Brent Council open consultation on new Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) 24/7/365 on its Council Estates - £50 annual fee per permit

 There was an attempt by Brent Council a few years ago to introduce Traffic Management measures that were not popular. Another consultation has been launched. Parking permits will be £50 per year and in the first instance limited to residents. There will be a review regarding visitor permits once the scheme is operation. This was a particular concern for some residents who have a cultural tradition of visiting relatives as an extended family.

The Council warns that parking on estates will have to be suspended for a maximum of two days (weather permitting) while signs and new road markings are installed.

From the consultation website LINK:

We are consulting on estates across Brent regarding the introduction of Traffic Management measures. This will mean that the council can control parking on the estates in the same way that it does on public roads and will make parking safer, fairer and easier.

As a part of this consultation, we will be running a series of workshops where discussions will take place on each of these estates. The estates and the corresponding workshop details can be found below.

To sign up to one of the workshops, please click on each of the workshops (1-5) which will redirect you to an Eventbrite page. Booking through the links below guarantees your entry, however if you are unable to book through these pages, there will availability on the day at the venue if you wish to attend.

For more information on what is being proposed at each state, please click on the name of the estate which will open a plan of the proposals.

(Note the workshop for Summers Close and Saltcroft Close is given as two different vekues on the website and the printed brochure. There may be other mistakes - I have not checked them all.)

Workshop 1 - The Church of the Ascension, The Avenue, Wembley HA9 9QL Time: 7 - 9pm on 21st November 2023

• Newland Court
• John Perrin Place
• Mason Court
• Eskadale and Loweswater

Workshop 2 - Brent River College, 364b Stag Lane, Kingsbury NW9 9AE Time: 7 - 9pm on 21st November 2023

• Sutherland Court
• Essoldo Way
• Westcroft Court
• Summers Close and Saltcroft Close

Workshop 3 - Maharastra Mandal London, 306 Dollis Hill Ln, London NW2 6HH Time: 7 - 9pm on 23rd November 2023

• Lecky House
• Gladstone Park, Mascotts Close, Sandcroft Close and Oxley’s Road

Workshop 4 - Christ Church Brondesbury, Brondesbury NW6 7BJ Time: 7 - 9pm on 28th November 2023

• Rosedene
• Frontenac House
• Cavendish Close
• John Barker Court

Workshop 5 - Brent Indian Association, 116 Ealing Rd, Wembley HA0 4TH Time: 7 - 9pm on 29th November 2023

• Gloucester Close
• Lodge Court and Manor Court
• 255-261 East Lane
• Rokesby Place
• Stanley Avenue and Lightley Close

If you would like to have your say on our proposals, please follow a link to our survey here (https://bit.ly/BHECS), or click on the 'Have your say' button on the top of the page. Survey closes at 23:59 on 13 December 2023.

Why do we need to make these changes?

Vehicles parking in an unsafe and inconsiderate way blocks roads and pavements, and are making it difficult and unsafe for residents to move around their estates, as well as hindering access for the Council’s refuse collection vehicles. Residents on the estates are also finding it more and more difficult to find a space to park their car. More seriously, unsafe parking can prevent fire engines and ambulances from getting to the estates for emergencies.

How do the new controls work differently to the current ones?

Under the current system, Wing Parking (enforcement agents) are not legally allowed to access DVLA information, meaning they can only ever enforce against estates residents, not those parking there without permission. The new system will make it easier for the Council to enforce against vehicles parked poorly or inconsiderately which cause problems in the estates. These stricter controls have been proven to deter nuisance estate parking when used by other London authorities.

What are the benefits of these changes?

• Residents should find it easier to access a suitable parking space.
• There should be less disruption to emergency service vehicles, allowing them to respond more rapidly to issues on the estates.
• Unauthorised vehicles will be deterred from entering the estates and parking in resident bays, which will increase parking availability for estate residents.
• Unobstructed footways will improve parking accessibility and safety for pedestrians, the mobility impaired and pedestrians with pushchairs.
• There should be an improvement in access for Council services, including a reduction in missed waste collections.

Brent Council's answers to protests over proposed council estate Traffic Management Orders

 Residents of Summers Close and Saltcroft Close in Wembley received an additional consultation letter this week, following the earlier consultation on Traffic Management Orders sent to council estates throughout the borough.

The second consultation is part of a statutory process and refers to the introduction of double yellow lines following 'complaints about vehicles parked...that cause obstruction, access and visibility difficulties for vehicles intending to access/exit the location. This is a problem particularly for emergency services and collection services. It also affects the motorist's sight lines and therefore pedestrian safety.' 

This is possibly a fall-back position in case the TMO proposal is rejected.

 

Parking on the South Kilburn Estate

 In a sign that councillors' mail boxes have been running red hot with resident opposition, members of the council have been provided with a crib sheet (below) on how to answer residents' representations.  It is clear that to be really effective the number of responses, whether for or against proposals, needs to be maximised.

Cost of permits

Cabinet approved a £50 charge, as this was the lowest the charge could be set for the service to be cost neutral. These proposals are designed to ensure that parking is prioritised for residents of the estate at the cost of less than a pound a week. This initiative has not been developed with a view to make a profit but to cover the cost of enforcement on estates. Whilst residents currently pay £10, Wing Parking have made their position clear that they would need to increase their prices to continue the current arrangement, which has limited effectiveness due to legislative changes. 

 

What percentage of residents will have to vote for the consultation to be valid?

There is no specific percentage for the consultation to be valid but a 20% response rate is viewed as the norm. As we did with the pilot, if estates have a very low turnout, we will repeat the consultation with increased door knocking. 

 

What will happen if there is a low turnout but a clear majority?

We will review each the results of each estate on an individual basis, and if they have a very low turnout, we will repeat the consultation with increased door knocking. If there is a low turnout, but a clear majority and support from other consultees, e.g. emergency services, then we will proceed with implementation. 

 

What happens if residents on an estate say no to the proposal?

The current arrangement with Wing Parking is no longer operable and if residents vote against the proposals, it will not continue. Introducing a traffic management order is the only viable way to maintain enforcement on Brent Housing estates. It is important that we are honest with residents on this position, as it would be unfair if we did not make this point clear as part of the consultation. If the outcome for an estate is not to go ahead, and there are no significant risks to emergency services or recycling and refuse, this will be honoured. 

 

Should we have waited for the pilot sites to be fully implemented before consulting with the wider estates?

We know from other local authorities the effectiveness of traffic management orders and introducing off street controlled parking on council estates. Wing Parking have made it clear the current arrangement is no longer operable and they are taking action to end their existing contract with other Local Authorities. It is essential we consult with residents now to ensure they have a choice mitigating the risk of Wing Parking withdrawing the service and no available alternative. 

 

Visitor Parking

We will be offering visitor permits, but as part of the implementation, we must ensure permits firstly go to those residents living on the estate. Please note this will not affect any professional services required, such as carers or health visitors. Under the new proposal, we will be replicating the current highways offer. Information on what is available for older and disabled people is available on the Councils website  LINK 

 

Parking for Council Contractors

The arrangement that we have with trades’ people will continue and council contractors will be provided with permits to ensure they can continue carrying out repairs. Like with our current arrangement, no one is guaranteed a space. 

 

Will motorbikes need a permit?

All vehicles will require a permit to park on the estate where they are using a bay. As part of the consultation, if there are a number of motorbike users on the estate, the provision for dedicated motorbike parking can be requested by residents. 

 

Blue Badges

Where there are disabled bays already marked, they will be replaced like-for-like. If, however, there are residents, with a blue badge and no marked bays, they can apply for a bay to be converted and this can be delivered during implementation. Residents with a Blue Badge living on the estate will still be required to purchase a parking permit. 

 

Not enough parking on the estate

On the reduction of parking, unfortunately, residents will feel disgruntled and frustrated about parking becoming more pressured. This is an issue experienced nationally, but is magnified in London because of the limited space. 

 

Residents have raised concerns that building on garage sites has affected parking availability further. As a borough, there are hard decisions, which need to be made on how space is used, particularly as without new affordable homes in the borough Brent residents will not be able to stay in their community. We are incredibly proud of the New Council Homes programme and when there is a decision between providing new homes or retaining garage sites, providing new affordable homes is the priority. We have a waiting list where homeless families on average wait 16 years for a three bedroom home, and we know it is important to Brent residents that their family in the future have the choice to stay in Brent and live in affordable housing. 

 

Separately, Brent is a highly connected borough and as a Council, our members have declared a climate emergency. One of the key themes being discussed at COP26 is changing behaviours and how people move around in their communities. With more people than ever working from home, the RAC Foundation published that cars spend on average 23 hours of each day parked. We must continue to provide strong leadership on this and push people to think about how space can be used more effectively, whether this be for homes, play, exercise or the community rather than continuing a reliance on cars and car parks. This is further supported by the ULEZ charge to discourage high polluting vehicles being driven in London. 

 

For some residents, driving is the only option, which is why we do want to protect the parking that is available for those who actually live on the estates. For this to be successful, we do need residents who are able to, to think differently about how they move about. 

 

Women’s safety

The safety of women is a top priority, and we take our responsibility with the utmost seriousness. We continue to work with all partners to make the borough a safer place for everyone. 

 

We as a Landlord participate proactively in the Brent Safer Partnership and Violence against Women and Girls steering group to ensure we can do as much as possible. There is no existing evidence that these proposed changes will increase risk to women living on Brent Council Estates. We understand how recent tragedies have left residents, particularly women feeling vulnerable and angry. We strongly believe that our focus needs to be on taking action to ensure women can walk anywhere in the borough and feel safe to do so.

 

Call for council estate parking 'consultation' to be withdrawn

 

Parking on Saltcroft Close, Wembley

Paul Lorber, of Brent Liberal Democrats, has written to Brent Council calling for the current consultation on council estate parking to be withdrawn. Wembley Matters is aware of discontent at various estates across the borough which often centre on out of date information contained in the consultation, inaccurate maps, and as Lorber says an apparent threat that if residents do not agree with the proposal no alternative arrangements will be considered. This is compounded by the fact that some residents who have attempted to respond on-line find that their area, such as Saltcroft Close (above), is not listed on the consultation website.

 

Once again a ham-fisted approach undermines finding a solution to what is for some a very real problem.

 

Paul Lorber’s letter to Brent Council.

 

 I have been contacted by residents from Gauntlett Court, Barham Court and Elms Gardens and have seen the consultation document sent to Gauntlett Court.

You will be aware that the Council proposal have not been well received. 

Residents of Gauntlett Court agreed to the Wing service some years ago with a permit charge of £10 per car. They were also entitled to a visitor permit.

The inclusion of the sentence “Please note that should residents not support the proposal to introduce a TMO an alternative service will not be available on the estate” was a mistake by the Council. To make this statement or even to take this position makes it look as if the residents views do not count and the so called consultation is not sincere and therefore pointless.

I think, that in view of the above, the current consultation should be withdrawn and a new consultation letter sent out making it clear that local residents views do matter and that any parking scheme is intended to provide a better parking scheme for residents and not simply make money for the Council.

The following specific points apply to all 3 Estates:

1. The residents find the £50 charge excessive compared to the £10 before. They also do not trust the present Council about future rises as they are aware that CPZ charges have been raised astronomically since those schemes were introduced.

2. All the estates contain elderly residents many of whom need care and therefor visitors (either family members or agency carers). Without visitor permits those visits will be difficult as nearby parking outside the Estates is limited or covered by other CPZs.

3. Visitor Permits are also needed for trades people - plumbers, electricians etc - who also need to bring their tools and materials and need visitor permits. If visitor permits are not available - or arrangements not possible for pre registered number plates - the repair people will avoid the Estates.

4. Spaces (despite what is said about double yellow lines) need also to be highlighted for delivery vehicles (of which there are many more since the start of the pandemic).

5. There is concern about loss of parking spaces - as none of the 3 Estates suffer from pavement parking or major obstruction.

6. There is no information at all about the expected number of enforcement visits in a typical day or if special visits can be arrangements when parking from outsiders is anticipated.

7. There is also no information about exceptional arrangements for parking during funerals, weddings etc

Without concessions in all these areas I expect the Council proposals to be overwhelmingly rejected at the statutory consultation stage.

I also make the following general points:

1. The Elms Gardens block of 16 flats is exclusively for elderly or disabled residents. Many need visitors and therefore visitor permits are essential. 

2. Gauntlett Court has currently around 65 parking spaces for the 100 flats which seems sufficient for the Estate even with visitor permits. The Estate road is wide enough. There does not seem a need for extending existing double yellow lines in a way that would take away any parking.

3. Barham Court seems to get some commercial vehicle parking but otherwise there seem to be sufficient number of spaces.

Conclusion:

1. The proposed £50 permit charge needs to be substantially reduced.
2. Visitor permits must be offered - or an affordable system to order (similar to the Ringo system) made available for family, carers or trade visitors.
3. Loss of parking spaces needs to be avoided.
4. There has to be flexibility and circumstances of each estate and nature of residents considered.
5. Likely frequency of Enforcement visits needs to be confirmed or whether Camera type control systems may be introduced explained. (If people become aware that no visits take place after 6pm the reference to 24hour controls will be fairly pointless).

I trust that my comments will be considered seriously and hopefully acted upon.

 

Controversy over Brent Council's proposal for Traffic Management Orders on its council estates - £50 annually per permit and no visitor parking at first

 

Brent Council is currently undertaking a major consultation exercise across its council estates on parking enforcement LINK. They wish to introduce a Traffic Management Order (TMO) on the estates and note 'should residents not support the proposals...an alternative enforcement service will not be available on the estate.'  In other words, according to some residents if you do not support this proposal current difficulties will continue and we will abandon you to your fate.

The parking restrictions will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and will require residents to purchase parking permits at £50 per permit per year. Given the number of people living on all the above estates that amounts to a considerable sum, leading some people to suggest this is just a money raising venture.

A further criticism has been that this is a 'one size fits all' approach ignoring differences between estates and their proximity to Wembley Stadium, underground stations, major shopping centres etc which lead to outsiders parking on some estates but not on others.

A particular issue that has been drawn to my attention is that the consultation states that 'due to the restricted amount of parking space available on the estate and the need to provide the maximum amount of parking for residents, visitors will initially be unable to park within the estate' - this would be reviewed once the scheme is operational and the number of free spaces determined.  Given that family visiting at weekends and particularly for festivals is an important cultural tradition for many of Brent's communities this is seen  as posing a challenge for any equalities impact assessment.

Since publication of this article the Kilburn Times has published an article where women on the Kings Drive Estate have raised the issue of women's safety if they have to park a distance from their homes. See  LINK

Visitors parking on the estate would risk a Fixed Penalty Notice which at present is £130.

On my estate the removal of garages and a car park for 'in-fill' housing has reduced the number of parking spaces available but will also increase the population. While wanting people to rely less on cars and use public transport instead I cannot deny the impact this has had  and will also affect other estates ear-marked for in-fill developments.

There are undoubtedly parking problems and this has meant many missed waste collections when the huge  Veolia vehicles cannot get access. There are outsiders who park cars and vans on the estate overnight with the occasional overnighter sleeping in their vehicles on the access road. 

 The maps produced for the consultation appear to indicate fewer parking bays than are currently available. On this plan for Kings Drive, Wembley, you can see that there are 17 blocks each with 10 households. The number of parking bays is indicated in green.

A key question, given previous problems with enforcement by Brent Council, is will this mean anything if enforcement is not effective? Look again at all the estates affected and the ground that has to be covered.

Engagement sessions have been organised as part of the consultation, many of which have already taken place DETAILS

 The consultation closes on November 4th at 23.59

BRENT COUNCIL'S REASONS FOR THE CHANGE

 

Why do we need to make these changes?

 

Vehicles parking in an unsafe and inconsiderate way blocks roads and pavements, and are making it difficult and unsafe for residents to move around their estates, as well as hindering access for the Council’s refuse collection vehicles. Residents on the estates are also finding it more and more difficult to find a space to park their car. More seriously, unsafe parking can prevent fire engines and ambulances from getting to the estates for emergencies.

 

How do the new controls work differently to the current ones?

Under the current system, Wing Parking (enforcement agents) are not legally allowed to access DVLA information, meaning they can only ever enforce against estates residents, not those parking there without permission. The new system will make it easier for the Council to enforce against vehicles parked poorly or inconsiderately which cause problems in the estates. These stricter controls have been proven to deter nuisance estate parking when used by other London authorities.

 

What are the benefits of these changes?

• Residents should find it easier to access a suitable parking space.
• There should be less disruption to emergency service vehicles, allowing them to respond more rapidly to issues on the estates.
• Unauthorised vehicles will be deterred from entering the estates and parking in resident bays, which will increase parking availability for estate residents.
• Unobstructed footways will improve parking accessibility and safety for pedestrians, the mobility impaired and pedestrians with pushchairs.
• There should be an improvement in access for Council services, including a reduction in missed waste collections.

 

Stronger commitment to tree replacement needed in Brent's tree policy

Far sighted planners ensured that many of Brent's Council council housing estates retained mature trees or had new trees planted but under BHP's management trees were felled and not replaced leaving stumps as shown in the video above.

Brent Council has now taken back control of the estates so I was disappointed to see that in the proposed Tree Management Policy, although there is a promise to consult tenants and lease holders and to publish the arbiculture programme on the council website, there is no clear commitment to replacing felled trees or even removing the stumps. Limited budgets are behind this of course but lack of replacement contradicts the arguments in the Policy about the importance of trees in terms of clean air and improving the environment.

The proposed Policy will be discussed at the Public Realm and Resources Committee tonight LINK before going to Cabinet and I hope members will suggest that the Council have a clear costed action plan on tree replanting on its estates as well in parks and on Brent streets.

The Policy states that the Council would: 

Maintain the managed tree stock on the public highway, housing estates, parks, cemeteries and allotments; on a proactive cyclical maintenance regime to ensure that trees are in a safe and healthy condition, and minimising the risk they may pose to property, residents or the public highway. 


Limit the felling of trees to those circumstances where it is essential or clearly advisable.

Undertake pruning works following best arboriculture practice, and where possible for this to be undertaken on a scheduled basis. In addition, the council will also carry out reactive and emergency inspections as and when they are deemed necessary. 


Manage residents’ expectations by listing circumstances in which the Council will not intervene, to provide clarity on an impartial basis to all residents. 

Enhance the role of street trees in mitigating and adapting to climate change by maintaining and, where possible, increasing tree cover across the Borough. 


Encourage tree adoption and sponsorship to support planting schemes on council land. 
 

Consider replacement, where appropriate, of specific mature lime trees to mitigate against the concerns they may pose. 


  

Provide public information in advance of planned tree works, including new planting or removal schemes. 


Work closely with services to identify areas to plant new trees, in particular during regeneration and major resurfacing works. 


Use current planning legislation to protect threatened trees, and those of particular value such as those in conservation areas or protected by Tree Preservation Orders

There is much more detail in the Policy itself which I publish below