Dreams and Nightmares on the South Kilburn Estate

Cranes loom as you approach the South Kilburn Estate 

Following the Brent Scrutiny Meeting on regeneration where resident Pete Firmin spoke passionately about the problems with the South Kilburn regeneration I decided it was time for another visit to see for myself.

What follows is a series of photographs that illustrate some of the issues that Pete spoke about and convey what it feels like to live on a building site for many and questions around the quality of the new buildings.

 

A campaign for new bins was successful but emptying only once a week and dumping by outsiders leads to overflow problems

Another dump

The scaffolding around Alpha House where bits flew off during a recent storm. Brent Council said the danger was not their responsibility. It has been up for 6 months but work has taken place only three times 'if that' during that time. Apparently the work is on guttering which is actually accessible via the roof cavity. Only one light is working on landings and some residents are forced to use torches at night.

 

 Despite the housing shortage this flat in Gorefield House has been unoccupied and boarded up for more than 10 years after its use by contractors.

 New builds have problems too. This is emergency heating at the recently completed Countryside Woodrow House.

 

 Work continues on the HS2 vent site (chosen by HS2 after pressure from Brent Council in preference to a site next to Queens Park station).  I am told that the noise is such that residents of the flats overlooking the site sometimes have to be offered temporary hotel accommodation as a respite,

 

 

 Residents of Carlton House and other old buildings  suffer from the noise and dust of demolition of neighbouring buildings such as Winterleys House and will suffer again when building works take place. 

 

 

Remediation works on the decade old  L&Q Swift House. The start on the building was commemorated by a 2012 Muhammed Butt plaque now surrounded by remediation supplies. The scaffolding has been up for more than three years.The cost must be enormous.

 

 L & Q have problems elsewhere.  There have been long term heating issues at Chase House and Hollister House that have resulted in cold homes and no hot water, When I last visited  more than a year ago the green space had been occupied by emergency heating equipment, now post work on the heating the site has been left in a mess. Had the repairs worked? A resident answered, 'A little bit'.

 

 

I am told you can gain entrance by over-riding door security via the fire control

 As the regeneration progresses and blocks have been demolished, residents have been 'decanted' into remaining blocks. The 'Landlord Promise' made by Brent Council was that tenants would eventually be offered new flats on the estate. They are now wondering whether that will really happen as regeneration falls behind schedule and the doubts about the financial viability of the proposed new build social housing. Meanwhile their temporary housing deteriorates and they face multiple problems including incursions and squatting. See LINK for an account. The Blake Court demolition notice had expired but is now extended to 2029.

 Apart from Blake Court there is also Dickens House and Austen House in an area that looks forgotten and neglected, but nature sometimes relieves the gloom.

 Shops are left abandoned.

 

Even the playground equipment is collapsing

 

 What began as a tribute to Jane Austen is now a tribute to decline.

 

 

Apart from the heating issue some of the other new blocks have problems. It appears that faulty downpipes on Cambridge Avenue have caused damp and mould at intervals all along the frontage.

 

 People in the recently completed blocks have found themselves amidst a builders' storage area.

 

 But they are  are warned about disruption.

Despite the evidence to the contrary all around them, Countryside have a dream.

 Revised plans are due for the Hereford andExeter site this summer but there are potential issues regarding viability on the site that is planned to be 44% social rent.

The report to Scrutiny said:

The Hereford and Exeter scheme has been provisionally approved to receive the GLA Affordable Homes Programme Grant. However, even with the average grant rate, and more favourable developer assumptions, the scheme would still have a negative Residual Land Value (RLV). There is a current workstream to test the viability of the scheme to see what level of grant would be necessary, or what reduced level of affordable housing would be required to reach a positive RLV.

A rare example of a well-loved and maintained building is the Albanian Mosque but it is due to be replaced by a 13 storey block, perhaps with mosque facilities at ground floor level.

 

.

One of the issues that South Kilburn residents are concerned about is the lack of delivery of a new Health Centre that was promised as part of the infrastructure improvement. The old Centre is abandoned and there is a temporary Centre in an old Housing Office. Cllr Tatler blamed the NHS for delays at the Scrutiny Committee meeting

 

There were battles over the Carlton and Granville Centres and the adjacent nursery school but now work is well underway. It is good to see some of the trees have survived so far.

Opposite is the South Kilburn Open Space, a precious green resource but also a potential vital resource for flood management, particuarly now so much of the area will be built up. Carlton Vale Infant School and Kilburn Park Junion School are due to be merged and accommodated in a new building on part of the space. Residents are keen that on demolition the present sites should become part of the open space to compensate. As much green space as possible is needed in view of the huge increase in population of the development area envisaged. Much of the amenity space in the new development is private. 

 

I will finish with an attractive walkway that is public, at present anyway. It is important that public space like this is maintained. There are problems at present with buck-passing because so many different developers and owners are involved in the patchwork that was once one council estate. There needs to be a clear map showing responsibilites across the estate.

 

Cllr Shama Tatler promised to visit the estate to talk to residents at the Scrutiny Committee and Cllr Promise Knight is due to tour to see progress/problems although I am not sure whether residents are involved.  I really do hope that they will be in listening mode as dreams often turn into nightmares.

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

 

 

Millennium Business Centre application deferred. South Kilburn vent approved.

 Brent Planning Committee last night deferred a decision on a planning application for a new warehouse building at the rear of the Millennium Business Centre site in Humber Road NW2.

Alison Hopkins representing local people described the Centre as 'bad neighbours' and shared a number of examples of their detrimental impact on the area and fears that the new facility would worsen the situation. 

A speaker from Henfield who presently run a warehouse on the site opposed the application and described the state of the premises and the problems of parking and the blocking of fire exits if the plans went ahead. He thought it might be better to demolish the lot and rebuild or re-develop.

The agent for Millennium Business Centre said that they recognised that the 'type of tenant'  they'd had was 'not conducive' to the area and that they had 'got rid of them.' He accused Henfield of wanting to purchase the site themselves.

Challenged on the traffic survey Brent Highways said that it had been conducted before the introduction of LTNs and to some incredulou social media comments suggested that overall traffic on Humber Road would be reduced.

It was revealed that the applicant had not submitted a compliant D012 Fire Report and that this was still required.  Cllr Dixon was not reassured that traffic issues that had led to previous applications being rejected had been addressed and was concerned that vehicles would get stuck in the narrow road. The Highways officer remarked that the road was 'not ideal' for an industrial site but 'It is what it is.'

His words did not appear to persuade councillors who rejected the application with only two for the application. Initially they were ready to reject it outright but were persuaded by their chair, Cllr Kelcher, and intervention by officers , who cautioned againt going against officers; recommendation, to defer the decision to allow the applicants to come back with further information. Cllr Dixon was initially not happy to defer rather than reject.

Councillors cited traffic generation, highway safety, HGV problems, parking problems, inmpact on the wider local road network and lack of information as reasons to defer. In  addition there was the lack of a compliant Fire Report.  

The chair suggested a site visit and the Highways officer said he would request a Travel Plan from the applicant.

The HS2 South Kilburn vent application was dealt with quickly as there was little the Committee could do about it. A suggested that the block should have green growing walls was not possible because the vent had a slatted exterior. HS2 made much of the triangle of green space they were providing between the site and St Mary's Primary School and the 'learning opportunities' it would offer pupils. They would offer road safety and skills training to the school to ensure safety during construction. A Schedule 17 lorry route would be in place during construction and traffic, once the vent was in operation, would be minimal.

HS2 vent next to South Kilburn primary school at Planning Committee tomorrow but its powers are limited

 

The development site outlined in red, school grounds in green and Canterbury House and Carlton House

A battle started about 6 years ago when Brent Council asked HS2 to site a proposed vent site for the high speed rail running underground at this point at a site next to a primary school in South Kilburn rather than one adjacent to Queens Park station.

In a  message to constituents, March 23^rd 2016,  Tulip Siddiq MP said:

Today in Parliament, I voted against the High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) Bill that will devastate areas of Camden and Brent.

I have campaigned against HS2 for the past seven years as I believe it is an ill-thought out scheme that will lead to bedlam on our roads, disruption to the education of school children and a compromised local environment. (my emphasis)

Further, these plans will cost taxpayers billions of pounds. I believe this money could instead be spent on projects that will actually bring real improvements to living standards across the country.

Having spoken against this Bill at the Select Committee, and again in today’s debate, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank residents who engaged with the lengthy and costly petition process. Though the Bill received support from across Parliament, it is your voice that will force HS2 to fulfil its assurances to compensate and mitigate the worst of the impacts.

My first priority as the MP for Hampstead and Kilburn is to protect residents in Camden and Brent. Therefore, I am proud to have voted against High Speed Rail 2 today in Parliament.

The scheme have now been granted permission by parliament, but I will keep fighting for mitigation for constituents.

Of course HS2 has gone ahead costing billions of pounds more than first suggested but for South Kilburn residents the question is still whether on South Kilburn the proposed vent will 'lead to bedlam on our roads, disruption to the education of school children and a compromised local environment.'

Unfortunately as officers note the legislation gives HS2 enormous powers and limits that of the Planning Committee:

The above mentioned approvals have been carefully defined to provide an appropriate level of local planning control over the works while not unduly delaying or adding cost to the project. As such the legislation states that planning authorities should not through the exercise of the Schedule seek to revisit matters settled through the parliamentary process, seek to extend or alter the scope of the project, modify or replicate controls already in place, either specific to HS2 Phase One such as the EnvironmentalMinimum Requirements, or existing legislation such as the Control of Pollution Act or the regulatory requirements that apply to railways.

 

For residents the immediate issue will be noise from the site and associated vehicle movements with extensive ground works required. These issues are not the subject of the report:

Mitigation includes a small strip of grass to be made available to St Mary's Primary School, walls and fencing around the perimeter of the site and  the widening of the cross-over with Canterbury Road from 3 metres to 6 metres.

There is only one objection recorded on the Brent Council Planning Portal froma resident of Canterbury House:

The current design is radically different from the original proposal. There are more buildings and the design height is much greater; the original proposal included the extraction fans installed underground but the revised plans are far more intrusive on residents neighbouring the development. The current proposed height of the headhouse building will have a major impact on natural light and views available to the properties at the rear of Canterbury House. Residents of Canterbury House bought their properties with knowledge of the original plans but there are deep concerns that the revised plans could significantly deter potential future buyers. If the first plan to construct the vents at Queens Park was withdrawn due to resident objections, why has the design at Canterbury Works revised in such a way that the impact on nearby residents will be significant and possibly more so than what was proposed at Queens Park. 

Planning officers say:

The committee report states at paragraph 16 that there would be no breach of the 30 degree rule when considered in relation to Canterbury Terrace. However, there would be a slight breach of the 30-degree rule from two of the ground floor units due to the greater height of the ventilation stacks which sit adjacent these homes. However, given the separation distance (approximately 18 m) and the fact that a daylight/sunlight report has been submitted to demonstrate that there would be no harmful loss of light, the breach is considered acceptable in this instance. It is also important to note that the Design and Access Statement confirms that the vertical ventilation stacks have been reduced in size to the minimum required in both plan dimensions and height. Therefore when having regard to the fact that the LPA are required to given consideration to whether the works 'ought to or could reasonably' be modified to protect local amenity, given the information provided the arrangement is considered acceptable.

A supplementary report responds to a late comment:

Since the publication of the agenda one further comment has been received in relation to the application. This comment raises concerns about a lack of mitigation or compensation for protecting or safeguarding South Kilburn's residents' quality of life. It also makes reference to the new tree planting HS2 are doing in the Chilterns and the lack of any similar mitigation for Brent. The potential impacts on surrounding properties is discussed within the committee report.

Firstly, it is important to note that HS2 works in South Kilburn and the Chilterns are very different. It is also important to note that the character of the areas differ greatly with South Kilburn being a far more urban environment. As this is not a planning application, the Local Planning Authority are unable to seek obligations to secure funding for tree planting in the area.

However, whilst the committee report focuses on the works for approval, the submission does include a number of 'For information' drawings to show future intentions of the site. As stated in the committee report a follow up application for 'Bringing into use' is required to be submitted, whereby HS2 are required to demonstrate that the impact of the development has been mitigated as far as possible. This is expected to include a detailed landscaping and tree planting scheme on site and the provision of a 'pocket park' to provide educational opportunities to neighbouring St Mary's PrimarySchool. However, it important to note that these works are not for approval under this application.

 

 

 

HS2 Review Terms of Reference and names of Review Panel members

From the Government announcement. The Chair of the Review is the former Chair of HS2 Ltd...

The Prime Minister has stated his wish to review “whether and how we proceed” with HS2 ahead of the ‘Notice to Proceed’ decision for Phase 1 (London-West Midlands) due by the end of 2019. The review will assemble and test all the existing evidence in order to allow the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Transport and the government to make properly-informed decisions on the future of Phases 1 and 2 of the project, including the estimated cost and schedule position.
For the whole HS2 project, the review should rigorously examine and state its view on:

• whether HS2 Ltd is in a position to deliver the project effectively, taking account of its performance to date and any other relevant information
• the full range of benefits from the project, including but not limited to:
  • capacity changes both for services to cities and towns on HS2 and which will not be on HS2
  • connectivity
  • economic transformation including whether the scheme will promote inclusive growth and regional rebalancing
  • environmental benefits, in particular for carbon reduction in line with net zero commitments
  • the risk of delivery of these and other benefits, and whether there are alternative strategic transport schemes which could achieve comparable benefits in similar timescales
• the full range of costs of the project, including but not limited to:
  
  • whether HS2 Ltd’s latest estimates of costs and schedule are realistic and are comparable to other UK infrastructure
  • why any cost estimates or schedules have changed since the most recent previous baselines
  • whether there are opportunities for efficiencies
  • the cost of disruption to rail users during construction
  • whether there are trade-offs between cost and schedule; and whether there are opportunities for additional commercial returns for the taxpayer through, for example, developments around stations, to offset costs
  • what proceeding with Phase 1 means in terms of overall affordability, and what this means in terms of what would be required to deliver the project within the current funding envelope for the project as a whole
• whether the assumptions behind the business case, for instance on passenger numbers and train frequencies, are realistic, including the location and interconnectivity of the stations with other transport systems, and the implications of potential changes in services to cities and towns which are on the existing main lines but will not be on HS2
• for the project as a whole, how much realistic potential there is for cost reductions in the scheme as currently planned through changes to its scope, planned phasing or specification, including but not limited to:
  
  • reductions in speed
  • making Old Oak Common the London terminus, at least for a period
  • building only Phase 1
  • combining Phases 1 and 2a
  • different choices or phasing of Phase 2b, taking account of the interfaces with Northern Powerhouse Rail
• the direct cost of reprioritising, cancelling or de-scoping the project, including but not limited to: contractual penalties; the risk of legal action; sunk costs; remediation costs; supply chain impact; and an estimate of how much of the money already spent, for instance on the purchase of land and property, could be recouped
• whether and how the project could be reprioritised; in particular, whether and, if so how, Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) (including the common sections with HS2 Phase 2b) could be prioritised over delivering the southern sections of HS2
• whether any improvements would benefit the integration of HS2, NPR and other rail projects in the north of England or Midlands
• any lessons from the project for other major projects

Review team and support

The review will be chaired by Doug Oakervee. The deputy chair will be Lord Berkeley. There will also be a panel consisting of Michele Dix, Stephen Glaister, Patrick Harley, Sir Peter Hendy, Andrew Sentance, Andy Street, John Cridland and Tony Travers. Each will focus on a specific area of interest; they will feed in to and be consulted on the report’s conclusions, without having a right of veto in the event that consensus cannot be reached.

Support will be provided by the Department for Transport. Sufficient support will be needed to allow a searching and rigorous review in a relatively short time. The review team will be provided with any papers and persons they request. Undertakings of confidentiality will be entered into with the Chair, Deputy Chair, panel, and others as necessary.

Reporting and publication

The review will report to the Secretary of State for Transport with oversight from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It should produce a written report suitable for publication.

Timing

The review should submit its final report in autumn 2019.