The following letter was sent to members of Brent Scrutiny Committee and Cllr Conneely by Pete Firmin on January 28th. None of the Committee have acknowledged receipt. It was a follow up to the December Scrutiny Committee discussion of the South Kilburn Regeneration which is on the agenda of the Cabinet tonight:
Firstly, thank you for allowing me to express our concerns
with regard to the regeneration of South Kilburn at the Scrutiny Committee
meeting of 2nd December, we often feel that residents of South
Kilburn are not listened to. Thank you too for asking searching questions of
the lead member and officer presenting the report.
There are a few issues which arose in your discussion which
I would like to clarify or correct, and which may help you decide how to
proceed:
* Councillor McLennan insisted that she had responded to the
concerns raised by our TRA in its motion of July 2014 (which I attach again for
your interest). Unfortunately this is not the case. The walkabout which
Councillor McLennan referred to was about day-to-day issues rather than the
more general issues we raised in the resolution. You do not have to take my
word for this, if Councillor McLennan is correct that she has responded to
those concerns, I’m sure she will gladly provided you with a copy of
correspondence from her on the matter. This is not of minor importance; it goes
to the heart of how our concerns have been ignored.
* Richard Barrett referred to the proposal to site the HS2
vent shaft at Canterbury Works as a success. He did not even acknowledge the
concerns of residents about another heavy construction project being sited next
to a junior school and in the middle of a residential area. Local residents and
parents of children at the school feel much betrayed by Brent in pushing for
the vent shaft to be sited there. There has been no serious attempt to engage
with them over the issue, even though our objections are known. It is very hard
to find a local resident not appalled by this, as evidenced by the fact that
several petitions of hundreds of signatures are now with parliament spelling
out those concerns. Even if you believe that LBB has been right to argue for
the vent shaft to be sited at Canterbury Works, I would hope that you realise
that the way it has gone about it can only serve to alienate residents.
* Richard Barrett said that Coventry Close is not within the
area of the regeneration. This after having said that regeneration reaches as
far as Kilburn High Road. Part of the Catalyst site is on Coventry Close, and
one of their site entrances which caused many problems, is on Coventry Close.
Yet no-one seems to believe they have any responsibility for a road which is
badly in need of work.
* Asked about additional capacity at the proposed health
Centre, we are told that, at least in the immediate term, this will merely
bring 3 existing GP practices under the same roof. Yet, although Cllr McLennan
and Mr Barrett could not provide figures, the population of South Kilburn is
increasing considerably with regeneration (possibly doubling). While it was
said that the new centre will `have scope’ for additional GPs, there appeared
to be no real push for that, leaving it up to whether NHS England decide to
act. Yet I can say from personal experience that existing practices are already
having difficulty coping.
* When asked about a pharmacy for the health centre, Richard
Barrett mentioned the one at Queens Park station and said the next was Boots on
the Kilburn High Road. I had to point out that there is a pharmacy at Kilburn Park
tube station, in fact the only one actually in South Kilburn. Mr Barrett said
one of the two he mentioned should be approached to run the pharmacy in the new
health centre, yet the one at Kilburn park should possibly be given first
refusal, since it is likely to lose all its trade when the new centre is built,
being currently opposite Kilburn Park Medical Centre, the largest of those due to go into the Peel
precinct centre.
* Again on infrastructure, it was clear from Mr Barrett’s
response that the suggested amalgamation of Carlton Vale Infant and Kilburn Park Junior schools is going
nowhere, but no plan B is forthcoming to cope with the increased population.
* Councillor McLennan claimed we were in the masterplan but chose
not to be. In actual fact, though we had objections to the masterplan, we were
eventually excluded through lack of finance, not primarily because of our
objections (we also objected to the destruction of some other entirely sound
low rise blocks, to no avail). The implication here is that the problems we
have suffered with regeneration are self-inflicted. But surely, even if it were
the case that we were left out of regeneration because of our protests, that
would not excuse the treatment we have had at the hands of Wilmott
Dixon/catalyst.
* Richard Barrett said that he had had regular meetings with
the developers at Kilburn Park and raised problems of their behaviour towards
us with them. All we can say is that if that is the case Wilmott Dixon/Catalyst
have ignored such admonishments. The catalogue of problems which I distributed
to you at the scrutiny committee meeting (and attached again here) is only a
summary, but should give you a strong indication of those problems. They are
continuing right up until the end of the development (now more than a year
overrun). A recent Freedom of Information request got the response that,
actually, Mr Barrett has passed on very few of our complaints to other relevant
parts of the Council. Problems are now continuing way beyond the “completion”
of construction in the Kilburn Park. Wilmott Dixon/Catalyst have made various
commitments about things they will do at completion, none of which has yet been
done. As an example, I cite the fact that on many occasions they promised our
windows would be cleaned on completion of the site. We are still waiting.
* On the regeneration more generally, Richard Barrett said
that part of the success story of regeneration is that property values in the
area have increased. What an amazing statement! We would see that as more of a problem
than a “success”. Unfortunately, SK regeneration has not provided any
additional social housing in the area to what existed, only unaffordable
properties.
* Again on the issue of involvement/engagement, Mr Barrett
said that he regularly attends meetings of the Tenant s Steering Group. Those
not in the know will not realise that this is a body only for those being moved
with regeneration, not for all SK tenants. Rather, when 2 members of our TRA
went to a meeting of the TSG they were told they were not supposed to be there
but could stay as long as they did not say anything. Similarly, South Kilburn
Trust is repeatedly said to work across all the SK area. It does not. The only
issue on which we have managed to get SK Trust to work with us is on the
hoped-for access to St Mary’s school MUGA (an issue which has now dragged on
for 10 years or more). When, for instance, the SK Trust expressed its view on
the siting of the HS2 vent shaft in South Kilburn, they made no attempt at all
to find out the views of those living close to the proposed site.
There is much more I could say, but will stop there. We
would hope that these comments, together with your views expressed at the
scrutiny committee meeting, would encourage you to urgently establish a task
force to look closer at the regeneration of South Kilburn and the problems it
has thrown up. As an organisation of residents, we would be more than happy to
assist with, even serve on, such a task force.
Pete Firmin
Chair, on behalf of Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants
and Residents Association.
