A borough-wide network of community champions to tackle health inequalities in Brent has been announced by the council.

The Brent Health Matters programme aims to address health inequalities – which are avoidable, unfair and systematic differences in health between different people. The pandemic has not only exposed health inequalities, but in many cases made them worse.

The first wave of coronavirus arrived early in Brent and the borough was hit hard. The virus particularly affected deprived areas with a high proportion of BAME residents, with Church End and Alperton seeing the highest numbers of cases and deaths in the whole of London.

Work has already begun in Church End and Alperton with volunteers taken on as Community Champions to help connect local people with services that can improve their health and also to understand better what help and support people need. (See the case studies below for examples)

Cllr Neil Nerva, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure, said:

The Brent Health Matters programme is a joined up approach from Brent Council, NHS partners and the community to tackle health inequalities.

 

Community Champions sit at the heart of the programme – helping us understand the local needs and perspectives of these communities. We’ve already seen some great examples of acting on feedback from the community, including the launch of a health and wellbeing telephone advice line, myth busting communications, PPE supplies and events such as our webinars about the COVID vaccine.

Recently, Brent Council successfully bid for a share of Community Champions funding from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Brent received the highest share of all the 60 councils that were allocated funding across the country, with an award of £733,333.

Cllr Nerva explained: 

With the additional funding we will be able to rollout the programme from two wards to the whole of the borough.

This will see us recruit and train up to 40 paid Health Educators and launch a grants programme for community groups and individuals to develop new and innovative ways of addressing health inequalities.

 

We will also be able to develop a rolling programme of mental health and wellbeing awareness training and conduct a series of outreach days in our communities.

Medical Consultant with expertise in vaccines, Dr John Licorish has recorded this message for Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in Brent. If you have any questions about the COVID Vaccination Programme, please speak to a trusted person, such as your GP, or visit www.nhs.uk

Shepherd Construction's Capitol Way development as visualised 8 years ago(see Barry Gardiner's speech below)

Months of campaigning by leaseholders trapped in their buildings for want of an EWS1 safety certificate following the tragic Grenfell fire bore fruit yesterday when the Opposition  held a debate on the motion:

Unsafe Cladding – Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders

 

That this House
calls on the Government to urgently establish the extent of dangerous cladding and prioritise buildings according to risk;
provide upfront funding to ensure cladding remediation can start immediately;
protect leaseholders and taxpayers from the cost by pursuing those responsible for the cladding crisis;
and update Parliament once a month in the form of a Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State.

Lucie Gutfreund, a tireless local campaigner, co- leader of End Our Cladding Scandal and founder of Brent Cladding Action Group,  and a leaseholder in South Kilburn, told Wembley Matters today:

The End Our Cladding Scandal campaigners are pleased with the result of the Opposition Day debate and the resulting vote on protecting leaseholders from unfair costs of remediating unsafe buildings. Even if the approved Labour motion is non-binding, it puts pressure on the Government to abide by the motion in the best way they can. Brent MPs Barry Gardiner and Tulip Siddiq spoke passionately about protecting their constituents and pushing for those who are responsible for the cladding crisis to be made to pay to make buildings safe. Across Brent, thousands of leaseholders live in unsafe buildings and are facing bankruptcy from the extortionate amounts being asked. The highest amount we have heard of is approximately £100,000 per flat in a housing association development in Alperton. No one has this kind of money; this situation is breaking not just leaseholders' bank accounts, but also residents’ mental health.

She urged leaseholders of affected buildings in Brent to get in touch with the local cladding action group on the closed Facebook group    https://www.facebook.com/groups/713506399518392

    or email:

brentcladding@gmail.com

These are the speeches from Barry Gardiner, Tulip Siddiq and Bob Blackman in support of the campaign’s demands:

Tulip Siddiq (Labour Hampstead & Kilburn)

The pain of the Grenfell fire was felt very deeply in my constituencyof Hampstead and Kilburn. Those who died were our neighbours and our friends. Some survivors were rehoused in Camden and Brent and became part of our community. Then, one Friday night, shortly after the fire, thousands of my constituents had to be evacuated from the Chalcots estate in Swiss Cottage after it emerged that they had ACMcladding that was near-identical to that on Grenfell Tower. I ask all those on the Government Benches to consider what it must be like to live in a property that they know could face the same fate as Grenfell, and where a 24/7 waking watch patrol is required to make sure that the building is not on fire. That is the reality for many of my constituents living in the new-builds in and around West Hampstead Square, many blocks in south Kilburn and other parts of Brent, and over 70 private sector buildings in Camden that still have dangerous ACM cladding.

Perhaps the worst part of it is that the residents—the leaseholders—who had no part in creating this crisis, are being forced to pay to fix it and to pay for the waking watches, the fire safety measures and the replacement of the unsafe claddingthat threatens their lives. One constituent in Kensal Rise who bought their flat using the Government’s Help to Buy loan scheme wrote to me recently to say that they are being made to pay for claddingremediation works. As she so aptly puts it, it is

“a disgusting abuse that a government would aim to help so many and then bankrupt those they aimed to help by not legally protecting leaseholders from these costs”.

To add insult to injury, none of these people can sell their homes. Many others are unable to sell simply because they are being forced to wait many years for an EWS1 form. Lucie Gutfreund, a constituent of mine who co-founded the End our CladdingScandal campaign, told me that she and others are effectively trapped, facing crippling bills, and that the mental turmoil is ruining their lives and the lives of so many.

Grenfell was a tragedy. The Government’s response has been a travesty. I am urging Ministers to do what they can and what they should have done a long time ago: make these buildings safe, shield leaseholders from the costs and make those who installed dangerous cladding pay. Anything less is unforgivable.

 

Barry Gardiner (Labour Brent North)

Residents trapped in unsafe buildings are fed up with sympathy; they want action—certainly those in Elizabeth House, Damask Court, Capitol Way, and many other developments in my constituencydo. They know that this debate should not just be about who pays. Lord Greenhalgh has admitted that the Government’s building safety fund will not even cover one third of the cladding defects, and residents in Capitol Way know that this debate should not just be about cladding. This is about a whole range of fire safety defects that have turned their homes into a building site for the past three years, and threaten to do so for three years more.

The Ministerstarted the debate by saying that the Government “absolutely expect” building owners to do the right thing. Three and a half years on—really? The Government hold developers responsible. The developers hold the construction companies responsible. The construction companies hold the building control inspectors responsible, and the building control inspectors say that the Government privatised the system of building control, creating a downward spiral of monitoring and control, as inspection became a competition about who would let the builders get away with the most short cuts. Nobody blames my constituents, yet they are now paying for all those mistakes. They are unable to move house, unable to sell their homes, and unable to get on with their lives. They are trapped in unsafe accommodation, with no end in sight.

In advance of this debate I was sent documents that show that many of the fire safety defects that exist in the Capitol Way development were not mistakes. I have reason to believe that that was known by the construction company, Shepherd Construction, by the approved inspectors, Head Projects Building Control, which is now in liquidation, and by the project managers for the development, who were from CBRE. Those defects were known about and recorded in reports that were prepared for CBRE by its quality assurance agent. Those reports were then doctored. Evidence suggests that that took place before residents were moved into those unsafe properties.

Given that there was full knowledge of the statutory breaches of the fire safety elements of building regulations, it is clear that life was put at risk. I believe that therefore constituted a criminal offence, and that withholding such information from leaseholders, who purchased their apartments in good faith, was fraud by false representation. There was a duty to disclose that information, but no such disclosure was made. In my view, that means my constituents were victims of fraud.

In July 2019, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government issued a written statement to say that all cladding remediation would be completed by June 2020. Seven months on, instead of expecting building owners and the construction industry to do the right thing, the Government should wake up, impose a windfall levy on the industry, and get this work done.

Bob Blackman (Conservative Harrow East)

It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, who spoke about the inquiries that we have done—seemingly endlessly—over the past six and a half years. Three and a half years after the Grenfell tragedy, we still have leaseholders living in unsaleable, un-mortgageable, uninsurable, unsafe properties, and that is a disgrace that we have to put right. Progress on remediation has unfortunately been slow. It picked up last year, which is good news, but it has been slow and we still have buildings with unsafe cladding, which makes the homes almost impossible to sell, should someone so wish.

This is a complicated debate and a complicated issue, because we have ACMand non-ACM cladding and we have other fire safety issues, to which the Chairman of the Select Committee has referred. The Government, however, are responsible for two things that are important in this process: first, the testing regime, which is not fit for purpose and needs fundamental reform to ensure that cladding and other things that are put in buildings are safe; and secondly, the building regulations that control them.

We have a problem with building ownership, which is complex and unclear, with many buildings owned by offshore trusts and other organisations. We have to deal with those particular issues, but it is fundamental that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny piece towards the cost of remediating unsafe cladding.

The Government have rightly come forward with the Fire Safety Bill and the Building Safety Bill, and I sat through the pre-legislative scrutiny on the Building Safety Bill. The problem with the Building Safety Bill is that it will take a very long time before it comes into law and is actually put into practice. If the Government are against the amendments to the Fire Safety Bill tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen(Royston Smith) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), they are honour bound to come forward with alternative amendments that meet the fundamental principle that leaseholders should not pay.

The key is this: what do we do for the people who are in this position? Surveys cost an enormous amount of money. The industry cannot have the capacity at the moment to rectify all the damage that has been done. What is clear is that we need to ensure that the building owners and those responsible foot the bill. We have to end self-certification of buildings. It is unacceptable that building developers can just self-certify that their buildings are safe and are within the scope. We have to make sure that the Government extend the building safety fund into next year, increase the amount of money available, and make sure that the work is done—if necessary, taking over these buildings, remediating them, and then turning them into commonhold so that the leaseholders know that they have a safe building and are not paying a penny.

Bob Blackman, along with other Tories, did not vote in the denate. Dawn Butler Mo, joined her fellow Brent MPs in voting for the motion.

Meanwhile leaseholders and shared ownership residents at the Quadrant Court and Forum House buildings in Wembley Park, the first new builds to be completed in the regeneration, heard the bad news from landlords First Port that the fire risk survey of the blocks could only achieve a ‘B2’ EWS1.  First Port said: 

As you know, we recently commissioned an intrusive survey to find out more information about the external wall system at Quadrant Court. This information is needed as part of the process to obtain an EWS1 form for your building, as a result of the Government’s changing guidance on building and fire safety. 

 

The intrusive survey has now been completed and an independent fire engineer has reviewed the findings. The survey has advised that there are concerns regarding certain aspects of the external wall system. This means that the specialist engineer can only grant a ‘B2’ EWS1 form at the moment, which unfortunately won’t satisfy a mortgage lender. 

 

However, the independent engineer has advised that there is no requirement for any additional fire safety measures for your building. This means there is no need for additional fire alarm installation, or a waking watch, which would have incurred significant cost. We have been advised that a further survey of the external wall system would be prudent with the possibility of raising the B2 rating to a B1, this will satisfy most mortgage lenders. This survey will be undertaken by the simplest means and carried out in the next couple of weeks.

 

In the event that the rating stays at B2, this would mean that the external wall system should be remediated in order to meet the latest safety standards. Once remediation is undertaken this should then satisfy the EWS1 requirements and enable an EWS1 form of a higher rating, which mortgage lenders should then accept, to be granted for your building. I have received clarification from Quintain that Quadrant Court was built to BBA certified standards upon completion in 2008. 

 

These measures are being undertaken as a result of recent changes in regulations made by the Government. 

 

Building Safety Fund 

 

As you know, Forum House and Quadrant Court were both registered with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) for the Building Safety Fund and we are delighted that Forum House has been invited to apply for funding. To put this into context 2,821 buildings were registered last year and only 294 have so far been invited to apply for funding, Forum House is in this group. 519 have submitted all the required information to MHCLG but are waiting for the invitation to apply, Quadrant Court is in this group. There doesn’t seem to be any reason other than time and due process that would dictate why one building over another is invited to apply so we are anticipating an invitation for Quadrant Court over the coming weeks. It is important to note that we will wait to understand the outcome of this application before starting any remediation works which could incur costs that we will turn to the fund to cover, however, the second intrusive survey can go ahead as planned.

Residents are in disrepute with First Port over charges for the works and made it clear that residents agreeing to pay for an intrusive survey  did not mean they accepted that they were responsible for paying for any consequential remediation works. At Quadrant Court work was needed on lifts and 44 fire doors had to be removed and refitted to be compliant according to the risk assessment.  

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

With the current lockdown restrictions because of the Covid-19 pandemic, many of us are having to stay at home, with the internet our main contact with the outside world. Our Brent Libraries are currently closed, but a small team from the Service is working hard to provide free online events for residents of all ages. You can find the details by “clicking” here.

Events in the programme include “Storytime & Rhyme” sessions every Tuesday morning for under 5s and their parents, "half-term" events for older children, "Coffee Morning" talks for adults on the first Wednesday of each month, and a number of evening talks. Before the onset of Covid-19, there were plans in place for me to give three more local history talks during 2020 at Kingsbury, Wembley and Willesden Green Libraries. 

I hope that these will all happen at some future date, but in the mean time I have plucked up the courage to give my first “live” talk online! This free event will be on Thursday 18 February, from 6.30 to 7.45pm, and anyone from Brent, or elsewhere, who is interested will be welcome to attend. You can get a few more details and register to attend the talk by “clicking” on the “link”.

You will see that this is not a Wembley local history story. It is about a book that is very special to me, written in, and about, my home town of Mugsborough (not its real name!). It is about the lives of working men and their families, in a south coast town, in the first decade of the Twentieth Century. The author, in the preface to his only book, which he never saw published, describes it here:-

You may wonder why an “old book”, written by a painter and signwriter more than 110 years ago, should be of any interest now. I would suggest that it has stories which still resonate today.

·       Building firms who cut their price to get a contract, then force their workers to rush and cut corners on the job, in order to make a profit, without a care for the consequences for those who will use or live in the building.

·       Working people who are not paid enough to allow them to enjoy a decent life.

·       Children who could go hungry for lack of a relatively small amount of expenditure, and a lack of care from those in power.

·       Working people who are “conned” into voting for candidates whose main concern is in looking after their own interests, and those of their rich friends.

Like all of my library talks, and articles, this one has plenty of illustrations. If you think it may be of interest to you, please check out the details, and sign up for this Brent Libraries online event. I look forward to sharing my talk with you on Thursday 18 February!

Philip Grant.

Cllr Anton Georgiou wrote to Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, three weeks ago to express concern over the impact of the Council Tax rise on low income families. Cllr Butt responded (click on image to enlarge):

This is Cllr Georgiou's letter:

 

Cllr Butt, Leader of Brent Council,  posted this on Twitter this evening:

Back in 2014 when Labour won a large majority in the Council election Barry Gardine MP for Brent North recognised the dangers of the almost 'one party' council.

 The Kilburn Times quoted him regarding the result of the election:

I’m thrilled, of course I’m thrilled but we need to be very careful.

It is a huge responsibility because a majority this big for any party means that we have to look within ourselves for the sort of scrutiny that we need of the policies that we ourselves are proposing.

All of these people got elected because they managed to persuade voters they wanted to represent them in the civic centre on the council. They must remember their job is to represent the people to the bureaucratic (sic) of the council and not to represent the council bureaucrats to the people. 

We are here to be a critical voice to say where things are wrong and to set policy to change Brent for the better.

Gardiner wanted that scrutiny to come from Labour backbenchers but that has not been successful because critics are harshly dealt with (cf John Duffy, Abdi Abdirazak, Zaffar Van Kalwala) and opposition opponents resented and often insulted. Muhammed Butt does not have the same control over the opposition (although he has managed to co-opt the remeaining three Tories to a large extent) which is why he gets so angry when a young, energetic councillor (as it happens a Lib Dem) makes a splash and gains a huge amount of public support and respect - particularly when that happens as a result of a by-election after particularly grubby behaviour by the Labour candidate.

That is the background to the current spat between Cllr Butt and Cllr Georgiou (see yesterday's article.

I have no love for the Lib Dems or the Tories but in an almost one council state it is right for democracy that their right to have a different view to the administration is respected and that they are not undermined by snide comments and personal insults, and more than a hint of ageism. I am sure if our young and very able Green candidate had won he would have received the same treatment.

Wembley Matters has carried contributions from Labour, Tories, Lib Dems and Greens about local issues as I believe in debate and democracy. 

Cllr Anton Georgiou has now written to Brent CEO over the letter he received from Cllr Butt: (click on image for larger view)

The above video has been widely distributed on social media. It shows the queues for the Food Market held in the grounds of Alperton Baptist Church in Ealing Road on a cold Saturday morning. The volunteers are organised by the Sewa Day North London Charity. 

In the ancient Indian language of Sanskrit, Sewa means Service – a unique concept of Service – Selfless Efforts forWelfare of All. Sewa UK is a humanitarian non-profit service organization.

The Sewa Daydescribes the origins of 'Sewa':

Sewa is a universal concept, which involves performing an act of kindness without expectation of reward. It is performed selflessly and without ulterior motive. As a concept, Sewa in embedded in Indian traditions, and is actively promoted by different cultures and faiths – as the core belief is the same – to sacrifice your time and resources for the benefit of others without expectation of anything in return.

The queues along Ealing Road speak for themselves about the cruel impact of Covid19 and the resulting loss of jobs and closures of businesses  The many volunteers from different backgrounds  shows the Brent community at its best.

It is criminal that years of cuts in the welfare state have made such projects necessary.

If you would like to support Sewa North London's work donations cane be made here:  https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/sewaday-northlondon

 A key table from the on-line consultation

Tomorrow morning's Cabinet meeting will approve the budget proposals set out earlier which includes an overall Council Tax rise of 5.99% and £15.1m cuts. 

Council Tax

GLA Precept

In theory the budget is not approved until it goes to a full council meeting but in effect it will be approved tomorrow as Labour hold 94% of Brent Council seats and most Labour members won't say 'Boo to a butt.'

Usually the three person Conservative opposition fail to put forward anything like a fully costed alternative budget. This will be the first time the lone Liberal Democrat will have contibuted to a budget debate.

Often the debate turns into a fairly predictable political dogfight with initial grandstanding by the Council leader degenerating into political point scoring as if he is on the national stage - which is where he wants to be, of course.

The interests of residents get lost in the sound and fury.

 Much will be made of the fact of consultation - a Scrutiny Task Force, Audit and Standards Committee, two virtual Brent Connects Meeting and an on-0nline consultation but the Report by Minish Patel, airily states:

Having considered the various comments made, including through the consultation, scrutiny and equalities processes, officers have been instructed to proceed with the budget proposals as previously set out.

It's not entirely  clear who did the considering and who issued the instruction.

The fact that 59% of the on-line respondents disgreed with the budget proposals makes no difference and might explain why so few take part. Even if more did, the Council has things covered:

Comments and feedback on the budget consultation demonstrates a wide range of views, many common viewpoints and emphasises the fact that Brent residents are concerned over what the expenditure reductions mean not only for them but also for the wider community. 

And anyway:

All of these consultation responses are important. Members need to have regard to them, but are not obliged to follow the suggestions made. It is relevant to note that the consultees are, statistically speaking, “self-selecting” and therefore not necessarily reflective of opinion in the borough as a whole, nor are they necessarily statistically significant.

Although...

On the other hand, the people who have responded have chosen to take the time to review the Council’s proposals and to contribute their thoughts, and often their views will be representative of the views of a much larger number of people.

Notice that individual councillors and backbenchers are not mentioned in the list of consultees - that would have happened at a Labour Group meeting behind closed doors with attendees instructed not to leak to blog writers.

Concern over the plight of residents faced with another increase in their Council Tax is addressed in this paragraph:

While it is acknowledged that increasing Council Tax will be difficult for some households, it should also be recognised that the Council continues to invest in the Council Tax Support scheme, which provides over £30m of support for around 28,000 households who are financially vulnerable. In addition, the Spending Review announced £670m of new funding in recognition of the increased costs of providing local council tax support. Brent’s share of this has been confirmed as £4m and will be used to support economically vulnerable people and households in the borough.

Suggestions are made each year that the Council should use some ots reserves to fund basic services rather than increase the Council Tax. Finance Officers address the issue of reserves in this section of the report:

Brent held total reserves of £398m as at 31 March 2020. On the face of it this would appear to be a high figure, but the following analysis shows that in practice the figure for all practical purposes is substantially lower. £264m (66%) of these reserves are for the funding of the Council’s ambitious capital programme. £30m (8%) is legally ring fenced for bodies such as our maintained schools and the Housing Revenue Account. £69m (17%) of reserves have been earmarked for a specific purpose or future expenditure commitment. This includes reserves managed by departments (for example unspent government grants with ring fenced commitments set aside to meet expenditure pressures) and reserves used to smooth out expenditure that by its nature will vary considerably from year to year and avoid uncontrollable under and over spends, for example insurance claims, PFI contracts, redundancy and pension costs. £21m (5%) are reserves that are earmarked to manage the future funding risks and it was primarily set aside to manage the potential impact of the Fair Funding Review. As a result of the impact of COVID-19, this reserve may be required to manage any one off pressures arising that cannot be met through the growth built into the budget, as set out in section 5.16. Finally, £15m (4%) is a general reserve which is held as a contingency against unforeseen events (for example unexpected in-year overspends, failure to identify sufficient savings to balance the budget in-year or future funding risks) and to ensure that the Council has sufficient funds available to meet its cash flow requirements. The general reserve is relatively low when compared to other London Boroughs and is only c5% of the Council’s net budget.

The Cabinet Meeting is on Monday February 8th at 10am and can be viewed via this LINK

 Details of the savings (cuts?) and other documents can be found HERE 

This morning's Brent Council Cabinet agreed the Budget which now goers forward for ratification at the Council Meeting on February 22nd.

The far-reaching Borough Plan was approved without any discussion other than an introduction.  This will also go to Full Council on February 22nd.

The Draft Borough Plan is below (click bottom right for full page version):

More than a year after the Barnhill ward by-election a court hearing in relation to the Election Petition submitted by Stefan Voloseniuc and Kanta Mistry (Conservative candidates) is listed to take place on the morning of February 19th at a time not before 10.30am at the Royal Courts of Justice, in the Strand,

Carolyn Downs, Brent Returning Officer, has applied to the Court to request that the Election Petition be determined by special case and to effectively approve the outcome of the by-election.  The application will be considered by two High Court judges in the Queens Bench Division of the High Court on the morning of February 19th.

A recount of the by-election took place at the Royal Courts of Justice on July 16th 2020 and the provisional result of that recount cannot at present be divulged.

The Defendants in the case are Carolyn Downs (Returning Officer) and Mansoor Akram and Gaynor Lloyd the Labour candidates who were declared the winners of the by-election and are currently sitting as councillors for Barnhill ward, alongside Shafique Choudhary. 

The by-election was caused by the resignations of  Labour councillors Michael Pavey (former Deputy Leader) and Sarah Marquis (former Chair of the Planning Committee).

 BACKGROUND

Declaration of interest I was one of the Green Party candidates in the by-election (the other was Peter Murry). We are not parties to the petition.

A new walk-through coronavirus testing facility has opened for those with symptoms to book appointments at Northwick Park Pavilion in Brent, as part of the Government’s UK-wide drive to continue to improve the accessibility of coronavirus testing for local communities.

Testing at this site is only available for those with coronavirus symptoms – a high temperature, a new continuous cough, or a loss or change to your sense of smell or taste. Anyone with one or more of these symptoms should book a test at nhs.uk/coronavirus or by calling 119. The government is committed to continue expanding the capacity of the network of UK test sites and laboratories to make it even easier to get tested and reduce the time it takes to receive test results.

The new site is situated so it is easily accessible without a car. Those being tested will be required to follow public health measures, including social distancing, not travelling by taxi or public transport, practicing good personal hygiene and wearing a face covering throughout, including while travelling to and from the testing centre. 

Anyone attending an appointment at a walk-through test site will be provided with guidance on getting to and from the test site safely, with additional support for vulnerable groups and people with disabilities.

Testing at the new site started today, Tuesday 9 February, with appointments made available each day.

 Guest blog, by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:

A year ago, I wrote a guest blogwhich urged readers to go and see three tile mural scenes at Olympic Way in Wembley Park while they still had the opportunity. This also highlighted the possibility, mentioned in an email I had received from Quintain, that the “footballers” mural scene in the subway might still be covered up on occasions.

The “footballers” mural last week (on my way to get 

 first Covid-19 jab!)

I raised that question in an email to Brent’s Chief Executive and Council Leader on 16 February 2020, saying:

‘This "footballers" mural was meant to have been put back on permanent public display last autumn. The prospect of it being covered over with adverts again, particularly when England are playing at Wembley Stadium during the UEFA 2020 tournament, should be unthinkable!

I hope that Brent Council will do all within its power to ensure that the "footballers" mural, which includes the plaque unveiled by Bobby Moore's widow in September 1993, remains uncovered, particularly during England's UEFA 2020 matches at the Stadium this summer.’

A letter from Carolyn Downs on 2 March told me that 'the lease does provide Wembley Park with the scope to cover the footballers mural with advertisement dressing at certain points during the year, should a commercial opportunity arise.' I responded by telling her that although the lease might say that, the 2019 advertising consent did not allow the footballers mural to be covered. 

Ms Downs passed my reply to the Council’s Operational Director (Regeneration, Growth and Employment) to deal with. I explained in detail to this officer why the various planning and advertisement consent decisions did not allow adverts over the footballers mural. Her response was curt:

‘We have already set out our position on this. We disagree. I do not therefore intend to continue this dialogue.’

By that stage (23 March 2020) the country had just gone into its first Covid-19 pandemic “lockdown”. I decided not to raise a formal complaint, as Brent’s Chief Executive had more important things to deal with. I put this issue “on hold”, saying: 

‘'I will not pursue the point in this correspondence now, but may return to it once we are through the current emergency.'

One of the reasons why I have been campaigning, with fellow Wembley History Society members and others, to get all of the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals put back on permanent public display is this. They are a colourful celebration of Wembley’s sporting and entertainment heritage, specially installed in 1993 as a work of public art welcoming visitors to Wembley Park. 

2023 will mark the centenary of Wembley Stadium, and the 75^th anniversary of the 1948 London Olympic Games, for which Olympic Way was constructed. What better way to mark those milestones than to let residents and visitors enjoy those murals again? After all, the Council had (finally!) recognised the importance of ‘the heritage tiles at Wembley Park’s Bobby Moore Bridge’ at the start of Brent’s year as London Borough of Culture 2020, saying:

‘The tiles, which show scenes from famous sports and entertainment events at Wembley Stadium and the SSE Arena, Wembley, are part of Brent’s rich heritage and date back to September 1993 when they were originally dedicated to the legendary footballer.’ 

Cllr. Butt, the Mayor and other guests at the LBOC 2020 tile murals reveal, 18 January 2020.
[Photo by Francis Waddington]

I was hoping to persuade Brent’s Cabinet, when the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease came up for renewal later this year, to consider the option of only allowing advertising on the large display panels on the bridge parapets. This would give the opportunity to remove the light boxes currently covering most of the mural scenes in the subway, possibly using some of the CIL funds which the Council is sitting on to fund that work.

I wrote to Brent’s Chief Executive on 4 January, setting out my suggestions for how the Council could go about this, so that Cabinet members could be given a choice of options when the lease came up for renewal in 2021. You can imagine my surprise, and disappointment, when I received the this reply from Ms Downs the following day:

‘The lease for Bobby Moore Bridge was recommended for a three year extension from 30 August 2021 and expires on 30 August 2024.  This was completed in November 2019 after market appraisal was carried out by an independent advertising consultant who recommended the lease extension on the basis of market conditions at the time and the leaseholder’s ambitions to refurbish the area and upgrade the panels to digital screens.’

It didn’t appear that the Cabinet had approved this, so how did it come about, who authorised the lease extension, and what authority did they have to do so? I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request, and while I have yet to receive all the items I asked for, I have received redacted copies of three documents. 

One document is a “Delegated Authority Report”, prepared by Brent’s Property Services team. Addressed to the Operational Director (Property and Assets), it includes the claim:

‘The Borough Solicitor has confirmed that pursuant to the Council’s New Constitution Part 4, paragraph 4.3 you have the delegated authority to approve of this letting.’

[The Borough Solicitor? – Were they using a very old template?] I have yet to receive the supporting evidence for that claim, so cannot comment yet on whether the approval of the lease extension was valid. I would mention, however, that the section of Brent’s Constitution included in the Report to justify that authority begins with the words: ‘Only the Strategic Director Resources may acquire or dispose of an interest in land or buildings’!

The Deed of Variation itself raised the biggest concern, particularly one new clause which it added to the terms of the original lease. I apologise for the poor quality of this copy of it, but this is the best I could prepare from the document supplied to me:

The new clause 10.3 in the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease.

The “Tile Mural” that this clause applies to is ‘the 9.4 metre tile football mural on the east side of the walls under the Bridge’. In other words, the “footballers” mural that was supposed to be put back on permanent public display in 2019! Yet here in an agreement entered into by Brent Council they are saying that ‘the Tenant’ (Quintain’s Wembley Park Ltd subsidiary) is entitled to cover it up, on many “event days” during the year, up until August 2024.

I have written to Carolyn Downs, and Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, to tell them that this clause in the lease is unlawful.

‘It purports to entitle the Tenant to cover 'the Tile Mural' on a substantial number of days of each year. 

However, on 28 November 2019, when the Deed was signed, it was already the case that the Tenant's advertising consent did not include consent to cover that "Footballers" mural scene with advertisements. That clause is therefore invalid or void, because it purports to give an entitlement which at the time was, and still is, unlawful. 

Alternatively, if that clause is considered valid, it is inoperable, because the Tenant does not have the Necessary Consent, required by the lease, to cover that mural with advertisements.

This is a legal matter which needs to be resolved now, before the resumption of events at Wembley Stadium which may lead Quintain / Wembley Park Ltd to unlawfully arrange for advertising which covers that mural, in the false belief that the lease entitles them to do so.’

I will ask Martin to include my “legal argument” document at the end of this article, if possible, so that it is in the public domain and anyone can read, and refer to it, if they wish to do so. If you are studying law, you might like to use it as a practical exercise, to see what you think of the merits of Brent’s case and my answer to it. If you do that, please feel free to give your “legal opinion” as a comment below!

I have issued my challenge to Brent over this issue (politely and respectfully, of course):

‘I would ask you, please, to ensure that the position I have set out in the attached document is examined promptly by the Council's legal officers; and that if I am wrong, they explain to me why that is so. 

If I am correct, as I strongly believe that I am, then they should acknowledge this, and take action to ensure that Quintain / Wembley Park Ltd is informed that they are NOT entitled to display advertisements covering the "Footballers" mural on the east wall of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway.’

One positive variation of the lease, introduced by the November 2019 Deed, was clause 10.4. This dealt with the “Tiling on East Wall” of Olympic Way, the three mural scenes showing American Football, Rugby League and Ice Hockey which were “revealed” for a few weeks in January and February 2020. It gave ‘the Landlord’ (Brent Council) the right to request that these be revealed (that is, put back on public display) for up to 21 days each calendar year.

The East Wall tile murals at Olympic Way, February 2020. [Photo by Mark Price]

I have written to ask whether Brent has made a request for these mural scenes to be “revealed” for three weeks during 2021, and if so, between which dates. You can be sure that if I get news of them being on public display, I will let you know!

For the moment, though, I want to make sure that the one mural scene our efforts over the past three years have managed to get put back on permanent public display, is not unlawfully covered up. And unlawfully covered up by a deal that was concealed from public scrutiny.

Philip Grant.

The Legal Argument (Click bottom right for full page version) 

 Before Robert Jenrick's announcement yesterday on cladding, local #EndOurCladdingScandal campaigner Lucie Gutfreund asked on Twitter whether it would be 'Help or betrayal?'

For many it looks like betrayal for those living in blocks of under 18 metres in height who will be faced with 50-60 year loans to pay for remedial works.

Lucie said on Twitter:

Apart from the cost not being affordable, what is important to also raise is that the £50/mth loan for 30-60 years will make their homes devalued and unsaleable and wipe out the leaseholders' equity if they need to sell their home, and many do need to!

She said she felt disgusted by Jenrick's treatment of leaseholders and his brazen claim that he understands the plight of leaseholders.

Cllr Shama Tatler, Brent Council Lead Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning  tweeted:

The government  announcement is simply not good enough. Leaseholders should not bear the costs.

The monies made available for higher blocks is only for cladding and not for the many other safety faults that have been found including lack of fire breaks, cavity wall insulation and of course the cost of waking watches.

The Fire Brigade general secretary Matt Wrack said: 

From the very start, firefighters and residents have warned that the building safety crisis goes far beyond the flammable cladding that was on Grenfell Tower.

This funding falls far short of the estimated £15bn needed to end the crisis. The government’s piecemeal and patchwork approach – designed to shield itself from responsibility – is wreaking havoc on the lives of millions of innocent people.

The government has sent a clear message that it cares more about their friends and donors in the housing and construction industry than residents trapped in dangerous buildings below 18m or the tens of thousands more with other serious fire safety defects.

A number of new build residential blocks across Brent are affected along with student accommodation in Wembley Park. Forum House owners have been told  by First Port that assessors have found it is eligible for funding for remediation work including render finishes and insulation layers as well as ACM cladding.

Quadrant Houseowners have been told that the report by an independent engineer found that the building can only be granted a B2 EWS form at present which would not satisfy mortgage lenders. Further remediation work may be needed on the external wall in order to gain a full EWS form acceptable to them. Meanwhile the engineer has said further fire alarm installations and a waking watch are not required.

A petition has been launched asking Transport for London to take a more ecologically sensitive approach to trackside maintenance. Safety must be considered but there is no justification for a scorched earth approach. Clearances like the above have already been seen along our stretches of the Metropolitan, Jubilee and Chiltern lines.

Introduction to the petition

TFL contractors have been repeatedly reported removing miles of trees and vegetation running along London’s Underground tracks, most recently along the Metropolitan and Chiltern Lines. These acts of environmental vandalism mean rich, green corridors are severely reduced, impacting residents’ health and mental well-being, as well as removing biodiverse habitat for local wildlife.  

With 55% of the London Underground track network recorded above ground, we recognise a need for trackside vegetation maintenance, but the actions of TFL contractors are often excessive and unnecessary. 

They are treating these rich, green corridors as more of a liability than an ecological asset in which to invest. 

London Underground’s existing green infrastructure amounts to 10% of all green spaces in the city and is an obvious way for the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan to meet his commitment to improving London’s “biodiversity and ecological resilience” and become the first National Park City. We are in a climate and biodiversity emergency and both the Transport for London and Sadiq Khan must do everything they can to protect the habitat and wildlife we have remaining in London.  

To: Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan

We call on TFL and the Mayor of London to commit to the following:

1. Immediately stop the excessive removal of vegetation from trackside TFL embankments. 

2. Ensure that TFL carries out biodiversity surveys before trackside work begins and that these are made easily accessible to the public. 

3. Ensure that local residents are informed in good time before trackside work begins and given time to feedback questions and concerns to TFL.

 
4. Ensure that TFL contractors are trained in effective vegetation management and biodiversity preservation.

Please act now and protect out vital green trackside spaces and wildlife in London.

SIGN THE PETITION USING THIS LINK

Source BBC LINK

The case for Integrated Care seems obvious - who could be against integration it if improves the care of citizens? Keep Our NHS Public look beyond the initial favourable reception of the proposals and examine the prospect of them opening up the potential for more private involvement in the NHS LINK

FROM KEEP OUR NHS PUBLIC

In the middle of the Covid pandemic, when the NHS and its staff are going flat out to cope, NHS England (NHSE) is stealthily transforming the NHS again. What is portrayed as an innocuous move to ‘integrate’ care and reduce bureaucracy will, in effect, move decision-making even further from local communities and increase the presence and influence of the private sector in the NHS.

At the moment, the main tools for this transformation are Integrated Care Systems (ICSs), supported by plans for new legislative powers.  Although ICSs are already in place in some parts of England, a new document from NHSE provides the clearest glimpse so far of what ICSs could mean.

The proposals, recently echoed in a government White Paper, are of huge concern. Although seen by the media as suggesting the role of the private sector will be reduced, the proposed legislation, if passed, will enact the current government’s wish to further fragment, destabilise and privatise our NHS.

Background

Regulations brought in by the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) of 2012 enforced a new competitive ‘market’ within the NHS.  The Act also introduced Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) that were required to put clinical and other services out to competitive tender and so allowed increased private company involvement in the NHS.

Since then, while still retaining the market system, NHSE has declared that competition is to be replaced by the “integration” of NHS, local authority and other service providers. NHSE’s ‘integration’ has involved fragmenting the NHS into 44 areas (originally called ‘Sustainability and Transformation Plans’) destined to eventually morph into 42 Integrated Care Systems. The NHS Long Term Plan requires every NHS organisation and their local ‘partners’ to become part of an ICS by April of this year.

What are ICSs?

According to NHSE, ICSs are bodies in which

“NHS organisations, in partnership with local councils and others, take collective responsibility for managing resources, delivering NHS standards, and improving the health of the population they serve.”

The ‘others’ they refer to include private companies. An ICS will have a ‘single pot’ budget and its partners will collectively decide how to delegate that budget to loosely defined local “places” within the ICS.

Legislative change

The powers of ICSs are currently under review. NHSE argues that existing law, such as the HSCA (2012), does not provide a sufficiently firm foundation for the work of ICSs, so they propose scrapping Section 75 of the Act, which, for example, requires commissioners to put any contract worth over £.615,278 out to tender. They have also sought views on two options for enshrining ICSs in legislation.

Both options provide an ICS Board and a single ICS Accountable Officer. In one option, there would be a single Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), along with a new duty for providers, such as NHS Trusts, to comply with the ICS plan. In the second option, NHSE’s preference, CCGs would be ‘repurposed’, whatever that means, and their commissioning functions transferred to the ICS Board. While the veto of individual organisations within the ICS would be removed, the ICS could delegate responsibility for arranging some services to providers “to create much greater scope for provider collaboration”.

What are the main issues for campaigners?

ICSs raise multiple issues but we focus on three main areas: the increased potential they offer for private companies to profiteer from the NHS; the unequal partnership they create with local authorities and the subsequent threat to social care and public health services; and the loss of accountability.

• Increased scope for private companies

Removing Section 75 of the HSCA (2012), by itself, won’t reverse the marketisation of the NHS. Worse still, it would involve revoking Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition Regulations, so turning the NHS into an unregulated market.

The proposals also recommend that NHS services be removed from the scope of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, allowing commissioners more discretion when procuring services. It means that ICSs would be able to choose whether to award a contract directly to a provider or go through a more formal procurement process. Such flexibility massively increases opportunities for cronyism, as shown during the Covid pandemic when emergency measures allowed the usual procurement rules to be bypassed.  For example, the National Audit Office found that during the early stages of the Covid crisis, companies with ‘connections’ (for instance with government officials, MPs, or senior NHS staff), were ten times more likely to be awarded a contract than those without such links – even if they were entirely unsuitable suppliers.

The possibility that ICSs, operating in a market system, can chose to dispense with formal procurement processes is additionally alarming as NHSE wants to give each ICS a free hand in appointing its governing Board. This means that these Boards could include representatives from private providers – a move that’s described as “a blatant undermining of the ICS as an NHS body”.

The way that ICSs are to be internally managed will also increase privatisation. NHSE has accredited 83 companies to provide support for developing and managing ICSs through what’s known as the Health Systems Support Framework (HSSF). In the words of NHSE,

“The Health Systems Support (HSS) Framework provides a quick and easy route to access support services from innovative third party suppliers at the leading edge of health and care system reform”.

These companies, as you might guess, include McKinsey, Deloitte, Optum, IBM, Ernst and Young, Centene, and other global corporations, along with some UK and European companies, and a handful of NHS Commissioning Support Units.

The HSSF is divided into 10 ‘Lots’ covering services such as patient record systems, transformation and change support, capacity planning support, patient empowerment, and digital tools to support system planning. As NHSE points out,

“The Framework focuses particularly on services that can support the move to integrated models of care based on intelligence-led population health management. This includes new digital and technological advances that help clinicians and managers understand a population’s health and how it can best be managed.” (Our emphasis)

Population health management (PHM) is described by NHSE as “an approach aimed at improving the health of an entire population and improves population health by data driven planning and delivery of care to achieve maximum impact for the population.”

Briefly, PHM (“the critical building block for integrated care systems”) relies heavily on the mass collection and analysis of data from across multiple care settings, and a shift from care provided by clinicians face-to-face, to much more digitally provided care via remote consultations and algorithms. This inevitably means more private sector involvement due to the capital investment required for digital infrastructure, not to mention increased access to patient data for tech companies.

In addition, PHM shifts the focus of the NHS from delivering universal comprehensive care to individuals towards achieving data targets for the population covered by the ICS. Depending of course on how, and by whom, and with what aim, those data targets are set, what’s “good” for the population may be at odds with the needs of an individual.

• The threat to social care and public health services

ICSs are an essential part of a shift towards a ‘place-based approach’ to health and social care, with ‘place’ often seen as coterminous with local authority (LA) boundaries. According to the NHS Confederation, this level of working is the right scale for tackling ‘population health challenges’, such as health inequalities. A ‘place based approach’ is also part of a shift towards PHM, as well as shared responsibility for resources and service changes across all public services within the area.

NHSE proposals suggest that ICSs become the means for more ‘integration’ between the NHS and LAs. However, in its response to NHSE’s proposals, the Local Government Association (the national voice for local government) raises concerns that ICSs won’t be a partnership of equals across the broader health, wellbeing, and social care system. Instead, ICSs will be NHS-led, allowing a power grab that brings LA resources such as capital assets and funding for social care and public health under ICS (and thus NHS) control. There is also a risk that power won’t be devolved to local systems. Rather, central control will remain, with missed opportunities for real collaboration between the NHS and LAs to address the wider determinants of health, such as affordable housing and a safe environment.

Further, KONP among others has highlighted the risks posed by NHS management of social care. Social care is not an adjunct of the NHS, but has a very wide remit that overlaps with wider local authority responsibilities including housing, leisure, planning and education. In addition, social care is means tested while NHS care is (largely) free at the point of use and funded by taxation. If ICSs take on social care, they will have to develop complicated charging mechanisms. This could pave the way to charges for NHS services or, long term, for the introduction of a private insurance-based system (facilitated, incidentally, by the extensive data sets created by PHM). NHSE’s proposals also fail to mention any safeguards to prevent services that are currently free from being redefined as social care and so subject to means testing.

• Loss of accountability

 In contrast to local authorities, ICSs are not subject to democratic control. NHSE’s proposals will give them the power to create publicly unaccountable joint committees, potentially including representatives from private business, to make legally binding decisions about major resource allocation and service provision.  (For KONP’s vision for achieving democratic accountability, see here.)

CCGs, with their responsibility to manage local budgets, will be weakened or, as NHSE would prefer, abolished. In the absence of any plans to make ICSs accountable to local residents or patients, it seems that people over large areas of England will be disenfranchised. Although ICS Boards will supplant existing public bodies, there appears to be no requirement for them to meet in public, publish their Board papers and minutes, be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, or to have any democratic participation from the communities they cover.

What can we do?

KONP calls for a halt to the development of ICSs until there is a full consultation with the public, local authorities and Parliament. It argues that not just Section 75 but the entire Health and Social Care Act (2012) should be repealed and the NHS Reinstatement Bill laid before Parliament. This proposes restoring the NHS as an accountable public service; ending contracting and the purchaser-provider split; and re-establishing public bodies and public accountability to local communities.

We call on Councillors and MPs to be briefed in detail on the issues before legislation is tabled, and to be ready to challenge it.

We call on activists to make these issues a campaign focus, before legislation is tabled.

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH) has responded to a request by Wembley Matters following a recent building survey of its property at 115 Chalkhill Road, next to the Welford Centre at 113 that houses a Health and Community Centre.

A spokesperson for MTVH said: 

The safety and wellbeing of all our residents is our number one priority. Just like buildings owners across the country, MTVH is currently conducting inspections on a number of our properties to understand how their construction meets relevant building regulations and government guidance. 

 

Independent experts conducted inspections at this building in October and identified some issues that require further investigation. Importantly, the independent experts have confirmed that the building remains safe for residents to live in and advised that some further checks be carried out. Our routine programme of fire risk assessments and other compliance checks is continuing at this property, and any actions identified are being addressed within recommended timescales. 

 

Once we have the full details back from the further checks by our independent experts, we will work with the original contractor and other parties responsible for the construction of the building to address any issues that require remediation. We are in close contact with residents through regular written updates and a virtual meeting will be held with residents shortly. We understand and apologise for the concern that this will be causing our residents.

 

In reviewing the findings of these checks, we will of course consider any issues that may affect other properties nearby and we will take appropriate action where we are advised to do so by our independent experts. The findings of the inspection that has taken place do not currently require any additional fire safety measures to be introduced at this building or those adjacent to it.

While investigations go on into potential issues with the external wall system MTVH will not be able to issue compliant EWS1 forms to residents. although independent experts have confirmed that the building is safe for people to live in.