Murky figures at HS2 as public money goes down the drain

The figures associated with the HS2 project are so vast that they are hard to grasp. The world's most expensive railways at £400,000,000 per mile LINK with experts predicting a doubling of total cost to £104bn suggest the project is a high speed white elephant, particularly as the government has quietly ditched plans to improve current rail routes.

At the same time Carillion, one of the main contractors appointed by the government, is facing its own financial crisis and has lost its Chief Executive in the process. LINK

Fears about the reliability of HS2's figures have not been helped by the National Audit Office's recent findings about unauthorised payments by the company.  They spent £2.76m on pay-offs in 2016 of which only £1m was authorised.  The redundancy payments were prompted by a head office move and reorganisation and were made above the civil service cap of £95,000 despite advice from the Department of Transport.

The Guardian LINK reports that HS2 circumvented the cap by placing highly paid staff on gardening leave and continuing to pay them for several months despite the fact that they were no longer working and adding the maximum payout.  67 staff were made compulsorily redundant at a total costs of up to £916.000 when statutory compensation would have totalled between £55,000-£115,00. A further 27 staff were given voluntary redundancy packages worth £1.84m with 8 people on a salary of more than £150,000 receiving up to £200,000  each.

This is of course public money.

The HS2 Director of Financial Operations is Clive Heaphy, former Director of Finance and Corporate Services at Brent Council. Previously he was Interim Director of Finance at Ofsted under Christine Gilbert, later CEO of Brent Council.

Heaphy left Brent Council after negotiating an exit payout of £145,508. LINK

High Speed Rail Project can't deliver low speed public notices to those affected by test drilling in South Kilburn

This image does not necessarily  reflect the views of our guest blogger

Guest blog by Pete Firmin, resident on the South Kilburn Estate

Just a few notes from the exhibition event HS2 held in South Kilburn studios on Monday, which might be useful for those who couldn’t make it (and even for some who did).

As ever, lots of boards with maps and lots of HS2 people standing around waiting to sell you their  pet project. Though whenever I asked a question it was never the person I asked who could (attempt to) answer it. We, of course, are expected to understand every aspect of what is going on. While I was there (late afternoon) there were not many members of the public (maybe 6 during the 3/4 hour I was there). As ever, this may well get portrayed as a lack of interest, taking no account of the fact that of those who heard about the event (see below) many would have felt there wasn’t much point in going, or couldn’t make the times (3-7) it was held. Funny how they could send everybody a letter (twice) by recorded delivery saying they might need to CP0 their property, yet can neither rescind these notices (by sending everybody a letter) nor ensure delivery of letters they consider less important).

My first question was about distribution of the notice of the event, knowing that I only knew about it by other means and at least some others in Gorefield House had not had notice. First reaction – as always – was to say it had been delivered, then to retreat into “I know there was at least one block the contracted delivery firm couldn’t get into and we asked for them to send them via Royal Mail, I will check if that happened”. I pointed out that I live on the ground floor with direct access, but that didn’t seem to compute. I also said that it was bit late if they found out now that it never happened.  This is a recurring problem, whether with the Council direct or others (such as the film company last year). They either don’t bother to deliver, or do not check if it has happened.

Another issue which comes up regularly is the maps that are used (people may remember that at the parliamentary enquiry into HS2 we pointed out the inaccuracy of their maps). In this case it seemed questionable as to whether they recognised that Canterbury Road does not continue on to Coventry Close, but that there is a section which is just footpath. Cathedral walk was certainly not named on any of their maps. Maybe this is why some people seem to think it is okay to drive vehicles along the footpath.

Part of the significance of Cathedral Walk is that during their test drilling, and later during the main work, they may find they have problem with utility pipes etc, in which case they would need to do work on them, which could mean taking up part of Canterbury Road and Cathedral Walk, something they will otherwise not need to do.

This event was primarily just about the test drilling, not the main construction. Even so, I was able to ask again about lorry movements etc. This will be of particular interest to people in Albert Road and Canterbury Terrace. For the main construction there will be 100 heavy lorry movements a day (50 in, 50 out). They will enter the site along Albert Road from the Queens Park end, entering  the site through the railway entrance at the end of Albert Road. They will leave through Canterbury Works and turn into Canterbury Terrace and back down Albert Road. When I raised (again) the issue of the narrowness of Albert Road to take these vehicles, I got the response from the “traffic guy” that he had just realised this and they would need to look at how they overcame the problem! We’ve only been pointing this out for years, after all. One thing they will probably do is make Albert Road one way (for other traffic, not HS2) with a diversion.

Their plans also show the loss of 15 parking bays on Albert Road during construction. When I asked where those people were expected to park, I was told wherever they can. No provision will be made for alternative parking. When I pointed out the lack of parking spaces in the estate already, I got a shrug of the shoulders. I also asked where site workers were going to park and was told they would be `expected’ to use public transport. When I asked `yes, but what if they do bring their cars”, he said they would need to pay for parking. And what if they use residents parking bays, as was a constant problem with the construction site on Alpha Place? `That’s up to the Council to enforce’. More wry laughter from me.

An issue of particular concern to many of us is working hours and enforcement of them. I was told that working hours are restricted to 8-6, BUT that they are allowed half an hour each side for preparation. They said they would also take account of the fact that they would be next to the school, but I could not get an answer as to what this concretely means. From bitter experience, I asked how all this would be enforced and was told “these are top tier contactors who will know that have to keep to the rules”. I pointed out that Wilmott Dixon is also considered a pretty “top tier” construction company and had repeatedly flouted the rules, I was told this wouldn’t happen with HS2. When I asked about enforcement, I was firstly told the Council (wry laugh from me!) and that people could send in reports and photos of infringement. As if we hadn’t been doing so for years with no effect. They gave me a copy of their “Residents Charter” and their “Code of Construction Practice”, but we have seen such promises before. Hopefully these are worth more than the paper they are written on, but we will obviously need to keep a close watch.

Lastly, I have been asking at every opportunity for years whether it creates problems that they will be tunnelling for HS2 underneath the Bakerloo line and never got an answer. Finally spoke to someone who knew what he was talking about, who said, yes, there are particular issues and `we will need to monitor whether our tunnelling causes the Bakerloo tunnels to sink. We don’t expect them to, and we don’t foresee having to close the Bakerloo line (or the mainline nearby) at all’.

If you think Kilburn needs a true opposition voice on Brent Council - Peter Murry is your man

Pete Murry protesting at plans to build on green space at B&Q Cricklewood

Regular readers will know about the apparent problem that Kilburn's Labour councillors and residents have had with the Labour ruling group on Brent Council.  This has meant that Cllr John Duffy was sidelined for challenging the Council to raise Council Tax last year to help fund vital services including Stonebridge Adventure Playground. In addition he has acted as a one man Scrutiny Committee on the Veolia waste contract and the out-sourcing of litter enforcement LINK.

Residents of the South Kilburn Estate, undergoing regeneration with a substantial degree of gentrification, have been fighting the Council on the issue of the HS2 vent to be situated next to St Mary's Primary School on the Estate LINK Again they have received an unsympathetic response from the Council. Cllr Duffy had his own difficulties in trying to involve residents in discussions with the Council. LINK

The Green Party is opposed to HS2 in its totality and in a recent posting on their blog LINK has set out their Kilburn by-election candidate's platform:

Peter Murry will be standing in this Council by-election caused by the death of a Labour councillor.

PETER MURRY has been a Brent resident for over twenty years and during many of these he worked in Kilburn as a lecturer at the College of North West London. He worked for the College in Harlesden, Kilburn and South Kilburn, where he taught on Access and Information Technology courses.

He was an active Trade Unionist in the Universities & Colleges Union (UCU) and is currently the Green Party’s London Trade Union Liaison Officer.

He took early retirement from the College in 2006 for ill health reasons, partly because he suffers from arthritis, which has meant that he has been disabled for almost a decade. This has given him first hand experienced of the problems that disabled people are forced to cope with, especially those faced by people with impaired mobility in using public transport and gaining access to some buildings.

He is also an artist and member of Brent Artists’ Resource.

The key points that he is campaigning on are

• ·       A cleaner greener Kilburn
• ·       No more council cuts
• ·       Defend trade union rights
• ·       Campaign against climate change

He thinks that the environment and quality of life in London in general, and Brent in particular, need many improvements. More housing at prices that people with average and low incomes can really afford is urgently needed and Brent council should be working to provide this. Its “regeneration” schemes, such as the one on the South Kilburn estate, should produce homes for people not business opportunities for property profiteers. 

It should also take whatever steps it can to drastically reduce the air pollution that causes huge health problems in Kilburn.

As an Eco-socialist, Pete believes that ecological damage and the free market economic policies of British governments are the basic causes of problems such as these. These are not problems caused by local government, or the people of Kilburn, but they have to deal with the consequences.

Attacks on Trade Union rights, such as those currently planned by the government, just make workers into scapegoats for government mistakes.

Climate change needs to be stopped and the quality of life needs to be improved; even local councils can do their bit, instead of just making life worse by cutting services.

Brent Council needs an opposition voice. This is a task that the Green Party can do for the people of Kilburn.

POLLING TAKES PLACE ON MAY 5TH ALONGSIDE THE MAYORAL AND GLA ELECTION

Rebel Tulip Siddiq vows to keep fighting on HS2

The first stage of the HS2 route was approved by the House of Commons yesterday in just 37 minutes. Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) and Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) rebelled against Labour's three line whip  and voted against the £56bn project.

In a message to constituents yesterday Tulip Siddiq 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.

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.

This is what Keir Starmer had to say in the debate:

New clause 22 deals with Euston, which is in the middle of my constituency. It is not easy to convey to the House the devastating impact that HS2 will have on my constituency, but let me try. HS2 will come into Primrose Hill and crash through to Euston, destroying everything in its path.

Let me give the House the sheer numbers affecting my constituency: 2,986 people live within 60 metres of the construction site, a further 3,186 live within 120 metres, and 11,414 within 300 metres. That is 17,568 people in my constituency within 300 metres of the construction site. Some 220 family houses will be demolished, and up 1,000 people will lose their homes. Unless there is a plan for an integrated station at Euston, there is the risk that another 150 family homes will be lost, affecting another 600 people—1,600 people are at risk of losing their home.

Many of the family homes that are not destroyed will be affected by noise, and according to HS2’s own figures, 1,025 family homes—that is 4,000 people—will be affected by noise that requires mitigating measures. Measures are already in place to consider up to another 850 homes and another 3,400 people. Some 7,000 people in my constituency could need noise mitigation measures because of what will happen with HS2 at Euston.

That is not the end of it. If Euston is redeveloped, 3.5 million tonnes of spoil will need to be removed from the site, which is the equivalent of 26 miles of tunnelling for Crossrail. All that must come out of Euston, and there is no guarantee or assurance that that will be done by rail. The net effect for my constituents is the risk of 800 two-way lorry movements a day to remove that spoil, and 90% of those lorries will be HGVs.

That brings me on to air quality, which is notoriously bad in London. It is particularly bad in the Euston area, and the HS2 environmental statement indicates that HS2 will have a substantial impact on nitrogen dioxide levels in a third of locations in the Euston area. If that was not enough on its own—it will have a devastating impact on the constituency—let me throw in two further factors.

The first factor is time. The original HS2 Bill was premised on the completion of a new HS2 station at Euston by 2026. For my constituents, that seemed like a long time. In September 2015, the Government lodged “Additional Provisions 3”, their current plans for Euston. A new station is now to be developed in three phases. Stage A, to the west of the existing station, involves the construction between 2017 and 2026 of six platforms needed for phase 1. Stage B2, the construction in the second phase of further platforms within the existing station but not all of it, is intended to be completed by 2033. The redevelopment of the existing station, stage B2, is unfunded and unplanned, and may begin before or after 2033—half a station in twice the time.

Another factor—there are more I could add to this litany of devastation in Holborn and St Pancras—is that even in 2033, having endured a construction site for the best part of 20 years, my constituents will not see a complete and integrated station in their constituency. On 1 December 2015, Tim Mould QC, HS2’s counsel, outlined to the Select Committee that a new integrated station at Euston is:

“not deliverable within appropriate funding constraints” and that this is the assessment of

“the government, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister”.

There is no timetable for Government funding to complete the final phase. As a result of the lack of planning and integration, Crossrail 2, which hopes to have an integrated station, is now planning on the basis that it may have to build part of its station in Somers Town, removing 150 buildings and displacing another 600 people—half a station in twice the time, with twice the damage.

A child born next year in my constituency will grow up and leave home knowing nothing but construction work. A pensioner beginning retirement at 70 next year will live out their entire retirement knowing nothing but construction work around them. It is no wonder that at every meeting and everywhere I go in my constituency, anxiety is etched on the faces of everybody who talks to me about HS2. It is an appalling situation, one that is wholly unacceptable on any basis.

I was elected to represent the people of Holborn and St Pancras. It is my privilege to do so; it is also my duty. I speak to each and every one of my constituents when I say that I will stand with them and fight with them to resist the wholly unacceptable damage that HS2 will bring to our communities.

Labour decision to back HS2 will anger local campaigners

The Independent, which sadly  publishes its last Sunday edition today, reports that Jeremby Corbyn and John McDonnell, despite earlier opposition, will whip Labour MPs to support the HS2 Bill when it goes to the House of Commons on Tuesday LINK

The newspaper reports that Sir Keir Starmer,  Labour MP for Holborn and St Pancras, a fierce opponent of HS2, may be persuaded to support the Bill via a Labour amendment that would protect social housing around Euston and mitigate construction disruption. Starmer was opposed at the General Election by Green Party leader Natalie Bennett. The Greens oppose HS2.

In the  South Kilburn Estate opposition arose when Brent Council who are in favour of HS2,  persuaded HS2 to move a vent shaft to a site right next to St Mary's Primary School on the Estate. LINK 

Pete Firmin gave evidence on behalf of South Kilburn residents to the Select Committee. LINK

Kensal Triangle Residents Association have been vehemently against the project.

Corbyn raised issues around HS2 and its impact on other necessary rail projects as recently as last October LINK  leading to this comment from the Stop HS2 Camapign:

Stop HS2 Campaign Manager Joe Rukin responded:

“It is a breath of fresh air to have a party leader who is actually trying to assess what the real-world implications of HS2 would be, opposed to simply swallowing the spin put forward by proponents. It has been clear since the outset that spending such a vast amount of money on HS2 would only mean other, more deserving projects will be squeezed out, and even the Department for Transport have admitted that HS2 could suck up all the rail investment money.” 

“Following the on-off and now delayed status of some rail upgrades, there is still the Hendy report to come which will surely cut back on other projects. In this climate, we simply cannot see Mr Corbyn getting the guarantee he seeks.”

“With the costs of HS2 set to spiral when they are finally worked out on current prices, there is no way other projects can be guaranteed. We welcome the fact Mr Corbyn is seriously looking at the implications of HS2, and remind him that if he finds the project to be deficient, it can be stopped when the bill comes back for third reading.”

South Kilburn Masterplan review ordered as project falls 12 months behind schedule and viability questioned

"The South Kilburn Regeneration programme has slipped behind schedule in 2015/16. There is a masterplan review of South Kilburn Regeneration; this means it is being fundamentally reviewed to determine how best to deliver the programme and realise benefits of regeneration for South Kilburn and for its businesses and residents. This review will reconsider the fundamental approach, including whether it is better for the council to retain the South Kilburn Housing Assets, or continue to dispose of them."

The above statement was included in the papers for the Full Council meeting last month and was a surprise for South Kilburn residents causing cconsiderable disquiet. 

As a result an information request was made to Brent Council to try and find out exactly what was going on. I would welcome comments from SK residents  on whether they feel any the wiser as a consequence of Richard Barrett's response. It would be interesting to know the additional costs that will be incurred by the review.

I am writing on behalf of the Kilburn branch of the Labour Party to request information relating to the regeneration programme in South Kilburn. Last year, I put in an FoI request about other aspects of the programme, and you kindly provided me with useful responses. I hope you will be able to do so on this occasion too.

The basis for my questions is a point in the budget report that was discussed at the full Council meeting on Monday. This is covered in section 14.5 (first bullet) of the report, as follows:

“The South Kilburn Regeneration programme has slipped behind schedule in 2015/16. There is a masterplan review of South Kilburn Regeneration; this means it is being fundamentally reviewed to determine how best to deliver the programme and realise benefits of regeneration for South Kilburn and for its businesses and residents. This review will reconsider the fundamental approach, including whether it is better for the council to retain the South Kilburn Housing Assets, or continue to dispose of them.”

I have searched through the Brent website, and have not found the information that I am seeking. I should therefore appreciate responses to the following:

·         What are the terms of reference of the masterplan review referred to in the above extract?

The intention is to appoint a Design Team to assist the Council review the adopted Master-plan and the current proposals for the remainder of the programme. It will seek to understand whether the principles established in the original Master-plan need to be altered or not given the passage of time and taking into account the schemes already delivered. The review will also look at the scope of the Master-plan and factoring in any relevant new legislation and guidance ensure the programme remains viable; as such it will also look at all sites within the South Kilburn area to consider inclusion or exclusion within the overall Master-Plan. The brief is currently being worked up by officers but when it is ready to go out to market it will be made available to the public via the London Tender Portal 

·         What is the timescale of the review?

It is hoped to go out to market to seek expressions of interest from Architectural Practices in March, appoint, subject to Cabinet approval, by May with a likely consultation process and report back to Cabinet toward the end of 2016 or early 2017 at the latest. This indicative timescale is subject to Cabinet Timetable availability and it is also likely that the Master-Plan will be placed before Planning Committee alongside a proposed SPD for the area.

·         Will there be a consultation of local residents and other interested parties as part of the review? If so, what form will this take?

Absolutely. It is intended there will be a series of consultation events/workshops with local residents, tenants and stakeholders. The most likely format will be drop-in meetings but may also include questionnaires. The final form of consultations will be agreed with the appointed Practice but it will be a specific requirement of any bid to conduct consultation.

·         How far behind schedule has the regeneration programme slipped? What are the implications for the remaining phases of the programme?

The programme has slipped due to external factors such as the safeguarding of Salusbury Road site by HS2 since 2012 and other factors, such as specific project delays on site. This, in turn, has pushed the programme out of kilter by having a knock-on effect on future phases. Some individual projects remain on target but overall the programme has extended by at least twelve months. The intention is that the Master-plan Review will seek to see whether there is any ability to recover this time by reconfiguring the remaining programme. The Master-Plan review will also incorporate a refresh of the financial viability of the scheme. No implications have been identified apart from the obvious prolongation of the programme and the resultant delay in tenants moving into new accommodation.

·         What criteria and methodology will the review use to decide whether to retain the South Kilburn Housing assets?

I note the extract provided by this FoI from the Budget Report but would advise that the Master-Plan Review will not be the vehicle for determining whether the Council disposes or retains assets as they are developed. I am sure the Review will be used to assist in the consideration of this query but it is more likely something that will be considered by the Council’s Investment Board and reported back to Cabinet for decision as appropriate.

·         Whether and how does the review relate to the information that the Council will provide following the Scrutiny Committee’s consideration of its report on South Kilburn regeneration, at its meeting of 2 December 2015 (see LINK)  

The Master-Plan review and the questions arising from the Scrutiny Committee consideration are separate matters. The points made by the Scrutiny Committee will and has assisted in the development of the Brief..
 

'We are not responsible for Brent Council', HS2 Select Committee

Pete Firmin,  a South Kilburn estate resident and Arantxa Arranz, a parent from St Mary's Catholic Primary School spoke to the HS2 Select Committee yesterday about the impact of the sinking of the 40m deep shaft at Canterbury Works, next to the school, on children, parents and the local community.

At one point when the lack of consultation from Brent Council about the vent proposal and their failure to enforce 'Considerate constructor' standards with the company regenerating South Kilburn were raised, Chair of the Committee said that they were not responsible for Brent Council.

Arantxa  told the Committee that the school and parents had opposed the building of the shaft, supported by the interim headteacher in May, and then returned after the half-term holiday to find that the interim headteacher had been replaced by an Executive Headteacher and an Interim Executive Board imposed to replace the governing body. After that the school's opposition was ended and communication with parents about their concerns was minimal.

She asked, in some bewilderment, why the change of vent site from one next to Queen's Park station (on a car park) with easy road access and no homes, to one next to a primary school, accessible only by narrow roads and close to housing?  HS2 had initially wanted to build the vent next to the station and had admitted the unsuitability of the Canterbury Works site next to the school.
Peter Bottomley, a Committee member, said that this was because Brent Council had asked the promoters (HS2) for the change and added, 'the detail is not for us'.

The promoters said they had offered up to £500,000 to the school to mitigate the impact of the works but Ms Arranz said that this would not compensate for the impact on the children's learning, possible respiratory problems caused by the works and the anger of accidents outside the school.

HS2 said that the period of 'intense construction' would only last for 6 months with 50 workers on site and 50 truck movement into the site and 50 out during that period.  Over the following 2-1/2 years the workforce would be 25 and most of that work would be internal fitting out of the shaft.



The House of Commons video (View from 11.15 am) can be found HERE

The Pell Frischmann report on the impact of works at the two sites can be found HERE 

South Kilburn residents vent their opposition on HS2 - next stop Parliament!

Select Commitee Visit Photo: Arantxa Arranz

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

Bad news for those who hoped that opposition to the HS2 LINK vent shaft being sited in the middle of a residential area and next to a primary school in South Kilburn would go away once Brent Council had persuaded HS2 of the wisdom of this.

On the contrary, campaigners turned out to lobby the parliamentary select committee when they visited the proposed site on Monday 9th November. Although it was meant to be a flying (5 minute!) visit, the visitors were persuaded to stop and briefly listen to us spelling out the problems with the site, LINK some of them also engaging in one-to-one conversations as well. One of the Brent Councillors and a lead officer looked none to pleased at this. Campaigners in many other places on the proposed  HS2 route also turned out to lobby at proposed sites.

A stark illustration of the problem was given to the select committee when they got stuck in traffic on Albert Road, the route down which they want to send 80 heavy lorries a day! But such irony is probably lost on Brent Council which the same week chose to announce that work was starting on Woodhouse Urban park on the same road. No doubt a highly relaxing place with lorries going past every few minutes.

Before and after the visit, local campaigners were out collecting signatures against the siting of the vent shaft here, from residents, parents of children at the school and a local business. It was impossible to find anyone in favour of the vent shaft being sited here, something which the Council has steered clear of mentioning. Indeed, while the Council website says “we are in dialogue with HS2, the school and local residents to discuss the proposed change and suitable mitigation measures”, a Freedom of Information request as to what this dialogue consists of has been refused.

Petitions had to be submitted to parliament by Friday 13th November, and on the day before our MP, Tulip Siddiq, brought all her staff to the area to assist in ensuring the petitions were in order, not an easy task. At least 6 different petitions have gone in, together with hundreds of signatures. Incidentally, in Camden the Council put council facilities at the service of petitioners. Brent, of course, has done the opposite.

What happens now? We will get letters from the select committee in the next few weeks responding to the points raised in the petitions, after which, if we are not satisfied – highly unlikely – we will get the opportunity to address them at a hearing in Westminster. Watch this space.

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.
 

HS2 propose moving ventilation shaft next to school on South Kilburn estate

A press release today reveals that HS2 plan to move the proposed ventilation shaft from the site next to Queens Park station to Canterbury Works on the South Kilburn Estate next to St Mary's Primary School. Local residents and parents opposed this proposal by Brent Council. LINK

The Press Release

HS2 is the new high speed railway for Britain. This event is an opportunity for you to find out more about the project and what it means for your local area.

This is a joint event between HS2 and Brent Borough Council about a change in the proposals for the HS2 railway, which would be in a tunnel under Kilburn.

We are proposing to move the site of one of the tunnel’s ventilation shafts from Salusbury Road to a site at Canterbury Works.

Date:

Thursday 8 October

Time:

3pm to 8pm

Location:

South Kilburn Studios,
2A Canterbury Rd,
London, NW6 5SW

View this location on a map
For further information on this event, please contact the HS2 helpdesk:

Public enquiries

Emailhs2enquiries@hs2.org.uk

HS2 Ltd helpdesk020 7944 4908

Greens renew call for railway nationalisation after upgrading debacle

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has renewed the Green's call call for the railways to be returned to public ownership and accused the government of “failing” on public transport after it announced it would delay or cut back several railway improvement projects.

Bennett said:

This government is already failing when it comes to public transport. It is failing the two-thirds of unemployed people who don’t have access to a car, the thousands who die prematurely due to air pollution, the rural poor trapped by the slashing of bus services.

The growing numbers of people who use our railways every day are increasingly dissatisfied with the service they are getting. If we want to encourage people to use public transport, to improve public health and reduce air pollution, we must invest.

Yet instead of making public transport accessible, reliable, convenient and affordable, the government is wasting money on expensive vanity projects like HS2 and the expansion of major roads.

The Green Party, along with 66% of the public, wants to see Britain’s railways back in public hands, so that profits can be invested back into improving services, rather than filling the pockets of shareholders. It’s time the government listened to the public, and delivered a railway service that works for passengers, not profit.

Kilburn councillor launches blog with email revelations over Brent HS2 vent meeting

Cllr John Duffy, Labour, Kilburn ward has launched a blog site this morning, Kilburn Calling,  LINK which states as its intention 'A blog that speaks out about the issues and concerns of people who live in the Kilburn area of the London Borough of Brent'.

Cllr Duffy attempted to persuade the Labour Group to raise Council Tax during the pre-budget consultation, arguing that to do so could prevent some of the worse of the cuts, particularly the ending of funding to Stonebridge Adventure Playground.

At the last full Council Meeting (there is another tonight) he protested that Kilburn had become disenfranchised because none of its councillors had been allocated places on Council committees.

In a posting today LINK he reveals what he claims to be an attempt by a senior Brent officer to stop him informing residents about his attendance at a key meeting on the controversial HS2 vent issue.

This is what he says:

A funny thing happen to me over the weekend, I received a email from a senior officer in Brent council, telling me about a meeting to discuss the HS2 train link running under Kilburn and the placing of the vent shaft.

The email said:

“Please accept this meeting request for discussions on the HS2 Vent Shaft issue that has arisen.
XXXX has called this meeting to ensure you all have the opportunity to be factually briefed on the issue, especially from the South Kilburn Regeneration perspective.
The meeting will be held at xxxxx. xxxxx (full address below). Please ask for XXXX XXXX upon arrival”.

I accepted the invitation to the meeting and believed I should inform the Chair of the local residents to highlight the fact that I was attending and therefore assuring them that their voice was being heard. So I forwarded the email to the Chair of the local residents a Mr F and merely added “FYI”. Believing that I had acted as a good councilor, I then prepared to enjoy my weekend. 

However on Friday night I received this letter from a Senior Director, which he had cc the leader of the council. Saying that he noticed I had forwarded his email stating.

Dear Councillor Duffy,

This is a private briefing for the new MP, the Leader, and relevant Lead Members from the cabinet and ward councilors only. It isn't an open meeting for members of the public or wider party members. I would wholly expect one outcome of the meeting to be wider consultation and engagement on the issues and we can discuss the approach to this at the meeting.

Can I leave you to inform Mr F of this situation please?
 
Thanks - see you next week
 
I was initially taken back by what I saw of an invasion of my private correspondence with a Constituent. However it would seem that Brent council operate a system that traces any person to whom they have sent an invitation to and any other person that the recipient forwards it onto. This despite the fact that the email did not state it was private or secret.

Because of my concern about this I then forwarded this note to two other colleagues asking them to advise me about what I saw as intrusion into my private email correspondence with my constituents.
To my amazement I received another email from the Director, which was sent to all of the three of my constituents I had emailed. Which said:

Dear Mr P, Mr G, MR K,

I understand that you have been forwarded a notification of the above meeting by Cllr Duffy.
Regrettably this meeting is a private briefing for local politicians and therefore attendance is restricted and I am afraid that you won't be able to attend.
One of the purposes of the meeting is to discuss how we best engage and consult with the many different residents and partners who have an interest in this issue with a view to ensuring that everybody's voice is heard.  I will make sure you are all notified of the relevant consultation meetings when they are set up.

Many apologies for the misunderstanding.”

Summary


It is clear the officer involved believes he alone controls the meeting; his way of dealing with councilors is by dictating to them and believes he can instruct councilors to obey him, because presumably he is an officer.

The way the officer has handle this situation and the tone of his emails is of great concern to me, it reeks of “big brother ” and his interference by directly emailing my constituents is frankly unbelievable. It is as if I had been a very “ bad boy “ and he is telling me off. It is condescending and I believe undermines the respect officers should show to elected representatives.

I am sure there are many Cabinet Members and Councilors, who believe they should just obey officers’ instructions and do what ever they say, and do not stand their ground. This officer seems to have confused me with one of them. 

I was quite happy to attend the meeting itself. I never invited anyone else contrary to the officer’s wild allegation. This meeting is about the vent shaft for HS2.  There are two options being discussed: one in Queens Park  (next to the station) and the other in South Kilburn next to St Mary’s RC School in the middle of the regeneration area that has been blighted as a building site for the last nine years.
I however do not accept the implicit suggestion from these officers that this will be sited (as indicated in their first e-mail) in the South Kilburn regeneration area. These residents have lived on a building site for last 9 years and have been shafted by the Tory government over the years by cuts in services, the bedroom tax and family credits etc. So I will attend the meeting to do my best to ensure the residents of South Kilburn are not literally “Shafted” again by both the Tory Government and over zealous Officers.

Regeneration and Gentrification in South Kilburn

Following his recent guest blog about South Kilburn, Pete Firmin, took me on a tour of the estate and talked about some of the issues confronting residents. In particular we discussed the HS2 vent which HS2 want to site on a carpark next to Queens Park Bakerloo and Overground station but which Brent Council wants to site next to St Mary's Catholic Primary School.

It is estimated that the building the vent will take 6 years and at the construction peak will necessitate 187 truck trips into the site and then 187 out again.

It is not clear that people moving into the new flats have been made aware of the disruption that awaits them.

In this video Pete highlights the issues:

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.