Monday 4 March 2013

Brent's relationship with Quintain under strain over the Wembley Plan


An Officers' Report going to the Executive on March 11th reveals some areas of strain in Brent's relationship with Quintain Estates, the major developer of the Wembley Regeneration Area.

The Council accept Quintain's claim that parts of the current Wembley Retail Park are shown as suitable for tall buildings but state that this is subject to an assessment of the impact of the buildings on views. On site W18 at the Wembley Retail Park,  Quintain  argue for higher density of development but Brent responds that "the indicative residential development capacity reflects the high proportion of family housing sought on this site (thus affecting the number of habitable rooms per unit), the domestic character (resulting in an 'urban' character rather than 'central') and the incorporation of the public space within this site."

Quintain object to the policy requirement that the development of the car park at York House (Site W9) should be relatively low rise and should include a substantial area of open space. Brent Council respond that there is still a deficit of open space in the area and the site provides scope for publicly accessible open space between buildings. 'Relatively low rise' reflects the high rise nature of York House and the need to provide good levels of sunlight in existing and new open spaces.

In line with apparent reservations on surrendering building land for open space, Quintain consider there is too much detail on the proposed park north of Engineers Way and particularly object to its East-West orientation.  Brent respond that this is fundamental to achieve an open aspect to 'what will be a densely developed area' and that the space would connect the proposed new primary school at Fulton Road,on the west side, to its catchment area in the residences to the east.

It appears that  Quintain's approach can be summarised as: build tall, build densely, and with limited open space.  Presumably this would extract more profit from their land acquisition. They go further in this statement which seems to threaten section 106 planning gains:
WEM36 and WEM38 set out requirements that major new development provides new open space and food growing facilities. Such exceptional provision, which also includes the provision of play space in WEM40 and wildlife enhancements inWEM41, will have an impact on viability and thus will have an impact on Section 106 obligations, after CIL.
Brent Council deal firmly with Quintain's objection to the provision of large food stores (over 2,000 sq m) being directed to Wembley High Road. The Council argue that this is essential to benefit the whole area and in order not to let the regeneration of the stadium area lead to a decline in the High Road. The argument is that new shops on the High Road between the junction with  Park Lane and Wembley Triangle will establish continuity between the older area and the new development.

Quintain certainly seem to be on a loser with their objection to policy limiting the proportion of frontage in the town centre that can be occupied by hot food take-aways. The Council's robust response is that there is widespread support for such a policy, including from the GLA, and 'there can be adverse impacts on the health of the population from fast foods.'

There is much more in the Wembley Area Action Plan so I will return to other aspects later. You can access the documents by following this LINK to Item 8 of the Executive Agenda.

If you want to comment on the plan and some of the issues above, Consultation will start from 25th March 2013 and last for 6 weeks. It will be agreed by Full Council in June and planning inspectorate examination hearings will be held in October 2013 with adoption the following February.




Viridor recommended for Brent's recyclate sales contract

The Brent Executive will be asked to approve the award of the contract for the processing and sale of recyclable material collected by the Council to Viridor Waste Management Limited. Currently this service is provided by Veolia but market testing by the Council suggested that the service did not provide good value so they put it out to tender.

The Council recognises that there is a high level of risk attached to the contract because of the unpredictability of tonnages collected and the amount paid for recyclates. They note:

In terms of improvement from the current position, this price creates an overall benefit that ranges from £448,625 if there is no increase in tonnage next year to £533,500 if 22,006 tonnes are collected. There is no certainty around waste arisings and the council cannot rely on a guaranteed level of income .


This presents a high level of risk. Next year’s waste budget has been set on the basis that
22,000 tonnes of recyclables will be collected. Any shortfall in that level of recycling which comes about through failure to divert recyclables from the residual waste stream will come at a cost of £107.25 per tonne. A 1,000 tonnes shortfall will cost £107,250, and only achieving 18,500 tonnes would cost £375,375 of the proposed saving. Only achieving present recycling levels will deliver £448,625 - £375,375 = £73,250 saving against planned budgets, whilst diverting 22,000 tonnes in total would deliver the full £533,500.
Currently the procurement process is under way for the new Public Realm contract covering waste management, recycling, street cleanings and parks and BHP grounds maintenance. 

3.333p per minute parking charge to be introduced in Brent

Brent Executive will decide on new proposals for on-street parking charges in the borough. The Officers' report recommends a charge of 20p for stays of up to 15 minutes to encourage turnover of parking places for short shopping trips. This is NOT the first 15 minutes of a longer stay but a quick shop and drive away charge.

For longer stays a 'linear' charge will be introduced of £2 per hour. This will replace the present 'step' charge that sees a stay of 59 minutes cost £2.40 and 61 minutes cost £6. Customers will be able to pay for additional time in  increments of 20p (the smallest practical coinage). 20p will buy an extra 6 minutes.

The report admits that it is hard to predict the impact of the changes which it claims overall represents a reduction in charges.  If more people stay for up to 15 minutes, revenue will be lost.  If the reduced and simpler charges lead to more stays then income will hold up.

Overall  the on-going cost is forecast at £330,000 per year subject to the above uncertainties and will be partially met by the reduction in Word Working allocations.

Friday 1 March 2013

Wembley Park cut off from the rest of London this weekend

There are closures on the  Metropolitan and Jubilee lines this weekend so no trains from Wembley Park. Best bet is the slow old Bakerloo from Stonebridge Park or Wembley Central (fingers crossed) or over to Alperton for the Piccadilly. Other lines are also affected - details below.

Please back this bid for a 38 degrees petition on forced academies

Against forced academies and the privatisation of our education system by stealth

Our government is forcing schools to become academies against the majority consensus. They are ignoring parents, schools and local authorities. They are using bullying tactics to hand schools to academy chains, run by major Tory donors. They are not only forcing failing schools but good ones and allowing these chains to cherry pick good schools to give academy policy credibility. Parents all over the UK are starting to organise themselves. 'Parents Against Forced Academies' are calling for a public enquiry into the bullying and likely corruption endemic to forced academy process. Decisions about handing over our public schools to academy chains are being made behind closed doors without proper consultation or transparency.

Please join us in our fight for our Education system and our democracy.

The underlying anti-democratic nature of the Department of Education's handling of these matters points unequivocally to a hidden agenda of privatisation. This is fuelled by political self-interest, by party donations, lobbying and future job offers beyond parliament.

Privatisation will only serve the elite and the sooner it is challenged the better. And the rhetoric that Academies will solve all problems is based on very weak foundations. They are increasingly selective of pupil intake, channel funds to executive figures away from teachers, operate dangerously strict pupil codes of conduct and have increasingly fast teacher turnaround. As parents, this is not what we want for our children or our country.

This issue has largely fallen under the media radar and public awareness. It deserves to be front page news and brought to public attention. Education is our future.

We strongly believe that this issue mirrors the NHS privatisation which has fuelled much public outrage. The public deserves to know what is happening to Education too.

This is a serious request at a serious time, and we urge you to support us.

Parents Against Forced Academies

To vote follow this LINK

Battle against forced academisation is a fight for democracy - Roke parents


With Gladstone Park Primary parents continuing their campaign against the school being forced to become an academy and suggestions that this might happen to other Brent primary schools, it is worth hearing about the experience of parents in other parts of London. Roke Primary in Croydon has also experienced the bullying nature of the DfE's  'brokerage' department and the parents' campaign has written to the local paper about the experience: LINK
Parents recently received a copy of a letter about forced academy at Roke Primary school from Lord Nash, Parliamentary Under Secretary for Schools to Richard Ottaway, our Conservative MP for South Croydon.
Lord Nash's letter casts Roke Primary as an 'underperforming' school, yet our school is not underperforming under any possible definition of the word and certainly not over a 'long time', which is specified in DfE's own guidance for forced academies. The latest SAT results are above the national average and place the school in the top 20% of Croydon schools. Teaching is regarded by Ofsted, the Local Authority and parents as at least good. Let's be clear forced academy at Roke is NOT about substandard education at Roke.

The reason the school is being forced to academy is that it was placed in an Ofsted category of 'Notice to Improve', mainly due to a lack of data caused by computer problems and leadership/management issues. The Ofsted report was published in mid June 2012. Areas for improvement were outlined and the school, LA and Riddlesdown (as partnering
school) sprung into action and made positive changes very quickly. Yet only 3 months later, in September the DfE informed the head governor that Roke would become an academy.

Factoring in the school summer holiday, the school was given less than 6 weeks to improve. There was no return visit by Ofsted to check on the improvements made and no chance to prove that they could be sustained. This action defeats the purpose of giving a school 'Notice to improve', if they are then denied the chance to demonstrate improvements made.

Lord Nash states that improvement is required in relation to leadership and management. This could happen without removing the school from Local Authority control. It does not need such drastic action as being forced, against the wishes of parents, governors and local community, to become an academy and to be sponsored by Harris.

It would be far more cost effective to simply replace the leadership. Let's make no mistake this is about political ideology not standards.

Lord Nash omits the fact that the Ofsted monitoring visit happened in January 2013, the day after parents launched their campaign and a damning article appeared in The Guardian, stating that Oftsed had not visited before the decision was made. He also omits to make it clear that this was not a full Ofsted inspection and therefore it did not matter what rating for improvement was received it would not lift Roke out of the 'Notice to Improve' category. His letter reads like Roke somehow failed to improved enough to be reclassified which is untrue.

Furthermore, we have been told that the Ofsted inspector said on arrival before the monitoring inspection took place, that Roke would not get a rating better than 'satisfactory' because there was insufficient time between inspections to prove that improvements had been embedded or were sustainable. This is the real reason which, as Lord Nash writes, there is 'limited evidence that (improvements) are secure and sustainable'. It has little to do with the school's efforts but rather with the government failing to give the school enough time to achieve this within its' own inspection frameworks, before rushing to turn the school to an academy.

Lord Nash says, 'Harris has confirmed that it wishes to support notice to improve and bring about the improvement needed' at Roke. Therein lies the crux of the matter. It is highly likely, if a full inspection was to take place today that the school would perform much better, and would come out of 'Notice to Improve' or its new equivalent category.

As it stands, Harris will simply come in and take all the credit for improvements that have already taken place. We believe that Roke may have been targeted as a school where, a relatively small nudge is needed to return us to our previous 'outstanding' status. This will give Harris and academy policy false credibility.

Lord Nash says that the government recognises the 'importance of formal local consultation' and that it is 'a legal requirement before any school can open as an academy'. We suggest that his definition of 'consultation' is different to everyone else. His letter makes it clear that all decisions about Roke, its future as an academy and its sponsor have already been made. To suggest that consultation takes place after the fact is ludicrous. Moreover, to suggest that the consultation is most meaningful when it is run by the preferred Sponsor, in this case Harris, is also ludicrous and bordering on corrupt.

The consultation must be operated legally, and cannot be a presentation or a deliverance of a decision already made - it must be legally meaningful. It must be an actual consultation - you consult and decide as a result, not in advance.

As it stands key decisions about our school have been made behind closed doors before consultation has taken place. The DfE is withholding crucial information about the decision making process, as evidence by failure to disclose information requested by parents under the Freedom of Information act. The DfE has also flouted its own rules regarding forcing a school that is not actually failing. The DfE is not operating by the Principles set down by the Committee of Standards in Public Life (1985) particularly the principles of accountability, openness or honesty.

Put simply, our own British government is breaking all the democratic values that this country holds dear.
The Save Roke Campaign Committee