As a child living in Kingsbury in the 1950s I was fond of the suburban front gardens of Crundale Avenue and Valley Drive - full of shrubs, flowers and the occasional specimen tree. Now many of those have been converted into parking lots..
The CPRE Front Gardens Network seeks to stop the decline of the front garden and the biodiversity they encouraged. In a September online meeting Rosie Whicheloe, in an Independent Ecologiss capacity, gave a stimulating presentation on how to reverse, enhance or preserve front gardens. It began by demonstrating how the front gardens between Fryent Country Park and the Welsh Harp could be mapped as a project starting point.
Thanks to the CPRE, Front Gardens Network and Rosie for permission to post the video here.
The London Front Gardens Network promotes de-paving and re-greening of
front gardens by enabling people working in this area to exchange
information and ideas, amplify the voices of individuals, and promote
joint working where it can increase impact. Ultimately the aim is to
re-establish important wildlife habitat; reduce river pollution and
flooding caused by excessive rainwater run-off; reduce the urban heat
island effect caused by paved surfaces; and make streets more pleasant
to encourage walking and to promote wellbeing.
Suburban street in Jack Rosenthal's 'Ptang, yang, Kipperbang' (1982)
The UK’s
disappearing gardens
Most recently, in October, the Royal
Horticultural Society (RHS) published The
State of Gardening, along with
first-time mapping of the UK’s domestic,
public and private gardens which finds
that:
“Just 0.15%
of domestic garden is artificial lawn
but this still accounts for 7.5million
m2 while artificial
grass across all cultivated green space
stands at 18million m2 -
more than six times the size of the
City of London.”
“More than
a third (35%) of domestic gardens
comprises lawn, with 25.8% under trees
and 11% as flower beds.”
“42% of
domestic garden space is paved over
(55% of front garden space and 36% of
back garden space)”
As we know, the loss of gardens adds
to rising flood risk and health-harm from
higher temperatures i.e. not just in
official ‘heatwaves’, and reduces the role
of gardens, soils and plants in supporting
wild species, storing carbon, and capturing
some air pollutants.
Policymakers
to guarantee “Space to Grow” in all
housing and urban planning, so every
household has access to a garden.
Homeowners
to consider robust planting and
permeable paving for front garden
driveways to help mitigate flood risk
and promote the cooling potential of
gardens as well as support
biodiversity.
Local
councils to ensure diversity in tree
planting, prioritising those species
that will respond best to climate
change.
Developers
to design gardens with water
channelling, capture and storage
facilities to help future proof them.
The first stage of the huge Northwick Park development taking shape. Photo taken today from Northwick Park station platform
Earlier this month the CPRE held an-online meeting entitled, 'Is Government taking
London's housing crisis seriously?' with Zoe Garbett (Green Party AM and former London Mayoral candidate) and Michael Ball of Just Space speaking.
With London's housing crisis likely to be a major local election issue in 2026 and the subject of much debate on Wembley Matters I thought it was worth posting the video of the CPRE meeting.
The video begins with a presentation by Alice Roberts and Grace Harrison-Porter of the CPRE, followed by a talk by Zoe Garbett at 10.18 and presentation and talk by Michael Ball at 26.00.
In my view the video is well worth watching as a contribution to the debate. It covers issues including affordability, fiancial viability assessments, council house sales, rent controls, estate demolition versus refurbishment and much more. A discussion of Land Value Tax would have been a useful addition.
Some challenging issues are raised and potential solutions suggested. PDFs of the presentations are available CPRE HERE and JUST SPACE HERE
At the same time the CPRE published a very challenging list of 'Housing Crisis Myths'. Thanks to CPRE for this information and video LINK.
Myth 1:
There are not enough houses for everyone
The census has shown there is
more than enough property for the population. In Croydon, the total number of
dwellings has increased by 39% since
1971, despite population growth of just 13% over the same
period, but house prices have still gone up.
Existing housing stock is not always well distributed
– for example, some homes are underoccupied, some are overcrowded, some are
second homes, many are empty. Also, some parts of the country have more demand
pressure than others. But actually, the crisis is about the price of homes, not
the quantity.
Myth 2:
Building more homes will solve the housing crisis
House prices have spiralled as a consequence of high
demand, fuelled by low interest rates, public subsidies, such as Help to Buy,
and the purchase of property for investment.
At the same time, the selling-off of social housing
has forced many people into the private rental sector. In the absence of rent
controls, this has pushed rental prices up too.
Successive governments have allowed, even helped,
housing to become ‘financialised’, meaning it is treated as an investment, with
an expectation that it will deliver a return. This means homeowners can profit
but it also means housing ultimately become unaffordable. Most countries
regulate their housing markets to avoid homes being treated as assets, on the
understanding that housing is essential and it’s not in the common interest
that it becomes too expensive.
Myth 3:
Building more houses will drive down house prices
The ‘supply and demand’ argument is often used to
bolster this myth. But one study suggests that
building 300,000 homes a year in England for 20 years would reduce prices by
only 10%.
The fact is this logic doesn’t work if demand stays
high. And, despite years of adding to housing stock, prices are not coming
down. They continue to go up because, in the absence of market intervention,
people will pay whatever they have to because they need a home.
Myth 4:
The planning system is broken
Actually, the planning system is working well.
Planning permissions are being granted. London Councils, which represents
London boroughs, highlights the 283,000 potential new homes already granted
planning permission in London and waiting to be built. The build rate for the
past five years is roughly 38,000 so that’s seven and a half years’ supply.
Politicians like to blame the planning system, but
in reality it is doing its job. In fact, giving councils more powers and
capacity to work with developers could help bring appropriate development
forward more quickly.
But the real solutions to the housing crisis have
nothing to do with planning. This narrative is a red herring. The real
solutions lie in building social housing, ending Right to Buy, bringing empty
homes back into use and controlling the private rented sector. In other words,
the real solutions lie in
tackling the real causes.
Myth 5:
There isn’t enough land – we need to build on green fields
Local authorities are allocating sites in their
Local Plans – many more than can be built on in the next 20 years. So,
allocating more land does not translate into more houses being built. It just
gives developers a wider choice of sites.
Plus, urban land is constantly recycled, so
brownfield sites are available. CPRE research shows there’s space for at least
1.2 million homes on previously developed land and this is just the tip of the
iceberg.
Myth 6:
Private housebuilders will build affordable housing
Housebuilders are often required to provide a quota
of ‘affordable’ housing (not necessarily social rent) in a development. But the
number they end up building is usually scaled back when developers say their
costs have risen.
Some affordable housing can be delivered via
private sector housebuilding. But realistically, the building of social housing
will have to be publicly funded if we are going to come close to solving the
housing crisis.
This is the only way to reduce the vast sums of
money councils are spending on temporary accommodation – a situation that is
not just costly but will have lifetime impacts on the people in it. Government
can make this more financially viable by building on land already in public
ownership (see myth 8 below).
Myth 7:
Building on the Green Belt will solve the crisis
Building on Green Belt won’t lead to more houses
being built and it won’t speed up house building. The speed at which the market
delivers is related to what it thinks it can sell, as well as constraints like
lack of labour, materials and financing.
And it won’t deliver affordable housing. Green Belt
developments are rarely affordable – they are expensive ‘executive homes’ in
unsustainable locations, marketed for people on high incomes who can afford
cars. New roads, and new water and power infrastructure all have to be built,
so there’s no money left for affordable homes.
Building on Green Belt is the worst of all worlds –
we tear up the countryside, with a massive environmental impact, and fail to
solve the housing crisis.
Myth 8:
Parts of the Green Belt are grey
Even where Green Belt is unattractive, “low-value scrub land”,
there is no reason it can’t be restored. Planning authorities are required to
improve sites that require it and even scrubland is a much-valued wildlife
habitat.
This kind of misleading statement hinders progress
by driving speculative purchase of Green Belt, which pushes land prices up
further. Plus, the Green Belt is increasingly valuable in tackling the climate and nature crises.
Also, there is a real grey belt – car parks and
road layouts, often in town centres, that take up huge amounts of space while
underpinning car-centred travel. This forces disinvestment in public transport
and has social, health and environment impacts.
Ironically, the real answer to the housing
crisis lies in the real grey belt – national and local government owns
7,555 hectares of surface car parks. That’s enough
land to build 2.1 million low-cost homes. Crucially, there is no cost for the
land, so new homes are much cheaper to build.
Housing developments on town centre car parks could
be built without car parking, so won’t worsen traffic further. People who don’t
drive or own a car can live close to amenities. The reduction in car parking
encourages more people onto buses. This makes them more financially viable, so
more frequent services and new routes can be introduced. A win-win scenario.
Myth 9:
Those who challenge the housebuilding policy are NIMBYs
CPRE London, like others given this label, strongly
agrees that we need to build new homes. But the crisis is one of affordability,
so we challenge the idea that increasing housing supply (building more houses)
alone will bring down the cost of rent or house prices. This does not make us
‘NIMBYs’.
Myth 10:
There’s nothing I can do to help
Yes, the housing situation in London is dire. And
it might seem like there’s little we can do. But by learning more about the
real causes and the real solutions, talking to people and encouraging them to
challenge the build, build, build narrative, slowly we might be able to affect
change.
The group of trees affected by the mast planning application
The mast and cabinet. The mast is twice the height of the tallest trees
The planning application for the erection of a 20 metre telecommunication mast in Woodcock Hill has encountered tough local opposition. The location is a rare green space that locals, working with St Gregory's School, had hoped to turn into a community garden. There are 31 objections on the Brent Planning Portal including from St Gregory's School, the CPRE, Friends of Woodcock Park and Northwick Park Residents' Association.
There are concerns about the stability of the bank next to the Wealdstone Brook if tree roots are damaged by escavation and the bank is an Environment Agency flood asset. The area is known to suffer from subsidence and sink holes. Beneath the land there is believed to be a trunk sewer,
gas lines, a water main and telecommunication lines.
The group of trees is part of a wildlife corridor and the area around Wealdstone Brook is designated a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.The mast is proposed to be situated in a woodland of 5 trees, including 4 oaks 10 metres tall in front of a mix of Prunus, False Acacia, Ash and Maples. They are 40 metres from the facing houses on Kenton Road
Many residents in the streets surrounding the site say that they did not receive a consultation letter, despite Brent Council claims that they were sent, and the site notice was not posted until the school holidays had started.
Location Street Record, Woodcock
Hill, Harrow Proposal Prior approval for installation of a 20m monopole supporting
6 no. antennas, 2 no. transmission dishes, 2 no. equipment cabinets and
ancillary development thereto on land at Wealdstone Brook rear of 75-79
Woodgrange Avenue, Harrow, HA3 0XG
OBJECTORS
CPRE London
is a membership-based charity with 2500 members across London, concerned with
the preservation and enhancement of London's vital green spaces, as well as the
improvement of London's environment for the health and wellbeing of all
Londoners.
We are writing to object to the above application on the following basis:
- The height and bulk of the proposed mast is out of character with the local
area.
- We are also concerned that the development could damage trees and disturb the
nearby wildlife corridor, home to a variety of wildlife including bats and more
than twenty species of birds.
The Friends of Woodock Park have objected as follows:
The Friends of Woodcock Park
are objecting to the planning application for the installation of a mobile
phone mast.
The mast is not in keeping with the local environment. It is on the edge of
Woodcock Park and in a residential street.
We are very concerned about the installation of a phone mast in such close
proximity to St Gregory's High School and also to Bright Start Nursery School
located in the Methodist Church opposite the proposed location. As you are
aware St Gregory's School is within 100m of the proposed site, however the
School is currently using the car park in Woodcock Park for temporary
classrooms whilst the RAAC problem is dealt with in the main school. Pupils in
these temporary classrooms will be in closer proximity to the mast. Students
will have to walk past the proposed mast twice a day to enter the School,
increasing their exposure to high intensity EMF radiation from the 5G masts.
This exposure will impact their health and well-being.
Brent should adopt the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE and not have 5G Masts near
schools. Brent would be liable for any potential legal actions taken in the
future. in her letter of 27 February 2020, to the minister at the Dept of
Digital Culture Media and Sport (DDCMS), Wera Hobhouse MP quotes DLA Piper -
solicitors to Public Health England (PHE) now UK Health Security Agency
(UKHSA), who themselves rely in ICNIRP guidelines - as saying:
"A public body must determine how much weight to put on the PHE guidance.
Equally that body must determine what other evidence from your client or other
members of the public or interested parties to consider in making any decision.
If it be alleged that a public body now or in the future acted unlawfully in
placing reliance on the guidance, that cannot retrospectively taint the
guidance with illegality." This underlines the fact that, if you rely on
ICNIRP, it is the council - not the ICNIRP guidance or its issuer - are liable.
And, do you as a council know that the ICNIRP 1998 guidelines state that the
prevention of harm and advice about interference is beyond the scope of ICNIRP?
The proposed location is on valuable green space, managed by Brent Parks, not
on the Highway. The masts should not be installed on park land. Have they
permissions to install here? Brent Parks have already agreed a project for a
community flower garden in this same area. It will be more difficult to
maintain the grass area around the mast, thereby increasing costs to Brent
Council.
The cabinets will attract graffiti and fly-tipping both already a problem in
this area, at more cost to the Council.
We are also concerned about the effect of this mast on the wildlife, especially
the birds and the bats which forage along the Wealdstone Brook. and on the
trees nearby. The Bat Conservation Trust recommend that "the erection of
masts should be carefully considered, locating the mast on a part of the
building as far from known roosting locations and flight paths as
possible." The area around the Wealdstone Brook is designated a SINC site.
The higher frequencies used in 5G technology are known to be particularly
damaging to insect and bird populations. A 2018 study showed how the shorter
wavelengths in higher frequencies are absorbed more easily by insects' bodies,
creating a heating effect. There were increases in absorbed power up to 370%
when the insects, including honeybees, were exposed to these frequencies, with
detrimental effects on their behaviour and health.
The installation of a mast on the opposite side of the park has resulted in at
least 2 silver birch trees dying. These had to be removed this year at a cost
to the council. The loss of trees at the proposed site would be very serious,
as the roots hold the banks of the Wealdstone Brook together. No cabinets or
masts should interfere with tree roots.
The area of Woodcock Hill itself is known to flood and this will add to the
flood risk.
We believe the area is located over a trunk sewer. Confirmation should be
sought from Thames Water prior to any approval, as they do not permit
development over a trunk sewer.
This installation will not enhance biodiversity and may even have a negative
effect, contrary to Brent Councils promotion and enhancement and use of the
Blue Ribbon network: a. Proposals for development adjacent to river and canal
edges are required to improve access to the waterways and provide an
appropriate landscaped set-back which may include public open space. b.
Developments adjacent to the Blue Ribbon network and other tributaries, or
waterways with potential to negatively impact on its water quality will be
required to contribute towards restoration and naturalisation of waterways, and
seek to enhance water quality and biodiversity in accordance with the
objectives of the Water Framework Directive and Thames River Basin Management
Plan.
Northwick Park Residents' Association object:
On behalf of
the Northwick Park Residents' Association, we wish to formally object to the
above-referenced planning application for the installation of a
telecommunications mast on Wealdstone Brook, opposite 12 Woodcock Hill.
Our association represents the views of numerous residents, many of whom live
within proximity to the proposed site. Our objections are based on the
following key concerns:
1. Preservation of Valued Green Space and Wildlife
The proposed installation site is located on a cherished green space that
supports a diverse range of wildlife. Over the years, residents have actively
collaborated with Brent Council to enhance this area by expanding flower beds
and promoting biodiversity at this end of Kenton/Woodcock Hill. The
installation of a 5G telecommunications mast on this land threatens to disrupt
the delicate ecosystem, negatively impacting the flora and fauna that the
community has worked hard to nurture and protect.
2. Environmental and Health Risks
There is growing evidence that continuous exposure to non-ionising microwave
radiation, such as that emitted by 5G equipment, has a detrimental impact on
living organisms, including animals, birds, insects, and plants. For example,
birds may abandon their nests, suffer from deteriorating health, and face
increased mortality rates. Similarly, the bee population, crucial for
pollination and agriculture, could experience colony collapse and navigational
disruptions. The long-term effects on soil-based micro-organisms, plants, and
trees are also of significant concern.
In addition to environmental risks, we are deeply concerned about the potential
health impacts on residents. The EU report EPRS_ST and other scientific studies
provide substantial evidence of the carcinogenicity of RF-EMF radiation in
humans. We have linked these documents below (Sub517) that has been
acknowledged by the Australian Government, highlighting the need for caution.
We urge Brent Council to carefully review this evidence and to refrain from
approving this application.
3. Proximity to St Gregory's School
The proposed site is less than 100 meters from St Gregory's School, which is
one of the top 50 schools in England, educating around 1,700 students aged 11
to 17. These students pass by the proposed installation, exposing them to
potentially harmful levels of EMF radiation. The potential health risks to
these young people, whose well-being should be a priority, cannot be ignored.
The evidence attached to this objection further supports our concerns.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Northwick Park Residents' Association strongly opposes this
planning application due to the significant risks it poses to the local
environment, wildlife, and the health of residents, particularly the students
at St Gregory's School. We strongly urge Brent Council to reject this
application and to take into consideration the long-term implications for our
community.
Should the Council proceed with approval, please be advised that Northwick Park
Residents' Association, alongside the residents and parents of students at St
Gregory's School and the wider community, will hold the Council fully
responsible for any adverse health outcomes resulting from this decision.
From CPRE London on behalf of the More Natural Capital coalition
In the run
up to the elections on 6 May we urge you to ask all the candidates for Mayor of
London and the London Assembly to support the More Natural Capital proposals
and encourage your family and friends to do likewise. Details of the election
candidates can be found here: https://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/candidates
The Campaign to Protect Rural England published a report today on traffic noise in London parks.
There is a PDF for each London borough. I have published the Brent report at the end of this article.
The
research
· Noise maps were created for all the
main parks in London, a total of 885, and set out in a separate document for
each borough
· Using official, publicly available
data, the noise levels were assessed for each park depending on the proportion
of the park which was impacted by noise. Each park was categorised accordingly
and the data was collated
· A note was also made where parks
were completely free from noise; where the whole park was noisy; and where the
noise was particularly loud The findings
· Almost a third – one in three –
(29%) of the 885 London parks surveyed are severely impacted by traffic noise
(defined as meaning that 50% to 100% of the park is impacted by traffic noise
of 55 decibels or above)
· The results were wide-ranged. Sutton
has the fewest parks (7%) severely impacted by traffic noise and Enfield has
the most (57%)
· South London parks are quieter. All
South London Boroughs except one, Lambeth, have a figure below the median for
percentage of parks severely impacted by noise (see Table 2 p23)
· Being an Inner or Outer London
borough does not mean and having noisier or quieter parks
· Fewer than half (44%) of the London
parks surveyed are completely free from traffic noise
· Around one in five (18%) of the
parks surveyed are completely noisy i.e. traffic noise of 55 decibels or above
can be heard everywhere in the park
· A quarter (25%) of London’s parks
are impacted by particularly loud noise defined as being where at least one
quarter of the park is impacted by noise of 60 decibels or above
Noise in parks matters because:
· People are less likely to use parks
when they are noisy, so benefits are lost
· The key amenity benefit of access to
tranquillity is lost when parks are noisy
· There is strong correlation between
noise and air pollution from traffic, so where people are
exposed to noise, they are also exposed to air pollution
· Noise contributes towards a range of
physical and mental health problems
· Noise impacts negatively on wildlife
· Where the local park is noisy, local
communities will de facto be experiencing a deficiency in green space which does not register in assessments
RECOMMENDATIONS
London Boroughs, the Mayor and
Transport for London need to work together to:
· Permanently remove traffic from
roads impacting parks by re-routing traffic; by introducing traffic filtering
(e.g. resident access only, or cycle access and emergency vehicle access only)
and speed limits; or by pedestrianising streets near to parks, to reduce
traffic levels
·Introduce regular, temporary road
closures, like Sunday closures of the Mall in St James’ Park
· Investigate ways to mitigate noise,
for example by the use of noise barriers, noise reducing road surfaces and
natural features, including planting hedgerows Assessments of
deficiency / sufficiency in greenspace should include an assessment of the
amenity or quality of the green space, including taking noise levels into
account. London and National Policy should be revised so
that assessments of deficiency in greenspace take account of whether the
amenity or quality of the space is seriously impacted by noise (and concomitant
air) pollution, rather than simply assessing the amount of space and its
distance from residents/users. Green Flag Awards assessments should
consider giving more weight to noise reduction and mitigation for parks
severely impacted by road noise.
