Kensal Rise Library development plans rejected by planning committee

Campaigners are celebrating after the application to convert Kensal Rise library into flats with a token library/community space was unanimously rejected by Brent Planning Committee on the recommendation of officers.

The battle to retain the building is not yet won but this is an important victory.

Well done to all the Kensal Rise campaigners.

Chief Planner recommends refusal of Kensal Rise Library change of use

Kensal Rise library campaigners have welcomed the news that Brent's Chief Planner has recommended that the application for change of use of the building should be refused.

The Planning Committee will make the decision on September 18th after hearing the Officer's report and ant submissions by the applicant and opponents.  It is not unknown, but unusual, for the Committee to go against the Officer's recommendation.

The battle to save Kensal Rise library has been a long one but if the planning application is refused it will be one more step in the campaign's ultimate aim of having a library return to Kensal Rise.

I applaud the commitment and tenacity of the Save Kensal Rise Library campaign.

Caroline Lucas warns that 'chilling' gagging bill could limit campaigns against racist and extremist parties

The House of Commons passed the general principles of the 'gagging bill' by 62 votes today. It will now go to detailed scrutiny at Committee stage.. This is what Caroline Lucas, Green MP, wrote about it on her blog.

The  ‘Lobbying Bill’, due its second reading today, would have horrifying implications for the way politics – and political campaigning –  are practised in this country.  Outrageously, it would suppress a range of legitimate voices, while doing very little to expose the murky world of lobbying.

It’s very much a bill of three distinct parts – one broadly welcome but inadequate, one of significant concern, and one plain sinister.

Part One of the Bill would set up a register of lobbyists.  I’ve been calling for this for some time, and it’s long overdue.  People have a right to know about the various different influences on the decisions being made on their behalf.  But whereas other parts of the Bill go too far, this one doesn’t go far enough.   As it’s worded, only a small proportion of the people meeting with ministers and officials, many of them from powerful companies,  would be defined as lobbyists.   Instead of restricting itself to the very narrow group of “consultant lobbyists”, the scope of the Bill should be much wider, so that it shines a light on the way lobbying works.

 As the Unlock Democracy group is arguing, the legislation should do far more to improve transparency, particularly around the financial aspects of lobbying.  For example, the amount paid to lobbyists by clients should be in the public domain, as should information on anypublic office they have held in the past five years.  And the registrar should be required to report to Parliament each year on the administration of the Act. 

Part Three of the Bill – which has been interpreted as an attempt by the Government to embarrass Labour over its candidate selection processes –  imposes new requirements on unions.    Their obligations to provide membership information to the independent regulator, who would gain new powers, would be further tightened.   Unions have very legitimate concerns that this would create another barrier to the right to take industrial action.  Whether this is deliberate or an unintended consequence, it’s worrying.

But it’s Part Two of the Bill that alarms me the most.  By imposing a quite astonishing range of  requirements on campaigning organisations in the run-up to elections, it would effectively shut down legitimate voices seeking to raise awareness on issues of legitimate public interest, whether it’s on NHS reform, housing policy, or wildlife conservation.   Campaign spending limits for “third party” organisations – such as charities and pressure groups – would be drastically cut, and the definition of what constitutes campaigning broadened.

And there would be new forms of regulation for organisations lobbying on issues at constituency level.
Some of the potential implications of this are frankly terrifying.   In the months preceding an election, it would be harder for campaigners to criticise the policies of a particular political party.  Organisations would have to deal with a new bureaucracy, and  be obliged to constantly ask whether they could continue many of their day-to-day activities.

Perhaps most worryingly, the power to stand up against racist or extremist parties could be curtailed.  So we’d have the perverse situation where the BNP, which as a political party would be exempt from these rules, would be protected, whereas the activities of those campaigning against them would be severely restricted.

We can’t allow this to happen.  I’ve co-sponsored a reasoned amendment to the Bill, and next week will be hosting a meeting with representatives of Unite, Hope not Hate and other affected organisations so they can put their concerns to MPs ahead of the Bill’s committee stage.

They are right to be concerned.  In the name of transparency, the Government has published a frankly chilling Bill which would effectively suppress the debate that it is essential in a healthy democracy.

'Don't believe you can't make a difference' Lucas tells Balcombe protesters

Indefatigable Kensal Rise campaigners come out fighting for yet another round

Those passionate and stubborn campaigners of Kensal Rise just won't give up, winning my admiration and that of many other people.

In a no holds barred  exchange on the Kilburn Times website they take on the developer of the Kensal Rise Library building LINK and have made the following call to their supporters:

Act now to save the library! 

What’s happening? 
 Property developer Andrew Gillick has submitted plans to put six luxury flats and a house in the Kensal Rise Library Building. The building has always been for community use. So campaigners (The Friends of Kensal Rise Library) have tried to protect the building by persuading Brent Council to list it as an ‘Asset of Community Value’.

However, if the Planning Committee ignores this listing and Gillick succeeds, only a small part of the building will remain for the community. Once the building goes residential the community will lose it forever. A building that the community helped to pay for, and has used and loved for over a hundred years.

The Friends of Kensal Rise Library (FKRL) have considered the developer’s proposal in detail with the help of expert advice, and have decided to oppose the grant of planning permission. They consider that the whole building should remain for the benefit of the community.

What can I do? 
 Write to Brent Council expressing your concerns. You can write by post or email, or make your comments online. In order for your objection to be valid, you must include your full name and address, and the reference number for the application, which is 13/2058.

You can see the full planning application on the Brent Council website at http://tiny.cc/9vnc1w (where you can also make online comments).

The case officer is Robin Sedgwick, telephone 020 8937 5229, and you can contact him with any queries about the application. The statutory consultation period ends on 29th August 2013, but objections received until around the end of August are likely to be taken into account.

 Write online or by post
Email address for objections: robin.sedgwick@brent.gov.uk
Postal address for objections:
Mr Robin Sedgwick, Planning Department, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ
It is much better and more powerful to write your own letter
It is important the Council receives as many written objections as possible.
Remember to include your name, address and planning reference number: 13/2058 
 
Letter writing sessions:  Come to one of our letter writing sessions to be held on:
Saturday 17th August & Sunday 18th August 11am-4pm at the Pop-up Library (corner of Bathurst Gdns & College Rd)

On what basis can I object to the application?
 Brent Council states on its website that they will take into account issues that include the following (our emphasis added):· Problems of noise, smell, dust, traffic etc.
· Loss of light, privacy or outlook
· Number, size, layout, siting and external appearance of buildings
· The impact on traffic safety and conges-tion; the effects on parking provision
· The impact on travel patterns – the availability of public transport and facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people
· The impact on the environment and public safety
· The loss of trees and other natural features
· The provision of landscaping
· The adequacy of infrastructure like roads and schools etc
· The impact on protected areas like Conservation Areas,
· Protected Open Space and Nature Conservation Sites
· Loss of Protected Land Uses (in areas or sites which are retained for residential use, community use)
· Impact on employment
· Opportunities for crime from the design of the development
· The effect on the character of the area
· It is also relevant that the building has been listed as an Asset of Community Value. This applies to the whole building and means that the planners must take into account that the building has been listed in this way.
If there is anything else you would like to mention then it is best to include it rather than leave it out.

The Council states that the following cannot be taken into account when deciding a planning application:
· Loss of property value.
· Nuisance from building work (this is controlled by other legislation)
· Moral considerations (e.g. objections to drinking, gambling etc.)
· The personality of the applicant
· Boundary disputes and other private matters
· The fact that an applicant may make a commercial gain as a result of a successful application
· Matters covered by Building Regulations (impact on foundations, sewerage etc)
· Loss of view from a private property
· Commercial competition, where for example a proposed shop will directly compete for the trade of another. 

More about the background to the current situation
 Last year, Brent Council chose to return Kensal Rise Library to All Souls College, Oxford, rather than accept a proposal from the Friends of Kensal Rise Library to run the library at no cost to the Council. All Souls then held an open marketing process and the Friends submitted a proposal that would have retained the whole building for community use. Instead of accepting this, All Souls have chosen to sell the library building to a property developer whose priority is making a huge profit out of the building with little regard for what this community wants or needs.

Deadline for responding to planning application: 29^th August 2013

In his planning application the developer says we are a ‘vocal minority’, let’s prove him wrong and show him that Kensal Green/Kensal Rise are unified on this issue and are in fact a ‘vocal majority’.

A majority that does not want flats in the library but wants the building to remain for the benefit of the whole community and to have in it what we need and want.

Hi Everyone,Urgent update! Act now to save the library!What’s happening?
 Property developer Andrew Gillick has submitted plans to put six luxury flats and a house in the Kensal Rise Library Building. The building has always been for community use. So campaigners (The Friends of Kensal Rise Library) have tried to protect the building by persuading Brent Council to list it as an ‘Asset of Community Value’.
However, if the Planning Committee ignores this listing and Gillick succeeds, only a small part of the building will remain for the community. Once the building goes residential the community will lose it forever. A building that the community helped to pay for, and has used and loved for over a hundred years.
The Friends of Kensal Rise Library (FKRL) have considered the developer’s proposal in detail with the help of expert advice, and have decided to oppose the grant of planning permission. They consider that the whole building should remain for the benefit of the community. What can I do? 
 Write to Brent Council expressing your concerns. You can write by post or email, or make your comments online. In order for your objection to be valid, you must include your full name and address, and the reference number for the application, which is 13/2058.
You can see the full planning application on the Brent Council website at http://tiny.cc/9vnc1w (where you can also make online comments).
The case officer is Robin Sedgwick, telephone 020 8937 5229, and you can contact him with any queries about the application. The statutory consultation period ends on 29th August 2013, but objections received until around the end of August are likely to be taken into account.
 Write online or by post
Email address for objections: robin.sedgwick@brent.gov.uk
Postal address for objections:
Mr Robin Sedgwick, Planning Department, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ
It is much better and more powerful to write your own letter
It is important the Council receives as many written objections as possible.
Remember to include your name, address and planning reference number: 13/2058
Letter writing sessions:  Come to one of our letter writing sessions to be held on:
Saturday 17th August & Sunday 18th August 11am-4pm at the Pop-up Library (corner of Bathurst Gdns & College Rd)

On what basis can I object to the application?
 Brent Council states on its website that they will take into account issues that include the following (our emphasis added):· Problems of noise, smell, dust, traffic etc.
· Loss of light, privacy or outlook
· Number, size, layout, siting and external appearance of buildings
· The impact on traffic safety and conges-tion; the effects on parking provision
· The impact on travel patterns – the availability of public transport and facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people
· The impact on the environment and public safety
· The loss of trees and other natural features
· The provision of landscaping
· The adequacy of infrastructure like roads and schools etc
· The impact on protected areas like Conservation Areas,
· Protected Open Space and Nature Conservation Sites
· Loss of Protected Land Uses (in areas or sites which are retained for residential use, community use)
· Impact on employment
· Opportunities for crime from the design of the development
· The effect on the character of the area
· It is also relevant that the building has been listed as an Asset of Community Value. This applies to the whole building and means that the planners must take into account that the building has been listed in this way.
If there is anything else you would like to mention then it is best to include it rather than leave it out.

The Council states that the following cannot be taken into account when deciding a planning application:
· Loss of property value.
· Nuisance from building work (this is controlled by other legislation)
· Moral considerations (e.g. objections to drinking, gambling etc.)
· The personality of the applicant
· Boundary disputes and other private matters
· The fact that an applicant may make a commercial gain as a result of a successful application
· Matters covered by Building Regulations (impact on foundations, sewerage etc)
· Loss of view from a private property
· Commercial competition, where for example a proposed shop will directly compete for the trade of another. 

More about the background to the current situation
 Last year, Brent Council chose to return Kensal Rise Library to All Souls College, Oxford, rather than accept a proposal from the Friends of Kensal Rise Library to run the library at no cost to the Council. All Souls then held an open marketing process and the Friends submitted a proposal that would have retained the whole building for community use. Instead of accepting this, All Souls have chosen to sell the library building to a property developer whose priority is making a huge profit out of the building with little regard for what this community wants or needs.
Deadline for responding to planning application: 29^th August 2013

In his planning application the developer says we are a ‘vocal minority’, let’s prove him wrong and show him that Kensal Green/Kensal Rise are unified on this issue and are in fact a ‘vocal majority’.

A majority that does not want flats in the library but wants the building to remain for the benefit of the whole community and to have in it what we need and want.

- See more at: http://www.savekensalriselibrary.org/2013/08/13/august-update-act-now%E2%80%8F/#sthash.VpIGquqP.dpuf

Hi Everyone,Urgent update! Act now to save the library!What’s happening?
 Property developer Andrew Gillick has submitted plans to put six luxury flats and a house in the Kensal Rise Library Building. The building has always been for community use. So campaigners (The Friends of Kensal Rise Library) have tried to protect the building by persuading Brent Council to list it as an ‘Asset of Community Value’.
However, if the Planning Committee ignores this listing and Gillick succeeds, only a small part of the building will remain for the community. Once the building goes residential the community will lose it forever. A building that the community helped to pay for, and has used and loved for over a hundred years.
The Friends of Kensal Rise Library (FKRL) have considered the developer’s proposal in detail with the help of expert advice, and have decided to oppose the grant of planning permission. They consider that the whole building should remain for the benefit of the community. What can I do? 
 Write to Brent Council expressing your concerns. You can write by post or email, or make your comments online. In order for your objection to be valid, you must include your full name and address, and the reference number for the application, which is 13/2058.
You can see the full planning application on the Brent Council website at http://tiny.cc/9vnc1w (where you can also make online comments).
The case officer is Robin Sedgwick, telephone 020 8937 5229, and you can contact him with any queries about the application. The statutory consultation period ends on 29th August 2013, but objections received until around the end of August are likely to be taken into account.
 Write online or by post
Email address for objections: robin.sedgwick@brent.gov.uk
Postal address for objections:
Mr Robin Sedgwick, Planning Department, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley HA9 0FJ
It is much better and more powerful to write your own letter
It is important the Council receives as many written objections as possible.
Remember to include your name, address and planning reference number: 13/2058
Letter writing sessions:  Come to one of our letter writing sessions to be held on:
Saturday 17th August & Sunday 18th August 11am-4pm at the Pop-up Library (corner of Bathurst Gdns & College Rd)

On what basis can I object to the application?
 Brent Council states on its website that they will take into account issues that include the following (our emphasis added):· Problems of noise, smell, dust, traffic etc.
· Loss of light, privacy or outlook
· Number, size, layout, siting and external appearance of buildings
· The impact on traffic safety and conges-tion; the effects on parking provision
· The impact on travel patterns – the availability of public transport and facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled people
· The impact on the environment and public safety
· The loss of trees and other natural features
· The provision of landscaping
· The adequacy of infrastructure like roads and schools etc
· The impact on protected areas like Conservation Areas,
· Protected Open Space and Nature Conservation Sites
· Loss of Protected Land Uses (in areas or sites which are retained for residential use, community use)
· Impact on employment
· Opportunities for crime from the design of the development
· The effect on the character of the area
· It is also relevant that the building has been listed as an Asset of Community Value. This applies to the whole building and means that the planners must take into account that the building has been listed in this way.
If there is anything else you would like to mention then it is best to include it rather than leave it out.

The Council states that the following cannot be taken into account when deciding a planning application:
· Loss of property value.
· Nuisance from building work (this is controlled by other legislation)
· Moral considerations (e.g. objections to drinking, gambling etc.)
· The personality of the applicant
· Boundary disputes and other private matters
· The fact that an applicant may make a commercial gain as a result of a successful application
· Matters covered by Building Regulations (impact on foundations, sewerage etc)
· Loss of view from a private property
· Commercial competition, where for example a proposed shop will directly compete for the trade of another. 

More about the background to the current situation
 Last year, Brent Council chose to return Kensal Rise Library to All Souls College, Oxford, rather than accept a proposal from the Friends of Kensal Rise Library to run the library at no cost to the Council. All Souls then held an open marketing process and the Friends submitted a proposal that would have retained the whole building for community use. Instead of accepting this, All Souls have chosen to sell the library building to a property developer whose priority is making a huge profit out of the building with little regard for what this community wants or needs.
Deadline for responding to planning application: 29^th August 2013

In his planning application the developer says we are a ‘vocal minority’, let’s prove him wrong and show him that Kensal Green/Kensal Rise are unified on this issue and are in fact a ‘vocal majority’.

A majority that does not want flats in the library but wants the building to remain for the benefit of the whole community and to have in it what we need and want.

- See more at: http://www.savekensalriselibrary.org/2013/08/13/august-update-act-now%E2%80%8F/#sthash.cnTNUaXH.dpuf

Fundraising continues as Watford Council digs heels in over allotment sell-off

Watford Borough Council has refused a request from the Farm Terrace Allotment campaign to put a hold on their development plans following the Secretary of State's withdrawal of his consent to build on the land.

Instead they have stated thir intention to relocate the plot holders and seek planning permission to build on the allotments.

The campaign remains determined to fight on and are redoubling their fundraising efforts. Donations can be made at: LINK

Brent library closures could swing local elections

The pop-up library continues

A report today from the Save Kensal Rise Library Campaign gives the result of a survey of a  representative sample of local residents:

• 72% of local residents say that shutting the library will definitely or probably affect their voting intention at the next General and Local elections
• Brent Council are overwhelmingly viewed as “very responsible” for the library closure by 94% of residents in 2013 (and a further 6% “slightly responsible”). All Souls College (54% very responsible and 30% “slightly”) and the Coalition Government (52% and 38%) come next on the list 
• 96% of respondents in 2013 feel that “Brent Council doesn’t listen to residents” and 98% think the actions of Brent Council have been “against the interests of the local community”. 
• Nine in ten (94%) locals “object to the library being turned into flats”. 95% agree that they “would worry about the lack of community space in the area”. Eight in ten agree “turning the library into private rental flats would harm the community” (82%). Only 3% think that “private rental flats would benefit the local community. 94% of survey respondents think urge that “the developer should listen to the pleas of the residents” 
• Since the library has shut,  72% of residents have decided against a trip to a different library which is particularly worrying in the context of our local literacy challenges and 51% have been forced to buy books they would have wanted to loan 
• 79% of residents say the pop-up library that has emerged is a cheerful presence that symbolises community spirit and 72% believe it epitomises local residents’ determination to fight Brent Council’s decision

In a survey released today of public attitudes to Kensal Rise library, the Save Kensal Rise Library campaign highlights the critical impact library closures will have on the next local and general elections. 

Almost 3 in 4 residents (72%) say closure of libraries “will definitely” or “probably” affect their voting intention. When asked who is responsible for libraries closing in Brent, 9 in 10 residents firmly cite Brent Council as most responsible (94%) with over half blaming the All Souls College (54%) and the Coalition Government (52%).

Highlighting the impact the decision is having on local lives, since the library has shut, 72% of residents have decided against a trip to a different library and 51% have been forced to buy books they would have wanted to loan  – placing ever greater pressure on tight family finances particularly on those with children. Over 1 in 5 (22%) residents say they have nowhere local to go to spend time with others. 17% have experienced overcrowding at an alternative local library session. The numbers have increased in all the areas over the two-year time period between surveys – which are worrying trends. 

Efforts to create a temporary pop-up library had gone down well with residents. 82% of respondents in 2013 said “it is a cheerful presence and a symbol of community spirit” and 84% agreed that it is a “good indication of residents’ determination to keep the library going”. All measures have improved over two years between surveys – indicating growing appreciation of the pop-up library despite recognition is it no long term alternative to a properly-resourced library. 

Margaret Bailey, co-chair of the Friends of Kensal Rise Library campaign said:

“The stark reality of the impact on lives comes through strongly. Closing Kensal Rise library is not just an issue for Brent’s balance sheets – it is hurting local families, children and elderly residents. People are putting off trips to the library and being forced to spend precious money they don’t always have to meet a shortfall in local provision. The social value of the library is going completely unnoticed”

David Butcher, co-chair of the Friends of Kensal Rise Library campaign said:

“The survey confirms what we knew, that passion is running high on this issue and that people will take this issue to the polls. Politicians and developers ignore this at their peril.”

“It’s time for all concerned to recognise the implications of closing services. We want them to come and speak to us about our plans to open a community-run library space that the public so overwhelmingly are demanding”

Voices from the survey – a selection of quotes from the survey

The library was a life saver for me when my children were small. It's the hub of community, somewhere to go when you are isolated.

As a child, I made my first fairy cakes from a book I borrowed at the library. Being Indian this was a big step as we don't bake traditionally. This one of many steps that made me feel part of the British community

When my first baby was two months old we were locked out in the cold and left keys inside. Desperate, I eventually sought help at my library, the woman advised me and offered me warmth and reassurance till the fire brigade came. Where else offers this kind of safe haven to isolated people?  

My children went there from birth & joined in all the events - Christmas, Divali, Chinese New Year etc.  We kept contact there with people who'd gone on to different schools etc.  I have always belonged to a local library and have never used one less than I currently do (in 51 years!).  I feel very sad every time I walk past it (almost daily).

I feel more isolated and I no longer have the help and service it's staff provided

I have nowhere to take my children to find books to help with their homework.

I have lost the chance to study in a venue with other people. Deprived of access to resources, I often work alone in my room

I regularly have outstanding loans as I have irregular internet access and have to travel specially to Queens Park.

I loved walking into the library space…and seeing the building, its beautiful fired tiles, the architraves and the feeling of welcome and well being it gave me. This reflects Brent Council’s lack of understanding about what makes people contented.

The day before the library closed, I got a book on Superman. This was when I was 7. I’m 10 now. I also remember a big party that took place before the closure, made to try and stop the council closing it. Everyone thought this was enough. 

I came with my four year old to the library on the afternoon the library had been raided by the police. My daughter was frightened and sad to hear her library had been closed and all the books stolen (as she saw it) by the police. 

Knowing that I am in a community where people can work together on something like this gives me hope for the future and inspires me to try to contribute more to the community 

The campaign has helped make us a stronger community.  Even those of us who haven't actually done much have been supporting in spirit and it has given us a common cause.  

I'm amazed and in awe of all who continue to fight and want to pass my appreciation on

People have been brought together, new friendships formed and a sense of common purpose shared.  This could continue INSIDE the building rather than relegated to the cold outside.

This building should not be destroyed by using it for flats. It should  definitely be listed and remain as a library and maybe for other community uses to make it more viable.

There are so few public places that we can go without being expected to spend money or pass through as quickly as possible. So few places where parents with young children or elderly citizens can feel genuinely welcome and unhurried. So few places that seek to expand our minds rather than entice us to empty our pockets. This is a thing worth fighting for.

We should never stop fighting to save a cause so vital in an age where so many people think the internet is a sufficient resource for finding knowledge. It will never replace books or libraries where people can meet in a haven of knowledge, discovery, and community.

I do not know anyone who would consider travelling as far as Wembley to use the library. The point about libraries is that they should be a local resource.  I am deeply indebted to campaigners for their sustained efforts on our behalf.

Note: 
The survey is based on a poll of 272 residents conducted between May and July 2013. With 272 responses, the survey is representative of the 10,668 population of the Kensal Green ward and the 268,000 population of Brent. The respondents reflected the area’s diversity in terms of age, ethnicity, and gender of respondents.

Round 1 allotments victory: that's the way the Pickles squirt!

The Farm Terrace allotment campaign was celebrating this weekend after Eric Pickles was forced to admit his department had made a legal error when approving Watford town council's plans to build on the site. His department failed to explain why it had approved the decision despite the allotments still being in heavy demand.

The decision will now have to be reconsidered and although this may still eventually result in approval of the plans, the campaign to save the allotments is celebrating a 'Round 1' victory. Allotment holders had applied for a judicial review and raised more than £6,000 for a fighting fund through the GoFundMe LINK crwod funding site.

The news brought congratulatory messages from a wide spectrum of supporters with some hailing a victory for 'people power' and making connections with the Lewisham A&E Campaign and the campaign against the Bedroom Tax.

This is good news ahead of next week's National Allotments Week but a government report in 2011 revealed that 50,000 allotments had been lost in the previous 15 years.  Allotees will have to remain vigilant. Some councils have provided additional allotments in the face of growing demand recently and there have been schemes to provide temporary alloments on land awaiting development as well as in 'common areas' of  social housing estates. However pressures on sites will continue as developers seek new land for housing and retail development and hard-pressed councils look for a cash boost.

Brent Council recently advertised vacant plots at seven allotment sites but there are significant waiting lists at others.

Although I have not heard of any sites under threat currently, the new tenancy  agreement circulated to allotment tenants last week does include clauses giving Brent Council the right to terminate the tenancy at a minimum of 12 month's notice 'where the Council requires the Allotment for any purpose for which it was acquired by the Council...or has appropriated them to another purpose under any statutory provision, or if the Council requires the Allotment for building, mining or any other industrial purpose, or for roads or sewers necessary in connection with any of the aforementioned purposes...'

New threat to Welsh Harp - time to act quickly

The view today from the west bank of the Welsh Harp

The view in the future if the development goes ahead

Four years  ago a united campaign of local political activists and environmentalists saw off proposals for housing developments in both Barnet and Brent areas of Brent Reservoir, popularly known as the Welsh Harp.

Those proposals are dwarfed by the enormous West Hendon development proposed by Barratts which is soon to be considered by Barnet Council.

The development is adjacent to an SSSI (site of Special Scientific Interest) on the Welsh Harp which is home to nesting birds and used by over-wintering birds.  It draws visitors from all over London and beyond. The footpath is well used by many Brent residents who start their walk at the Birchen Grove end of the Welsh Harp.

The development will include tower blocks of up to 26 storeys high - double the height of the one in the photograph.The existing 597 homes will be demolished and replaced by 2,000 houses and flats including 4 tower blocks. There are proposals to build footbridges over the Silk Stream and beside Cool Oak Bridge which are likely to cause water pollution during construction. The area is already one designated as having poor air quality and the development is likely to increase traffic in the area.

Barratts have already built a 12 storey block next to Cool Oak Bridge which gives an indication of the overbearing nature of such blocks and the extent to which they rise above tree height. The new blocks will be twice as high.

There is some confusion about the date by which letters have to be received by Barnet Planning Officers, the safest assumption is that the deadline is April 30th. The Planning Reference is H/01054/13 and the Barnet Planing contacts is: Thomas.Wyld@barnet.gov.uk 

Full documentation can be found HERE

I reproduce below a submission on the development that sums up the issues very well:

Comments on West Hendon re-development Proposals

Significance of Northern Reservoir/Refuge/Marsh and associated woodland.

The Northern reservoir is an important refuge used by wildfowl when there is disturbance on the main reservoir from sailing. It functions this way throughout the year but especially during the winter months when the normal numbers of birds increase by several hundred displaced ducks and other wildfowl. The area most used by these birds is along the bank next to the estate. It is a SSSI which should afford a high level of protection under wildlife legislation. An important screen of trees currently separates the water from the estate. The marshy northern end of the water is also important for breeding wildfowl in the sheltered pools and channels. Finally at the northern end is a quiet area of wet woodland in which a number of shy woodland birds breed (owls, woodpeckers, warblers). The area of the re-development abuts the whole of the edge of the waterway, marsh and woodland.

Proposed re-development- key features

The proposal involves a huge increase in the density of housing and greatly exceeds the GLA recommended level for a site of this size increasing from 7-800 housing units to over 2000. A key feature of the proposal is the construction of a number of extremely high tower blocks, up to 26 stories in height; these are sited immediately adjacent to the Water and the SSSI boundary. The excessive height of these towers seems more appropriate for a central financial district than a North London suburb. The development will have a major impact on the surrounding area and put a huge strain on local health, education and road infrastructure.

Impact on the SSSI, reservoir and local area

• There will be a major increase in disturbance of the wildfowl refuge both during construction and when occupied, both due to the excessive height of the buildings and the tripling of the number of occupants
• The developers would like to remove tree screening to open up sight lines. This will make matters worse and increase disturbance. We can expect that this will have a major impact on roosting and nesting birds. The existing tree buffer hides all but the single 15 storey tower that currently exists and in addition to increased disturbance any reduction in the tree cover will have a major and detrimental landscape effect when viewed from the bridge or the footpath to the west of the north reservoir. The tree screen needs to be effectively managed and maintained.
• There will be a large increase in the amount of night-time light pollution in what is currently a dark area. This will affect birds and mammals such as bats. External night-time lighting of the towers must be kept to a minimum. Brightly lit towers have been shown to have a detrimental effect on night flying and migrating birds
• The extreme height of the tower blocks will interfere with flight lines for birds trying to get away from sailing disturbance on the main reservoir. There could also be an increased risk of bird strikes made worse by the large number of high level glass windows.
•  A proposed bridge and circular route crossing the river further upstream will disturb and damage the wet woodland where shy woodland birds such as woodpeckers, owls and warblers breed. This woodland forms part of the SSSI buffer and Local Nature Reserve.
• This proposed bridge will also disturb scarce breeding wildfowl such as Gadwall, Pochard and others which breed in the pools and reed-beds at the end of the reservoir next to the woodland.
• The proposed location of the towers next to the SSSI boundary appears to be mainly for commercial and marketing reasons and has little regard for the nature reserve. They should be lower and further back.
• Due to the huge increase in occupancy of the estate there will be many more people visiting the lake and therefore greatly increasing the disturbance. The planned occupancy level greatly exceeds the level proposed for the site by the GLA.
• The provision of car parking, schools and health centres appears inadequate for the level of occupancy. This will put great strain on local infrastructure, facilities and roads.
• The two reservoirs have an important secondary function as a flood buffer. The huge increase in the local built footprint and areas covered by concrete will have an adverse effect on the carrying capacity in times of heavy rain. Flood events seem to be on the increase at the site from my own observations over a period of 30 years.
• The SSSI boundary with York Park has long been a dumping ground for domestic appliances and waste. The huge increase in occupancy will clearly make this much worse.

Summary

This development will have a major and detrimental impact on both the Reservoir Nature Reserve and the local community. It is inevitable that the SSSI will be adversely affected.  The planned occupancy level needs to be greatly reduced to a level more appropriate to the area and the setting. The tower blocks should be reduced in height and placed back from the margins of the reservoir. The part of the development already completed shows the overbearing and inappropriate nature of the building design next to one of London’s most important sites for recreation and natural history. 

The local council, the owners (of the reservoir) and the developers have a legal duty under existing wildlife legislation to conserve and improve the SSSI. As the proposals stand it is impossible for them to achieve this aim and we can only expect deterioration in the standard of the SSSI.

 

Pitched battle for unique Watford allotments

Farm Terrace allotments in the summer

 In a battle that foreshadows many likely to take place in the future, allotment holders in  Watford are battling to save their allotment site. Earlier this month Lib Dems approved plans to build 600 houses on the site but the allotees have vowed to fight on.

The Farm Terrace allotments are close to the town centre and provide a green oasis and because of their unique terraced structure can be seen by the public.

The campaign has been supported by local Labour councillors and a petition launched on 38 Degrees: LINK

Campaign Website

The case for refusing to make 'impossible choices' in Brent budget

This is the speech I made at this evening's Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt and Deputy, Ruth Moher, attended but were asked only one question. Muhammed Butt confirmed that carers working for the private companies provided adult social care for Brent would not necessarily get the London Living Wage. All other questions on the Budget were addressed to Mick Bowden, Deputy Director of Finance.

I paraphrased towards the end of my speech when my 5  minutes deputation time began to run out.

I start with the assumption that none of the present administration stood for election in order to make cuts that would be to the detriment of the quality of life and the life chances of Brent residents.

I also accept that the Coalition Government’s increasingly discredited approach to austerity is the motor for local authority cuts. I would further argue that this is an ideological attack on local government and local democracy which leaves councils with the job of local implementation of the Coalition agenda.

Under Ann John’s leadership it seemed that the Council was seeing itself in the role of ‘managing’ these cuts with the argument that they could do this without harming services. After the leadership change there has been a slight change of emphasis but there appears to be a contradiction in the stance of Muhammed Butt, the new leader.

In his Priorities statement for the Full Council, Cllr Butt says:

The first priority must remain protecting the integrity of the Budget and making savings.

 But in his blog, he likens the Council’s task to the ‘impossible decisions’ that would have to be made in cutting a third from a household budget.

Again in his press release on the Early Intervention Grant Cllr Butt said that he is dedicated to making sure that no child in the Borough is left behind at a time when' impossible choices' have to be made due to the highly punitive cuts imposed on local authorities by the Coalition.

The issue is clear: maintaining the integrity of the budget and making cuts will mean making ‘impossible choices’ that will inevitably, whatever the council does in mitigation, damage the most vulnerable.

Of course Council officers will stress the legal requirements during the budget process but councillors are not just ‘managers’, they are also politicans and need to adopt a political response both to protect local government as a democratioc entity and to protect local people.

I have likened their position to that of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who, despite having his limbs cut off one by one and left (‘Tis but a scratch’ ‘Your arm’s off’ ) as just a bloodied torso, remains defiant and totally unware of the impossibility of his plight. The cruel twist is that the Coalition gives the Council the job of cutting off its own limbs!

The question for this year’s budget making is should the Labour Council continue to make ‘impossible choices’ and continue to cut off its own limbs.

My answer to that quuestion is ‘No’. Doing the ‘impossible’ is also doing the morally unjustifiable.

The impossible is compounded by the constant moving of goalposts by the Coalition, the Council Tax Benefit changes which will not only put more families into poverty and increase the number of defaults, the increased temporary housing costs caused by homelesslessness after the Housing Benefit cap, increased costs for Adult Social care, the permitted (but not encouraged)  increase in Council Tax without a local referendum now established at 2% (3.5% envisaged in forward planning) and anyway such an increase would again hit the poorest in the borough. Only yesterday I heard that in one month 63 children, affected by the housing benefit cap, have moved from a local primary school.

To truly represent local people the Council needs to devise a ‘needs budget’ which reflects the true cost of services that the people of Brent need to maintain their quality of life, consult on this in imaginative ways including going to the community in schools, community centres, places of worship and publicise it, and make sure that people understand who is responsible for the cuts being imposed and the implications of more cuts. Gathering mass support in this way through local action, and working with other councils, especially London ones, for a common approach, could begin a concerted campaign against Coalition policies.

Ken Livingstone, back in the days of the GLC, mounted a fierce challenge against Margaret Thatcher from his County Hal base.  Yes, it didn’t succeed in its immediate aims but did help undermine her in the long-term with an alternative popular agenda.  Brent Council could be in the forefront of such a campaign.

Flaming Hell! We don't want this up our Junction!

Photo: Ealing Times

Residents from Harlesden in Brent and Park Royal in Ealing converged on Willesden Junction station on Saturday to protest against plans to build an incinerator/anaerobic digester at the Willesden Junction Freightliner Depot.

The Ealing Times LINK reported that residents were opposed to Clean Power's plans, especially as they have already been fighting for clear air since the nearby Power Day Recycling Waste plant opened.

The Ealing Times reports:

Mark Walker, 48 of Stoke Place Road, said: “It’s only over the last couple of years, with the Environment Agency working with Powerday’s management and local residents, reporting smells and incidents, that we’ve got anything like acceptable levels of odour. People aren’t happy about it.”

He is concerned the area will face a further problem of unwanted smells from Clean Power’s development, on the opposite side of Old Oak Lane to the recycling plant.

“People feel like they are hemmed in, like we’re almost a dumping ground for these big factories,” he said.

Despite the short period before the plans go to Ealing Planning Committee in November, Brent Council has said that it will review the environmental impact of the proposed plant on Brent residents; its impact on road conditions particularly in and around Harlesden town centre, and its strategic impact on the regeneration of the wider Park Royal/Old Oak Area in relation to the possible HS2 link station. Following the review they will send a response to Ealing Council.


.

Visit new Barham pop up library today and donate books etc

A message from Friends of Barham Library

After another busy week of repairs and decorating we are slowly getting our new premises at 428 High Road Wembley (near Argos) ready.

We opened last Saturday and were please to see many of our regulars and some new faces. Without realising it we kept going until almost 6pm..

We have decided to extend our opening hours on Saturdays to between 11am. to 4pm. and see how we get on. We are also planning extra openings during the week and preparing a Volunteer Rota. If you are willing to help by spending a few hours as a Volunteer please reply to this email stating the days of week and times that can help on a regular basis.

If you have not yet been please come an visit us this coming Saturday. Our Volunteer Library is a few doors down from Argos and plenty of buses stop outside. Parking is very limited as it is all allocated to the shops and flats above.

Now that the inside of the Library is being organised we are once again able to accept donations of books, CDs, DVDs, Computer Games in reasonable condition. Either bring them along or email us to arrange a collection. Just give us your name, address, phone number and best time for a pick up.

As always please pass the word and encourage others to visit and join us.

Save Hopscotch Nursery - sign this petition

The Hopscotch Nursery Campaign are asking Brent residents and people who work in Brent to sign their e-petition, lodged with Brent Council.  The petition is self-explanatory and signing is easy. Follow this LINK

The petition:

We the undersigned petition the council to allow Hopscotch Nursery to continue providing its much needed nursery and drop-in services. We demand that Brent council gives Hopscotch a secure future in Winkworth Hall or helps to locate alternative premises in same vicinity and undertakes not to evict Hopscotch until such premises are found.

Hopscotch is a much loved nursery that has been serving the local community for nearly 30 years, providing nursery education for the under 5’s, and a low cost drop-in for carers and children. Hopscotch was rated ‘outstanding’ in its last two Ofsted reports and is the only outstanding full time nursery in NW6.

Brent Council, which owns Winkworth Hall in which Hopscotch is based, has said that the building is “surplus to requirements” and expressed the intention to evict Hopscotch in 2013 in order to sell off the site.
This is despite its statutory duty, under the 2006 Children’s Act, to ensure sufficient childcare for working parents. The area that Hopscotch serves (Kilburn, Brondesbury Park, Mapesbury, Queen’s Park) is the least well provided for in the whole borough. The council’s recent assessment of childcare provision (February 2011) stated that:

“The availability of childcare may be more of an acute problem faced by families in Kilburn than it is for families in the rest of Brent.”

Hopscotch, which is run by a charity for the benefit of the community, addresses these needs. Its nursery and drop-in serve have served 100s of families in the local area. Without it these families simply have no childcare provision available. At a time of cuts a charity like Hopscotch is all the more precious; providing a valuable local service available to all parents without council funding.

 The campaign has a blog HERE. At the time of writing the petition has 355 signatures. It closes on August 1st.