LETTER: Could the South Kilburn HS2 Vent serve as a wartime bunker for the estate?

 Dear Editor

I am unhappy about the HS2 pollution vent and escape staircase being forced on us in South Kilburn without any mitigation for the estate from HS2.

 

 

The Vent (Photo: Ian Visits)

 

I tried to get HS2 to invest some of its vast local mitigation funds in the South Kilburn Public Open Space (Kilburn Park), Brent Kilburn's only park sized park open to all Londoners 24/7 - an ideal sizable open area worthy of investment and protection, perfect open space to use in any HS2 tunnel emergency. Yet pretty much as a Local Green Space Designation in the  new Brent Local Plan application was rejected, HS2 and the redevelopers had zero interest in this local compensation investment funding proposal.

 

However thinking about full scale war in Europe happening in 2022, maybe      'being Londongrad makes us safe' could be lazy government party think?  In WW2 South Kilburn was bombed from Europe's mainland, so in WW3 why not again, or have modern weapons delivery systems regressed since 1939? Countries like Ukraine, Slovakia and Germany all  have a defence emergency forward plan and major taxpayer money is invested in bunkersbecause of the bombing risk, so why not the UK?   

 

South Kilburn Stations Growth Area has a massive population density with towered car free housing the only infrastructure (and a re-developer sideline business in underground car parks/ extra access vehicle roads for surrounding de-growth protected zones customers). The possible risk of an HS2 tunnel fire and train passengers needing to escape from the HS2 tunnel is predicted and designed for. But what about looking at this design in reverse? Instead of rail passengers escaping up the staircase, South Kilburn residents could escape down the same staircase into this massive tunnel system to survive London being bombed. The HS2 vent/ staircase would finally have its local plus value. (In Kharkiv people have been living on underground trains in tunnels for 61 days so far a predicted emergency defence planned for in advance by Ukraine government).

 

This on site HS2 vent/ emergency staircase is a London emergency defence infrastructure near ready-made asset (would need an up-graded door and to be urban disguised). And such a bunker as key London emergency infrastructure may even attract people to live in South Kilburn (Hampstead and Belsize Park already have cold war era bunkers). My thinking is also that this emergency amenity could lead to a new footpath and cycle bridge being built over the electrified railway to this tunnels entrance point from Kilburn conservation 'village' north side, better connecting Brent Kilburn Town and shortening active travel journey time's in Kilburn everyday life.

 

Who knows this new HS2 built defence infrastructure bunker for South Kilburn might even lead to social infrastructure investment for this mega population density revenue raising project being allowed?

 

David Walton

Flood Local Action South Kilburn

 

 

South Kilburn residents will have to endure a summer of 24 hours a day, 5 days a week, work on the HS2 vent. Is Brent Council concerned for their health and wellbeing?

 

Seven years ago South Kilburn residents demonstrated against the siting of an HS2 vent on the estate because of the disruption its building would cause and the fact that it was right next to a primary school.

They were even more furious when they discovered that their own council, Brent Council, had lobbied to have the vent moved to the estate, already suffering from disruptive regeneration, from the original site on council owned land next to Queens Park station.

Years of noise, dust and stress have followed so residents were even more distressed to have a warning from HS2  LINK of worse to come.  South Kilburn resident Pete Firmin told Wembley Matters:

HS2 seems to be able to work whenever it likes, doing whatever it wants, with the blessing of Brent Council. The Council itself never communicates with local residents about the works, and as far as anyone can tell, doesn't monitor whether HS2 keeps to even the few restrictions on its working hours etc. Neighbours of the vent shaft have given up complaining, because nothing happens. How inadequate protection from noise and dust really is may be indicated by the fact that HS2 lists further work on the retaining wall they already erected between the site and Carlton House as one of its next jobs. 

 

Since persuading HS2 that the vent shaft should be in the middle of the estate rather than on the empty Queens Park station car park, Brent, for all intents and purposes, has washed its hands of any responsibility. And HS2 is no longer willing to meet residents together, insisting all "consultation" is one to one.

No recognition by either Brent or HS2 of the stress and exposure to noise and dust caused by living in the South Kilburn building site for 20+ years

This is part of the communication from HS2 to residents:

Extended working hours within the Canterbury Works site

 
We wrote to you previously regarding extended hours while we build the ventilation shaft. The sprayed concrete lining (SCL) works were due to start on the 7 March 2022 and continue until September 2022.due to ongoing reviews of our working methods, these works work will now start in late March or early April and will continue until September 2022. The exact date remains subject to confirmation.

The SCL and shaft excavation works will take place throughout the day and night. This must be carried out as a continuous process to avoid collapses and ensure the safety of the workforce within the ventilation shaft during construction. This means that from late March / early April we will be permitted to carry out works 24 hours a day, 5 days a week. We will only carry out works agreed with Brent Council and will adhere to the agreed working hours, noise and vibration limits.

The diagram below shows a cut section of the shaft and how it will be constructed.

Enhancement works within the Network Rail Yard

 
Works are ongoing within the site, near the Network Rail tracks, to prepare for installation of a new site access point via Albert Road. These works will involve the construction of a new access ramp for vehicles to enter the site. As part of these works, we will be carrying out works to strengthen the retaining wall between our site and back gardens at Carlton House. These works are currently planned from May to July but remain subject to confirmation. The works will be agreed with Brent Council and we will write to Carlton House resident with more information.

Whilst we continue the works to prepare for the new ramp and vehicle access point, we will continue using the site access on Canterbury Road for vehicle entry and exit from site.

What to expect during our works

 
During the works outlined in this update you may notice the following within the site:
• Heavy good vehicles – entering and exiting site
• Excavators / excavating activities
• Cranes / lifting operations
• Lighting towers
• Concreting equipment
• Temporary traffic management and signage during work on the public highway

 

 

Why Scrutiny needed a Task Force on the South Kilburn Regeneration

The following letter was sent to members of Brent Scrutiny Committee and Cllr Conneely by Pete Firmin on January 28th.  None of the Committee have acknowledged receipt.  It was a follow up to the December Scrutiny Committee discussion of the South Kilburn Regeneration which is on the agenda of the Cabinet tonight:
 

Firstly, thank you for allowing me to express our concerns with regard to the regeneration of South Kilburn at the Scrutiny Committee meeting of 2^nd December, we often feel that residents of South Kilburn are not listened to. Thank you too for asking searching questions of the lead member and officer presenting the report.

There are a few issues which arose in your discussion which I would like to clarify or correct, and which may help you decide how to proceed:

* Councillor McLennan insisted that she had responded to the concerns raised by our TRA in its motion of July 2014 (which I attach again for your interest). Unfortunately this is not the case. The walkabout which Councillor McLennan referred to was about day-to-day issues rather than the more general issues we raised in the resolution. You do not have to take my word for this, if Councillor McLennan is correct that she has responded to those concerns, I’m sure she will gladly provided you with a copy of correspondence from her on the matter. This is not of minor importance; it goes to the heart of how our concerns have been ignored.

* Richard Barrett referred to the proposal to site the HS2 vent shaft at Canterbury Works as a success. He did not even acknowledge the concerns of residents about another heavy construction project being sited next to a junior school and in the middle of a residential area. Local residents and parents of children at the school feel much betrayed by Brent in pushing for the vent shaft to be sited there. There has been no serious attempt to engage with them over the issue, even though our objections are known. It is very hard to find a local resident not appalled by this, as evidenced by the fact that several petitions of hundreds of signatures are now with parliament spelling out those concerns. Even if you believe that LBB has been right to argue for the vent shaft to be sited at Canterbury Works, I would hope that you realise that the way it has gone about it can only serve to alienate residents.

* Richard Barrett said that Coventry Close is not within the area of the regeneration. This after having said that regeneration reaches as far as Kilburn High Road. Part of the Catalyst site is on Coventry Close, and one of their site entrances which caused many problems, is on Coventry Close. Yet no-one seems to believe they have any responsibility for a road which is badly in need of work.

* Asked about additional capacity at the proposed health Centre, we are told that, at least in the immediate term, this will merely bring 3 existing GP practices under the same roof. Yet, although Cllr McLennan and Mr Barrett could not provide figures, the population of South Kilburn is increasing considerably with regeneration (possibly doubling). While it was said that the new centre will `have scope’ for additional GPs, there appeared to be no real push for that, leaving it up to whether NHS England decide to act. Yet I can say from personal experience that existing practices are already having difficulty coping.

* When asked about a pharmacy for the health centre, Richard Barrett mentioned the one at Queens Park station and said the next was Boots on the Kilburn High Road. I had to point out that there is a pharmacy at Kilburn Park tube station, in fact the only one actually in South Kilburn. Mr Barrett said one of the two he mentioned should be approached to run the pharmacy in the new health centre, yet the one at Kilburn park should possibly be given first refusal, since it is likely to lose all its trade when the new centre is built, being currently opposite Kilburn Park Medical Centre,  the largest of those due to go into the Peel precinct centre.

* Again on infrastructure, it was clear from Mr Barrett’s response that the suggested amalgamation of Carlton Vale Infant  and Kilburn Park Junior schools is going nowhere, but no plan B is forthcoming to cope with the increased population.

* Councillor McLennan claimed we were in the masterplan but chose not to be. In actual fact, though we had objections to the masterplan, we were eventually excluded through lack of finance, not primarily because of our objections (we also objected to the destruction of some other entirely sound low rise blocks, to no avail). The implication here is that the problems we have suffered with regeneration are self-inflicted. But surely, even if it were the case that we were left out of regeneration because of our protests, that would not excuse the treatment we have had at the hands of Wilmott Dixon/catalyst.

* Richard Barrett said that he had had regular meetings with the developers at Kilburn Park and raised problems of their behaviour towards us with them. All we can say is that if that is the case Wilmott Dixon/Catalyst have ignored such admonishments. The catalogue of problems which I distributed to you at the scrutiny committee meeting (and attached again here) is only a summary, but should give you a strong indication of those problems. They are continuing right up until the end of the development (now more than a year overrun). A recent Freedom of Information request got the response that, actually, Mr Barrett has passed on very few of our complaints to other relevant parts of the Council. Problems are now continuing way beyond the “completion” of construction in the Kilburn Park. Wilmott Dixon/Catalyst have made various commitments about things they will do at completion, none of which has yet been done. As an example, I cite the fact that on many occasions they promised our windows would be cleaned on completion of the site. We are still waiting.

* On the regeneration more generally, Richard Barrett said that part of the success story of regeneration is that property values in the area have increased. What an amazing statement! We would see that as more of a problem than a “success”. Unfortunately, SK regeneration has not provided any additional social housing in the area to what existed, only unaffordable properties.

* Again on the issue of involvement/engagement, Mr Barrett said that he regularly attends meetings of the Tenant s Steering Group. Those not in the know will not realise that this is a body only for those being moved with regeneration, not for all SK tenants. Rather, when 2 members of our TRA went to a meeting of the TSG they were told they were not supposed to be there but could stay as long as they did not say anything. Similarly, South Kilburn Trust is repeatedly said to work across all the SK area. It does not. The only issue on which we have managed to get SK Trust to work with us is on the hoped-for access to St Mary’s school MUGA (an issue which has now dragged on for 10 years or more). When, for instance, the SK Trust expressed its view on the siting of the HS2 vent shaft in South Kilburn, they made no attempt at all to find out the views of those living close to the proposed site.

There is much more I could say, but will stop there. We would hope that these comments, together with your views expressed at the scrutiny committee meeting, would encourage you to urgently establish a task force to look closer at the regeneration of South Kilburn and the problems it has thrown up. As an organisation of residents, we would be more than happy to assist with, even serve on, such a task force.

Pete Firmin

Chair, on behalf of Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association.

Serious scrutiny requires review of how Brent works with residents on regeneration

This is the full version of Pete Firmin's presentation to Brent Scrutiny Committee tonight. Not all of it was delivered due to the time limit on presentations.

I’m the chair of Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury tenants and Residents Association on the South Kilburn Estate behind Kilburn Park tube station.

We welcome the opportunity to raise our concerns about many aspects of the South Kilburn regeneration. While we thought it rather late in the day, we were pleased when the previous chair of Scrutiny, Dan Filson said there would be a task force set up to look at the issues involved and that residents would have substantial input into that.

He contacted us mentioning many issues which should be looked at, including:

how the decanting process has gone so far, and 

what lessons can Brent (and maybe other authorities too) learn from the project and apply in future schemes. 

whether the properties should have had greater internal usable space  

the disruption during building works  

the amount and nature of external social amenities like play space, open space, doctor surgeries, primary school facilities, community hall facilities or general circulation  

In addition, one of our Kilburn Councillors, Rita Conneelly, suggested to himand us additional issues:

What was delivered and was it the best we could have ?

Whether choosing Catalyst and Willmott Dixon was best for this phase of the development and whether Scrutiny feels Catalyst and Willmott Dixon have breached significantly enough of their contract for Scrutiny to recommend they not be used in future commissions (remembering that Willmott Dixon failed to remain enrolled in the Considerate Constructers scheme, failed to manage their site and minimise impact on residents and failed to deliver the project any where near on time; for example).

What concerns were raised by residents when the regeneration plans were first publicised- and how have these borne out- and most importantly, still not been resolved in cases (e.g. pressures on parking and community cohesion)

Who has been chosen for future phases and how have we insured we will not have the above problems with them?

whether perfectly good blocks which could have provided good homes into the future with a good refurbishment program were sacrificed so that developers could build private flats on prime land? Whilst the blocks in most disrepair have been left until later phases of the programme leaving many families and children in substandard housing for years unnecessarily. 

The report in front of you says under 6.0:

However it is also considered timely to refresh the Master-plan. Therefore, inconjunction with Planning colleagues it is proposed to consult local residentsand tenants on a revised and refreshed master-plan and accompanying SPD.

Brent will appoint master-plan architects, Cost Consultants and also engagewith the local community in regard to proposals. These proposals will considermatters such as, infrastructure, density, mix and range of accommodation, phasing and also the possibility of incorporating additional sites into the Master plan area.

But it is not just a matter of appointing expensive consultants anddrawing up new plans. They should not be drawn up without critical appraisal with real input from residents. That’s why we hope you will press ahead urgently with the task force which Dan Filson proposed.

Missing from the report in front of you is virtually any mention of problems with the regeneration of South Kilburn. There is just  a passing mention to `slippage’ under 5.0 `Current position’.

Of particular concern for us is that there is no mention of the Kilburn Park Catalyst/Wilmott Dixon development. Yet this is not complete even though it is already over a year late. And there are still several important aspects to deal with, such as the recent discovery that not enough refuse storage was planned to cope with both the new and existing residents. While Brent and Catalyst are arguing over whose fault this is, we are the ones suffering with frequently overfull storage bins.

This is just the latest of the relentless problems we have had with a building site next to us. I’ve given you each a copy of the summary we drew up on April so you can see the scale of the problem at least.

While the last 2 paragraphs in the report highlight contractors working with local residents, our experience on the ground has been the opposite.

For instance, under `Green Space’  (page 3) the report says “there is also a communal garden space, provided as part of the CatalystDevelopment, which will also be available to local residents.” Has it been forgotten that this space is only communal because we had a very long and sometimes bitter row with catalyst who were insistent that it would be only for the residents of the new blocks?

We have wider concerns than just the way in which developers impact on those neighbouring their sites, and have attempted to raise them.

The other document I’ve passed you is a resolution passed by our Tenants and Residents association annual general meeting in July of last year. The issues there fall into 3 categories – the attitude of Wilmott Dixon/Catalyst towards us, but also issues around planning – such as the closeness of new blocks to existing ones, which we raised at the planning stage, and have become more obviously dreadful with construction, and our concerns about what regeneration has meant for South Kilburn in general. We have attempted to get these at least addressed by the lead member for regeneration, but despite frequent requests (and promises by her) she has not engaged with us in the 15 months since it was sent to her.

One small example of the issues which have not been addressed – regeneration has significantly increased the population of South Kilburn. The proposed new  `health centre’ has been given much publicity by the Council, yet this is the bringing together 3 existing GP practices. It is not an increased in GP facilities for an increased population.

The section of the report under 5.0 headed “Salusbury Road Car Park Site” reads as if the siting of the vent shaft is settled (in favour of Canterbury Works). It isn’t and won’t be at least until after Parliament has heard the several petitions residents have submitted against the shaft being sited next to a primary school and in the middle of a residential area. Quite honestly. people in the area are shocked that neither HS2 or Brent even attempted to engage with us while arguing for the site to be changed, even though the opposition of school parents, governors and local residents was known to Council officers.B

Which brings me to my final point - the Council has not ensured that developers listen to and respect residents . Indeed Brent Council itself has declined to enforce its own standards with developers and has failed to seriously consult and involve residents in decision-making. For instance, the report says under `Sports provision’ (4.3) that Land was provided for the construction of a new sports hall facility. Built by Westminster City Council, primarily for the, expanded, St. Augustine’s Secondary School. The Council secured reduced rates for South Kilburn residents as part of the deal”. I checked with other members of our TRA before coming here and no-one can recall having seen this advertised anywhere. At the same ti8nme, we have been arguing for years that residents should have use of the Multi Use games Area attached to St Mary’s school in South Kilburn, which was partly funded by the Council and we are still unable to achieve this. Similarly the Council has said residents were consulted about what should go in the new urban park on Albert Road( where HS2’s lorries will incidentally be passing for years). None of us can remember seeing a consultation.

If you want serious scrutiny and a serious appraisal of how regeneration has gone so far, you could start by arguing for serious change in how Brent works with, involves and respects local residents. A proper task force which looks at the problems and pitfalls would be a useful start to that.

HS2 and South Kilburn – stitched up by Brent, but fighting back

The leaflet distributed outside the school

Guest blog by Pete Firmin, chair, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association

On Monday 12th October, HS2 – the proposed London to Birmingham high speed rail link – deposited “additional provisions” with parliament with the proposed siting of a vent shaft at Canterbury Works in South Kilburn. LINK

Originally, HS2 proposed that this be on the car park next to Queens Park station, but under pressure from Brent Council it proposes to build on this new site. The  issues involved have previously been spelt out on Wembley Matters.

The Canterbury Works site is next to a junior school (St Mary's) and close to many homes.

Throughout this process neither HS2 or Brent Council has attempted to consult with those who would be most affected by the decision.

HS2 sent residents letters several years ago saying their property might be subject to a Compulsory Purchase Order, but this was only in relation to the fact that HS2 will go under or close to our flats. The only meeting HS2 has attended with residents was a “Brent Connect” forum several years ago when this issue was raised with them. They have never followed up on the inadequate response given at the time.

But all that was well before the issue of the moving of the proposed vent shaft arose. Since then, one letter from HS2 about an “information event” (see below), nothing else.

While HS2 has failed to consult in any way, Brent claims to have done so, although this does not stand up to serious scrutiny, and in fact stinks of hypocrisy and duplicity.

Unlike HS2, Brent has never sent information round to all residents in the area about HS2.

While Council Officers have held meetings with Councillors and the (Hampstead and Kilburn) MP, they have never held meetings with either representatives of local residents or parents of children at the school, let alone open meetings which all could attend.

On the contrary, they have put out misinformation implying there has been consultation where there has been none.

So Council Officers have circulated a letter which says that the headteacher of the school and the Diocese are not opposed to the siting of the vent shaft next to the school. Not surprisingly, this fails to mention that this (new) headteacher refuses to consult with parents on the issue. Under the previous head teacher (replaced over the summer) the board of governors were opposed, the head was opposed, and they worked with parents to show their opposition. All this is well known to Council Officers, but they choose to pretend it never happened. Conveniently for Brent Council the board of governors has been scrapped in favour of an Interim Executive Board. The new head says she is only interested in the education of the children and not what is happening around the school. Clearly the welfare of pupils is low on her agenda and that of the Diocese.

The South Kilburn Trust is also reported as being neutral on the issue. While the Trust is reported in many Council documents as “representing the interests of all South Kilburn residents”, the only contact it has with us is over use by residents of a school playing area. It has certainly never asked our views about the vent shaft.

In the same letter Council Officers say that Peter Jones, chair of the Tenants Steering Group, is not opposed to the siting of the vent shaft in South Kilburn. Those not in the know (like HS2 and most Brent Councillors) reading that will think it means local residents have been consulted. Far from it. The Tenants Steering Group is a forum for those tenants being rehoused under regeneration. That does not include most of those closest to the proposed vent shaft site (including in our 3 blocks). In fact when 2 members of our TRA found their way to a meeting of the Tenants Steering Group they were told the meeting was not for them but they could stay as long as they did not say anything! There is no pretence that the chair of this group (who does not live near to the proposed site) even consulted the forum he is chair of, let alone anyone living close to the vent shaft.

What is known to Council Officers is that our TRA passed a motion unanimously opposing this proposed siting of the vent shaft. Mysteriously, this information has not been passed on.

Worse, when Brent Council considered the issue of HS2 and the siting of the vent shaft at full Council in March 2014, our TRA was refused the right to address the Council on our concerns. We were told that these would be taken into account. They weren’t. And Brent has made no effort to inform residents of developments since, even though it has been pushing at every opportunity to change the proposed siting of the vent shaft.

Latest development – on Thursday 8th and Monday 12th October, Brent, together with HS2, held an `information event’ in South Kilburn studios. Such events have been likened to car salesrooms, at which you are given glossy leaflets and surrounded by people keen to sell your their wares. If this was meant as some kind of `consultation’, then it has to be asked why it was planned to submit the proposals to parliament on the Monday when this event was still going on. Clearly there was no intention to take the responses of residents into account.

To reassure us, we have been told there would be proper monitoring of vehicle movements to and from the site, times of working etc. By who? Brent Council, precisely the people who have failed to do anything about the abuses by developers on neighbouring sites for the last 4 years and a big reason why we are opposed to the siting of the vent shaft here. Very reassuring.

At the Thursday of this event, one residents’ representative asked why no Brent Councillors were present to justify their decision, rather than leaving it entirely to Brent and HS2 employees. Subsequently, all Brent Labour Councillors were written to, asking them to attend. Only 5 of the 50 even bothered to reply. Whether this shows an unwillingness to justify something they voted for, or a total ignorance of the issues, I will leave readers of Wembley Matters to decided. It does rather reinforce the view that it is senior Council officers who make the decisions, not Councillors.

When leafleting residents and parents of the children at the school against the proposal we have yet to find anyone who thinks it a good idea. Though the headteacher did come out and shout at us about “lies” in our leaflet, an allegation which she was not able to sustain. Incidentally, the head is so acquainted with the area that she had to be told where SK studios is, even though it is less than 3 minutes walk from the school gates.

A Council officer has now apparently said he will organise a meeting with school parents, though he seems to think he can do this through the school head who is totally uninterested. If such a meeting should take pace, it will be to report a fait accompli rather than take the views of parents into consideration.

It will be reported that not many residents (around 100 in total) visited the `information event’. Could this be because they feel the decision has been taken and there is not a lot they can do about it?

Residents and parents of children at the school have until 13th November to petition parliament against this proposal, and we will be out trying to get as much support as possible. I’m pleased to say we have the support of our 2 active Kilburn Councillors in this, and our MP, Tulip Siddiq, has raised our concerns in parliament.
 

South Kilburn SKirmishes over Festival, Music and Developers

South Kilburn Festival this afternoon (Tweeted by @SKTrust)

Following rapidly on the news that Brent Council had withdrawn the music licence for the South Kilburn Festival  at 5pm on Friday - no explanation yet, came this message from the Canterbury Works campaign:

Dear friend,

We write to you today with some bad news.  We are aware that some of you already know, however for those that do not it is with great disappointment that we have to tell you that the scheduled campaign event on Saturday will not be going ahead.

We had planned to have a stall at the South Kilburn Trust Community Festival, however after discussions with South Kilburn Trust they have decided it is inappropriate for us to be in attendance for the two following reasons:

1.       The event is a family fun day and this is what their park licence request is for and, in their view, our stall does not sit within that remit

2.       The Trust wants to ensure that the residents are presented with the facts, and the pros and cons of the different options and do not feel it is appropriate for us to be there to say our side without, we would presume, Brent Council being there to say their side

Some of you have already been in touch to express your outrage and anger but we must respect the decision of South Kilburn Trust. We had already got the balloons and t-shirts ready for the stall and we will put them to good use!  Watch this space regarding our big community event in September.

Thank you,

Anna

Canterbury Works Campaign Team

One residents' leader commented: 'Titanic battle between property developers and SK Trust, with residents caught in the crossfire'

See HERE for background

Meanwhile the fall-out from the Council's decision to revoke the music licence rumbled on via Twitter during the day:

The live music had been moved to the OK Club and this plaintive plea was tweeted this afternoon:

Perhaps things will become clearer on Monday when the South Kilburn Trust and Brent Council explain what exactly was going on.

Brent shows - again - how little it cares for South Kilburn

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.