KILBURN SQUARE: Decision time (Chapter One) is finally here this Wednesday!

 

A guest post from the Chair of Kilburn Village Residents’ Association

 

WM reported three weeks ago  (https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2023/10/kilburn-square-campaigners-we-are.html  on the reaction of our local community to the (thankfully aborted) attempt to deal with this large and controversial scheme late in the evening, when the Committee clock was already into Overtime.  

 

This time, KS is the first Application on the Agenda (https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=115&MId=7565&Ver=4  ). A 6pm start is a bit early for many of our supporters to be there… but we’re pleased the Committee members will be fresh, and able to concentrate on the merits – and drawbacks – of the model in the Application as filed.

 

They will not be short of material to prompt questions:

 

·         They have the Officers’ original 61-page October 10 report, and a Supplementary report from the day before the October 18 meeting

·         But we found both of those to be less than balanced and objective

·         So we’ve provided them all with two detailed Response documents giving the very different perspective of the local community – on and off the estate

·         Both of those responses have now been posted as formal Objections on the Planning Portal (ref 22/3669)

 

The second one was linked in the last WM piece; but Martin has kindly embedded our more substantial initial response here: 

 

 

 Read it at your leisure – but here’s the message in a nutshell:

 

• We’d support a scheme just replacing two daytime-use buildings (such as Blocks A and B in the version now proposed), in line with the Local Plan Site Allocation and the April 2020 Cabinet report approving a development partnership with Network Homes
• But encroaching on the actual estate, removing valued green space and mature trees while adding more households (60% more vs 2019) to share the reduced communal space (like Blocks C and E) … is a Bridge Too Far

 

And here’s the Exec Summary

1.       This scheme is still too big, there are significant other policy breaches, and not all claims for flexibility are justified

2.       After a totally ineffective pre-engagement programme, the applicant is seeking to impose this version of the scheme despite the local community’s overwhelming call for a smaller, fairer model 

3.       The public interest benefit is tempered by affordability issues and the proposed tenure mix is unlikely to be deliverable

4.       Conclusion: we do not believe this scheme represents a fair balance, and urge the committee to decline approval

 

Two particular topics we feel are unacceptably dismissed by the Officers are the pre-engagement process and the Sandwood overshadowing by too-close-for comfort Block E 

 

The Officers dismissively say pre-engagement is not a statutory requirement, that there’s “a difference of opinion” about the effectiveness of what was done, and the Committee must determine the Application purely “on its merits”. If that were true, what was the point of mounting a superficially thorough pre-engagement effort? 

 

·         Brent regularly acknowledges the importance of consultation beyond legal requirements, and “taking the community with us”

·         We’ve often quoted senior Brent figures saying they “will not force homes on anyone” and want “a scheme that can work for everyone”

·         Brent has a detailed 2017 policy document spelling out the required process (NOT followed in the second stage consultation here)

·         The London Mayor specifically reminded the Applicant’s project team in 2021 he requires a process that is “…responsive and meaningful” – which we have demonstrated this was not

·         The project team told residents in 2021 that the engagement process was “one of three pillars” of the project evaluation

·         A senior Brent Officer was (with no irony) one of the judges for Best Community Engagement in the industry-wide “Pineapple” Awards

 

Overshadowing by Block E should be an Open and Shut case. 

 

The consultant’s report clearly says if BRE 209 guidance is strictly followed, it could be no more than 1-2 storeys.  The Officers’ report acknowledges that – and then tries to accept a series of the Applicant’s excuses for building it (five storeys) anyway

 

·         Irrelevant hypotheses about modelling the result without the Sandwood balconies, or if E were a mirror image of Sandwood’s East face (12 flats affected) – PURE SOPHISTRY!

·         Claims that living conditions in the rest of the Sandwood flats will still be fine (WRONG – residents already need lights switched on in the daytime)

·         Claims that the amount of acknowledged overshadowing across the whole scheme is modest – and acceptable given the “public interest” delivered; how is that fair to Sandwood residents?

·         Unsubstantiated statements that the guidance is largely intended for rural locations

 

The consultant’s report in the Application also talks of “site constraints” as a possible basis for lenience; but Block E is totally standalone – and removing it would not have any bearing on the rest of the scheme

 

To our minds, the Case against Block E is a sufficient valid Planning Objection to require that the Application be declined

 

Chapter Two

 

And then, if Permission is granted on Wednesday, there will have at some stage to be a Chapter Two – once a viable funding model is found and a modified tenure mix, with perhaps 30% of units for outright market sale, will need to be re-submitted to the Committee…   

 

If only the Applicant had had the moral courage to make that adjustment NOW – while the scheme is getting the fullest possible scrutiny!

 

Keith Anderson

Candlelit vigil at Kilburn station calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the deaths of so many children

 

Photo: Pete Firmin

A candlelight vigil was held in Kilburn yesterday calling for a ceasefire in the current conflict. The names of Israeli and Gazan children killed in the conflict were read out, interspersed with poetry. A minute's silence for all the victims ended the hour long vigil.

The vigil was organised jointly by Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Brent Friends of Palestine. A collection was made for the Palestine Trauma Centre, a charity supported by Brent Friends of Palestine, whose building has been destroyed by nearby bombing.  The charity works with children traumatised by the ongoing situation.

A spokesperson for Brent and Harrow PSC said:

With the child death toll  rising daily many Brent and Harrow residents have been horrified by the pictures coming out of Gaza and feel a desperate need to do something about the situation. Bringing people together to respect the child victims and emphasise their humanity by naming them and their ages, was a moving act of empathy and solidarity. The call for a ceasefire was heartfelt from a peaceful crowd that represented the diversity of Brent. 

We will be joining hundreds of thousands on Saturday at the march to the US Embassy calling  for a ceasefire. The killing of innocent children must end.

 

 

The National March for Palestine: Ceasefire Now assembles Hyde Park at 12 noon on Saturday and marches to the US Embassy in Nine Elms, avoiding the Westminster area. Details of meeting up points for local people from brent2harrowpsc@outlook.com

 

The Palestine Trauma Clinic after the bombing

 

As Brent Friends of Palestine  don't have a website if you would to to donate to the rebuilding  it is more straightforward to go direct to the Palestine Trauma Centre UK website to donate ..

www.palestinetraumacentre.uk/news

You might  also like to  have a look at the PTC UK online Gallery, ' Gaza: On the Inside; From the Inside' which was put on the website just before October 7th. It has some amazing photographs.

 

LATEST UPDATE FROM THAMES WATER ON WATER SUPPLY IN BRENT & CAMDEN - supplies expected to return over next few hours and into the night

 

We’re starting to see water pressures gradually improving as we begin to refill our supply network, following this morning’s large burst pipe in Loudoun Road.

We’ll continue working on this and expect supplies across the area will start to return over the next few hours and into tonight.

If you’ve been affected by flooding

We have loss adjusters and support staff at Swiss Cottage Library, where Camden Council is running a rest centre. They’re talking to residents who’ve been flooded, to help get their lives back on track.

We’re really sorry for the flooding and distress this has caused.

If you have no water or low pressure

We’d like to apologise too if your water supply has been affected by this. If you’re without water you should still be able to use your heating.

As supplies start to return across the area, you can find more information about what to expect BELOW

We’re working to repair the pipe. We already have some construction vehicles on site and others on the way so we can get moving as quickly as possible.

We’ve also been delivering water to vulnerable customers in the area, and are continuing to do so.

Why did it take time to stop the burst?

It took our engineers time to stem the flow safely, as they needed to switch off a number of valves at different locations, some of which were under parked cars or submerged by flood water. They also needed to make sure when operating them that this didn’t lead to a further burst pipe elsewhere.

We’ll provide more information here as soon as we have it. 

 

WHAT TO EXPECT

 

 

We’re sorry if you’ve unexpectedly had a problem with your water. We know how difficult it is when your supply is disrupted.

Why didn’t we warn you?

Sometimes, this type of issue is impossible to predict. For example, a water pipe might burst, there could be an unexpected issue at a treatment works, or one of our pipes could have been damaged. Whenever there’s an emergency of this sort, we’ll work as fast as we can to get things back to normal.

My water looks cloudy – why is that?

If your water looks cloudy when you turn your tap back on, it’s likely to be tiny air bubbles trapped in the water, which sometimes happens when pipes burst.

This is harmless, and if you pour a glass of water you should see the bubbles clear from the bottom of the glass upwards. The cloudiness should disappear if you run your cold kitchen tap for a couple of minutes. Learn more about this on our help page.

Why is the water coming out of my tap more slowly?

Sometimes the force that pushes water through the pipes, known as the pressure, can take a while to build up again following an incident, so please allow time for this.

At first, your water might splutter out of your tap when it comes back on, but this should clear if you run your cold kitchen tap for a couple of minutes.

What should I do if I have another problem with my water?

Occasionally a burst pipe can cause other issues – for example, if a large amount of air gets trapped in your water pipes. If you continue to experience problems with your water or you notice any unusual taste or odour, please contact us.

What if I need extra support in the future?

Could you, a family member or a friend benefit from a helping hand during a similar incident – for example, due to health reasons, disability or age? Find out more about the free support we can provide when you sign up to our priority services register.

Will I get compensation?

You won’t need to apply for compensation. If you qualify for a payment under our Customer Guarantee Scheme, we’ll automatically credit your Thames Water account within 20 working days.

Climate change means extreme storms will produce significant London flooding in the future, Independent Review concludes- even if all its recommendations are implemented

 The Stage 4 report of the Independent London Flood Review, commissioned by Thames Water, has now been published.

 

After reporting on its recommendations (see below) it is noteworthy that it concludes:

 

An important finding of the Review is that, even if all of our recommendations were taken up by the relevant organisations, we would still predict significant flooding when this type of extreme storm events occur, and due to climate change these events are predicted to become more frequent. As a result, the various organisations that have responsibility for managing flood risk will need to plan, work and invest together to reduce the impacts of flooding in the future.

 

As Kilburn was hit by the double whammy of surface water and sewer water lfooding, and there are other potential flood areas in the borough as posts on Wembley Matters have indicated, it is imperative that Brent Council Scrutiny investigates the issue further in the light of the Review's recommendations

 

Non-technical summary  (Full Report HERE)

The amazing Rumi's Cave send a 'Love Letter' farewell to Kilburn as they start packing for move to Harlesden

 

 

From Rumi's Facebook page:

We have been given a month to move into our new Harlesden premises. Seeing the Rumi’s area is quite a contrast to the little touches we added to make our Cave special.

 

Whilst we move and get our premises in Harlesden ready for Rumi’s Kitchen projects feeding the most vulnerable and looking after our elders. We are going to be moving some of our events to a temporary hall. Till we find our new Cave home.

 

To donate and support please go to rumis.org/donate your donations will be used to help hire a space in the interim, look for a new home and start this new chapter God willing.

 

It is a sad day for Rumi's Cave as they pack up to leave their base in Carlton Vale, Kilburn after many years of work with and for the local community.  They are moving to a small site in Harlesden but are looking for a larger space to carry out their many activities.

The move comes despite valiant and well-supported efforts LINK to save their facility in Kilburn. They said farewell on Twitter:

 

I responded on Twitter:

Dear @RumisCave it is an honour to have had you here in Brent and see the positive impact you have made. You have given back so much and long may your work continue elsewhere in the borough. Thank you.

Independent London Flood Review announced into flooding events of July 2021

The London Flood Review has been set up to examine the flash flooding that affected many parts of the capital in July 2021.  The review seeks to better understand the extent and causes of these floods, to assess how the drainage systems performed, and to recommend how the increasing risks of future flooding events can be managed.

The review, which has been commissioned by Thames Water, will play an integral part in ensuring the company future proofs its infrastructure to protect its customers, their communities and the environment as such severe weather events look set to become the norm across the UK.

The review will also play an important role in improving collaborative working between all parties responsible for managing future flooding risks. As part of its focus, the review will provide insights on London’s wider drainage infrastructure and broader recommendations that could be adopted by all organisations with surface water management responsibilities.

 

INDEPENDENT REVIEW INTO THE FLOODING IN LONDON ON 12 & 25 JULY 2021

Terms of Reference

1. Why has Thames Water commissioned an independent review?
 

On 12 and 25 of July 2021, London experienced extreme rainfall events that led to extensive flooding, with more than a thousand homes and businesses flooded, and health, social and transport infrastructure also affected. Given the scale of the impact on its customers and local businesses, Thames Water has taken the unusual step of commissioning an independent review into the flooding as the organisation believes it is important to understand the root cause of the flooding, how its assets performed and to learn lessons so the company and other parties may better prepare for future risks, in an open and transparent way.

This review will also assist with Thames Water’s role (as a Risk Management Authority) in supporting Local Authorities in undertaking their flooding investigations as required by Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010). Thames Water’s ambition is that the review should take no more than 6 months, with interim reports published as it progresses. This timeframe is planned so that the review concludes within a period where the findings are relevant to the key stakeholders and also are able to inform Thames Water’s draft PR24 business plan. As such, the review must balance the desire for comprehensive scope, level of detail and stakeholder engagement, with the need to complete within this timeframe.

This will mean that the review will primarily focus on the performance of Thames Water’s assets, within the context of other Risk Management Authorities’ assets, and be developed using existing Thames Water models.

A Brent Council spokesperson said: 

Brent Council welcomes the Independent Review into the flooding events of last summer that has been commissioned by Thames Water . We look forward to working with the review body to inform it's evidence base and to assist the review to meet its objectives.

2. What is the aim of the independent review?

The review has four core objectives. To:

1) Research, understand and report on the ‘what, when, why and how’ of the two July storms

 

Key to the investigation is capturing as accurately as possible what occurred, where and how customers were affected, i.e. the number and type of properties impacted, the type of flooding (internal/external, surface/sewer) they experienced etc. This needs to be undertaken in the context of understanding the storms that occurred i.e., characteristics of rainfall and also where it occurred because the impact will not be the same across the different affected areas. This will also identify whether there were other factors (such as high tide, time of day etc) that potentially contributed to the flooding and what impact
they might have had.

2) Examine the flooding mechanisms and to consider the performance of drainage systems against design standards.

 

This will determine how well Thames Water’s assets performed on 12 and 25 July in accordance with the duty set out in Section 94 of the Water Industry Act.

 

 The assessment should be of Thames Water’s drainage and sewerage assets in general in the affected boroughs, with a specific focus on recent flood alleviation schemes, including Maida Vale, Counters Creek and Westbourne Grove and their performance against their project objectives (this will include where Thames Water has installed FLIPs and other local flood risk management measures).

3) Consider how changes to existing and planned drainage system works, operations and/or policies might have alleviated the flooding and make London more resilient to future storms.  

 

Whilst the focus of the recommendations will be on the public sewerage system, these must be made within the context of the interaction between the Thames Water operated and maintained public sewerage system and third-party drainage and flood risk management systems. The review should highlight wider points on the future of the London’s sewerage and drainage system and identify key opportunities that should be considered in Thames Water’s DWMP and PR24 Business Plan, and other stakeholders’ plans and programmes.

4) Be as evidence based as possible.

Further lines of inquiry may be included as raised by the participants of the review, but as noted previously, these should not detract from the aim of achieving the core objectives within the stated timeframe.

3. How will the independent review be run and managed?

In order to be properly independent, the review cannot be led by Thames Water, but neither can it be entirely independent of Thames Water, as Thames Water is the major provider of information and resources for the review and will be a key recipient of its recommendations.

The structure of the Independent review is as follows:

1. An Independent Expert Group (‘IEG’) that will lead the review. The IEG’s role is to:
a. Agree the terms of reference and scope for the review, including the brief for thecontractors, in consultation with the Strategic Stakeholder Panel
b. Work with Thames Water to appoint the contractors to support the IEG
c. Work with the contractors to produce the interim and final reports in consultation with the Strategic Stakeholder Panel
d. Be responsible for the successful outcome of the review
e. Stand behind the findings of the review
f. Promote the review and the dissemination of its findings, including attending any potential scrutiny/inquiry meetings.

The IEG will consist of three experts with industry-leading knowledge and experience in sewerage and drainage modelling, legislation and regulation, and flood risk management. The experts will be appointed by and paid by Thames Water, but be otherwise independent.

A key early stage to the review will be an assessment by the IEG of available data/models in order to agree what gaps may exist and how best to resolve these gaps within the time available.

2. A Strategic Stakeholder Panel (‘SSP’) comprising representatives from the key strategic organisations in London with a responsibility for and interest in surface water and sewer flood risk management. The SSP will be consulted on the scope and objectives of the review, inputting into its course, receiving, and (where appropriate) endorsing, promoting, and
enacting its findings. The SSP will include senior representatives from:

a. Greater London Authority
b. Transport for London
c. London Councils

d. London Drainage Engineers’ Group
e. Environment Agency
f. Consumer Council for Water
g. Ofwat (as an observer)
h. Thames Regional Flood & Coastal Committee
i. Thames Water

The IEG will, as a minimum, meet with the SSP at each key stage (see ‘Key Deliverables’ below):
• Inception meeting to discuss and agree the Terms of Reference
• Meeting to review the work programme and agree data requirements from the SSP and other parties
• Review the findings of each stage of the review ahead of publication of the interim reports
• Review the findings of the final report and development of a non-technical summary

3. A contractor (Mott McDonalds) to provide the technical capability and resources to undertake the work detailed in a brief approved by the IEG. The contractors will be procured and funded by Thames Water, but report to and be managed by the IEG.

 

4. Key Deliverables

The following key deliverables are included to provided structure and clarity around what outputs are required. It is intended that each stage will build on the prior one:
• Stage 1: Full assessment of impact of the storms, detailing the nature of the storms that occurred and the impact (extent) of the flooding (who and what was flooded).
• Stage 2: Assessment of the flooding mechanisms and a technical view of where and how  flooding occurred.
Stages 1 and 2 together will form the ‘baseline statement’ for the review:
• Stage 3: Explanation of the performance of the sewerage system, including stating whether the sewerage system and key flood alleviation schemes performed to the intended levels of service.
• Stage 4: Lessons learnt - details of where improvements to the sewerage system and potentially third-party assets and policies may be appropriate. To be completed by end of April 2022.

A report will be published for each of the stages.

 

The River Westbourne flood defences, the tale of two boroughs

 An update post by David Walton of FLASK

  

Brent used to have more River Westbourne flood defences but still has some, publicly owned natural parkland flood defences throughout South Kilburn Vale, that were built in the 1950's and 1960's. These flood defences have been incrementally built on since 2000 and the impacts are already being felt.  The new intention is to establish this as a tall building zone as set out in the Brent Local Plan to 2041 which awaits final approval.  Population growth is planned to rise from 6,000 in 2000 to 36,000 by 2041. Brent has no plan to mitigate growing flood risk which is exacerbated yet further by excavating giant underground car parks. A mainline electrified railway luckily severs South Kilburn Vale from the rest of Brent.

 

For its River Westbourne flood defences, the City of Westminster uses complex and expensively engineered solutions built inside its borough boundary, but it also ( cf July 2021 major Incident) clearly relies on Brent playing its full part in the  flood defence of the City of Westminster upstream of the River Westbourne.

 

Westminster has the Carlton Hill natural hill (pending new developments area) which drains down onto the Brent floodplain vale, with Kilburn Park Road on the east bank of the River Westbourne (Westminster) relying on Brent's depleting natural parkland flood defences for safety. Then at the main borough boundary at Shirland Road, Westminster engineered flood defences start and which though of considerable scale failed in July 2021 and will with certainty fail again unless Westminster and agencies look at the bigger River Westbourne flood attenuation cross borough boundary picture. (See key Kilburn Park Road flood defences already removed like the 40 veteran trees roundabout flood defence or the Granville Road park flood defence three-quarters removed).

 

New map fragments recently obtained from Thames Water show how the culvert straightened high speed River Westbourne takes a dramatic giant sweeping curve from Kilburn Park Road into Shirland Road, and at this point (underneath the zebra crossing) also connects to the North West Storm Relief Sewer which heads west down to the River Thames at Hammersmith, while the Mid Level 2 Interceptor Sewer which heads east to Beckon Sewage Works connects to the River Westbourne nearby at the south east end of Shirland Road. Flood protection support is also supplied by two new large flood storage reservoirs underneath Tiverton Gardens and Westbourne Green. Both are rivers connected and were built in 2016 at a cost of £22 million. To quote from this new project’s 2012 description:

 

"The Sewer Flooding History Database (SFHD) lists 105 properties that have a flooding category of either AI or BI; however, it is known that the flooding issues affect many more properties in the area. Optimise (the contractor) are targeted with removing 177 properties from the SFHD flooding register and contracted to remove a minimum of 147 properties.

 

Primarily, the identified flooding areas are located around Formosa Street and Shirland Road. Prior to 2005 the problem was much smaller with far fewer properties affected; however there have been severe flooding events in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. In both areas the flooding occurs incommercial and residential property basements.

 

Having considered a number of options, the preferred option proposed by Optimise is to construct a 20m dia, 20m deep storage shaft in Westbourne Green. From this a 3m dia tunnel will be driven to a 7.5m dia reception shaft in Formosa Street. In conjunction with managing flows at the Kings Scholar’s Pond and at a number of bifurcations in the Formosa Street area this will effectively resolve the flooding issues at Formosa Street. Flows from the shaft in Westbourne Green will be returned to the Ranelagh sewer (River Westbourne) by means of a pumping station with a return pump rate of 400 l/s. The Shirland Road flooding will be resolved by diverting more flow to the Mid-Level 2 sewer and constructing a 20m dia, 20m deep storage shaft in Chippenham Gardens.

 

In order to remove properties from the SFHD it has also to be proven thatthe properties flood due sewer surcharge / local incapacity. This information was collated through existing databases already connected to the properties, and via interviews with current residents in the area. There was an initial reluctance to complete the survey by residents and this was for a number of reasons, including many residents were not living at the properties at the time of the flooding events and property owners do not want their property on a flooding register.  As such, the verified model has and will continue to be used to validate the number of properties that suffer from flooding".

 

The sheer scale of the City of Westminster's engineered flood defences that are place and   being rapidly extended  indicate that the wild River Westbourne is a major environmental risk to lives and property for this entire area of London. Yet this river is deregulated from Environment Agency responsibility and often commercially driven boroughs so Thames Water must work out what to do in an ad hoc and uncoordinated way instead. 

 

The City of Westminster does seem at least to be trying seriously to take mitigating actions to protect its own residents and businesses on a borough boundary frontline siege basis, but these actions have clearly failed to accept this area’s wider geography and factor in the housing infrastructure in Brent’s urban growth zone.  Brent seems to think that leaseholders and tenants in Brent and City of Westminster should 'learn to live with' traumatic flood risk escalation  and then pay the costs created by its tall buildings growth area, built on a flood plain.

 

Liability is being cleverly being passed entirely to leaseholders and tenants for the moment, as this area’s big freeholder housing block owners will just make sure that flood repairs are actioned in a timely manner and that costs are then fully recovered from block leaseholders and tenants. They will be  paying literally forever for the extreme over development of this floodplain. This, when natural parkland flood defences (that Brent is destroying) had proved excellent in protecting South Kilburn and North Westminster for decades.

 

 

David Walton

FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn)