Brent Council hails estate redevelopment ballot of St Raphael's residents

Brent Council has issued the following press release on their plans for the St Raphael's Estate. See article on Wembley Matters HERE

Muhammed Butt is quoted in the PR as saying he is 'committed to putting residents in the driving seat, making decisions about where they live.'   This may ring hollow to residents elsewhere in Brent who have found their voices ignored when they oppose redevelopment they felt detrimental to their neighbourhood.

BRENT COUNCIL'S PRESS RELEASE

Residents on St Raphael’s Estate could be among the first in London to be balloted on proposals to build new homes and community facilities in their neighbourhood.

This is a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity for the community of St Raphael’s Estate, local partners and Brent Council to shape the area for future generations. To kick off the process Brent’s Cabinet will be asked to give the go ahead to a full resident-led master planning process at its meeting on November 12.

The report, which is set to be considered by Cabinet, identifies two options as a starting point to be refined and developed by residents. One option would see the existing buildings refurbished with possibly limited new build on green space. If this is the final preference there would be no requirement for a ballot. The other option is for a comprehensive redevelopment of the whole estate which would be subject to a public vote of people who live there. 

Local people would design the area including the number of new homes, what community facilities are needed and where, and the layout of the roads. This plan would be put to a public vote on the estate, which would make Brent one of the first boroughs to action the Mayor of London’s ballot policy on regeneration.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s new policy requires major estate regeneration schemes to have residents’ backing before they can receive City Hall funding, a policy which Brent fully supports. 

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said:

 “We are committed to putting residents in the driving seat, making decisions about where they live. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for residents to redesign the estate they love. People have told us they want to live in modern homes in a safe, crime-free neighbourhood. 

“Tackling the housing crisis is a priority for Brent and this is a unique opportunity to build brand new homes that meet the needs of the families who live on St Raph’s. I’m proud that Brent residents could be some of the first to have the chance to participate in a ballot before anything goes ahead.”

James Murray, London’s Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development, said:

 “When estate regeneration is done well, it can improve homes for existing residents and see more social housing built for local people.

“The Mayor wants residents to be confident they will have a real say over the future of their estate when regeneration is planned, so he has put ballots at the heart of his approach for schemes where demolition of existing homes is involved. We very much welcome Brent Council’s clear commitment to giving residents at St Raph’s a vote on their plans and look forward to continuing to work together to build more of the council homes that Londoners so desperately need.”

-->

Public Inquiry to be held after Harrow School appeal planning refusal for new sports building

Image from Harrow Hill Trust

The Planning Inspectorate today announced that following an appeal by Harrow School a three day Inquiry will be held into the school's plans for demolition of some existing buildings and the building of new sports and science buildings in the school grounds.

The plans were contested by the public and turned down by Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor using his powers under the Town and Country Planning Act to direct Harrow Council to refuse planning permission.

Mayor Khan said that the proposed footprint and location of the proposed sports building would result in unacceptable sprawl of inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land.

Those  contesting the appeal have until October 1st to make a submission to the Planning Inspectorate but are currently handicapped because Harrow School's grounds for appeal have not yet been published on the Harrow Council website.

Planning Inspectorate letter below. Click bottom right for full size version.

Clean Air for Brent welcomes expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone but North Circular should be included

Reacting to London Mayor Sadiq Khan's announcement about the upcoming expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone, Clean Air for Brent Chair Fiona Mulaisho said:

We welcome this announcement which will help to protect Brent residents in the south of the borough from toxic air from October 2021.  A stronger, larger Ultra Low Emission Zone will go a long way to tackling the currently illegal and harmful levels of air pollution.

However, we are concerned that as the ULEZ will not cover the North Circular itself, more dirty diesel powered vehicles will choose to use this already busy and hugely polluted road.  As hundreds of Brent residents live right by or very close to the North Circular, we will be challenging the Mayor and Brent Council to work together to ensure these people’s air quality does not worsen when the new zone comes into effect.

The Mayor now needs to turn his thoughts to what he is going to do to ensure those who live outside the North Circular can also breathe cleaner air.

Given that there will be no sunset period for people living within the extended zone to change their vehicles, CAfB also calls for strong engagement with residents and through drivers on the practical issues which arise, starting now.

Note from Martin Francis

I feel strongly that the North Circular and beyond should be included.  When I worked at Brentfield Primary School, close to the North Circular at Brent Park, I was very concerned about the number of children with respiratory problems. At the time, 20 years or so ago, about 2/3 of the children in my class had 'pumps.' It was noteworthy that when we went on a residential trip to Brent's Gordon Brown Outdoor Education Centre in Hampshire they did not need to use them but when we returned and approached the outskirts of London they began to ask for them.

Disappointment as London Mayor decides not to intervene in the Cricklewood Aggregate Hub

Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, yesterday decided not to intervene in the construction of an aggregate Superhub in Cricklewood. It was open to him to directly refuse the application approved by Barnet Council or take it over himself.

The GLA report (see below) concludes that initial concerns have been addressed and that the application now conforms with the London Plan and the draft London Plan.

Intervention by the Secretary of State is now very unlikely and campaigners will be considering their next moves.

The Superhub was opposed by Fordych, Dollis Hill, Mapesbury and NorthWestTwo residents' associations.  Brent Council objected on highways and environmental grounds but 'noted that some concerns had been addressed following the submission of revised details.' Camden Council supported the application in principle but objected on amenity grounds.

There was cross-party opposition from GLA members:

Caroline Russell  (Green) – Objected to the proposals on the following grounds: committee voted in favour by a majority of one vote; transparency and objectivity; neighbouring boroughs of Brent and Camden have both objected to the proposals; the change in nature of the facility, from intermodal to aggregates / construction waste, was undertaken without public consultation; impact on well-being of residents in Barnet, Brent and Camden; air quality impacts; and traffic impacts. 

Caroline Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)  – Objected on the following grounds: slim majority, with councillors voting along ‘party lines’; transparency; objections raised from Brent and Camden Councils; scheme will impact the well-being and amenity of residents in Barnet, Brent and Camden; air quality impacts; and traffic impacts. 


Navin Shah  (Labour) – Objected to the proposals due to the impact upon noise, dust, traffic, pollution and quality of life. 


Following the Mayour announcement Caroline Russell, Green Party Assembly Member for London, said:

I share the disappointment of Brent residents at the Mayor’s decision not to intervene in the granting of planning permission by Barnet Council for the Cricklewood Superhub in the Edgware Road. Although the Superhub is in Barnet it is nearby Brent residents who will pay the social cost in terms of extra heavy lorry danger noise and pollution. The decision is particularly disappointing because there was united, well-informed opposition  from local residents’ associations as well as from Green, Labour and Liberal Democrat London Assembly Members

Build support for a London Car Free Day

Over 50 organisations across the capital sent an open letter to the Mayor of London this week requesting he direct TfL to implement an ambitious plan for Car Free Day 2018. The letter asks Sadiq Khan to publicly commit to an ambitious Car Free Day plan for London next September. The groups believe that Car Free Day could be an important catalyst for London to address the public health scourge of air pollution, and to test out car-free zones in the city that can then be made permanently car-free as envisioned in the Mayor’s transport plan. 

The opportunity to both reduce air pollution and bolster local businesses by going car-free has already motivated Oslo to commit to permanently removing private cars from the city center by 2019. In Madrid, private cars will be removed from over 500 acres of the city by 2020 in a bid to boost local commerce and improve air quality. 

Endorsers of the London Car Free Day vision include a host of charities, think-tanks, research groups, businesses, and neighbourhood forums across 15 London Boroughs. According to the letter “World Car Free Day 2018 is a tremendous opportunity to catalyse long-term reductions in air pollution [and] improve London’s transport system.” 

Car Free Day is an annual global event held in cities each 22^nd September which encourages citizens to walk, cycle or use public transport for one day. While individual boroughs like Hackney, Lambeth, Islington, and Greenwich have all hosted modest Car Free Day celebrations in the past, it has never been a city-wide celebration of walking and cycling like it is in Vancouver, Paris, or Brussels. The letter points out that there is even a weekly Car Free Day in Jakarta, Indonesia, a city of over 10 million. 

The Mayor’s new Transport Strategy means that the world is now looking for London’s to lead the global transition to city centres free from private cars. The letter writers consider Car Free Day 2018 as the perfect opportunity to test new models for car-free urban mobility across London. The Day would provide an opportunity to test the air quality improvements of taking private cars out of the city centre. Small businesses across London would benefit from a day with streets full of customers on foot. 

Community supporters flagged the many benefits of hosting a Car Free Day. According to Marco Picardi at Green Westway, a community group working to improve the air quality and mobility options around the A40 flyover: 

“Car Free Day is an opportunity to test the transformative potential of car-free streets. New approaches are needed to address congestion, pollution, safety, and the public health. Car Free Day is a catalyst to make safe walking and cycling part of a daily routine for Londoners.”

Caroline Russell AM, Green Party Member of the London Assembly emphasised:

“No one should be left out of having streets that are safe and pleasant to use – a car-free day would give Londoners the space to breathe.”

“Paris has a monthly car-free day so it is possible for big cities to do this. I want Londoners to have a taste of fresher air and to see that streets can be for people, not just vehicles.”

“It would be great to see London open for walking and cycling to give people the freedom to choose how they want to travel without being intimidated by hostile streets.”

According to Rosalind Readhead, Chair of the London Campaign for Better Transport: 

“There is a huge opportunity to go car-free in central London and convert road spaces to higher-value activities. We already have 6.8 million parking spaces taking up almost 80km sq. across a city where space is at a huge premium. Could we remove parking spaces and build affordable housing or expand public green space? London Car Free Day is an opportunity to ask these questions and to showcase an ambitious vision for more car-free city centres around the world.”

Other supporters think Car Free Day could make London a more liveable city for all residents: “I grew up in Brussels where there has been an annual Car Free Day for many years. The day is a pleasant opportunity to spend quality time with family and friends, re-discover the city from a different perspective and get some exercise. There is something liberating and empowering about pedestrians and cyclists reclaiming the streets.” says Helena O’Rourke-Potocki, one the co-founders of Our Air Our Health, a clean air campaign in Tower Hamlets. 

A version of the letter (See below) sent to the Mayor’s office this morning is also on the online petition platform Change.org so that individual citizens from across London can express their support. 

The online petition is accessible here: http://bit.ly/LCFD_petition .

More information

Twitter: @carfreedayLDN #LondonCarFreeDay2018 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/carfreedayLDN/

LETTER OF SUPPORT

-->

Caroline Pidgeon and Sadiq Khan's exchange on Cricklewood Aggregate Terminal

Caroline Pidgeon, Liberal Democrat Assembly Member,  has also written to Sadiq Khan about the Cricklewood Aggregate Terminal:

It is my understanding that planning permission was granted by Barnet Council last week, however, there are a number of reasons why I believe it is vital that you now carefully examine this planning application.
The reasons why I believe this is necessary include:
1) The Barnet Council planning committee decision was made by a majority of only 1 vote: 6 councillors were in favour and 5 were against.
2) The London Borough of Barnet was both the planning authority and the joint applicant
3) The votes in favour appear to have been cast on party lines with all 6 of the ‘aye’ votes being by Conservative Councillors (and with no Conservative Councillors voting ‘no’).
4) The neighbouring boroughs of Brent and Camden both posted objections to the applications and councillors from those authorities spoke against the development at the meeting, along with London Assembly Member Navin Shah.
5) The development has the capacity to impact profoundly on the wellbeing and amenity of residents in three boroughs (Barnet, Brent and Camden) in terms of air quality, congestion on the already-over-used A5 and traffic safety. It is predicted by the applicants that there will be a further 452 HGV movements per day on the busy A5 (with consequent NO2 emissions and traffic impact) and PM10 emissions from the proposed stockpiled materials.
6) The impact on air quality report presented by the applicants was formulated by comparison with a baseline scenario gleaned from an inaccurate/non-representative traffic recording for previous use of the site (for example the traffic count included about 200 bus movements when the site was being temporarily used as a bus park whilst Cricklewood Bus Garage was unable to accommodate the buses in the usual way).
7) The broader previous use of the site was as a result of uncontrolled/illegal subletting and so, even if the counts had been accurate, they represented a scenario unfit for comparison with a proposed permitted development. Proper bases for comparison would be the current situation or, arguably but sub-optimally, the existing section 73 permission.
8) The applicants had previously released (informally and to only one residents’ association during the consultation process) an air quality addendum, which contradicted the results of the addendum that they later relied upon, but they did not publish the previous report on the planning portal. That previous report suggests that there may be ‘substantially adverse’ impact on air quality from the development.
9) There is good evidence that the traffic data is flawed in relation to both junction safety and the overall capacity of the A5.

For all the above reasons I would urge you to call in, review and then reject this planning application.
Yours sincerely,

Caroline Pidgeon AM

 Sadiq Khan replied:

Green AM urges London Mayor to reject Cricklewood Rail-Freight Facility

Caroline Russell, Green Assembly Member for London, has written to the London Mayor urging him to reject the planning application for the Rail-Freight facility in Cricklewood.

Her letter is below (click on bottom right square to enlarge)

London Mayor supports plans for West London Orbital Rail that will run through Old Oak, Harlesden, Neasden and Cricklewood

Click on images to enlarge

Years of campaiging, publicity and network building by local activist John Cox appears to have persuaded the Mayor of London, TfL, Network Rail and the London Alliance of Boroughs to consider a new Overground line linking Hounslow with Brent Cross, Hendon, Cricklewood and West Hampstead via Old Oak, Harlesden and Neasden.

The West London Orbital has now been incorporated into the revised Mayor''s Transport Strategy.

Congratulations John.

Mayor's £6m for water fountains, refill & deposit return bottle schemes, improved green spaces

Press release from the London Mayor's Office
 
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has announced a further £6 million injection of further funding for protecting the environment and improving green space in the capital.

The fund will deliver the roll-out of more new public water fountains - on top of the initial 20 the Mayor announced recently.

It will also create better local green spaces including in areas with little access to parks and community spaces.

Sadiq wants Londoners to help protect the environment by introducing changes that will have a big impact on reducing the amount of single-use plastic bottles and cups bought daily across the capital.

With many Londoners enjoying refreshments on the go from retail outlets and cafes, the amount of single-use plastic waste is huge.

The Mayor is working with Thames Water and City to Sea to introduce a Refill scheme so that Londoners can reuse their bottles and cups to top up free tap water from local shops and businesses.
He has also announced plans for the installation of 20 new public water fountains in busy areas.

Sadiq has already allocated £750,000 in his draft budget over the next three years to cut plastic waste, including helping launch a pilot Refill scheme with retailers in five districts and installing 20 new fountains. He is working with the #OneLess campaign, led by the Zoological Society of London to find suitable fountain sites and the first ones will be installed this summer. He has today announced increased funding.

The Mayor has committed to working with manufacturers and supply chains to trial coffee cup collection schemes where businesses and retailers provide easily accessible recycling facilities for the separate collection of coffee cups.

He is also considering the potential for a plastic bottle deposit return scheme that gives Londoners money back for recycling bottles. ‘ Bottle banks’ or ‘reverse vending’ schemes where consumers get a voucher when they return bottles, could be placed across London. Other countries who have adopted similar schemes have seen plastic bottle recycling increase up to 90 per cent. This work is part of the Mayor’s ambition for London to send no biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2026.

The funding will also help support the Mayor’s ambition to make London the world’s first National Park City by engaging Londoners to help create and improve green spaces and plant more trees, helping make London a healthier and greener city.

It will also help pay for local measures to tackle toxic air pollution including schemes in and around schools and in partnership with local businesses, and installing green infrastructure that benefits air quality and reduces exposure.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan said:

I’m committed to helping Londoners reduce plastic bottle use and help cut the amount of plastic ending up in our oceans and in landfill.

This increased funding is matched by ambitious plans which aim to help the public easily cut their use of plastic by offering water refills, delivering more public drinking fountains and simple recycling schemes that will help cut the purchase of single-use plastic bottles.

This extra funding will also help us race towards my goal of London becoming the first National Park City, by funding more tree planting and green spaces, especially in areas so that everyone in London can benefit from an easily accessible park, play space, or community garden. 

Greenpeace campaigner Elena Polisano said:

Public water fountains, and a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) for drinks containers, are both key practical steps to reduce the flood of plastic waste endangering our oceans. Water fountains help us to reduce plastic waste by making reusable containers more convenient, and a DRS will help us to recycle the plastic waste we do produce. Beyond that, they are useful ways of reminding consumers and more importantly businesses that there is no ‘away’ where things can be casually thrown without consequences.

Fiona Llewellyn, #OneLess project manager, Zoological Society of London:

This new investment by the Mayor will help transform London from a throw-away plastic city into a city that refills; good news for Londoners and for the ocean. #OneLess is excited to be part of the Mayor’s drive to make London an ocean-loving city and the first capital that’s free from single-use plastic water bottles.

The Mayor's draft London Plan highlights the importance of protecting London’s green spaces and creating new, accessible open space, particularly in areas with little access to parks. The new funding will deliver more Greener City Fund grants to local projects, helping improve parks, design new green spaces, green school playgrounds, plant trees and restore waterways.

Graham Duxbury, national CEO of Groundwork said:

We know the valuable role that greenspaces play in ensuring a better quality of life for local communities in order for people to live happier and healthier lives. We have seen first-hand that local people are committed to improving their surroundings and local provisions and it’s important that they have the right support and tools in order to be successful. We are delighted that more resources are going to be provided to help communities get involved in making positive changes to their local greenspaces as well as tackling the important task of reducing our plastic consumption. We look forward to seeing the positive results.

The Mayor recently awarded £1.1m from the first round of his Greener City Fund Community Green Space grants to 55 local groups, with 60 per cent of projects in areas with poor access to green space, and 14 are based in schools, including a new community garden next to the temporary site of a school relocated following the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower.

Harrow School defeated for second time by protectors of open green space

Illustration: Harrow Hill Trust

Following their defeat over proposed public footpath changes LINK Harrow School yesterday received a second blow when London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has rejected plans for a new school sports facility which would have been built on protected green space.

Sadiq Khan made it clear he supports the expansion of Harrow School’s sporting facilities and would welcome the greater access offered to the local community – but that it should not come at the expense of protecting open, green spaces, particularly when alternative options are available.

The plans included construction of a 7,300 sq m sports block – of which 4,600 sq m would have built on designated Metropolitan Open Land, which is largely undeveloped.

The Mayor's new London Plan, which was published for consultation at the end of last year, affords the same protection to Metropolitan Open Land as that given to the Green Belt.

In rejecting the application, the Mayor invited Harrow School to work with his planning team to develop a new application for a sports hall on the footprint of its existing site.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said:

Since becoming Mayor I have been clear that protecting London’s precious green spaces is one of my top priorities.

I absolutely support the school’s ambitions to expand its sporting facilities, and their plans to open them up to the local community for the benefit of people of all ages are to be commended.

However, I’m clear that expansion of this kind must not encroach on open green space, which is one of the capital’s most important and cherished assets. Nor, in this case, is it necessary to do so, as other options are available.

I hope the school will rethink its plans and come up with a scheme which allows them to provide a new facility for their pupils and the community without harming the area’s precious green spaces.

Throw out '80% of market rent' definition of affordable, Sian Berry urges Sadiq Khan

Problems with the term 'affordable' regarding both rents and house purchase, have featured regularly on Wembley Matters. Here Sian Berry, Green London Assembly Member, tackles Sadiq Khan's failure to issue clear guidelines. First published on Sian's City Hall website.

Is the Mayor going to break his promise to redefine what ‘affordable’ rent means for the average Londoner?

The importance of setting a new definition of ‘affordable’ rent in London cannot be overstated. In my response to the Mayor’s draft Housing Strategy, just published, I’ve voiced my concerns that the Mayor’s efforts to define a London Living Rent include loopholes that break his promise to sort this out.

These loopholes mean Boris Johnson’s ‘80 per cent of market rent’ definition will still be the norm in most new developments, leaving Londoners out in the cold.

In recent years, under Government policies and those of the previous Mayor, the ‘affordable’ component of many developments has been entirely made up of shared ownership and ‘affordable’ intermediate rented units.

The rents in these homes are able to go up to “no more than 80 per cent of the local market rent,” as defined by the Government in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

We have uniquely high private market rents in London. Rents here are nearly twice as high as the median for other regions of England (see the chart below, taken from evidence in the draft strategy).

The impact of this runs right through the housing crisis, preventing Londoners saving for deposits and pushing many people into homelessness.

With rent inflation also outstripping wages, the the case for defining affordability in terms of incomes not market rates is overwhelming.

‘No more than 80 per cent of the local market rent’

This year, I have spoken in committees and the Assembly with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor James Murray about strengthening the definition of ‘affordable’ in London.

I have asked them to make the case to Government more strongly that London should be able to set a definition of affordable that is below this maximum and, ideally, defined in terms of wages not market rates.

The Mayor says strongly in his draft strategy that he doesn’t believe the Government’s definition is right for London. He has also defined, as part of his funding programme, a new London Affordable Rent at social rent levels (though these would be higher than the current average paid by social tenants in London) and a new London Living Rent, set at a third of average local household incomes.

However, this strategy and the London Plan will apply not only to homes funded by the Mayor but also to the private developments that are expected to meet most of London’s affordable housing needs, through the contributions they make to gain planning permission.

I am therefore very concerned to see that section 4.22 of the draft Housing Strategy includes the comment: “All intermediate rented homes should provide at least a 20 per cent discount on market rents.” and to see the 80 per cent of market rates definition appear in the glossary. This is the old definition plainly stated when it was supposed to be abolished by the new Mayor.

The actual policy sections for affordable housing then say the Mayor will be: “supporting a range of other types of intermediate rented homes as long as they are genuinely affordable to Londoners, generally meaning that they should be accessible by those whose household incomes fall under £60,000.”

With the Government’s 80 per cent definition also included in policies in the draft London Plan, I think we’re looking at a broken promise from the Mayor – maintaining a loophole that developers will exploit, and failing properly to move away from the old definition of ‘affordable’.

Redefining ‘affordable’ for London

There are two ways London could seek to set a more realistic upper limit of ‘affordable’ rent that would apply across the board:

1. In the Mayor’s discussions with Government for devolved housing powers, he should seek to allow London to set its own definition of affordable within both our funding programmes and planning policies, based on the very high cost of market rent in London. This would be the most effective way to achieve our goal as any new definition should be set in relation to wages, rather than market rates, and this requires a clear deviation from the NPPF.

2. Through the London Plan, we should define intermediate ‘affordable’ rent at a lower maximum proportion of the local market rate. This would still be compliant with the NPPF, as it would not be above 80 per cent, but there is enough evidence to convince an examiner of the validity of a policy that required a lower limit in London.

Councils are already messing with the definition of Living Rent too

I’m a borough councillor in Camden and there the council has set up its own housing company to rent out some of the new flats it is building on estates. These were promised at a Living Rent but, now the first flats have gone out for renting, it’s clear that these aren’t following the Mayor’s definition of a London Living Rent, especially not for families.

Read more about this on my local website: Camden Council pushes out families with high rents in its new ‘Living Rent’ scheme.

I’ve asked the Mayor in a written question this month what he thinks about councils undermining the term Living Rent in this way. He’s been very vocal about the previous Mayor’s definition of ‘affordable’ being nothing of the kind, and I think he should be standing up against people creating confusion about his new definition so soon after it was established.

London Mayor torpedoes Barnet's Grahame Park regeneration citing loss of affordable homes

From Construction News LINK

Sadiq Khan has rejected plans for a housing estate regeneration project in north London on the basis that affordable homes will be lost.

The mayor of London said the scheme in Barnet is “a classic example of how not to do estate regeneration”.

The project at the 1970s Grahame Park estate in Colindale includes plans to demolish 692 homes available at social rent and replace them with 1,083 units.

But only 435 of the new homes will be available for social tenants within what is Barnet’s largest housing estate.

Barnet Council approved the scheme, which is being developed by Genesis Housing Association, last month.

However, Mr Khan said after considering the evidence, the council must now work with City Hall planners to redesign the project.

It is the second time this year the mayor has intervened in Barnet, having called in the council’s decision to refuse Barratt permission for 462 homes in May.

The mayor said: “I fully support improving social housing on this estate and across the capital, but this scheme falls far short of what I expect of London boroughs.”

Mr Khan pointed to his London Plan, published last month, which said estate regeneration projects must replace homes for social rent on a like-for-like basis.

He added: “Londoners so urgently need more high-quality housing, not less, which makes this scheme completely unacceptable in its current form.”

Housing estate regeneration is a major issue in the capital, with Haringey Council facing fierce opposition to its £2bn plans to regenerate part of Wood Green in north London.

A Barnet Council spokesperson said: “We are clearly disappointed by this decision. We will now be reviewing this with our development partner to agree the next steps.”

A Genesis spokesperson said: “We are very disappointed to hear this decision and are in close dialogue with Barnet Council and the mayor’s office to review next steps.”

NOTE

Genesis Housing Association is associated with the Brent House development where only 30% of units are 'affordable' (ie unaffordable to most local families at up to 80% market rent) and the controversial Minavil House development where  'affordable' is 60% of market rent but only 13% of the units.  It is also facing a campaign by tenants over the merger with Notting Hill Housing Trust and its move away from its original remit of providing housing at social rent.

It will be interesting to see how Mr Khan treats applications from Brent which don't offer Londoners more high quality homes at social rent.

Greens award a FAIL to Sadiq Khan's 'affordable' housing definition in London Plan

The Mayor has failed to fix the definition of an affordable home in London in his new draft London Plan, leaving average families stuck paying over the odds for so-called ‘affordable’ new homes, says Sian Berry Green Assembly Member for London.

Sian Berry said:

The Mayor’s affordable housing policies in this plan are a real let down for the average Londoner – they look set to let developers off the hook again and won’t deliver what Londoners need. 

Evidence accompanying the plan shows that so-called ‘intermediate’ housing, at only slightly less extortionate rents, will simply not do. The assessment of London’s housing needs, summarised in the plan, says that nearly half of all new housing must be at low cost social rent levels. However, in the plan the Mayor is only asking for these kinds of homes to be 30 per cent of the affordable housing provided.

With overall affordable home targets set at 35 per cent of homes, this means developers can make just one in ten homes available at social rent.

This is nowhere near what London needs. I’ve already challenged the Mayor about why he has included a definition of ‘affordable housing’ at up to 80 per cent of market rates in his draft housing strategy and yet we see this again here.

He has added a household income limit of £60,000 a year and said that affordable rents should be at 40 per cent of net income for people earning this salary, but this will leave families earning much less than this paying over £1500 a month in rent to live in what is still defined as an ‘affordable home’.

The Mayor needs to change the definition of affordable and set proper targets for homes at social rents too. Developers will always opt for the least costly option for them, and I fear this means high rents for ‘affordable’ homes will continue to be the norm under this Mayor’s plans.

Londoners can’t afford to be failed on housing by two Mayors in a row. These plans are in draft and Londoners will be able to have their say. I hope that everyone affected by high housing costs tells the Mayor that his targets for developers and his definition of affordable housing needs to change to meet their needs.

Sadiq Khan incorporates opposition to fracking into draft London Plan

Anti-fracking protest outside Willesden Green station in 2013

London Local Energy LINK has gone quiet since the summer when it launched a public relations offensive to persuade residents that it was in their interests to support drilling in  Harlesden. LINK

The plans were opposed by local environment groups and Brent Council.

Now Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, has incorporated opposition to fracking in the draft London Plan which is a broad plan to shape the way London develops over the next 20-25 years. The policy comes in the wake of energy companie, including London Local Energy, identifying potential fracking sites in the capital.

Khan said:

There is absolutely no place for fracking in London and I remain firm in my belief that any such application must be refused.

It is my duty to protect the health and wellbeing of Londoners, and it is well documented that the fracking process itself can cause chronic damage to public health, worsen toxic air quality and contaminate water supplies.

The harmful, negative impact of the use of fossil fuels on the environment and on the air we breathe is well known. We must instead focus our resources on developing technologies for the efficient extraction of clean, renewable forms of energy, rather than coming up with more ever innovative ways to keeping burning fossil fuels.

The UK’s Health and Safety Executive estimates that hundreds of people across the country develop lung cancer associated with silica dust exposure, which can occur during fracking. Pollutants such as VOCs and hydrogen sulphide, meanwhile, can worsen neurological problems ranging from dizziness to seizures.There are also fears that the volume of water required in fracking could lead to public water restrictions in areas prone to shortages. 

Rose Dickinson, a Friends of the Earth campaigner  said:

It’s a positive move that the Mayor is stating on principle that London should not be fracked,Though the focus has been in the North of England where most licences have been obtained, wherever fracking rears its ugly head it is opposed - and rightly so because of the known risks from the process.

Construction & demolition dust should concern construction bosses

This piece by the acting news editor of Construction News LINK echoes concerns voiced by Wembley Central residents over dust from the demolition and construction  taking place in the High Road, Wembley.

A short walk from Construction News’ offices in Old Street, the refurbishment of the shop formerly titled Acme Electrical Co is well under way.

While the noise emanating from inside sounds like someone has captured a remnant of storm Brian, outside each passing breeze brings to life a dust cloud that wafts into the street. On the floor, plasterboard offcuts and old brick mortar are trodden into London’s pavements by commuters. It is a scene repeated across the capital. Almost everywhere you look London is busy building the latest version of the 2,000-year-old metropolis. Every new development, demolition or refurbishment comes with an issue that is increasingly on the minds of politicians and the public alike: air pollution. London’s mayor Sadiq Khan has woken up to the problem and is tackling it initially with the introduction of a new T-charge for polluting vehicles in the capital. But in calling for new government powers to tackle air pollution, the mayor also said that “non-transport sources contribute half of the deadly emissions in London” and urged a “hard-hitting plan of action”. There’s little doubt that controlling dust is a difficult problem for any construction firm. The fact that construction site dust has shot to the top of the political agenda – at least in London – should mean that construction firms now take note. However, it is not only the mayor of London’s air pollution plans that should cause concern for construction bosses. According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), respirable crystalline silica dust is the second-biggest killer of construction workers after asbestos. And, in an industry that records a death rate three times higher than that of other professions including medicine, dust is a serious cause of illness. Of course there are safety measures in place, but are they enough? Could they be about to be made tougher? And, if as a sector, construction is aware of the risk that particle pollution has for both staff and the general public, what is the culpability for failing to act? A number of years ago I was asked by a family to help trace the work history of their deceased father. The man had worked on hundreds of construction sites in London between the 1930s and 1960s - including prestigious schemes such as Wembley Stadium and Broadcasting House. Trawling through the London Metropolitan Archives as well as the back catalogues of titles such as Construction News and sister title Architect’s Journal, I was asked to look for one thing: evidence of asbestos. The fact that the original builders who had been the deceased man’s employer had long since gone out of business did not deter the legal claim that the family was looking to file decades after the event itself. The man had died of mesothelioma – a cancer that develops from asbestos fibres lodged in the lining of the lungs. The research request came as part of a call for evidence to prove culpability for the illness during the man’s career. The big question for the sector is: with the evidence of the health risks that particle pollution can cause, could there be similar legal issues in the decades to come?

Tim Clark, acting news editor, Construction News

WAKE UP CALL: Nearly half of Londoners worried about city's dangerous air pollution

From the British Heart Foundation

Londoners welcome T-Charge, as BHF warns of dangers of air pollution for capital’s heart health

Nearly half (45%) of Londoners are worried about living in the city due to dangerous levels of air pollution, according to a new poll from the British Heart Foundation (BHF).

The statistics reveal that 81% of Londoners believe the current air pollution levels are putting their health at risk and over a third are put off running (37%) or cycling (38%) in the city because of the potentially deadly air.

The BHF is today highlighting the need for bold action to clean up London’s air, as estimates show that globally, 80 per cent of all premature deaths from air pollution are caused by heart and circulatory disease.

Research shows that both long-term and short-term exposure to air pollution can make existing heart conditions worse and can increase the risk of a potentially fatal heart attack or stroke amongst vulnerable groups.

The poll also found:
• 94% of people in the capital think cleaning up London’s current level of air pollution is important
• Nearly a third (28%) of Londoners don’t want to sit outside in the city
• One in five (19%) Londoners are put off shopping on London High Streets because of air pollution
• 17% of Londoners are put off visiting local parks
• And 12% said the pollution puts them off visiting London’s iconic landmarks

On Monday, London Mayor Sadiq Khan introduces a new daily Toxicity charge or ‘T-charge’ in central London in order to reduce dangerous fumes from polluting vehicles and make London’s air safer.

The air pollution in London has breached legal limits for years and it’s estimated that in 2010 there were nearly 9,500 deaths across London associated with air pollution exposure3, many of which would have been caused by heart and circulatory conditions.

The charge will affect vehicles every week day that don’t meet the minimum exhaust emission standard, or were registered pre-2006.

The BHF’s poll found that over 70% of Londoners support the daily charge of £10 which will operate on top of, and during the same times, as the congestion charge.


Simon Gillespie, Chief Executive at the British Heart Foundation, said:

“Dangerous levels of air pollution in London are putting the heart health of the general public - particularly those with heart disease - at greater risk of a heart attack or stroke.

“We urgently need to protect Londoners from inhaling deadly air – particularly from small particles in diesel fumes, which our research shows increase the risk of a potentially deadly cardiac event. 

“It’s extremely concerning that London’s toxic air could now force people to consider relocating, or avoid being outside.

“This is a wakeup call to how concerned the people of London are about the air they breathe. The Mayor’s toxicity charge is a step in the right direction, and we look forward to the introduction of a full Ultra Low Emissions Zone in 2019 which will help to further clean up London’s air.” 

Air pollution contributes to around 40,000 premature deaths in the UK each year, many of which are from heart attack and stroke.

BHF researchers have found that tiny particles in diesel and petrol fumes can damage our heart and circulatory systems.

These particles stop blood vessels relaxing and contracting, which increases the risk of clots, which can lead to a heart attack or stroke. However, worryingly nearly half (44%) of Londoners are unaware of the danger air pollution poses to the heart.

The BHF is committed to working with the Government to ensure that the most effective measures to clean up the UK’s toxic air are implemented.

Find out how the BHF is fighting back against heart disease at bhf.org.uk