Standing up for the Palace walls in Wembley

Philip Grant of Wembley History Society has asked me to post the following Guest Blog:

The Palace of Industry during the Exhibition, looking up Kingsway (renamed Olympic Way in 1948) towards the Empire Stadium.
[Source: Brent Archives – Wembley History Society Collection]

 The remaining section of the Palace of Industry in Olympic Way now, with the new Civic Centre and Wembley Stadium beyond 

 Your recent item on Quintain’s planning application for a 1,350 space temporary car park near the new Civic Centre attracted my attention. When I looked at the details online, I found in the “small print” that it also involved demolishing the remaining part of the Palace of Industry, Wembley’s last remaining building from the 1924/25 British Empire Exhibition (“BEE”). As its “Listed Building” status was removed about ten years ago, this is no longer regarded as a “heritage asset” which requires special consent before it can be demolished, but I believe its external walls should be allowed to remain in place for a little longer.

My reason for this is that 2014 will see the 90th anniversary of the exhibition, for which the Palace of Industry was built as part of the world’s “First City of Concrete”. The BEE was one of the most important events in Wembley’s history, giving us the stadium and bringing millions of visitors to the area, which promoted its rapid suburban growth over the following ten years. One of the main aims of the exhibition was ‘... to enable all who owe allegiance to the British flag to meet on common ground and learn to know each other’, and on an international level the BEE was an important stepping stone on the path from the old Empire to the modern Commonwealth of independent nations. To discover more about the BEE, and many other local history subjects, visit the Brent Archives online Learning and Resources collection at LINK

Since 2010 I have been involved, as a volunteer, in discussions with Brent Museum and Archives about an exhibition and other events in 2014 to mark the BEE’s 90^th anniversary. More recently the Arts team for the new Civic Centre (currently nearing completion at the southern end of the Palace of Industry site) have become involved, and although no final plans have yet been drawn up it is likely that these events will take place. It would be a great pity if these walls, which illustrate the scale and architecture of this great exhibition, were to be lost unnecessarily just before that anniversary, when they could be enjoyed by visitors to Wembley during the summer of 2014, probably for the final time.

The Civic Centre surrounded by the proposed car park space today

Looking at the plans, it would not be necessary to demolish the remaining outside walls on the north and east sides of the Palace of Industry building to facilitate the access, lighting and all of the car parking spaces which Quintain are seeking. Only a small part of the outside walls at the north-west corner would need to be demolished, to allow access from Fulton Road. I have therefore written to Quintain and their planning agent, asking them to amend their plans so that these historic walls remain standing to their full height until they are ready to construct the proposed shopping centre which is planned for a later phase of the Wembley City redevelopment.

Paula Carney of Signet Planning has said that she will liaise with her client on this and come back to me. However, in case they are not prepared to co-operate, I have also put in an objection to the planning application, which other Wembley History Society members and people interested in our local heritage are supporting. These objections do not seek to prevent the use of the site for temporary car parking, but do seek to make consent for that parking conditional on retaining the outside walls of the Palace of Industry building until the main construction phase of work on the site is ready to go ahead.

If you would like to add your support for the walls (not physically, as their ferro-concrete construction means that they can stand up by themselves!) please go to the Brent Planning website at: LINK  then use the "Comment on this Planning Application" link.  Alternatively, please send an email, quoting the reference number 12/3361, to David Glover, the Brent Case Officer dealing with the application, at:  david.glover@brent.gov.uk . Thank you.

New Chalkhill Park hit by joy riders

Car in the park (contributed)

Residents on Chalkhill reacted with consternation when they discovered a car had been driven into the new Chalkhill Park which is still under construction.  Locals, and especially the children, have excitedly been watching the park taking shape over the last few months and plans are in progress for an opening celebration in May.

I hope that this is just a one-off act of vandalism, probably fuelled by alcohol, but perhaps a warning that the local community will need to work together to defend their new park.   I would suggest the early formation of a Friends of Chalkhill Park as a first step.

UPDATE: When I visited this morning the car  had been removed.  A workman dealing with the aftermath said 'a fair amount of damage' had been done. The car had been driven directly at construction fencing which lay twisted on the ground. Turf had been churned up and a bench and recently planted  bedding damaged.

The plans for the park involve no fencing around the perimeter but the workman said that bollards may be installed at the point of entry of the car which is opposite Wellspring Crescent.

Barnhill councillor Michael Pavey said:

I was truly saddened to see a car dumped in our beautiful new park. This goes against everything we are trying to achieve in Chalkhill. 

But I know the local community will rally against this and protect the park from further abuse. 

I warmly welcome and fully support the proposed formation of a Friends of Chalkhill Park. I look forward to working with them to celebrate and preserve this fantastic space.

Illegal evictions likely to increase as housing benefit cap bites

This video by BNCTV  from March last year focuses on one case of illegal eviction by a private landlord and the work of Brent Citizens Advice Bureau. 

There are likely to be many more cases this year as the housing benefit cap and welfare benefit cuts bite.  With only one Brent Council officer dealing with the issue Brent CAB will be under considerable pressure.

No Jubilee or Met trains from Wembley Park this weekend

Exhibition space in Wembley available next week

Message from the Coming Soon Club LINK:

Are you a curator, artist, sculptor, ceramicist or film-maker? We are seeking proposals from all our creative and artistic members who have an idea of an exhibition they might like to install in our warehouse space.

Many of you will have been in to our warehouse space on Wembley Hill Road (corner with Wembley High Road, almost opposite Wembley Stadium station) so will know what it looks like. It is a large, characterful space far removed from the usual white cube gallery space, which makes it a great context for an installation. We recently held an architecture exhibition by students from the RCA to great effect.

 If you would like to do something similar, please send us an email to info@comingsoonclub.co.uk with your proposal for using the space starting from January 7th 2013. Running time of the exhibition is negotiable.

Greens back rail fare protests and renew call for renationalisation

Caroline Lucas, Green MP and other Sussex Greens this morning

 Green Party leader Natalie Bennett pledged the party's support  this morning's demonstrations against the further significant rise in rail fares as Green Brighton and Hove MP, Caroline Lucas, joined in the protests.. British rail fares have been hiked for 10 years in succession and our trains are now the most expensive in Europe.

 

Natalie said: 

Households already struggling with fast-rising rents, food prices and energy costs are going to suffer a new blow. Many households that consider themselves middle class, who only a few years ago were comfortably off, are now struggling, finding themselves able to make ends meet only by extreme economies ranging from skipping meals to unhealthily cutting heating.

Many others have already been priced off the rails – forced into convoluted, long bus journeys or into their cars when they’d rather not be, adding to congestion on our roads and increasing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Natalie added: 

All of this only highlights the sense of renationalising the railways, to save us the £1.2 billion additional costs caused by the fragmentation and profit-taking in the current system, as the Rebuilding Rail LINK report last year showed.

Privatisation has also given us a fragile, unreliable system in which fewer than 70% of trains run on time, i.e. within a minute, the measure used in much of the rest of Europe.

 There were, however, broader issues:.

Britons have the longest commutes in Europe, reflecting the concentration of job opportunities in larger centres, and high house prices, rents and the shortage of social housing.

We need to cut the cost of train travel, but we also need to reduce people’s need to travel.

This is one more reason why we need to look to rebuild strong local economies, promoting small businesses and cooperatives  that are growing food, making the goods we need and provide services on a local scale.

 The Green Party is backing the Fair Fares campaign which is supported by a coalition of rail passenger groups, rail unions and transport campaigners.

Times will be getting harder in Brent in 2013

There was a flurry in the press over the holiday about local government cuts.  David Blunkett in the Guardian  LINK argued that the cuts were horrendous, an attack on local democracy and would reduce councils to providing only the statutory minimum of services but went on to state that ' the message of "austerity" has successfully debilitated the will to take on central government' and cited the failure of the 1980s fightback.

Ted Knight, late of Lambeth Council,  disagreed in his comment piece: LINK

In the 1980s, Labour councils like my own did organise a fightback. A price was paid, councillors were surcharged and forced from office. But resistance, far from being futile, mobilised communities. We won additional funds so that budgets could be set without cuts. Labour councillors today have the same choice – they can either lead a struggle against a vicious government or stand aside for those who will.

In Brent Cllr James Powney stated on his blog LINK 

This year's (Brent) budget, has fairly limited cuts but the failure of George Osborne's economic policy and the Conservative Party's hatred of local government mean that we will face massive fiscal pressures for years to come.

Brent Council is likely to respond to these by having a much tighter economic focus on everything we do.  This means that Council services will need to demonstrate a much more direct effect on economic well being than hitherto.  Local government has never had a challenge like it.

Meanwhile leaders of  Newcastle, Liverpool and Sheffield City Councils warned of potential civil unrest LINK

 The unfairness of the government's cuts is in danger of creating a deeply divided nation. We urge them to stop what they are doing now and listen to our warnings before the forces of social unrest start to smoulder.

There are seeds here of a possible fightback but there are clear divisions between those who will manage the cuts while complaining about the damage that they will do and those who want a proactive campaign against them.  The Labour Party nationally is very much in the former camp but the left of Labour, Gren L:weft, other left groups, the labour movement and the Coalition of Resistance are in the latter.

In Brent the Labour Group on the council are under pressure from the Labour left and the LRC but so far are managing the cuts in line with Powney's position. Unfortunately a leadership challenge to Muihammed Butt's leadership from the Ann John faction at the May annual meeting seems more likely than a successful challenge from the left. By that time the budget will have been adopted and any subsequent room for manoeuvre by a new administration will be extremely limited.

Although Cllr Powney intimates that the Brent budget will have 'fairly limited cuts' (we residents of course have been given no details and appear to have no say in the planned budget) the changes in housing benefit, council tax support and the postponed benefit cap, will also be hitting the least well-off.  It is yet to be confirmed whether Brent Council will be implementing a Council Tax increase and whether they will use their reserves to limit the cuts.

Getting social housing in Brent to become harder under new proposals

The Housing Allocations Policy that Brent Council is currently consulting on LINK will have major repercussions for residents wishing to go on the register for social housing in the borough. There will particular impact on extended families, people without leave to stay in the UK, young adults living with their parents, those at a specific income threshold, families in rent arrears in the social housing sector or in homeless temporary accommodation.

The Council will no longer have an 'open' waiting list and in addition to having a housing need residents will need to establish a local connection through residence or work. The 'reasonable preference' criteria will include households in employment in addition those below:

· Homeless people as defined by Part VII of the 1996 Housing Act, including people who are intentionally homeless and those who are not in priority need

· People who are owed a duty under section 190(2), 193(2) or 195(2) of the 1996 Act (or under section 65(2) or 68(2) of the Housing Act 1985) or who are occupying accommodation secured by any housing authority under s192(3)

· People occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions

· People who need to move on medical or welfare grounds, including grounds relating to disability

· People who need to move to a particular locality in the housing authority area, where failure to meet that need would cause hardship (to themselves or others)

The Council state that legislation forbids it to give assistance to individuals subject to immigration control:

A restricted person is a person subject to immigration control who is not eligible for homelessness assistance because he or she does not have leave to enter or remain in the UK or has leave which is subject to a ‘no recourse to public funds’ condition (s.184(7) of the 1996 Act).

The Council seeks views for when the individual subject to immigration is a member of a wider household:

Note that it is not mandatory to exclude a person subject to immigration control from a household, although a household cannot be regarded as having reasonable preference solely on the basis of the needs of a person subject to immigration control as noted above. The council is minded to adopt this exclusion but views on the point would be welcome.

 The Council its definition of what constitutes a 'household' for the purposes of allocation of accommodation. It excludes the  extended families sharing accommodation that are common amongst some ethnic groups in Brent:

Considered as households:

-A single person without dependents
- A married couple
-An unmarried couple, who can prove that they have been resident together for at least 12 months at time of application and at time of offer.   
-A lone parent and their dependent children   
-A married or unmarried couple with dependent children   
-A civil partnership with or without dependent children

 The following would not usually be considered to be part of a household when considering qualification and priority for housing:

· Anyone subject to immigration control

· non-dependent adult children over the age of 21

· other adult relatives

· non-relatives and lodgers

· Extended family members such as cousins, nephews, aunts and uncles

The scheme excludes the following:

-A young person aged 21 or over and therefore not treated as a child would not normally be considered as part of a household and will usually be disregarded when considering applications for rehousing.

- If there are children aged 21 or over who are living at home, advice will be provided on housing options but they will not count towards any calculation of overcrowding. They will be able to apply for housing in their own right but may be disqualified if they do not fall within any of the priority groups defined in this scheme.

- Given the severe shortage of housing and in particular of larger homes, the Council will consider whether people living in a household could move into smaller homes of their own, thereby creating a separate household. If a household member has already made a separate housing application they will not be included in any new or subsequent applications.

 The proposals introduce income thresholds that will try and shift those in need of housing into the private renting sector (which has grown enormously in Brent according to the most recent census and which Muhammed Butt has pledged to improve in terms of quality) or shared ownership.

The ranges which will be reviewed regularly are set at:

· 1 bed - £35,000 a year

· 2 bed - £45,000 a year

· 3 bed - £ 55, 000 a year

· 4 bed - £70,000 a year

 The Council states that in assessing the number of bedrooms required by a household, the following criteria will apply: 

· One double bedroom for a cohabiting couple

· One double bedroom for two additional persons/children of the same sex and generation.

· One double bedroom for two children of the opposite sex, where both children are under 7 years.

· One double bedroom for two children of the same sex unless one is over 10 years of age and there is an age gap of more than 5 years.

· One double bedroom for two dependents of the same sex over 18 years of age.

· One single bedroom for each person who the Council's Medical Officer considers should have their own bedroom on health grounds.

· One single bedroom for any other person included as part of the household.

· Single people will normally be considered for Bedsit accommodation.

· A couple or single parent with a child under two years of age can be

 offered a one bedroom property.

In addition the Council propose that the following categories will normally not qualify:

· Anyone guilty of serious anti-social behaviour where a possession order is being sought or has been obtained

· Anyone who has assaulted a member of staff where an injunction has been sought or obtained

· Anyone who knowingly gives false or misleading information or withholds information that has been reasonably requested.

· Applicants with an income above the limits set out above

The following will apply to housing transfers:

-Tenants with rent arrears of six weeks or more will be suspended from receiving the offer of accommodation. Consideration will be given to varying this rule in some circumstances including;

-Tenants with urgent management or medical priority in band B or A may be transferred at the discretion of the Rehousing Manager.

-Offers of accommodation may be made despite rent arrears to tenants who need to move because of statutory overcrowding or because of an overriding priority awarded by the Allocations Panel or where a permanent decant is essential

-Tenants moving under the Incentive Scheme subject to the above guidelines may be made an offer with the incentive payment being set of against the arrears

Families in temporary accommodation may also face problems

· Homeless households in temporary accommodation may be advised that, if they fall into rent arrears, their housing register application may be suspended. Applications may be suspended when an applicant either

a) refuses to pay the rent

b) fails to make a commitment to repay arrears or

c) fails to provide supporting information for a Housing Benefit claim.

d) accrues an excessive level of arrears

e) is in arrears such that the landlord is taking action to end the tenancy

· If an applicant falls into arrears, their application may be suspended. The application will remain suspended until the arrears are cleared or an agreement has been reached to clear the arrears and this agreement has been kept to for an agreed period. Depending on the amount of the arrears and the nature of the agreement, discretion may be exercised to review cases and lift suspensions. Exceptions may be agreed to this policy, in particular for those cases in bands 1 or 2.

The Council recognises that private sector tenants on the register may be in difficulty because of the welfare reforms:

The council is not minded to introduce any blanket restriction on cases involving rent arrears, in particular since recent and proposed reforms to the welfare system increase the risk that some households may not be able to cover their full rent and because there are cases in which a move may assist in tackling rent arrears, for example where a household moves to a cheaper home

 There are additional detailed proposals regarding carers and military personnel that can be found in the main document.

The Consultation specifically asks for views on:

• The period that should be required to establish a local connection
• How that should be demonstrated through employment (inc part-time and self-employed)?
• What othjer factors could be taken into account to establish a local connection?
• In what circumstances should the Council make exceptions to the local connection requirement?
• What other groups should not qualify under the scheme?
• Should anyone subject to immigration control not be considered as part of the household?
• At what age should non-dependent adult children not be considered part of the household (18.21.25)?
• Are there other people who should normally be considered as part of an applicant;s household?
• In what circumstances should rent arrears mean that a household should not qualify or that an application should be suspended?
• The circumstances in which a transfer application can be made outside the scheme (see main document for details)
• Details regarding how long applicant should have been in employment (see main document)
• Are the proposed bands that rank applicants according to level of needs appropriate (see main document for details)
• Time limits on bidding for accommodation (see main document)
• Should the income thresholds be as set out above?
• Details setting out factors defining 'reasonable preference criteria' (see main document)

 The main consultation document can be found HERE and should be read before responding as it is not possible to cover all the issues in this posting. I hope however that this is sufficient to alert readers to the serious issues involved. The consultation closes on March 8th 2013