Sadiq Khan exposes Mo Butt's short-sightedness

Muhammed Butt retweeted Sadiq Khan, Labour candidate for Mayor on New Year's Eve,  not realising perhaps that in his Independent article Khan advocated exactly the sort of playground that Cllr Butt had bull-dozed in Stonebridge.

Khan's position chimes with Save Stonebridge campaign's argument that the playground brought the community together, aided social cohesion and reduced crime.

Planning Committee and officers in tussle over Lycee swimming pool and Red House

The proposed swimming pool building - the bus stop is currently in front of the rectangular proposed entrance

The planning application by Lycee International De Londres Winston Churchill to build a basement swimming pool on the Grade Two listed former Brent Town Hall site is coming up again at Brent Planning Committee on January 13th. LINK

In a surprise move the Planning Committee turned down the application  at its last meeting but must now give reasons for its decision that could withstand appeal to the Planning Committee. Planning Officers stand by their decision and warn:

In making this resolution [minded to refuse permission], Members raised concerns about the development related to reasons highlighted below. No additional material or information has been submitted by the applicant for Officers to comment on. Members are reminded that any appeals are assessed by the Planning Inspectorate and that appeal performance is a planning ‘quality’ indicator. Appeals also involve costs in terms of staff time and legal advice and the appellant’s costs can be awarded if an Inspector considers that a reason for refusal to be unreasonable. The test of unreasonableness is different from not agreeing with the Council’s decision.

The Committee is reminded that both Heritage England and the 20th Century Society were consulted about the plans before officers recommended approval. Officers stand by their original recommendation to grant planning permission but give a formulation to justify refusal if the Committee decides to maintain their position.

The Committee refused planning permission on two counts - one regarding the impact on the view of the building and the other on the impact of repositioning of the bus stop that is currently adjacent to the steps up to the building.

These would be examined by the Planning Inspectorate if the application goes to appeal:

The proposed pool building, by reason of its design, size and siting and, in particular, its location within the principal frontage of the Grade II listed former Brent Town Hall, results in a detrimental impact on the setting of a Grade II listed building, reducing the visibility of the listed building when viewed from the immediate frontage of the property. This is contrary to Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (consolidated with further alterations since 2011) and the National Planning Policy Framework. 

In the absence of specific details of the proposed relocation of the bus stop and shelter, the proposal is likely to result in conditions prejudicial to the free and safe flow of traffic on a distributor road in terms of the proximity of the bus cage to the traffic signals. This is contrary to saved policies TRN3 and TRN4 of the Brent Unitary Development Plan 2004. 

The Planning Committee's less publicised rejection of the much higher value Red House planning application is subject to the same process.  This is the former Wembley Conservative Party Club close to Wembley Stadium station which was sold off  by the Tories and currently occupied by a commercial play facility. LINK

Situated between the station and the London Designer Outlet this is clearly a valuable plot and the Conservatives may be kicking themselves over the original disposal. The plans are for two buildings, one yet another hotel, 13 storeys with 312 beds, restaurant, bar, gym and offices and another of 4 storeys for A1-4 and D2 use. The development would involve realignment of the route between South Way and the Wembley Park Boulevard.

The Officers again maintain their original recommendation to approve the application, warn about the risks attached to it going to the Planning Inspectorate but give possible reasons for refusal:

-->

1) Design,siting, scale and massing in relation to adjoining buildings

The report and supplementary discussed the relationship to existing buildings, the current masterplan and proposed future changes. Officers consider that the siting and scale issues are generally appropriate to development within the wider growth area and recognise the change in the applicant's ownership. However, if Members are minded to refuse on similar grounds then the following is a possible reason for refusal which concentrates on design issues and the corner location:

The proposal provides an unacceptable response in terms of its design, detailing (including materials) and siting to its prominent corner location and to its relationship to the primary pedestrian route from the High Road, including the legibility of the London Designer Outlet centre, and in the context of the wider masterplan and other development proposals. The proposal is accordingly detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to saved policies BE2, BE3, BE7, BE9, BE10 of the Brent Unitary Development Plan 2004, policy CP5 of the Brent LDF Core Strategy 2010 and Policies WEM1, WEM2, WEM5 of the Wembley Area Action Plan 2015.

(2) Impact on Wembley Park Boulevard in terms of its width during construction and its future alignment to Stadium Station Square

The report explained the reasons for the realignment of the original route of the "boulevard" to link with Stadium Station Square to the south of South Way. Amendments were sought to the layout of the building to respond to this change and, on balance, the principle issue is the legibility of the route and its attractiveness and design for the function intended. If Members are minded to refuse on this ground then the following is a possible reason for refusal;

The proposal, by reason of the reduced width of the interim “boulevard” during construction, fails to demonstrate that the proposal will not result in conditions prejudicial to pedestrian safety during Major Events at Wembley Stadium. This is contrary to saved policy TRN10 of the Brent Unitary Development Plan 2004.

 As often stated here the Planning Committee has statutory independence from the Council and it is interesting to see how that will be maintained, particularly in the new era following the departure of Andy Donald, previously in charge of planning along with regeneration and major projects.

A New Year greeting to Wembley Matters readers, from a contributor

Extreme weather: where are the flood risk areas in Brent?

Dark blue 1/100 year chance  light blue 1/1000 years

Satellite view of same area showing housing, other buildings, road and rail in potential flood area

Tokyngton/Monks Park and River Brent

Satellite view

As a young teacher in Fulham in the late 70s I experienced flood practice as well as fire practice. It included tying down the lids of lavatories to stop sewage rising in the event of the Thames flooding. One member of staff was designated the contact person for the Council which as I remember included wading down to the council offices in the event of loss of telephone contact to update them on the latest situation.

That was all rendered obsolete when the Thames barrier came into operation in 1982.

In Brent the danger is not from the Thames but from the Silkstream and the River Brent and numerous brooks (Wealdstone, Wembley, Mitchell etc) some of which are underground in conduits but emerge at times of flood in places such as Brentfield Road.

The Brent itself has flooded in the past but culverts and flood plains have been created and the river 'naturalised' in places such as Tokyngton Park where underground storage tanks for excess water have been installed. Similar plans have been made for the Wealdstone Brook as it flows past Wembley Park Station and into the development area near Wembley Stadium, eventually meeting up with the Brent, but there has been little news on the proposals since they were first suggested. Meanwhile the amount of development in the area, including where there used to be a boating lake, has increased rapidly with much of the area paved over. In February 2014 Brent Council announced a programme of work aimed at flood prevention in the borough LINK.

There is no immediate threat of flooding in Brent but with increased severe weather events making nonsense of '1 in 100 years' flooding assessments, it is well to be aware of the areas that could be affected if we experience what the North West of the country has over the holiday.

In 1841 the Welsh Harp (Brent Reservoir) overflowed and water gushed down stream causing a number of fatalities. The dam was subsequently heightened and strengthened. In 1976 following the storms that ended the hottest and driest summer for years the sluice gates had to be opened at the Welsh Harp and there was flooding downstream involving the evacuation of many families from their homes.

One would hope that Brent Council has contingency plans in place after recent extreme weather events.

Meanwhile here is a more benign view of the River Brent from John Betjeman

 Gentle Brent, I used to know you
Wandering Wembley-wards at will,
Now what change your waters show you
In the meadowlands you fill!
Recollect the elm-trees misty
And the footpaths climbing twisty
Under cedar-shaded palings,
Low laburnum-leaned-on railings
Out of Northolt on and upward to the heights of Harrow hill.

This is the Environment Agency website. You can submit your postcode to see any flood warnings in your area:  LINK

LRC calls for a 'New Politics in Local Democracy'

In the light of previous postings on the question of Labour councillors implementing cuts and the Corbyn/McDonnell statement on setting legal budgets, this statement by the Labour Representation Committee throws light on the internal Labour debate.

LRC Executive Committee Statement:

Bring a New Politics into Local Democracy -

On the basis of a hasty and highly selective reading of the letter sent to Labour councils by Jeremy Corbyn, together with John McDonnell and Jon Trickett, some right-wingers are claiming that the leadership has endorsed their existing strategy towards implementing the cuts. Likewise some sectarian elements on the left have already begun to accuse the leadership of having made a demoralising climb-down on the issue.

In fact, it is a mistake to see this letter as closing down the debate. Instead, it represents an implicit critique of the failure of the previous leadership – under then Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary Hilary Benn – for failing to ensure that Labour councils across the country engaged “community campaigners, council staff who are under duress as a result of Tory spending cuts, local citizens and others in defending local services”. The letter opens up the whole question of introducing a new and more overtly political approach instead.

It is simply a matter of fact that in the absence of such a mass campaign any attempt to introduce an illegal budget would be liable to be overturned, with councillors debarred from office and spending decisions taken over by the council officers or the Secretary of State. But the letter precisely goes on to advocate building such a mass campaign. The role of the LRC and the Labour left is to pressure our local councils through CLPs and wider campaigning groups including Momentum, to make sure that the call for such a mass campaign is made into a reality, and develops to an extent which makes a bolder course of action possible.

The election of a radical left leadership, with an overwhelming mandate from members of supporters of the Party, has changed the situation which the LRC faces. We are now not only defending the rights of individual councillors to raise the need for no-cuts budgets, and supporting them in the face of disciplinary measures – which we will continue to do. Rather, we now have the chance to develop and implement a strategy for the whole of Labour’s local government base to resist the cuts in practice. But only by mobilising significant sections of our communities will this become a practical option.

In no sense should the existing legal situation be used as an excuse to implement Tory cuts. If Labour’s new commitment to being an “anti-austerity” party is to be credible, we need to be demonstrating at a local level that we are willing in practice to challenge the imposition of these cuts.
It does not automatically follow that setting a legal budget means simply passing on the cuts to our communities. Since they have a disproportionate impact on women, disabled people and minority ethnic communities, cuts which would further widen existing inequalities must not be passed on. The LRC calls on councils to exhaust all available avenues under the law, including extensive drawing-down of reserves and use of prudential borrowing powers, to forestall the latest round of cuts while an effective mass campaign of resistance is built.

In the spirit of the decision to respect the genuine difference between MPs by giving them a free vote over the bombing of Syria, we also call for a radical overhaul of the Councillors’ Contract to ensure that individual councillors have the freedom to express their views over issues much closer to home. If the Party can relax the whip on issues of life and death, surely it might be relaxed on questions like cuts to essential social care?

At the same time we recognise the dangers of council leaders and officers interpreting the leadership’s letter as a green light for continuing with the cuts. Some Labour councillors appear to need reminding that they are political representatives and not just competent and compassionate administrators. If Labour fails to respond to the challenge of building a mass campaign of resistance to Tory-driven austerity at a local level, the whole question of our credibility as an “anti-austerity” party will be undermined. We will look like the kind of party who makes promises in opposition but fails to deliver on them in power. Worse, if we fail to build a mass campaign against these Tory cuts, we will have failed to create the political basis in public opinion for throwing out this government and getting a radical Corbyn-led Labour government elected.

We cannot stress enough the urgency of building a broad, united campaign against the Tory cuts which actively mobilises our communities behind mass resistance. This would open up new possibilities, including expanding and democratising the whole budget-setting process by introducing forms of community participation and deliberation over the needs of their own communities. This is not the end of the debate, it’s only the beginning. It’s high time that Labour brought a new politics into local democracy.

WEEE collection at the Tricycle from Monday

From the Tricycle Theatre blog

Mobile phones, digital cameras, tablets, TVs and battery-operated toys – are all likely to figure high on wish lists this Christmas.

As a large proportion of those shiny, new gadgets will be replacing yesterday’s unwanted or broken models, the question facing their owners is what to do with the old ones?

We’ve teamed up with The Waste Minimisation Team at West London Waste Authority to host another free recycling bin for small Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, or WEEE., from Monday 4 January until Sunday 10 January 2016.

This event will provide local residents and visitors to the theatre with an opportunity to declutter their homes of broken or unwanted small electrical items such as alarm clocks, toys, kettles and hair dryers and dispose of them at a convenient location.

James Foran, our Operations Manager at the Tricycle Theatre said:

‘At the Tricycle we’re committed to becoming a more environmentally sustainable theatre, reducing our energy emissions and establishing green initiatives that reduce our carbon footprint.

This is a wonderful opportunity to work with West London Waste and the local community in Brent on an initiative which only takes a little effort for each individual but can have a real impact for all of us.’

Landfilling of WEEE can be particularly dangerous as it contains hazardous substances such as mercury, lead, beryllium and cadmium. Recycling these items means fewer raw materials need to be used in the manufacture of new goods and precious metals are used again.

So when you enjoy entertainment at the Tricycle Theatre in the New Year, take along your unwanted small electrical or electronic items to ensure it gets recycled and doesn’t end up in landfill!

Contact The Waste Minimisation Team at West London Waste Authority on 0208 825 9468, or info@westlondonwaste.gov.uk.

Engineering to combat climate change - predictions for 2016

I get a lot of press releases sent to me, few of which I use as the basis for articles.  In the context of the Paris talks and the current focus on climate change as a consequence of the floods, I thought this was worth publishing (unedited). Perhaps particularly pertinent in the light of the Quintain developments around Wembley Stadium.
 

A team of experts at leading environmental engineering firm Max Fordham have compiled a list of their predictions for the coming year, with a focus on reducing energy consumption and ensuring that building designers put the health and wellbeing of the people who use that building first.

The full list of Max Fordham’s predictions is as follows:

Infrastructure-scale solutions to climate change

Governments will be forced to tackle the problems caused by climate change by introducing infrastructure-scale solutions. Hopefully these will give way to exciting examples of urban design, such as the $335 million scheme to upgrade Lower Manhattan’s storm defences.

A “Trip Advisor” for buildings

The development of a ‘Trip Advisor’ for buildings and building comfort. Users will be able to rate office, retail and hospitality buildings on a number of criteria such as temperature, daylight, acoustics and ventilation that will then be fed back into the building management systems for efficiency based on big data. Enabling consumer pressure to drive improved performance.

More plants on buildings

The increased use of living roofs on commercial and domestic buildings, and an increased awareness of the role buildings can play in maintaining biodiversity.

Global harm tax on fossil fuels

The introduction of a global harm tax on both the extraction and use of fossil fuels which makes visible the damage caused by these sources of energy and also encourages the development of alternative forms of energy production.

Population control

The need for action on global population growth will be addressed by ensuring universal access to contraception. This will provide positive impacts in terms of both economic growth and public health.

Wider awareness of carbon impact of construction

In design and client teams, we’ll see a wider appreciation and understanding of embodied energy and the total carbon impact of the construction process.

In-building energy storage

The development of In-building energy storage systems or daily heat stores to spread the peak energy demand of a building over a day.

Energy Performance Contracts become the norm

Energy Performance Contracts become expected for more new builds. Better prediction of actual energy consumption and then having to deliver on this in practice. It will put a much better focus on the way we design and the way we build.

Death of “tick box” sustainability

The death of BREEAM and ‘tick-box’ sustainability with a move to a more appropriate choice. We will see an even greater rise in the employment of sustainability matrices such as the one developed by Max Fordham.

Greater recognition of the impact buildings have on health

Comfort, health and well-being will become a much larger part of considerations when designing and building non-residential, commercial lettings.

The predictions were assembled by the team including engineers Thomas Greenhill and John Gunstone, sustainability consultant Elinor Huggett, and Phil Armitage and Guy Nevill, both Senior Partners at the Practice.

The predictions include the development of a kind of “Trip Advisor” for buildings, where users rate how comfortable they are in terms of temperature and acoustics, which is then fed back into the building management system.

Large scale infrastructure projects will become necessary to combat the effects of climate change and to avoid a repeat of the flooding recently seen in the north of the country.

A global “harm tax” should be introduced on both the extraction and use of fossil fuels to make visible the damage caused by these sources of energy and also encourage the development of alternative forms of energy production.

Earlier in December this year, leaders from every country agreed to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2C. Currently, around half of the UK’s energy consumption is used in the heating of buildings and so developing more sophisticated and efficient insulation systems and reducing the amount of energy used in construction could play a key role in ensuring the UK meets its targets.  

Guy Nevill, said: “While the COP21 agreement is a tremendously positive step, we still have lots of work to do in terms of reducing our carbon emissions, as well as building schemes to protect ourselves from the inevitable consequences of climate change. Engineering is crucial to ensuring we are able to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and minimise the effects of the damage we have already done to the planet.”

Other predictions include the use of in-building energy storage systems, wider appreciation and understanding of embodied energy and the total carbon impact of the construction process and the widespread use of Energy Performance Contracts.

Phil Armitage, Senior Partner at Max Fordham said: “Some of our predictions are quite optimistic, but they are intended to highlight the problems we face and some of the ways engineering can be used to help solve them.”

It's time to re-launch a campaign for decent public toilet provision - it's an equality issue

A student teacher colleague, a vicar's daughter, had an unfortunate experience with a Clapham Junction infant class on a long coach trip, when on the motorway, they all started wailing that they wanted a 'wee'.  Red cheeked she remonstrated that she had asked them if they 'wanted to go' before the trip and nobody had said yes.  It turned out that she had asked them if they wanted to 'spend a penny'. None of them were familiar with the genteel phrase - hence the crisis.

I was reminded of this in Hammersmith at the weekend when there was a queue for the public toilets at '50p a pee' with some families debating with their children whether they could 'hold it in' and others pushing kids under the turnstile and risking them going inside on their own. In fact 50 pence is cheap in comparison with some public toilets which can go up to £2. One teenager in the queue remarked to her disgrunbtled friend, 'If you want a decent toilet you have to pay for it.'

But the issue is not just the cost of public toilets but whether they are available at all and what this means for people with young children, pregnant women, the disabled, the elderly - and in Wembley the football fans who have had several drinks too many before the match.

British and Irish humour has a rich tradition of 'toilet humour', my grandfather taught me the song 'Oh, dear what can the matter be, three old ladies stuck in the lavatory, they were there from Monday to Saturday', a cleaner version of the Irish 'Seven old ladies etc' LINK.  But actually this is no joking matter for people who find their quality of life, and in some cases their freedom to go out of the house for long periods, severely affected by the lack of public lavatories. I have heard from parents that the lack of public toilets in some of our parks, such as King Edward VII in Wembley, means that they do not use the park for extended visits, picnics etc.

Back in the 80s many public toilets were sold off and turned over to other uses - I remember an architect's studio in Fulham and a basement billiards club on Shepherds Bush Green. Despite various campaigns over the decades they have not been replaced.

A petition LINK was launched to the Coalition government in 2012 with a simple demand:

The law currently allows, but does not compel Local Authorities to provide toilets. The situation is worsening; 40% of Public Toilets have closed in the last decade.

Many people lead restricted lives because they cannot rely on access to a Public Toilet in the places and at the times required. There are rarely sufficient toilets for women, resulting in lengthy queues; elderly and disabled people cannot always find accessible toilets; provision for babies and children is inadequate; many toilets shut at inconvenient times. Lack of toilets can lead to street fouling; a major public health issue. "Community toilets" (toilets in private business premises) do not meet everyone's needs.

Good public toilet provision will enable everyone to participate fully in civic life and will attract visitors and boost local economies.

We want a law requiring Local Authorities to provide and maintain suitable, safe, clean and appropriately located Public Toilets with realistic opening hours.

As long ago as 2004 the London Green Party made it a campaign issue and as the situation has deteriorated since then I think we should once again make it an issue. There is little in the statement that does not still apply:  LINK

According to [the] report, entitled ‘Toilets going to waste", London is suffering from a severe shortage of public loos, and nowhere more so than in Islington, which has fewer public facilities per head than any other London borough.

In London as a whole, the number of toilets open for more than 12 hours a day has decreased by half since 1995, causing severe difficulties for thousands of elderly or incontinent people or those with young children.

Greens believe all levels of government should act to reverse this decline, making good toilet provision a statutory requirement.

There is a huge disparity in the number of toilets per head of population within London boroughs, with Greenwich in the lucky position of having one facility for every 5,000 people and Islington at the other end of the scale with 58,000 people fighting for the use of each public loo.

“Everyone needs to use a public toilet at some point," says Jon Nott.

"This report shows what a dreadful state London’s public conveniences are in, particularly in Islington, where you clearly need a bladder of steel. This is a serious problem and if not addressed could lead to our streets becoming a major health hazard.”

"In many parts of London, such as Islington, the only option for people is the less civilised one," adds Noel Lynch, who compiled the report. "Our streets are becoming an urban toilet, clearly unbefitting for a world-class city."

Where toilets do exist they are often in an appalling state of repair or are inaccessible to many due to their positioning. Often toilets are  located down steep fights of stairs or are lacking the space to make them a feasible option for disabled people. Greens want to see local councils putting money into new toilets that are accessible to all members of the public.

"Poor toilet provision is an inconvenience for anyone but it is an  issue of discrimination for all those people who cannot gain access to toilets due to thoughtless positioning," says Noel. "I have heard from lots of people whose lives are restricted by the lack of toilets in London."

In order to halt the trend in declining numbers of public loos the report makes the following recommendations:

• The government should place councils under a legal duty to provide good toilets.
• The mayor should ensure that all the spaces in his 100 Public Spaces Programme have well-equipped, accessible toilets.
• Boroughs should identify those areas that need the new or refurbished toilets and embark on a 5-year programme to re-open, re-furbish or install new toilets.
• Boroughs should ensure that new developments include good quality toilets and secure agreements with the owners of large stores and pubs to make their toilets open to the public in return for council sponsored cleaning.

An Equalities Impact Assessment would show that the lack of public toilet facilities impacts disproportionately on particular groups of the population but more broadly it is an indicator of the deterioration in public provision and the impact of privatisation over since the 70s.

This is the case the British Toilet Assocation LINK set out and one I think we should support:

Why do we need more and better toilets?

There are an increasing number of specialist user groups, whose lives are affected by the state of Britain’s public toilets. These include people with mental or physical disabilities and their carers; the infirm or elderly; people with babies or young children and people of all ages who are coping with a range of medical conditions.

• Britain’s population has an increasingly significant ‘ageing’ profile
• Residents travel more within the country, and the number of visitors to Britain increases each year, placing added pressure on our existing toilet facilities
• Public health and hygiene, as well as environmental issues, are constantly in the news, with increasing media interest in all matters relating to public toilets
• Public toilets are the ‘shop window’ for any area or establishment – where first and lasting impressions of levels of customer care are made

What are the British Toilet Association’s Objectives?

• To focus attention on issues relating to the provision of public or ‘away from home’ toilets
• To campaign for appropriate legislation relating to the provision of public toilets by Local Authorities
• To campaign for high standards of public or ‘away from home’ toilets in all areas, including municipal locations, health, education, transport, leisure, hospitality and retail establishments
• To campaign for the provision of an adequate number of facilities for women, in relation to the number of facilities provided for men.
• To campaign for adequate facilities for specialist user groups, such as wheelchair users, the elderly, babies and young children and people with medical conditions.
• To campaign for the provision of secure, fully attended public toilet facilities, with extended opening hours.
• To campaign for the eradication of all types of social misuse and vandalism in public toilets.
• To provide a forum for public toilet providers, contractors, suppliers and users to share concerns and ideas and communicate best practices.
• To provide consultancy and information services to Association members on a range of relevant subjects.
• To establish links with similar Toilet Associations in other countries