Is Northwick Park open space safe? Cllr McLennan's response

This is the written reply to Gaynor Lloyd's question regarding the futire of open space in Northwick Park in the light of the One Public Estate Plans for redevelopment. She is allowed a supplementary question if she attends tonight's Council Meeeting. The meeting can be viewed on-line live HERE (if the broadcast does not go wrong again). Towards the end of the meeting there is a potentially controversial (and poorly formulated) motion reaffirming Brent Council support for the IHRA definition of anti-semitism which doesn't actually mention adopting the examples.

Question from Mrs Elizabeth Gaynor Lloyd to Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of the Council:

In the light of (1) the change in Cabinet member responsibility since the assurance given by Councillor Tatler at the Cabinet meeting in August that the Metropolitan Open Land/ open space at Northwick Park was safe, and (2) her comments to the Harrow Times that all proposals will be made in consultation with residents which is scheduled for the coming months, and (3) the fact that a Transport Viability study was carried out almost a year ago indicating the possibility of an access road through the Ducker pool area or the golf course or the Fairway (all of which would involve a road across Metropolitan Open Land), can the Cabinet Member now vested with responsibility for this project please either confirm that these access road proposals have been abandoned or, if not, please publish a simple indication of the rough alternative routes for the access road to the Northwick Park Regeneration area proposed?

If the open space is safe, can the Cabinet member also confirm that there will be no development on the SINC Grade 1 Northwick park & the Ducker Pool B103 area and open space protected under CP18, and that these areas will be fully protected so that their value is not prejudiced by the adjoining/nearby development?

Response:

Peter Brett Associates (transport and infrastructure consultants) have been engaged by the four landowners under the One Public Estate Initiative to work alongside other consultants, to assess the transportation issues that affect the Northwick Park site and its surroundings.

Part of this study included access to the site. A number of options were considered by Peter Brett, with advantages and disadvantages of each given careful consideration. The format and details of future public consultation has yet to be agreed, but this is likely to include access options for discussion and feedback.

The February 2018 Cabinet paper, updating members of progress at Northwick Park, confirms current proposals consider a possible “land swap” of Metropolitan Open Space, subject to the necessary consents. In broad terms this would involve swapping the area currently occupied by the sports pavilion and car park, with an equivalent area immediately to the south of Northwick Park station.

(Para 4.7 Appendix One of February 2018 cabinet report):

“.... include the smaller MOL swap involving the existing pavilion area and the area immediately to the south of Northwick Park station.”

This too would form part of any public consultation.

Mrs Lloyd may be reassured by para 3.2 and 3.3 of the same report, which stated:

3.2 All of the Council freehold ownership, and the Ducker Pond, is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (‘MOL’). This effectively affords it the same planning status as Green Belt, where development for uses other than those deemed appropriate for the Green Belt will be refused unless there are exceptional circumstances. The same land area is also designated as local open space.

3.3 The Ducker Pond area is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Grade I, being of high biodiversity value. This designation extends to part of the Playgolf site, particularly the hedged area at the boundary. Part of the site also forms a section of the Capital Ring public walkway. Policy seeks to preserve and enhance the habitats in these areas.

Full Council – 17 September 2018 Motion selected by the Conservative Group

With anti-Semitic hate crimes rising across London and the United Kingdom – this Council expresses that it is appalled at the increase in anti-Semitic Hate Crimes, and reiterates its support for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism.

This Council is shocked at the recent spate of anti-Semitic posters that have been going up across TfL run bus stops, and it is further shocked at the recent comments by those who have described the recent condemnation of anti-Semitic language and behaviour as a ‘Zionist’ movement – using anti-Semitic language and imagery in campaigning and online, further enflaming anti-Semitic hatred across the Borough.

This Council will immediately adopt, into its councillor and public workers code of conduct, the full and complete IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, and implement policies to ensure that hate crimes against Jewish people are acted upon quickly and decisively.

Councillor Michael Maurice Kenton Ward

-->

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't terminate our 223 Harrow bus at Northwick Park Hospital - residents respond to 'sham' consultation

 Thanks to Linda Green for this guest post outlining how the changes to the 223 bus route  will affect residents' and school children's public transport.
 

Last year TFL decided that it would change a large number of bus services throughout London, because of 'The Elizabeth Line', which will not come to Brent.  This included cutting the 223 bus that goes from Wembley to Harrow via the Preston Park area.  Instead of going to Harrow it will terminate outside Northwick Park hospital.

As I heard a rumour about it I tried searching TFL's website, but couldn't find anything until a friend sent me a link.

I asked on the bus, and the driver said 'they plan something this week then next week they change it'.  At Harrow bus station I asked for information but they didn't have any.  I wrote to TFL and asked for copies of the consultation documents to be sent to the library, as lots of the 223 users don't have the internet and don't have any information.  They did not reply.

Apparently there was a note about this in Metro.  There was no information put in buses, and nothing put in Harrow bus station and nothing put up in bus stops.  If you live in the Preston area, and your main use of public transport is the 223 or other local buses, you do not see Metro and hence have no way of knowing that the consultation was taking place.

The issues affecting local people are:

·      Many residents of Wembley, Preston and Kenton see Harrow as their main shopping area, and use the 223 to get there.  They also go to Harrow for entertainment, such as cinemas and restaurants.  They do not want to change at Northwick Park.

·      It is the only bus service at all for many residents, and for many it is too far to either walk to the tube station, or to manage the large number of steps at the stations, especially if they have heavy bags of shopping or babies in pushchairs. 

·      It would be especially stressful and difficult for elderly and disabled people and parents to have to get themselves and their shopping off the bus to wait for another one at Northwick Park, where there are no facilities, shelter from the weather or proper seats.

·      It would be unpleasant to wait at Northwick Park in the dark.  It is very creepy at night and people would feel vulnerable. All there is are two bus stops and a grassy area with trees.

·      Many children and young people use the route to go to and from school in Harrow.  They get on at Harrow bus station and get off all through from Woodcock Hill, Kenton, Preston and later stops through to Wembley and Wembley Park.  Many Brent sixth-formers get the 223 to Harrow bus station then change to other buses to go to Harrow Weald College and other Harrow high schools. In future they would need to get three buses. I doubt if the pupils and students know that their transport to school and college is about to be cut.

·      Young people go to pubs and clubs in Harrow then get the last 223 back to the Preston Park area as well as to the Avenue and Wembley Park.  They would risk missing another last bus from Northwick Park hospital and be vulnerable waiting there or having to walk back.

·      A whole range of people goes to Harrow to visit the cinema and restaurants, and will have similar problems to the young people mentioned above.

·      The 223 is hail and ride for much of the route, so that people can get off near their homes.  For this reason people who have disabilities or who feel vulnerable like to use this bus.  It means that it is easier than using the tube.

·      The bus is also the cheaper option compared with the tube.

·      Many of Preston Community Library's volunteers and members use this bus to visit the library.

Personally, I would stop going to the cinema and restaurants at Harrow if there were no bus home at night. I would not feel safe waiting in the dark, rain or snow by the hospital. Also, after I have walked around shopping etc I seldom have the strength left to climb the steps into Harrow tube station or the steps inside Preston Road station.

Residents can make a complaint via London Travel Watch: http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/complaints/

They could also write to Navin Shah, the London Assembly member for Brent and Harrow, or to their MP or the London Mayor. Copy in your local councillors.

When complaining do emphasize that the consultation was a sham, and that users of the bus mostly knew nothing about the proposals at all. 'Tell them how it affects you personally.

 Other bus routes will be affected also, so it is worth contacting TFL to see if there are other cuts which affect you.

TfL consultation response HERE

Northwick Park regeneration - key public questions for Monday's Brent Cabinet

I am pleased to see that Gaynor Lyoyd is pressing home her demand for more information on the One Public Estate Plan for Northwick Park.  A year ago I called for more public information LINK

Gaynor's questions following up her earlier post on Wembley Matters LINK

The combination of a Cabinet meeting on August 13th, a meeting held in peak holiday season and one at a time (4pm) inconvenient for people who work, would normally mean a lack of scrutiny so all credit to Gaynor Lloyd for her detailed questions. It should mean that the meeting lasts longer than its normal 45 minutes.

These are the questions:

 

Item 8  “Approval to enter into grant agreements for 2 Housing Infrastructure bids relating to ...Northwick Park Regeneration “ in Cabinet meeting Agenda 13 August 2018.

1  Northwick Park is a much loved local facility - a park, playing fields and sports pitches, a golf course and a Grade 1 Nature conservation site an area much used by locals for open air leisure over many years. As Brent’s policies CP17 & 18 make clear, Brent is deficient in all types of open space and - at any rate in a Sports England survey in 2005-6 - had one of the lowest levels of sports participation in England. Unsurprisingly, policy CP17 para 5.15 states that the council will protect  all open space from inappropriate development.

No plan is attached to the Report showing the extent of the (proposed) area for “Northwick Park Regeneration”. So it is not possible to see if this is restricted to the Northwick park Hospital Site allocation15.

There is  local concern about the possibility of our Park and its margins being designated a “regeneration zone”, allowing for higher density/high rise blocks - even though no-one can recall this potential allocation as having been mentioned in any general Local Plan consultation meetings.  

Question 1: could a plan of the boundaries of the Northwick Park Regeneration area the subject of the grant application be published? 
 

2  According to details on the HM Government website, to qualify for a grant being considered under this Housing Infrastructure  Marginal Viability Fund, evidence has to be given of: 

a) “demonstrable market failure “ (given as per the Technical guidance in https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-infrastructure-); and

b) “local support “  ( as per examples in the same paper -“extensive local consultation” );  and 

c) “alignment with the Local Plan” (ditto) ; and

d) “ imminent” provision of homes 

I have been trying through a FOI /EIA request to get details of the evidence or details of how the first three of these were demonstrated with the grant application. The Cabinet may like to note that the Information Commissioner is now dealing with my request  for that evidence or those details, after the Council failed to comply with a direction of the Commissioner to give me a response. 

So far, only a Sudbury Court Residents Association AGM in April 2017 - at which the presence of officers was requested by the Association - is cited but the Council officers appear to have made no notes of that presentation, and is apparently asking if the Association made any. 

Question 2: if these criteria are required to be satisfied for a grant application under the MVF - is the Cabinet satisfied that there is evidence/ details of the demonstration of demonstrable market failure, local support, alignment with the Local Plan and imminent provision of homes, and if so, could that evidence please be published generally and supplied to me and save the Information Commissioner’s Office time and effort?

3  The grant  application seems to be on the basis that the site is landlocked, although neither the University of Westminster nor the Hospital site is landlocked. The £9.9million grant is for infrastructure, including an access road.

By the same troubled FOIA/EIA request process, I have tried to ascertain where this access road might be. As above, my request is now with the Information Commissioner, having patiently waited since December 2017.

Question 3: please publish a simple indication of the rough alternative routes for the access road to the Northwick Park Regeneration area proposed as options in the viability studies (as these must be known for the MVF grant application) including confirming  if a route/routes  across any part of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) at Northwick Park is/are  under consideration.
 

4  Since naturally not all Cabinet members may be familiar with the precious asset to Brent that Northwick Park is - or its protective planning designations -  although I am sure they will have been properly briefed before this meeting , I am keen to know that they are aware, and that any public who may attend is aware of the position under planning.

Question 4:   does  item 8 take account of the extent of MOL and Open Space at Northwick Park, and of the other open space planning protection designations (including especially the SINC Grade 1 designation of Northwick Park and the Ducker Pool B103) - and the legal effect of  all those designations? Could the  officer please bring a copy of the Brent GIS plan showing this  with the full MOL/Open Space designations for the site (as I only have a screen shot of the same which is small scale)?

You may also be interested in the Ducker Pool SINC review of 2014 LINK

-->

OK, it's August -Silly Season - time to see what Brent Council's Cabinet is tabling for their get together on the 13th

Guest post by Gaynor Lloyd
 

If you live in Northwick Park area - or South Kilburn for that matter - it’s worth having a quick look at the  Cabinet papers  about Brent’s  “Regeneration Zones”. LINK 

Yes, some of us lucky residents of leafy Northwick Park were just a bit startled to see ourselves in a “Regeneration Zone”. Some of us weren’t  too shocked, however - though still very , very upset. This is just the latest stage in the story of the plans for what we residents call “the Park”. A fantastic piece of Brent open space, including formal much used sports and  playing fields, a nature conservation area and a golf course. 

And it seems  the Leader of the Council is in charge of this; South Kilburn get the Cabinet Member for Regeneration. I expect we should be flattered. 

This is all about one element of the One Public Estate (OPE)  scheme which has come home to roost in Northwick Park. [More about OPE for those interested at the bottom of this piece **- and see also the linked news stories in Brent & Kilburn Times LINK  

and my letter on Page 13 on the earlier story LINK 

The scheme involves Network Housing, Northwick Park Hospital, Brent Council, University of Westminster and potentially TfL. It’s quite hard to get the detail  but the idea is that there will be 3700 homes  by 2035 somewhere on the margins of the Park. Tower blocks will be built on the land near to the Tube station - a “landmark residential development”.

Sure, as some  papers have emerged, there have been references to key worker housing, and affordable homes  - gosh, do we need key worker housing, and social housing - truly affordable homes - but these proposals  are all very vague. I’ve been trying for more transparency - a couple of Freedom of Information (FOI)  requests over the last 2 years - but not much joy. 

Even though  Brent got a grant of  £530k to do viability research on all this. Including transport research, my current  huge concern - and the reason for asking Martin to post this blog. 

My latest FOI request of Brent  from last December has been so sat on for a very long time -  despite  numerous charming assurances that the sifting process of 100’s of emails was being done  and that the release of  all or some would be opined on “soon” by Brent’s Legal Team . Well, after a last chance given to Brent by the Information Commissioner just to reply at all,  it’s now been accepted by her  as a complaint . I await hearing if the Information Commissioner accepts my argument that the plans should be out in the public domain. 

I was particularly incensed by  the secrecy for the transportation reports/ surveys, and the plans being hatched for  “infrastructure works”  . Principally an access road for this huge re-development. Our very own Regeneration Zone.

Clearly the access road can’t  go across the railway/Tube lines. OK, University of Westminster might be decamping for pastures new; maybe it could go that way. But the University’s plans  seem to be a more recent possible development. 

So where could this road  possibly go? And where might it be considered for going - a location of such commercial confidentiality and sensitivity that Brent can’t possibly release any professional transport reports or plans on it into the public domain? 

Oh, let me think...

Could it be an access road across our Park - designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) - put simplistically, the London equivalent of Green Belt? (The Mayor recently refused an application by Harrow School for a major long planned sports centre on its MOL  land just cross the road from Northwick Park - because it was inappropriate development on MOL) 

It’s not “just” the effect on the environment, or the open air sports facilities; it’s the madness of adding to the roads here, which also serve Northwick Park hospital - a major hospital with (as we all know) a busy A&E. 

But hang on - to finance all this - Brent has a £9.9 million grant from HM Government from the Marginal Viability  Fund bit of its  Housing Infrastructure Fund. To get  this “marginal viability funding”, according to the HMG website , there is supposed to be “market failure”, and  “extensive local consultation” and      “alignment with the Local plan”. Well, these are  a bit news to me but obviously I don’t know everything.

So another reason for my FOI request - which sought evidence of  any of those factors. So far all I have got is a bit of alleged consultation.  Sudbury Court Residents’ Association AGM in April 2017, to which Brent officers did come after a bit of persuading. They brought  a very rum set of slides, including one of rather a scruffy park bench by Northwick Park Tube station, mentioning   litter. The officers did do a bit of question answering by local residents - and promised to revert on some stuff (but didn’t).

If that was consultation, it seems odd  the FOI officer says they have to ask the Chair of the SCRA for her notes of the meeting! Anyway, it wasn’t “consultation” in any normal sense of the word.(NO comments please on Brent’s consultations)

Oh -  and that aligning with Local Plan point. Well, maybe that can be retrospective. The Cabinet paper says “ members may be aware that Brent’s planning department is engaged in consultation on the local plan for which Northwick Park has an allocation “. I’d hope all members (especially on the Cabinet) would be aware we’ve had a bit of Local plan consultation in Brent. 

However, speaking as a local resident (and married to a Ward Councillor) and  having gone to a local meeting  on this Local Plan business   - though I admit I am getting on a bit , so I might have forgotten  - I was completely unaware of any Planning Officer referring to Northwick Park at all. Let alone in terms of revising Northwick Park’s  Local Plan “allocation” or Northwick Park becoming a “Regeneration Zone”.

It seems that the Local Plan “Preferred Options” will be out in November - when “it is proposed to run public consultation specific to Northwick Park in parallel”.

I hope we residents will be having a little pre-consultation consultation amongst ourselves rather more quickly than that. I also hope others in the Borough interested in open space, the environment,  good use of NHS land, pollution, key worker housing and good social housing provision will join us. WATCH THIS SPACE.

[**NOTE on OPE if you’ve got this far!

HM Government OPE is a plan to dispose of “surplus public land”. A particularly infamous issue is the disposal of NHS land in London - based on a couple of reports by Sir Robert Naylor. Generally Sir Robert in his openly available  Report says  to NHS bodies “Identify your surplus land” (that can include unused/empty space like corridors and open walkways, by the way). If your percentages of unused/empty or underused space to your overall site are too high, oh dear, inefficiency - using a carrot & stick approach - the message  is “sell, sell, sell”. Sir Robert’s second, confidential report -  “Naylor 2” - identifies some prime value London NHS sites for disposal  and  is so sensitive NHS England has been fighting a Freedom of Information request I have in on it for around 2 years. 

So clearly a sensitive area generally. Naylor’s reports IS useful in one respect though; Deloittes accountants did a background research report for him - which said sensibly that we ought to be looking strategically at the need for land for NHS use, in light of London’s growing population - and reminding of high land values here if we need to reprovide. Gosh how sensible - how ignored! ]

Can we make a Food Forest in Northwick Park?

From Northwick Park Community Garden Team (FACEBOOK LINK)

A Food Forest in our London Park 

What is a food forest, why should we turn our London Park into one and how and when can this be done?

Our local park Northwick Park is a large community park near Wembley in London Brent. There are many playing fields in the park, where men enjoy playing rugby and football and even fly model aircrafts. If you know it, then you know that it is currently a very barren place, with not enough trees, although  some lovely trees are already established there, such as sloe, hawthorn and elderberry, plus hawthorn bushes, which serve the community foragers. 

Foragers can make hawthorn berry jam and elderberry cordial, for example, from the produce. It is a very time-consuming process, a labour of love, because picking these and turning them into food products is a bit fiddly. Yet, we are not able to buy these things in the supermarket. 

Where was the food before the supermarket?

It was on farms, in parks, gardens and larders and on the weekly market. Today, everything the supermarket sells contains plastic packaging. This is a problem for the oceans where this stuff gets dumped. 

We have been dumping so much plastic there that it comes back up and the fish are eating it; in fact, the fish are contaminated with plastic. Some people are already leaving all the packaging at the supermarket and letting the supermarket deal with their own rubbish. 

Why should we pay council tax to remove the plastic we don’t want?

Imagine all the council tax money being put to use for a good cause rather than on pointless rubbish removal. 

Hence, some people have started to reduce the waste they purchase. This is called ‘a journey to zero waste’.  There are many YouTube videos of young women explaining how to be prepared when shopping so that we can leave the plastic packaging behind. 

The Queen has banned plastic straws and plastic bottles from the royal household!

The Queen has banned plastic from the royal household after she saw what happens to the ocean, the beaches and the fish with all this plastic being dumped in the sea. Do you know that plastic never ever decomposes or goes away, that it is a waste which stays there forever? Long after humans disappear from this earth, our plastic waste will still be here.

Zero packaging is the lovely benefit of having food trees in the park. You have a chance to pick fruit for free and you don’t use plastic packaging. Just bring a box, basket or linen bag and pick as much fruit as you can eat. Only take what you need and leave the rest for others. 

Forest Food is better quality.

Forest food is better quality because we refrain from pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer and so on. We are looking for the ecosystem to take care of these things by itself.  The trees form an underground internet together with the mushrooms and provide a lot of nutrients to the ground. Mixing plant species can have a benefit to each plant too.

The problem with modern agriculture is that there are vast fields of the same crop, i.e. broccoli. This broccoli requires the same food and there is no other plant that can supply this food to the broccoli – there is only broccoli and its needs. So, the need for fertilizers arises. 

Then, if the broccoli is afflicted by a pest, there is no other plant that can stop it and no predator pest which can stop its spread. The pest happily munches away on broccoli as far as the eye can see. So, now there is also a need for pesticides. 

In a food forest we are mixing species and plants and the different varieties of wildlife can help each other out. Food will ripen throughout the year; everybody can pick the fruit when they want some. 

When the vast fields of broccoli are harvested, there will huge machines, which require a lot of petrol. Petrol is required again to distribute the broccoli to the distribution centres and then to the individual supermarkets. Oil is also required for making plastic packaging, pesticides and fertilizers. 

When something happens to the oil supply we will be foodless!

Since so much oil is needed to produce and supply this food, imagine something happens to the oil supply chain? We are all foodless.

With food forests in our parks and food in our gardens, we are slightly more resilient to any supply side issues and we are in control of making food healthier by avoiding pesticides, which can contain cancer-causing substances. 

Naturally grown food contains more antioxidants. This is an umbrella term for the good things that keep us feeling and looking young, as well as preventing disease and stress. On the other hand, toxins do the opposite, they make us age faster, cause stress and can lead to disease. 

Naturally grown food is better for you.

And, in case the food is not being picked, it will fall to the ground and the wildlife can have dinner. Did you know that the hedgehog is extremely endangered and that numbers have declined drastically? The latest statistic I heard was that only around a million were left in the whole of Britain. 

This is because of the pesticide use which kills the wildlife, but also because gardens are paved over or have really strong fences so the hedgehogs have no habitat. Make a little hole in your fence and allow hedgehogs to come into your garden. They mainly eat snails and are part of a well-functioning ecosystem. Bats can keep fruit trees healthy by eating moths, which would otherwise nest in the fruit trees. And[RC1]  bees are important for pollinating the plants because without this pollination we would not get any food. All three are endangered species today. A lot of animals and plants are dying out in this world because of the terrible behaviour of our human species. We must do something to rescue the world. 

If you want to join us and want to hear more, find us on Facebook.

We are happy to help you turn your garden into a food producing garden too with the help of our friends at Permablitz and if you feel as excited as we are about food forestry and gardening, then stay in touch. 

Follow us!

https://www.facebook.com/northwickparkcommunitygarden/

We are 4 food and against waste! 

Your Northwick Park Community Garden Team