to put their view on what those policies are to her or his colleagues, in writing and in advance of the formal Cabinet meeting, they can circulate their own document to their Cabinet colleagues. Those views should not be included in a Report by a Council Officer, on which the Cabinet is being asked to make a decision.

 

4.3 That is especially true if the Cabinet member has included political material, which the Council is prohibited from publishing, as part of their “Foreword”.

 

In view of the above, hope you will be happy to advise officers signing off reports to Cabinet that they should not, in future, include Cabinet Member Forewords in those reports.

 

I look forward to receiving your confirmation of this. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Determined Byron Court campaigners will protest on Monday as Harris Federation takeover barons visit the school

 

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).

Climate Justice-Climate Jobs Conference Saturday 13th April 11am-4.30pm

 

 

Climate Justice, Climate Jobs: What struggles do we need to win and how?

 

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!

Book your place now

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.

Facebook event

—-

Support the Campaign against Climate Change: http://www.campaigncc.org/join

Byron Court Primary: Lead Member says Brent Council's hands are tied over 'illogical and punitive' forced academisation

 

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:

 

 

 

BIN A KNIFE AND SAVE A LIFE': Six knife amnesty bins installed across Brent by Raheem Sterling Foundation. Check locations in this article.

 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:

• Denmark Road, Kilburn
• Wellspring Crescent, Chalkhill (opposite Chalkhill Park & near ASDA)
• Neasden Lane, Neasden
• Fortunegate Road, Harlesden
• Old North Circular Road, Monks Park
• Hillside, Stonebridge
• Park Lane, Wembley

 

Village Mews: A story of neglect, lack of maintenance and poor communication by a series of housing associations that leaves residents in a desperate situation

 

 

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. 

 

 

 Part of a consultation slide show. Residents were not told what the different colours indicate but the red shows the garages and car park (could they be built on?), yellow shows the terrace houses (refurbishment?) and blue the building facing Church Lane housing 4 flats (demolition and re-build?) only one is occupied at present. Some parts of the site are missing from the image.

 

 

The timeline given to residents. The consultation has been extended until April 26th.

 

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.

 

 

Proximity of the St Andrew's Church trees to the back gardens and houses

 

 

Tree roots displace the fence and run across car park area

 

 

Wall out of line after root and stem intrustion

 

Damp and drainage issues on terraced houses

 

Leaf fall from overhanging branches creates moss growth and subsequent roof problems

 

Tree roots block drains

 

 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

 

 Gap between wall and door

Crack in house wall

 

 

Internal cracks

Collapsing windows

 

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.