Join local action on air pollution monitoring

From Transition Town Kensal to Kilburn 

Air pollution is a current hot topic:

We will be carrying out some pollution monitoring in the TTKK area, putting up tubes on 24th September - see below if you would like to join in.

There will also be a public meeting on the subject on the evening of 21st September.  All are welcome.  More details below.


If you would like to join me to put out some monitoring tubes round our area at 3pm on Saturday 24th September please email me on janeymcallester@gmail.com.  We are joining a project run by the London Sustainability Exchange and will put the tubes out for ten days, collecting them on the 8th and sending them back for analysis, so it would be great if you are available on that date too.  There will then be comparison with other areas and discussion of the results - we can meet again to talk this through and decide how we want to use the information.  Let me know if you'd like to join in.

Public meeting

The next meeting of Brent Connects Kilburn is scheduled for 7-9pm on Wednesday, 21 September 2016 at London Interfaith Centre (aka St Anne and St Andrew's), 125 Salusbury Road NW6 6RG. The first item on the agenda is Air Pollution in Brent: What's Being Done About It?

Who's responsible for monitoring and assessing air quality in Brent? What effect has air pollution on health and wellbeing? How can we improve air quality in the borough?

Join us for a BBC ‘Question Time’ style interactive session for answers to these and other burning questions on tackling air pollution in Brent. Brent is one of the London boroughs that has recorded some of the worst nitrogen dioxide levels, according to air quality monitoring statistics.

Come and find out more, increase your understanding of the positions of these key stakeholders and support Brent’s ongoing commitment to ensuring the borough is a safe place to live, work and play.

Panellists

Aaron Kiely, Campaigner – Friends of the Earth

Tony Kennedy, Head of Transportation – Brent

Jennifer Barrett, Senior Regulatory Service Manager – Brent

Oliver Lord, Principal Policy Officer (Air quality / green transport) – Greater London Authority

Four new constituencies proposed to cover Brent. What constituency would you be in?

The Boundary Commission has published far-reaching proposals on the borough's parliamentary constituencies.  In today's proposals they aim to reduce the total number of seats in England and Wales by 50, evening out the numbers in each constituency. London would be reduced by 5 constituencies.

 Brent wards would be spread over no less than four constituencies: Kenton, Wembley & Harrow on the Hill, Willesden, Queen's Park and Regent's Park.

These would replace the present Brent North, Brent Central and Hampstead and Kilburn constituencies.

The Brent ward constituencies would be as follows:

Ward		Proposed Constituency	Current Cllrs
Alperton (3)		Wembley & Harrow on the Hill	3 Lab
Barnhill (3)		Kenton	3 Lab
Brondesbury Park (3)		Willesden	3 Con
Dollis Hill (3)		Willesden	3 Lab
Dudden Hill (3)		Willesden	3 Lab
Fryent (3)		Kenton	3 Lab
Harlesden (3)		Willesden	3 Lab
Kensal Green (3)		Willesden	3 Lab
Kenton (3)		Kenton	3 Con
Kilburn (3)		Queen's Park & Regent's Park	3 Lab
Mapesbury (3)		Willesden	2 Lab 1 Lib
Northwick Park (3)		Wembley & Harrow on the Hill	3 Lab
Preston (3)		Wembley & Harrow on the Hill	3 Lab
Queens Park (3)		Queen's Park & Regent's Park	3 Lab
Queensbury (3)		Kenton	3 Lab
Stonebridge (3)		Willesden	3 Lab
Sudbury (3)		Wembley & Harrow on the Hill	3 Lab
Tokyngton (3)		Wembley & Harrow on the hill	3 Lab
Welsh Harp (3)		Willesden	3 Lab
Wembley Central (3)		Wembley & Harrow on the Hill	3 Lab
Willesden Green (3		Willesden	3 Lab

Kenton Constituency

Wembley and Harrow on the Hill

Queen's Park and Regent's Park

In its commentary the Boundary Commission states:

-->

In the borough of Brent, we propose
a Willesden constituency, which includes eight wards from the existing Brent Central constituency, and the Hammersmith borough ward of College Park and Old Oak from the existing Hammersmith constituency, and Brondesbury Park ward from the existing Hampstead and Kilburn constituency.

We propose two further constituencies that include wards from the borough of Brent. We propose a Kenton constituency, which includes four wards from the existing Brent North constituency, and five Harrow borough wards – Kenton
East, Kenton West, Queensbury, Belmont, and Edgware – from the existing Harrow East constituency. (It should be noted
that there is already a Queensbury ward from the borough of Brent in the Brent North constituency, making two in the proposed Kenton constituency.) 

We also propose a Wembley and Harrow on the Hill constituency, which includes three Harrow borough wards from the existing Harrow West constituency, five wards from the existing Brent North constituency, and Tokyngton ward from the existing Brent Central constituency.

The electorate of the existing Westminster North constituency is currently below the electoral quota. To bring this constituency within range, we propose including the Brent borough wards of Queens Park and Kilburn from the existing Hampstead and Kilburn constituency. (It should be noted that there is already a Queen’s Park ward from Westminster in the existing constituency, making two in the proposed constituency.) To reflect the change we propose this constituency is called Queen’s Park and Regent’s Park.

The consultation on the proposals is HERE

Brent SOS Libraries urge Cabinet to keep their pre-election promise on Preston Library

This letter has been sent to Brent Cabinet members prior to tonight's meeting.

 

Re: Preston Community Library

Report for consideration at Cabinet meeting on Tuesday 13^th September 2016

I write as chair of Brent SOS Libraries, an umbrella group supporting library campaigns and community libraries across Brent. The contents of this email have been approved by the four community library groups at Kensal Rise, Cricklewood, Barham and Preston. I have been made aware of the report relating to redevelopment of the Preston Library site, which I understand you are due to consider at the cabinet meeting tomorrow, Tuesday 13^th September 2016.

It is well known that a clear pre-election promise was made at a public meeting on 7^th May 2014, when the Brent Labour Party promised to “offer the building at a peppercorn rent to any local community group who can provide a sustainable community library... that is our pledge. We will not open to competitive tender in order to give preference to local groups.” You were present at that meeting and supported that pledge.

Since then, volunteers in Preston have worked extremely hard to set up and sustain a community library in the building. Despite the constraints placed on them by sharing the library building with local schools using it for overflow classrooms, library volunteers in Preston have developed an amazing local resource, which is providing valuable services to the community. As you probably know, Preston Community Library is a registered charity. In addition to providing books, study space, and computers with internet access (vital for people who have no or limited computer or internet access at home), they also run, among other things, ESOL classes, a film club, and writing projects for children and young people.

Representatives from Preston Community Library meet regularly with those from the other community libraries setting up across Brent (Barham, Kensal Rise and Cricklewood), as part of the umbrella group Brent SOS Libraries. In recognition of the importance of our work, we have recently received a grant of £45,000 over two years from the Council’s Voluntary Sector Initiative Fund for support and development of services across the four libraries. We were one of eleven bids from a total of 43 applications to be successful.

The four community libraries have also started to work with the Brent Library Service and we have met with them on several occasions this year. In July we were very pleased to participate in the Culture Open Day at Willesden Green Library, an event which we planned jointly with the Library Service. We look forward to working more closely with the Library Service in the future.

In the circumstances, I was most surprised to read the report prepared for the Cabinet, which makes no reference to the pre-election promise. The proposals contained in the report breach that promise by proposing open market tender and a significant annual rent for community space. A community library is not going to be able to pay the sorts of sums proposed. Libraries are not designed to be profit making, they are providing a free service to the community. This is understood at Kensal Rise and Cricklewood, where the libraries will only pay a peppercorn rent. The hard work and goodwill of the many volunteers supporting Preston Community Library, and the benefit that it provides, should not be disregarded in this way.

Any proposal for future use of the Preston Library site should honour your pre-election promise and should recognise the value, including the social value, of the work done by Preston Community Library. PCL should not be subjected to an open market tender process and should not be required to pay more than a peppercorn rent. If the site is to be redeveloped in some form, PCL should be provided with space in the new development on the same basis, and you should provide them with alternative accommodation whilst the site is being redeveloped.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Laura Collignon 

Chair, Brent SOS Libraries

Chair of Operations Group, Friends of Kensal Rise Library

Battle of the Lords Wednesday on Energy policy

On Wednesday 14 September 2016, Lord Lawson of Blaby and Lord Turner of Ecchinswell will give evidence to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee’s inquiry into ‘The Economics of UK Energy Policy’.

Lord Lawson is a former Secretary of State for Energy. Lord Turner was the first chairman of the Climate Change Committee that was established in 2008. They will be asked for their views on the current Government’s energy policy.

The Committee is exploring the present mix of policy interventions and subsidies in the energy market. The core question which it is seeking to answer is: “What are the failures, if any, in the energy market and what measures are needed to correct them?”

Questions the Committee is likely to ask include:

1      Are the Government’s objectives for energy policy the correct ones? 

2      How successful has recent Government policy been in achieving those objectives?

3      What role should the Government play in the energy sector? Is the right balance being struck between the roles of government and the private sector?

4      Should the terms of the agreement to build Hinkley Point be revisited?

5      Should the UK proceed with developing its shale gas reserves?

6      Should the UK be concerned about energy security given rising imports of oil and gas?

7      Are you surprised that domestic energy bills have not reduced in line with falling wholesale prices? 

The evidence session will take place at 3.35pm on Wednesday 14 September 2016 in Committee Room 3 of the House of Lords. 

Resident questions Brent Council's arithmetic on Preston Library housing plans

A local resident has sent the following message to Brent Cabinet ahead of their discussion on an officer's report on the future of the Preston Library building.

Dear Cabinet member,

I wrote to councillors last week about why it is important to support Preston Community Library.

Since then I have looked more carefully at the report for Tuesday's cabinet, and have realised that the figures in it for housing just don't make sense.  I think you will need to adjourn the report so that officers can give you corrected information.

The report states that if you just built five flats on the library site, there would be an expected income to the Council of £158,000, including £51,000 from the community space.  The difference [£107,000] comes to an average rental income per flat of £411.54 per week, which is clearly not accessible for people in housing need.

For the larger site, the figures are £420,000 -£51,000 = £369,000.  At 19 flats this is £19,421 rent per flat, or £373.48 per flat.

The current rent you charge [2015-16] for a council home is £101.99 for one beds, £115.56 for 2 beds and £127.63 for 3 beds.  LINK 

This means that if the properties are let to social tenants you will not get anything like the rents the reports says.  If you are to rent to private tenants then the rents in the report are still much lower than other flats in the area. An example of a flat a couple of minutes walk away is HERE.

Income to the Council also needs to take account of Housing Benefit, which will reduce the income considerably.

The chair of South Kenton & Preston Park Residents Association has, I believe, written to you about the values quoted in the report, including the non-viability of achieving £51,000 from community groups, and also about the unusual and extremely high development costs of building these flats.  To meet housing need it would be much cheaper for Brent to purchase some of the flats and houses for sale in the district.

I feel that if this report is approved, then the planned for gains will not materialise; those in housing need will get no benefit, citizens will lose their valued library and it will be an embarrassment to the Council.  I hope that you will reject this report.

yours sincerely,
Linda Green

Brent set to double fly-tipping fixed penalty to £400

The October Brent Cabinet meeting will discuss a proposal to double the Fixed Penalty Notice for fly-tipping to £400.  Following the introduction of legislation on May 9th 2016 Brent Council set the default level at £200, reduced to £120 for early payment.

If agreed by Cabinet the new rate will be £400, the maximum upper limit, reduced to £180 for early payment.

Preston Library Campaign builds ahead of Tuesday's Cabinet decision

Ahead of Tuesday's Cabinet Meeting, Roxanne Mashari, has written to Philip Bromberg in response to his letter LINK about the future of the former Preston library building (referred to in the Cabinet report at the Preston Park Annex LINK)

For the record, I have met with you and your group on a number of occasions and have found our conversations constructive which ultimately have led to the operation of the community library. 

I hope we can collectively find a solution to this as I think your community library is a fantastic example of community action to keep services running in the face of government cuts and I hope the council can support your hard work, passion and commitment as much as possible.

As I said previously, unfortunately property has been removed from the regeneration portfolio but I expect the leader will respond to you fully as soon as possible.

 Cllr Mathew Bradley has also responded to correspondents with the following generic reply:

As I have received a large number of emails about this, I've put together this standard response which I hope will answer all your questions.

Thank you for the numerous emails I received about the Preston Community library. As per your requests, we raised your concerns at the Labour group meeting to try and give a clear steer to the cabinet about what we, as Labour councillors (and specifically Preston ward councillors) wanted to see the building being used for - a community library. I think we made this clear in the meeting. The case for the library has been made well by all of you and I want to thank you all for writing in as the level of public support for the community library was made very clear and lent weight to what we had to say.

As an educator, I am firmly on your side in this matter, and I know my fellow councillors, Pat and Jean, feel the same way. We have been impressed at the service which has been provided by the Preston library community group (often in adverse conditions) and hope that this will continue into the future.

At the next meeting of cabinet, they will be deciding whether to enter negotiations with the business next door to see if this property can be purchased by the council in order to start re-development with a mind to building a structure on both sites. The ground floor of this will be reserved for community use, the upstairs area may become flats, or something else, but as far as I am aware the purpose for this has not been decided.

If the community library were to take up residence on the ground floor this would get the library a permanent home, and I believe would be an excellent solution to the many issues the library group has been facing when working with the council. While I can see positives and negatives to this, as a supporter of the library, I feel that this might be the best possible outcome.

Of course, if this happens, the next big fight would be ensuring that the ground floor of this building is indeed used for the library. The work on achieving this is far from over and I thank you all for continuing to support the community library as robustly as you have.

Regards,
Cllr Matthew Bradley

Philip Bromberg replied:

First of all, I'd like to thank you and Jean (Cllr Hussein)  and Pat (Cllr Harrison) for the support we've had from you over the last two years. Some of the recipients of this email will be unaware that you have done valuable work for the library, and that you've offered to do more for us in the future. We are grateful for your help.

However, I'm afraid that what you say about next week's Cabinet is highly misleading. The report is not simply about negotiations with the business next door. There are two recommended proposals, and both involve the re-development of the library site. In both cases, the ground floor community space will be put out to open market tender, with a target rental income of £51,000 per annum. How, in these circumstances, will it be possible to ensure that there is a library on the ground floor?

Two years ago you and Pat and Jean and every other Labour councillor fought an election on a promise to offer the current building for use as a library at a peppercorn rent, and without an open tendering process. Is this promise about to be broken?

I hope you have read the attached letter from the Chair of SKPPRA, which casts considerable doubt on the wisdom of the current plans. Our strong preference is to continue to run the library in the existing building. This is what was promised in May 2014. But any re-development of the site must be done in a way which is consistent with those promises made two years ago. On Tuesday the Cabinet must say clearly that any community space must contain our community library, which must be offered to us for a peppercorn rent. That is what you now need to tell Mo and the other members of the Cabinet.

WHAT MIGHT BE LOST 

The decision about the library building is due to be made on Tuesday but both Brent Conservative groups have put it on the agenda for the following Full Council meeting on September 19th.

Cllr Reg Colwill  of Kenton conservatives has submitted this question to Cllr Michael Pavey, lead member for Stronger Communities:

The residents of the Preston Ward have done a fantastic job in keeping the library active and working to make sure that all the residents have access to books in a very professional manner.

Will the Council now honour what they told the residents that is that they would give them the library to continue their good work?

If yes, the Committee running the library would like to know when.

Brondesbury Park  Conservatives have submitted the following motion:

This Council confirms its previous promises and pledges of support for the continued existence of the four voluntary - run Brent libraries: Preston Community, Barham Park , Kensal Rise and Cricklewood.

A correspondent has submitted the following regarding the report's figures:

According to the Cabinet report:

5 flats built on the library site, will produce an income £158,000, less £51,000 from 'community' provision comes to £107,000, or £21,400 for each flat [£411.54per week].

19 flats on larger site, income £420,000, less £51,000 from community space comes to £369,000, or £19,421 per flat, which is £373.48 per week.

Council rents for a one bed are £102, 2beds are £116, and 3 beds are £128.

So Council tenants will not be able to afford the homes.  Housing Benefit does not seem to have been accounted for in the calculations.

So the income for the Council as indicated in the report seems inaccurate. It is cheaper to rent out a private flat in the area, so the proposals don't seem viable and won't meet housing need.

So what happens to the rest if all Brent secondary schools select the most 'academically able'?

Theresa May wants all secondary schools to be able to select. Here in Brent with no local authority secondary schools, that could mean multi-academy chains, stand alone academies and free schools fighting to select the most 'academically able' leaving those deemed 'not academic' along with special needs children and those in the first stages of learning English where exactly?

The NUT has been quick off the mark with this EduFacts special on Grammar Schools:

• Prime Minister Theresa May has expressed support for more places to be made available in academically selective state schools.¹Secretary of State for Education Justine Greening has said that she is ‘open minded’ about a return to a grammar school system.²
• The creation of more grammar schools would have to lead to the creation of more secondary modern schools, or the de facto conversion of comprehensive schools in areas where new grammar schools were built or where existing grammar schools opened on new sites. Comprehensive schools in areas where existing grammar schools are expanding have already expressed concerns about the impact that this will have on the “intake profiles and therefore the ethos” of their schools.³
• 23% of the public want existing grammar schools to be scrapped and a further 17% want existing grammar schools to be allowed to remain, but do not want grammar school expansion or the creation of new grammar schools. As only 38% of people support more grammar school places via new schools or the expansion of existing school a higher proportion of the public oppose the creation of more grammar school places than those who support a growth in selective state education.⁴
• Those in favour of grammar schools argue that selective state education allows academic pupils from more disadvantaged backgrounds to secure better academic success and helps to close the attainment gap between richer and less well-off pupils. However, the evidence shows that this is not the case.
• Less than 3% of all pupils going to grammar schools are entitled to free school meals (FSM), against an average of 18% in other schools in the areas where they are located. For example, in 2016 Kent County Council reported that 2.8% of pupils attending grammar schools were eligible for FSM, compared to 13.4% in non-selective Kent secondary schools.⁵
• Socio-economically disadvantaged students, who are eligible for FSM or who live in poor neighbourhoods, are much less likely to enrol in a grammar school even if they score highly on key stage two (KS2) tests.⁶ For example, among Kent children who achieved Level 5+ in Reading, Writing and Maths at Key Stage 2 in 2015, 51.4% claiming FSM were attending a grammar school compared to 72.7% of non-claiming children.⁷
• Nationally, over four times as many children are admitted to grammar schools from outside the state sector – largely fee-paying preparatory schools which account for 6% of pupils aged 10 – than children entitled to FSM.⁸
• Pupils, irrespective of their background, have a lower chance of attending a grammar school if they attend primary schools with greater proportions of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, with special educational needs or with English as an additional language. Nationally, almost a quarter of state school pupils receive private or home tuition, rising to 40% in London.⁹ Children from more affluent homes that can afford the fees of up to £50 an hour for private tutoring will be at a significant advantage when sitting the 11+ grammar school entrance test. Local campaigners in Buckinghamshire found that, although over £1 million had been spent on developing a test that would minimise the impact of additional coaching, the new test made no difference to the large gap between the pass rates of pupils from poor and wealthy areas, with the worst results seen among FSM pupils.¹⁰
• It has been suggested that new grammar schools would be located in low and middle income areas, thus boosting the chances of academic children living in those areas.¹¹ However, the location of a grammar school in a more disadvantaged area does not mean that children living in close proximity to the school will have the chance to attend. Stand-alone grammar schools often draw large numbers of their pupils from outside their local authority. In 2013, for example, two-thirds of pupils at grammar schools in Stoke-on-Trent and Kingston-upon-Thames lived in a different authority area.¹² In Buckinghamshire more children living outside the county pass the 11+ than local children, with children travelling distances of up to 13km to attend the county’s grammar schools.¹³
• Giving a grammar school in a low and middle income area a small catchment area would not solve this problem. Proximity to a desirable school has an impact on house prices, with a premium of up to 12% on the cost of property within the catchment area of the highest performing schools.¹⁴
• Selective education systems are also linked with greater inequality in social outcomes later in life.¹⁵ Grammar schools do not raise educational standards for the majority of children. Although pupils who pass the 11+ and are admitted to grammar schools generally achieve well, this is at the expense of the majority of children who do not get a grammar school place. The evidence shows that the attainment of pupils at secondary moderns is lower than that of comprehensive schools. ¹⁶

¹ Tim Ross Grammar School supporters optimistic’ 18-year ban will be lifted by Theresa May's new government The Telegraph 16 July 2016. Accessed on 16 August 2016 here.

² BBC News Justine Greening 'open minded' about new grammar schools in England  17 July 2016 accessed on 16 August 2016 here.

³ Rednock School letter to Stroud High School 29 January 2015 here and Archway School letter to Marling School 26 February 2015 here.

⁴ YouGov poll published 15 August 2016. Accessed here.

⁵ Kent County Council Grammar Schools and Social Mobility Commission (June 2016) p. 10 here.

⁶The Sutton Trust Poor Grammar: Entry to Grammar Schools for Disadvantaged Pupils in England (November 2013) p. 5 here.

⁷ Kent County Council Grammar Schools and Social Mobility Commission (June 2016) p. 10

⁸ The Sutton Trust Poor Grammar p. 5

⁹ The Sutton Trust Poor Grammar p. 5

¹⁰ John Dickens Questions over £1m ‘tutor-proof’ 11-plus tests Schools Week 27 November 2015. Accessed on 16 August 2016 here..

¹¹Richard Vaughn Exclusive: new grammar schools plan 'unlikely' to go nationwide The TES 13 August 2016. Accessed on 16 August 2016 here.

¹² The Sutton Trust Poor Grammar p. 5

¹³ David King Critics hit out at number of non-Bucks children passing 11-plus and ‘huge’ distances pupils travel to grammars The Bucks Herald 18 December 2015. Accessed on 16 August 2016 here.

¹⁴ Steven Gibbons Valuing Schools Through House Prices Centre Piece (Autumn 2012) p. 2 here.

¹⁵ OECD Equations and Inequalities – Making Mathematics Accessible to All (2016) p. 90 here.

¹⁶ Freddie Whittaker Fact-check: Do the arguments for new grammar schools stack up? Schools Week 25 July 2016. Accessed on 16 August 2016 here.

As always Michael Rosen is well worth reading on the subject HERE and the Local Schools Network has published a well argued piece by Janet Downs HERE.

My Green Left colleague Mike Shaughnessy has written about the issue on the London Green Left blog LINK,

A petition against the expansion of Grammar schoolc can be found HERE

Twitter has been busy since the announcement and it is clear the Prime Minister has a battle on her hands

 

Harlesden Festival 1-5pm today

More about the Harlesden Festival  can be found in the double page feature in  this week's The Voice newspaper and also on line HERE

Tottenham Hotspur's stay at Wembley Stadium - details

A number of concerned local residents have asked me about Tottenham Hotspur's plans for using Wembley Stadium.  I reproduce below their statement made earlier this summer which makes clear that the main impact will be in the 2017-18 season:
 

The Club can confirm that we have reached agreement with Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) to play our Champions League fixtures for the 2016/17 season at Wembley Stadium.

 

This will be necessary in order to meet UEFA requirements, which will be impacted by the works in and around the current stadium affecting access, capacity and rights delivery.

As we shall be required to vacate White Hart Lane to complete the latter stages of our new stadium and surrounding environs, the agreement additionally provides an option to play all our Premier League and cup home games at Wembley Stadium for the 2017/18 season. It is our intention to open the new stadium for the 2018/19 season. This timetable is, however, also dependent on infrastructure, transport and associated commitments being delivered by TfL and Haringey Council.

Chairman Daniel Levy said:

We are delighted that, through working in partnership with WNSL and the Football Association, we have been able to reach this agreement. Given the current reduction in capacity at White Hart Lane for next season and the ticketing requirements for Champions League, playing at Wembley will mean that we can continue to accommodate all of our existing Season Ticket holders. Our season ticket waiting list is over 50,000 so this now also offers us a great opportunity to provide more of our supporters with a chance to see the team play live during our Champions League campaign.

Importantly, as we know it was our fans' preference, it means that we can continue to play our home matches in London during our season away.

Football Association Chief Executive, Martin Glenn said:

Having Tottenham at Wembley for big European nights next season is a welcome opportunity for us to further the stadium’s position as a world-class venue. As well as helping the club and its fans, it will benefit London and English football in general with our commitment to reinvesting all profits back into the game.

The increased revenue will particularly help us meet our targets for improving coaching and grassroots facilities and growing participation. We were already on a strong financial footing, which allowed us to reinvest £117m back into the game at all levels last season.

We should like to thank all our supporters for their patience during the period leading up to this announcement.

83 bus route changes & new 483 service start tomorrow

The 83 bus will no longer go to Ealing Hospital

Transport for London will introduce the changes to the 83 bus route and the new 483 bus route tomorrow.

TfL's commentary on issues raised in the consultation, including issues around congestion on East Lane, Wembley for the 483 service can be found HERE,

Wembley Hill Road will be served by a bus route (483) for the first time.Wembley residents wanting to travel to Ealing Hopsital will no longer be able to catch a bus at Wembley Park station but will instead need to walk down to Wembley Hill Road/Wembley Stadium station for the 483. The 83 will now finish at Alperton.

The N83 will continue to run from Golders Green to Ealing Hospital at the same frquency as now.

TfL said:

We received 657 responses to the consultation. 645 responses were from members of the public and 12 were from stakeholders.

57 per cent of respondents supported or partially supported the proposal to shorten route 83 to run between Golders Green and Alperton and not continue on to Ealing Hospital. 22 per cent said they did not support the proposal, 5 per cent were not sure, and 15 per cent had no opinion or did not answer.

77 per cent of respondents supported or partially supported the introduction of new route 483 which would run between Harrow town centre and Ealing Hospital. 11 per cent said they did not support the proposal, 3 per cent were not sure and 9 per cent had no opinion or did not answer.

We have considered all of the responses and have decided to go ahead with the proposals.  We plan to introduce these changes on 10 September 2016.