 |
| Demonstration outside the school |
Guest blog by Pete Firmin, South Kilburn resident
On Friday 22nd May, pupils, parents teachers and local residents held a
protest at the gates of St. Mary’s Catholic Primary School in South Kilburn
against the proposal from Brent Council that the `ventilation shaft’ for HS2 be
sited right next to the school and close to flats.
Apparently such ventilation shafts are necessary at certain distances along
the line in order to get rid of the air pushed in front of the speeding trains,
otherwise they would slow the trains down. Such vent shafts are not a small
thing, being usually about 25 m by 25 m and 2 storeys high – the size of a small
block of flats. Such an enterprise is calculated to take up to 6 years building
work, involving movement of over a hundred lorries a day to and from the
affected area at peak times, with the association noise, disruption and
dust..
HS2’s current proposal is that this be sited close to Queen’s Park station,
but Brent Council is pressing that it be on the Canterbury Works site next to St
Mary’s school instead. Some studies suggest a ventilation shaft is not essential
at either site.
Brent Council’s proposal ignores the pleas from local residents and school
staff and users and is putting its regeneration scheme above any concern for the
health and wellbeing of students and residents. They have the support of Queens
Park residents in this, who feel the vent shaft would be a “blight” on their
community, despite the disruption and siting being much further from their homes
and schools than is proposed for South Kilburn. As so often, South Kilburn is
seen as the dumping ground for things that Brent and its middle classes regard
as `undesirable’.
The issue of Brent and HS2 has a background. The local Tenants and
Residents Association has been asking Brent Council about HS2 and how it will
affect us for years, ever since we discovered it is due to run underneath (or
very close to) our flats. Unfortunately, unlike Camden, Brent Council didn’t
seem to be looking at this at all, its only comments being that HS2 offered
great `business opportunities’ for Old Oak Common. Even when we got letters from
HS2 saying they may want to Compulsorily Purchase our properties we got no
support from Brent. We’ve all had at least 2 such letters now, and, despite our
urging, Brent Council appears to have done nothing to get proper answers from
HS2 on this. Some people have been told verbally that this is just something
that HS2 has to do and they will not be wanting to CPO our properties, but we
have never had such a commitment from HS2 in writing.
Then, despite us asking for years that Brent take up our concerns and
nothing happening, we discovered from a third party that a report on HS2 was due
to go to Brent Council in March last year. This was the first we knew
about proposals about the siting of the vent shaft, when the report argued for
its siting in South Kilburn rather than next to Queens Park station. We asked
that we be allowed to address the Council when it discussed the report, but this
was refused. Instead we were given a commitment that our concerns would be taken
on board. Given our concerns included opposition to the Council’s push for the
vent shaft site to be adjacent to the school and our flats, this was clearly not
the case.
Then this year we saw by chance an email from a Council officer to one of
our Councillors which said “HS2, we continue to lobby for this
to be relocated from the Council owned site at Salusbury Road car park to the
rear of Canterbury Works. Various professional studies have been commissioned
which support this Full Council approved stance and have been recently submitted
to HS2 for their consideration.”
Around the same time the headteacher of St Mary's school came away from a
meeting with HS2 and Council officers convinced the vent shaft was going to be
put next to the school. Soon after leaflets were put through our doors
campaigning against the vent shaft being sited there. This came from people
associated with the school, and since then they have had a meeting for all
parents, produced petitions and initiated the protest outside the school.
Local residents support the opposition from school users to the siting of
the shaft here, but there is an added complication. The leaflets put through
every door and the drive behind the school campaign come from a PR company
employed by the property developers building luxury flats (no social housing) at
Canterbury House (also next to the school and a block of flats) and property
developers hoping to build a ten-storey block of flats on the Canterbury Works
site (currently a vehicle repair site, and the site where Brent wants the vent
shaft site to be).
Many of us are opposed to both the siting of the vent shaft
next to the school and our flats and ANY further development of the site. We
think that having been living on the middle of a regeneration building site for
the last 3 years (with the myriad of complaints that has involved, about which
Brent has done nothing), we should have respite from any further development and
the disruption, noise and dirt involved. Added to which, the Canterbury House
development is luxury flats only (advertised as in Queens Park, even though in
the middle of South Kilburn), and development on the Canterbury Works would
probably be similar, or at the very least the low proportion of social housing
we are now seeing in SK `regeneration’), this would only add to what we have
called the `social cleansing’ taking place with regeneration. SK is also already
one of the most densely populated parts of Brent. We have lost some our little
green space through regeneration, we would like to get some back rather than
further development. So, as well as opposing the siting of the vent shaft here,
we would oppose planning permission for further flats on the site too. Some of
us joined the protest outside the school with placards opposing both the HS2
vent shaft and the property developers.
Just to be clear, the PR company’s employee working with the school put on
the “No to HS2 at Canterbury Works” Facebook page “We do not want to see a ventilation shaft at
Canterbury Works, we are protecting the interests of Canterbury House and a
ventilation shaft would be detrimental to this development and to its future
residents who will be part of the South Kilburn community.” Protecting the
interests of Canterbury House means the property developers, it couldn’t be more
explicit. Future residents seem to take precedence over current ones too. When they started work on
Canterbury House (the building has been empty for years, even though planning
permission was obtained some time ago), they knew that HS2 was going through the
area and people had been served with potential CPO orders. Our belief was that
they were hoping for maximum compensation (unlike us!) and that was why they
pressed ahead.
We are hoping we can have one united campaign
involving both school and local residents against the siting of the vent shaft
here. There does seem to be an attempt to keep us at arms length from the school
campaign, given our critical stance.
As
so often, Brent Council has spent years ignoring the concerns of local residents
and is now intent on pressing HS2 to trample on the interests of both school
pupils and residents.
51 comments:
So what of the 2 (3?) "rogue" Kilburn councillors. Have they been supporting local residents in this?
From the Brent and Kilburn Times:
Cllr Margaret McLennan, Brent Council’s lead member for regeneration and housing, said: “We have looked at where the HS2 works could be located, to best support the regeneration plans for South Kilburn which will provide over 1,000 much needed affordable homes for existing residents.
From these studies, we consider that the Canterbury Works site is the most suitable for the HS2 works.
Complete gobbledegook. What has the shaft got to do with the "regeneration" and the building of new homes? Is she suggesting they can't build homes unless the shaft is there?
No wonder she won't visit Kilburn...
It says that these plans were passed by full council. I don't remember reading of any rebellion so it would seem they are going along with it.
It looks like they are not so "rogue" after all and are towing the party line on this one despite what it's doing to their residents. Happy to be corrected though if anyone knows different.
I think if the shaft is built in Queen's Park in means the plans to build homes there will not go ahead
Good to hear, but your article says these plans were passed by the full council - did they vote against it?
So is the original Queens Park site included within the South Kilburn regeneration despite being in Queens Park? Confused
Yes, it is part of the South Kilburn regeneration scheme. It is at Premier corner, a site which links South Kilburn, Queens Park (Brent) and Queens Park (Westminster). It's basically the centre of the whole area, near the station and a key point of intersection of the three communities. Canterbury Works, on the other hand, is a back lot next to the railway line of no interest to anyone except people that overlook it.
Please educate yourself. There is a plan to build 137 flats with 39 affordable at the QP site. The private flats actually fund the whole scheme which would not be possible with out them. Putting the vent at the QP site would reduce the funding and accomodation available for social housing. The Canterbury Works site for the Vent shaft would not.
How I wish people would post under their names rather than anonymously. The Queens Park site is also the junction of major roads which would make it much easier for lorries to get to and from the site. Unlike the site at Canterbury Works which would need to be reached by much narrower roads, causing much greater problems. And that would not stop them travelling on the roads around Queens Park because they would need to use those main roads to get to South Kilburn's narrower roads.
The Canterbury Works site is considerably closer to a school and homes than the Queens park one.
Isn't down to the councillor giving quotes to the local newspaper to explain the situation coherently and educate us?
What we have is the new labour corrupt housing legacy lingering on past its sell by date.
The people CRY NOW FOUL, but were SILENT as Brent BENT COUNCIL began PRIVATIZING social housing on such a scale that the whole of the Area would be effected and have NO SAY as the CONTRACTS were SIGNED and SEALED.
YOU WERE SOLD OUT BY BRENT BENT COUNCIL TO WHOM YOU VOTED FOR.
What we have is the new labour corrupt housing legacy lingering on past its sell by date.
The people CRY NOW FOUL, but were SILENT as Brent BENT COUNCIL began PRIVATIZING social housing on such a scale that the whole of the Area would be effected and have NO SAY as the CONTRACTS were SIGNED and SEALED.
YOU WERE SOLD OUT BY BRENT BENT COUNCIL TO WHOM YOU VOTED FOR.
Am I right in thinking the main objection to this shaft being at Canterbury Works is the problems (traffic, noise, dust, disruption) it will create during the construction?
Construction work is temporary and measures can (in theory) be taken to minimise the impact. Although I do sympathise with South Kilburn residents as they've been through a lot, temporary disruption is not usually regarded as a grounds to refuse planning permission.
Will this shaft require planning permission from Brent or do the HS2 people have the power to override the council?
39 "affordable" flats or social rent flats? They are not the same thing.
If you mean the Boris Johnson definition of "affordable" then at 80% of market rate that means they'll sell for £480k instead of £600k. If you mean social rents - more like 30 - 40 % of current market rents then that is worthwhile.
I'd love to know why you think I was silent when Brent Council began privatising social housing.
The details are all available on the Brent council website. For those that don't know South Kilburn, it is a dystopian vision straight out of A Clockwork Orange. It needs private paying residents to create a mixed community, not just a ghetto for people on welfare. Bringing people in that have jobs and ownership will help lift the area and improve the life of current residents. Moving the Vent to Canterbury Works is essential to making the regeneration work as well as getting a large block of flats and commercial space built and the roads redirected to make it friendlier to foot and bike traffic.
They can override it if it is in the HS2 bill
So "affordable", meaning "not affordable at all", then...
You see the deception now, but it was there when it was first planted and how it has grown around you!
The whole Brent regeneration was planned and deals signed before tenants were ever informed and before tenants steering group members were hand picked by the deal making Brent Bent Council and based on the dim and dumb test for selection.
These steering groups were so called as they would be steered to concluded the project that had already been agreed by Brent Bent Council and their redevelopment partners.
I fully agree with your conclusion of social cleansing and the claimed affordable homes being affordable!
But this conclusion was there in the beginning, I campaigned against it and was branded anti social by Brent Council and repeatedly threatened with eviction.
Lets remember, it was old labour that used social housing as a weapon against the torys and new labour that had not the cash to repair the social housing stock and so privatized a large amount of the stock with free grants to re developers!
By building in greater numbers Brent Council could regain lose of rent with council tax cash, more homes more Council Tax!
The remaining Brent Council homes are sublet to Brent Housing Partnership who are a LTD company!
You see the deception now, but it was there when it was first planted and how it has grown around you!
The whole Brent regeneration was planned and deals signed before tenants were ever informed and before tenants steering group members were hand picked by the deal making Brent Bent Council and based on the dim and dumb test for selection.
These steering groups were so called as they would be steered to concluded the project that had already been agreed by Brent Bent Council and their redevelopment partners.
I fully agree with your conclusion of social cleansing and the claimed affordable homes being affordable!
But this conclusion was there in the beginning, I campaigned against it and was branded anti social by Brent Council and repeatedly threatened with eviction.
Lets remember, it was old labour that used social housing as a weapon against the torys and new labour that had not the cash to repair the social housing stock and so privatized a large amount of the stock with free grants to re developers!
By building in greater numbers Brent Council could regain lose of rent with council tax cash, more homes more Council Tax!
The remaining Brent Council homes are sublet to Brent Housing Partnership who are a LTD company!
Wow! Such a large amount of prejudice based on stereotypes combined with the promotion of social engineering all in one short post under the cloak of anonymity. Why the reluctance to put your name to your bigotry?:
Actually it would be possible to describe the whole of London, if not Britain, as a dystopia, based on the obscene differences in wealth and therefore quality of life that exist.
If you think South Kilburn is simply a "ghetto for people on welfare" you clearly have no idea and have been reading the wrong papers. Or maybe you are including those people in low paid jobs whose employers are being subsidised by paying working tax credits, since the majority of benefits go to those in work. You will need to explain how building flats that sell for £1.1 million (yes, that figure is correct) lifts the life of current residents. In fact, none of this "lifts the life of current residents" (what a patronising phrase) - if at the end of regeneration the average income (for instance) of SK residents has risen, that does not necessarily mean that the income of a single current resident of SK has risen at all. In your enthusiasm for the vent shaft to be sited in SK you are not even interested in addressing the disruption and other problem thise will create for residents there, you are only interested in your social engineering project We are not pawns in some game, but real people with real concerns, not something to be kept in the dark and fed on s*** like mushrooms.
As for mixed communities, beyond the fact that SK is already a mixed community, council housing was much more mixed before Thatcher brought in the `Right to Buy' and Blair continued the demonization of council housing.
You claim to know a lot about me, but your claims about yourself hide behind anonymity. Anyone who knows me knows I have always opposed Right to Buy, that I opposed Brent'[s `Masterplan' for South Kilburn from the start, so it is not the case that I only "see the deception now" as you claim. I have never been on one of the "steering groups" or other quangos which have been set up (and disappeared) at various times.
Actually, if you look at the Met's statistics:
http://maps.met.police.uk/access.php?area=E05000094&ct=8&sort=rate&order=a
the crime rate in Kilburn is lower than in Queens Park, Fryent, Brondesbury Park and several other Brent wards
That's a damnable insult, 11:05, to the very decent people in South Kilburn. You can take ANY set of headlines from almost ANY area and make it out to be a cesspit.
Well it is/was the very decent people that suffered the most. You don't believe that South Kilburn is just like any other place do you? Really? Year after year, massive raids and arrests, murders, gang crime and all sorts of other problems. And this is all caused by the Right to buy? No, sorry I don't think so. Brent is looking to do something about it by bringing money in and making the community more mixed like the rest of London and rebuilding all the social housing with money provided by selling private dwellings. That is the only possible way to do it. So good on them. Don't criticise it and put up with the lorries for the sake of the future of this soon to be ex-sink estate.
My Name is John Diggins and I once resided on the Barham park estate where I stood up to Brent Bent Council and wrote to every tenant re the deception being played out by Brent Bent Council concerning the purposed redevelopment of the then estate.
And for my active part Brent Bent Council cut my gas off and last 6 years I have lived without heating or hot water.
Still life goes on and I fight another day :)
As for claiming to know a lot about you, I never made such a claim nor did I single you out, but maybe you just like the attention :)
Well the lesson is don't bite the hand that feeds you John Diggins. Pete Firmin could learn that one too.
Incomprehensible comment. Please explain.
Pete, I think this means you should be grateful that Brent have given you, out of the goodness of their charitable hearts, a roof over your head. The price of this is to tug your forelock and be grateful, not start being awkward when they fail to grant you basic human respect. Got it?
Don't bite the hand that feeds me! Clearly you are the state sponsored puppet, so go perform elsewhere for your dinner money.
Never was any good at forelock tugging. Maybe this goes to the heart of things though - is housing a right or a concession? To what extent has housing become a commodity which is traded like any other and where the main aim is profit-making rather than providing a basic human need.
We are born and registered to a pension pot and grow up governed by the Corporate Education System who assess the product yearly for value!
We are Commodity and traded against each other.
Old labour used and run down the Social Housing as a weapon against the Torys, and spent the Housing Budget on Left wing PIE functions!
New Labour took over from the Torys and could not account for the cost and damage Old Left wing Labour had done to the Housing Stock and so set about privatization and divided Housing between Developers and ALMO Ltd companys.
Councils restricted by Housing LAWS saw New Labour change the Law for the benefit of the private Housing sector.
This meant a £70 one bed Council flat could be rented in the private sector for a market value of £180 and at no extra cost to the same tenant on Housing Benefit who was willing to sell their housing Rights for a Stock Transfer grant of a few thousand pound provided by the Government, New Labour.
The alternative is a Private Prison!
Old Labour may have degraded Housing but from this came community's, Tony Blair and New Labour destroyed the Community's and Social Housing beyond the claim of Thatchers Right to buy!
We are no more free range, for in the open land of once, we be now stacked upon one another.
Yesterday is just a memory that was then, but is not now.
Since you are answering questions Pete could you clarify the point at the top of the comments here? Did the Kilburn councillors endorse the HS2 plans when they were voted on at the council meeting?
Also, by handing over responsibility to Housing Associations for Social Housing, they are able to build anywhere and by this change the voting pattern of an Area!
Now that the TORYS are set to sell Housing Association property, maybe the Housing Associations will build the TORY VOTE out of London!
I have a lot of sympathy for those campaigning about moving the vent shafts to Canterbury Works. However, HS2 has made it clear the vents will go at either QP station or Canterbury Works. It's going to happen at one of them. If the vents are at QP station, there will be no further regeneration and yet again SK estate will be in limbo with a few new builds completed but the whole will be unfinished. Current government policy is against us unfortunately and the Council are trying to do what they can within that. Not everyone is going to be happy with the final result. Either the vent goes bat Canterbury works and causes a lot of stress and lorry loads for a few years blighting local residents for a while, or it goes by QP station preventing any further improvements to the area forever. The last few towers will stay and remain in poor condition and all further projects may cease. Personally, I would rather neither option. HS2 should really be stopped, that would be the best solution for everyone.
On the Kilburn Councillors voting on the report, the answer is yes they did. It is worth however, noting 2 things - firstly 2 of the 3 Councillors at that time are no longer Councillors. The 2 that are sometimes referred to as the `Kilburn rebels' were only elected last May, after this report went to the Council. Secondly, along with the stuff about the vent shaft, the report also contained vague commitments to taking our concerns on board, and this was restated when we were refused the right to address the Council meeting on the issue. The Councillors at the time may (to be generous) have taken these commitments at face value. They have been shown to be BS, something some of us thought all along.
In reply to the comment at 16.59, I would agree in preferring HS2 not go ahead at all, not primarily because of the siting of vent shafts, but because I believe it to be a waste of a vast amount of money. Much better use could be made of that money in terms of improving the country's infrastructure. And the cost will undoubtedly spiral.
Some reports say that, should HS2 go ahead, a vent shaft is not necessary at either site. I'm not qualified to judge that, but wonder whether HS2 and Brent Council have looked in depth.
If HS2 goes ahead, your argument for where it should be sited is based purely on the economic arguments of the Council. I do not recall it being clear from the start that regeneration of South Kilburn depended on building in Queens Park (and the site IS in Queens Park ward, not Kilburn). We have always been told that there would be as much social (NOT `affordable' housing in SK post-regeneration as before. That is clearly not the case, if the QP site is essential. But what is to stop Brent looking elsewhere? If they already argue that completion of the regeneration of SK can only happen outside the area, then it could take place in other parts of Brent. All of which adds weight to the point some of us have been making from the start of the regeneration plans. Oh, and as regards tower blocks, we were told part of the purpose of regeneration was to get rid of tower blocks. Lo, there are 2 new tower blocks in Albert Road!
You and others tell us that the disruption in building the vent shaft next to a school and flats would only be temporary. True, if you consider 6 years building work as temporary. You also need to disregard the fact that residents of the relevant flats have been living in the middle of a (regeneration) building site for 3 years already and are desperate for it to finish. Claims that the building work (lorry movements etc) would be well regulated only make us laugh, given that Brent Council has almost never acted on our complaints about lorry movements, working times etc. on the current building site. And what we have had to put up with over the last 3 years will be nothing compared to 6 years with lorry movements in and out of the area of 200 a day.
This whole mess needs to be put in a big hole, that's me venting my opinion ;)
Could someone give me exact figures on how many additional homes are being built in South Kilburn that are a) "affordable" (Boris definition of 80% of market rent, b) social rent (usually 30-40% of market rent) and c) market price?
I see a lot about S Kilburn but have never had these stats.
Thanks
Those campaigning against moving this shaft to Canterbury Works need to get a grip. You have the whole community against you. Don't pretend to be a community organisation. It is all backed up by the company that owns the Canterbury works land and wants to build flats on it. The issue here is a block of flats on Canterbury works or a vent shaft at Canterbury works and a block of flats at Queens Park. Lorry traffic would be the same. As for everyone ealse, get your heads screwed on and back the vent moving to Canterbury works.
We keep trying to get these figures out of Brent, but without much success. But the plans for the QP site if no vent shaft is build there are for 137 flats all told, with 39 `affordable', I.e all those for rent will be 80% or upwards of market rents (some presumably for sale at market prices). Since none of the flats being built under regeneration are owned by Brent Housing Partnership/Brent Council there is no pressure to maintain any at social rents. Housing Associations have in recent years been `rebranding' many of their properties as `affordable' rather than social. Tenants in some of the newly built flats have experienced 30% rent increases in 5 years.
This sounds like a rant from someone who thinks we are all on benefits, live in a ghetto and are drug dealers if not murderers.
The community around the school is opposed to the vent shaft being sited at the Canterbury Works site. If you read the blog itself, you will see I make clear that we want nothing to do with the PR company acting for the property developers. Those campaigning from the school feel likewise. We are well aware that the property developers wish to use us. That doesn't mean we give in on the vent shaft, but it does mean we oppose their plans too. Since when was a Tenants and Residents Association not a community organisation?
If there is no vent at Canterbury Works, there will be a block of flats, with no social housing included. So you will get construction traffic anyway. Please don't mis-represent the situation.
I commented on this earlier and it has disappeared. Later.
Have you even read the article? Pete is clearly acknowledging that the campaign is partly driven by developers but also says many local residents, of whom he is one, are also opposed.
This seems like the kind of rant we're getting from those who claim we are all benefit scroungers living in a ghetto and are all drug dealers if not serial murderers. When you write we have the whole community against us, do you mean locally or elsewhere? Locally I have yet to encounter anyone who thinks building the vent shaft next door to a school is a good idea. In the initial piece I outlined the involvment of the PR company/property developers and why we are opposed to them too. Campaigners from the school are equally sceptical about their involvement. "Don't pretend to be a community organisation". We aren't pretending, we ARE a community organisation. The AGM of our Tenants and Residents Association (of which I am chair) unanimously passed a resolution against both the HS2 shaft and further development on the Canterbury Works site last night despite a leading Council Officer spelling out their view.. We are an independent community organisation, not in hock to anyone, as I'm sure the various bodies which we frequently clash with would testify.
You, along with some others, seem to think that if there is no vent shaft on the Canterbury Works site there will inevitably be a block of flats. Ever heard of planning permission? We would oppose.
You also say "lorry traffic would be the same". No, it wouldn't. If the vent shaft were to be sited at Canterbury Works the (over 100 a day) lorries would need to trundle through the much narrower roads around the site. If it was at the QP site they would only be on the wider main roads.
Your opposition to the building of a block of flats at Canterbury works would fail. Construction traffic is never a basis to reject permission. In this case, you are just trying to wreck an initiative which has the stated supported of the whole of Brent and Westminster council to achieve absolutely nothing. That is the whole community against you.
Suddenly the support of Brent and Westminster councils equals "the whole community"? You are completely deluded my friend. I suppose you think the closure of 6 libraries had the support of "the whole community"? Or the closure of Stonebridge Adventure Playground? All backed by the council and vigorously opposed by residents.
You Brent residence don't need libraries as most of you can't read, those that can read are the ones sitting in a public toilet reading the writing on the wall.
I think you mean "residents" not "residents", Anon 04.56
We can read AND spell.
Post a Comment