London Assembly: Residents should have final say and ballot on estate regeneration

The London Assembly is asking the Mayor to hear Londoner’s voices and give them more power to decide where and when regeneration should take place in their areas.

A motion, agreed today, called on the Mayor to include this commitment in his final Good Practice Guide, urging him to make London a place where neighbourhoods are designed to answer communities’ needs.

Sian Berry AM, who proposed the motion, said:

The Assembly has called today for something all estate residents should have: a final say on what will happen to their homes and communities.

 Full consultation is vital and a ballot over any major plan to remodel their estates is the only way to make sure councils and housing associations don’t fudge these processes.

The Mayor’s commitment that ‘estate regeneration only takes place where there is resident support, based on full and transparent consultation’ was clear and we are calling now for him to keep his promise to Londoners.

 Tom Copley AM, who seconded the motion, said:

I’m pleased that the Mayor is insisting that there must be no net loss of social housing on estate regeneration schemes in his draft Good Practice Guide. However, I want him to go further by including ballots of residents whose homes face demolition. Balloting is a vital way of ensuring residents have a meaningful say over future plans for their homes and is the best way to ensure a regeneration scheme has legitimacy.

Wherever demolition is an option, there must be a commitment to balloting residents, particularly where a sizeable number of residents have made a request for a ballot.

Through his Good Practice Guide, we now want to see the Mayor working with community groups to develop detailed guidance about a host of issues, such as when ballots take place, who participates and how differences in opinions between residents may be resolved.

The full text of the Motion is:

This Assembly notes that the Mayor’s Good Practice Guide to Estate Regeneration is due to be published soon which will set out key principles to be followed in estate regeneration projects.

This Assembly also notes the Mayor’s manifesto commitment that estate regeneration only takes place where there is resident support, based on full and transparent consultation.

This Assembly believes that a final say for residents is an important way to ensure that resident involvement in plans for their homes is done in a meaningful way throughout the process.

This Assembly therefore urges the Mayor to recommend in his final Good Practice Guide that ballots are used on all schemes where demolition is an option or to include clear guidance that ballots will be guaranteed where a proportion of residents ask for it. Ballots should extend to private renters from non-resident leaseholders and freeholders on estates.

See this photographic essay for an example of an estate that is due to be regenerated LINK

New Information and Advice service for people with a learning disability

From Brent Mencap

Our new specialist Information and Advice service for Brent people with a learning disability aged 18-65 is going live on Thursday January 4th at Brent Mencap. It's only for people with a learning disability (which doesn't include conditions such as dyslexia or dyspraxia nor other disabilities).

As well as a drop in on Thursdays we can give initial information over the phone and get our adviser to ring you back or make an appointment.

Wembley FC 'David' takes on the FA 'Goliath' over club's name

After yesterday's coverage on ITN Wembley Football Club have received massive support on Twitter in their battle with the FA over the club's use of the word Wembley. The FA are citing 'Wembley' as their intellectual property despite not objecting when the name of Wembley FC went forward in 2012.

After the EU ruled in favour of the Football Association Wembley FC were ordred to pay the FA's costs threatening the future of the 70 years old club.

I wonder if they will act against Wembley Matters, Wembley Champions and Wembley Futures?

Here is some of the scathingTwitter reaction:

Before you rent, check whether your landlord has been prosecuted

Tenants are now able to check whether the landlord or agent they want to rent a property from is a rogue thanks to the launch of a new London database.

Brent is one of the first London boroughs rolling out the Greater London Authority's Rogue Landlord and Agent Checker.

The names and addresses of landlords and agents who have been prosecuted for housing offences within the past year have been uploaded onto the database. Their information will remain searchable for a year on the publicly accessible side of the Checker, and for up to 10 years between Councils and the London Fire Brigade.
 
Brent is one of ten London Councils included in this first phase launch, alongside Camden, Greenwich, Islington, Kingston, Newham, Southwark, Sutton, Waltham Forest and Westminster. The aim is for the database to become London-wide, including all London councils.

The Checker has three key parts. The first is a publicly available list of landlords and agents who have faced enforcement action. The second is a private database accessible only to London boroughs and the London Fire Brigade, containing a greater range of enforcement actions. Lastly, there will be a reporting tool - www.London.gov.uk/rogue-landlord-checker - to allow private tenants to make a complaint about their landlord or agent to their local authority.

Cllr Harbi Farah, Cabinet Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, said:

We want to put an end to rogue landlords exploiting the housing crisis by taking money from tenants living in poorly managed properties and in sub-standard conditions. The Rogue Landlord and Agent Checker is a deterrent to any landlord thinking of going down that route. It will also empower tenants to make the best possible choice about who they decide to pay their rent to. 

Anyone is able to access the Rogue Landlord and Agent Checker through a link on the Brent Council website as well as through the GLA website. The system has been designed to allow councils to share information about rogue landlords in order to help potential renters make informed decisions about where they choose to live.

Are Spurs having trouble filling Wembley Stadium or just trying to win over the locals?

I happened to mention to someone  recently that there seemed to be an awful lot of free tickets for football matches at Wembley floating around the borough, but still empty seats at the Stadium when matches were shown on TV. Then I saw this email from Brent Council Housing Resident Involvement (never heard of them before):

Subject: FREE Tottenham Hotspur Tickets - Matches on Boxing Day, 7 January & 13 January

Dear resident,

 

Tottenham Hotspur have advised us that they are keen to ensure that local community groups around Wembley are taking up tickets at their home matches this season.

 

They have offered us tickets at each of the upcoming fixtures below.

 

If you are interested in attending, please respond back with the game you would like to attend and complete the details in the form attached with your information and that of those that will be attending with you.

 

For the game on 26^th December, you will need to be able to able to pick up the tickets on Friday 22^nd between 10am – 12pm or 2:00pm – 4pm

Upcoming Fixtures:

  

Boxing Day, 12.30pm – Southampton

Sunday January 7, time TBC – AFC Wimbledon (FA Cup Round 3)

Saturday January 13, 5.30pm – Everton

Considering how much fuss Spurs made regarding planning permission to hold more full capacity matches against opposition from many local residents LINK it seems odd that there are so many free tickets available. It could be a result of that opposition and residents' demands that Spurs give something back to the community, or is it that they miscalculated their ability to fill the stadium?

Confusion over end date for Wembley High Road sewer works

 Street signs say that the sewer works in Wembley High Road will continue until January 31st 2018 but this is what Brent Council posted on its website yesterday with a completion date of January 5th LINK:

The sewer works on High Road, Wembley, are progressing well and the proposed end date for these works is now 5 January 2018.

To date Thames Water have:

• Removed the traffic island
• Excavated a shaft onto the sewer over seven meters deep
• Tunnelled four meters downstream, towards Park Lane, to a point where there is no concrete in the sewer
• Tunnelled upstream, towards Wembley triangle, eight and a half meters to the lateral connection from the former Brent House site and have tunnelled over fourteen meters to a point where all concrete has been removed.
• Sink another shaft on the sewer
• Replaced the sewer

Next steps:

• Backfill the tunnels

• Backfill the shaft

• Permanent reinstatement of carriageway.

  
   Note: From the top of the 83 bus today (Thursday) it did look as if the backfill works have been completed. I have asked Thames Water for clarification.
  

Brent kids can be 'Super Heroes' - lessons from the St Raph's Movie Fun Day

I think readers will enjoy this video showing the Brent community at its best with children and adults from all communities having fun together with a serious intent behind the fun.

London Mayor torpedoes Barnet's Grahame Park regeneration citing loss of affordable homes

From Construction News LINK

Sadiq Khan has rejected plans for a housing estate regeneration project in north London on the basis that affordable homes will be lost.

The mayor of London said the scheme in Barnet is “a classic example of how not to do estate regeneration”.

The project at the 1970s Grahame Park estate in Colindale includes plans to demolish 692 homes available at social rent and replace them with 1,083 units.

But only 435 of the new homes will be available for social tenants within what is Barnet’s largest housing estate.

Barnet Council approved the scheme, which is being developed by Genesis Housing Association, last month.

However, Mr Khan said after considering the evidence, the council must now work with City Hall planners to redesign the project.

It is the second time this year the mayor has intervened in Barnet, having called in the council’s decision to refuse Barratt permission for 462 homes in May.

The mayor said: “I fully support improving social housing on this estate and across the capital, but this scheme falls far short of what I expect of London boroughs.”

Mr Khan pointed to his London Plan, published last month, which said estate regeneration projects must replace homes for social rent on a like-for-like basis.

He added: “Londoners so urgently need more high-quality housing, not less, which makes this scheme completely unacceptable in its current form.”

Housing estate regeneration is a major issue in the capital, with Haringey Council facing fierce opposition to its £2bn plans to regenerate part of Wood Green in north London.

A Barnet Council spokesperson said: “We are clearly disappointed by this decision. We will now be reviewing this with our development partner to agree the next steps.”

A Genesis spokesperson said: “We are very disappointed to hear this decision and are in close dialogue with Barnet Council and the mayor’s office to review next steps.”

NOTE

Genesis Housing Association is associated with the Brent House development where only 30% of units are 'affordable' (ie unaffordable to most local families at up to 80% market rent) and the controversial Minavil House development where  'affordable' is 60% of market rent but only 13% of the units.  It is also facing a campaign by tenants over the merger with Notting Hill Housing Trust and its move away from its original remit of providing housing at social rent.

It will be interesting to see how Mr Khan treats applications from Brent which don't offer Londoners more high quality homes at social rent.

Wembley High Road sewer works until the end of January?

The street signs say the end of January but this is what Brent Council posted on its website yesterday with a completion date of January 5th:

The sewer works on High Road, Wembley, are progressing well and the proposed end date for these works is now 5 January 2018.
To date Thames Water have:

• Removed the traffic island
• Excavated a shaft onto the sewer over seven meters deep
• Tunnelled four meters downstream, towards Park Lane, to a point where there is no concrete in the sewer
• Tunnelled upstream, towards Wembley triangle, eight and a half meters to the lateral connection from the former Brent House site and have tunnelled over fourteen meters to a point where all concrete has been removed.
• Sink another shaft on the sewer
• Replaced the sewer

Next steps:

• Backfill the tunnels
• Backfill the shaft
• Permanent reinstatement of carriageway.

Cabinet approves Wembley Park-Harrow Weald Cycling Quietway

Click bottom right square to enlarge

The Brent Cabinet has approved the Wembley Park to Harrow Weald Quietway (purple on map) for cyclists to go forward for detailed design and consultation.

The plans also contains possible spurs to Wembley Central and along Churchill  Road to Kenton Road. The Council claims that the route will contain improvements for pedestrians as well as cyclists.

A spokesperson for Brent Cyclists said:

This could be a good thing for cycling, depending very much on the detailed design, which we expect to be given input into. 

Cycle routes on narrow, heavily parked, residential roads, as proposed here, can only attract new cyclists if they are really low-traffic, and this can only be achieved with 'mode filtering', whereby only cyclists, pedestrians and emergency vehicles can use the road from end to end (while still allowing motor vehicle access to all properties). 

In the case of the route suggested here, certainly Brook Avenue and Draycott Avenue, which are quite busy roads, and possibly others, would need mode filtering for a satisfactory Quietway route to be achieved.

Cllr Chan opposes The Village School move towards academisation

From this week's Kilburn Times LINK

Click on image to enlarge

Cllr Duffy encounters Kafka in Brent

Councillor John Duffy (Kilburn) recounts his experience of trying to represent workers and relatives over the Paddington Cemetery asbestos dump. Background HERE

-->

A strange thing happened to me last week (Tuesday 5^th December). I was made aware of a Internal Audit meeting concerning the discovery of asbestos in Paddington Cemetery. I had raised the issue sometime ago after the council stopped new burials in the cemetery and would only reopen graves to intern the  “next of kin”. The reopening takes place using a special contractor. The contractors are in breathing masks and white overalls. They remove the old soil and replace it with new uncontaminated soil for the burial.

I requested a copy of the report as the person who raised concerns in June. Originally I had asked for an independent report as I feared that the report would not be transparent and there could be seen as a cover-up, unless it was open to local residents and the relatives (bereaved) of the people who are buried in the area of concern. An independent investigation would allow the public to witness the impartiality of the report and the seriousness of the situation.

However this requested was turned down by the CEO Instead the CEO decided to have an internal audit report which would exclude the press and the public .The reasons given for the secrecy of the report was because there was information relating to financial affairs of a particular person or companies.” 

The Head of Legal informed me via officers that I would not be allowed to have a copy of the report. I challenged this and finally received an email from legal services stating  “All members are entitled to ‘inspect’ reports with certain categories of exempt information, rather than receive a copy. If you would like to come to the Civic Centre prior the meeting to inspect the report physically in this instance.”  Why do senior officer think its necessary to act in this bizarre way to stop me getting information. This was done even though in the terms of reference for the report, it states the reason for the internal audit report is “ following concerns raised by Cllr John Duffy in an email dated 10^th November” so the decision to exclude me from having a copy is strange to say the least.

Anyway I went to the Civic centre at 4pm,2hrs before the meeting was due to take place to read the report .I was met by 2 (male ) members of legal services with the report. I was informed.  I was allowed to read the report only under their supervision, but could not remove it or photograph it. I am bound by the secrecy imposed on me by the Head of legal , which means if I am approached by any member of the public , who has a relative buried on the Hill ,I have to tell them they are not allowed to know what happen or how the asbestos got there….. Now that is what you call transparency Brent Style.

At the meeting I ask the Chair of the Audit committee to overturn the Head of Legal decision  not to allow me a copy of the report.  He did this and his decision was supported by the other members of the  committee which included  Councillors Choudry, Nerva, Davidson and Perrin. However, even though I was then given a copy , I am still not allow to share the information contained within it.

I informed the chair of the meeting I will not make public anything I have read in the report after he released the report to me. I intent to honour that , with one exception .Officers were wrong  and misleading to say the reasons given for the secrecy of the report was because there was information relating to financial affairs of a particular person or companies.” There is no such information in the report and all names have redacted and the names of the companies involved have been disguised, therefore there is no information, which should be kept from the public.

Whereas I am committed not to discuss the contents of the report I will reiterate things I raised in my previous emails. The act of placing the contaminated waste in Paddington Cemetery was deliberate (any ordinary member  of the public could spot the difference between  a delivery of soil and a delivery of builders rubble) it was not an accident. The cost to the council will be well over a million pounds in lost revenue and I have further concerns about the way the public have been treated since the asbestos was discovered in May this year.

The whole thing is  a farce and is right out of a  Kafka  novel .Why senior officers think that it  is necessary  to stop the local residents and the relatives of those buried knowing the truth  so they can make plans for their  future family  burial arrangements is disgraceful..

As I said before this an attempt by senior officers to rely on the Cabinet, who will nod it through without question and ensure that the facts are kept from the public .

I will continue to seek an independent investigation for the sake of the relatives.

Brent councillors urged to attend fossil fuel divestment event January 27th

This is a welcome initiative taking place on Saturday 27th January 2018 10.30am to 1pm at Brent Civic Centre.

Please urge your councillors to attend. BOOKING

Brent Council & Labour Energy Forum invite Labour Councillors and members to come and discuss how divesting from fossils fuel can shape Labour's role in leading on safer pensions and climate action.

With May 2018 local council elections approaching Labour councils should consider their position on continued investment in the fossil fuel industry.

Over £14 billion of LG Pension Funds holdings are invested in oil, gas and coal - but these investments are no longer financially sustainable. Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, has warned that investments into fossil fuels will become stranded assets and contribute to financial instability.

As Labour Groups write their manifestos for the 2018 elections, we invite Labour councillors to come and consider how your local council should move forward in light of the growing consensus of fossil fuels holdings becoming stranded assets. We will interrogate the best approaches to achieving a world unpolluted by the fossil fuel industry, and how to reduce risk while maximising strategic influence over individual companies and the oil/gas/coal extraction sectors.

In September last year, Waltham Forest Council became the UK’s first Local Government Pension Scheme to announce that they will divest their Pension Funds away from fossil fuel companies over the coming 5 years, followed by Southwark Council in December. The place of fossil fuels in the world economy is changing. The Paris Agreement set the UK’s economy on a pathway to taking serious action on climate change that will require significant changes to our economies - changes that are incompatible with the business models of fossil fuel extraction companies. Come and discuss how Labour councils can maximise influence in shaping the transition while minimising the exposure to stranded assets.

The Labour Party can lead in building this new future and laying out how we make this transition just, fast and affordable. Divesting the £14 billion of LG Pension Funds away from fossil fuels would enable reinvestment into local housing and transport, strengthening local economies and supporting job creation.

Pickets at dawn as The Village School strikes against academisation

Pickets at dawn outside The Village School

National Education Union members were out in force this morning from dawn forming a picket as members went on strike against plans by The Village School governors to convert to academy status. In line with the motion recently passed by the CLP the Brent Central Labour Party banner was in attendance.

An NEU spokesperson said:

Around 70 people joined the rally this morning over the two hours. The school was closed to pupils. There was a very determined mood among the crowd to prevent this privatisation of our brilliant Brent school. We were addressed by Stefan Simms, NEU NUT section Executive member, Hank Roberts, NEU ATL section Executive member, Lesley Gouldbourne, Brent NEU joint secretary, Brent Trades Council and the two NEU Reps from the school. There was singing to keep us warm and lots of passing cars and buses tooted to show support. There was a winner of the best placard and then the NEU hosted breakfast at a nearby cafe. 

Further strikes are planned for the New Year, as well as other actions, as the campaign to prevent academisation builds among staff but also in the community.

 

Wembley High Road works to continue until mid-Janaury

Brent Council has confirmed that Thames Water has been given a second extension to complete their main sewer works in Wembley High Road. The new completion date is mind-January 2018.

Responding to a query about the replacement of the mature trees removed as a result of the works, the Council said that they would be replaced in Wembley Central ward but not in the High Road as there was no suitable site there.

Double Whammy Wembley Works

With road works now taking place outside Wembley Central station as well as on Wembley High Road outside the Brent House building site, residents are getting increasingly frustrated as tailbacks develop. Things were not looking great for this evening with wet roads, two sets of works and Spurs playing Brighton!

Brent Council has responded to a resident by setting out the latest position regarding the works:

The works near Wembley Central Station are been undertaken by UK Power Networks (UKPN), these works are urgent because there has been an intermittent power failure which has affected up to seventy five shops along the High Road.

Originally, the footway opposite Wembley Central Station was closed and two new temporary pedestrian crossings were placed either side of the excavation so that pedestrians could safely navigate their way around the closed footway. Unfortunately, pedestrians were not using this facility, instead, pedestrians were walking in live traffic lanes which is clearly unacceptable. The only safe option was provide a safe pedestrian walkway in the carriageway and control traffic with two way temporary signals, the carriageway at this location was not considered wide enough to accommodate two way traffic and a pedestrian walkway.

I have been to site this morning and we have instructed UKPN to back fill and open the footway and open the carriageway to normal two way traffic, this should be in place for the evening rush hour.

There is still a fault on the cable and UKPN will need to undertake more works at this location, where possible these works will be planned to occur in non-traffic sensitive times only.

I can assure you that all planned works have been postponed until after the sewer works are complete but emergency works cannot be postponed.

Anti-academisation strike to go ahead at The Village School after negotiations fail

The  £19m Village School building could be handed over to a MAT

Staff at The Village School in Kingsbury, Brent will take strike action against the proposal to turn the school into an academy, part of a Multi Academy Trust (MAT). 

The strike will be going ahead at this special school on Thursday December 14^th because negotiations so far have failed to change the situation and the governors will not meet again until January. There will be a picket and rally from 7:30am to 9:30am.

An NEU spokesperson said:

In September there were 32 NEU members. Now there are 125. Staff are joining every day because they say they want to strike against the school becoming an academy with the consequences to their terms and conditions and the negative impact on the teaching and learning of the pupils.

The strike has been backed by the Green Party. Pete Murry said:

As Green Party Trade Union Liaison Officer for Brent and for the London Federation of Green Parties, I wish to send support to the teachers at The Village School in Kingsbury who have voted to take strike action against the proposal to turn the school into an academy. If this retrograde step takes place it means the loss of a substantial educational asset for the people of Brent which large amounts of council resources have been paid to develop.

I would like to second the question of NEU (National Education Union) reps who ask why Brent Council is not opposing this proposed academisation, in spite of the reported opposition of Brent Central Constituency Labour party which the council purports to represent on behalf of the communities of Brent.

Preston Road 20mph zone - a few days left to respond

Click on image to enlarge (also available on Council website

Residents and businesses living around Preston Road have until Friday December 15th to respond to a consultation on introducing a 20mph zone on Preston Road.

Consultation letters have gone out with a reply envelope but responses can also be made online HERE

The proposal (click on bottom right corner to expand):

Brent Planners' rulings in Wembley: Curiouser and Curiouser

“Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).  [Alice in Wonderland]

 

A modern day Alice in Wembleyland may have a similar reaction to some of the content of reports coming up before the Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday for developments around Wembley Stadium which are in Council leader Muhammed Butt's Tokyngton ward.

Despite recent publicity about planners ignoring the stipulations of Brent's own planning policies, as well as the London plan, convoluted arguments are used to justify ignoring them once again.

Brent had a 20%  cap for the proportion of student accommodation in the Wembley area in terms of the total population. It had ruled that the cap had now been reached. However two applications are on the agenda  for Parkwood House Albion Way and Unit 1-5 Cannon Trading Estate, in First Avenue for 283 and 678 beds respectively. The latter as part of a new campus for the University College of Football Business (UCFB) which includes educational facilities.

Planners use projected population growth to rule that the number of units in a 20% cap is actually higher than they had previously said:

 The research carried out by officers took into consideration the actual consents (rather than an average 12% increase as argued by the applicants) and concluded that the projected population growth of the WAAP (Wembley Area Action Plan) area would have been 27,377 if considered solely on the site allocations, however when taking into consideration the site allocations, and deliverable planning permissions granted to date (both implemented and extant) the current WAAP area population increase as of October 2017 stands at 32,842. Based on this, it is considered that when considered against the 5444 student bedrooms granted to date, this would mean that the current percentage of student accommodation against residential population stands at 16.6%, which would allow for an additional 1,123 rooms before the 20% cap is reached. 


The researched carried out by applicants and officers in relation to the Parkwood House application (17/2782) has significant bearing on this application. Given that Parkwood House (283 beds) and UCFB (678 beds) together propose an additional 961 student beds within the WAAP area, both schemes can be accommodated within the revised 20% student cap of 1,123 beds.

 The UCFB application has received 46 supporting comments and none against. Look a little further and you find that 39 of the 46 come from existing student accommodation in Victoria Halls, Felda House and Unite Students.

The Parkway development has not yet got a student accommodation provider to run the site. It consists of a part 13 and part 17 storey development.  The height restrictions of the WAAP (Wembley Area Action Plan) are casually circumvented:

• The approach to the height, massing and material palette is supported as it will provide a high architectural quality that is appropriate for a building of this height. The site is designated within the Wembley Area Action Plan as "Inappropriate for tall buildings". However, the proposed building relates well to the other tall buildings within the immediate vicinity, forming a logical cluster of tall buildings that also achieves an appropriate relationship with the nearby lower mansion blocks to the north.

 As I have remarked before, once tall buildings are allowed, they are used as a precedent for more in the same vicinity. The Football University building is 9-11 storeys in height.

Further to the proportion of student accommodation and the height of buildings another long-running sore is Brent's attitude towards affordable housing. Too often planners do not state exactly what is meant by 'affordable' skating over the details  but the report on the Quintain application for 'Land East of Wembley Stadium' has to respond to representations from the London Mayor's Office.

Affordable housing: 23% offered as DMR (Discounted Market Rent) at up to 80% of market rate is wholly unacceptable and must be significantly increased, noting the introduction of high density residential on this Opportunity Area and Housing Zone site. The affordability of the affordable housing must also be addressed. GLA officers will robustly scrutinise the viability assessment to maximise affordable housing provision. Once secured, any on-site affordable housing must remain affordable in perpetuity, and appropriate covenants and clawbacks secured in accordance with the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG 

An initial offer of 23% affordable housing by the developer was reduced to 7% when Brent tried to make it truly affordable for Brent residents, but they find this proportion 'acceptable'.

In order to deliver affordable units at London Living Rent levels, more planning gain subsidy is required, and this change has a consequential negative impact on the quantum of affordable housing the scheme can provide when compared to the applicants’ original offer. The Council's consultants have advised the Council that at London Living Rent levels the maximum reasonable level of affordable housing provision that the scheme can currently viably provide is 28 units, representing 6.6% by unit (7% by habitable room). The applicants have offered 32 units, representing a minimum 7% by unit (8% by habitable room). It is accepted that the reduction in the affordable housing quantum from 23% to a minimum of 7% is a notable change, however after considering local housing needs and affordability and the wider Wembley Park affordable housing provision discussed above, officers take the view that this is outweighed by the important benefits associated with London Living Rent, including the significant increase in affordability that this tenure provides for Brent residents.

For reference the London Living Rent is set by the London Mayor's Office based on median household income per ward. These are the Brent figures: 

Click on image to enlarge

The full details and basis for calculation can be found HERE

It should be noted that viability reviews usually reduce the amount of affordable housing rather than increase it.

This buildings will be 10-21 storeys high affecting views of the stadium so a curious feature of this application is the statement by Wembley National Stadium Limited which quotes its arrangement with Quintain as a reason for not opposing this scheme, although they appear to be really against it:

The scale, size and occupancy of the development is different to that previously approved for this plot, and the introduction of residential use has led to a significantly different form, massing and height for E05. This effects (sic) the view of the Stadium from Great Central Way, which is a key route into the Stadium for spectators, teams, officials and dignitaries. Ordinarily, this increase in scale and change in view may give cause for The FA to wish to object. Ordinarily, this increase in scale and impact may give cause for The FA to wish to object. (sic) In this instance however, we have a close working relationship and contractual arrangements in place with the applicant (which include provision of facilities, tenant management arrangements, anti-ambush protection and other measures to protect Stadium operations on both event days and non-event days). We do wish to put on record that any future developments of similar scale and size where we do not enjoy the same arrangements with the applicant will lead to an objection.

The last sentence looks like a demand that any further applications by Quintain will need similar 'arrangements' if WNSL are not to oppose them. Presumably if such arrangements are made they will be happy for the 'iconic stadium views' to disappear behind a curtain of tower blocks.

Brent playing into the perception that developers have an unfair advantage in the planning process - Cllr Warren

The 'Twin Towers' approved by Brent Council on the Chesterfield House site

John Warren, the Brent Conservative Group leader has followed up Muhammed Butt's response to questions about his meetings with developers. LINK

Dear Muhammed,

                             Thank you for your response, and I am well aware that I should contact our chief legal officer, as and, when I have sufficient evidence to put forward a credible complaint.

1. It does not reflect well on our F.O.I. reporting that we cannot get basic information right. How many other F.O.I. responses are incorrect?

2. I still believe that L.G.A. guidance has not been followed.

3. I question why lead members - as opposed to officers -  need to attend so many meetings with developers, notably Quintain, Hub Group and R55. It plays into the widespread perception that their planning applications are given a completely unfair advantage in the whole planning process.

How many times have I heard objectors to developments say that "the dice is loaded against them?" in making very real and reasonable objections. Minavil House LINK and Chesterfield House LINK are glaring examples!

4. I do make comments of objections / support on planning applications. I would argue that all of my comments are on record - I do not have unrecorded meetings and I have never lobbied a planning committee member.

John Warren

Brent Movie Fun Day for children Saturday 16th December

Venue St Raphael's Chidlren Centre, Rainborough Close, London, NW10 OTS (Near IKEA)

NEU call on Brent Labour leadership to follow Corbyn's policy on privatisation of education ahead of Village school strike

From the National Education Union in Brent
 

-->

Staff at The Village School in Kingsbury, Brent have voted to take strike action against the proposal to turn the school into an academy, part of a Multi Academy Trust (MAT). Unless the proposal to become a MAT is withdrawn, NEU* staff will strike before Christmas.

John Roche, NEU ATL section Brent Secretary said:

The school passed its last Ofsted in with an ‘Outstanding’ judgement in all categories in October 2016 so clearly there is no educational reason to seek to become an academy. Furthermore, Brent Local Authority has put millions of pounds into this special school and now a state asset, our asset, is proposed to be privatised. Staff ask why is a Labour Authority not up in arms at this attempt to foist a Tory policy on one of their schools?

Lesley Gouldbourne, NEU NUT section Brent Secretary said:

The Government’s academy programme has proved a corrupt shambles that has done nothing to improve education and lacks accountability, in particular with finances. The Wakefield City Academy Trust (WCAT) has collapsed leaving 21 schools in chaos affecting 8500 children. Joining a MAT means all the school’s assets and any surpluses are handed over. A small group of unaccountable, unelected trustees control the finances. I am also finding it hard to understand why a Labour Council is not opposing the privatisation of this jewel in Brent's crown, especially at a time when it is taking other services back in-house. Cllr Butt has not replied to my email about this.

A report on BBC news in Leeds and West Yorkshire stated, “During a Wakefield Council meeting it was claimed that the Trust (WCAT) moved millions of pounds of school reserves into its centralised accounts prior to collapse. Leader Peter Box said he would be talking to the police about his concerns”. 

Hank Roberts, NEU ATL section London Executive said:

The NEU believes that the Labour Council leadership is not following the democratically established overwhelming majority of Brent Labour Party members that oppose the loss of more Council LA controlled schools to be handed over to be privately run by Trusts. This is clear from the resolutions passed unanimously at Brent LP meetings and the London Region of the LP. Jeremy Corbyn’s opposition to the privatisation of state education has been made clear. Instead, it appears that they are doing the bidding of senior paid Council employees with an agenda.

Brent could lose Community Cardiology Service after February 2018 - the public have not been consulted

From Brent Patient Voice
 

We have learned that the Brent Clinical Commissioning Group  Community Cardiology Clinics at Wembley and Willesden are closing at the end of February. While we know that the CCG has been discussing the future of this service with local hospital trusts there is no information in the public domain. We have written as below to the CCG Chief Operating Officer, Sheik Auladin, to press for public consultation on this issue as required by the NHS Act
2006. A full response has been promised.

Dear Sheik,

BRENT COMMUNITY CARDIOLOGY SERVICE RE-COMMISSIONING: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND CONSULTATION.

Peter Latham has not yet received any acknowledgement or reply to his letters to you dated 29 November and 5 December 2017 about the future of the Community Cardiology.

We have seen the email letter from Brent CCG dated 30 November 2017 notifying Brent GPs that the current NHS Brent Community Cardiology Service provided by Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (RFL) from both Willesden Centre for Health and Care and Wembley Centre for Health and Care will come to an end on 28^th February 2018 with no further extension. RFL are not accepting new patients for this service after 4 December 2017.

Brent Patient Voice are very concerned at the short time now left before the end of the current RFL provider contract for the Brent Community Cardiology Service on 28 February 2018. Brent CCG do not appear to have published anything about their proposals for commissioning such NHS Brent cardiology healthcare services after the end of this contract.

Clearly a number of questions arise. They include the location or locations of replacement clinics, whether equivalent resources will be transferred to new providers, what will happen to patient records and to cases in progress. This list is not exhaustive.

We feel that we must now formally remind Brent CCG that under section 14Z2 of the NHS Act 2006 as amended it would be unlawful for Brent CCG to develop or consider changes in the commissioning arrangements where the implementatiom of the proposals would have an impact on the manner in which the services are delivered to patients or the range of services
available to them without full public involvement and consultation by the CCG.

Please now arrange for someone to respond to acknowledge receipt of this letter and to say how and when Brent CCG propose to inform us as to their proposals for NHS Brent cardiology services after the end of the current RFL contract and for involving the public under the terms of s.14Z2 before final decisions are taken.

Yours sincerely

Robin Sharp
Chair Brent Patient Voice