Protect our trees - say no to bogus contractors

I thought this article by Brent Council's Principal Tree Officer in the Sudbury Court Residents' Association Newsletter deserved wider circulation. (Click on image to enlarge)

tree surgeons, 

 

Dee, the 'actionist' of Granville Community Kitchen, is a finalist in BBC Food Awards

Dee Woods of South Kilburn's Granville Community Kitchen was announced as a finalist in the BBC Food and Farming Awards today.

Dee, who told Radio 4 that she was an 'actionist' can be heard HERE 04.55-06.40

Congratulations to Dee and the Granville Community Kitchen.

Brilliant work!

Marylebone Boys Free School 'land grab' condemned as open space fenced in

As well as causing ripples with its planning application for a temporary school in Queens Park LINK, Marylebone Free Boys School, has upset residents near its present site at the former College of North West London Building in Priory Road, Kilburn.

Wednesday's Planning Committee will hear an application LINK to erect a 2.4m fence around the open space in front of the building to provide a play area for the free school's pupils.

The space was the subject of a right of way application by Brent Eleven Streets Residents Association  (BEST) which the officer's report say did not progress due to lack of information submitted. The report states that BEST are not going to pursue the application and that anyway a decision on the planning application would not prejudice a future right of way application.

Residents report that a fence has gone up anyway without permission and some see this as private acquisition of public land.

Officers make the following comment to the Planning Committe:

Your officers agree in principle that this area can be enclosed by fencing: it is not a public space and it
does not serve any particular purpose as an area of visual amenity

The following resident's comment is listed on the Planning Portal:

-->

Is this consultation a scam? Temporary or not - there is a fence going up today 20th Feb 2015 at the Marylebone Boys School/North west London College ?Surely they don’t have permission for this as this consultation is in progress ??? The link area /road /walk through, is a well established right of way and has been for many years going back to at least the early 70s, even before. 

Evidence in the form of plans and drawing sent electronically and hard copy to John Fletcher Team Leader - Development Control proves this clearly. The right of way was well established prior to the new North West London College building being erected (2005) and has always been used by local residents. The right of way is clearly shown on the sales information on page 4 of the Knight Frank sales information that handled sale of this property to the now Marylebone Boys school. The existence of the link road /path area was considered in the planning application to this building and it was considered important to ensure an open view.

 This right of way was always and still is considered as very important to stop crime. The Terrace becoming a narrow passage that is closed in without an open perspective, will leave it vulnerable to crime and the fear of crime (muggings, drug use and rubbish dumping, making The Terrace and walkway between St Julian’s Road and Kilburn High Road a no go area. 

I , alongside residents of Brent Eleven Streets local Residents wish to add that over the last 7-8 years, the residents of Priory Mansions (a homeless hostel) have established a use of Link Road as an open space for children’s play and as a much needed recreation area for families who are housed in cramped conditions in the hostel. For me personally it is a joy to see them playing in this open space and I feel for the families housed in this building who have no immediate space in which their children can play that is close by to keep an eye on them. This use of this important open community space happened over the entire year particularly in the summer months, weekends, evenings and school holidays. With the arrival of the fence they have lost this space and have no voice to gain it back as children never get asked what they need or want. This space has been removed from all of us also .

 The images sent hard copy to John Fletcher Team Leader - Development Control show people using the area as a right of way. Original plans for the college clearly show that the public were not to be kept out. The bike racks were always open for general use. The Knight Frank link to the sale information of the premises clearly shows that the freehold sold did not include the link land. See page 4 the white red and black map where the boundary line clearly shows a path through to the terrace that does not belong to this property http://www.inst.knightfrank.com/documents/fetch/4064 This route through has always been there in our memory and in that of many others who have lived in this area for over 25 years and more. 

Residents very much object to this land grab away from local residents and we strongly object to the fence that has been erected by Marylebone Boys school taking over this space we feel without legal permission to do so. This area is not suitable for a school . It is suitable for a sixth form or FE College such as North west London College where no PRIVATE illegal exclusion zone area is needed . This open design will then fit all as was its intended purpose. Please give back this buildings use to adult education as was intended and as agreed with local residents . This building was a useful resource to community now its just a private no entry, high walled castle for people that are not even local or living in Brent.

South Kilburn Masterplan review ordered as project falls 12 months behind schedule and viability questioned

"The South Kilburn Regeneration programme has slipped behind schedule in 2015/16. There is a masterplan review of South Kilburn Regeneration; this means it is being fundamentally reviewed to determine how best to deliver the programme and realise benefits of regeneration for South Kilburn and for its businesses and residents. This review will reconsider the fundamental approach, including whether it is better for the council to retain the South Kilburn Housing Assets, or continue to dispose of them."

The above statement was included in the papers for the Full Council meeting last month and was a surprise for South Kilburn residents causing cconsiderable disquiet. 

As a result an information request was made to Brent Council to try and find out exactly what was going on. I would welcome comments from SK residents  on whether they feel any the wiser as a consequence of Richard Barrett's response. It would be interesting to know the additional costs that will be incurred by the review.

I am writing on behalf of the Kilburn branch of the Labour Party to request information relating to the regeneration programme in South Kilburn. Last year, I put in an FoI request about other aspects of the programme, and you kindly provided me with useful responses. I hope you will be able to do so on this occasion too.

The basis for my questions is a point in the budget report that was discussed at the full Council meeting on Monday. This is covered in section 14.5 (first bullet) of the report, as follows:

“The South Kilburn Regeneration programme has slipped behind schedule in 2015/16. There is a masterplan review of South Kilburn Regeneration; this means it is being fundamentally reviewed to determine how best to deliver the programme and realise benefits of regeneration for South Kilburn and for its businesses and residents. This review will reconsider the fundamental approach, including whether it is better for the council to retain the South Kilburn Housing Assets, or continue to dispose of them.”

I have searched through the Brent website, and have not found the information that I am seeking. I should therefore appreciate responses to the following:

·         What are the terms of reference of the masterplan review referred to in the above extract?

The intention is to appoint a Design Team to assist the Council review the adopted Master-plan and the current proposals for the remainder of the programme. It will seek to understand whether the principles established in the original Master-plan need to be altered or not given the passage of time and taking into account the schemes already delivered. The review will also look at the scope of the Master-plan and factoring in any relevant new legislation and guidance ensure the programme remains viable; as such it will also look at all sites within the South Kilburn area to consider inclusion or exclusion within the overall Master-Plan. The brief is currently being worked up by officers but when it is ready to go out to market it will be made available to the public via the London Tender Portal 

·         What is the timescale of the review?

It is hoped to go out to market to seek expressions of interest from Architectural Practices in March, appoint, subject to Cabinet approval, by May with a likely consultation process and report back to Cabinet toward the end of 2016 or early 2017 at the latest. This indicative timescale is subject to Cabinet Timetable availability and it is also likely that the Master-Plan will be placed before Planning Committee alongside a proposed SPD for the area.

·         Will there be a consultation of local residents and other interested parties as part of the review? If so, what form will this take?

Absolutely. It is intended there will be a series of consultation events/workshops with local residents, tenants and stakeholders. The most likely format will be drop-in meetings but may also include questionnaires. The final form of consultations will be agreed with the appointed Practice but it will be a specific requirement of any bid to conduct consultation.

·         How far behind schedule has the regeneration programme slipped? What are the implications for the remaining phases of the programme?

The programme has slipped due to external factors such as the safeguarding of Salusbury Road site by HS2 since 2012 and other factors, such as specific project delays on site. This, in turn, has pushed the programme out of kilter by having a knock-on effect on future phases. Some individual projects remain on target but overall the programme has extended by at least twelve months. The intention is that the Master-plan Review will seek to see whether there is any ability to recover this time by reconfiguring the remaining programme. The Master-Plan review will also incorporate a refresh of the financial viability of the scheme. No implications have been identified apart from the obvious prolongation of the programme and the resultant delay in tenants moving into new accommodation.

·         What criteria and methodology will the review use to decide whether to retain the South Kilburn Housing assets?

I note the extract provided by this FoI from the Budget Report but would advise that the Master-Plan Review will not be the vehicle for determining whether the Council disposes or retains assets as they are developed. I am sure the Review will be used to assist in the consideration of this query but it is more likely something that will be considered by the Council’s Investment Board and reported back to Cabinet for decision as appropriate.

·         Whether and how does the review relate to the information that the Council will provide following the Scrutiny Committee’s consideration of its report on South Kilburn regeneration, at its meeting of 2 December 2015 (see LINK)  

The Master-Plan review and the questions arising from the Scrutiny Committee consideration are separate matters. The points made by the Scrutiny Committee will and has assisted in the development of the Brief..
 

Stand Up to Racism Wednesday March 9th

Marian Centre: What's the story behind this restricted item?

My curiosity has been aroused by this item from the Cabinet Agenda for March 14th. The item is 'restricted' which means we, the public, are not allowed to know about something that seems to be costing us money.

Anyone know?

From Cabinet Agenda:

To consider proposals for the settlement of an adverse possession submitted by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate Trustees Limited (The Oblates) in respect of the Marian Centre, Stafford Road, South Kilburn, NW6 5RS

Decision type: Key
Reason Key: Signficant expenditure/savings > 30% of budget for the function in question;
Decision status: For Determination
Wards affected: Kilburn;
Notice of proposed decision first published: 09/02/2016
Anticipated restriction: Fully exempt  - View reasons
Decision due: 14 Mar 2016 by Cabinet
Lead member: Lead Member for Regeneration and Housing
Lead director: Strategic Director, Resources

Special Branch files give an insight into Grunwick Strike Day of Action

Arthur Scargill remonstrates with police at Grunwick picket (Homer Sykes Archive)

As preparations continue to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the Grunwick strike LINK fascinating Special Branch and Metropoitan Police files have been released LINK documenting their monitoring of this most political of strikes which included interventions by the Freedom Association and the National Union of Miners.

I well remember the sight of the NUM marching into Willesden on the Day of Action on July 11th 1977 and joining the demonstration in support of the mainly female and mainly Asian strikers. Locally the support of Cricklewood postal workers was vital.

Thanks to the Met you can read all about it!

Decision time for mega primary plans for Byron Court next week

'Mega' primary schools are another consequence of the government's policy banning local authorities building new schools where needed. Instead councils are forced to expand existing schools, some as large as 5 forms of entry - 1,050 4-11 year olds in one building.

The expansion of Bryon Court Primary school was firmly rejected in the public consultation:

The objections included:

 Impact on the character and ethos of Byron Court 


             Affect child development and integration – including behaviour, language barriers and the impact of 
proposed ‘zoned areas’ in the expanded school 


             Reduce attention to pupils and affect school results 


             Impact on teaching standards 


             Limit facilities after expansion, especially green spaces for outdoor play and extra curricular activities 


             Affect education because of the building work 


             Over-expand an existing school when a new school should be built 


             Queries over the need for school places in Brent 


             Queries over the need for school spaces in the Sudbury Court Estate (SCE) – particularly in view of the 
new primary school at Wembley High Technical College 


             Health and safety considerations of expansion- particularly playground accidents and illness 


             Potential car accidents 


             Implications of long distance travel to school on parents and pupils 


             Noise, litter and wildlife 


             Suitability of the site for large development; particularly its residential nature, narrow roads and 
susceptibility to flooding 


             Traffic, congestion and pollution 


             The relationship between parents and staff 


             Effect of building work on residents 


             Potential to attract further regeneration, housing and leisure in Brent 


             Parking and inconsiderate parents 


             House value and amenities- especially the right to light and privacy 


              Previous promises from the school against expansion 

Objectors include parents from the school, residents and Barry Gardiner MP.  However Cabinet approved the scheme and  the legal advice to the Planning Committee when the application is heard on Wednesday LINK  will be that only planning issues should be taken into consideration. 

 
 The following extracts are from the  current Planning Application:

Comments supporting the application have been received from the school and one individual householder.

The reasons for supporting the school expansion are set out below:

School expansion is needed to meet the increased population demands in the Borough.
The school has to teach some pupils off site in the Ashley Gardens annexe. These children wouldotherwise not have a school place.

School is suitable for expansion as it has OFSTED Outstanding status, teaching school accreditation, and has committed and talented staff and vision.

The school needs a canteen, a bigger hall and also the classrooms outside requires refurbishing.
Additional space and facilities will greatly enhance the teaching and learning opportunities and will provide children with a better environment in which to learn.

In contrast 1,469 people signed a petition expressing support for the ojections below:

An objection has been received from Sudbury Court Residents Associatio raising the following items:

1.  March Cabinet decision to proceed based on incorrect data - Primary driver for 5FE expansion no longer applicable
2.  Adverse Traffic Impacts
3.  Flooding risk: Proposed development will cause surface water / sewage flooding
5.  Parental concerns regarding the expansion
6.  Educational risk - Risk of jeopardizing Byron Court rating and standards
7.  Highway regulations and Health & Safety compliance failure for proposed Nathans access.
8.  Inadequate separation of new Nathans access from adjoining property.
9.  There should be appropriate segregation between pedestrians and vehicles
10.       Vast Majority of parents and residents opposed to proposal
11.       Ecological concerns
12.       Traffic problems expected during construction works.

The above objection is accompanied by a petition supporting the objections raised above. The petition is signed by 1469 persons.

Councillor Perrin- objections have been received on the following grounds:

Transportation and safety - congestion, cars parked illegally on yellows, no loading, school zig zags andof course the pavements and across (sometime in) driveways.

Failing to comply with Travel Plan - no school staff in the street at all.
  
Parents from Alperton and Wembley want a school place closer to home, so they do not need to drive. 

Query on amount of runoff (using averages) that will flow into the sewers and changes to local groundwater/table.

Proposal should comply with SUDS policy