Monday 21 November 2022

Conservative Motion on Flooding in Brent

 Conservative motion currently being heard

Measures to tackle Flooding in Brent

In the past few years, flooding in Brent and other areas is getting more frequent and severe. Whilst this is partly due to climate change and global warming, it also reflects the massive level of regeneration, development and building on green and brown fields sites which is detrimental to the drainage of rainwater and it is felt future planning policy must reflect.

We are losing more green and open spaces which used to soak up the rain water.


The Council’s policy of tarmacking footpaths also does not allow water to permeate in the ground. Just a little rain and we observe streams of water flowing on the roads and pavements.

We notice that flood water collects in low lying areas and does not recede for a few days after it rains which means that in the current situation more frequent and severe flooding will take place.

We appreciate that Brent alone cannot stop global warming and climate change and recognise that the borough has a Flood Risk management Strategy in place, however we can take further steps to mitigate the consequences and protect our residents’ lives and property.

As a result this Council calls on Cabinet to:

1) Reverse the policy of tarmacking the footways and replace with paving slabs and bricks which allows more water to soak in the ground, especially in known flood risk areas;

2) Reverse the policy of large scale developments which are reducing the green
open spaces and making Brent a concrete jungle;

3) Implement a regular gully cleaning and leaf collection program, especially in the flood prone areas;

4) Implement a regular program of inspecting all drains and gullies in areas
identified as flood risk and repair as necessary and the Council’s responsibility,
including Brent’s brooks and rivers;

5) Introduce a policy that makes it’s illegal to concrete over the whole of a rear
garden as this also impedes the draining of rainwater. We suggest a maximum
of 20% of the rear garden can be paved or concreted over.

If Brent is serious about global warming and climate change and wants to protect its citizens now and for future, it's the least it can do.

Councillor Suresh Kansagra
Kenton Ward



Anonymous said...

Bet you Hubris Butt was so very angry about this and will have got one of his sycophants to amend the motion until it was meaningless, just as they always do. As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Doesn't it just. Wonder who he's sharing his anger with?

David Walton said...

Below proves how Brent Council weak protected in both Land Registration/ Planning Law South Kilburn Park flood defence is (River Westbourne and its tributaries).


South Kilburn Park, Brent Kilburn's only remaining park sized park is in immediate danger of being built on by Brent. In South Kilburn regeneration year 21, the Council has proposed large scale phased re-development business for South Kilburn Public Open Space, Carlton Vale Infants School, Kilburn Park School, Wordsworth House, Maesfield House, Dickens House, Austen House, Blake Court and the large green spaces, squares and playgrounds area set in between these five for re-development housing blocks. A planning application is pending. http://
(Or search Estate Regeneration South Kilburn ERSK website for proposal).

South Kilburn is to quintuple its population from 6,000 in year 2000 to 30,000 by year 2041. Planning de-regulation means that public services, social, health and green infrastructure will not be grown in this social experiment zoned.

BRENT KILBURN'S PARK IN LAND LAW From a Freedom of Information request, entire South Kilburn Public Open Space/ South Kilburn Park is 'land bank' registered at the Land Registry by Brent owner as being 46 Victorian houses, separate absolute freeholds/maps for each house, from before South Kilburn Park was designed and built over 50 years ago. For legal owner-developer-planning in law, Brent Kilburn's only remaining Local Park has never existed in land use legal terms and nor do its local communities well established and ever greater nature access needs and rights (car-free housing growth).
The entire estate is re-designated as Brent Highways Land.


NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK- no green protection/ investment/ no cross-borough boundary working on public open space deprivation required.

LONDON PLAN- no green protection or investment required. Only Local Green Space Designation* by Brent would change this.......

David Walton said...

............Part 2

BRENT POCAL PLAN - highly ambiguous and conflicted policies (see detail below). Strongest green protection for this park by local people proposed Local Green Space Designation was by Brent rejected in 2020*.

BP6 SOUTHEAST PLACE " Enhancements to South Kilburn, Chapter Road, Aylestone Avenue and Rainbow Park open spaces".

BGI1 Green Infrastructure refers South Kilburn's green infrastructure to Growth Area policy.

BSEGA1 SOUTH KILBURN GROWTH AREA "• South Kilburn Park will be extended and enhanced;" (So, that is definitely not by Brent built on then?)

However, BRENT LOCAL PLAN's South Kilburn site allocations linked-in with the 2022 new Brent re-development proposal (above) read as follows....

BSESA2 BLAKE Open spaces, squares and playgrounds mapped here are significant, being spaces adjacent to the council's new build on South Kilburn Park proposal. Why is this space for new schools ignored?

BSESA4 CARLTON INFANT SCHOOL Currently occupied by a school, to be relocated to another site within the Growth Area to be a housing site instead.

BSESA7 DICKENS Re-development here repeatedly refers to its build relationship with Woodhouse Urban Park, a new children's playground located far away at Albert Road on north side of Carlton Vale? No mention of its own on-site open space, playgrounds and squares-built relationship.

BSESA9 KILBURN PARK JUNIOR SCHOOL The new Granville Park replacement is to be on this site? The school is then described as being housing and not a school? Then this site is for large scale housing provision use described and detailed? While, in Brent's proposal October 2022 this site is all a South Kilburn Park replacement of its built on woodland area? It is clearly not possible for the cleared school site to provide all of these re-uses that Brent proposes.

BBSESA12 WORDSWORTH, MASEFIELD AND PART OF SOUTH KILBURN OPEN SPACE Clearly this conflicts with BP6 and BSEGA1 (see above) by destruction, rather than "South Kilburn Park will be extended and enhanced." Brent claims Park not widely used or known, a lie. It then says its equivalent open space will be re-provided at Hereford and Exeter House and it then also says reprovision of mature trees woodland at Kilburn Park Junior School site? Remember, Brent is building a large housing block BSESA9 on this school become site as well? Retention of mature trees on the site (a mature trees packed woodland), how is a school and 3 eight storey housing blocks build possible in this build on woodland Brent proposal?

Other proposal linked-in site allocation issues.

BSESA11 OLD GRANVILLE OPEN SPACE Mapped here is the remaining ¼ of a much larger public open space destroyed in 2010 by Granville New Homes re-development. Pocket Park remains invested in and renewed in 2010. The 2004 Masterplan required that entire Granville Park be re-provided in South Kilburn Masterplan later phases. Compensatory open space of equivalent quantity and higher quality will be provided as part of the Hereford House and Exeter Court (BSESA8)?

BSESA8 HEREFORD HOUSE & EXETER COURT Replacement of the Granville Public Open Space, which is being total re-developed for housing, (see site allocation BSESA11) with a better-quality open space with better sunlight penetration, overlooking/ sense of security and more prominent position, which will increase usage. And the South Kilburn Park woodland replacement locates here aswell (according to BBSESA12)? Granville Road Public Open Space replacement goes to Kilburn Park Foundation School site BSESA9?

Philip Grant said...

If you look at all the "site specific" details for future proposed developments in the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, you will usually see this paragraph in the "Infrastructure requirements" section:

'Thames Water has indicated the local water network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this development. Upgrades to the local wastewater network are likely to be required. Thames Water will need to be engaged at the earliest opportunity to agree a housing and infrastructure phasing plan to ensure required essential infrastructure is delivered prior to the development creating identified additional capacity requirements.'

Yet some large scale developments, in Wembley and elsewhere in the borough, are being allowed to go ahead without those essential infrastructure improvements being made.

Some of the sites are already identified as being wholly or partly 'susceptible to surface water flooding'.

Brent Council and its planners know that allowing some of the large developments they've approved to go ahead, without 'upgrades to the local wastewater network', is likely to add to existing flooding problems at times of heavy rain.

The drive by the Lead Member for Regeneration and her Cabinet colleagues to encourage large scale private and Council developments will come at a cost. The residents who suffer the misery of having their homes flooded will bear the heaviest cost.

David Walton said...

Even the Environment Agency has Chippenham Gardens as High Surface Water Flood Risk (rivers meet directly below it and the relief sewers for this risk are in and for protecting City of Westminster/ not Brent). South Kilburn Park keeps flood waters away from Chippenham Gardens and Malvern Road basement homes, it can soak away naturally in this park's woodland rather than in people's homes.

Anonymous said...

Conservatives risk getting elected with common sense like this. Those bloomin tories wanting to protect homes from flood risk. Vote labour

Jaine Lunn said...

Once again I thank Philip Grant for his observation and comments are well researched and 100% accurate, as I have recently experienced an issue first hand. Having complained about a bad smell emitting from Storm Drains and Sewer since June 2022, with the help from Brent Highways Dept who confirmed that the Sewer was not private but a Communal Sewer, Thames Water finally attended to resolve the problem. It took Thames Operatives 3 and half hours to unblock, they removed our connection to this pipe so we now flow freely into the Sewer. I was very happy to receive confirmation that we had not caused the problem, and in fact it was the result of the adjacent Office Block being converted into 35 Flats that was causing the problem as the pipe servicing this block cannot cope with the all the waste water being generated. TW also stated that as a result of their findings it will happen again, but at least myself and neighbours will not suffer the consequences.

Martin Francis said...

Edited comment to conform with guidelines: The Tories are not controlled as the Labour Councillors are. Butt calling his own Councillors Ninby is unbelievable and controlling. Butt's Hubris is unbelievable.