Anton Georgiou on his personal reasons for resigning as a Brent councillor

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou (Centre) speaking to residents in Alperton

From Cllr Anton Georgiou

Personal news from Anton Georgiou

 

Being the Liberal Democrat Councillor for Alperton has truly been the honour of my life. I became a campaigner locally in 2013 when I was 18 years old and have spent over a decade doing what I can to better the borough I love so much. For the last 5 years I have had the privilege to represent residents in Alperton on the Council - initially as the only elected Liberal Democrat and for the past two and a half years as the Leader of our small, but effective opposition group.

 

It has been quite a ride, with many highs and some lows, but I look back at this time with one overriding feeling - gratitude, for having been given the opportunity to do the role. 

 

It is with sadness and a heavy heart that I have decided to resign from Brent Council. This is a personal decision, that has not been easy and in part due to a very traumatic experience that I have previously spoken out about.

 

Since my initial election in January 2020, I have been a strong opposition voice against a Labour Council in Brent that I continue to believe is failing local people and not delivering the level of service our community deserves. 

 

I have stood up to the Brent Council leadership time and time again, and have regularly faced attacks, some personal, that no one in public life should have to endure. The job of elected officials is to find the best solutions for residents and different views and opinions should be debated in an open and transparent way - there should be no place for these sorts of attacks, particularly from the leadership of the Council.

 

The Leader/ Cabinet model of Brent governance puts power in too few hands and stifles genuine open debate. This is leading to bad decision making in all areas.

 

But the opposition has not been for oppositions sake. I believe that mistakes continue to be made by the Labour Council that are having a detrimental impact on the lives of local people.

 

I have consistently opposed what seems to be never-ending development of monster tower blocks in Alperton and in the Wembley area. They are not delivering the type of housing local people desperately need and are causing misery for residents both newly moved into blocks and others in residential streets close by. Ongoing construction works cause traffic havoc in the area, parking chaos and persistent noise and othernuisance.

 

But above all, as I have said over and over – these new units are broadly not genuinely affordable to local people or in my view what Brent should be buildingwhich is - Council homes for Council tenants. Brent like every other local authority in London and across the UK is having to deal with record numbers of families on housing waiting lists and hundreds presenting at the Civic Centre every month as homeless or at risk of homelessness. 

 

Brent Council is far too weak in their dealings with developers. Both in terms of demanding a larger number of genuinely affordable units, this does not include Shared Ownership – which is not and should not be deemed as affordable, and also when holding them to account for poor quality build in new developments.

 

I commend the work Martin Francis (Wembley Matters) and others do in seeking to highlight Brent Council’s failings when it comes to bad and the wrong type of development. It is sad that many Labour members feel unable to stand up for their residents on this issue. Alperton has endured more than its fair share of large development, perhaps when the Council starts looking at development in other parts of the borough, members will feel obliged to speak out too.

 

The Labour administration is also failing to deal with the bread-and-butter issues. Our streets are dirtier than ever, a record confirmed by the BBC just last year, roads are riddled with potholes and pavements are broken and dangerous. I am not naïve to the financial situation local authorities face. But the promise of change that swept Labour into power in July has so far delivered very little for Brent Council or indeed local government generally. Keir Starmer’s government need to urgently address the crippling underfunding of local government and agree on a long-term financial settlement so that Brent and other Councils can better plan and manage finances.

 

One way the Labour government could immediately make the situation for Council’s better, is by easing restrictions on the use of Community Infrastructure Levy. In Brent, this could unlock tens of millions currently in the CIL pot that could be spent on dealing with local issues. I hope that the government will respond favourably to our suggestion that these changes should be made.

 

I want to commend the voluntary sector in Brent for everything they do. Picking up where local and national government is failing. Whether that is in delivering youth provision, providing care and support to the elderly, making community spaces available for all. It has been a pleasure to work with so many local groups and organisations – and I will miss this. The latest attack on the voluntary community sector from the Labour leadership in hiking up rents to un-affordable levels is a disgrace. I just hope the Council will better recognise the value and importance of volunteers and the voluntary sector and give it the genuine recognition and support it deserves.

 

I want to thank residents in Alperton. I have always given my all to the role of Councillor. It is a privilege to be elected and to represent local people. I have loved being able to help people, and proud of the work I have done to support some of the most vulnerable in the area. I have always tried my best and always given 100%. I am hopeful that residents in Alperton will lend their support to the prospective Liberal Democrat candidate, Charlie Clinton, to succeed me. I know he will be the type of Councillor Alperton needs and deserves.

 

Finally, to Brent – this is a very special borough. I was born here and have lived here my whole life. My family initially moved to Kilburn from Cyprus in the 1950’s. There is so much history and culture here – but I fear it is being lost and under attack by a Labour Council pursuing a gentrification agenda that does not take into account the communities that have called this part of London our home for decades. Many young people, like me, are being forced to consider moving out of the borough, we are being priced out. This is tragic and wrong. It is why we need elected Councillors in Brent who are willing to speak out, challenge and stand up for residents. We do not need more of the same, members whose loyalty is to the Labour Party, the leadership, rather than the people who elect them. 

 

It is my sincere hope that at the next set of Council elections in 2026 a wide range of people are elected in Brent who feel able and are willing to be strong voices for their communities. The role of a local Councillor is to serve and represent everyone in the ward they are elected to and always put residents first. I have done my best to fulfil this responsibility.

 

I wish the readers of Wembley Matters and everyone in Brent all the very best. 

 

Anton Georgiou

 

Do you use the 224 bus? TfL is consulting on the section of the route between St Raph's and Alperton. You may miss the bus! Deadline December 6th 2024

 

From Transport for London

Tell us your views

 CONSULTATION PAGE

We are holding an eight-week public consultation to hear what you think about these proposals. We want to know if you agree with them, if there is anything you do not agree with, and to understand the reasons why you feel this way.

You can reply by completing our survey, which should take no more than 10 minutes to complete. The closing date for comments is Friday 6 December 2024. 

To take part in our online survey you will need to register with your email address. Your details will be kept secure.

If you prefer, you can also let us have your comments by:
 

• Email: haveyoursay@tfl.gov.uk
• Telephone: 020 3054 6037 to leave your name and contact number and we will call you back. Please quote 'Route 224' when leaving your message
• Write to: FREEPOST TFL HAVE YOUR SAY (Route 224) no postage stamp required 

Please note responses to the survey may be made publicly available after the consultation has closed, this would typically be in the form of a report on the results of the consultation exercise, but any personal information will be kept confidential. 

Your personal information will be properly safeguarded and processed in accordance with the requirements of privacy and data protection legislation. For further information, please visit our privacy policy. 

• The route would no long serve Abbey Road between Coronation Road and Twyford Abbey Road. Stops on this part of the route would still be served by route 440.
• The route would also not serve Whitby Avenue and Rainsford Road. These roads would not have a bus service. The closest bus stops would be on Twyford Abbey Road. The walk to these bus stops from the existing bus stops is approximately 240 metres
• The route would also not serve Iveagh Avenue. The nearest stops would be on Twyford Abbey Road. The walk to the new bus stop is 220 metres from the existing bus stop
• Passengers wishing to access ASDA heading towards Alperton would use the same stop as now on Coronation Road. Passengers heading towards St Raphael’s would use the stop on the other side of Coronation Road from ASDA near the junction with Western Road, which is about 200 metres away from the main entrance
• Passengers who get on and off of the 224 on Abbey Road could use route 440 from the same stop and change on to the 224 later in the journey, or walk to the new bus stops just over 400 metres away
• Re-routeing the 224 would open the bus network up to over 2,000 more people and 4,000 jobs in the area
• Passengers would also benefit from a simpler route to understand

There would also be an increase in buses along Coronation Road, Lakeside Drive, Bodiam Way and Twyford Abbey Road

16-day planned part closure of the Piccadilly line (Wood Green to Cockfosters and Rayners Lane to Uxbridge) between Saturday 17 August and Sunday 1 September, with a reduced service expected on other parts of the Piccadilly line due to the unavailability of trains.

 Brent commuters who use Piccadilly line services from Alperton and Sudbury Town can expect train delays during August due to a reduced service as a result of the unavailability of trains:

 PRESS RELEASE

Transport for London (TfL) is advising Piccadilly line customers to plan ahead and allow more time for their journeys as a series of vital track and platform upgrades mean sections of the line will temporarily close this year. These upgrades are essential to ensure the line is ready for the first new Piccadilly line trains which will arrive in London later this year for testing, and then be introduced as a fleet of 94 new trains from 2025. 

The new trains are part of a £2.9bn investment to modernise the line, to help it run more reliably, safely, inclusively and sustainably. The scale of the upgrade, which will take place on one of London’s deepest Tube lines with some of the oldest track and signaling infrastructure, means that a series of closures is required.

The longest of these is a 16-day planned part closure of the Piccadilly line (Wood Green to Cockfosters and Rayners Lane to Uxbridge) between Saturday 17 August and Sunday 1 September, with a reduced service expected on other parts of the Piccadilly line due to the unavailability of trains. Rail replacement buses will serve all stations between Wood Green and Cockfosters although customers travelling to central London may find it quicker to use local bus services to connect to nearby alternative Tube and rail stations. Customers who use Piccadilly line services to Uxbridge are advised to change at Rayners Lane for the Metropolitan line. 

For all of these part closures, Piccadilly line customers are advised to plan ahead by using TfL’s real-time travel information tools including TfL Journey Planner and TfL Go, to check before travelling and to allow more time for their journeys. A dedicated travel advice webpage, which also lists the upcoming, confirmed weekend closures on the Piccadilly line so customers can plan ahead, is available on TfL’s website, here: https://tfl.gov.uk/status-updates/major-works-and-events/piccadilly-line-upgrade

Stuart Harvey, Chief Capital Officer at TfL, said: “I’d like to thank our customers for their patience while we carry out these essential upgrades to the Piccadilly line. The closures will help us prepare for the arrival of the fleet of 94 brand-new trains which will transform journeys on the line in the coming decades. Introducing a new fleet of trains is a huge engineering and logistical feat. Although much of the hard work goes on behind the scenes, there are times when we need to close sections of the railway to ensure that all existing infrastructure is compatible with the new trains. Closures of this type are scheduled to take place, where possible, in school holidays when demand on our network is significantly reduced.” 

Up to 80 per cent of the new Piccadilly line trains will be built in the UK at Siemens Mobility’s new manufacturing facility in Goole, Yorkshire. The new trains will feature walk-through carriages, wider all-double doorways to help customers get on and off more easily, enhanced digital display screens for customer information, on-train CCTV cameras for additional customer security and will, for the first time on a Deep Tube train, provide air-conditioning. They will increase capacity by 10 per cent and will also improve energy efficiency and accessibility. 

Ahead of these closures, TfL will contact regular users of the Piccadilly line with travel advice and information. In addition, posters and public address announcements will be in place at all relevant stations. 

 This announcement comes after another on the Bakerloo and Overground:

Closure details

Between Saturday 3 and Thursday 8 August, these sections of line will be closed:

• London Overground: Euston to Watford Junction
• Tube - Bakerloo line: Queen's Park-Harrow & Wealdstone

London Overground stations

During the closure, there will be no London Overground service at these stations: Euston, South Hampstead, Kilburn High Road, Queen's Park, Kensal Green, Harlesden, Stonebridge Park, Wembley Central, North Wembley, South Kenton, Kenton, Harrow & Wealdstone, Headstone Lane, Hatch End, Carpenders Park, Bushey, Watford High Street and Watford Junction

Tube stations

During the closure, there will be no Bakerloo line service at these stations: Kensal Green, Willesden Junction, Harlesden, Stonebridge Park, Wembley Central, North Wembley, South Kenton, Kenton, and Harrow & Wealdstone

 

Cllr Tatler taken to task on regeneration issues

 Tuesday's Resources and Public Realm Committee was the swan song of the Committee as it was the last one of the municipal year and it may well have new members and chair after the Council AGM.

I may put the kibosh on the present committee if I say that in my opinion this would be a pity as it has developed its skills over the last year and Cllr Rita Conneely has proved a formidable chair. It takes time for councillors to undergo training and increase their confidence at holding lead members to account.

Cllr Shama Tatler, with the regeneration and planning brief, was in the hot seat on Tuesday and faced some tough questions.

The issue of the viability of both private and public developments was a major theme in the light of the post-Truss financial situation with its high interest rates and reduction in confidence, inflation, shortage of labour post-Brexit and supply-chain problems. In addition the post-Grenfell need (rightly) for second staircases in tall buildings has meant that developments have had to be reviewed.

Cllr Tatler explained how as a result the amount of units for sale might have to be increased and affordable housing reduced, tenure cmay be hanged to include more 'intermediate# housing (often shared ownership) or alternative sources of funding sought.

A note of realism was introduced early in the meeting when Pete Firmin, a South Kilburn resident, spoke about the problems with the regeneration of the South Kilburn estate including poor quality new housing, scaffolding up around relatively new blocks and problems of incursions into blocks where tenants had been decanted. His contribution and Cllr Tatler's response can be seen in the video at the top of the page along with some of the other exchanges reported here.

Cllr Anton Georgiou brought up tenure on the new South Kilburn blocks. saying that he had been told that they were not at social rent as Cllr Tatler claimed but at the higher London Affordable Rent. He promised to produce evidence to this effect.

Improvements in infrastructure was an issue in Alperton regeneration as it lagged behind the building of new blocks. He gave the example of improvements to Alperton Station needed by the new residents in car-free developments.

Cllr Tatler said it was often difficult to get the improvements in place because of the need to work with partners such as TfL, regarding the station and the NHS regarding the promised medical centre on South Kilburn, and things moved slowly.

She pointed out that it was pivate housing that yielded Strategic Community Infrastructure levy in regeneration areas - Council housing did not qualify.

The need for more affordable social housing was another major themes. Committee chair Cllr Rita Conneely said, 'That is what we want as a committee, what backbenchers want and what residents want.'

She urged Cllr Tatler and the Regeneration Department to challenge developers more ('Let's say no, let's start saying no!' ) and for London councils to get together a common front to stop developers' divide and rule. 'Whatever you bring back to use, we will want more.'

 Cllr Tatler had said, 'We can't say no to developers', but Gerry Ansell who earlier had said, 'we can't walk away from  developers' pointed out that the Planning Committee could say no and reject applications. That as we know happens seldom and Planning Committee members are reminded of the need for housing at the start of each meeting and are also warned that an Appeal by a developer would cost the council money.

Shama Tatler pointed out that there was already a London-wide body in the form of the GLA and that as Local Plans began to more closely mirror the London Plan there would be more consistency across London.

She went on:

It is wrong to say we don't challenge developers. Mo (Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council) and I have conversations day in, day out, with developers about what our red lines are. This is why we get criticised for having too many high blocks. I will have high blocks if it means we are getting as much affordable housing in a scheme as possible.

The committee, following a point raised by Pete Firmin, said that community spaces in regeneration areas needed to be publicly owned rather than belong to the developer.

The meeting finished with Cllr Tatler agreeing to meet with concerned residents in regeneration areas.

 Note: It was a very long meeting. The full webcast is HERE

Following comments on this article here is a link to the latest ONS (Office of National Statistics) data on rent levels and house prices in Brent. Main findings in the image. For links to each go to: 

 https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/housingpriceslocal/E09000005/

 

Brent Council's Strategic CIL £4.5m spending plans for Alperton parks, Kilburn Medical Centre and Harlesden Picture Palace

There's a bit of a spending spree on the Cabinet Agenda for  September 11th. The Stragetic Community Infrastructure Levy (gained from a levy on new developments)  is in  a fairly healthy state and there are proposals in the meeting papers for spending on three major projects. (Extracts from Cabinet papers):

Cabinet Reports Pack

Parks Improvements in the Alperton Growth Area - £525,466

The growth in the Alperton Growth area, with 1,400 new homes delivered in the past 10 years and at least 6,500 new homes expected by 2040, is resulting in increasing demand on local parks and open spaces and the need for improvements to them. The parks and open spaces in Alperton have long been identified for investment, initially in the 2011 masterplan and again in the Local Plan. There are also proven public health benefits from improving access to parks and open green spaces. 

The estimated cost for the improvement works in the parks and the sports ground is £625,466 and includes 10% contingency and 10% future maintenance cost allowance. This report seeks approval for a budget allocation to this value of £625,466, with an allocation of £525,466 Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL) and £100,000 from the public health reserve to fund this spend.

South Kilburn Medical Centre - additional £600,000

 Cabinet agreed in April 2020 a SCIL contribution of £3.47 million for the 3 medical centres proposed in growth areas (Wembley Park, Grand Union, and South Kilburn). The funding was towards the physical fit out of the medical centres. The South Kilburn contribution was agreed at £1,104 million. A funding agreement was subsequently entered into with the then CCG.

The Integrated Care Partnership (ICP) now advise that due to the increase in costs the South Kilburn medical centre is no longer viable, with a viability gap of £1.2 million. The ICP have agreed to contribute half of this, if the Council agrees to match fund this at up to £600,000 from SCIL.

 

Harlesden Picture Palace  -  £3,300,000

This report is part of the Council’s ongoing commitment to create long lasting positive change to Harlesden for the benefit of the communities that live there.
 

The Picture Palace building is expected to become a significant cultural and community use anchor for the community and the Council has been working with a consortium of local organisations to deliver this exciting project. By approving the use of SCIL for the building refurbishment, it will allow the
project’s ambitions to be realised and for the Harlesden communities to be able to operate and utilise the building in the future.

The refurbishment project helps to meet outcomes within the Borough Plan, namely Strategic Priority 3 Thriving Communities to allow the local community to be involved in and lead on activities for their communities. The project also delivers on an objective within the Black Community Action Plan by developing a community space to be run and managed by local communities. It also helps to achieve objectives within the Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan by providing community facilities for Brent’s growing population

Wembley Park 'regeneration v gentrification' revisited 6 years on - do the warnings in this article still hold?

Wembley Matters has been following the development of the Wembley Park 'regeneration' areas for some time. In October 2017 LINK  I published the guest post below which attempted to look forward to the impact of what the author termed 'gentrification' rather than regeneration.  Some might argue that 'gentrification' doesn't fit as very few residents lived in the largely light industrial and warehouse area that were displaced, but it could apply to the wider area with many working class people unable to continue to live here.

Since then we have seen what residents claim is over-development in Alperton, further demolition and building on South Kilburn estate with shrinking green space; masterplan for the Neasden Stations area with high rises on the College of North Wesr London  Dudden Hill site and the light industrial area between Willesden High Road and Dudden Hill; and the huge re-development of the 'one public estate' (comprising Network Homes, NHS NW London, University of Westminster Brent Council) of what will almost be a new town in Northwick Park.

This is the original article with my introduction:

 

There have been many postings on this website about Quintain's Wembley Park 'regeneration' and even more comments, particularly as the development has accelerated recently eating up warehouse and industrial units and apparently squeezing tower blocks into any spare space. In this guest posting Dilan Tulsiani stands back and considers the implications for local people as well as the locality itself.
 

On the 29^th of August 2017, Quintain, a property investment and development business, announced via its website that it was ‘spending £1m a day on construction making Wembley Park one of the UK’s biggest construction sites’. According to Quintain, there will be over 8,500 jobs created, with a further 3,000 homes under construction ‘delivered at a pace not seen at any other London development site’. The construction framework consists of six contractors, the notables being: McLaren, Wates, Sisk and Carillion. Quintain have recently shifted their construction policy from ‘build to buy’ to ‘build to rent’. They aim to build over 7,000 new homes, with 5,000 labelled as ‘build to rent’, and a further 2,300 as “affordable”.

 

Quintain and Brent Council have both resisted using the term ‘gentrification’ to describe their partnership in transforming the area. Instead, you’ll see ‘regeneration’ on practically every website or poster promoting the ongoing process. This is understandable, as the critics of any form of gentrification, are quick to label the selective description by property developers as deceptive and dishonest. Technically speaking, regeneration is embedded within the process of gentrification. The Cambridge Dictionary defines regeneration: ‘to improve a place or system, especially by making it more active or successful’. Gentrification is defined as: ‘the process by which a place, especially part of a city, changes from a being poor to being a richer one, where people from a higher social class live’. Wembley Park’s ‘regeneration’ process factually falls under both definitions (for the remainder of this article I will use the term ‘gentrification’ instead of ‘regeneration’, as it is more accurate to my subject matter). Although, to prevent an ethical breakdown, new tenants would probably cling to ‘regeneration’ as an ontological justification for staying in Wembley.

 

Residents who have lived in Brent for more than a decade will remember the industrial abyss that used to exist just a short walk from the station. In this sense, the gleaming metallic towers, illusory designer outlet and newly placed pavement are well relished. However, there are a few fundamental concerns that have simply been swept aside. Firstly, the effect on the surrounding areas. There is no surprise, that most, if not all the flats in Wembley are not “affordable”. In fact, that term is usually used to provoke a narrative of relativity concerning financial status. Quintain has invested £900 million into Wembley Park, without careful consideration and evaluation from the residents of Brent, this could lead to some serious socio-economic disparities. David Fell, a research analyst at Hamptons International states that property prices in HA9 “have risen by 14% in the last year [2016], compared to a London average of 10%.” Just down the road from Wembley Park, a two-bedroom flat is valued around £335,000. A flat of the same size, less than 10 minutes’ walk away, is valued at £450,000 - £500,000. Recently, Alto has sold two-bedroom flats in Wembley Park for £800,000.

 

A similar problem was highlighted in 2014 during gentrification processes in South Kilburn, where a member of the Residents’ Association claimed: “Those who have been living in the area are essentially being driven out. This all amounts to a social cleansing of South Kilburn.” Moreover, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations emphasised that the residents who have lived in South Kilburn for generations could no longer afford to live in their homes. These are not trivial or isolated matters. They’re simply the effects of gentrification. Wealth concentrated in one single area in this manner, will have drastic consequences. The surrounding populations will be allowed to use facilities, shops and walk the newly paved streets, but there is a cap on their indulgence of this ideology. Consider what the residents of Chalkhill think when their homes are (literally and metaphorically) overshadowed by the new apartment towers. When they, like so many other communities, have a lack of funding within their own neighbourhoods, along with other serious social issues. To name one, in Brent and Hounslow 34 high-rise buildings failed fire cladding tests issued after the horrendous disaster at Grenfell Tower. In contrast, I think it would be perfectly safe to assume that the newly built apartments in Wembley Park have some of the best fire safety systems available.

 

 Attached to this disparity of wealth is the subsequent problem of crime. There is no doubt that the new properties will have a well-maintained police presence, due to the proximity of the stadium, along with security guards for each building. Due to the disparity, crimes in the surrounding areas may increase. Let’s take some of surrounding areas as examples (take these as approximate averages): From January - August 2017, Alperton has had the average total crime rate of 118/month, Dollis Hill’s average total crime rate was 137/month, and Tokyngton stands at an average of 188/month. Tokyngton is the closest of the three areas to Wembley Park, and in recent years it has had a subsequent increase in total crimes committed. If the investment in selective industries and areas remains or increases in the next decade, there should be no surprise at the increase in crime. This correlation was well represented in gentrification processes in New York, especially Harlem. As living standards get higher, the price of property increases, more people will forcibly turn to crime – both petty and serious. The socio-cultural divide will only widen.

 

One last fundamental issue is an assessment by The FA (for those like myself who are not sport literate: The Football Association). In May 2016, The FA complained that Brent Council was considering those who visit the stadium “an afterthought”. The recent constructions sites, which appear directly outside the stadium, could present potential hazards to fans, according to the FA. In fact, these new apartments would present the highest, and thus the most expensive flats, with their own personalised view of the games below them. Wembley is already set to be overcrowded, yet with ongoing construction, and busy venues/rush hour, there should be an effective policy by the council to counter this.

 

Ultimately, I see no realistic counter-movement to what seems to be an unchecked gentrification process at Wembley. In the next decade, Wembley, just as many other towns in Greater London, will be injected with huge sums of money, none of which will aid ingrained social issues, but will make these issues less noticeable for those living in the newly ‘regenerated’ areas. In the meanwhile, surrounding populations will attempt to readjust and comfort themselves from their high price of living with the luxurious shopping outlets built on the borders between their areas and the ‘newly regenerated Wembley Park’.

 

Changes to 79 and 83 bus routes from August 26th

From TfL

 From Saturday 26 August, we are making some changes to our services on bus routes 79 and 83 around Alperton.

Route 79 will no longer serve stops between Alperton station and Alperton, Sainsbury's. Instead, it will be extended to Stonebridge Park station via Mount Pleasant and Beresford Avenue.

Buses on this route will continue to run every 12 minutes during the daytime Monday to Saturdays, and every 15 minutes during the evenings and all day on Sundays.

Route 83 will be extended from Alperton station to Alperton, Sainsbury's.

Buses on this route will continue to run every eight minutes during the daytime Monday to Saturdays, every 10 minutes during the daytime on Sundays and every 12 minutes during the evening on all days.

For travel between Alperton station and Alperton, Sainsbury's, use newly extended route 83 or existing route 224.

We will keep these changes under review to ensure we continue to offer the best service we can. For more information on these and other service changes, visit our bus changes page.

TfL confirms 79 and 83 bus route changes after consultation

 From Transport for London

Alperton and Stonebridge Park - Proposed changes to bus routes 79 and 83

Consultation has concluded

Update 31 July 2023 

Today we have published our consultation report following this consultation.

We received 256 responses to the consultation and would like to thank everyone that took part. A range of views were expressed in response to consultation. Generally, the feedback was positive with overall support for the proposals.

Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we have decided to proceed with the proposed changes to bus routes 79 and 83 as set out in the consultation.

The service changes are expected to take place during 2023  (Autumn) . Any changes will be supported with customer information in advance, and with minimal disruption to current bus journeys.

Thank you again to everyone that took part.

Executive Summary of Consultation Report

Between 6 March and 16 April 2023, we held a public consultation proposing
changes to bus routes 79 and 83 in the Alperton and Stonebridge Park areas of the London Borough of Brent.

Our aim was to adapt and develop the local bus network to support increased
demand for buses along Mount Pleasant and Beresford Avenue. It also aimed to
maintain bus links between Alperton Station and Sainsbury’s while creating new bus links between there and Kingsbury, West Hendon and Hendon. The proposals are summarised below:

• Route 79 - proposing extension of the route to serve Stonebridge Park
Station via Ealing Road, Mount Pleasant and Beresford Avenue. As a result,
the 79 would no longer serve bus stops between Ealing Road and Alperton,
Sainsbury’s

• Route 83 – proposed extension of the route from its current end point at
Alperton Station to a new end point at Alperton Sainsbury’s

We received 256 responses to the consultation. Of these, 254 were from members
of the public and two were from stakeholders.

The consultation sought to understand what respondents thought about the changes.

We also asked two closed questions asking people to let us know how often they
travelled on the bus routes in scope, and how they believed the proposals may affect their bus journey.

A total of 196 responded to the question about how the proposals may affect
passengers bus journeys. Of these, 74 per cent of respondents believed their bus
journey would be more convenient.

Generally, feedback was positive with overall support for the proposals. Supportive comments included alternative route suggestions and a general view the bus routes should run more frequently. Comments in opposition to the proposals were minimal and were related to traffic congestion and associated increased pollution and journey reliability if additional buses are introduced to Mount Pleasant, Beresford Avenue and Ealing Road.

Bridgewater development approved by Brent Planning Committee despite areas of non-compliance

Brent Planning Committee approved the revised schemes despite several areas of non-compliance with Brent Council's own guidance - the usual reasoning being the balance of benefits over disbenefits.

Only Cllr Michael Maurice voted against the application based on the shortfall of affordable housing and 3 bedroomed flats and the general design.

The issue of air quality on this busy road was not addressed  by the Committee or developer.

As Alperton ward councillor, Anton Georgiou, made a 5 minute contribution:

I always get a sense of déjà vu when addressing the Planning Committee. Every time I come here to oppose yet more dense development in my ward of Alperton, I do so on behalf of residents who are hugely frustrated and have simply had enough.

 

Affordability

 

I am not here to deny that young people like me, who were born in our borough, and have lived here our whole lives need places to live.

 

I am also not here to deny the fact that we continue to have a vast housing waiting list in Brent, which includes on it some of our most vulnerable residents.

 

That being said, I once again want to highlight that of the 173 units proposed in this development, only a fraction can be deemed realistically affordable, despite what the report states, with the vast majority being totally out of reach in terms of affordability for local people, let alone our most in need residents over the long term.

 

54 units are proposed at a London Affordable Rent level and the other 119 are shared ownership.

 

Shared ownership, as I am sure the Committee will agree, has huge pitfalls. Before approving more shared ownership schemes in Brent, we need further evidence that shared ownership is a genuinely affordable housing model. There are indicators that the most economically vulnerable are at most risk with shared ownership. It is one thing to deem units affordable at this stage, but as many already have unfortunately found out, there is no long-term guarantee of affordability. Particularly with no defined cap on rising rents on the percentage the shared-owner doesn’t ‘own’, coupled with the misery of ever increasing service charges and extra hidden costs like building repairs, the cost of lease extension, fees attached to stair-casing.

 

Don’t take my word for it, I highly recommend Committee members take a look at reports from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which go into detail about why Councils should be highly sceptical of shared ownership. In my opinion, we should be arguing against this broken housing model altogether.

 

This development also does not meet Brent’s 25% target for family sized units, as stated in the report – something that we really, really need in our borough. We do not need even more 1 to 2--bedroom boxes in the sky. Why do we have targets if we allow developers the room to always miss them?

 

Infrastructure

 

The proposed development is in an area that is experiencing intense development. The impact that this is already having on existing residents cannot be overstated. I have spoken to many families who have or are thinking about leaving Alperton because of nonstop development.

 

Planning decisions being by this Council are literally driving people out of our borough.

 

Despite the excessive amount of CIL, of which this development would contribute more to the pot, existing residents see very little done in terms of improvements to infrastructure in Alperton. In fact, we are seeing worsening standards in the area.

 

The meagre £50,000 ring fenced through section 106 contributions for One Tree Hill, will not touch the surface of ASB and other issues there. I speak from experience having seen how an NCIL bid worth over £100,000 to transform Alperton Sports Ground down the road, which had to be approved by Cabinet, did not even come close to addressing the concerns or desires of residents.

 

The recent loss of Alperton Bus Garage, a major, historic transport infrastructure site, just metres from the proposed development, has had a knock-on effect on local bus services. The concern that this would happen was brushed aside when the decision on that development was made.

 

I also note references to proximity to Alperton station and the Piccadilly Line in this report. In theory yes, it is a great asset that should be adequately serving local need. It does not. The infrequency of Piccadilly Line trains on the Alperton branch, when compared to the Heathrow one continues to be a major problem that results in huge backlogs at rush hour times. Despite recognition by all developers in the area that Alperton station is becoming a major travel hub that will be used by more local people the contribution towards step-free access by the developer is nowhere near enough to realise this aspiration.

                                                                           

Many of us have long highlighted the dire and dangerous state of local pavements. Metres from the proposed site on Bridgewater Road over 30% of paving slabs are regarded by Council Officers to be in need of repair and yet there is never enough resource to do essential remedial works. I find the response to a resident comment on this matter in the report particularly interesting, as it states “Community Infrastructure Levy funding could contribute towards works of this type”, which in my view and from my understanding of CIL would set a precedent.

 

Fundamentally, Alperton residents do not understand why more and more developments are being granted approval by this Committee whilst the state of local infrastructure is so bad.

 

Parking

 

A major issue we as Councillors have to contend with is the demand for parking provision in our wards. I can only reiterate how bad the situation is in Alperton, even more so in immediate areas surrounding new development.

 

There does not seem to be an overarching plan by the local authority to deal with inevitable increases in the number of vehicles on our roads. Existing residents are already contending with pressures on local parking provision as it stands – this development will make it worse. I do not believe the £80,000 contribution by the developer towards the implementation of a Controlled Parking Zone is a fix. The imposition of a CPZ without resident consent is wrong.

 

If we want to move away from reliance on car use, which I agree with, why is the Council not investing heavily in active travel infrastructure measures, like cycle lanes, alongside the approval of even more development in Alperton. It is short-sighted not to.

 

Conclusion

 

I appeal to every member of the Committee to really consider what this authority achieves by imposing yet more tower blocks in Alperton.

 

The focus of this Council should at this stage be to take stock, establish whether existing development has contributed to making our area better and gain a better awareness of the dangers of promoting shared ownership.

 

I strongly urge you to reject this application.