FULL REPORT: Planning Committee votes to demolish 'beautiful' Altamira (1 Morland Gardens) - Chair votes Against

1 Morland Gardens

The approved redevelopment

Brent Planning Committee tonight approved the Council's own development plans for 1 Morland Gardens despite pleas to respect it as one of only two heritage buildings in the area.  The Italianate Villa will be demolished and replaced by the building above.

There had been 48 initial objections to the plans with a further 15 when plans review, a 330-signature e-petition against and a 36-person written petition from Willesden Local History Society.

There were just 3 comments on the Planning Portal in support.

Chair of Brent Planning Committee Cllr James Denselow voted against mainly on grounds of confusion over the DMP7 policy on heritage and view shared by Cllr Maurice who also voted against and felt additionally that the Council as applicant could have done more work on the proposal.

 In his presentation to the Committee Roger Macklen said:

I have lived in Stonebridge since 1947, and as well as being a local resident, I’m a member of Willesden Local History Society.

Stonebridge has changed during my lifetime, much of it not for the better. Many of the newer buildings are tasteless and have nothing to please the eye.

1 Morland Gardens, or Altamira as I know it, is a beautiful landmark building that has been around since 1876.

It was part of the original Stonebridge Park, that gave its name to the area.

Please see the two photos we sent you - Altamira and its neighbour have been an impressive part of the scene by the main junction for more than a century.

They are the only buildings with this belvedere tower design left in Brent, and together they add so much to Stonebridge’s townscape.

Brent’s Heritage Officer said in April that Altamira: ‘should be considered an important local heritage asset of high significance.’ He was right.

Brent’s planning guidance says: ‘Brent’s heritage assets make a substantial contribution to the borough’s local character and distinctiveness. They are a unique and irreplaceable resource which justifies protection, conservation and enhancement.’

Brent’s new Historic Environment Strategy says: ‘Once a heritage asset is demolished it cannot be replaced. Its historic value is lost forever to the community and future generations and it cannot be used for regeneration and place-making purposes.’

This application wants to demolish Altamira, an irreplaceable building that’s part of Stonebridge’s character, and should be kept, for the long-term benefit of the community.
366 local residents have signed a petition asking the Council not to demolish it.

The applicants claim that 1 Morland Gardens is of ‘low significance ... and of local interest only.’ That’s wrong - and there’s plenty of evidence to prove it.

It’s shown to be wrong by the Council’s own Local List score of 8 out of 12, which the Heritage Officer has confirmed, and by objections from nearly 50 people who understand the history of the area and the value of this building.

And it’s shown to be wrong by objections from The Victorian Society, and from a Professor of Architecture, and expert on H.E. Kendall, who wrote:


‘1 Morland Gardens is not just any nineteenth-century villa, but a characteristic work by an architect of genuine and lasting significance. Its destruction would be a terrible loss, not only to the local environment, but also to the architectural heritage of Victorian Britain.' 

I strongly urge you to reject this application.

In his submission, local historian Philip Grant who contributes regularly to Wembley Matters said:

Brent’s policy DMP7 says: ‘Proposals for...heritage assets should...retain buildings, ...where their loss would cause harm.’

These proposals went wrong over that policy from the start – they didn’t show: ‘an understanding of the architectural or historic significance’ of this heritage building ...
... and instead of considering what viable use could be made of it, they started with a “wish-list” that made it impossible to retain.

The applicants’ “headline” public benefits sound good – but their plans have major faults, including on air quality, and on accessibility, which the Supplementary Report side-steps – I’d welcome your questions on those.

They tried to justify demolition by saying the villa has “low significance”, a false assessment, by a firm who knew that “low” was the result their client needed to support its application.
The Heritage Impact Assessment didn’t use the criteria for locally listed buildings approved by this Committee in July 2015 – please see the copy at page 4.

On your criteria, I believe this building scores 2 for authenticity, 3 for architecture, at least 2 for historic, and 3 for townscape – a total of 10 out of 12 - a “high significance”.

I’d be happy to justify those scores in answer to questions – please ask Brent’s Heritage Officer for his views as well.

Please look at page 3. The para. 4.29 guidance on policy DMP7 says: ‘The Council will resist significant harm to or loss of heritage assets.’

It also states that ‘a balanced judgement’ is required: ‘where the harm would be less than substantial’.

Brent’s Heritage Officer has said: ‘The demolition of the building, by its very nature, must be seen as substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset.’

The DMP7 guidance gives a strong presumption that the substantial harm to this heritage asset over-rides any public benefits.

Even with a “balanced judgement”, those claimed benefits, with their unresolved flaws, do not outweigh the harm. This application should be rejected.

If you approve this application, contrary to Brent’s planning policies, you’ll not only condemn this valuable building, but set a precedent that undermines Brent’s entire historic environment strategy and puts every heritage asset in the borough “at risk”.

Questioned by councillors Philip Grant said that in 1994-95 Brent Council made alterations and extensions to the building in line with heritage policy. Design of them was subordinated to the main building and the view from Hillside preserved.  He said he was not opposed to change or alterations, not to housing and the college, if such changes were also subordinate to what should be a protected building.

He continued, 'That's not what they're planning to do - they want to knock it down.'

Stella Rodriguez came next, she introduced herself as a foreigner ('you can tell by my accent'), who had recently settled in the area and could not understand why anyone would want to demolish such a beautiful building.

Errol Donald then spoke in favour of the development, a charity worker in Harlesden for the last 3 years and with family still in the area, he said that the development was essential to reinvigorate the area.  He did not mention the Bridge Park controversy by name but talked about the local and national political context. He said the scheme was not a direct response to that context but did contribute. It would provide real hope and training (in the form of the new college building) for a resilient community that deserved a chance to have the same chance to grow and thrive as other areas in Brent.

He said that working with young people informed his views - history and heritage are ongoing and cannot be seen in isolation.  He'd had conversation about architecture but it was their personal history that was important to people.

Ala Uddin from the College quoted Malcolm X's views on the importance of education. He said the current building was dysfunctional and that the new building would provide fantastic learning spaces with high tech facilities. It would be an aspirational a building that would provide high quality education and motivation to learn.  Cllr Denselow asked if the college could do outstanding work in a dysfunctional building despite the problems. Uddin said ye, but it would be even better in a new building.

Answering a further question, he said that 92% of their students came from Brent with the majority from Harlesden, Stonebridge and Willesden Green.

There was a revealing exchange with Brent Council's agent and architect when Cllr Robert Johnson asked if they had looked at keeping the Altimira building.  The architect said they had looked at numerous reasons why a new building would be better.  The college spaces would be 50% bigger with demolition and 30% bigger if it was retained. A new building would not be constrained by the site's hilltop position Its quality would be greater if they did not have to work around constraints of keeping the building. Retention would reduce the number of housing units from 65 to 27. He admitted that early options did not go through a thorough planning process but said a crowded site with housing would have over-shadowed the present building.

Cllr Abdi Aden, speaking on behalf of the three Stonebridge councillors took a neutral stance.  He welcomed aspects of the proposal: housing, replacement building for the college, workplaces bur regretted the loss of the heritage building and said local people thought a 9-storey building on that site was out of character with the area and too high.  It had not been designated a site for high buildings. There were also concerns about traffic congestion and loss of light to neighbouring buildings.

Questioned by councillors, officers said that the proposal was not fully 'policy compliant' but this was not 'uncommon.' The loss of a heritage asset was important but officers did feel that there was a substantial public benefit - it was a 'tricky balancing act.'

Heritage Officer Mark Price said schemes were looked at on a case by case basis and asked by Cllr Johnson if the council were going against policy said 'a balanced judgement doesn’t go against our policy.  Officer David Glover said policy just mentions 'harm' and any loss of a building could be said to cause harm.  For the loss of a non-designated heritage aspect policy just refers to balance.

Their own recommendation and those of third parties said that heritage had value, but there was disagreement about the extent of the value.  It had to be weighed on a case by case basis.  Referring to Philip Grant's closing point that the precedent set by approval tonight would mean that every heritage asset in the borough would be at risk, he said tonight's decision did not not do that as decisions were made on a case by case basis.

Asked by Cllr Denselow if the loss of one of only two heritage buildings in the area meant that this constituted more than 'significant harm' for this part of the borough, Mark Price replied that this was one of the factors.  Asked about Philip Grant's 8/11 rating Mark Price said it could have been -9 taking into account the architect responsible for the design of 1 Morland Place, Philip Grant had been right on that.

Denselow suggested that even if the score had been 12/12, they could still be facing an application to remove.  An officer said details had not been decided but given the Council's objectives it was likely that all of the housing units would be affordable.

David Glover confirmed that plans retaining the building had only been 'developed to a certain level' and had not been presented tonight.

Three of the five councillors who voted for development took no part in the proceedings except for the final vote. Councillors Butt, Chappell and Sangani raised not a single question or even a comment. Had they already made up their minds?

A Labour councillors, not on the committee, said after the decision, 'I am more ashamed than ever.'

The meeting has been archived. Watch on this link: https://brent.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/502597

St Raphael's Estate: a recent meeting and upcoming exhibition

I wrote recently about the competition between two groups to win the hearts and minds of people on the St Raphael's Estate where residents are faced with choosing between refurbishment and in-filling on the estate or complete demolition and rebuild financed by the development of private housing on the estate.

St Raphael's Estate Community organised a public meeting attend by more than 60 residents on February 25th which was attended by ASH (Architects for Social Housing) as well as by some leading members of St Raphael's Voice.  St Raphael's Voice claim on Twitter to be the represenative voice:

St Raphaels Voice - The Representative Residents/Tenants/Stakeholders Board for St Raphaels Estate are officially on Twitter - Please ignore all other fake accounts

Further details on the Brent Council website HERE 

St Raphael's Estate Community also on Twitter state:

Ordinary Peoples Rights THE RESIDENCE OF ST RAPHAELS WANT TO KEEP THEIR HOMES, NO TO REDEVELOPMENT/REGENERATION. YES TO REFURBISHMENT With Infills

 Their website is HERE

Inevitably I understand there was some disagreement between the two groups at the meeting.

ASH have published a full account of the meeting with slides from their presentation on their website HERE along with the two videos below. The first is the main presentation and the second an account by Pete Firmin on the experience of residents on the South Kilburn Estate of 15 years of redevelopment/regeneration with another 15 to go.

St Raphael's Voice are advertising two public exhibitions of design alternatives for the estate:

Today Brent Council issued this press release about the exhibition:

The St Raphael’s community will get their first glimpse of what their future estate could look like at two public exhibitions in early March.

The exhibitions, taking place on Saturday 7 March between 12-4pm at St Patrick’s Church, and Tuesday 10 March between 5-8pm at Henderson House, will be a chance for residents to have a first look at the initial designs for infill development and redevelopment – the two approaches being considered to improve St Raphael’s for existing residents while providing much needed new affordable housing.

Earlier this winter, residents attended 11 co-design workshops that saw them explore how each approach could best benefit the existing community. Karakusevic Carson Architects, who residents appointed as their chosen architect in July 2019, then used the community’s ideas to create the initial designs.

Councillor Eleanor Southwood, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, said: “For the last year we’ve been working closely with residents and community groups as they have created plans for how their estate could look and feel in the future. It’s vitally important that the community continues to lead the design process, so I encourage everyone living locally to tell us what they think and their preferred design option.”

Chair of the estate’s resident board St Raphael’s Voice, Asif Zamir, said: “The public exhibition is a significant milestone for all residents; I’m excited to see the community turn out and to have some thought provoking conversations on the possibilities, and their aspirations, for the future of our estate. We will continue to empower residents to lead the way forward together, so that we can get the best outcome for everyone whichever option is preferred.”

Following the exhibitions, the community’s preferred initial designs will be tested to ensure they meet planning guidelines and are affordable. Later this year eligible residents will choose their preferred vision for the future of St Raphael’s.

'Don't let the council kick us out!' St Raph's residents come out fighting, insisting they have the final say on the future of the estate

Will the green space become the preserve of private flats as it did in West Hendon?

 This is a report from one of those St Rapahel's residents attending Monday's meeting held independently to discuss Brent Council's proposals for the future of the estate:

There was a good turn out at both meetings held by St Rapahel’s Estate residents on Monday evening  about Brent Council’s proposals to either demolish and rebuild the estate, with some private housing, or refurbish it with some additional floors above the flats and some new housing.

At least 98% of the residents who turned up wanted to stay in their homes and  many signed the petition for refurbishment, the option that  allows them to do so.

Families and the elderly were asking, "What can we do?  What can we do to stop this? We answered. “We must  keep telling the council that they stated. 'You the residents have the final say.’”

Councillor Muhammed Butt was invited to the meetings and attended alongside a senior member of  PPCR Associates, Lorraine Ophelia. The Independent Advisor company  that had been chosen only reluctantly by resident.

Residents questioned  Cllr Butt about the proposals for the estate  but as usual they didn't get any straight forward answers.  He got very agitated and angry at times.

The majority of residents did not want to vote for any of the independent advisors put forward by the council and wanted more time to have the choice of finding their own. They were unhappy that they had not been involved in the procurement process and also wanted it rescheduled due to the small turn out at the Independent Advisor selection meeting.

This is an edited version of the speech given by resident John Wood at the meetings:

I want to thank you for coming along this evening. My Name is John Wood I am a council tenant and have lived happily with my wife and family on St Raphs estate for over 25 years. Along with other concerned residents and stakeholders we have funded and organised this meeting, as the council have ignored our requests to facilitate a meeting of the residents for the residents. We believe they are deliberately trying to prevent us from joining together to oppose their plans for St. Raphs. I know that you will all have your own views and preferences about what should happen, but I hope we are all united by the belief that nothing should happen without the consent and approval of the majority of those affected by those plans.

Can I ask a question if there were no plans for redevelopment or refurbishment how many of you like me would be happy to continue living on St. Raphs? Could I have a show of hands please?

So that would be the majority then...

As you will no doubt be aware the council have made a decision that they are going to build some new homes on the estate. They put forward 2 proposals.

.        1.)  That they build homes on the available land with the possibility of building more floors on top of some the existing flats. 


.        2.)  That they will demolish the whole estate and rebuild new homes. 


.         

They have said that ultimately it is us the residents who will get to choose which option they will go with. Brent are collecting our views in a very controversial way. No ballot of the residents, no open recorded meetings only closed and secretive drop in meetings at which we’re told not to record anything.

To date they have managed to hold a three public meetings, where there was absolute chaos. After that they held meetings, drop in sessions. We were told that we could not record these meetings and they insisted that we be split into small groups. people could ask questions of the councillors and the officials present with only that group hearing the replies. No record of what was asked or said.

Then there was the election of the Independent advisor. Sadly, only 2 of the original 5 bodies invited to tender made presentation. Reluctantly we voted and there was a clear winner. With a total of 47 votes how can this be right there are over 1100 homes being affected by these proposals.

The council promised that they would put the minutes of the evening onto the info page on the council website to date this has not happened.

Oh yeah, did you get the newsletter issue 2? What a crock, page 2 “you said, we did”.... We wanted clear accessible information. “We are regularly updating the web page.”  January was the most recent update. You said you wanted us to address your concerns publicly and in writing. No one has had the decency to reply to my expressed concerns perhaps they missed me out as they were so busy replying to all of yours.

The drop in sessions were no more than talking shops no one I have spoken to has a clear understanding or was less in the dark than myself, about what is happening. Indeed, confusion reigned it appeared that some had been told one thing and others another. So understanding of what, when, why and how was as clear as mud. At first I thought this was just poor organisation on the part of the council, but have since realised it was the intention of the council not to allow the people to organise, record and reflect on the issues. Keep them in the dark and feed them Sh... crap.

I have lobbied the Council and the leader of the Council, Cllr. Muhammed Butt and requested that they provide a meeting room and facilitate a meeting at the children’s centre on the estate, for the residents so that we may discuss in open forum and debate the issues so that we may be able to compose questions and raise our concerns and take this back to the council for answers. To date the only person who has had the courtesy to reply on the 7^th March, was Cllr Ezeajughi. Who in his reply said;

“Regarding your request for a meeting at the children’s centre, do discuss that with the officers when they contact you. (No one has ever contacted me.) however you may recall that we had the residents meeting there on 16^th December and realised that the venue was not suitable (not large enough) to contain people.”

No alternative being made available, we contacted Father Patrick who kindly agreed to allow us to use the church hall for the purpose of this evening I would like to heartedly thank him for agreeing to allow us to meet here.

Brent have now entered the next phase of the managed consultation process where the independent advisor will liaise with the residents in order that they can understand the will of the residents i.e. do they want option 1 or option 2.

It’s my belief that this again it will not be given over to open debate or any form of ballot. No it will be done as a conversation. Would you like to see more cleaner environment? Would you like to have better facilities? Would you like a more secure environment? And so it will go. Then the independent advisor will report back to Brent. Amazingly they will report a massive majority in favour of improvement we will all be in agreement, after all which of us wouldn’t like to see all the proposed improvements we been waiting years just to minor improvement.

The only problem with all of this is that the best way to accommodate the expressed wishes of us all to see improvement, will of course be to kick us all out of our homes and demolish the estate so that they can have a private developer come in, use the prime river frontage overlooking the park to develop new million pound apartments for private owners and then build some high density boxes in the sky to decamp people like me, the social tenants into.

I urge you to resist allowing Brent to kick us out and use our homes to pay for the new estate. We must unite and speak as one if we are to overcome Brent’s dastardly plan.

I acknowledge that some, may be even the majority, will disagree with my preference to remain in my home. As is your right. For those of you with concerns I urge you to join in asking Brent and the independent advisor to ballot us. This will prove the will of the people and we can move on with whichever is the majority view.

However, I would urge you to look closely at the proposal if you are an owner, freeholder or leaseholder if you decide to accept the council’s offer and sell, will you be advantaged or disadvantaged?  Not only will you have to find a new home but you will have to move all of your possessions, pay stamp duty on your new home, as well as say good bye to all your friends and neighbours on St Raphs. How exasperating and upsetting would it be? When you could just say no to redevelopment and stay in your home.

Some leaseholders have expressed to me that they are concerned that if Refurbishment occurs and the council build new dwellings above their homes, then the council will hit them with the cost of these works. I say to those of you with such fears they can only do this if you stand alone, but if we stand together, we can stop them. If the council want to develop new homes, then the council should fully fund those new homes indeed compensate those affected and inconvenienced by these works after all it is the council / landlord who will profit from the rental income. Not you! so why should you be made to pay!

Some tenants who are living in overcrowded conditions have expressed they want redevelopment as the council have said that when they are rehoused they will be given suitable accommodation. I say if that is the case why have they simply not offered this now! Answer they don’t have anywhere, so I urge you to see past their misinformation. If St. Raphs is redeveloped we will all be moved out to temporary accommodation, don’t worry it will only be for a little while whilst we rebuild (up to five years) Then you can come back to lovely new accommodation suitable for your needs. Brent are of course hoping that some of the more elderly people will have passed on and that some of the younger ones will have reached 18 so no longer need to be housed by the council, but don’t worry they can go and rent one of those new overpriced flats they are  building by the stadium.  There are thousands of them.

Sadiq Khan the London Mayor has said redevelopment or refurbishment must be done in consultation and agreement of the residents. So if we can show that there is a majority in favour of refurbishment then Brent will not be able to push forward and kick us out of our homes.

We have requested that the Independent Advisor hold a postal ballot of the residents, asking do they want refurbishment with infill or demolition and redevelopment.

As well as this we are asking people to sign a petition so that we can evidence the will of the residents to remain in their homes.

After this we would like to propose that we form a formal residents group and have nominations for a chair person so that we can make formal representation to Brent to have our views and concerns dealt with in an open and honest way.

St Raph's residents move to 'take back control of our community' April 8th

How disruptive will Pedway/Steps work be at Wembley Stadium?

A reader has asked about the demolition and construction phase of the replacement of the Wembley Stadium pedway with steps. They were concerned about safety and impact on local roads. Please see an extract below from the Site Management Plan published on the Brent Council Planning Portal HERE 

The works are planned to take approximately 87 days and some phases will require work from 7am until 11pm. The work will not take place on Event Days.


EXTRACT

Upon taking possession of the site, it will be secured around the areas of immediate construction work. The initial work activity will focus on clearing the site below and around the Pedway of those utilities and other items that will obstruct the pedway demolition and subsequent staircase construction. As areas become clear works to the foundations of the steps and substructure will commence. 

The foundations to the steps will be constructed in and around the existing pedway str ucture in advance of its demolition. Therefore, there will be a need to utilise small / specialist plant, such as restricted access piling rigs that will be able to access the low headroom areas beneath the existing Pedway to construct the piles. 

In conjunction with the construction of the new staircase substructure , earthworks will be undertaken to create crane mats to the south and west of the proposed staircase. These will be required to accommodate the craneage that will service the construction of the staircase superstructure. It is anticipated that these crane s will be greater than 100T in capacity/size. 

Any superstructure elements of the new staircase that fall outside of the existing Pedway may also be built in this phase , however, this will require further consideration in due course as such elements will need to be protected during the demolition of the existing Pedway structure .

Phase 2 – Pedway Demolition and Construction of Steps

Demolition 

This phase will commence within an agreed window of time to minimise the impact to Wembley National Stadium. This will be through a window on non - events ( or , if this is not feasible, where there are minimal events ). Due to the constraints in agreeing such a suitable timeframe, extended working hours to ensure that the works are completed within the agreed timeframe will be required (as agreed with the Local Authority) . 

The Pedway will be demolished in two stages. It is anticipated that the Pedway will be demolished using traditional excavator mounted munchers and breakers. The majority of the Pedway will be removed using excavator mounted munchers will minimise the noise and dust that will be create by this operation. Water spray dust suppression will be utilised to prevent dust from the demolition operation. 

The first stage of demolition will focus on removing the Pedway structure from the area of the new staircase construction. Once this is removed , the demolition will focus on removing the remainder of the Pedway (as it runs across Engineers Way towards Olympic Way and Wembley Park station north of the Stadium). A road closure of Engineers Way will be required whilst the Pedway is removed across the carriageway area (details as to the number and timeframes required for the road closures are not yet available but will be agreed , at the appropriate time, with the Local Authority ) .

Construction of Steps

The construction of the staircase is anticipated to be a combination of pre - cast and cast in - situ concrete. It is anticipated that the podium section that will connect to the S tadium will be cast in - situ and the staircase will be formed from precast struc tural elements. The staircase is of a modular construction and will follow a step by step process that will be prescribed by the designer and supplier. Through this phase of heavy lifting it may be necessary to have lane closure on Engineers Way to facilitate easy delivery and unloading of the precast elements. Pedestrian management will be a key feature of this phase to maintain safety exclusion zones around the works. 

The podium area will be formed using a birdcage scaffold system that will be designed and installed by specialist contractors. This will be used to support the permanent formwork panels that will form the soffit of the deck. 

Temporary works will be required to support the precast elements before they are permanently stitched into the main structure. This support will be provided by either a birdcage scaffold system, steel trestles or similar . This detail will be established early in the project . 

Two cranes in excess of 100T capacity will service the construction of the staircase to allow for lifting and installation of the concrete units and temporary works systems. 

Once the structure is completed, it will be waterproofed using a proprietary waterproofing system to allow the paving to commence and the handrailing and lighting to be installed. 

The attendant craneage will be utilised to service the paving and street furniture installation. The paving will be finished in sections and will work up the staircase. The paving at the podium level will be progressed concurrently with the stair case paving. This will be essential to ensure the programme is met within the time constraints for delivery .

Construction & demolition dust should concern construction bosses

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

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

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

Tim Clark, acting news editor, Construction News

Sadiq Khan's estate regeneration guidance 'worse than useless' claims Sian Berry, Green AM

West Hendon residents put up terrific resistance to social cleansing by Barratts and Barnet Council

From Sian Berry, Green Party London Assembly Member

The Mayor’s manifesto pledge to estate residents will be broken unless his estate guidance is rewritten from scratch.

That’s my verdict on Sadiq Khan’s ‘good practice guide to estate regeneration’ for councils and landlords on how to handle estate regeneration. The document is out for consultation until 14 March and it’s vital Londoners respond to it to say it’s not good enough – see how to send in your comments in just a few minutes here.

My full response to the draft guidance says it is worse than useless – it rips up the Mayor’s manifesto promise that ‘estate regeneration only takes place where there is resident support’ and does nothing to ensure residents on estates can block demolition of their homes.

The language in the draft is vague and it is unclear what, if any, conditions will be imposed on how councils and landlords to qualify for funding or the Mayor’s support for planning applications.
Most importantly for residents, the Mayor plans to break his promise and not let them make the final decisions for their estates or say there should be an independent ballot. How can they trust any part of the engagement process when they know their views and plans can be completely ignored at the end?

I say the guidance needs to be rewritten from scratch, working with Londoners to get it right.

My response to the draft guidance outlines three key demands on the Mayor that Londoners should ask for:

1. No demolitions without an independent ballot
2. Clear conditions for councils to meet, or no GLA funding
3. Expert support for resident-led plans

I ask for full transparency on the current state of estates, and on all aspects of the business case, social and environmental impacts of council’s plans.

The final guidance also needs to set measurable goals so the Mayor can be held to account, including goals to reduce the number of homes demolished and for a number of resident-led plans to be adopted.

Tell the Mayor what you think by 14 March

When is a decision not a decision? Smoke and mirrors at Brent Council

Early days of the campaign to Save the Queensbury

 Guest blog by Ian Elliott

A property developer bought The Queensbury pub in Willesden Green almost four years ago and lodged a plan to build a 10 storey tower block in its place. Save The Queensbury was formed and we convinced Brent Council's planning department to reject the plans. We then represented ourselves at a five day public inquiry when the developer appealed, unsuccessfully and the Inspector spoke highly of the merits of the existing building.

From the start we believed that the building, in a conservation area, should have been protected by being added to Brent's "local list" of buildings. The problem is, we have been left completely confused as to who takes a decision as to what buildings are on the list and have now been stonewalled by decision-makers at Brent Council.

Back in 2012 we were told that there were no plans to review Brent's list, which contains buildings as diverse as the State Ballroom in Kilburn to the bandstand in Queens Park.

In June 2014 a mysterious report appear on Brent's website, rightly adding Kensal Rise library to the list but claiming that The Queensbury had been reviewed but would not be added. Naturally this was a blow so we asked for the assessment to be made public. Brent refused to publish the assessment so we complained to Brent's Chief Executive and asked for this to be looked at by a senior officer, away from those close to the decision. 

Instead we had a reply giving Brent a clean bill of health - from a manager in the same department who we wanted to be investigated as failing to consult with residents. (Bear in mind also that officers in planning have twice recommended that the pub be demolished, in spite of local opposition). Weird, eh?

Fast forward to summer 2015 and Brent consulted on a review of the local list and we, along with dozens of residents, asked for The Queensbury to be listed. Cllr Margaret McLennan, Brent Council’s lead member for housing and development, said: “This consultation is a chance for residents to have their say on the pieces of Brent’s fantastic heritage that are most important to them. I would encourage people to go online and nominate their favourite site of historical interest to be considered for inclusion on the Local List.” So we did.

We thought we were making progress when a report emerged, adding The Queensbury to the local list, later 2015. A decision was promised, in December 2015, but an email from Brent Council reveals that a decision not to proceed was apparently taken by Brent's Cabinet.

We asked for the minutes of that decision, given that it was on a Cabinet agenda for December. No response. No agenda. No minutes. Hang on.... this is getting weirder. Where's the transparency?

The Chair of planning then tells us that a "Policy Coordination Group" would a review the Cabinet decision but that's left us mystified. Of all the 30+ groups and committees listed on Brent's Democracy site, the PCG is not one. So we asked again, only to hear that the Lead Councillor (i.e. the one inviting us to participate in this democracy) will no longer comment or email us on this matter.

At the turn of 2015 we put in a Freedom of Information request to try and clear the smoke around Brent's mysterious PCG and hopefully find out precisely who took a decision not to add The Queensbury (again) and on what basis. 

In law, Brent have to respond to an FoI request, by the first week of February.

We will wait and see if we get transparency and minutes from the mystery PCG. Or at least an explanation as to why The Queensbury was not added, again. Without this, the popular and viable pub in a beautiful conservation area remains vulnerable to demolition.

Last chance to ensure it's not 'Last Orders' for the Queensbury Pub

 
Message from Save the Queensbury campaign

Planning officers are recommending that The Queensbury is demolished. A decision will be made on Weds 12th March.

If you submitted an objection to the planning application to demolish the Queensbury you will receive a letter (or may have already received one) from Brent Council. Unfortunately the recommendation of planning officers is to approve the plans – but this is just a recommendation, the final decision will be made by the elected councillors who sit on the Planning Committee. The planners’ report with its recommendation can be found here. Its a long report, we’re still reading and digesting it but there is plenty in it to challenge.

There are 2 important dates:

Saturday 8 March: At approx 11.15am the Planning Committee will visit The Queensbury for a site visit. Your presence is also requested so that they see the strength of feeling in the community. This is not a demonstration (only one of us will be allowed to address the committee at the end of the visit) but home made signs and banners will be welcome. Be as creative as you like!

Weds 12 March: The decision will be made at the Planning Committee meeting which takes place at 7pm at Brent Civic Centre (directions here). Again your presence is needed.
Anyone wanting to travel together to the Planning Committee meeting on 12th March should meet at Willesden Green station at 6.15pm

Please support this last effort to Save the Queensbury. Too much has already been lost to developers in Willesden Green and this building and what goes on inside is a vital community asset.