Making South Kilburn disappear from the maps (and political consciousness?)

Guest blog by Sonya Bell who describes herself as a local resident with concerns as to how London is becoming one big privatised city.


I have lived in Brent nearly all of my life and have watched all the changes that have come and gone. I became aware of some changes a few years ago when Stonebridge Park (located between Harlesden and Wembley) became Wembley Park and some of Stonebridge has become Neasden and Harlesden. Stonebridge did have a reputation years ago but it seems instead of making it a better place to live, it seems the "powers that be" just decided to call some parts Harlesden, Wembley and Neasden.

I have noticed the same thing now happening in South Kilburn. Since the new flats have been erected, according to google maps Chichester Road in South Kilburn is now known as North Maida Vale:

In addition to this, I received a letter from HS2 about work that is to commence when the new rail line is built and they gave reference to a road called Queens Park Road. I contacted HS2 and asked where this road was, I was informed by a representative for HS2 that Queens Park Road covers the bridge at Queens Park Train Station and extends right the way around South Kilburn on to Cathedral Walk up to Kilburn High Road. I did explain that the road was already called Cathedral Walk, however the woman said that I was incorrect and it is now known as Queens Park Road.

I think South Kilburn is gradually being phased out by the private sellers who want to make extra money from selling property in "Maida Vale" rather than South Kilburn. I do wonder if the people of Maida Vale and Queens Park know that their lovely and prestigious areas are being extended to take in South Kilburn. I am sure that the leaseholders are very happy with this district change but I wonder how this will affect the people in social housing who will not be able to afford to buy a property once it has a Maida Vale or Queens Park price tag on it. I also wonder if the property developers that have purchased large areas of land from Brent council for this "regeneration" work paid at South Kilburn rates or Maida Vale rates.

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.

 

Brent's headaches as it tries to expand secondary school places

Brent Council is faced with increasing demand for secondary school places as the increase in primary numbers moves through the system. Unfortunately, although charged with an overall responsibility to provide school places, to a large extent it exercises 'responsibility without power' as so many Brent secondary schools have become academies or are voluntarily aided and sources of finance are not directly under the Council's control.

An extensive study has led to a report going before the Executive on January 14th which recommends expansion in some schools (subject to governing body approval) and the use of the Gwenneth Rickus Building (Centre for Staff Development) in Brentfield Road as a six forms of entry secondary school. This building which was formerly part of Sladebrook High School, is next to the Swaminarayan Independent School, and is now surplus to requirements with the facility moving to the Civic Centre in the summer.

Adding to the complexity is the fact that three secondary schools, due to parental preference, are currently operating below capacity. These are Copland, following the financial mismanagement allegations; Crest Academy Boys and Newman College. The report states that the first priority is to bring these schools up to scratch so that all their places are used.

Wembley High is ruled out of expansion because it is proposed to make this an all-through school providing places for primary as well as secondary children in line with Ark and Preston Manor. The governing body of Preston Manor have recently decided to become a Cooperative Academy although this is likely to be strongly contested by education unions. The Copland and Alperton expansions are subject to rebuilds under the government's Priority School Buildings Programme.

If this wasn't enough Gove's reforms have thrown another wild card into the game with the report stating that there are three secondary  free school proposals:

In the event that government’s grant application for 2013-14 and following years is inadequate to meet the Council’s entire demand for funding new provision, we are considering the following options:

 Free Schools: The Executive noted that the demand for new school places cannot be met only through the expansion of existing schools due to the limited availability of funding; the Council is required to promote additional ways of creating school places by pursuing the current government agenda on free schools and academies. The latest round of free school applications is being considered by the Department for Education (DfE) in the new year with an opening date of September 2014. Given that the Council is not looking to open a new secondary school at this date, it has not collaborated with any potential providers at this point. There are likely applications submitted for Brent, however. These include:

• an independent school group looking to open an 11 to 18 school in Wembley – of approximately 4 forms of entry, planning to provide Year 10 places immediately as well as Year 7.

• a parent led school in Cricklewood to address perceived lack of choice for parents in that area (6FE).

4.5 In addition an already approved free school has been looking to acquire a site in Brent and open a 6FE secondary school in September 2013.

4.6 All three of the above have said in discussion that they would aim to meet the Partnership Criteria agreed by the Executive in August 2012 but it is clear that two of them would be likely to use the freedoms available to free schools in respect of staffing and the curriculum

Note that although the Council says it has not 'collaborated with any potential providers' they appear, as oen would expect,  to have had discussions with them. The council cannot really take these into account in its present planning as decision making is with the DfE and even when some free school applications have been approved they have failed to materialise.

Clearly the arguments made against academies and free schools on the grounds that they undermine the local authority's  capacity to make clear and rational plans to meet pupil demand gain traction based on these difficulties.  Most of the proposals are given a Medium Risk category in the report with the Gwenneth Rickus proposal deemed High Risk because of potential planning issues.

The Kingsbury High proposal would result in an extremely large school with 435 pupils in each year group based on a class size of 30.

Summary of the proposals:

School	Status	Current Forms of Entry	Proposed Addition Forms of Entry	Delivery of additional forms of entry
Alperton	Academy	7.3	1	2017/18-2019/20 (PFI)
Ark	Academy	6	0
Capital City	Academy	6.5	0
Claremont	Academy	8.4	0
Convent Jesus and Mary	VA Academy	6	0
Copland	Foundation	8	1	2017/18-2019/20 (PFI)
JFS	VA	10	0
Kingsbury	Academy	10.5	4.5	2015/16-2016/17
Newman Catholic	VA Trust	5	0
Preston Manor	Foundation Trust (pending Academy)	8.4	0
Queens Park	Academy	6.7	2	2014/15
St Gregory’s RC	VA	5.9	0
The Crest Boys	Academy	4	1	September 2014
The Crest Girls	Academy	5	1	September 2014
Wembley High	Academy (proposed All-Through)	7	0
Gwenneth Rickus Building	Possible satellite of existing school	0	6	2015/16-2016/17

The return of Wembley and Willesden as political entities?

My mother and father, hailing  from either side of the Welsh Harp, used to bring the class divisions between Willesden and Wembley into their domestic rows. The political row over the merger of the two councils, now fading into history, still has resonance.

Now the Boundary Commission's revised proposals  suggest a Wembley and a Willesden Parliamentary Constituency which may revive some of the old rivalries.

Northwick Park ward goes into Harrow West and College Park and Oak Oak, previously Hammersmith and Fulham, are now part of Willesden. Brent's Kilburn and Queens Park wards, are now in the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency alongside eight Camden wards.

35. Hampstead and Kilburn BC 78,225 Kilburn Brent 9,777 Queens Park Brent 8,882 Belsize Camden 7,555 Fortune Green Camden 7,181 Frognal and Fitzjohns Camden 7,036 Hampstead Town Camden 7,047 Highgate Camden 7,634 Kilburn Camden 7,504 Swiss Cottage Camden 7,916 West Hampstead Camden 7,693.MAP

66. Wembley BC 73,303 Alperton Brent 8,742 Barnhill Brent 9,773 Fryent Brent 8,274 Kenton Brent 8,922 Preston Brent 9,256 Queensbury Brent 10,080 Tokyngton Brent 8,961 Wembley Central Brent

MAP

67. Willesden BC 77,279 Brondesbury Park Brent 7,961 Dollis Hill Brent 7,627 Dudden Hill Brent 7,947 Harlesden Brent 8,254 Kensal Green Brent 7,677 Mapesbury Brent 8,359 Stonebridge Brent 9,240 Welsh Harp Brent 7,908 Willesden Green Brent 7,412 College Park and Old Oak Hammersmith and Fulham 4,894 MAP

There is now an eight week consultation period before the proposals go before Parliament. Consultation closes on December 10th 2012. Responses should be sent to london@bcommengland.x.gsi.gov.uk