Quantcast
Channel: WEMBLEY MATTERS
Viewing all 7143 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Wembley Stadium community engagement event on upcoming NFL fixtures - October 15th

October 11, 2019, 12:47 am
$
0
0
From Wembley Stadium

Wembley Stadium invites you to attend a community engagement evening on Tuesday 15 October to learn about plans for the two forthcoming NFL (American Football) fixtures.

The two games are scheduled for Sunday 27 October, 5pm kick off, and Sunday 3 November, 2.30pm kick off.

The engagement evening will give local residents an opportunity to review event day transport and external operational plans, and to ask our team questions about traffic management arrangements, road closure timings, local bus diversion routes, and impacts on local underground and railway stations.

Representatives from Wembley Stadium, Wembley Park, Brent Council and NFL will be on hand to answer any questions relating to the two fixtures.

The evening will be held in the foyer of the Club Wembley Main Entrance, accessed at street level from the southern end of Olympic Way, and residents are welcome to drop in anytime between 6pm and 9pm.
↧
Search

Wembley Central & Alperton Residents' Meeting October 15th at Ark Elvin

October 12, 2019, 8:33 am
↧
↧

Proposed 24 storey block opposite Stonebridge Station comes back to Planning Committee on Wednesday

October 12, 2019, 9:27 am
$
0
0

In August Brent Council deferred a decision on the plans for a 24 storey block on the Argenta House site opposite Stonebridge Staion pending an independent review of the building's design and height. The proposed development replaces a 2 storey building. Four storeys were knocked off the original 28 storey proposal after consultation with the planning department.

The Planning Advisory Service found the officers' report to the Planning Committee to be 'balanced and sound' and the application returns to Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday.

Housing proposal for the tower block


Provision of 27% affordable housing by unit (30% affordable housing by habitable room) on a nil grant basis, broken down as:

o    21 units for affordable rent (at no more than 80% of open market rents, inclusive of service charges, and capped at Local Housing Allowance rates*), disposed on a freehold / minimum 125 year leasehold to a Registered Provider and subject to an appropriate Affordable Rent nominations agreement with the Council, securing 100% nomination rights for the Council on initial lets and 75% nomination rights for the Council on subsequent lets.

o    14 units for shared ownership (as defined under section 70(6) of the Housing & Regeneration Act 2008, subject to London Plan policy affordability stipulations that total housing costs should not exceed 40% of net annual household income, disposed on a freehold / minimum 125 year leasehold to a Registered Provider, and subject to an appropriate Shared Ownership nominations agreement with the Council, that secures reasonable local priority to the units). 
*Local Housing Allowance rates for the area
Shared Accommodation Rate: £92.72 per week
One Bedroom Rate: £203.03 per week
Two Bedrooms Rate: £257.09 per week
Three Bedrooms Rate: £321.45 per week
Four Bedrooms Rate: £385.63 per week
 Conditions include: (Full Report HERE)
  • Safeguarding of a bridge link to the [neighbouring] Wembley Point to  be called upon in the future and made publicly accessible
  • Contribution towards a local public space
  • Contribution to carbon offsetting
  • Contribution to expansion of Brent's controlled parking zone
  • Contribution to Stonebridge Park Station capacity study
As mentioned in my previous report on this proposal LINK the proposed tower block is next to the North Circular Road - one of London's most polluted roads. It also continues the march of tower blocks throughout the borough, joining those at Wembley Stadium, Wembley High Road/Park Lane, Alperton and the Old Oak Park Royal development.

↧

Affordable Housing Task Group Report's recommendations to be considered by Brent Cabinet on Monday

October 12, 2019, 10:10 am
$
0
0
A report to Monday's Cabinet will be of much interest to local people on the housing waiting list as well as those struggling with expensive but poor private rented housing. Cabinet will, rather belatedly  consider the report from the Affordable Housing Scrutiny Task Group that went to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee in January.


Cabinet is asked to:


a.Note the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee’s endorsement of the report, and its recommendations


b.Note and consider the committee’s additional proposal: that plans for new housing developments take into account the known needs of people with disabilities awaiting housing provision.

 Recommendations (Link to report)
 
Affordable housing targets and viability 

1.     In the new Local Plan for Brent the strategic target of 50 per cent for affordable housing in new developments should be retained, with an expected tenure split of 70 per cent social rent / London Affordable Rent to 30 per cent intermediate affordable housing. 

2.    Brent Council should adopt the Mayor of London’s 35 per cent “fast-track” threshold approach to viability (with 50 per cent on publicly owned land and for industrial sites). Through this the council would forgo the requirement for a financial viability assessment and/or a late stage viability review in the event that a developer guarantees delivery of the requisite percentage of affordable housing across the entire development (with the 70 per cent social rent / London Affordable Rent to 30 per cent intermediate tenure split applicable). The policy should be subject to review. 

3.    To help meet the need for larger affordable homes in the borough, Brent should continue to require a minimum of 25 per cent of new affordable rented homes to be three bedrooms or larger, accommodating at least a household of six (2 people per bedroom). However, this approach must be combined with a clear and effective under- occupation strategy, enabling and incentivising down-sizing in order to release more existing larger homes for re-let. 

4.    The council should continue to use the “Existing Use Value Plus” (EUV+) method for determining benchmark land values. Any other uplift in value should be captured for the public. 

Corporate approach to affordable housing delivery 

5.    Future council policy with regard to the setting of rents for affordable housing should continue to be based on the traditional social rented model (like the mayor’s London Affordable Rent model) and should not be linked to volatile and irrational market rents rather than incomes. 

6.    Brent Council should create a cross-departmental Board of officers, reporting directly into the Corporate Management Team (CMT), to ensure a ‘one council’, joined-up, sustainable approach to the delivery of Affordable Housing. The board should have high level responsibility for programme management and monitoring of an Affordable Housing Action Plan and associated suite of Key Performance Indicators. The Board should include senior officers from Brent’s Planning, Housing, Regeneration, Property, Finance and Legal teams. 

7.     Brent should consider adopting a land assembly, master planner approach, working with key partners and designating Land Assembly Zones in its Local Plan. Where attempts to encourage and incentivise voluntary land assembly do not succeed, Brent should commit to extend its use of compulsory purchase powers in these zones, where the law allows. 

8.    Brent Council should maximise resources available through the mayor’s fund, RTB receipts and borrowing to support direct delivery within its own capital development programme with a primary focus on rented homes at social rent levels and on larger homes (3 bedrooms or larger). 

9.    Brent must adopt a clear policy on access to shared ownership in the borough, making the product accessible to people on incomes that are as low as possible and ensuring the policy is designed to enable keyworkers to take advantage of it. 

10.All new homes in Brent should be marketed locally first, as per the Mayor of London’s planned “first dibs” policy. Brent should investigate how such a requirement could be implemented. 

11.  Brent Council should explore all the options highlighted in this report for innovative partnering arrangements and delivery models with Registered Providers. 

Estate regeneration
12.Future estate regeneration projects in Brent should use the South Kilburn Regeneration Programme as a model of good practice and make a clear commitment to ensuring there is no loss (in quantum terms) of social rented affordable housing and to resident ballots. 
Land owned by public authorities  
 13. Brent should actively promote partnership working on publicly owned land with other public bodies, as promoted by the Naylor Review (One Public Estate), e.g. Network Rail/TfL sites such as potential over station and over rail land developments, as part of the Local Plan. 
Industrial/employment sites
14. Brent must adopt a proactive approach to identifying opportunities where surplus commercial space, underused retail sites and car parks may have significant potential for housing development, both strategic industrial land sites and smaller commercial land sites, and in particular where sites have potential for mixed-use developments.
Small sites
15. The council and its agents should proactively explore partnerships with developers and RPs on small sites to maximise the amount of affordable housing across the borough. Brent should identify potential opportunities and funding mechanisms for increasing development of small sites, including any further opportunities for infill development. It should be prepared to invest the necessary resources. 

16. Developers of small sites with capacity for 10 or fewer units should be expected to pay a commuted sum, wherever possible, based on a consistent tariff, to Brent as a contribution to the fund for affordable housing to be built elsewhere in the borough. All affordable housing in small developments should be included in Brent’s periodic performance stats. 
Community led housing
17.Brent should investigate and promote opportunities for community led housing projects, such as “Community Land Trusts” and “Self-Build” projects, which will protect homes and assets at affordable levels in line with local incomes for future generations. 

18. Brent should explore setting up of a CLT model on publicly owned land and encourage developers to do the same.
--> -->
↧

Brent Council plans for accommodating higher secondary pupil numbers via academy expansion

October 13, 2019, 1:02 am
$
0
0
It is one of the ironies of Government policy that Labour Brent Council has the duty to provide school places in  the borough but not the means to do so through building its own schools. The bulge that has been moving through primary schools in now entering the secondary sector. Secondary rolls will rise as primary rolls fall.

All Brent secondary schools are now either academies or faith schools, with none under the direct control of the local authority so the Council has to negotiate with them to provide extra places or rely on additional free school provision.

Projected Numbers and Shortfall

The report going to Monday's Cabinet admits that projections are subject to external factors (such as the impact of Brexit) and so plans have some flexibility built in.

It is expected that 6 of the 10 forms of entry required for 2023/24 will be provided by the North Brent School, a free school which will be part of the Wembley Multi-Academy Trust with Wembley High Technology College. The North Brent School will open in September 2020 with four forms of entry on the Wembley High site but will increase to 6 forms of entry when it moves to the former Chancel House site in Neasden Lane in September 2022.

Due to fears that the new school will have a negative impact on other secondary schools in the Neasden area the North Brent School will have a proportion of its admission numbers allocated via proximity to Wembley High.

This leaves a four forms of entry gap for 2023-24 and the report puts forward two unnamed secondary academies for consideration to provide two additional forms of entry.  Four forms of entry at one site is rejected as too risky for one school. Temporary bulge classes, a solution in the primary sector, is rejected as not suitable to the different curriculum provision in secondary schools - pupils move to different specialist rooms rather than being in one classroom. The report claims that the temporary bulge classes would be as expensive to provide as additional permanent expansion.

So who will pay for the expansion? Extract from report LINK

5.0  Financial Implications
5.1  This report includes provision of additional mainstream and SEND secondary school places and approval to allocate capital funding is sought for both. There are two sources of grant funding available for mainstream and SEND school places.
5.2  The estimated cost of the mainstream school places is £31.3m and the SEND school places is £3.8m, making a combined estimated cost for the Secondary School Expansion Programme of £35.1m.
5.3  Capital investment is sought for the whole secondary school programme at £35.1m, noting that the Director of Finance will approve the allocation of capital from this total to individual projects within the programme on production of further detailed information. It is anticipated that this is a maximum total forecast cost, which could be reduced as the programme develops.
5.4  There are two sources of grant funding available for mainstream and SEND school places; Basic Need Capital Grant and Special Provision Capital Grant. Both are provided by Central Government for the provision of school places.
5.5  For the period 2011-2020 the Council has been allocated a total of £164.1m Basic Need Capital. After taking account of actual spend to date and current commitments, there is a balance available to allocate of £27.9m.
5.6  The local authority was allocated a total of £2.8m from the Special Provision Capital Grant specifically for the provision of SEND school places. £1.1m of this funding has been spent and/or committed. The remaining £1.7m is available to be allocated to this programme.
5.7  A total of £29.6m of secured capital grant funding is available. Based on the total estimated cost for this programme this leaves a funding gap of £5.5m.
5.8  In addition to work to reduce the estimated cost, officers have looked at potential additional sources of capital funding. In addition to the secured £29.6m, a further £11.8m may become available through other identified sources. These are capital contributions from council development projects where a portion of the capital receipt must be allocated for education purposes; those sums were previously allocated to school projects but have not yet been secured. Also from a commercial settlement on a live school expansion project. The council may also be allocated additional Basic Need capital from 2021 onwards but this is not confirmed. In the event that costs cannot be reduced and/or additional funding secured, the council would need to fund up to £5.5m.
5.9  It is proposed that all remaining unallocated capital grant is used to fund this programme. It is already known that there will be a requirement for further capital expenditure to provide SEND school places as detailed in the School Place Planning Strategy 2019-23 approved in November 2018. A feasibility study is currently underway for an additional SEND project. Proposals will be brought to Cabinet in the new year which will include proposed funding arrangements. Should requirements in the mainstream primary or secondary sectors change and require capital expenditure this would also create a funding pressure.
5.10  The revenue costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the expanded school buildings once completed will be the responsibility of each school, as will the additional staff and running costs. Mainstream schools are funded from the Schools Block of the DSG via the funding formula, which allocates funds on the basis of the prior year’s pupil numbers so there is a time lag and the Schools Forum may recommend top slicing the block to allocate more funding to support expanding schools. New in-borough SEND places will be funded from the High Needs Block of the DSG, but at lower cost than the likely alternative independent out of borough provisions.

'Various sources' is the answer with quite a lot of uncertainties involved. I am awaiting a reply from Brent Council to the following question:
As these schools are academies and not under local authority control with land and buildings on a long lease to the respective trusts, does capital funding by the authority, coming out of the Council’s budget, mean that the Council will now have a proportional capital interest in the school?  Or is it just added to the Trust’s assets?

Further is there any possibility that the DfE itself could contribute to the capital costs via the EFA?

-->
↧
↧

Brent Cabinet closes Strathcona School and six Children's Centres

October 20, 2019, 2:24 am
$
0
0
I have been away for a week in Edinbugh and catching up on Monday's Cabinet meeting which I missed. As I feared the Cabinet rejected the Scrutiny Committee's recomendations and rubber-stamped the closure decision - certainly no attempt to move heaven and earth to stop the closure of a great local school.

The Harrow Times reports Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, as repeating his confusion of local government funding cuts with the Direct Schools Grant. It states: 'He criticised cuts from central Government - suggesting that these have forced the council's hand..' Any savings on the DSG expenditure in Brent will be redistibuted to schools (a very small amount per school) and can't be used to fund other council services threatened with cuts.

'TREATED WITH DISDAIN'

Jenny Cooper, joint secretary of Brent NEU said:
It was a sad day for democracy. The council cabinet ignored speakers and our members from Roe Green Strathcona and voted to go ahead and close the school anyway. The school gave rousing, dignified, eloquent and well researched speeches, presenting their arguments and suggestions. It was clear they were the experts in the room. They voiced their utter disgust for the lack of democracy and engagement from the council. The head looked at the councillors and, in a raised voice, sarcastically said "Forward together", underlining the irony of the council's strapline. Community supporters left after the vote to shouts of "nonsense!" and "shame on you, Brent!". Our members and the school have been treated with absolute disdain. Now the fight begins to protect jobs.
-->
At the same meeting the Cabinet approved what amounts to the closure of nearly  half its Children's Centres disguised as the creation of Family Hubs:

Although Mount Stewart, Treetops, Wembley Primary, Welcome/Barham Park, Wykeham and Harmony sites may be used by neighbouring schools or privation/voluntary  provision the unique and essential services offered by Children's Centres will be lost.
↧

Celebrating 100 years of Council housing in Brent

October 20, 2019, 9:27 am
$
0
0


Drawing of new Council houses in a Close, from a 1921 Willesden Council booklet.
[Source: Brent Archives]

Guest post by Philip Grant

Last month, a Brent press release announced that work had begun on 149 new Council homes in Harlesden. It was welcome news, but a drop in the ocean compared with the need for affordable social housing for local people to rent.

Almost a year ago, I added a comment to a blog about the Council’s plans for the St Raphael’s Estate LINK, saying that Brent’s officers did not know their history, as they said that the estate was mainly built between 1967 and 1982. I can now share some more information about that history.

This year is the centenary of the 1919 Housing & Town Planning Act, seen by many as the start of Council housing in this country. In following up a local history enquiry on the subject*, I revisited a document I had seen in the Brent Archives collection a dozen years ago. And yes, Council housing in what is now Brent did begin 100 years ago.

In fact, Willesden Urban District Council had been considering building some homes for rent before the outbreak of the First World War. By November 1918, it had prepared plans for an estate at Stonebridge, an idea which had already been approved by the government under the 1890 Housing of the Working Classes Act.

Although there was the promise of Government subsidies towards the cost of building these homes, the Council had to borrow money first. It asked the Norwich Union Life Assurance company, but they would not make loans for Council housing schemes. In fact, it was a loan of £20,000 from the National Union of Railwaymen which got their first estate started!


The site for “Brent’s” first Council housing estate, at Stonebridge Farm.
[Reproduced from the 1914 edition of the Ordnance Survey 25” to one mile map of Middlesex, Sheet XVI.1]

Work should have begun on the Brentfield Estate (so called after an ancient field name) in 1919. Interference by various government departments, and the need to redraw the plans after it was decided that the proposed North Circular Road would run right through the site, delayed the start until the following year. The Council’s own workforce began building the roads and sewers in February 1920, and the contract for the first phase of the planned 591 houses was signed in May, with work underway by July 1920.

All of the houses on the estate had three bedrooms, and every one included a bath (the larger ones in a separate bathroom!). They each had a garden, and each kitchen was fitted with a cooking range (chosen by a sub-committee of the three women on Willesden’s Housing Committee). Were the rents affordable? After a dispute between the Council (which wanted to charge less) and the London Housing Board, a compromise figure of 12/6 (twelve shillings and sixpence) was agreed.

You can read about the building of the estate, including plans and some pictures, online in a facsimile edition of a Willesden U.D.C. booklet, with an introductory note, “Homes fit for Heroes – Willesden Council’s Brentfield Housing Scheme, at the Brent Archives website LINK. 

The bookletwas written for the official handover of the first 65 homes in June 1921. 32 families (chosen from more than 1,000 who had applied) had already moved into the first street to be completed. Priority was given to Willesden ex-servicemen, with families living in the most overcrowded conditions. The handover celebrations took place in the grassy square at the centre of the street, which was pictured in the booklet:-


Drawing of new Council houses in Square, from a 1921 Willesden Council booklet.
[Source: Brent Archives]

It is almost 100 years since local people moved into these first Council homes in what is now Brent. They were designed as good family homes, or as the slogan for the 1919 Housing Act proclaimed “Homes fit for Heroes”. Using information from the time, I have located these first homes, in Mead Plat, and they are still providing decent homes for families today:-


These original houses, in Mead Plat and Garden Way, are now part of the St Raphael’s Estate (the name for the Council housing on the west side of the North Circular Road comes from a Church of England  “mission church”, which opened in Garden Way in 1926). Let’s hope that as many as possible of Brent’s new Council homes will be family houses, with gardens, which will provide decent affordable housing for another century!

Philip Grant
* The local history enquiry that prompted my research came from Cllr. Janice Long, who has a real interest in Council housing. I was able to tell her that the first Council homes in the north of Brent had been Kingsbury U.D.C.’s High Meadow Crescent estate in 1924/25, and Wembley U.D.C.’s Christchurch / Lyon Park estate in the early 1930’s.



↧

Roasting marshmallows & making bug hotels at Welsh Harp Centre October 23rd and 24th

October 21, 2019, 9:50 am
$
0
0

From Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre

Join us at the Welsh Harp Education Centre for a wonderful morning in the woodland roasting marshmallows, making a bug hotel and exploring the woods.

10am-12pm, Wednesday 23rd and Thursday 24th October.
£4 per child per activity session.
Limited spaces so book now!

What you need to know for this activity:
 
An adult must attend & supervise children throughout activities.

Places are limited and booking is essential, please contact us to book and also let us know if you need to cancel your booking.

Marshmallows (regular and Halal) and skewers are provided. Please bring vegetarian marshmallows if you wish.

Please pay in cash on the day. £4 per child per activity session.

Activities suitable for children aged 5-11 years. Children aged 4 and under who are not participating in activities are free of charge.

Children and adults should wear comfortable outdoor clothing that may get dirty.
To book, contact Deb Frankiewicz on:
Phone: 07711 701 694
Email: welshharpcentre@thames21.org.uk
↧
Search

James Saunders to become top man at Wembley Park developer Quintain

October 21, 2019, 10:05 am
$
0
0
James Saunders
Press release from Quintain (unedited so you can relish the hype!)

Quintain Limited has appointed James Saunders as Chief Executive Officer effective October 21st, 2019, succeeding Angus Dodd, who is stepping down after serving as CEO since June 2016.

Under Angus’ leadership, Quintain has become a leading vertically integrated developer, operator and owner of BtR (Build to Rent) and mixed-use assets and is responsible for the ongoing transformation of Wembley Park in north-west London.  James, who has served as Chief Operating Officer for the last eight of his twelve years at Quintain, has led on the repositioning of Wembley Park from an event destination to an exciting cultural neighbourhood for London, and takes up his role as the company explores further growth opportunities.

 Olivier Brahin, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Quintain Limited, said:
“On behalf of the board, I would like to thank Angus for leading the transformation of Quintain since he moved from Lone Star in 2016. Thanks to him and the team he has built, the 85-acre site surrounding Wembley Stadium has become one of the largest urban regeneration projects in Europe with over £2 billion invested to date and another £1 billion expected by 2022. 

“I would also like to congratulate James on succeeding Angus.  James has the right mix of experience – both inside and outside the property sector – to continue building on Quintain’s success to date and effect a truly seamless transition.  A former consumer marketing executive, as Quintain COO James created the strategic direction for marketing, communications and place making that has led to dramatic reconsideration of the Wembley Park area.  We look forward to his leadership as Quintain accelerates its development of operating subsidiaries, Tipi, the company’s build-to-rent platform, and Wembley Park, its estate and asset management vehicle.”
Angus Dodd, out-going Chief Executive of Quintain Limited, said:
“I’m very proud of everything we’ve achieved during my time as CEO and I’m pleased that the Board has appointed James, who has played an instrumental role in establishing the firm as a vertically integrated developer operator, to succeed me.  With Quintain poised to accelerate the development of our operating businesses, in addition to our development and regeneration arm, the Board and I have every confidence that James will continue to extend our track record as one of the most innovative real estate developers and operators in the UK.  I wish him and the Quintain team all the best.”
James Saunders, incoming Chief Executive of Quintain Limited, said:
“This is an exciting moment in Quintain’s growth trajectory, and, even more importantly, in the transformation of London.  The most rewarding part of our work is the creation of great places to live, work and visit and the communities we have helped kick start in Wembley Park and beyond as we work hard to expand the range and quality of housing options in the areas where we operate.  I want to thank Angus and the Board for the opportunities to date and I am very excited about working with our great team to realise the growth opportunities ahead.”
ABOUT JAMES SAUNDERS

James has served as a main board director of Quintain Ltd since 2017 and is responsible for place making and estate management at Wembley Park, commercial partnerships, group marketing, IT, and health and safety.

In his role as Chief Operating Officer, James led the repositioning of Wembley Park from an event destination to an exciting new neighbourhood for London. He created the strategic direction for marketing and place making that has led to dramatic reconsideration of the area as an exciting location to live and as a destination for a myriad of leisure and retail outlets. 

Alongsideoverseeing the Wembley Park estate operations team with responsibility for management of The SSE Arena, Wembley and London Designer Outlet, he also managed key stakeholder and commercial partner relationships including with the GLA, the London Borough of Brent, Wembley Stadium, the FA, AEG and Realm.

Prior to joining Quintain, James was the Chief Marketing Officer at The Cloud Networks, a consultant to Vodafone Europe and Brand Director at Coca-Cola Great Britain.  He holds a Sloan Masters from London Business School and a Law Degree from Cambridge University and is a barrister-at-law. 
↧
↧

24 storey tower at Stonebridge Park station given the go ahead

October 22, 2019, 2:06 am
$
0
0

Still catching up after my break I thought readers would want to know the fate of the application for a 24 storey block to replace the modest 2 storey Argenta House building at Stonebridge stationLINK

The plans were passed by a Planning Committee which had an unusual number of substitutions. There was one presentation against the plans by a local resident concerned about residential tower blocks post-Grenfell and in particular evacuation  plans for people with a disability as well as the fact that the station lacked disabled access. There was also concern about the capacity of Stonebridge Station to cope with extra traffic from the Argenta House block along with the nearby Northfields development,

Planning officers made much of the landmark nature of the proposed block and the relationship with the existing high rise Wembley Point and the even higher block planned for Northfields.

 
↧

Kicking the 'Culture' out of the London Borough of Culture 2020 - Delipod Hub to close as charges renegotiation fails

October 22, 2019, 3:19 pm
$
0
0


 When Brent Council decided to demolish the 1980s Willesden Green Library and sell the car park to a private developer  they renamed its sucessor a 'Library and  Cultural Centre.' In the course of the redevelopment they closed the cinema and denied any space to the well-loved and well-used Willesden Bookshop. The bookshop could not afford the high rent and overheads that would have been demanded by Brent Council even if an adequate space had been made available. The cultural offer was limited by a closure time of 8pm and a demand that any event going on after that time should pay an additional sum for security.


Now the Delipod Hub cafe, on the ground floor of the building, which has been attracting a local following, especially for its Friday night music sessions, has thrown in the towel in after a valiant attempt to keep going.

This is their announcement:
 "With huge regret, next Friday will be our last live music event after which Delipod Hub will be closing, the last day of trading will be Saturday 26th Oct. After rates (which came in much higher than anticipated), rent and service charge there’s not much left and after over a year of trying to renegotiate them, we’ve been unsuccessful. We’d love to go out with a BANG so please come and celebrate our last evening of live music with the fabulous RumBand. Thank you for your custom and support, over the period we’ve been open.
Peter (Billy) & Serena"
↧

Why Brent should divest its pension fund from fossil fuels

October 23, 2019, 2:04 am
$
0
0
These are notes of the presentation made by Simon Erskine, of the Divest Brent campaign to the Council's Pension Sub-Committee. The comments in small print are there to assist - they were not delivered as part of the presentation.:


1.       INTRODUCTION 
Many thanks for this opportunity to comment, on behalf of Divest Brent, on the Council’s paper on Responsible Investment, with particular reference to climate change. 

2.       COMMENTS ON PROPOSED ACTION: 

In principle we welcome the analysis of the carbon footprint of the Pension Fund portfolio proposed in the Responsible investment paper but have two concerns about this:

·         Firstly there is a danger that this analysis will simply delay any action on protecting the Fund from the inherent risk of fossil fuel investment at a time of transition to a low carbon economy. We think it is therefore crucial that any proposed action should be time-limited – with the shortest possible time-scale.
·         Secondly it needs to be followed up with concrete action. I will argue that engagement is not enough – and the analysis should be a precursor to deciding how best to divest from the investments with the highest carbon footprint.

3.       ENGAGEMENT ISN’T WORKING: 

·         The Council’s policy of “engaging” with fossil fuel companies isn’t working. It has no meaningful benchmarks or timelines, little to show in the way of achievements and no clear escalation strategies for companies that fail to respond.
·         Despite many years of “engagement” not a single major oil company has re-aligned its business model with a 2ºC world. Moreover, there are no precedents for a company changing its core business model following pressure from shareholders.
·         We can provide a more detailed briefing on why engagement does not work for fossil fuel companies.  

4.       OTHER LONDON BOROUGHS WHICH ARE DIVESTING: 

There was talk in the paper of fiduciary duty and the policy of engagement with its fund managers rather than a policy of exclusion or divestment. With regard to climate change, this does not reflect the law or pension regulations as is clear from the number of London Boroughs that have already made a firm commitment to divestment – their pension officers will be as familiar with LGPS and pension fund rules as those in Brent. 

·         Lambeth
·         Southwark
·         Islington
·         Hackney
·         and Tower Hamlets
have all committed to fully divest – a number of other Councils have made partial commitments. All the Councils mentioned have started to divest their funds except for Lambeth which is waiting for the CIV to introduce suitable fossil-free funds to which it can transfer its investments.

5.       POLITICAL BACKGROUND

We understand that the Committee’s main priority is to protect the financial security of the Pension Fund. But particularly given that all the indications are that fossil fuel investments do not provide that security, as I will discuss shortly, I was disappointed that a paper largely about the Pension Fund and climate change should be completely silent on 3 points:

1.       The Council’s 2018 manifesto commitment to divest. (“At every opportunity, redirect our investments into renewable energy projects and carbon-free or carbon neutral technologies” – although this is perhaps ambiguous, Deputy Leader Cllr McLennan confirmed in an email to me of 18.9.18 “we have Divestment as a Manifesto Pledge and we intend to meet all our pledges”)
2.       The recent declaration by the full Council of a Climate and Ecological Emergency which re-iterated this commitment.
3.       Divest Brent has so far amassed well over 1,000 signatures in favour of divestment including those of the Leader of the Council, the Environment Lead and numerous other councillors.

6.       FINANCIAL RISK
As mentioned earlier, we understand that the Committee’s principal concern, quite rightly, is to safeguard the financial security of the Pension Fund in order to protect the pensions of Council staff. The Responsible Investment paper suggests that this means that the Fund should continue to hold on to fossil fuel investments. Our view is the opposite. There are plenty of recent indications that fossil fuel investments have become too risky to safely hold – not only because of the danger of action by governments to reduce burning fossil fuels but also the exponential increase in electric vehicles and renewable energy will seriously impact the market for them. I can provide plenty of evidence for this but time only allows one example now: The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has warned that investors face 'potentially huge' losses from climate change action that could make vast reserves of oil, coal and gas 'literally unburnable'. [East Sussex Briefing for Council on divestment]

7.       CONCLUSION  

In conclusion
·         The Sub-committee should urgently explore, working with other boroughs which have already made a firm commitment to divest, how to set about divesting the Pension Fund for the following reasons:
1.       As I have indicated, the Council’s current preferred option of engagement simply does not work in the context of fossil fuel companies.
2.       There is a body of legal opinion that considers trustees are at risk of being found in breach of their fiduciary duties by notdivesting when the financial risks are clear.
3.       The Council is committed to divestment and, as discussed, this will, if anything, improve the risk-adjusted financial position. The CIV currently has no appropriate funds which can deliver divestment but all the indications are that they are prioritising work to offer such funds so that they can meet the requirements of the boroughs which have already committed to divest as well as the significant number of boroughs which are considering divestment. 

·         While the Council is waiting for appropriate CIV funds to which existing funds can be moved, it should carry out the analysis suggested in the Responsible Investment paper – but an early agreed deadline should be set to ensure that it does not unduly hold back on divestment.

·         In the meantime, if the Council wishes to continue its policy of engagement, pending full divestment, it should set agreed goals for this engagement, as well as deadlines for the action required.

↧

Willesden Greeners mobilise to save the Delipod Hub from closure - petition launched

October 23, 2019, 7:49 am
$
0
0
Willesden Greeners have lost no time in launching a petition to Brent Council asking them to act  to save the Delipod Hub at Willesden Green Library from closure (see yesterday's story).

The petition is HERE and states:

The recent decision to terminate the lease of Willesden Green Library’s Delipod Hub café has caused an outpouring of community support.  We believe the decision to terminate their lease – regardless of the doubtless complex intricacies of the case – is a mistake and flies in the face of Brent’s stated aims to improve Willesden Green High Street.

After countless years in the doldrums, Willesden Green has recently started to show signs of growth and development; this is in large part due to the work of like-minded individuals within the community coming together. Our partnership with Brent Council seeks to improve our environment, reduce crime and foster growth on our High Street and has started to yield meaningful results. The small successes we have witnessed this past year have been helped by The Delipod Hub both as a focus of community activity and as a base for the community to meet and launch our campaigns. During the recent Rising Star High Street Award judges’ day, Brent Council touted The Delipod as a focal point for their consideration. Away from the watchful glare of media scrutiny, it’s pride of place at the epicentre of Willesden Green’s community hub should continue to be championed by the council.

Among Brent’s stated ambitions is to encourage the public to spend locally. You employ a full time Town Centre Manager to promote growth and regeneration on our High Street.  In a peculiar turn of events, until mere weeks ago, the Town Centre Manager was excluded from any involvement in this matter.

While business rates are beyond your control and remit, we are aware it is within Brent Council’s gift to make rent reductions. It is the community’s understanding, The Delipod has been communicating through appropriate channels for over one year. They have patiently awaited an answer from Brent Council on a possible rent reduction.  We also understand the owners were led to believe there was consensus within the council supporting a rent reduction; a reduction that would allow them to operate successfully while continuing to provide Willesden Green’s community hub with a much-needed resource.  As happens, the decision-making process became a protracted episode prompting the assignment of this case across several different asset managers, until the most recent one issued a final ultimatum without benefit of a rent reduction.

If Brent Council is serious about investing in our local community, creating a thriving cultural centre hub within the main library and helping our town centre to flourish, then the community believes The Delipod Hub should be viewed as an asset of community value.  Brent must allow its community value to take precedent over commercial considerations.

Assuming the council has made full consideration of the financial issues any business utilising this space will face in managing both the rates and the rent, we have to ask, under current parameters, whom do Brent Council envision will be capable of achieving success? There is understandable concern among the community this space will, in future, welcome a spate of short-term cafes offering no semblance of continuity or stability. This is not in keeping with Brent’s well-publicised ambition for the borough or with the Town Centre Manager and community vision for Willesden Green.  Willesden Green deserves an equal chance to grow and develop along with other parts of the borough. If small, start-up businesses cannot expect and/or receive support from Brent Council how do you propose we achieve growth for the area and beyond?

We respectfully believe this decision to be short-sighted. Brent Council has a responsibility to represent the many while considering the long-term impact of removing yet another highly valued and much-loved facility from a ward fighting to devise a better place to live. We urge you to reconsider this misdirected decision.
↧
↧

Vital Scrutiny of NW London NHS cuts & their impact on patients - Thursday 6pm October 24th at Brent Civic Centre

October 23, 2019, 1:33 pm
$
0
0
The NW London NHS Financial Recovery Plan will come under close scrutiny at the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday. The plan aims to tackle the deficit in a variety of ways but the fear is that it will impact on patients.

The full document with the financial background and overall stratgey can be found HERE but of most importance for residents will be the actions that are planned that will affect patients. Committee members will need to look beyond the jargon and probe deeply to find out what the real implications are for patients.

Fortunately Cllr Mary Daly has provided a commentary via Twitter:

Cllr Mary Daly
@CllrDaly

The managers bemoan the increased use of emergency service doesn’t seem able to link it to cuts to out of hours primary care across the area or CMH urgent care centre. There is no plan for primary or community care.
There appears to be no equalities impact assessment. No meaningful consultation with residents and certainly no contact with local councillors. yet we are told £98.9m.....
£8m saved by denying brent residents over the counter medicines. This affects the most vulnerable refugees, low income residents. this is not to improve the service but to save money...,
£6m saving by stopping new and follow up outpatient appointments denying specialist to thousands......
Admit fewer emergency patients including those with pulmonary embolus and pneumonia no reference to community services social care ......
£4.6m saved by refusing referral for elective surgery if the money runs out unless you are waiting more than a year YES a year

6. How These Changes Will Affect Brent Patients 

6.1.The section below provides further detail on how specific recovery schemes are likely to affect Brent patients, as requested by the Community Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee. 

6.2.Elective hospital services and bringing some elective hospital services back to local North West London providers 

This programme will focus on “repatriating” elective procedures begin referred by General Practitioners and Trusts to providers outside North West London back into the North West London sector. The project aims to change referral patterns where NWL GPs consider using NW London providers and only refer outside of the sector if there is no capacity or if the patient requires intervention provided by specialist centres out of area. 

North West London NHS has an agreement with local NHS Trusts that specific quantities of activity will be delivered in each trust. Any activity above a set threshold is paid at 70% of the Payment by Results Tariff. This means that if more activity is referred to North West London providers, then approximately 30% of the tariff will be saved on each procedure. This is not true of providers external to North West London or to private sector providers.
The total amount of activity that we could bring back into the sector amounts to around 15% of all secondary care activity. 

For Brent patients, they should see no change in the healthcare that they receive, except that they are more likely to be referred to a local provider rather than a provider external to the North West London health economy such as Royal Free Hospitals NHS Trust, for example. This is likely to be a benefit to patients in not having to travel longer distances across the city. 

It should be noted that patients and GPs will always retain the right under the NHS Constitution to be referred to a provider of their choice and that GP retain the right to make decisions for the wellbeing of their patients. 

6.3. Outpatient services and changes to outpatient appointments 

NWL CCGs have reached agreement with providers that all activity in Quarters 3 and 4 of 2019/20 will be at contracted (planned) levels of activity, unless this puts waiting list commitments at risk. It was agreed that there will be no rise in 52 week waiters.
Additionally, our providers have agreed to adhere an existing consultant to consultant referral policy. The key principle behind this is that referrals relating to the original complaint can be referred on directly to another consultant. However, if an entirely different complaint comes to the attention of the consultant (unrelated to the original referral) this should be referred back to the patient’s GP first. 

We have an outpatient transformation programme in North West London which has developed standardised referral guidelines. Consultants are currently triaging GP referrals against these guidelines when the referrals arrive at the hospital. Any referrals which do not adhere to the guidelines will be sent back to the referring GP with advice. In this way, unnecessary outpatient appointments can be avoided and patients may receive their care from their local GP practice. 

6.4. Reducing spending on over the counter medicine prescriptions

Using the NHS London published guidance, we are working with secondary and primary care to reduce the volume of over the counter medication (for example paracetamol or ibuprofen) prescribed to patients. We have in place a communication plan for clinicians, patients and the wider public to support roll out. We will work with secondary care colleagues to support the programme and ensure that advice to patients is consistent across primary and secondary care.
Patients who are considered to be particularly vulnerable and are in receipt of free prescriptions may still receive these over the counter medications on prescription, at the discretion of their GP. 

6.5. Standardising assessments for patient transport 

This programme involves the renegotiation of the price on the LNWHT patient transport contract and a consistent application of current eligibility criteria. Discussions are currently underway with LNWHT with regard to the first element of the programme. Patient care will not be affected and those patients who require patient transport will still be able to receive it. 

6.6.Home Oxygen and Enteral Feeds 

This programme is made up of 3 elements. The first is the benefit of a pricing change following national procurement for home oxygen. The next is a clinical review of patients on home oxygen, prioritising those patients who have not been reviewed in the last 12 months and/or those patients where the data shows they are using less oxygen than prescribed. This review process will ensure that patients are not receiving a higher dosage of oxygen than they need, and that oxygen is not being wasted where it is no longer required. It will not change the criteria for patients to receive oxygen. 

The enteral feeds procurement provides commissioners with a saving by reducing the costs of consumables and securing a better deal with the NHS’s external providers. It does not alter the care pathway and patients will not experience any change. 

6.7.Unscheduled Care 

A&E attendances and unplanned emergency admissions to hospital continue to rise in an unsustainable way. These are one of the biggest drivers of the deficit to the NWL financial system. There are a number of workstreams to address this. These schemes are divided up into “front door demand”, which is about reducing the number of patients turning up at the front door of A&E/ Urgent Care Centres, and “short stay flow”, which is about getting senior level clinician input at the start of patients’ journeys into the A&E department so that they can be turned around more quickly. This in turn means that they are less likely to be admitted to an inpatient bed. 

Clinicians from LNWHUT and Brent and Harrow CCGs are currently participating in a “6As audit”. Emergency admission to hospital is a major event in people’s lives. It should never happen because it is easy to admit or to access services that could be available as an out-patient or to administer treatment that may be available closer to home or to get a specialist opinion. All of these are spurious reasons for an emergency admission. To transform emergency healthcare we need to understand why we put patients through this process when alternatives exist and operate effectively across the country but haven’t been widely implemented.
Emergency admission implies a patient is sick and requires a high level of intervention. As such, all proposed emergency admissions should prompt a clinical conversation between senior doctors, ideally consultants. 

The 6 As audit is about establishing whether patients are currently going to the optimal place, or whether improvements could be made to better utilise community care pathways. The audit involves asking whether the following alternatives could have been used: 


·  Advice - suggest a clinical management plan that allows the patient to be managed in primary care

·  Access to out-patient services - suggest an outpatient referral for specialist assessment

·  Ambulatory Emergency Care - clinically stable patients appropriate for same day discharge

·  Acute Frailty Unit - to provide comprehensive geriatric assessment for frail older patients

·  Acute Assessment Units - to diagnose and stabilise patients likely to need admission

·  Admission to specialty ward directly - for agreed clinical pathways and specialised clinical presentations

Once the conclusions of the audit are received, we will aim to optimise our referral pathways so that patients are seen in the most appropriate service and location. 

6.8. High Intensity Users 

This programme is about pro-active case finding of high intensity users (5 or more A&E attendances or admissions within the last 12 months) and to ensure that members of the frequent attenders forum are fully informed. The forum aims to identify other services and resources that may help the patient address their needs e.g. housing, drug and alcohol treatment programmes,psychological interventions etc. As part of this process, the patient’s GP is consistently informed of their registered patient’s interactions with the ambulance/ hospital/ urgent care services. A care plan is formulated and stored on the Co-ordinate My Care system, which means that it is then accessible to hospital clinicians who need to access it as part of any future re- attendance. The aim of the programme is to reduce future unnecessary re- attendances. It will improve patient care in Brent as patients will receive pro- active care that is better tailored to their needs, rather than turning up in an A&E department, which may not be best suited to the type of expertise that the patient needs. 

6.9.LAS Demand
 
This scheme is about supporting the London Ambulance Service (LAS) to book into extended access hub appointments based in GP practices, where this would be the most appropriate course of action for the patient’s needs.
Where appropriate, the 999 service will also be able to book into the access hub appointments.
To support the LNWUHT system Brent, Harrow, and Ealing CCGs have been selected for rollout in phase 1 of GP in-hours and Extended Access booking from LAS Clinical Hub (known as CHUB). Clinical engagement is underway for opening these slots to the CHUB. 

6.10. LAS Walk-In Demand 

The Brent category of the LAS has some of the highest rates of conveyance to A&E of all categories. This may be due to higher than average vacancy rates in the service, and a less experienced cohort of incoming paramedics that may be more risk averse in their assessment of patients. This should improve over time as staff become more experienced, but a programme of shadowing is taking place so that LAS staff understand what is available in the community and can refer patients to community pathways where a conveyance to A&E is not deemed to be required. 

6.11. Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) 

SDEC is the provision of same day care for emergency patients who would otherwise be admitted to hospital.Under this care model, patients presenting at hospital with relevant conditions can be rapidly assessed, diagnosed and treated without being admitted to a ward, and if clinically safe to do so, will go home the same day their care is provided. 

When a patient comes to hospital, an SDEC service (which may operate under the name of ambulatory emergency care unit) means patients with some medical concerns can be assessed, diagnosed, treated and safely discharged home the same day, rather than being admitted. 

SDEC services treat a wide range of common conditions including headaches, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, pneumonia, cellulitis, and diabetes. The types of conditions that can be managed through SDEC will vary depending on the hospital and needs of the local population. 

We aim to expand the usage of SDEC as part of our financial recovery programme, which will reduce overnight non-elective admissions (1-2 days length of stay) and A&E attendances by increasing activity through the SDEC pathways and optimising the ambulatory emergency care units. Shorter lengths of stay attract a lower tariff for the CCGs and therefore reduce costs. 

6.12. Front Door Frailty 

The aim of this programme is to implement proactive frailty services which will avoid admissions by providing a holistic response for frail older people in the community and during time of crisis. Frailty practitioners will screen patients who are 75 or over and for those who have a high score, a consultant geriatrician at the front end of A&E will provide a comprehensive geriatric assessment. This means that we are usually able to turn the patient around more quickly so that they get the care they need and may never need an admission to an inpatient bed. This is safer for the patient, as they are likely to stay more mobile at home and not pick up hospital acquired infections. 

6.13. Admission conversion rates 

This programme is about the rates of which A&E attendances ‘convert’ into unplanned admissions to hospital beds. We are using benchmarking data to compare our local hospitals to national averages and London averages so that hospitals who are above the average try to bring their conversion rates down to the average. This means that more patients will benefit from being able to stay out of hospital and reduce their risk of hospital acquired infections. It is a financial benefit to the system because it means that we are not funding unnecessary numbers of hospital beds or opening new beds. It also allows those patients who are most seriously ill to access a bed when they need it. 

6.14. Demand Management 

We have a comprehensive review programme of primary care variation. Across Brent, the amount of secondary care activity and prescribing spend that are attributed to individual GP practices varies significantly, and this does not always correlate with deprivation levels of the demographics of the GP practice. We intend to reduce this unwarranted variation in practice and to enable GP practices to learn from each other to ensure that best practice care pathways are being followed. 

The programme includes:

·       Reviewing A&E and UCC attendances, and contacting patients within 2 days of discharge where attendance was inappropriate;

·       Practices promoting self-care management and continue to improve patient access. 40 practices currently offering E-consultations with a further going live imminently;

·       Ensuring visible display of GP Access Hub, NHS 111 and Online Services Posters;

·       Conducting internal and external peer reviews with CCG and PCN/network leads;

·       Locum, GP trainees and associates referrals to be triaged by the lead clinician/GP partner

·       Educational sessions for all GPs and clinical staff. Inter-practice referrals optimising skill mix at PCN level

·       Kilburn Locality has a low outpatient referral activity - learning shared with other PCNs (advice and guidance at Imperial and MDT programme)

The meeting begins at 6pm on Thursday 24th October at Brent Civic Centre. The meeting will be in the Conference Hall and is open to the press and public.
↧

Kilburn Times calls for system change to tackle climate crisis

October 24, 2019, 1:55 am
$
0
0

This week's Brent and Kilburn Times is a special green edition - both in design and content. The North West London group editor , Ramzy Alwakeel, explains why in a rare editorial:
Tackling climate change isn't about shaming your neighbours for not separating their plastic recycling properly. Everyone has different amounts of energy, money, time; none of us should judge anyone else. We are all working within an economic and political system that promotes and rewards selfishness, and that has left many people with very little to survive on.

But we won't recycle our way out of the climate crisis: we need system change. Government inaction, corporate unaccountability and collective denial mean all of us have inherited responsibility for something that really shouldn't be our problem. It is wrong that a handful of big businesses are responsible for the majority of the world's toxic emissions. It is wrong that a Swedish schoolgirl has become the face of a campaign to treat our planet better.

But the crisis is now so bad that we must all play a part in fixing a problem that isn't our fault. I hope this week's Times makes that clear - and gives you some ideas.
↧
Search

The Fight for the Environment is International - Brent Resident Behind Environmental Campaign In Ghana

October 24, 2019, 2:07 am
$
0
0

Ghanaian-born barrister Awula Serwah, who is a Brent Community Champion and founder of the local Taking A Stand Against Littering and Fly-tipping initiative, recently presented a petition signed by over 3,500 supporters from Ghana and beyond to Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo through Ghana's Deputy High Commissioner in London H.E. Rita Tani Iddi.

Serwah, who lives in Neasden, leads the Eco-Conscious Citizens (ECC) group, which has been campaigning against a Ghanaian government ministry felling trees on Parks And Gardens lands in the Ghanaian capital Accra, to make way for building a multi-storey office complex.

With climate change in the news and activists, including Extinction Rebellion, demanding that world leaders take environmental issues seriously, ECC are hoping that President Akufo-Addo will respond positively to the petition.

ECC are asking the President to use his good offices to ensure that Parks And Gardens lands are kept exclusively for the green economy - that is sustainable environmental, horticultural or botanical use, and that:

1. There are no further attempts to re-zone any portion of Parks And Gardens land to exclusively Civic, so that a multi-purpose office complex can be built on the land.

2. The Department of Parks And Gardens is resourced to deliver the remit for which it was set up.

“The multi-purpose office complex should be located elsewhere,” says ECC co-ordinator Awula Serwah. “It is vital that we preserve our parks and open spaces, and that Parks And Gardens land is kept for environmental purposes.”
↧

Scrutiny ask for Urgent Care Centre reduction in hours be reviewed and put out to public consultation

October 24, 2019, 1:57 pm
$
0
0
Brent Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee tonight asked Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to use its statutory right to ask North West London NHS to reconsider the abolition of overnight hours at Central Middlesex Hospital Urgent Care Centre and to put the issue out to public consultation.

The decision was one of several made after an exhaustive discussion of the North West London NHS Recovery Plan and the proposal to merge the various CCGs in North West London into one 'Super CCG'.

Dawn Butler MP was unable to attend the Committee due to pressing duties in the House of Commons but her speech was read out for her by Cllr Colacicco. Butler said that the Recovery Plan was coded language for cuts in NHS services.  She said that the cuts fell disproportionately on the south of Brent affecting the poorest areas  in Stonebridge and Harlesden where life expectancy was 13 years lower than in the north of the borough.

When the A& E at Central Middlesex was closed it was on the basis that the Urgent Care Centre at the hospital would be provided on a 24 hour basis. It had now been shut at night with no public consultation. She said that a whistle blower had informed her that this was a 'closure by design' and was part of a plan that could lead to eventual closure of the hospital.

I understand that Dawn Butler and Barry Gardiner MP will meet the CCG tomorrow to discuss their concerns.

Addressing the Committee Cllr Mary Daly refuted claims that the Recovery Plan did not relate to patient care. It aimed to cut referrals to consultants by GPs - 'there was not enough money to treat Brent patients' - by scaring them.  GPs would not be allowed to refer patients more than once and if a consultant decided a patient needed to be referred to a consultant in a different discipline the request would first have to go back to the GP. Emergency A&E patients would not be admitted to hospital and patients would have to pay for over the counter medicines themselves.

Cllr Nerva introduced himself as a former non-Executive Director in the NHS and said that as things had developed there was now a lack of democratic accountability in the NHS. The proposal that patients should choose hospitals within The NW London NHS Trust, in order for it to enjoy the 30% in-house cost reduction, would provide an incentive to limit choice. These were toxic cuts and there should have been officer input to the Committee for members to consider.

Cllr Colacicco and Cllr Ann Clarke (Labour, Barnet, Childs Hill ward) both concentrated on the proposed closure of the walk-in Cricklewood Health Centre. Colacicco criticised the consultation for not enabling people to state that they wanted the Centre kept open. Clarke said the Centre had been under threat before, in 2014, and had been saved then. New developments, including that at Brent Cross, meant there would be many new homes in the area in the future and the Centre would be needed. She was also concerned with the suggestion that extended GP hours would increase local capacity when the Centre closed.

Cllr Thomas Stephens proved to be the most incisive and persistent member of the Committee when cross examining NHS and CCG officers. Most questions were fielded by Mark Easton, Accountable Officer for the NHS North West London Collaboration of Clinical Commissioning Groups (the shadow Super CCG),  He attributed the financial crisis to population increase, an ageing population, cost increases caused by new treatments with costs going up 18% and population 5%.  Units costs were increasing faster than numbers treated.  Regulators recognised that the planned deficit could not be wiped out in one year so a three year programme had been introduced.

He said patients would be allowed to go into hospital but that some GPs were not aware of community services that would keep patients out of hospital. The CCG were visiting GPs who may have referred more than 3 times as many patients as other GPs to make them aware of community services.

He said that hospitals inside the NW London NHS area were as good as those outside and had the advantage of being 30% cheaper, although patients could still choose to go outside.

Patients paying for over the counter medicines rather than through prescriptions was already policy and it was just a matter of ensuring compliance by GPs.  Eligibility criteria were based on evidence from NICE.

Adherence to the NHS Constitution would ensure that the changes would not affect the quality and safety of health services.

Scrutiny adopted a number of recommendations including that the NHS should ensure that local services were sufficient for the needs of local residents, there should be a full Equality  Impact Assessment of proposed changes in referral behaviour, review the impact on Primary Care which is already low quality in comparison with the rest of London, review the impact of changes after the Winter.

Regarding the merger of local CCGs into one NW London body Scrutiny recommended that the CCG guarantee that the new structure will include local government representatives and lay people, before a final decision is made on the super CCG that they should come back to Scrutiny with the full financial implications and assessment of the shadow structure currently in operation, if a single CCG is formed it should more adequately integrate medical and social care.
↧
↧

How should we be discussing the new Relationship and Sex Education requirements in Brent?

October 25, 2019, 7:18 am
$
0
0
I was rather surprised to see that a presentation on Relationship and Sex Education  (RSE) at Tuesday's meeting of Brent senior officers and school governors is to be given by Sophie Taylor, who is Deputy Director for Due Diligence and Counter Extremism at the Department for Education. The new requirements and guidance on RESE come into effect in September 2020.

I assume that the agenda is connected with events in Birmingham where some parents have protested outside a primary school about its teaching on these issues LINK.  However to make an explicit connection between 'Extremism' and concerns about RSE in the Brent context seems to run counter to commonsense when retaining the confidence of the community and parents in our schools and working with them should be our priority.

The issue came up in the July Council meeting and these are the relevant Minutes:

Question from Cllr Daniel Kennelly to Cllr Amer Agha, Lead Member for Schools, Employment and Skills: 

Can the Lead Member for Schools, Employment and Skills set out the measures that the Department for Education published in its statutory guidance on the teaching of Relationships Education? 

The Department for Education has announced that from 2020, relationships education will be compulsory for all primary school children and relationships and sex education will be compulsory for all secondary school children. The Department for Education published on the 25th February 2019 draft regulations and statutory guidance on Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education and Health Education, setting out what the requirements will be from 2020. This statutory guidance sets out what schools should do and sets out the legal duties with which schools must comply when teaching Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education. 

This comes 20 years after the government last made changes to health, relationships and sex education and is in the context of a world that looks significantly different to children from 20 years ago, with significant changes for how children develop their relationships, including understanding the risks for children online and the development of social media as a key feature in the majority of children's lives. 

The guidance states that from September 2020 all schools must have in place a written policy for Relationships Education and Relationships and Sex Education. Schools must consult parents in developing and reviewing their policy. Schools should ensure that the policy meets the needs of pupils and parents and reflects the community they serve. The policy should set out the subject content, how it is taught, who is responsible for teaching it and how the subject is monitored and evaluated. 

For primary education, the Policy should define Relationships Education and include information to clarify why parents do not have a right to withdraw their child. For secondary education, the policy should define Relationships and Sex Education and include information about a parent’s right to request that their child be excused from sex education within RSE only. 

The guidance sets out what by the end of primary school pupils should know about under the headings “families and people who care for me”, “caring friendships”, “respectful relationships,” “online relationships” and “being safe.” The guidance also sets out what in addition pupils should know by the end of secondary school under the headings “families”, “respectful relationships”, “online and media”, “being safe” and “intimate and sexual relationships including sexual health”. 

There are a number of myths being circulated regarding the 2020 changes. The first is that schools will from 2020 be required to teach concepts and values that are contradictory to some religious beliefs. This is not the case. Schools are required to comply with relevant requirements of the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty, which means, in making decisions, having due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and people who do not share it. The guidance states that “the religious background of all pupils must be taken into account when planning teaching.” 

A second myth is that these changes will conflict or compromise parents’ ability to educate their children according to their own religious or philosophical beliefs. How this curriculum will be taught will be a matter for individual schools, who will consult with parents before the introduction of the new relationships education and will listen to their views. 

Governing Boards, which will include parent Governors as members, will then work with their teaching staff to deliver the most age appropriate elements of the new curriculum to the pupils. Schools will have the ability to amend their approach if they believe it is necessary to support pupils and families at the school. 

Brent is home to one of the most diverse communities in the UK and this is one of our strengths. We strive to be an inclusive society and to ensure that everyone in the borough feels welcome and included. This means embracing the modern world we live in, and understanding and celebrating our various differences and addressing the context in which our children are growing up.

Councillor Kennelly thanked Councillor Agha (Lead Member for Schools, Employment and Skills) for his response in relation to the Department for Education (DfE) guidance on the teaching of Relationship Education. Before moving on to his supplementary question he took the opportunity, following on from the Mayor’s Announcements, to also pay tribute to Pride and the LGBTQ+ community and to express his support for the Armed Forces community in recognition of Armed Forces Day.

In terms of a supplementary question, whilst recognising that the Lead Member had acknowledged the challenges faced in addressing the myths surrounding the DfE guidance, Councillor Kennelly asked what further assurance could be provided in terms of the support being made available for schools in order to address any concerns or difficulties experienced.

In response, Councillor Agha advised that the Council was using a number of different strategies and methods such as the Brent School Partnership, the Schools Forum and the Annual School Governors Conference to disseminate advice and guidance and provide support to schools and their governors to assist them in complying with the statutory guidance. He felt it was important to remember, however, that the way in which the curriculum was taught would be a matter for individual schools and their Governing Bodies. Whilst expected to consult with parents prior to its introduction, schools and their Governing Bodies would have the ability to amend their final approach, if felt necessary, in order to support pupils and families at the school. He therefore reminded members of the importance of Governing Bodies and encouraged any members not already involved to consider becoming school governors in order to be able to individually offer their help and support.

Councillor S.Choudhary sought further details on the teaching of relationship education in schools, particularly given concerns around parents seeking to withdraw their children from relationship and sex education as a result of cultural and religious beliefs. He asked the Lead Member for his views on what more could be done to inform and educate parents on the new guidance in order to dispel the myths identified relating to its introduction and impact.

In response, Councillor Agha (Lead Member for Education, Employment andSkills) advised that it was important to recognise that the Council could not issue any direction in this matter and that it would be up to individual schools and their Governing Bodies to decide how they would teach the curriculum and implement the guidance from the Department of Education. He pointed out that the introduction of the new guidance would need to be undertaken in consultation with parents, taking account of the religious background of all pupils as part of the planning process, with the Council offering support and guidance, as required, in order to ensure schools were complying with the necessary requirements.
The approach outlined in the replies with its emphasis on working with parents seems sensible.  Successful RSE will depend on an open and transparent relationship between school staff, governors and parents. Anything that suggests a hidden agenda or stereotyping of communities is likely to cause distrust.
Relationship, Sex and Health Education - What schools need to know 


↧

Brent Council announces convening of a Climate Assembly

October 25, 2019, 10:58 am
$
0
0

Press release from Brent Council

A new Climate Assembly will be convened to channel residents’ voices, views and ideas as Brent responds to the climate emergency. 50 residents will be recruited by independent experts to reflect a cross-section of the population in Brent. Young people have spearheaded the climate emergency movement, so 16 and 17 year olds will also be included in the Climate Assembly.

Brent’s Climate Assembly will take part in a series of workshops through November and December. During these sessions, they will discuss exciting and innovative ideas for tackling the climate crisis at a local level. At the end of the process, they will make recommendations to the council which will be considered by Cabinet in the new year.

The process will be run by Traverse, an independent research and engagement consultancy. They will use random selection methods to recruit the Assembly members and make sure that the group reflects the diverse make-up of the borough.

Brent Youth Parliament will also be holding their own event on 26 October to discuss action that can be taken at a local level to tackle the climate emergency. Their recommendations will be fed into the process.

While residents won’t be able to volunteer to take part in the Assembly, their voices will also be heard. A new website will act as a hub for members of the community or local organisations wanting to share their own ideas for reducing Brent’s carbon emissions. These contributions will then be presented to the Assembly to reflect on and consider.

Cllr Krupa Sheth, Lead Member for Environment at Brent Council, said:
Global heating is predicted to have devastating consequences for all of us. That’s why it’s crucial that we create spaces for the voices of residents to be heard as we try to find solutions to this crisis. Now is the time to be bold. So I’m delighted to announce this Citizens Assembly and I’m especially pleased that young people will have the opportunity to share their ideas and suggestions.
Terry Parker, Chief Executive at Traverse, said: 
We at Traverse believe that the best policy is made together with the people it affects, so we’re delighted to be working with Brent Council in this pioneering action to hear from citizens how they want to address the climate emergency.
In July, the Council joined more than 200 other local authorities in declaring a Climate Emergency and pledged to do all in its gift to strive for carbon neutrality by 2030.

The local authority has spearheaded numerous green initiatives in recent years. These include introducing a diesel levy on parking permits to incentivise greener transport, creating a seven-mile bee corridor to boost biodiversity, and helping businesses to think about their impact through the Plastic Free Wembley initiative. Brent’s Civic Centre has been recognised as one of the greenest public buildings in the UK.

Have your say on the Brent Climate Assembly website.
↧

Brent to devise a strategy for universal free school meals for primary pupils

October 26, 2019, 2:41 am
$
0
0

Free school meals for all primary pupils in Islington - so why not in Brent?
Leader of Brent Council, Muhammed Butt, told a recent meeting of Brent Central Constituency Labour Party that council officers have been instructed to prepare a comprehensive strategy to provide free school meals for the 13,000 Brent primary pupils who do not currently receive them.

The strategy will draw on the experience of four London boroughs who already provide  free school meals to all primary children and will investigate a number of possible funding streams.

Graham Durham, a Brent CLP supporter of the proposal, has requested that the strategy and implementation dates be set out before the November CLP meetings.

Universal Free School Meals directly address issues of hunger and poor nutrition in children of low income families but also serve to remove any lingering social stigma associated with 'free dinners.' They ensure a steady income stream for school caterers and remove the school's administrative burden of collecting 'dinner money' and chasing up debts. The provision of a hot nutritious daily meal also aids a pupil's concentration in class contributing to closing the gap between the educational attainment of poor and better off pupils.

An  Islington Council paper setting out the issues can be found HERE

↧
Viewing all 7143 articles
Browse latest View live
Search