↧
Brent Zoom meeting for parents and school staff on school re-openings
↧
Joint unions reach agreement on school wider opening with Brent Council
After a meeting between education union officers and Brent CEO Carolyn Downs and Strategic Director of Children and Young People, Gail Tolley the following was agreed earlier today:
A gradual return is beneficial with NO RUSH.
Schools SHOULD match their risk assessments against the joint union checklist.
Brent ARE supportive of schools delaying opening.
They EXPECT mention of risk to people of BME backgrounds to be in risk assessments.
There is PPE in Brent and it should be used where needed.
There MUST be social distancing in schools.
Schools MUST consult with trade union reps and members on the risk assessments. Local authority schools will be told to do this. Academies/free schools will be advised.
Risk assessments have to be done by SLT and HAVE to be signed off by governors/trustees BY LAW.
New cases of COVID-19 in schools have to be reported to public health. Therefore there should be a protocol for this in schools.
Gail Tolley will be advising Heads that there are many new union reps who need to be given time to be consulted.
The council will support any school that decides to focus on other year groups if they believe reception/nursery aren't safe.
↧
↧
NAHT calls on government to justify its belief that June 1st is a wise move
Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT said:
Support for a fixed date for school return is vanishing quickly. What is needed now is local flexibility to determine when it is right for schools to open up to more pupils, informed by evidence of what is happening in their local area.
We have never expected certainty; all we have asked for is clarity. The publication of the evidence being used to inform the government's decision-making is an important step in achieving greater transparency.
We’ve now seen what evidence the government has been working with. We all want to see schools back as soon as possible, so NAHT has written again to the secretary of state for education today because we still need the government to explain why it has so strongly asserted that a return to school on 1 June is a wise thing to do.
The government needs to show greater flexibility and a willingness to take local circumstances into account. A robust test, trace and isolate policy is essential if we are to successfully return more pupils to school.
↧
Cllr Georgiou spearheads campaign to get IT home learning equipment to refugee students during Covid19 crisis
Cllr Anton Georgiou, Liberal Democrat councillor for Alperton ward, is leading a campaign to persuade the Department for Education to equip refugee and ESOL students with IT equipment for home learning during the current coronavirus shut down.
In a letter to Secretary of State, Gavin Williamson, Georgiou and his fellow signatories state:
We welcome the initiative that has been taken by central Government to supply the most vulnerable students with computer equipment to facilitate home learning in the coming weeks. However, we would like to see this extended to other vulnerable groups too.Although a Liberal Democrat initiative I am sure many Wembley Matters readers, irrespective of party, will support this call.
For example, we are concerned that young refugee and ESL students are being allowed to slip through the net. We are seeing in our communities, and also through anecdotal evidence provided by organisations like Young Roots and Refugee Support Network, that this group of young people are not being provided with the support they need at this time. Although their need for computer equipment is great and they have a social worker, they do not meet the specific criteria set by central Government.
There are also young people, refugees and asylum seekers aged 19 to 25 who are in further and higher education, but do not have access to computer equipment to enable them to engage in online learning, because they are currently not eligible. It is critical that those who need help get it. We need to ensure that students who already face acute challenges in performing at the same level as some of their peers do not fall further behind, thus widening the attainment gap in our schools, colleges and universities.
We are calling on the Government to make a concerted effort over the coming weeks to ensure that this much- needed computer equipment reaches these vulnerable groups who are currently not eligible.
The letter can be read in full HERE
↧
Fighting Covid19 in Brent Zoom Meeting May 27th
Background (Source: ons.gov.uk)
↧
↧
The Wembley Park Story – Part 2
The second of Philip Grant's series on the history of Wembley Park
From 1811 onwards, John Gray did have the Wembley Park mansion modernised and enlarged, spending around £14,000 in the process. His home became known as the White House, because of its pale stucco finish, and he lived there until his death in 1828. Wembley Park passed to his son, Rev. John Edward Gray, although his father’s will had said that the estate must be put up for sale. It was advertised for auction in 1834, as ‘a beautiful demesne with 272 acres of rich meadow land and pasturage, including plantations’, but it was not sold, and Rev. Gray and his family remained living there for the rest of his life.
Philip Grant.
The first part of this story took us from Saxon times up to the “birth” of Wembley Park in 1793. If you missed it, “click” here.
 |
| 1. Repton's sketch of his proposed mansion, in its parkland setting. (Extract from a copy at Brent Archives) |
Humphry Repton was landscaping the grounds of Wembley Park for Richard Page, but they disagreed over Repton’s proposed “Gothic” designs for the mansion, which were never carried out. By 1795, Page had moved to Flambards, another mansion on Harrow Hill, that he inherited from Mary Herne. This had mature grounds, which had been laid out by Capability Brown around 1770.
When Richard Page died in 1803, his estate was valued at £400,000 (worth over £25 million now). He had never married, and his will left a “life interest” in his estate to his next eldest brother, Francis, and then down the male line. Francis Page did not marry either, nor had the next youngest of the five brothers, John, who died in 1801. The family seemed unaware of the “truth” which Jane Austen was writing about at that time!
 |
| 2. The opening line from an early edition of Jane Austen’s "Pride and Prejudice". (Image from the internet) |
By 1809, Francis Page had sold Wembley Park to John Gray, a wealthy brandy merchant who was a Freeman of the City of London. However, as the Page family’s Wembley Park legacy was to continue into the 20thcentury, I need to finish their story. Francis died in 1810, and as he had no children, the Page estate passed to the fourth brother, William. In 1813, he and his surviving brother Henry put the management of their affairs into the hands of their solicitor, Francis Fladgate.
William Page died, without marrying, in 1824, so Henry Page inherited the estate. He had married in 1813, aged 55, but his wife died five years later, without leaving any children. Henry Young, who as a 14-year old clerk had witnessed William Page’s will, had since married Fladgate’s daughter and taken over the solicitor’s business. Henry Page, who appears to have been feeble minded, and often drunk, allowed Young to draw up his will in 1825. When Henry Page died, four years later, the entire Page family fortune had been left to their solicitor!
 |
3. Wembley Park mansion, "The White House", photographed c.1880. (Brent Archives – W.H.S. Colln,) |
From 1811 onwards, John Gray did have the Wembley Park mansion modernised and enlarged, spending around £14,000 in the process. His home became known as the White House, because of its pale stucco finish, and he lived there until his death in 1828. Wembley Park passed to his son, Rev. John Edward Gray, although his father’s will had said that the estate must be put up for sale. It was advertised for auction in 1834, as ‘a beautiful demesne with 272 acres of rich meadow land and pasturage, including plantations’, but it was not sold, and Rev. Gray and his family remained living there for the rest of his life.
 |
The map above shows Wembley Park and its surrounding area in 1865. Apart from the small community around Wembley Hill, it was mainly farms, with two large Victorian houses along the Harrow Road. These had been built for wealthy men who liked to live in the country, but could take a train to the City from the London & Birmingham Railway’s nearby Sudbury (for Wembley) Station [now Wembley Central], which had opened in 1844.
Wembley Park’s farmland was managed for the Gray family by a bailiff, but there were no public paths across their estate, and they appear to have lived a quiet life. The area did attract some visitors, however. An 1837 guide described the “Green Man” as ‘a favourite Sunday resort for a respectable class of people.’ This popularity continued during Victoria’s reign, with its ‘panoramic view of the surrounding countryside, including the Metropolis and Windsor Castle.’ The picture of the inn below is the earliest known photograph of Wembley, taken in June 1862.
 |
5. The "Green Man", Wembley Hill, 1862. (Wembley History Society Colln., Brent Archives online image 714) |
In 1879, the Metropolitan Railway from Baker Street had reached Willesden Green, and the company wanted to extend their line. Rev. John Gray had little choice but to sell them a 47- acre strip of land across his estate, and the railway opened to Harrow in August 1880. Seven years later, Gray died, and as he had fathered nine children, his executors sold the Wembley Park estate in 1889, so the proceeds could be shared. It was bought by the Metropolitan Railway’s Chairman, Sir Edward Watkin, for £32,929 18s 7d.
Watkin’s dream was to build a railway from Manchester to Paris - one of his schemes managed to start building a tunnel under the English Channel in 1880! He had seen Eiffel’s new Tower in the French capital, and proposed to build an even taller one in London. His Tower Company leased 124 acres of Wembley Park in late 1889, for use as a pleasure ground, and a competition was organised to design the Wembley Tower that would be its centrepiece.
 |
6. Some of the tower designs from the 1890 competition. (Brent Archives online image 4081) |
The tower had to be at least 1200 feet tall, and the first prize of 500 guineas attracted dozens of entries from Britain, Europe and North America. Although the prize was awarded to a British design, the judges thought that it needed some modification, to reduce its construction costs. When work began in 1892, the “winning” octagonal tower design ended up with just four legs, looking a lot like Monsieur Eiffel’s, but planned to be 150 feet higher.
While construction was underway on the tower, the rest of the pleasure ground was being laid out, including a large boating lake, a sports area and gardens. Watkin wanted those coming to enjoy the attractions to use his Metropolitan Railway, so a new station for Wembley Park was built. It was ready for when the pleasure ground opened in May 1894. The map below shows how Wembley Park looked then (compare it with thirty years earlier, above).
 |
7. A map showing Wembley Park and its surrounding area in 1895. (from Brent Archives – maps collection) |
It was May 1896 before the first stage of the tower, with a platform 155 feet above the hilltop, was opened to the public. That was as far as it got, owing to a shortage of funds and its feet starting to sink into the underlying clay. Other events to attract visitors included a cricket match against the Australian touring side in 1896, athletics and horse trotting races, and shows in the wooden variety hall, but attendances (120,000 in the 1895 season) were fewer than hoped.
 |
Figure 8. Postcard of the lake and tower, c.1900. (Brent Archives online image 1662) |
 |
9. “Benny C”, winning a 10-mile trotting race at Wembley Park in 1902. (Brent Archives online image 7384) |
 |
10. A mandolin band at Wembley Park in 1904. (Brent Archives online image 9217) |
Wembley Park received some unwelcome visitors in 1900, when a group of protestors tried to claim possession of the land. A Mrs Davey had read about the wealthy family who once owned it, and had persuaded “subscribers” to back her plan to recover “The Page Millions”, in return for a share of the reward that would be due.
In 1905, a court case, in the name of James Page, distantly related to Richard Page of Wembley Park, was filed against the Metropolitan Railway and Tower Company. It claimed he was the rightful heir, denied his inheritance because of fraud by Henry Young. The case was dismissed in 1906, as anyone who felt they should have inherited the Page estate could have claimed it in 1829, or soon after. The claim would also have failed because Francis Page had sold Wembley Park to John Gray, so that it was not part of the alleged fraud by the solicitor.
The viewing platform of the Tower remained open to the public until 1902, when the lifts were deemed to be unsafe. It had already been nicknamed “Watkin’s Folly”. Sir Edward had died the previous year, but not before one of his other railway companies, the Great Central, had built a line alongside the Metropolitan, and planned a branch line from Neasden to Northolt. The photograph shows it being constructed, past the disused Tower.
 |
11. The Great Central Railway branch line under construction, c.1903. (Brent Archives online image 9253) |
The short life of the Wembley Park pleasure grounds was effectively over by 1906. The company running them even had to pay £1,200 to have the Tower dismantled, by Messrs Heenan and Froude who had built it. So what next for Wembley Park? The story will continue in Part 3, next weekend.
If you have any questions, or information on Wembley Park that you would like to share, please use the comments section below.
Philip Grant.
↧
Pavement widening - a tale of two boroughs
Kilburn High Road (Camden side)
South Kilburn resident Pete Firmin has been somewhat bemused by the pavement widening of Kilburn High Road by Camden and Brent Councils. The aim is to enable pedestrians to social distance on crowded locations.
On the Camden side he spotted the above very short piece of pavement widening. He noted that the widening stopped at every junction with a side road.
Next day Brent had a different idea, they closed off the side roads adjoining the High Road to traffic.
Pete commented, 'I'm not sure that's a good idea.'
↧
Harrow Council leader's straight-talking statement on wider re-opening of schools
The leader of Harrow Council has provided a model for what leadership on the wider opening of schools means:
 |
↧
UPDATED: Wembley Pavement Widening Mystery
Only days after barriers were erected to widen pavements in Wembley High Road they have been pushed back creating a barrier to pedstrians rather than helping them. The point of pavement widening was so that pedestrians could socially distance in a very crowded area.
Cyclists and pedestrians took to Twitter calling for an explanation and prosecution of any organisation or individual who had taken the law into their own hands.
UPDATE
Brent Council has responded to one of thse complained via Twitter:
We've passed this onto the relevant team who are going to send someone out today to move the barriers back to their correct locations and see if there's anything more we can do to prevent this happening again.
↧
↧
BBC London's report on Northwick Park Hospital's Covid19 response
↧
How Brent is coping with the Covid crisis and planning for the future
Hover over bottom line and click on right hand corner for full size version
Thanks to Dr Jonathan Flaxman for permission to post this presentation on Covid19
There were several strands to last night's Brent TUC meeting on Covid 19 zoom meeting: an awareness that Brent was one of the worst affected areas in the country, the disproportionate number of black and ethnic minority people who have lost their lives to Covid, a lack of faith in the government's ability to manage the crisis and a fear of a second wave of infections and deaths because of a premature relaxation of lockdown. On the positive side early ordering of personal protective equipment for care home workers by Brent Council and the return of infected care home residents to a special facility, rather than directly to the care home, had limited care home deaths in Brent. Many were keen to learn lessons from the crisis and rather than a return to old ways to support the 'Build Back Better' movement to put in place a better society which respects and values the public sector and retains some of the benefits of lockdown such as cleaner air and community cohesion.
Dr Jonathan Flaxman a retired GP and member of the National Covid Assessment Unit set the scene with the above Power Point presentation.
He was followed by Simon Hester, formerly of the Health and Safety Executive and now Haringey Trades Council, who spoke of workers' rights under the Employment Rights Act to remove themselves from danger. The government had moved the goal posts on construction workers, first insisting on a 2 metre social spacing, then relaxed that to a 15 minute limit on working in proximity to a co-worker, and followed that to approval of co-working as long as masks are worn. The ability of the HSE to inspect construction site working for compliance has been severely limited by government cuts - there are only 20 inspectors to cover the whole of London. The only alternative was for workers to organise collectively in order to protect themselves. Haringey TUC had set up a Covid Action Network.
Cllr Krupesh Hirani, Brent Cabinet member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure, said that at the beginning of the crisis Brent had the highest death rate. Croydon and Newham in London are high at present and rates in the North of England are mounting. On 8th May the figures for Brent stood at 446 deaths of which 362 were in hospital and 37 in care homes. The R rate (spreading of infection) is now lower in London and there are prospects of regional variation in relaxation of the lockdown. The disproportionate rates for BAME residents are under investigation and will be followed up by public health outreach work in the community. Likely factors are deprivation, diet and physical activity. The major issue arising out of the crisis for the council would be the impact on its finances with the government backtracking on early compensation commitments.
Cat Cray of the RMT, a train driver, said that a survey had found that Londoner's had the pooresr knowledge of government guidance on Covis19 in the country. There had been 4 deaths of London Underground workers - all black males. In response RMT had been able to have mitigation put in place. There have been 8 incidents of spitting at staff by the public. London has the lowest proportion of car owners in the country so are reliant on public transpoirt. Underground workers that going above 15% capacity on the tube will be unsafe for passengers. The withdrawal of concessionary fares was outright discrimination.
Lesley Stanfield of the GMB spoke about the national situation regarding care homes and how the government had acted too late. She reminded people that most care homes are 'for profit' and this was the case in Brent. As a consequence workers were low paid. Many care hoem staff had not bee given PPE or that which was given was rationed. She said that there had been constructive work with other unions over school workers and that it was important that headteachers consulted with their staff. She was fearful about about mental health issues airsing from the crisis.
Sonia Morgan, a bus driver said that after deaths of bus drivers, protective measures had been put in place, isolating the driver from passengers. There is now no swiping and the public are enjoying free travel but swiping is being introduced on the 'Boris' buses which have centre doors with swipe facilites. Currently TfL are running a Sunday service on most routes but the 98 is nownormal service and 260 will be normal from Saturday.
Jenny Cooper from Brent NEU spoke about the union's 5 tests to be met before safe re-opening of schools. These had not been met as cases were still not low enough and there was no detail on how 'test, track, isolate' would be implemented in schools and no guidance from Brent Council. Testing of staff had not been fully estabished and some teachers had been waiting for more than two weeks for results, There was no proper plan to protect BAME school staff. The union was adopting a 'safety first' approach and some schools had put back wider re-openung until June 8th or June 15th.
Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North said he supported the education unions' 5 tests and said that there was no compulsion for schools to go back until it ws safe to do so. He congratulated Brent Council on ordering PPE for care homes in February resulting in the second lowest care home death rate in London. On the furlough scheme he said that no one should be receiving less than the London Living Wage. He had written to the Home Secerary about the plight of families not entitled to support from public funds and had heard that applications will now be considred. The government had not been following the science from the beginning - in fact they had asked what they should do after early failures and were still not following the advice,
Dawn Butler, MP for Brent Central, said she was worried about a second peak in Brent - people were at risk as soon as they left the front door. Harlesden with its high rate of infection was to be a pilot for testing, including testing for anti-bodies, with a centre in Robson Avenue. There was a huge time delay at present between having a test and getting a result, a rapid reponse was vital for effective implementation of track and trace, She was concerned about rents, including for small businesses, domestic violence and post-Covid mental health provision for adults and children.
In discussion about the situation after Covid (the 'new normal') Pam Laurance of Brent Friends of the Earth said that people did not want to go back to pre-Covid times. She wanted to see investment in a Green New Deal. Dawn Butler supported this and said that bailing out companies such as aviation should be conditional. Dawn was supporting action to ensure that people in Brent would have access to face coverings.
Barry Gardiner said that the Covid crisis would pale into insignificance compared with what we would face in the climate change crisis. It was important to move towards 'Building Back Better' post Covid. He said that it was not just a question of aviation companies being required not to pay dividiends or go go off-shire but of taking an equity stake in them as had been done with banks in the credit crisis (there was disagreement over this in the 'chat' column with some feeling that this would mean the state colluding with the aviation industry in order to maximise its return on the investment).
Jenny Cooper said that over the past few weeks the NEU had held positive talks with Brent Council on how schools can be built into the environmental agenda.
Cllr Hirani said that closer work between unions and the council on a practical levels as a result of the crisis was something to build on. There was a need for the council to be fully compensated by the government for its expenditure on protecting residents - the government appeared to be going back on its initial pledge to local government. The bail out of TfL had involved too many concessions and revealed the government's political attitude towards the London Mayor. The government was being exposed in front of our eyes and it was important to keep up the pressure on them.
The meeting discussed a possible future meeting, to be confirmed by the Brent Trades Council Executive, to set up a Brent Against Covid Campaign. On chat I suggested it would be more positive to call it Brent Build Back Better Campaign.
Thanks to Dr Jonathan Flaxman for permission to post this presentation on Covid19
There were several strands to last night's Brent TUC meeting on Covid 19 zoom meeting: an awareness that Brent was one of the worst affected areas in the country, the disproportionate number of black and ethnic minority people who have lost their lives to Covid, a lack of faith in the government's ability to manage the crisis and a fear of a second wave of infections and deaths because of a premature relaxation of lockdown. On the positive side early ordering of personal protective equipment for care home workers by Brent Council and the return of infected care home residents to a special facility, rather than directly to the care home, had limited care home deaths in Brent. Many were keen to learn lessons from the crisis and rather than a return to old ways to support the 'Build Back Better' movement to put in place a better society which respects and values the public sector and retains some of the benefits of lockdown such as cleaner air and community cohesion.
Dr Jonathan Flaxman a retired GP and member of the National Covid Assessment Unit set the scene with the above Power Point presentation.
He was followed by Simon Hester, formerly of the Health and Safety Executive and now Haringey Trades Council, who spoke of workers' rights under the Employment Rights Act to remove themselves from danger. The government had moved the goal posts on construction workers, first insisting on a 2 metre social spacing, then relaxed that to a 15 minute limit on working in proximity to a co-worker, and followed that to approval of co-working as long as masks are worn. The ability of the HSE to inspect construction site working for compliance has been severely limited by government cuts - there are only 20 inspectors to cover the whole of London. The only alternative was for workers to organise collectively in order to protect themselves. Haringey TUC had set up a Covid Action Network.
Cllr Krupesh Hirani, Brent Cabinet member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure, said that at the beginning of the crisis Brent had the highest death rate. Croydon and Newham in London are high at present and rates in the North of England are mounting. On 8th May the figures for Brent stood at 446 deaths of which 362 were in hospital and 37 in care homes. The R rate (spreading of infection) is now lower in London and there are prospects of regional variation in relaxation of the lockdown. The disproportionate rates for BAME residents are under investigation and will be followed up by public health outreach work in the community. Likely factors are deprivation, diet and physical activity. The major issue arising out of the crisis for the council would be the impact on its finances with the government backtracking on early compensation commitments.
Cat Cray of the RMT, a train driver, said that a survey had found that Londoner's had the pooresr knowledge of government guidance on Covis19 in the country. There had been 4 deaths of London Underground workers - all black males. In response RMT had been able to have mitigation put in place. There have been 8 incidents of spitting at staff by the public. London has the lowest proportion of car owners in the country so are reliant on public transpoirt. Underground workers that going above 15% capacity on the tube will be unsafe for passengers. The withdrawal of concessionary fares was outright discrimination.
Lesley Stanfield of the GMB spoke about the national situation regarding care homes and how the government had acted too late. She reminded people that most care homes are 'for profit' and this was the case in Brent. As a consequence workers were low paid. Many care hoem staff had not bee given PPE or that which was given was rationed. She said that there had been constructive work with other unions over school workers and that it was important that headteachers consulted with their staff. She was fearful about about mental health issues airsing from the crisis.
Sonia Morgan, a bus driver said that after deaths of bus drivers, protective measures had been put in place, isolating the driver from passengers. There is now no swiping and the public are enjoying free travel but swiping is being introduced on the 'Boris' buses which have centre doors with swipe facilites. Currently TfL are running a Sunday service on most routes but the 98 is nownormal service and 260 will be normal from Saturday.
Jenny Cooper from Brent NEU spoke about the union's 5 tests to be met before safe re-opening of schools. These had not been met as cases were still not low enough and there was no detail on how 'test, track, isolate' would be implemented in schools and no guidance from Brent Council. Testing of staff had not been fully estabished and some teachers had been waiting for more than two weeks for results, There was no proper plan to protect BAME school staff. The union was adopting a 'safety first' approach and some schools had put back wider re-openung until June 8th or June 15th.
Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North said he supported the education unions' 5 tests and said that there was no compulsion for schools to go back until it ws safe to do so. He congratulated Brent Council on ordering PPE for care homes in February resulting in the second lowest care home death rate in London. On the furlough scheme he said that no one should be receiving less than the London Living Wage. He had written to the Home Secerary about the plight of families not entitled to support from public funds and had heard that applications will now be considred. The government had not been following the science from the beginning - in fact they had asked what they should do after early failures and were still not following the advice,
Dawn Butler, MP for Brent Central, said she was worried about a second peak in Brent - people were at risk as soon as they left the front door. Harlesden with its high rate of infection was to be a pilot for testing, including testing for anti-bodies, with a centre in Robson Avenue. There was a huge time delay at present between having a test and getting a result, a rapid reponse was vital for effective implementation of track and trace, She was concerned about rents, including for small businesses, domestic violence and post-Covid mental health provision for adults and children.
In discussion about the situation after Covid (the 'new normal') Pam Laurance of Brent Friends of the Earth said that people did not want to go back to pre-Covid times. She wanted to see investment in a Green New Deal. Dawn Butler supported this and said that bailing out companies such as aviation should be conditional. Dawn was supporting action to ensure that people in Brent would have access to face coverings.
Barry Gardiner said that the Covid crisis would pale into insignificance compared with what we would face in the climate change crisis. It was important to move towards 'Building Back Better' post Covid. He said that it was not just a question of aviation companies being required not to pay dividiends or go go off-shire but of taking an equity stake in them as had been done with banks in the credit crisis (there was disagreement over this in the 'chat' column with some feeling that this would mean the state colluding with the aviation industry in order to maximise its return on the investment).
Jenny Cooper said that over the past few weeks the NEU had held positive talks with Brent Council on how schools can be built into the environmental agenda.
Cllr Hirani said that closer work between unions and the council on a practical levels as a result of the crisis was something to build on. There was a need for the council to be fully compensated by the government for its expenditure on protecting residents - the government appeared to be going back on its initial pledge to local government. The bail out of TfL had involved too many concessions and revealed the government's political attitude towards the London Mayor. The government was being exposed in front of our eyes and it was important to keep up the pressure on them.
The meeting discussed a possible future meeting, to be confirmed by the Brent Trades Council Executive, to set up a Brent Against Covid Campaign. On chat I suggested it would be more positive to call it Brent Build Back Better Campaign.
↧
Schools should not reopen until coronavirus tests have been clearly met, says Green Party
The Green Party has urged local authorities not to fall in line with the Government’s timetable for reopening schools until the conditions for easing lockdown have been clearly met.
Green Party education spokesperson Vix Lowthion, who is also a teacher on the Isle of Wight, has said the health and wellbeing of staff and pupils is being put at risk by reopening schools before it is safe to do so.
Lowthion said:
Reopening schools on Monday will have an enormous impact on the health and wellbeing of thousands of families across the country, and so it is vital that any decision to do so is based on clear scientific guidance.Unfortunately, while the Prime Minister claims that the five tests for easing lockdown have been met, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser has said that the ‘R rate’ is still near 1. This simply does not make sense and it is not right that we are putting the lives of children and staff at risk based on such conflicting advice.The Independent SAGE group has also set out clearly why it is too soon to be opening schools.The government’s own five tests have a glaring omission of ensuring there is an adequate test, trace and isolate operation as recommended by the World Health Organisation. We are simply nowhere near that yet and until that is in place it is not safe to reopen schools.We know there are real issues with inequality and some young people falling behind, but this is about weighing up the risks and putting people’s health first, while doing everything we can to ensure those pupils who need more support can receive it in other ways.We are working with local Green parties and councillors across the country to put pressure on their local authorities not to fall in line with the Government’s timetable on schools reopening. Local decision making is vitally important, particularly if authorities need to be able to respond to local lockdowns in the future.
↧
NEU call on Brent Council to close schools except for keyworker & vulnerable provision pending safety assurance
The following letter has been sent to Brent Council by Brent NEU:
Dear Brent Council,
Yesterday the government has said that it is safe for schools to open on 1st June. But today the NEU has seen the Independent Scientific Experts' SAGE report (the link is below) which outlines how the government have failed to follow scientific advice. They go on to say that they believe IT IS NOT SAFE FOR SCHOOLS TO START WIDER REOPENING FROM 1ST JUNE.
The reopening model is not based on the modelling that the SAGE group carried out. It is also reliant on a lower "R" number than we currently have as well as an established track and trace system which is proven to be working.
Based on the many school risk assessments I have been consulted on this week, the problem with every single one of them is the lack of knowledge of how Brent's track, trace and isolation system will work and the lack of confidence amongst our members that it is even in place fully. This is through no fault of your own or the headteachers.
Sheffield council have joined 35 other councils today in stopping their schools from opening because they want to wait until track and trace has been in place for 14 days to know that it works. Sheffield currently has an infection rate of 434 cases per 100,000 people. Brent's rate is currently 444.4.
The "R" rate across the country is currently 0.7-0.9. The government's own SAGE advisers have stated that reopening of schools will cause this to rise up to or above 1 based on this rate. This will cause exponential growth again of the virus. That means hundreds of deaths in Brent including amongst our school communities.
Unions exist to protect our members by using our collective voice. We have a track record in lobbying for safety improvements and often notice and warn of dangers far in advance of companies, councils and governments admitting there are problems. This has happened in Brent in the past, for example, over exposed asbestos in Braintcroft, Sladebrook and Hay Lane Schools and there has been at least one case of terminal mesothelioma as a result of the dangers that we were exposing.
On the basis of this new scientific report (below), and the obvious dangers in the Brent community (the infection rate, the continuing rate of 3 deaths a week- the most recent being a teacher in a Brent school, and the high number of vulnerable people and people from black and Asian backgrounds as well as the knowledge that 28 people have died in Church End ward alone), regardless of the work that is being carried out on the schools' risk assessments (which we nevertheless support and will continue supporting in partnership with yourselves), the NEU is now STRONGLY URGING that the council stops any wider reopening of its schools until track and trace has been in place for two weeks and reviewed.
We have today, in line with our union's advice nationally, warned our members in Brent that the NEU believes THAT IT IS NOT SAFE TO GO IN TO SCHOOL (other than for the existing key worker/vulnerable children provision) next week.
They have been given this advice:
IF YOU ARE BEING TOLD TO GO IN NEXT WEEK (with or without children) this will probably mean that you may need to cite Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in an email to your headteacher. Members in Brent from several schools have already been doing this today. You are stating that you will continue to work from home until it is safer. YOU WILL BE PROTECTED BY LAW AND THE UNION IF YOU TAKE THIS ACTION.
Although Cllr Butt has stated in the Kilburn Times that he will protect any staff in this position, we would, of course, rather not have to take action perceived as putting us in conflict with the hardworking headteachers of Brent and yourselves. We therefore request, once more, that you join the other 36 councils in temporarily closing your schools to all but the essential provision for key workers and the most vulnerable. This, we feel, would go a long way towards preventing more deaths in our communities in Brent.
Jenny Cooper
Brent District Joint Secretary
Brent State Education Branch
National Education Union
↧
↧
Pressure mounts on Brent Council as Brent TUC calls for schools to remain closed until NEU's 5 Tests satisfied
Brent Trade Union Council has sent the following letter to Cllr Muhammed Butt (Leader of the Council) and Cllr Krupesh Hirani:
Following a recent online meeting organised by Brent Trades Council at which Dawn Butler MP, Barry Gardiner MP, supported by Tulip Siddip MP, trade unionists from Brent branches of the GMB, Unite, NEU, RMT and medical and health and safety experts spoke of the risks in Brent from the spread of the virus. The high numbers of deaths caused by poverty, a densely populated borough could see a further a spike if schools re-open on 1st June.
I urge you as Chair of Brent Trades Council to ensure Brent schools remain as they currently are catering for small groups of vulnerable pupils or for children of frontline workers.
I note that the governments in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and the authorities in Liverpool and Hartlepool are so deeply concerned that it is not yet safe for children, school staff, parents and our local communities to allow schools to do so that they have decided against this course of action. Some London local authorities have done the same. I believe Brent should do the same.
I believe that in proposing the phased return of primary pupils from 1st June onwards, the government has put forward a reckless timetable. The wider opening of schools should only go ahead when it is safe to do so. It is unconscionable to shift the responsibility for safety in schools and the wider community onto individual headteachers without a safe national framework.
The government has demonstrated a lack of understanding around the dangers of the spread of Covid-19 from schools to the family home, and from the family home to relatives and carers, and consequently the dangers of transmission to the wider community. There are too many clinical unknowns about how this virus impacts on children. The reports of a Kawasaki-like disease already linked to 100 cases in the U.K have caused great alarm to parents. The heartbreaking death of 8 month old Alexander Parsons has sent shockwaves across the nation. The death of one child alone is one too many.
Giving evidence to the Science and Technology Committee this week, the Department for Education’s Chief Scientific Adviser admitted the Government’s plan could risk spreading coronavirus since there is a "low degree of confidence" that children transmit the virus less than adults. It is simply impossible to apply social distancing to small children, who want to touch, play and hug. It is cruel to try to separate them, to tell them they may not touch each other, to take away their soft toys, and to not pick them up and comfort them when they fall.
Brent Trades Concil fully supports the National Education Union’s #FiveTests and believes there should be full disclosure of the advice relating to the re-opening of schools whether it is from SAGE, the schools sub division, some other combination of its members or from Public Health England (as suggested by the DfE’s Chief Scientific Adviser in his evidence) with any underlying scientific evidence, data or modelling on which that advice is based.
It makes little sense for children to return before September. It would be far better to be working collaboratively towards the implementation of safe conditions which would permit a safe 'wider opening.’ This should be the objective rather than a fixed date. This is what other countries including Scotland and Wales are doing.
Brent Trades Council welcomes your decision to support school staff who do not feel safe to return to work but as chair I ask you to support teaching staff and parents alike in insisting that schools remain closed until the NEU’s #FiveTests have been satisfied. I look forward to hearing your thoughts in response to the concerns raised in this email.
Yours sincerely,
Mary Adossides
Chair
Brent Trades Council
Following a recent online meeting organised by Brent Trades Council at which Dawn Butler MP, Barry Gardiner MP, supported by Tulip Siddip MP, trade unionists from Brent branches of the GMB, Unite, NEU, RMT and medical and health and safety experts spoke of the risks in Brent from the spread of the virus. The high numbers of deaths caused by poverty, a densely populated borough could see a further a spike if schools re-open on 1st June.
I urge you as Chair of Brent Trades Council to ensure Brent schools remain as they currently are catering for small groups of vulnerable pupils or for children of frontline workers.
I note that the governments in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and the authorities in Liverpool and Hartlepool are so deeply concerned that it is not yet safe for children, school staff, parents and our local communities to allow schools to do so that they have decided against this course of action. Some London local authorities have done the same. I believe Brent should do the same.
I believe that in proposing the phased return of primary pupils from 1st June onwards, the government has put forward a reckless timetable. The wider opening of schools should only go ahead when it is safe to do so. It is unconscionable to shift the responsibility for safety in schools and the wider community onto individual headteachers without a safe national framework.
The government has demonstrated a lack of understanding around the dangers of the spread of Covid-19 from schools to the family home, and from the family home to relatives and carers, and consequently the dangers of transmission to the wider community. There are too many clinical unknowns about how this virus impacts on children. The reports of a Kawasaki-like disease already linked to 100 cases in the U.K have caused great alarm to parents. The heartbreaking death of 8 month old Alexander Parsons has sent shockwaves across the nation. The death of one child alone is one too many.
Giving evidence to the Science and Technology Committee this week, the Department for Education’s Chief Scientific Adviser admitted the Government’s plan could risk spreading coronavirus since there is a "low degree of confidence" that children transmit the virus less than adults. It is simply impossible to apply social distancing to small children, who want to touch, play and hug. It is cruel to try to separate them, to tell them they may not touch each other, to take away their soft toys, and to not pick them up and comfort them when they fall.
Brent Trades Concil fully supports the National Education Union’s #FiveTests and believes there should be full disclosure of the advice relating to the re-opening of schools whether it is from SAGE, the schools sub division, some other combination of its members or from Public Health England (as suggested by the DfE’s Chief Scientific Adviser in his evidence) with any underlying scientific evidence, data or modelling on which that advice is based.
It makes little sense for children to return before September. It would be far better to be working collaboratively towards the implementation of safe conditions which would permit a safe 'wider opening.’ This should be the objective rather than a fixed date. This is what other countries including Scotland and Wales are doing.
Brent Trades Council welcomes your decision to support school staff who do not feel safe to return to work but as chair I ask you to support teaching staff and parents alike in insisting that schools remain closed until the NEU’s #FiveTests have been satisfied. I look forward to hearing your thoughts in response to the concerns raised in this email.
Yours sincerely,
Mary Adossides
Chair
Brent Trades Council
↧
The Wembley Park Story - Part 3
The third part of Philip Grant's series on the history of Wembley Park
![]()
![]()
![]()
The Wembley Park Estate got off to a slow start, with some houses being built in Oakington Avenue and Wembley Park Drive by 1910. After a passenger station opened on the Great Central Railway in 1906, there were also plans for a large garden suburb at Wembley Hill, just south of Wembley Park and its golf course, as shown in the advertisement below.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The British Empire Exhibition that King George V opened had pavilions representing almost every nation within it, from across the world. Many were designed in the style of buildings from those countries, and housed men and women displaying their crafts and selling their products, as well as performers giving a taste of a wide variety of cultures. The 1924 F.A. Cup Final was an all-ticket event, after the chaos of 1923, and fans could enjoy the newly-opened exhibition.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Philip Grant.
Welcome back to our journey through Wembley Park’s history. If you missed Part 2, “click” on the “link”.
After the failure of the Wembley Tower, the company was renamed the Wembley Park Estate Company in 1906. Its owner, the Metropolitan Railway, had electrified its lines the previous year, and was keen to develop spare land near its stations for housing. New roads to the west of the pleasure grounds had already been laid out in the 1890s, including Wembley Park Drive. This ran from the thatched lodge (built 100 years earlier, at the start of Repton’s gravel drive to the Wembley Park mansion) to the station.
1. The Lodge at the start of Wembley Park Drive, with sign to station, c.1900. (Brent Archives image 7742)
From 1907, the estate company began selling off plots of land to builders, clearing away many of the trees and the existing buildings. The “White House” had been used by a group of Catholic nuns from France since 1905, when they were expelled from their convent under a new French law separating Church and State. They had to leave, so that John Gray’s mansion could be demolished in 1908, to make way for Manor Drive.
In the former pleasure park, the Variety Hall had been leased by the Walturdaw Company in 1907, for use as a film studio. Early cinema film was highly flammable, and the wooden building burnt down in 1911! From 1909, the grounds were used for training camps by Territorial Army forces. Then, in 1912, much of the site became the 18-hole Wembley Park Golf Club.
2. Ladies playing golf at the Wembley Park Golf Club, c.1914. (Brent Archives online image 10000)
3. Wembley Hill Station, Wembley Hill Road, colourised postcard c.1908. (Brent Archives online image 7202)
The Wembley Park Estate got off to a slow start, with some houses being built in Oakington Avenue and Wembley Park Drive by 1910. After a passenger station opened on the Great Central Railway in 1906, there were also plans for a large garden suburb at Wembley Hill, just south of Wembley Park and its golf course, as shown in the advertisement below.
4. Advertisement for Wembley Hill Garden Suburb, in 1914. (Brent Archives – Wembley History Soc. Colln.)
Wembley Urban District Council also had ideas for the former pleasure grounds, and set up a committee to prepare plans for a high-class garden suburb there as well. They had tried to buy part of the site as a public park, but could not agree a price with the estate company. Instead, they bought two fields from a farm in Blind Lane, and in July 1914 Queen Alexandra opened the park, named after her late husband, King Edward VII. The new park was beside the recently opened Blind Lane Council School, which like the road was renamed, Park Lane.
When war broke out, that same summer, all house building work came to a halt. By 1920, housing development in the area was proceeding again at pace, and not just on the former Wembley Park land. The Read family had been farmers in Wembley for centuries, including as tenants of the Pages. In 1922, the remainder of the farm they rented (part of which they had lost for the park) was sold off. John Read, who was born at Elm Tree Farm (near the junction with Wembley Hill Road) fifty years earlier, emigrated with his family to Australia.
5. Elm Tree Farm, Park Lane, in 1922. (Photo by Kuno Reitz, W.H.S. Colln., Brent Archives online image 9225)
One reason for the rapid increase in house building was the efforts of the Metropolitan Railway to promote districts along its line as “Metro-land”, healthy suburbs that gave easy access “to town”. Another reason was the efforts of Wembley building firms such as Comben & Wakeling. The accessibility of Wembley Park to the centre of the capital, and the large size of the former pleasure grounds, was also a key factor in its choice, in 1921, as the site for a huge exhibition.
6. Wembley Park housing adverts, from the 1922 edition of "Metro-land". (Brent Archives – W.H.S. Colln.)
Ideas for a British Empire Exhibition had come together the previous year, with the promise of Government support. As well as promoting trade, its aim was ‘to enable all who owe allegiance to the British flag to meet on common ground and learn to know each other.’ The Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII), who was President of the organising committee, was keen that the exhibition should include ‘a great national sports ground’, and work began on this in 1922.
The Empire Stadium was completed in time for the F.A. Cup Final in April 1923, but the rest of the exhibition area was still a building site. Work had been delayed, because sections of the golf course fairways had been fenced off, to provide the first turf for the football pitch. It was thought that the stadium’s 125,000 capacity would be enough, as it was twice the size of the Stamford Bridge ground where recent finals had been played, but around 200.000 fans came to Wembley for the match. The few local pubs nearby did a roaring trade!
7. Outside the old Greyhound pub, High Street, on Cup Final day, April 1923. (Brent Archives image 9444)
Over the next year around 15,000 men, 70% previously unemployed ex-servicemen, laboured to construct the numerous exhibition buildings, and to landscape the 216-acre site. Just as it had been for the stadium, reinforced concrete was the main material used, with thousands of tons of ballast transported down the Metropolitan Railway from a huge gravel pit near Rickmansworth. Most of the buildings were ready when the exhibition opened on 23 April 1924.
8. Panoramic view of the exhibition site, from the cover of a BEE booklet. (Brent Archives – W.H.S. Colln.)
Topical Budget: "King Opens Empire Exhibition Wembley" (1924)
(Click bottom right square for full screen)
(Click bottom right square for full screen)
The British Empire Exhibition that King George V opened had pavilions representing almost every nation within it, from across the world. Many were designed in the style of buildings from those countries, and housed men and women displaying their crafts and selling their products, as well as performers giving a taste of a wide variety of cultures. The 1924 F.A. Cup Final was an all-ticket event, after the chaos of 1923, and fans could enjoy the newly-opened exhibition.
9. Cutting showing Burmese dancers performing for 1924 FA Cup fans. (Brent Archives – W.H.S. Colln.)
North of the artificial lake, that crossed the site from east to west, there were large “Palaces” displaying Britain’s Art, Industry and Engineering. Next to these was a huge amusement park, which as well as thrill rides had full size replicas of a coal mine, and of the recently discovered tomb of the Egyptian pharaoh, Tutankhamen. Many maps were produced to help visitors find their way around the attractions. Today, if you wanted to visit where Huntley & Palmer’s biscuits had been made, you would have to wait until Wembley Library reopens, after the “lockdown”.
10. The Huntley & Palmers map of the British Empire Exhibition, 1924. (Brent Archives online image 5432)
Although the map above shows the main railway lines, it gave no information about the other innovations being tried out to transport visitors around the large exhibition site. The Neverstop Railway ran for two miles from the North Entrance. It was driven by a continuous corkscrew underneath the carriages, with the threads distanced so that it moved slowly through the five stations, allowing travellers to get on and off easily, but speeded up to over 20mph in between. Two million people used it, paying a flat fare of six (old) pence, with half price for children. A different system, the Road-Rail train, across the south of the site, was not a success.
You might be surprised to learn that there were also 200 electric buses. The “Railodok” cars had a driver, who took up to twelve passengers on a 20-minute tour round the exhibition. This proved very popular after the King and Queen had enjoyed the experience, driving quietly but safely through the crowds. These buses had a specially built garage, where their batteries would be re-charged – an idea that, nearly 100 years ago, was ahead of its time.
11. The Nigerians, rehearsing for the Pageant in the stadium, July 1924. (Brent Archives – W.H.S. Colln.)
Throughout the exhibition, the stadium was the venue for large scale shows. In July and August, it was the Pageant of Empire, which used thousands of local volunteers, in period costumes, to re-enact events from history. It was staged in three sections during the week, with all three being performed on Saturdays. Those who had come to Wembley from across the Empire joined a finale parade, and the photo above shows the Nigerians rehearsing their part. The animals for the Pageant were kept at Oakington Manor (Sherren’s) Farm. Wembley’s entire police force were called out one night, to round up 50 donkeys which had escaped!
Around 17 million visitors came to Wembley Park for the exhibition in 1924, and a further 10 million when it re-opened for the 1925 season. If you would like to find out more, there is a British Empire Exhibition section in the Brent Archives online local history documents. New Zealand, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and the West Indies are among the exhibitors you will find information on, as well as learning about Belo Akure, a First World War hero at Wembley. You can also see how Canada and Australia made use of refrigeration in their displays.
12. The exhibition's lake, with the Indian Pavilion in the distance. (Brent Archives online image 7326)
When the exhibition finally closed, on 31 October 1925, there was no plan in place for its legacy. The company set up to run it had made a loss, and a liquidator was appointed to sell off the buildings and other assets. Some of the pavilions were dismantled, and taken elsewhere to be re-purposed as factories, a restaurant and a dance hall. Attractions from the amusement park were sold to Blackpool and Southend, or just for scrap metal. Did Wembley Park have a future? Yes, it did – please join me next weekend to find out more!
Philip Grant.
↧
BREAKING: NEU calls on Government to step back from the brink and stop 1 June school reopening
From the National Education Union
Four prominent members of the Government’s own scientific advisory body have broken ranks to express worries about the safety of wider primary school opening on Monday.
SAGE members Professor Peter Horby, who is chair of the Government's New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG); Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Institute; John Edmunds, professor of infectious disease modelling at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Calum Semple, professor in Child Health and Outbreak Medicine have all expressed fears about the easing of lockdown.
On the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Professor Horby agreed with Professors Edmunds' and Farrar’s concerns, saying that SAGE has always been very clear that test, trace, isolate must be fully running BEFORE lockdown is relaxed. The system needs to be tracking most new cases, he said, following them up within 48 hours.
Professor Horby added that SAGE does not have a good handle on the role of children and schools in transmission and stated that returning to another lockdown would be much worse than delaying another two or three weeks until contact tracing is fully up and running.
Professor Edmunds said “There are still 8,000 new infections every day in England without counting those in hospitals and care homes… If you look at it internationally, it’s a very high level of incidence.
“I think many of us would prefer to see the incidence driven down to lower levels because that then means that we have fewer cases occurring before we relax the measures.”
Professor Farrar tweeted: “Covid-19 spreading too fast to lift lockdown in England. TTI [test, trace and isolate] has to be in place, fully working, capable [of dealing with] any surge immediately.”
Professor Semple said: “Essentially, we’re lifting the lid on a boiling pan and it’s just going to bubble over… We need to get it down to simmer before we take the lid off, and it’s too early.”
He also said that levels of transmission and hospital admissions are still too high. "I think a political decision has been made to tie in with when school was due to start, were everything normal, but it’s not normal."
National Education Union joint general secretaries Kevin Courtney and Mary Bousted said: “This public break by four prominent of the Government’s SAGE committee changes everything.
“No-one can now confidently assert that it is safe to open schools more widely from Monday.
“All four of these members of SAGE agree that there must a lower number of cases and an efficient system of contact tracing working before there is a relaxation of lockdown measures. Both these measures are included in the NEU’s Five Tests.
“Opening schools more widely runs the risk of increasing the R rate and therefore the level of risk to staff and to parents.
“That risk can only be mitigated if contact tracing is running successfully.
“We have made that case strongly to Government – and we have been supported by the BMA and by the Independent SAGE group in our concerns.
“Government replies that it is following the science. But this public break by senior members of SAGE, including by the chair of the NERVTAG committee, undermines that claim.
“School leaders, their staff and pupils’ families deserve better than this.
“Even at this late stage, we call on the Government to draw back from wider opening of primary schools from Monday.
“Instead we urge them to engage in talks with the profession and the unions, including the NEU, about how to open schools more widely once the contact tracing system is shown to be working.”
↧
Brent Friends of the Earth urge Brent Council to expedite bid for TfL greener transport funding
Fearful that Brent Council and its residents will miss out on potential funding for green travel plans (bids have to be in by Thursday), Brent Friends of the Earth have written to Brent's CEO, Carolyn Downs, leading councillors and officers with recommendations for such a bid:
Dear Ms. Downs,
The government is calling for a “step-change” in the roll-out of Active Travel measures, and that these should be taken “as swiftly as possible, and in any event within weeks”. Moreover TfL and The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, have launched the ‘London Streetspace’ programme to help residents switch to more sustainable forms of transport, reducing the pressure on other parts of our transport network. Immediate action is essential in reducing public transport to 20% to enable social distancing whilst travelling. As you know there is funding available from TfL and we are keen that Brent secures as much funding as possible to enable the changes that are needed. We hope there is time to consider the recommendations below on green travel as a necessary and timely response to the Climate Emergency declared by Brent council last July.
1. Put in place Clean Air Zones, with charging if needed.
2. Reduce car use through measures such as promoting car-sharing and the need to own and use a car through managing developments in the local plan. The Housing Minister has revoked the sign - off for Local Plans so we ask Brent to run counter to this and find alternatives to removing Green Space / Green Corridors within Brent.
3. Deliver a rapid transition of the council’s own fleet of vehicles to electric.
4. Require deliveries to the council to be by electric vehicles or bike (e.g. through setting-up a distribution centre for onward deliveries by clean vehicles).
5. Extended time limit on pedestrian green phase at every signalised junction for disabled pedestrians; these should run without needing to push the button.
6. Connected cycle lanes through major thoroughfares and parks, clearly painted with their segregation significantly improved through the use of wands, cones, armadillos, and planters and pop-up cycle parking should be encouraged, especially in areas of high pedestrian traffic. Major thoroughfares in turn should allow cycles in bus lanes, but no other (private) vehicles, with stiff fines for infractions; they should use 'swept path analysis' software to ensure cycling safety and viability; see LINK
7. The provision of cycle hoops and bike hangers to be accelerated on given residential streets, as long as two or more households are in favour, and in the parking lots of all schools.
8. For the safety of cyclists in Brent speed limits should be lowered, especially in residential areas and near schools, with increased enforcement and speed camera infrastructure significantly expanded; wherever possible, at intersections without traffic lights and the Council should consider banning turns to remove hooking danger, among the leading causes of injury and death among cyclists.
9. The Council should commit to converting existing parking to green spaces/ tree and hedge planting wherever possible, thereby simultaneously reducing car usage and improving air quality, and adopting weekly car free days and making all school streets car-free within 500 metres of schools with exemptions for people with blue badges/disability driving badges.
10. On top of air pollution, noise pollution is a public health issue pertaining to traffic. Brent Council should more aggressively devise and implement noise impact assessments and increase enforcement including fines for all vehicles with noise levels above 10 dBA and increasing fines for modified vehicle exhaust systems that make the vehicle in question noisier after it has been ‘type approved’.
11. The North Circular Rd/A406 should be a top priority for traffic reduction, as it contributes to dangerous particulate levels and noise pollution for all adjacent communities, bisects the borough in ways that make crossing exceedingly difficult, and is extremely un-user friendly to pedestrians and cyclists. Optimally, a trolley line should be placed in lanes for both directions, although this would need coordination with TfL and adjacent boroughs. More immediately, existing plans to sequester lanes in both directions for cycle and pedestrian use, with planters/shrubbery/green verges segregating these from traffic, should be implemented; and over/underpasses for cyclists and pedestrians greatly increased.
We urge you, therefore, to consider the above and prioritise green travel plans as quickly as possible. Where appropriate, funding should be sought from TfL – and where the changes are not the responsibility of the Council we urge you to lobby TfL for these changes. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the recommendations outlined in this letter. We appreciate regular updates and feedback on the subsequent Developments of your efforts.
↧
↧
Public Health Directors: Government misjudgement in lifting too many restrictions, too quickly will risk spike in Covid19 cases and deaths
I am publishing below the full text of the statement by the President of the Association of Public Health Directors on the proposed lifting of restrictions. LINK
COVID-19 has already taken a huge social and economic toll on our nation – and the reality is that it will continue to do so for some time.
We are at a critical moment. We need to weigh up the balance of risks between easing restrictions, to enable more pupils to return to school, more businesses to open and more social connections to happen, with the risk of causing a resurgence of infections.
Directors of Public Health are increasingly concerned that the Government is misjudging this balancing act and lifting too many restrictions, too quickly.
This is a new disease; evidence is still emerging and there is much uncertainty. However, based on what is currently known, several leading scientists and public health experts have spoken out about a string of recent national policy announcements affecting England which project a degree of confidence that many – including ADPH members – do not think is supported by the science.
Over the weekend we have seen signs that the public is no longer keeping as strictly to social distancing as it was – along with this, we are concerned that the resolve on personal hygiene measures, and the need to immediately self-isolate, if symptomatic, is waning. A relentless effort to regain and rebuild public confidence and trust following recent events is essential.
At a local level, Directors of Public Health (DsPH) consider that honest and open dialogue with their communities is integral to effectively containing COVID-19 and managing outbreaks. That focus must be echoed at the very top of Government.
The Government has set five tests, each of which must be regularly reviewed as restrictions are adjusted and eased. Here is our current assessment:
Firstly, the pressure on the NHS – and those that tirelessly and expertly work within it – has been significant but it has been able to cope with those who unfortunately need hospital treatment for the effects of COVID-19. The number of people in hospitals with COVID-19 is falling, and beds are available for those that require them.
Secondly, there must be a sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rate. While the first peak in deaths has passed, the downward trend is slow – particularly in care settings. Deaths are a measure of what happened roughly two weeks before – the effect of easing measures now will only become evident in two weeks.
The critical debate is about the third test – ensuring the rate of transmission of the infection continues decreasing to manageable levels (taken to mean R being well below 1). The rapid and multiple ways in which measures are being eased is likely to make it difficult to judge the cumulative impact on R.
As we saw in March, R can go above 1 in a very short space of time – and once it does it can take many months to bring it back down. The room for manoeuvre is tight.
The fourth aspect, ensuring supply of tests and PPE is able meet future demand, remains an enormous challenge. PPE manufacturing and supply chains are stronger, but shortages are still being reported and it is not clear that supply can meet new demand as different parts of society, public services and the economy open. While testing capacity has undoubtedly increased, we are not yet confident that the current testing regime is sufficiently effective in getting the priority tests done and the results to where they are needed to enable swift action.
Finally, the fifth test. A second peak cannot be ruled out – whether it will overwhelm the NHS is an important question to ask. But perhaps the even bigger one is, do we really want the same number of deaths again? The scale to date represents an unimaginable tragedy and we must do everything possible to limit further loss of life.
The ADPH has argued that an effective contact tracing system is vital to keep R consistently below one. We set out a ‘Statement of Principles’ to outline what needs to be in place to make this work. A huge effort is underway to establish such a system. We would pay tribute to valued colleagues at Public Health England, who have built on the contact tracing work they conducted at the start of the pandemic – and Dido Harding and Tom Riordan who have shown great energy and leadership in recent days. We also welcome the new Joint Biosecurity Centre to support action based on intelligence and there are welcome signs that local knowledge, insight and capabilities are more widely understood and recognised by the Government.
As ever, the ADPH will continue to be as constructive as possible and as challenging as necessary.
But, let’s be clear, the NHS ‘Test and Trace’ programme is currently far from being the robust operation that is now urgently required as a safeguard to easing restrictions. Directors of Public Health are working at extraordinary pace to develop Local Outbreak Plans. The ADPH will shortly be publishing a briefing paper setting out the guiding principles needed to shape – and implement – them. It is important to recognise that these plans will largely build on the health protection duties that DsPH already have. The work that has been going on throughout this pandemic, including managing outbreaks in settings such as schools and care homes and support for vulnerable people, continues day in and day out.
DsPH have proved themselves capable and ready to take on this leadership role and will develop and deliver local plans with the support and collaboration of local government colleagues and PHE regional teams, as well as the NHS, third sector and business.
Now is the time for steady leadership, careful preparation and measured steps.
The ADPH is calling for full implementation of all Phase 2 measures to be delayed until further consideration of the ongoing trends in infection rates and the R level gives more confidence about what the impact of these will be. There also must be a renewed drive to promote the importance of handwashing, social distancing and self-isolating if symptomatic, positive for COVID, or a contact of someone who is. And, additional assurance is required that the NHS Test and Trace System will be able to cope with the scale of the task.
The risk of a spike in cases and deaths – and of the social and economic impact if we have to return to stricter lockdown measures – cannot be overstated; this needs to be understood not only by the public but also by the Government.
COVID-19 has already taken a huge social and economic toll on our nation – and the reality is that it will continue to do so for some time.
We are at a critical moment. We need to weigh up the balance of risks between easing restrictions, to enable more pupils to return to school, more businesses to open and more social connections to happen, with the risk of causing a resurgence of infections.
Directors of Public Health are increasingly concerned that the Government is misjudging this balancing act and lifting too many restrictions, too quickly.
This is a new disease; evidence is still emerging and there is much uncertainty. However, based on what is currently known, several leading scientists and public health experts have spoken out about a string of recent national policy announcements affecting England which project a degree of confidence that many – including ADPH members – do not think is supported by the science.
Over the weekend we have seen signs that the public is no longer keeping as strictly to social distancing as it was – along with this, we are concerned that the resolve on personal hygiene measures, and the need to immediately self-isolate, if symptomatic, is waning. A relentless effort to regain and rebuild public confidence and trust following recent events is essential.
At a local level, Directors of Public Health (DsPH) consider that honest and open dialogue with their communities is integral to effectively containing COVID-19 and managing outbreaks. That focus must be echoed at the very top of Government.
The Government has set five tests, each of which must be regularly reviewed as restrictions are adjusted and eased. Here is our current assessment:
Firstly, the pressure on the NHS – and those that tirelessly and expertly work within it – has been significant but it has been able to cope with those who unfortunately need hospital treatment for the effects of COVID-19. The number of people in hospitals with COVID-19 is falling, and beds are available for those that require them.
Secondly, there must be a sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rate. While the first peak in deaths has passed, the downward trend is slow – particularly in care settings. Deaths are a measure of what happened roughly two weeks before – the effect of easing measures now will only become evident in two weeks.
The critical debate is about the third test – ensuring the rate of transmission of the infection continues decreasing to manageable levels (taken to mean R being well below 1). The rapid and multiple ways in which measures are being eased is likely to make it difficult to judge the cumulative impact on R.
As we saw in March, R can go above 1 in a very short space of time – and once it does it can take many months to bring it back down. The room for manoeuvre is tight.
The fourth aspect, ensuring supply of tests and PPE is able meet future demand, remains an enormous challenge. PPE manufacturing and supply chains are stronger, but shortages are still being reported and it is not clear that supply can meet new demand as different parts of society, public services and the economy open. While testing capacity has undoubtedly increased, we are not yet confident that the current testing regime is sufficiently effective in getting the priority tests done and the results to where they are needed to enable swift action.
Finally, the fifth test. A second peak cannot be ruled out – whether it will overwhelm the NHS is an important question to ask. But perhaps the even bigger one is, do we really want the same number of deaths again? The scale to date represents an unimaginable tragedy and we must do everything possible to limit further loss of life.
The ADPH has argued that an effective contact tracing system is vital to keep R consistently below one. We set out a ‘Statement of Principles’ to outline what needs to be in place to make this work. A huge effort is underway to establish such a system. We would pay tribute to valued colleagues at Public Health England, who have built on the contact tracing work they conducted at the start of the pandemic – and Dido Harding and Tom Riordan who have shown great energy and leadership in recent days. We also welcome the new Joint Biosecurity Centre to support action based on intelligence and there are welcome signs that local knowledge, insight and capabilities are more widely understood and recognised by the Government.
As ever, the ADPH will continue to be as constructive as possible and as challenging as necessary.
But, let’s be clear, the NHS ‘Test and Trace’ programme is currently far from being the robust operation that is now urgently required as a safeguard to easing restrictions. Directors of Public Health are working at extraordinary pace to develop Local Outbreak Plans. The ADPH will shortly be publishing a briefing paper setting out the guiding principles needed to shape – and implement – them. It is important to recognise that these plans will largely build on the health protection duties that DsPH already have. The work that has been going on throughout this pandemic, including managing outbreaks in settings such as schools and care homes and support for vulnerable people, continues day in and day out.
DsPH have proved themselves capable and ready to take on this leadership role and will develop and deliver local plans with the support and collaboration of local government colleagues and PHE regional teams, as well as the NHS, third sector and business.
Now is the time for steady leadership, careful preparation and measured steps.
The ADPH is calling for full implementation of all Phase 2 measures to be delayed until further consideration of the ongoing trends in infection rates and the R level gives more confidence about what the impact of these will be. There also must be a renewed drive to promote the importance of handwashing, social distancing and self-isolating if symptomatic, positive for COVID, or a contact of someone who is. And, additional assurance is required that the NHS Test and Trace System will be able to cope with the scale of the task.
The risk of a spike in cases and deaths – and of the social and economic impact if we have to return to stricter lockdown measures – cannot be overstated; this needs to be understood not only by the public but also by the Government.
↧
Challenges facing school leaders over phased return to school - NFER findings
From the NFER by Caroline Sharp, David Sims, Simon Rutt
On 10th May the Prime Minister announced a phased return of some children to school In England from 1st June. Schools have been closed to all but vulnerable and keyworker children since 20th March, meaning that most children have been educated at home for a period of ten weeks, and some year groups are not expected to return to school until the autumn.
Nevertheless, opening their schools to selected year groups (Nursery, Reception, Year 1 and 6 in primary schools and Year 10 and 12 pupils in secondary schools) as well as continuing on-site provision for vulnerable and keyworker children and providing distance learning for others is a considerable challenge for school leaders. In this report we set out our initial findings on how prepared school leaders are for opening more fully, what challenges they face and what guidance and support they need.
This report is based on findings from a national survey of 1,233 senior leaders in publicly-funded, mainstream primary and secondary schools in England. Responses between 7th and 17th May have been weighted by phase and free school meal (FSM) eligibility to provide a nationally representative picture. Note that because senior leaders were answering questions over a ten-day period, some responses pre-date the Prime Minister’s announcement on the 10th May and the publication of DfE guidance from the 12th to the 25th May
(DfE,2020a-f).
Senior leaders predict that when schools open to more pupils, 46 per cent of families, on average, will keep their children at home:Senior leaders with the highest proportion of free school meal (FSM) pupils estimate that more of their children’s families will keep them at home (50 per cent on average) compared with an average estimate of 42 per cent from leaders with the lowest proportion of FSM pupils. This raises concerns that pupils in most need of access to education will be least likely to receive it. In line with the advice from SAGE (2020), clear messages will be needed from Government to encourage families to allow their children to return.
Before schools were closed to the majority, the pandemic had the greatest impact on schools serving the most deprived pupils:Before 20 March, leaders from schools with the highest proportion of FSM pupils were more likely to report that they had experienced a significant drop in numbers of pupils attending school (73 per cent) than those with the lowest proportion of FSM pupils (57 per cent). This suggests that the differential impact of the pandemic on disadvantaged pupils dates back to the period before lockdown.
Most school leaders feel unprepared for resuming a range of activities when more pupils return to school:
School leaders feel least prepared for managing pupil movement around school (66 per cent) and organising school space to enable social distancing (65 per cent). However, 65 per cent of primary and 73 per cent of secondary leaders think it would be at least somewhat feasible to operate a rota with different year groups or classes in school on different days. This suggests that school leaders might be willing to adopt the option explored by SAGE (2020) for schools to split classes and rotate attendance every one or two weeks.
Opening to more pupils in June considered less feasible for primary schools:In May, only 18 per cent of primary school leaders felt it was very/entirely feasible to open their schools to more pupils this month. Some commented that it is simply not possible for them to ensure social distancing because children are too young to understand the rules and/or their school buildings are unsuitable. Recent Government guidance has aimed to address some of the concerns of primary schools, particularly around enforcing social distancing for young children.
Primary school leaders will also find it harder to manage a combination of face-to-face and distance learning (66 per cent of primary leaders felt unprepared for this compared with 52 per cent of secondary leaders). Secondary leaders are more positive about opening their schools’ to more pupils, with 37 per cent saying this is very/entirely feasible. It should be noted that secondary schools are being asked to take fewer year groups and not every day.
The findings suggest that the pandemic has had a greater impact on schools in the West Midlands, North West and London:School leaders were most likely to report some impact from Covid-19 on their schools in terms of the availability of staff and pupil attendance prior to 20 March if they were based in the West Midlands (84 per cent), London (82 per cent) and the North West (79 per cent) compared with school leaders in the East Midlands (61 per cent). School leaders were also more likely to estimate that a higher percentage of families would keep their children at home if they were based in the North West (50 per cent on average) compared with leaders in the South West (41 per cent on average).
Frequent cleaning and handwashing most essential safety measures:Most senior leaders say that frequent cleaning (96 per cent) and regular handwashing/sanitising (94 per cent) are very necessary/essential for safety when opening their schools to more pupils. Over half (56 per cent) consider it very necessary/essential to have access to personal protective equipment (PPE), although recent government guidance has sought to address this issue. Most feel at least somewhat prepared for maintaining hygiene when they open their schools to more pupils (66 per cent).
Senior leaders want the Government to provide clear, detailed and realistic guidance to schools on opening to more pupils:
Senior leaders want information from the Government (and to a lesser extent from local authorities and trusts) on how to manage social distancing. They want to know what is expected of schools, and under what circumstances there is flexibility for leaders to reduce the number of pupils on site. Recent government guidance may have addressed some of these issues.
On 10th May the Prime Minister announced a phased return of some children to school In England from 1st June. Schools have been closed to all but vulnerable and keyworker children since 20th March, meaning that most children have been educated at home for a period of ten weeks, and some year groups are not expected to return to school until the autumn.
Nevertheless, opening their schools to selected year groups (Nursery, Reception, Year 1 and 6 in primary schools and Year 10 and 12 pupils in secondary schools) as well as continuing on-site provision for vulnerable and keyworker children and providing distance learning for others is a considerable challenge for school leaders. In this report we set out our initial findings on how prepared school leaders are for opening more fully, what challenges they face and what guidance and support they need.
This report is based on findings from a national survey of 1,233 senior leaders in publicly-funded, mainstream primary and secondary schools in England. Responses between 7th and 17th May have been weighted by phase and free school meal (FSM) eligibility to provide a nationally representative picture. Note that because senior leaders were answering questions over a ten-day period, some responses pre-date the Prime Minister’s announcement on the 10th May and the publication of DfE guidance from the 12th to the 25th May
(DfE,2020a-f).
Key Findings
School leaders have fewer teaching staff available at a time when they need more:In May, school leaders were operating with 75 per cent of their normal teaching capacity. Over a fifth (29 per cent) of teachers who are available to work are only able to work at home. Senior leaders explained that they will need extra staff to teach and supervise pupils while on site, provide distance learning for pupils at home and/or cover for absent staff, plus additional funding to pay for this. This will affect schools’ ability to provide the same level of teaching quality and curriculum breadth, as well as managing more teaching in school alongside continuing support for remote learning.Senior leaders predict that when schools open to more pupils, 46 per cent of families, on average, will keep their children at home:Senior leaders with the highest proportion of free school meal (FSM) pupils estimate that more of their children’s families will keep them at home (50 per cent on average) compared with an average estimate of 42 per cent from leaders with the lowest proportion of FSM pupils. This raises concerns that pupils in most need of access to education will be least likely to receive it. In line with the advice from SAGE (2020), clear messages will be needed from Government to encourage families to allow their children to return.
Before schools were closed to the majority, the pandemic had the greatest impact on schools serving the most deprived pupils:Before 20 March, leaders from schools with the highest proportion of FSM pupils were more likely to report that they had experienced a significant drop in numbers of pupils attending school (73 per cent) than those with the lowest proportion of FSM pupils (57 per cent). This suggests that the differential impact of the pandemic on disadvantaged pupils dates back to the period before lockdown.
Most school leaders feel unprepared for resuming a range of activities when more pupils return to school:
School leaders feel least prepared for managing pupil movement around school (66 per cent) and organising school space to enable social distancing (65 per cent). However, 65 per cent of primary and 73 per cent of secondary leaders think it would be at least somewhat feasible to operate a rota with different year groups or classes in school on different days. This suggests that school leaders might be willing to adopt the option explored by SAGE (2020) for schools to split classes and rotate attendance every one or two weeks.
Opening to more pupils in June considered less feasible for primary schools:In May, only 18 per cent of primary school leaders felt it was very/entirely feasible to open their schools to more pupils this month. Some commented that it is simply not possible for them to ensure social distancing because children are too young to understand the rules and/or their school buildings are unsuitable. Recent Government guidance has aimed to address some of the concerns of primary schools, particularly around enforcing social distancing for young children.
Primary school leaders will also find it harder to manage a combination of face-to-face and distance learning (66 per cent of primary leaders felt unprepared for this compared with 52 per cent of secondary leaders). Secondary leaders are more positive about opening their schools’ to more pupils, with 37 per cent saying this is very/entirely feasible. It should be noted that secondary schools are being asked to take fewer year groups and not every day.
The findings suggest that the pandemic has had a greater impact on schools in the West Midlands, North West and London:School leaders were most likely to report some impact from Covid-19 on their schools in terms of the availability of staff and pupil attendance prior to 20 March if they were based in the West Midlands (84 per cent), London (82 per cent) and the North West (79 per cent) compared with school leaders in the East Midlands (61 per cent). School leaders were also more likely to estimate that a higher percentage of families would keep their children at home if they were based in the North West (50 per cent on average) compared with leaders in the South West (41 per cent on average).
Frequent cleaning and handwashing most essential safety measures:Most senior leaders say that frequent cleaning (96 per cent) and regular handwashing/sanitising (94 per cent) are very necessary/essential for safety when opening their schools to more pupils. Over half (56 per cent) consider it very necessary/essential to have access to personal protective equipment (PPE), although recent government guidance has sought to address this issue. Most feel at least somewhat prepared for maintaining hygiene when they open their schools to more pupils (66 per cent).
Senior leaders want the Government to provide clear, detailed and realistic guidance to schools on opening to more pupils:
Senior leaders want information from the Government (and to a lesser extent from local authorities and trusts) on how to manage social distancing. They want to know what is expected of schools, and under what circumstances there is flexibility for leaders to reduce the number of pupils on site. Recent government guidance may have addressed some of these issues.
↧
Brent Council to give households on Council Tax Support £150 towards their bill
From Brent Council
Today Brent Council is implementing a scheme that will provide over 7,000 households in need of emergency financial support with a one-off payment of £150 towards their Council Tax bill.
The credits will be made to accounts of working-age Council Tax payers who are eligible for Brent’s Council Tax Support scheme. The emergency funding will also apply to eligible new claims made for Council Tax Support from 1 April 2020 until 31 March 2021.
These households will shortly receive an updated Council Tax bill, showing reductions in payments totalling £1.3 million.
The money that enables the council to do this was made available by the Government and is ring-fenced for this purpose.
Councillor Eleanor Southwood, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, said:
Visit our website for more information about the financial support available to residents during the Coronavirus outbreak or to apply for the Council Tax Support Scheme.
Today Brent Council is implementing a scheme that will provide over 7,000 households in need of emergency financial support with a one-off payment of £150 towards their Council Tax bill.
The credits will be made to accounts of working-age Council Tax payers who are eligible for Brent’s Council Tax Support scheme. The emergency funding will also apply to eligible new claims made for Council Tax Support from 1 April 2020 until 31 March 2021.
These households will shortly receive an updated Council Tax bill, showing reductions in payments totalling £1.3 million.
The money that enables the council to do this was made available by the Government and is ring-fenced for this purpose.
Councillor Eleanor Southwood, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, said:
Households across Brent have been hit extremely hard by this pandemic. Already, over 750 additional households have joined Brent’s Council Tax Support scheme, which just goes to show that money is a big worry for lots of people at the moment.”
This Government grant makes it possible for us to help out that little bit more. The economic and emotional costs of the pandemic are huge and growing and I look forward to working with the Government to find other ways to support Brent’s residents.”
The Coronavirus pandemic has shone a light on the deep rooted economic insecurity and inequalities our residents face. Earlier this year, I launched an independent Poverty Commission and, through this work, we are exploring what else needs to change to make a difference.”
I also want to reassure all residents that if your circumstances have changed or if you’re struggling and you need financial support, please look to us for help – visit our website or get in touch and we’ll let you know what options are available to you.
Visit our website for more information about the financial support available to residents during the Coronavirus outbreak or to apply for the Council Tax Support Scheme.
↧