Brent Housing are to hold two more meetings with residents of St Raphael's Estate. One of the recent meetings was overflowing. A drop in is being held in a marquee in a car park on the estate on Saturday rather than in the Children's Centre of the nearby school. Let's hope the gales do not sweep it away. An additional public meeting will be held at the Civic Centre on February 27th.
We want to listen to residents’ ideas, encourage you to get
involved and address any concerns. We have arranged four informal drop-in
sessions on the estate. The drop-in sessions will be a chance for you to have
one-to-one or small group discussions with senior council officers and
councillors.
The drop-ins will take place on the following dates:
Saturday 9 February from
12pm–2pm: Open car park space (Marquee) next to the Living Room, 65-80
Besant Way, NW10 0TY
Public
Meeting
We would also like to continue to encourage public debate
and have arranged another public meeting:
Wednesday 27 February from
6.30pm-8pm: Conference Hall (3rd Floor) Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way,
Wembley, HA9 0FJ
Stonebridge councillors have put out a video on Twitter assuring residents that they are interested in hearing their views. See the Twitter post with video here LINK
Brent Council will be consulting with residents on the St Raphael's Estate next Friday on their plans to redevelop the estate. St Raphael's will be the first estate where residents will be balloted on the changes.
Concerns have been expressed on social media over possibilities of gentrification and social cleansing with private housing being built on the estate to help pay for the redevelopment. There are also worries over the potential for the loss of green space, not just in the area surrounding the estate which stretches to the River Brent, but within the estate itself. People are aware of what happened in West Hendon with private developments next to the Welsh Harp reservoir and social housing close to the poor air quality main road. St Raphael's borders on the heavily polluted North Circular.
Another issue is the need to ensure the future of the premises of various community groups, nurseries, children's centre and the Sufra Foodbank and Edible Garden if new blocks are to be built requiring additional land.
St Raphael's Estate is on a flood plain for the River Brent. There are artificial hillocks between the river and the estate which protects it to some extent but locals speak of underground springs in the area. They suggest that this could limit any high rise developments. There was flooding in the area in the 1970s.
With climate change underway the flood risk is clearly something to be considered. This is the longer term risk from the Environment Agency:
A legal battle is on between Brent Council and the Afro-Caribbean community of Stonebridge, Harlesden and Monks Park over the future of Bridge Park. The centre is part of a Council redevelopment project that includes the long-empty Unisys building. It is much more than a legal battle - it is a battle for the beating heart of the local community.
Wembley Matters has covered the dodgy nature of some of Brent Council's partners in their development scheme and this was reinforced by trenchant criticism of the Council by the late Dan Filson. LINKLINK
Young visionaries in what was then a bus depot
Bridge Park was set up by young black people in the 80s at a time of the uprisings. It is part of black heritage in the borough that came from the grassroots, just as the Stonebridge Adventure Playground, closed by the council, also had its roots in the community and amongst the young.
A community group, Bridge Park Community Council, set up to save the centre from the council plans have put forward their own alternative which is rooted in the community and continues the original ethos of Bridge Park when the Harlesden People's Community Council organised to purchase the old bus depot:
BPCC successfully appealed to the Land Registry over the sale of the land and it was blocked but now the council is fighting back through legal action.
A fundraising campaign is now underway to take the council on: LINK and there is a petition of to stop the sale and return control and development of the Bridge Park site to the community HERE
BPCC's short-term plan is:
(a) To show the “London Borough of Brent” that we have an interest in
the land, and to therefore suspend the sale of the Land and
property referred to as “Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre”.
(b) To secure the Community interest in the Land and property by means of legal, public and political action.
(c) To develop a self-sustaining Centre of Excellence providing
educational, Technology, social, well-being and commercial facilities.
(d) To encourage Brent Council and all parties to engage with BPCC in
peaceful timely negotiation (ADR), Mediation or Arbitration as opposed
to costly litigation with a view of coming to an agreement in relation
to the Community’s control and interest in the said Land and Property.
EMPOWERING OUR COMMUNITY
WE NEED YOU...!!!!
THANK YOU FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT TO SAVE BRIDGE PARK LAND & COMPLEX
*FIRSTLY - BRIDGE PARK IS NOT SOLD.
Bridge
Park Community Council as successor to HPCC established Bridge Park
Complex Steering Group, to protect the interest, control and development
of the Bridge Park Land and Properties for the community.
In
the 1980s, HPCC, founded by a group of young 16-20 year olds, who
followed their vision and desire to serve the community, and to ensure
that the young men and women growing up in Stonebridge, N.W London had
facilities and opportunities to empower them to succeed. They bought
the land supported by sourced grant funding of £1.8m.
They
raised a further £3m+ along backing to design and build the current
Bridge Park Complex seen today. The original vision was for the creation
of educational, commercial business units, sports and multi-purpose
facilities. The land is estimated to be worth over £50 million on the
open market.
In order for HPCC to obtain the funds, Brent Council
acted as custodians ONLY: with no right to sell, transfer or dispose of
the land, acquired by the community for the community. The Bridge Park
site had a protective covenant on the land. Brent Council officers
removed the covenant prior to February 2014. The community were not
informed. [Wembley Matters here is the LINK to the report to the Brent Executive in June 2013 which states: The Bridge Park site had a covenant on it that sports and
community uses should be protected and around half of any value of any
development would have to paid to the LB Bromley (as successor body to the
GLC). However officers have successfully re moved this covenant.]
-->
Experienced Lawyers, (DWFM Beckman, London) have been
engaged, and advice has been taken from a Senior Counsel, specialising
in this area of Law and Chancery.
*Brent Council entered into the
Conditional Land Sale Agreement with General Mediterranean Holding
(GMH) as guarantor, for the sale of the Bridge Park Complex in June
2017. A strict condition of the sale is that the land must be free of
all interests. Brent Council plan to allow development worth over £800
million on the land, but aim to sell off the Land and 42x Business
Units, 2x restaurants, Bar, 2x Gyms, full size In-door Basketball and
Badmintons Courts, plus Multi-faith centre and Nursery buildings all
this for less than £13 million Brent will not fully disclose the lower
price. THIS DID NOT GO TO TENDER !!!
HPCC in association with successor's BPCC Steering Group and S.C. Trust (HPCC) Ltd the land.
An
application to the Land Registry to restrict Brent Council, to stop the
Sale of Bridge Park was made in August 2017, through our lawyers.
Brent Council have been given an extension of 30 days to file their documents to challenge this restriction.
***** WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT *****
Our community needs a lot more than a Gym & Swimming Pool.
We
will build an iconic Centre of Excellence for The Community by The
Community. Addressing our Educational, Social and Commercial needs. And
most of all it will be self funded and sustained.
A land mark building upon which we can take pride in.
Come and get involved - Sign the petition against Brent Council's plans
WE NEED our community building to be kept in the hands of the COMMUNITY in PERPETUITY!!
Help us to raise the much needed funds for the legal challenge to halt the sale of Bridge Park.
WE NEED TO FIRST RAISE THE INITIAL £10,000 OF THE £25,000 FOR OUR LEGAL DEPOSIT, TO FIGHT OUR CASE IN THE HIGH COURT, LONDON.
The officers' report to the Brent Executive in June 2013 stated:
Our officers have carried out a new Equality Analysis.
There are a number of important conclusions. The first is that Bridge Park has
been important in serving an important part of Brent’s Afro-Caribbean community.
Removing the sports centre would strongly negatively impact on this group. The
area has one of the strongest increase in under 5’s in the whole of Brent. Over
88,000 of the 447,000 people within a three mile catchment of the centre are
under 16 years of age (20% compared with a borough average of 16%). The starter
business units that would not be replaced do have a high proportion of people from
Afro-caribbean background.
Brent Council has issued the following press release on their plans for the St Raphael's Estate. See article on Wembley Matters HERE Muhammed Butt is quoted in the PR as saying he is 'committed to putting residents in the driving seat, making decisions about where they live.' This may ring hollow to residents elsewhere in Brent who have found their voices ignored when they oppose redevelopment they felt detrimental to their neighbourhood.
BRENT COUNCIL'S PRESS RELEASE
Residents on St Raphael’s Estate could be among the first in London to be
balloted on proposals to build new homes and community facilities in their
neighbourhood.
This is a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity for the community of St Raphael’s
Estate, local partners and Brent Council to shape the area for future
generations. To kick off the process Brent’s Cabinet will be asked to give the
go ahead to a full resident-led master planning process at its meeting on
November 12.
The report, which is set to be considered by Cabinet, identifies two options
as a starting point to be refined and developed by residents. One option would
see the existing buildings refurbished with possibly limited new build on green
space. If this is the final preference there would be no requirement for a
ballot. The other option is for a comprehensive redevelopment of the whole
estate which would be subject to a public vote of people who live there.
Local people would design the area including the number of new homes, what
community facilities are needed and where, and the layout of the roads. This
plan would be put to a public vote on the estate, which would make Brent one of
the first boroughs to action the Mayor of London’s ballot policy on
regeneration.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s new policy requires major estate regeneration
schemes to have residents’ backing before they can receive City Hall funding, a
policy which Brent fully supports.
Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said:
“We are committed to
putting residents in the driving seat, making decisions about where they live.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for residents to redesign the estate
they love. People have told us they want to live in modern homes in a safe,
crime-free neighbourhood.
“Tackling the housing crisis is a priority for Brent and this is a unique
opportunity to build brand new homes that meet the needs of the families who
live on St Raph’s. I’m proud that Brent residents could be some of the first to
have the chance to participate in a ballot before anything goes ahead.”
James Murray, London’s Deputy Mayor for Housing and Residential Development,
said:
“When estate regeneration is done well, it can improve homes for existing
residents and see more social housing built for local people.
“The Mayor wants residents to be confident they will have a real say over
the future of their estate when regeneration is planned, so he has put ballots
at the heart of his approach for schemes where demolition of existing homes is
involved. We very much welcome Brent Council’s clear commitment to giving
residents at St Raph’s a vote on their plans and look forward to continuing to
work together to build more of the council homes that Londoners so desperately
need.”
If you live in Northwick Park area - or South Kilburn for
that matter - it’s worth having a quick look at the Cabinet papers
about Brent’s “Regeneration Zones”. LINK
Yes, some of us lucky residents of leafy Northwick Park
were just a bit startled to see ourselves in a “Regeneration Zone”. Some of us
weren’t too shocked, however - though still very , very upset. This is
just the latest stage in the story of the plans for what we residents call “the
Park”. A fantastic piece of Brent open space, including formal much used sports
and playing fields, a nature conservation area and a golf course.
And it seems the Leader of the
Council is in charge of this; South Kilburn get the Cabinet Member for
Regeneration. I expect we should be flattered.
This is all about one element of the One Public Estate
(OPE) scheme which has come home to roost in Northwick Park. [More about
OPE for those interested at the bottom of this piece **- and see also the
linked news stories in Brent & Kilburn Times LINK
and my letter on Page 13 on the earlier story LINK
The scheme involves Network Housing, Northwick Park
Hospital, Brent Council, University of Westminster and potentially TfL. It’s
quite hard to get the detail but the idea is that there will be 3700
homes by 2035 somewhere on the margins of the Park. Tower blocks will be
built on the land near to the Tube station - a “landmark residential
development”.
Sure, as some papers have emerged, there have been
references to key worker housing, and affordable homes - gosh,
do we need key worker housing, and social housing - truly affordable homes -
but these proposals are all very vague. I’ve been trying for more
transparency - a couple of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests over the
last 2 years - but not much joy.
Even though Brent got a grant of £530k to do
viability research on all this. Including transport research, my current huge concern
- and the reason for asking Martin to post this blog.
My latest FOI request of Brent from last December
has been so sat on for a very long time - despite
numerous charming assurances that the sifting process of 100’s of emails was
being done and that the release of all or some would be opined on “soon”
by Brent’s Legal Team . Well, after a last chance given to Brent by the
Information Commissioner just to reply at all, it’s now been
accepted by her as a complaint . I await hearing if the Information
Commissioner accepts my argument that the plans should be out in the public
domain.
I was particularly incensed by the secrecy for the
transportation reports/ surveys, and the plans being hatched for “infrastructure
works” . Principally an access road for this huge re-development. Our
very own Regeneration Zone.
Clearly the access road can’t go across the railway/Tube
lines. OK, University of Westminster might be decamping for pastures new; maybe
it could go that way. But the University’s plans seem to be a more recent
possible development.
So where could this road possibly go? And where might it
be considered for going - a location of such commercial
confidentiality and sensitivity that Brent can’t possibly release
any professional transport reports or plans on it into the public domain?
Oh, let me think...
Could it be an access road across our Park -
designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) - put simplistically, the London
equivalent of Green Belt? (The Mayor recently refused an application by Harrow
School for a major long planned sports centre on its MOL land just cross
the road from Northwick Park - because it was inappropriate development on MOL)
It’s not “just” the effect on the environment, or the open
air sports facilities; it’s the madness of adding to the roads here, which also
serve Northwick Park hospital - a major hospital with (as we all know) a busy
A&E.
But hang on - to finance all this - Brent has a £9.9 million grant
from HM Government from the Marginal Viability Fund bit of its
Housing Infrastructure Fund. To get this “marginal viability funding”,
according to the HMG website , there is supposed to be “market failure”, and
“extensive local consultation” and “alignment
with the Local plan”. Well, these are a bit news to me but obviously
I don’t know everything.
So another reason for my FOI request - which sought evidence
of any of those factors. So far all I have got is a bit
of alleged consultation. Sudbury Court Residents’ Association AGM in
April 2017, to which Brent officers did come after a bit of persuading. They
brought a very rum set of slides, including one of rather a scruffy park
bench by Northwick Park Tube station, mentioning litter. The
officers did do a bit of question answering by local residents - and promised
to revert on some stuff (but didn’t).
If that was consultation, it seems odd the FOI
officer says they have to ask the Chair of the SCRA for her notes of the
meeting! Anyway, it wasn’t “consultation” in any normal sense of the word.(NO
comments please on Brent’s consultations)
Oh - and that aligning with Local Plan point.
Well, maybe that can be retrospective. The Cabinet paper says “ members
may be aware that Brent’s planning department is engaged in consultation on the
local plan for which Northwick Park has an allocation “. I’d hope all members
(especially on the Cabinet) would be aware we’ve had a bit of
Local plan consultation in Brent.
However, speaking as a local resident (and married to a
Ward Councillor) and having gone to a local meeting on this Local
Plan business - though I admit I am getting on a bit , so I might
have forgotten - I was completely unaware of any Planning Officer
referring to Northwick Park at all. Let alone in terms of revising Northwick
Park’s Local Plan “allocation” or Northwick Park becoming a “Regeneration
Zone”.
It seems that the Local Plan “Preferred Options” will be
out in November - when “it is proposed to run public consultation specific to
Northwick Park in parallel”.
I hope we residents will be having a little
pre-consultation consultation amongst ourselves rather more quickly than that.
I also hope others in the Borough interested in open space, the
environment, good use of NHS land, pollution, key worker housing and good
social housing provision will join us. WATCH THIS SPACE.
[**NOTE on OPE if you’ve got this far!
HM Government OPE is a plan to dispose of “surplus public
land”. A particularly infamous issue is the disposal of NHS land in London -
based on a couple of reports by Sir Robert Naylor. Generally Sir Robert in his
openly available Report says to NHS bodies “Identify your surplus
land” (that can include unused/empty space like corridors and open walkways, by
the way). If your percentages of unused/empty or underused space to your
overall site are too high, oh dear, inefficiency - using a carrot & stick
approach - the message is “sell, sell, sell”. Sir Robert’s second,
confidential report - “Naylor 2” - identifies some prime value London NHS
sites for disposal and is so sensitive NHS England has been
fighting a Freedom of Information request I have in on it for around 2 years.
So clearly a sensitive area generally. Naylor’s reports IS
useful in one respect though; Deloittes accountants did a background research
report for him - which said sensibly that we ought to be looking strategically
at the need for land for NHS use, in light of London’s growing population - and
reminding of high land values here if we need to reprovide. Gosh how sensible -
how ignored! ]
The Brent and Kilburn Times has a story about the recent public meeting on South Kilburn and the impact of regeneration and HS2. LINK One resident has said disruption was so bad that he wanted to move away. The Kilburn Times reports:
Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, felt he “had to step in” on
hearing residents wanted to move away.
He said: “I’m edging on the side of residents.
“There’s a lot of regeneration taking place for the next 15 years or more
and we must do all we can to safeguard the residents. “If he’s talking about
moving out the area, we need to have a serious conversation.”
However, he was later challenged on why he
petitioned HS2 to move the vent shaft from its original spot in a Queen’s Park
car park in Salusbury Road
Cllr Butt has absoutely no excuse for not being aware of the issues as this blog has brought it to attention several times in posts from Pete Firmin, a resident and tenants represenative and a member of Kilburn Labour Party. This is one blog that Pete wrote on May 26th 2015 LINK about the HS2 shaft that Brent Council asked HS2 to put next to Canterbury Works and a primary school on the estate, rather than the council owened site next to Queens Park station which at the time was away from any residences. Brent Council has now given planning permission for flats on that site. Pete Firmin's post received 53 comments which are worth reading.
Guest blog by
Pete Firmin, South Kilburn resident On Friday 22nd
May, pupils, parents teachers and local residents held a protest at the gates
of St. Mary’s Catholic Primary School in South Kilburn against the proposal
from Brent Council that the ‘ventilation shaft’ for HS2
be sited right next to the school and close to flats.
Apparently such
ventilation shafts are necessary at certain distances along the line in order
to get rid of the air pushed in front of the speeding trains, otherwise they
would slow the trains down. Such vent shafts are not a small thing, being
usually about 25 m by 25 m and 2 storeys high – the size of a small block of
flats. Such an enterprise is calculated to take up to 6 years building work, involving
movement of over a hundred lorries a day to and from the affected area at peak
times, with the association noise, disruption and dust...
HS2’s current
proposal is that this be sited close to Queen’s Park station, but Brent Council
is pressing that it be on the Canterbury Works site next to St Mary’s school
instead. Some studies suggest a ventilation shaft is not essential at either
site.
Brent Council’s
proposal ignores the pleas from local residents and school staff and users and
is putting its regeneration scheme above any concern for the health and
wellbeing of students and residents. They have the support of Queens Park
residents in this, who feel the vent shaft would be a “blight” on their
community, despite the disruption and siting being much further from their
homes and schools than is proposed for South Kilburn. As so often, South
Kilburn is seen as the dumping ground for things that Brent and its middle
classes regard as ‘undesirable’.
The issue of
Brent and HS2 has a background. The local Tenants and Residents Association has
been asking Brent Council about HS2 and how it will affect us for years, ever
since we discovered it is due to run underneath (or very close to) our flats.
Unfortunately, unlike Camden, Brent Council didn’t seem to be looking at this
at all, its only comments being that HS2 offered great ‘business opportunities’ for Old Oak Common. Even when we got
letters from HS2 saying they may want to Compulsorily Purchase our properties
we got no support from Brent. We’ve all had at least 2 such letters now, and,
despite our urging, Brent Council appears to have done nothing to get proper
answers from HS2 on this. Some people have been told verbally that this is just
something that HS2 has to do and they will not be wanting to CPO our
properties, but we have never had such a commitment from HS2 in writing.
Then, despite us
asking for years that Brent take up our concerns and nothing happening, we
discovered from a third party that a report on HS2 was due to go to Brent Council
in March last year. This was the first we knew about proposals about the siting
of the vent shaft, when the report argued for its siting in South Kilburn
rather than next to Queens Park station. We asked that we be allowed to address
the Council when it discussed the report, but this was refused. Instead we were
given a commitment that our concerns would be taken on board. Given our
concerns included opposition to the Council’s push for the vent shaft site to
be adjacent to the school and our flats, this was clearly not the case.
Then this year we
saw by chance an email from a Council officer to one of our Councillors which
said “HS2, we continue to lobby for this to be relocated from the
Council owned site at Salusbury Road car park to the rear of Canterbury Works.
Various professional studies have been commissioned which support this Full
Council approved stance and have been recently submitted to HS2 for their
consideration.”
Around the same
time the headteacher of St Mary’s school came away from a
meeting with HS2 and Council officers convinced the vent shaft was going to be
put next to the school. Soon after leaflets were put through our doors
campaigning against the vent shaft being sited there. This came from people
associated with the school, and since then they have had a meeting for all
parents, produced petitions and initiated the protest outside the school.
Local residents
support the opposition from school users to the siting of the shaft here, but
there is an added complication. The leaflets put through every door and the
drive behind the school campaign come from a PR company employed by the
property developers building luxury flats (no social housing) at Canterbury
House (also next to the school and a block of flats) and property developers
hoping to build a ten-storey block of flats on the Canterbury Works site
(currently a vehicle repair site, and the site where Brent wants the vent shaft
site to be).
Many of us are
opposed to both the siting of the vent shaft next to the school and our flats
and ANY further development of the site. We think that having been living on
the middle of a regeneration building site for the last 3 years (with the
myriad of complaints that has involved, about which Brent has done nothing), we
should have respite from any further development and the disruption, noise and
dirt involved. Added to which, the Canterbury House development is luxury flats
only (advertised as in Queens Park, even though in the middle of South
Kilburn), and development on the Canterbury Works would probably be similar, or
at the very least the low proportion of social housing we are now seeing in SK ‘regeneration’), this would only add to what we have called the
‘social cleansing’ taking place with regeneration. SK is also
already one of the most densely populated parts of Brent.
We have lost some our
little green space through regeneration, we would like to get some back rather
than further development. So, as well as opposing the siting of the vent shaft
here, we would oppose planning permission for further flats on the site too.
Some of us joined the protest outside the school with placards opposing both
the HS2 vent shaft and the property developers.
Just to be clear,
the PR company’s employee working with the school put on the “No to HS2 at
Canterbury Works” Facebook page “We do not want to see a ventilation shaft at
Canterbury Works, we are protecting the interests of Canterbury House and a
ventilation shaft would be detrimental to this development and to its future
residents who will be part of the South Kilburn community.”
Protecting the
interests of Canterbury House means the property developers, it couldn’t be
more explicit. Future residents seem to take precedence over current ones too.
When they started work on Canterbury House (the building has been empty for
years, even though planning permission was obtained some time ago), they knew
that HS2 was going through the area and people had been served with potential
CPO orders. Our belief was that they were hoping for maximum compensation
(unlike us!) and that was why they pressed ahead.
We are hoping we
can have one united campaign involving both school and local residents against
the siting of the vent shaft here. There does seem to be an attempt to keep us
at arms length from the school campaign, given our critical stance.
As so often,
Brent Council has spent years ignoring the concerns of local residents and is
now intent on pressing HS2 to trample on the interests of both school pupils
and residents.
This letter from
Pete Firmin to Scrutiny Committee provides detail on residents’ concerns about the South Kilburn redevelopment in general as
well as the shaft: LINK
A prominent local resident has taken the unusual decision to write to friends and neighbours about the forthcoming local election. This is what she had to say:
Save Wembley From Becoming A Total Concrete Jungle - Please Read Urgently!
Dear Friends and Neighbours,
I would never normally try to influence you on how to vote on
Thursday, but desperate times call for desperate measures!
Who can best represent us on the contentious issues of the
Regeneration of Wembley? TheGREEN
PARTYare fielding candidates and
in other wards, hopefully an INDEPENDENT. These may be the very best
people to represent us.
I am certainly not against progress and the Regeneration will
hopefully bring jobs and prosperity to Brent,but
there has to be a sensible balance! This has not happened. Do we
really want to see the future of Wembley to be entirely covered in concrete
with multi-storey buildings? It would be a nightmare with all the extra
congestion, but that is the way it appears to be going. Does the
Council not think anything is worth preserving of the existing houses,
bungalows and flats in Wembley? I appreciate that the Regeneration of the
Stadium and Wembley High Road areas are a "done deal", but
we must do better in preserving the other areas of Wembley, which do
not fall within the Regeneration. These could soon also be under
threat, so this is why we must act now.
Once they start knocking down a building on a
residential street to build something higher, do you really think
they will stop there? It just sets a dangerous precedent for other smaller
construction companies to also apply for permission to do the same. Brook
Avenue is a case in point. I am sure it will not be long before all the
houses with their gardens will be converted to concrete buildings.
The residents fought long and hard to try and stop Heron
House on Wembley Hill Road from being turned into a much higher building, but
despite all our efforts they received planning permission. Once built, this
will certainly start to change the residential character of Wembley
Hill Road. Where will it end?
Quintain promised the residents that they would not only replace
every tree which was destroyed, but plant many others around the tall
buildings. This has not happened either. They will be building a
small park, but that is not the same, as it is amongst the very dense high
rises that we need more trees and bushes to combat the increased
pollution.
Trees do not only enhance an area, they are vital for our good
health and well being. Pollution levels will rise due to the density of
the new buildings and this will adversely affect everyone. We desperately
need cleaner air and amongst other things, the best way is to plant
as many trees as possible. I strongly feel that the GREEN PARTY would be
the very best party to achieve this and to help us preserve the areas of
Wembley we want to continue to live in.
The future of what Wembley will look like in the next 4 years is
down to us. Vote wisely!
Tonight's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee is discussing a report on Wembley RegenerationLINKthis evening.
The report by Amar Dave, Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment, reads more like a public relations plug for Quintain than an objective, warts and all assessment of the regeneration of Wembley so far.
The Scrutiny Committee are asked merely to note the contents of the report but I hope they will go a lot further in assessing this multi-million project.
Apart from the issue of the 17.8m payment of CIL money for improvements to the public realm around Wembley Stadium, which includes new steps to replace the present stadium entrance ramps, there are other issues worthy of probing questions from committee members.
The issue of the provision of truly affordable housing looms large for many Brent people and the report claims that over 30% of the housing provided is affordable. This raises the question, aired many times on Wembley Matters, of what is meant by affordable. The committee should seek precise figures on how much has been provided at 80%, 65%, or 50% of marker rent or at the London Living Rent recommended by the GLA. What proportion of the housing could be afforded by Brent residents earning the median family income for the borough?
There is increasing criticism of the way high rise buildings are being squeezed into every available space by Quintain and it is worth assessing to what extent they have departed from the original plans and whether this more speculative build is the result of Quintain's takeover by Texas Star. The report merely notes that the acquisition has accelerated delivery without discussing whether this has led to any deterioration in quality.
Planning officers' recommendation of granting of planning permission even when buildings do not meet London or Brent planning guidelines on factors such as height, light and density deserve probing as does the controversy surrounding the leader of the council's and lead member's meetings with developers.
The amount of student accommodation in the area deserves consideration following the planning department's decision to move the goal posts. They now assess the proportion against the target in terms of future build rather than current build enabling more applications to be approved. The report makes great claims for job creation but the committee should be interested in the quality and sustainability of the jobs created, the proportion that are low paid or zero hours contracts as well as the number of jobs that have been lost when small businesses have moved out to make way for more high rise blocks.
There are many more issues but one of the most pressing is the plan to build a new three form entry primary free school, to be run by Ark, on the site of the York House car park. Its position on a road with heavy polluting traffic and on a small site that necessitates a roof top playground has been criticised, but whether such a school is needed is also subject to debate.
Readers may well be cynical about another consultation from Brent Council when 'consultation' has often meant commenting on what has already been decided, the Council ignoring widespread local opposition to planning applications, and London and Brent planning guidelines ignored for spurious reasons. However, for those who hold out some hope for local demoracy and planning for people and not for profit, here are the details:
The
council has started work on a new Local Plan which will shape how the
borough is developed in the future. There are key challenges for the
Plan to address including:
How do we ensure there is enough housing to meet everyone’s needs?
How do we create employment opportunities and promote economic growth?
What infrastructure and community facilities do we need to support new?
What is the future role of our town centres?
How do we create places that promote health and well-being?
How do we ensure development is sustainable, high quality and protects the environment?
Why get involved?
Have your say on the issues that affect how you live, work and socialise in Brent.
Issues and Options Consultation
From August to December 2017 we undertook engagement events. These
sought to capture the views of a variety of people and organisations
that have an interest in Brent’s future development. The events and a
summary of responses are set out in the Brent Local Plan Consultation
Summary document
We are now consulting on an ‘Issues and Options’ document. This sets
out more detail on the key challenges set out above and how we might
address them. It asks a number of questions. The consultation period
is from 8February to 22March 2018.
To respond to the consultation we would prefer if you answered an
on-line version of the questions. This will make it easier for us to
collect and analyse responses, saving time and allowing us to take
forward the Plan quicker. Alternatively, you can respond by e-mail, or
by post.
Email: planningstrategy@brent.gov.uk
Post: Paul Lewin, Team Leader Planning Policy, Brent Council, Engineers’ Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ
If not completing the consultation questionnaire, please make it very
clear which part(s) of the document you are commenting on, ideally
referencing by paragraph and question number.
If you require any assistance or want to get in contact about the consultation then please send an e-mail to planningstrategy@brent.gov.uk or via Twitter @Brent_Council using #shapebrent.
The Audit Advisory Committee is not the most high profile of Brent Council committees but is has an important role, not least in these times of controversy. The Committee has a fairly independent membership so it is to be hoped they give matters a good airing. Next Wednesday's meeting has three items relating to stories published on Wembley Matters where officers seek, in two of them, to respond to some of the criticisms. Firstly there are recommendations made by the auditor following his consideration of the objections to Brent Council accounts regarding the payment made to Cara Davani, former Head of Human Resources LINK. Despite not finding for the objectors he did suggest some actions in areas highlighted in their evidence.
Click to enlarge
The report puts on record Brent Council's view of the initial case in which Cara Davani was found guily by a Watford Employment Tribunal of racial dscrimination and bullying of Rosemarie Clarke:
It remains the Council’s position that the sequence of events resulting
in the unfair dismissal of Rosemarie Clarke reflect poorly on the organisation
as it then was, and caused harm to the Council’s former employee. Lessons have
been learned and new procedures have been implemented and the Council hopes
that with this report the long-standing matter may now be brought to a close.
Another controversial issue has been Cllr Butt's meetings with developers, the lack of a note of what took place at the meetings and absence of any officers at these meetings LINK. The Committee will consider proposed changes to the Brent Planning Code of Practice and will need to ensure that the changes are sufficiently robust as to restore public confidence in the planning process before they go to the Cabinet for approval. The report states:
There is a new section on ‘Discussions between members and meetings with
developers or their representatives’. This in part incorporates into the code
ad hoc advice issued by the Monitoring Officer to Members in the recent past
and in part strengthens the Council’s commitment to being seen to be promoting
good practice. The requirements aim to strike a proper balance between
promoting public confidence in the integrity of the planning process and the
legitimate reality of local government life. Of particular note is the requirement
that pre-application discussions or discussions about undecided applications
between Members and developers (or their representatives), are arranged,
attended and documented by an officer.
This is the full section:*
Provided Members comply with the practical requirements if this code and the Members Code of Conduct, there is no legal rule against Members, whether of the same group or not, discussing strategic planning issues, general policy issues or even future decisions. Similarly, joint working, both formal and infornal, and dialogue between members of the Planning Commitee and members of the Cabinet is recognised as a legitinate reality of local government life. Members of the Planning Commitee need to ensure that when making planning decisions, they make up their own mind and on the planning merits. Relevant members of the Cabinet are entitled to meet with developers or their representatives and other relevant stakeholders as part of their role to promote Brent and the regeneration, development and other commercial opportunities available in the borough. In doing so Members of the Cabinet must always act in the best interests of the council and ultimately in the public interest, and in accordance with the high standards of conduct expected of Members, to ensure that the integrity of the planning process is not undermined and the council is not brought into disrepute. Reasonable care and judgement should be exercised in relation to such meetings, taking into account the purpose of the meeting, the nature of the issues to be discussed and the timing. In appropriate circumstances, exercising proper judgement may include ensuring a record is kept of the meeting. Cabinet members should make sure it is understood that their participation in marketing events or commercial discussions is separate from the adminstrative and regulaltory role of Members of the Planning Committee. Although members of the Cabinet are entitled to express support or opposition to development proposed in the borough, they cannot use their position as a Member improperly to confer on or secure for any person an advantage or disadvantage.
As pre-application discussions or discussions about undecided applications require particular care, the following additional rules apply. An officer must make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write notes. The meeting arrangements must include agreeing an agenda in advance. (my emphasis)
* The report on the Committee Agenda is a 'tracked changes' Word document converted into a PDF and very hard to read, particularly for anyone not versed in Word. Without a 'clean copy' I find it hard to see how it could receive proper scrutiny. See it HERE It's ironic that a document trying to increase accountability and transparency is itself not readily accessible.
The last item is controversial and will remain so as Brent Council has restricted public access to the information. There is an update on the issues surrounding the asbestos contamination in Paddington Cemetery, first raised by Cllr John Duffy on this blog LINK but the update is not publicly available and the public will be excluded from the discussion about it. No glimmer of light here.
