Utilising 'dead spaces' - empty shops and offices - for community use - Zoom call 29th August 7pm-9pm

 

Wembley Matters readers aware of the number of 'dead spaces' in Brent may be interested in this discussion:

From City Hall Greens - Tuesday 29th August 7pm-9pm

High streets and office buildings are all too often blighted by empty shops and unused office space. Yet, your community probably has a multitude of ideas for bringing it back to life, maybe as a filmmaking studio, upcycling zone, food waste project, climate emergency centre, library of things, repair café, gallery space, charity hub, and so much more. So many possibilities, but so many barriers to accessing the site. 

 

This online event – following on from Sian Berry’s Dead Spaces report exposing 100s of empty publicly owned buildings and facilities across London – will help you make this happen. Come and hear from the four teams of speakers we have assembled, who have first-hand experience of bringing unused properties back into use by communities, and meet other people like you to share knowledge and advice.

 

The event will be introduced by Assembly Member Sian Berry. Each speaker will tell their story for 10 minutes, followed by a 20-minute question-and-answer session. There will then be breakout rooms for discussion and networking with each of the speakers for 30 minutes, based around the following topics:

• Community activism – Halima Tuli and Maria Cordara-Soanes, Think & Do Somers Town
• Offices and councils – Mahmud Sonny Shahnawaz, The Utilize Project
• High streets and retail – Shaylesh Patel, ASTOP and TUAID
• Young people – Azzees Minott, 2-3 Degrees
  

 

Sign up to our Zoom event now to grab your place. The Zoom invite will be sent to you 24 hours beforehand.

 

SIGN UP

Appeal to London Assembly following Ealing Council's approval of Twyford Abbey application for bulding on Metropolitan Open Land

Ealing Planning Committee's approval of the development at Twyford Abbey is subject to referral to the GLA.  Local resident Kiran Rao has written to Green Assembly Member, Sian Berry, in an individual capacity on behalf of West Twyford residents, setting out the case against the development.

 

Twyford Abbey in Ealing is perceived to have, ‘significant public heritage, environment and community benefits.’  This lens belies the truth that the benefits outweigh the harm, grossly misinterpreting Metropolitan Open Land policy and setting a dangerous precedent.   Ealing Council approved this development on the 19th October 2022  with the comment from the Ealing Planning Committee that GLA’s stage 1 decision did not factor in perceived ‘public benefits’.  In our climate emergency, we need to protect this land in order to be able to breathe cleaner air as part of our green recovery and wellbeing. 

 

The southern proposed open space is not desirable for the harm that will be inflicted to biodiversity net loss from TPO and MOL status as communicated by 255 objectors. Residents have access to 20 acres of parkland, lakes and garden within less than a 60 metre distance of this proposed development and several play areas throughout the West Twyford area. 

 

Other community ‘benefits’ proposed by the developer are limited access to an allotment, walled garden and orchard, but these so-called benefits are only a pavement away from an 8 lane motorway!  Growing food in a highly polluted area does not constitute healthy eating and active travel along the 8-6 lane motorway to the Hanger Lane gyratory, as proposed by the developer, does not constitute healthy active travel.  We do not have the active travel infrastructure nor can it be built in to make this a viable proposition. 

 

This is not some country idyll, this is a highly polluted industrial landscape, it is traffic saturated with significant health inequalities in our community.  The officer report notes that, “harm caused to metropolitan open land would be to the northern extent of the site which is flanked by the North Circular that does not perform well in respect of its functions as metropolitan open land and it is considered that the harm would be outweighed by the aforementioned significant public benefits” but it is exactly this area where the so called ‘amenity benefits’ will reside, from the walled garden to the allotments and we will lose two thirds of MOL land, critically on a flood plain.  We do not have assurance of the flood risk, as Thames Water have only agreed to this after lengthy negotiations and on principle.

 

Furthermore, there are significant concerns by a major stakeholder- the large primary school, adjacent to this development.  School Governors have objected on safety, health and education grounds, which is not reflected in the officers report.  This school cannot be transformed into a school street due to the topology of the area and traffic calming measures do not satisfy the school (there will be an increase in 100 parking spaces in the development and increased service demand).  We fear that it will take the death of a child either through a traffic related incident or via air pollution, for Ealing Council to take note of the harm caused for this generation and future generations to come.  The school currently has 431 pupils and includes a Children's Centre with facilities for pre-school care and nursery and reception/nursery aged pupils.  This is an area of deprivation with 28.4% of pupils on free school meals.  Current air pollution directly impacts pupils' health with significant spikes in asthma and respiratory conditions.  

 

There is a total misrepresentation of Green Belt/MOL policy and how it should be applied and there is a breach of biodiversity net gain.   

 

According to Directive 2011/92/EU Annex II, which forms part of The Town And Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, an EIA is required for 10. (b) Urban development projects, including the construction of shopping centres and car parks. The applicability threshold (ii) the development includes more than 150 dwellings is fulfilled.

 

The report and its conclusions are unbalanced and selective.  For example on (page 88 and following) Ealing Council mentions the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 but does not consider chapter 15, namely conserving and enhancing the natural environment.  This selective approach to conveying and interpreting policy, is neither transparent nor fair.  

 

You cannot remove 157 mature protected trees and woodland and expect there to be biodiversity net gain in replacing established trees and woodland with saplings.  The £100K for tree planting is not proportionate to the scale of this development with no aftercare plan in place.  A high proportion of newly planted trees in our area die as the  Ealing’s tree department is under-resourced. 

There is a total misrepresentation of Green Belt/MOL policy and how it should be applied;

 

●      Policy G3A of the London Plan affords MOL the same planning status as the Green Belt. Policy G3A protects MOL from inappropriate development in accordance with the national planning policy tests that apply to the Green Belt. These tests are set out in the NPPF.

●      Policy 147 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

●      Policy 148 of the NPPF states that 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

●      Policy 149 of the NPPF states that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. The policy identifies types of development that are exceptions to this policy. None of these exceptions apply here.

●      London Plan and NPPF policies do not appear to have been considered in the documents relating to this proposal

●      Concerned that the 'Assessment of Impact of Development Proposals on Metropolitan Open land' submitted to support the proposal does not test the development against these policies.

 

In relation to housing;

 

●      There are approximately 1850 new actual/proposed accommodation units around Lakeside Drive to 1849 around Hanger Lane Gyratory and other major developments; The Royal Waterside and Grand Union sites that have a bearing on local impact.

●      The proposal intends to deliver 110 affordable homes, which would allow for the delivery of 36% affordable units. London Plan Policies H4, H5 and the Mayor's Affordable Housing and Viability SPG seek to maximise the delivery of affordable housing with a strategic target of 50% across London. The threshold level of affordable housing on gross residential development is initially set at a minimum of 35%. This 'threshold approach' is sought by the applicant for one purpose only, i.e., to become eligible to follow the Fast-Track Route set out in the SPG, that will allow the applicant to not submit a viability assessment or be subject to a late stage viability review.

●      Ealing Council blames this failure on problems with migrating pipeline data into the GLA’s Planning London Datahub, which replaced the GLA’s London Development Database in 2020. Worse still, it is now using this excuse to apply the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development (see Twyford Abbey  planning application ref - 222378LBC and 222341FUL (Schedule Items 03 & 04 f2 of the officer’s report) due to be decided at Planning Committee on 19 October).

 

 We dispute the Council’s account of the reasons given in the officer’s report for Twyford Abbey for the lack of a 5-year housing land supply figure. See Planning Policies - Housing Land Supply.

 

The figures provided to the GLA’s Planning London Datahub originate from Ealing Council. If the Council has been aware of this data migration problem since 2020, why has it not taken steps to analyse its own data in the meantime as most other local authorities across the country have to do?

 

Indeed, why is it that by July 2021 (it may well be more now), 15 London boroughs, including the largest (Barnet) have been able to produce AMRs including 5-year housing land supply for 2019/20 when Ealing hasn’t?

 

When we enquired directly with the GLA on 28 September, we received by return an email from Peter Kemp, the Head of Change and Delivery, Planning saying that:’ You will be pleased to hear that the Datahub is now fully operational for Ealing, and as such any data that you are now looking for is now accessible, plus significant amounts more.’ 

 

Why is it that the Council, knowing the significance of the 5-year housing land supply, has not used the almost three weeks since the GLA’s confirmation to calculate that as a matter of urgency?  It seems to us that the Council’s withholding of a 5-year housing land supply figure betrays its own desire to collude with the developer in tipping the balance in favour of the development.

 

Finally, in terms of Air Quality (AQ) we consulted AQ experts at Imperial College London. 

 

●      In terms of air quality, the final sentence of the Detailed Air Quality Assessment report states, “The development has been assessed to exceed air quality neutral, but with the implementation of mitigation measures, this could be reduced.” LBE has committed to enforcing air quality neutral policy, therefore, by its own admission, the application should be rejected. I would not expect the phrase, “with the implementation of mitigation measures, this could be reduced” to be considered sufficiently strong to override this stated policy. Concrete measures to ensure it is air quality neutral should be enforced. I note that those mitigation measures proposed (encouragement of cycling, electrical charge points etc) may reduce impact, but it will not make it neutral. 

●      The application should not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality.  This does & is therefore in breach of The London Plan 2021 Policy SI1.

 

Our community was portrayed as not wanting change.  We do wish to see the restoration of Twyford Abbey but this needs to be done sympathetically with respect to the biodiversity and protections that exist and the typology of the area.  Ealing council need to be shown leadership to provide an alternative vision for this site, it could so easily be a genuine public asset.  This decision, if approved, will be devastating for this and future generations to come. 

Will the London Assembly Transport Committee Make Time for Bus Driver Toilet Dignity? Guest post by Lorraine Robertson

Guest post by retired London bus driver Lorraine Robertson first published on 'The Bus Stops Here: Safer Oxford Street for Everyone' blogspot. Thank you to Lorraine and Tom Kearney for permission to reproduce this post on Wembley Matters.

Siân Berry, Chair

Transport Committee

The London Assembly

City Hall 

The Queen’s Walk

London SE1 2AA

20 August 2022

cc: Transport Committee Members

RE: Will the London Assembly Transport Committee Make Time for Bus Driver Toilet Dignity?

Dear Siân Berry,

You may recall that we had a chance to meet on 14 December 2021 when I gave evidence for the Transport Committee’s Investigation of the Mayor’s Vision Zero Programme led by Caroline Pidgeon AM.  

Given the good quality of your questioning of me in December 2021, I was looking forward to your leadership of the Transport Committee’s Investigation of London’s Bus Network in the hope that you’d use your leadership position to scrutinise more closely the poor working conditions and practices that make TfL’s contracted Surface Transport Operation—in the apt words of former TfL Board Director and Safety Panel Chair Michael Liebreich— “Institutionally Unsafe”.  But—since at the 24 May and 29 June sessions (a) the safety critical issue of Toilet Dignity was pushed to the very end of the discussions and (b) you cut short further discussion about the issue at both public meetings—I was extremely disappointed. So that you might consider putting London's scandal of Lack of Bus Driver Toilet Dignity back on the Transport Committee’s radar screen, I'm going to provide with two specific examples of what the Mayor’s and TfL’s failure to provide adequate toilets on over a quarter of London’s Bus Routes really means for Bus Drivers. 

Example 1. TfL is Gaslighting the Assembly about Toilet Availability, because even the toilets TfL says are available to Bus Drivers aren’t guaranteed. 

Stockwell tube station has a Toilet a Bus Driver can use, but the tube station hours are 0630-2330 on weekdays and 0700-2300 on Sundays.  And the first bus down to Stockwell is 0430 and the last is 0130, so that’s at least 4 hours where we don’t have access to a toilet TfL tells the public is there for us when it’s not.  In Croydon, Bus Drivers are permitted to use the Council offices after 1800, but whether we’re allowed to depends entirely upon the willingness of security personnel to let us in.  There is also a public toilet up the road which costs 20p (if you remember to have your purse on you!), but these toilets have a bench outside which—in the evening—attracts local addicts waiting for the food truck to arrive: so, frankly, it’s unsafe for us drivers. There is also a toilet that can be used at Fairfield's Hall (a theatre in Croydon), but—again—it's up to security if we are allowed in and this venue is only open from about 0900 to 2300.  

Example 2. Lack of Toilet Dignity Disproportionally Discriminates against Women Bus Drivers [TRIGGER WARNING: This narrative contains graphic descriptions that might make more sensitive readers uncomfortable—Tough! Welcome to a woman TfL bus driver’s world!]

I suffer from endometriosis and fibroids: let me tell you about my experience driving a route from Croydon to Stockwell. On this shift I was having my period and, due to the nature of my condition, I had to use tenner lady's and pads together, but this time I guess it was my night from hell: I flooded myself and the cab with my menstrual blood. At the time, I was not aware of the ‘accident’ because I didn’t have any access to a toilet and had been driving for four hours straight on the second half of my shift.  That night, I consider myself lucky because I was told to run the bus light [i.e., empty of passengers] back to the garage and I had a chance to explain to the cleaner what had happened.  The cleaner was also a lady (so she understood and sympathised), but I offered to clean it myself after I sorted myself out. I then spent an hour in the garage loo cleaning myself up and bagging up my soiled cloths—luck would have it I always have a spare pair of trousers in my locker, but the downside was that I had to wait for another female driver to come in the garage so she could get my trousers out of the locker and hand them to me in the loo. As promised, I then went back to the bus to help clean up my mess but was then told the whole seat was ripped out and put it in the skip. 

I’m afraid that this kind of indignity is a regular occurrence for us women TfL bus drivers. In the end, I begged the hospital to give me a hysterectomy because otherwise I would have to give up my job: I could not keep working as a London bus driver knowing future humiliations were in store for me just because TfL chose to deny us any Toilet Dignity. 

And this is just not my story: I reckon most lady bus drivers have similar or worse tales: I know of at least one lady bus driver who had a miscarriage on the bus, but I will save that one for the Transport Committee should you deem the Lack of Toilet Dignity worth the Committee's further public scrutiny.  If asked, I will pleased to provide evidence.

Kindly note that I have requested Bus Safety Campaigner and Businessman Tom Kearney to post this email as Open Letter on his blog:

Will the London Assembly Transport Committee Make Time for Bus Driver Toilet Dignity? 

An Open Letter from London Bus Driver Lorraine Robertson

Yours sincerely,

Lorraine Robertson

London Bus Driver (Retired)

Greens reveal loss of 13,500 social and council homes, in London boroughs, including Brent, since 2003

In a report relevant to this afternoon's Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committe  a new report by Sian Berry, Green Party Assembly Member and Mayoral candidate  reveals London is set to have lost more than 13,500 social and council homes in estate redevelopment schemes since 2003 if currently approved projects are completed.

 

The report, Estate redevelopment in London, reveals that completed demolition schemes on sites with existing social housing have led to the net loss of 6,748 social and council homes since 2003. It also shows that a further 6,791 will be lost if currently approved schemes go ahead.

 

Estate redevelopment schemes funded by the Mayor now cannot involve demolition without residents approving schemes via a ballot. This is part of a new policy finally introduced by the Mayor in July 2018, after a long campaign from estate residents and Sian Berry.

Today’s report reveals that this policy has yet to take full effect. It also describes how the losses have been worsened by the Mayor quietly agreeing to fund dozens of schemes in the months ahead of the new ballot policy coming into force. This allowed many thousands of potential home demolitions to slip under the wire of new rules.

 

The new research found that 1,430 social rented homes will be demolished and not replaced in schemes given planning permission since April 2018 alone.

 

Sian Berry AM said:

 

London simply cannot afford to lose 13,539 council and housing association homes through demolition. Waiting lists of Londoners in urgent need of housing continue to grow and people are more squeezed than ever by the housing crisis.

 

My research today shows we have already lost thousands of social housing homes, and that thousands more are under imminent threat. Demolishing estates in this way not only reduces the amount of housing for families in need, it also breaks up communities at the heart of life in the city.

 

The Mayor’s decision to sign off on dozens of redevelopment schemes in 2018, allowing them to dodge incoming rules for resident ballots, has prolonged the damage to our city. I have found that the new ballot policy is not yet making a significant impact on schemes that have reached the planning stage as a result.

 

And now estates are under even more threat from the Government’s proposed new national planning rules. These would force councils to define whole areas for rapid or automatic planning approval and do not give a single mention to the rights of people already living in these areas to have a say.

 

Key findings from the report 'Estate Redevelopment in London: Have things improved under the current Mayor?, are shown in the tables below.

 

Total impact of London estate redevelopment schemes: -13,539.
A map showing boroughs' net loss of social housing in estate redevelopment schemes (all schemes on sites with existing social housing) granted planning permission since 2003, overall.

 

Total impact of completed schemes: -6,748.
A map showing boroughs' net loss of social rented housing in estate redevelopment schemes granted planning permission since 2003, where construction has been completed.

Total impact of schemes in the pipeline: -6,791.
A map of boroughs set to lose social rented homes in estate redevelopment schemes granted planning permission since 2003, for which construction has not started, or has begun and not yet been completed:

 

 

FULL REPORT

Sadiq Khan agrees 6 month deal on TfL funding - scrapping of Under-18s and Over-60s free travel 'defeated' or just delayed?

 From the London Mayor Sadiq Khan's Office

The Mayor of London has today reached an eleventh-hour agreement with the Government on a funding deal to keep tube, bus and other TfL services in the capital running until March 2021.

Sadiq Khan said the deal was "not ideal” but added: "We fought hard against this Government which is so determined to punish our city for doing the right thing to tackle Covid-19. The only reason TfL needs government support is because its fares income has almost dried up since March.”

The Mayor has succeeded in killing off the very worst Government proposals, which were confirmed in writing by the Transport Secretary during the negotiations. The Mayor had rejected the extension of the £15 daily Congestion Charge to the North and South circular roads as ministers had wanted – in a proposal which would have hit four million more Londoners hard. The Government has now backed down from this condition.

The Government also wanted to scrap free travel for under-18s and over-60s. These proposals have also been successfully defeated. The Government also wanted TfL fares to rise by more than the previously agreed RPI+1 per cent This has also been successfully fought off.

The deal makes around £1.8 billion of Government grant and borrowing available on current projections to TfL in the second half of this financial year. Transport for London will itself make up through cost savings the £160million gap the deal leaves from the nearly £2 billion the organisation projects it will need to run the tube, bus & other TfL services for the remainder of this financial year.

As part of the deal, London will also have to raise extra money in future years. Decisions about how this additional funding will be raised are yet to be made by the Mayor, but some of the options that he and the government have agreed to be looked at include a modest increase in council tax, pending the appropriate consultation, as well as keeping in place the temporary changes to the central London Congestion Charge that were introduced in June 2020, subject to consultation.

Despite providing the private rail operating companies with 18 months of funding with no conditions attached, the Government has refused to give TfL more than a six-month deal and even this has come with conditions. This means another financial agreement will have to be negotiated just before next year’s mayoral election, a far from ideal time to negotiate a fair long-term deal for London.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan said:

“These negotiations with Government have been an appalling and totally unnecessary distraction at a time when every ounce of attention should have been focused on trying to slow the spread of Covid-19 and protecting jobs.

“The pandemic has had the same impact on the finances of the privatised rail companies as it has had on TfL and the Government immediately bailed them out for 18 months with no strings attached. There is simply no reason why the same easy solution could not have been applied to London, which would have allowed us all to focus on the issues that matter most to Londoners, which are tackling the virus and protecting jobs.

“I am pleased that we have succeeded in killing off the very worst Government proposals.

"These proposals from the Government would have hammered Londoners by massively expanding the congestion charge zone, scrapping free travel for older and younger Londoners and increasing TfL fares by more than RPI+1. I am determined that none of this will now happen.

"This is not a perfect deal, but we fought hard to get to the best possible place. The only reason TfL needs Government support is because almost all our fares income has dried up since March as Londoners have done the right thing.”

From London Green Party

Green Party Assembly Member and Mayoral Candidate,  Sian Berry said: 

"A six month agreement leaves all the same arguments to flare up again ahead of the Mayor and Assembly elections when we needed long-term security.

"I am sick of Londoners being used as a political football by the Government. It's clear is so many recent events that they are only interested in winning power. not governing well and the uncertainty this leaves Londoners facing is not in the city's best interests.

And it is completely unfair to make a council tax rise and fare increase cover travelcards for older and young Londoners. If we had a fair, smart road charging system in the works for a longer term deal, these extra charges for all Londoners would not be necessary."

 

Cross party campaign needed to oppose Jenrick's assault on the community's already limited say on new developments

The Wembley Park skyline from Barnhill

Residents of Brent may feel frustrated that their opposition to developments in South Kilburn, Alperton, Wembley Central, Sudbury, Queensbury and Wembley Park have been swept aside at Planning Committee and may think there is already a 'planning free for all' in the borough, but if government proposals go through the situation will become worse with that Committee's role curtailed.

London Councils said yesterday:

London Councils has stated its strong opposition to “any moves towards a planning free-for-all”. 

Responding to the government’s white paper on planning policy, London Councils expressed concern that the changes will severely restrict boroughs’ ability to uphold quality standards and to ensure affordable housing targets are met.

The cross-party group, which represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London Corporation, is opposed to eroding councils’ control over development in their area through zoning arrangements.

These arrangements risk mirroring the lack of control local authorities have over notoriously poor-quality permitted development rights (PDR) schemes. PDR often produces low-quality residential accommodation in unsuitable locations, with no requirement for affordable housing, and a loss of employment space.

Boroughs are particularly alarmed by the white paper’s proposed abolition of Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy agreements, which local authorities use to make sure development includes affordable homes. Weakening council planning powers will also make it more difficult to push developers on reducing carbon emissions, undermining national climate change measures.

Cllr Darren Rodwell, London Councils’ Executive Member for Housing & Planning, said:

These changes are potentially disastrous for Londoners and could reduce the amount of affordable housing built in the capital.  

London is suffering the most severe homelessness crisis in the country and the chronic shortage of affordable housing is at the heart of this. It would be a massive step backwards if the government undermined boroughs’ ability to ensure new development in London includes affordable homes. 

Councils play a crucial role in the planning system, safeguarding our communities’ long-term interests and upholding quality standards. While we support ambitions to build more housing, we strongly oppose any moves towards a planning free-for-all – which would lead to lower quality and fewer affordable homes in London. 

We will be sharing our concerns with ministers. Councils  certainly need more detailed information and reassurance from the government over how these changes would work.

London Councils has repeatedly highlighted inadequate funding, rather than the planning system, as the key factor explaining the capital’s housing pressures.

Boroughs grant around 50,000 planning approvals each year and there are approximately 305,000 new homes in the capital's development pipeline. Boroughs do not have – and are not being given – powers to make developers build out planning permissions. Instead, the white paper would remove their ability to ensure good quality, sustainable development with sufficient affordable housing.

There are currently 243,000 London households on council housing waiting lists. Over 58,000 homeless households are placed in temporary accommodation by London boroughs. The capital accounts for two-thirds of homelessness in England.

To address the shortage of affordable housing in the capital, London Councils is seeking increased government investment and improved support for council housebuilding. This requires an end to all national restrictions on the use of Right to Buy receipts, so that every penny raised from council house sales can be reinvested in replacements, and confirmation of long-term social rent levels.

London’s council housing stock is under considerable pressure. 287,000 London council houses have been sold through Right to Buy since the policy’s introduction in 1980. In 2016-17, 3,138 council homes were sold in London and only 1,445 replaced.

Commenting on the proposed abolition of Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) agreements, Cllr Shama Tatler (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning) and currently a candidate for Labour's NEC, said on Twitter:

S106 whilst a technical element of planning not only secures affordable housing commitments on a development but also a wide range of infrastructure guarantees AND locks in commitments to local employment opportunities

Under these streamlined reforms in planning what is there to ensure delivery? Timely delivery? Can't see how developers will be pushed for delivery after permission is granted. 

Commenting  on Robert Jenrick's claim of a 5 year delivery delay in developments she said:

Nearly 90% of all planning applications are determined within 13weeks. Large schemes rightly need time and scrutiny to make sure they contribute to the placemaking of an area, affordable housing and infrastructure.

A proposal that the requirement for a proportion of affordable housing be provided should be raised to only apply to developments of 50 units and over she pointed out:

A large proportion of site allocations and schemes in Brent are on small sites with less that 50 homes. This is going hugely impact affordable housing delivery.

We can expect to see planning applications for 49 units as developers maximise their profits from market price housing.

In an exchange with me on Twitter, Cllr James Denselow, currently Chair of Brent Planning Committee, even doubted that the Committee would continue to exist under the proposals:

The website ONLondon LINK reported Green Party AM Sian Berry's comment which will be of interest to people on Brent's estates, particularly St Raphael's:

Green Party AM and mayoral candidate Siân Berry was also critical, saying an “imbalance of power” in a planning system “already heavily weighted towards big developers over local communities” will be made even worse by centralised “top down targets” and reduced scrutiny and rights.

“People living on estates in London will be chilled to see whole areas proposed to be set aside for ‘growth’ or ‘renewal’ without a single mention of the rights of people already living there,” Berry said. “These new proposals don’t even set out whether residents will have a real say over the areas where they have made their homes and communities being earmarked for instant planning permission.”

Liberal Brent Councillor, Anton Georgiou (Alperton) told Wembley Matters:

Planning decisions have a massive impact on local communities. It cannot be a free for all allowing rich developers to force massive tower blocks and regeneration in our area. There must be local scrutiny and local control to help protect our community and ensure the concerns of residents are heard throughout the decision making process. But also to ensure that the right type of genuinely affordable and social homes are being built. These top down changes are wrong and must be stopped.

Greens: Outcry from workers proves Government proposals not consulted upon or thought through

Responding to Boris Johnson’s public address this evening Sian Berry, co-leader of the Green Paarty  said:

We were told we were going to get a roadmap for the way forward today but the Prime Minster’s address was ambiguous and confusing. The shift to ‘Stay Alert’ from ‘Stay Home’ as a key message, offers absolutely no clarity and leaves people wondering what exactly it is they’re being asked to do.

We said on Thursday and we maintain this evening, that while we understand and share the anxiety to get the economy moving and for people to see their loved ones, easing lock down too soon,which we strongly believe it still is, could lead to unnecessary deaths, a second peak and the overwhelming of the NHS.

The 'world beating test, track and trace scheme’ which Boris Johnson referred to, must be a community shield which we’ve been advocating for, for weeks.

The immediate outcry from key unions in the industries affected demonstrates that the implications for worker safety have not been either consulted or properly thought through.

We are pleased to see the Government finally acknowledging the severity of the situation in care homes and now have expectations of immediate action to provide a clear plan for quarantining and routine testing of staff and residents.

Staying at home will continue to save lives and protect the NHS so that’s the advice, until there’s more clarity on what the Government is actually trying to say, that we should be following.

St Raphael's residents appeal to Green AM Sian Berry to ensure they have a say on estate refurbishment/rebuild

Residents of St Rapahel's Estate in Brent have launched a petition appealing to Sian Berry, Green Party AM, to intervene with London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, to ensure that the power for residents to control the future of their estate is upheld.

The petition is available HERE and the text is below

We the residents of St Raphael Estate,  do not want Regeneration. We want  Refubishment with the clause that we are  in control of how this is done.  we need to protect our homes and open space. We need to preserve it for our children and the generations to come. If our estate undergoes regeneration we will lose our community, pay higher rents,  private housing association as landlords, tower blocks, short and unsecure tenancy, higher water rates, losing green space, breaking up of famillies with older children.

The  upheaval of relocation, while work is being carried out, there is no guarantee of coming back to the Estate or London. Although St Raphael’s estate has always had pejorative connotations to it and is portrayed as an unplesant place. This is wrong, there is a strong , united community  here who do not want to be separated from their famillies , stripped of the place they have called home for so long , moving away from neighbour, friends and family simply because it’s profitable to the investors they’re leading us into an ambigious future. We need to achieve 2000 signature, so we can forward our plight to the London assembly member Sian Berry to insure that the Mayor pledge to allow the Residents the power to control the future of their estate is upheld

-->

Tenure split at Old Oak development does not reflect local housing need

Sian Berry. Green Party Assembly Member for London has submitted her response to the  second Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation's revised draft Local  Plan consultation.

The Mayor’s draft London Plan identified that the Old Oak and Park Royal Opportunity Area has the capacity to deliver at least 25,500 homes with around 20,000 of these to be built over the OPDC local plan period (2017 – 2037).

As such the OPDC site has the potential to make an important contribution to meeting London’s housing need in the next two decades.

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) that underpins the draft London Plan found that 47 per cent of new homes delivered in London up to 2041 should be at low cost rent – social rent. And that accounts for about 70 per cent of the ‘affordable’ homes in general.

The Mayor’s draft London plan also says he wants to see a minimum of 30 per cent social rent and 30 per cent intermediate homes at each development with the other 40 per cent left for the local authority – in this case the OPDC – to decide, based on local need.

However in Sian Berry’s response to Response to second Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) revised draft Local Plan consultation she has identified two key problems.

1. Tenure split of affordable homes does not reflect local housing need
2. London Development Database is not an up-to-date record of planning permissions granted at OPDC site 

Full response below (click bottom right corner for page view)