Saturday, 7 May 2022

65 out of 91 Brent estates consulted reject an estate parking scheme, 13 going ahead, 13 to be consulted further - full details

 In  October 2021 Brent Council ran a consultation on the parking arrangements on its council estates (off Street Car Parking) and had to extend the consultation because of the poor response rate, On April 5th I requested a copy of the outcome from the council having seen an image of a spreadsheet that was barely readable LINK.  Search 'estate parking' on this blog for more background including a 'call in'.

They turned this, without consultation into a Freedom of Information request, which sucecssfully kicked it into the long grass with the answer due the day after the Council Election. This was duly sent to me yesterday:

My Request:

Could you supply a spreadsheet for each Brent estate where parking proposals were made including:

The number of residents affected
The number of returns
The number for the suggested scheme
The number against the suggested scheme
The Council’s decision.


Brent Council response.

I have attached the information you requested, which is on the attached spreadsheet. 

It shows a breakdown of the results including the amount of properties affected, number of returns, numbers for people that voted for the scheme, numbers that voted against the scheme, undecided votes, numbers of unconfirmed votes, and the council decision based on a majority of those that voted. 

To gather the above information, we proactively reached out to residents to garner their feedback in three main ways:


To gather the above information, we proactively reached out to residents to garner their feedback in three main ways: 

  • We posted consultation materials to all residents in the proposed areas, with a prepaid envelope to make it as easy as possible to complete the survey and send back their responses.
  • A web link was included in the consultation material, so that residents had the option to go to a dedicated web site to complete their survey and respond to the consultation that way.
  • Face to face meetings were arranged for residents at locations near their estates to discuss the consultation and respond to the survey.

In addition to the above, we also placed posters of the consultation in communal areas on all estates that were consulted. 

In acknowledgement of the fact that the initial response rate was low, we extended the consultation period by one month to allow time for further engagement.

Basing the decision on a simple majority of those who voted made little allowance for the low response rate. I have added a column to the spreadsheet giving the response rate per number of households consulted.

So for example in  Chichester Rd, Canterbury Court, Gorefield House, Alpha Hs, Cambridge Ct, out of 373 households consulted only 30 responded with 15 for a scheme, 14 against and 1 described as 'unconfirmed'. The majority of one was enough for the council to go ahead with a scheme. Response rate 8.4%.

In  Blake Court, Austin House, Dickens House out of 341 household only 14 responded 5 supported, 7 against and 2 unconfimed ,the Council decided not to have a scheme. Response rate 4.11%.

The largest number of household consulted in one go was Lansbury Cl/Owen Way/Henderson a total of 483. Only 41 responses were returned 8 for, and a more emphatic 33 against.  Response rate 8.04%

Most clusters of households were much smaller so in Petherton Court there were only 2 responses out of 9 and both in favour so a scheme goes ahead.

There may be a lot of people out there who do not know the outcome for their estate which may become a headache for the new crop of councillors.

Out of 91 consultations only 13 parking schemes will be implemented, 65 were rejected and 13 will be consulted on further.

Note Pilgrims Way/Summers Close  result was not provided by Brent and my request has been treated as a  further FOI request! Do let me know if your estate is not included.

Spreadsheet below. Green fill means parking scheme going ahead, yellow it is going for further consulattion, no fill scheme means scheme not going ahead.  All spellings are those of Brent Council. Response rate column has been added by me. Click bottom right-hand corner for full page version. 


Paul Lorber said...

Rokesby Place in what used to be Sudbury but moved to Wembley Central due to boundary changes was not consulted at all. The residents were suspicious why not? Their suspicions were well founded as the Council has since submitted a planning application for 2 houses on the car park on this small estate of 34 homes. The car park will be lost and residents are concerned that their ability to park near their homes will be much more difficult.

Pete Firmin said...

I don’t think this issue can be treated the same for different estates - circumstances are different everywhere. Parking around Gorefield, Alpha etc has been chaotic for a very long time. Brent has promised a consultation on change for about 15 years. When they regenerated in the area they made the situation far worse, creating a large car park next to the flats. The decorative double yellow lines are meaningless and ignored. Brent’s consultation was seriously flawed, with many questions unanswered, and they have not responded to residents queries about implementation. But for some of us, anything which gets rid of the current mess is good.

David Walton said...

The neglected condition of the private estate road outside Austen House looks like after a Russian special military operation has happened.

What does such willful neglect say about how the 16 storey towers of Austen and Dickens are Brent safeguarded and managed inside?

Martin Francis said...

Comment received by email:

I recently read your article in Wembley Matters regarding Brent’s parking consultations and wanted to share some information with you.

Rokesby Place was never consulted despite promising that we would be one of the four trial estates for the controlled parking more than 3 years ago.

Also, when Cllr Southwood was asked why we we not consulted at the time of objecting to the development of the car park, she has to date not responded or acknowledged the email signed by majority of households.

We are still without answers and some residents, including myself are very worried about the situation as we have disabled family members who rely on a car and being able to park close to our homes.

Thank you for taking the time to read my message.

David Walton said...

Uncontrolled parking for South Kilburn Estate public land surrounded by Westminster and cut-off from the rest of Brent by an electrified mainline railway?

One thing Brent is not factoring in regarding the low South Kilburn Estate survey response is that it has the lowest car usage of any neighbourhood in Brent- a combination good public transport and harsh sanctions for colonial re-developers take-all (of its land) ongoing since 1979.

Only South Kilburn residents with cars would have survey responded. I know night shift nurses and ambulance drivers who live in these blocks and their returning home from night shifts to find that they can't park anywhere does not look like considerate and fair C21 housing management to me?

Anonymous said...

Not finding anywhere to park is called natural car management strategies and encourages many to take public transportation. There is no necessity for the council to manage this as it is self funding. If you work for the NHS in Brent you are allowed a freedom parking pass to park anywhere anyway.