Northwick Park Regeneration: Does 'appropriate consultation' mean 'No public consultation'?

Gaynor Lloyd asked a number of questions at the August 13th Cabinet Meeting regarding the proposed One Public Estate development at Northwick Park. Philip Grant left a comment on my original post on this issue LINK but I think it is worth publishing in its own right:

The Minutes of the 13 August Cabinet Meeting are now available on the Council’s website. This is how they report the item on which Gaynor spoke:

’Councillor Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, welcomed Ms Elizabeth Lloyd, a Northwick Park resident, to the meeting. In accordance with Standing Order 13 Cabinet heard a public question from Ms Lloyd on the matter of the housing infrastructure bid relating to the Northwick Park Regeneration Programme as set out in the report.

Ms Lloyd stated that Northwick Park was a much loved and well used local facility, highlighting, at the same time, that it had been recognised Brent was deficient in all types of open space and recreation grounds. She felt that the Council therefore had an obligation to protect these areas from inappropriate development, with the report not clearly demonstrating the extent of the regeneration area which would be affected by the project, or seeming to take into account any planning protection designations.

Ms Lloyd felt that there had been insufficient public consultation on the programme to date and noted that there was a growing concern amongst local residents on the likely impact of any proposed development in Northwick Park. As a result she asked for clarification on the following issues:

(a) the boundaries of the regeneration area subject to the grant application,
requesting publication of a plan;

(b) for clarification on the evidence in support of the criteria met under the terms of the grant application; and

(c) an indication of the alternative routes being considered for any access road to the regeneration area.

In response, Councillor Shama Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Planning
and Highways thanked Ms Lloyd for her contribution at the meeting. She stated that the report was part of a wider project seeking to unlock more housing opportunities and improve the local infrastructure. She acknowledged the importance of protecting open spaces in Brent, as set out by the Greater London Authority and reassured Ms Lloyd that no action would be taken without appropriate public consultation.’

However, it appears that Cllr. Tatler’s “reassurance” was rather hollow, as the very next action which Cabinet took was: 

’RESOLVED:-
i. Cabinet agreed to receive grant funding and enter into grant agreements with the Greater London Authority for two Housing Infrastructure Fund bids relating to South Kilburn and Northwick Park regeneration Programmes.’

That means that the Cabinet committed Brent Council to a funding bid grant for a “Northwick Park regeneration programme” on which there has been NO public consultation!

The only reason I can see for why the Lead Member might believe the “reassurance” she gave is that Cabinet thinks ‘appropriate public consultation’ means ‘no public consultation’. 

Barham Park planning appeal – the Community fights for its Community Facilities

Guest blog by Philip Grant

It is now more than eight months since Brent’s Planning Committee refused an application by the Barham Park Trust (sole corporate trustee – Brent Council) for a change of use of the former Barham Park library building from community use to business use. On 3 December 2013, the Trustees (five members of Brent’s then Executive) accepted the recommendation of a senior Council Officer to appeal against that decision, but it was only last Tuesday, 22 July, when a Planning Inspector finally held an informal hearing of that appeal at the Civic Centre. The delay was due in part to the Trust’s appeal not being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate until the end of March 2014 (it has been suggested that this was to ensure that the appeal could not be decided before the local elections on 22 May). 

Around thirty local people attended the hearing (including two of the Brent Cabinet members who now have Trustee responsibility, for parts of the proceedings), and although less than half of these came forward to speak when given the opportunity by the Inspector, this impressive display of support for the former library building remaining available for local community use will have been noted by him. This was a planning appeal, so the fact that many of them were Friends of Barham Library was only relevant to the extent that it showed a need and demand for the sort of community facility which could be available on a permanent basis in Sudbury, but there were many other reasons shown to the Inspector why Brent’s planning policy CP23, aimed at protecting existing community and cultural facilities that meet the needs of Brent’s diverse community, should be upheld, as the Planning Committee had already decided. 

Cllr Allie's new allies have questions to answer on health and libraries

Guest blog by library campaigner Gaynor Lloyd

I refer to the “open letter” from James Allie published on Martin Francis’ required reading Wembley Matters blog.

Speaking as a Labour supporter of the “Old” variety - and so heartsick at understanding this - Mr Allie will forgive my saying that he displays a woeful lack of understanding of New Labour’s role in the impending car crash of the NHS currently being accelerated by the Coalition Government.

Thatcher may have started the bridgehead of the private sector into the NHS – of which our Shaping a Healthier Future – Brent/Ealing plans are just the latest manifestation - but Blair, his assistant and his Ministers of Health pushed it into pole position. 

·        Simon Stevens walked out of Blair’s private office to a senior position in the British arm of United Health (an American healthcare company) which was keen to bid for my doctors’ surgery, amongst many other NHS facilities. 

·      Alan Milburn left the Health Ministry to walk into a£30,000 a year post as adviser to Bridgepoint Capital which is a private equity company investing in Care UK – on your front page last week as “managing” the Urgent Care Centre at Central Middlesex - which is all we’ll have left if the consultation goes through and A&E goes. 

·        Patricia Hewitt came from McKinsey (American management consultants) into Blair’s Health Minister’s job and promptly set off introducing the necessary means to get the American health model here, with its opportunities to take profit from our marketised health service. McKinsey have a role in drafting the very constitution of the Clinical Care Commissioning Group that will take over the responsibility for commissioning health services in our Borough (just like many other Boroughs) – so many thanks to New Labour, Mr Allie, for facilitating that. I would just say – be very careful, Mr Allie who you jump into bed with on the grounds of their “Labour values”.

Tory Andrew Lansley has to take prime liability for the latest reforms, of course but, as far as I can see, whilst the Lib Dems may have been useless in stopping the recent legislation, they do seem to be the only one of the three main parties without some “high up” compromised by his/her role in this debacle.

Why I really needed to burst into print was to rebut Mr Allie’s disgraceful comments about Paul Lorber and his alleged “posturing” in relation to the library campaign. Has Mr Allie had any sort of clue about the facts behind these cuts and the Library campaign in particular, he might have amended the script of his open letter. 

I have been involved in Brent SOS campaign virtually from inception. I am no Lib Dem but at least I keep my political points to facts. If you feel like getting a few facts, try asking the Council’s officers, Mr Allie, about what appears to be their gross mismanagement by the Council of their trusteeship of the Barham Charity resulting in losses over the years while the Officers treated our building in Barham Park as though it was the Council’s own. Perhaps if the Council had paid the rent it ought to have done to the Charity for the use of its buildings, the alleged losses that the Council based its closure of Barham on, might have disappeared!

I cannot speak for other members of Brent SOS campaign but, in so far as Barham Library is concerned, without Paul we would be nowhere. He works unceasingly for the disadvantaged people of his Ward – crucially affected by the closure of “our library” at Barham. Mr Allie, ask the 210 members – mostly children – who have joined the Barham Library in exile. Ask their parents whether their children love coming to our Volunteer Library for the fun we have, the educational quizzes and activities we do, and the number of books we issue, as Paul devotes time week after week after week. He is an inspiration to us volunteers. He does all of this, because he cares about the effect of the closures – not for the purpose of political point scoring but for the disadvantaged of Brent. 

I sat in the Council Chamber (as I can only think you did but perhaps you had dropped off) while your new colleagues laughed as they acclaimed the closure of our libraries. Some of them have had the grace to come and look at the work we are doing – even commending it. I still have enough naivety to believe they meant it and you just aren’t up to speed, being a new recruit. Please, Councillor Allie, remember that comments like yours may win you a few friends in your new “safe” home with Brent Labour Group – but they don’t cut much ice with anyone who knows anything about Brent’s unique policy on library closures, or the figures behind it.