The
Greener Jobs Alliance gives a response to the Government Air Pollution
Plan published in July 2017 and identifies how union and community
activists can respond.
No
one can say that the Government hasn’t been given a chance to get this
right. We’ve had 3 court cases since 2011 all pointing out that the UK
is in breach of its legal duty. In May 2017 a consultation document
where the overwhelming response was that more needs to be done. Finally,
on July 26th, we got the publication of ‘The UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide emissions’. LINK
Not
surprisingly the ‘plan’ has been panned for failing to tackle this
public health emergency. By not adequately addressing what should be
done now, rather than in
23 years time, the Government has condemned thousands of people to a
premature death. Advocating a ban on petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040
is all well and good, but we needed a clear framework for the urgent
implementation of clean air zones before 2020. Other shortcomings are
highlighted in articles published following the launch of the report.
The government's air pollution plan is a beautiful smokescreen - Guardian Environment We
agree with Client Earth’s James Thornton’s observation that “it is
little more than a shabby rewrite of the previous draft plans and is
underwhelming and lacking in urgency. Having promised to make air
quality a top priority, Michael Gove appears to have fallen at the first
hurdle.”
What happened to the ‘polluter pays principle’?
The
Greener Jobs Alliance called for specific duties to be placed on
businesses. In our submission to the consultation, we pointed out that ‘There should be a legal duty on large businesses to carry out an emissions assessment. For
example, a single employer may be responsible for generating thousands
of vehicle movements every day by their staff and suppliers. They need
to provide evidence that they have a transport policy in place to bring
their emissions down within clear time limits’.
It is part of a system that fails to make oil, gas and coal companies
face up to the wider social costs inflicted by their products. In fact,
they end up getting massive subsidies. For example, earlier this year
files were leaked showing £4.9 billion provided to fossil fuel firms in
export finance by the government since 2010. LINK Far
from setting out any obligations on employers, the Government plan
advocates the exact opposite. We are told in Para 47 that ‘The UK government is clear that any action to improve air quality must not be done at the expense of local businesses’.
So much for the principle of the polluter pays. Most air pollution is
generated by work-related activities and yet the individual and the
state pick up the bill. The need for a focus on employer’s
responsibilities makes it even more important that trades unions start
to get serious about air pollution. This is a workplace issue and must
be treated as such.
Mandatory Clean Air Zones needed
Defra’s
own evidence makes it clear that charge zones are the most effective
way to tackle pollution. Yet local authorities don’t have to produce
plans until December 2018. Implementation could take much longer and
cash strapped councils will find it hard to comply. A campaign is needed
urgently to turn CAZs that charge or ban dirty vehicles from a last
resort to a first resort measure. They must be coordinated and funded by
central government. This is a national public health crisis and
requires a national response. Who should pay for this? Large businesses
that fail to show effective measures for reducing their
distribution/supply and travel emissions.
What should trade unions do?
Union members measure air pollution outside and inside the workplaceCurrently,
the UCU is the only union with national policy on tackling air
pollution. Every union needs to draw up plans for involving their safety
reps in making this an occupational health priority. Indoor and outdoor
pollution are often linked. Toxic air kills whether a worker is exposed
inside or outside a building. It is also an area that lends itself to
cross union engagement through trades union councils linking up at a
city and regional level with community activists. Unions also need to
get involved in consultations over the introduction and implementation
of Clean Air Zones. In addition to London, there are 28 other local
authorities in England that are required to take local action in ’the
shortest possible time’. These are referenced on Page 31 of the report.
Unions need to check this list and prioritise how they will respond.
FirstPort, the property services company for Forum House at Wembley Park have issued the following advice to leaseholders and residents:
Fire
Safety and ACM Cladding on part of Forum House
The following information has been issued to keep you fully abreast of
the current position in respect of the building in the unlikely event of a fire
at the property.
Following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower we have carried out some reviews
of the building that we manage, in line with Government (DCLG) advice.
Through this review it has been established that some of the trim on the
roof section and parts of the facia of The North Core (above the reception) are
partially clad in a silver aluminium cladding material which is referred to as
ACM. This relates to a small proportion of the building façade and at this
juncture should not give rise to undue concern albeit that we are considering
the options and actions open to us.
On receiving this information we contacted the Fire and Rescue Services
and also notified the building’s insurers to establish if any immediate action
was required. Initial findings are that no immediate action is necessary.
You may have heard it reported that the Government has produced an
updated document, setting out fresh guidelines for testing procedure/s. This
includes testing the entire cladding system and not just the exterior cladding
material. This is important as the systems behind this cladded facia can be key
to the structure’s performance in the event of a fire, and the nature of this
system can differ significantly from building to building.
As a result we need to consider the further guidance provided from these
results before we can definitively conclude if any action or replacement is to
be required on Forum House.
In the interim we pro-actively invited the Fire Brigade to carry out an
inspection of the building in order to ascertain if there was anything further
we can do to enhance fire safety at Forum House. Thankfully they were happy
with the processes and strategy we have in place and were satisfied that we
operate the development correctly and efficiently in terms of fire safety.
Nevertheless, taking into account the guidance issued by the Fire
Brigade at other affected comparable buildings, we have instructed additional
patrols of the building by the onsite staff during the night time and I can
confirm that these have begun. These will stay in place until further notice.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind you all that a “stay
put” policy is in operation at Forum House in the unlikely event of a fire.
Homes and developments such as Forum House are built with fire compartmentation,
which is designed to resist the passage of fire between the walls and doors
giving ample time for the fire services to arrive.
In this way, the fire service are given plenty of time to assess risks
and ensure that, if needed, any evacuation is managed in a safe and orderly
fashion.
In addition, the communal corridors and escape passages at Forum House
are equipped with smoke ventilation systems to improve conditions for means of
escape and fire-fighting by limiting obscuration and toxicity in the common
escape routes. These systems are tested regularly and in line with
manufacturers recommendations.
We understand that there may be concerns around the “stay put” policy at
this time. The following remains the guidance from the London Fire Brigade:
“If
there is a fire inside your apartment leave, closing the door behind you and
call 999. If there is a fire elsewhere in the building, and not inside your own
apartment their advice is to stay put. The Fire Service will carry out an
evacuation of the other apartments if necessary.”
Further information can be found on http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/staying-in-or-going- out.asp.
We also ask that residents ensure they remove anything that is
combustible on their balconies. This is of course a stipulation in your lease
but as is apparent from walking around the building there are a number of
residents that continue to breach this lease requirement. Barbeques and storing
items other than small garden furniture are examples of such breaches. In light
of the above, we would ask that you comply with this instruction as a matter of
urgency.
Fire safety should be at the forefront of everyone’s mind, and to that
end please ensure you are comfortable with the fire procedures, know where the
nearest fire exit is and make sure the smoke alarms in your apartment are
tested regularly and replaced every 10 years. It is also good practice to close
all your apartment’s internal doors when you go to bed at night.
We will advise if any specific action or change is needed and we will
continue to keep you updated in relation to this matter. Meanwhile, we will
also continue to track any findings or new guidelines and take the appropriate
actions.
Finally, should you have any further general questions or queries we
would in the first instance refer you to the enclosed statement and guidance
relating to fire safety. However, should you have any questions that are not
answered by this document then please do not hesitate to contact us.
Not the Ealing Northfields but a brownfield site just north of the North Circular Road between Alperton and Stonebridge Park station. The development has been the subject of several consultations and another phase starts today with a 'Walk and Talk' workshop.
Places are limited at these events so please book your place in advance by emailing info@futurenorthfields.com
Tonight's workshop will start at the new Northfields Information Centre building on Beresford Avenue.
I am grateful to fellow blogger
James Powney LINK for drawing attention to last week's
Cabinet decision to spend £17.8m of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) cash
raised through the Quintain development on improving the Public Realm outside
Brent Civic Centre and along Olympic Way.
Just in case we thought that there may be other areas of Wembley or Brent
that could do with an infrastucture uplift, Brent claim that there will be
benefits for the borough as well as Quintain. In particular they want a
public square outside the Wembley Library and restrictions on Quintain's plans
for site NW04 adjacent to the Civic Centre. They argue that this will support
an 'education quarter'. The Council has told the College of North West London LINK that it wishes to acquire the College's
Wembley Site and 'would not look favourably on planning permission for the
required housing provision if the college proceeds with an alternative
developer.'
This is what the Officer's Report LINK had to say:
To assist in achieving the
vision for Wembley, a significant element in terms of place making is the
provision of new and substantial steps to the stadium to replace the pedestrian
way (‘pedway’) and works to the public realm between Wembley Park underground
station and the National Stadium Wembley: Olympic Way. This will enhance the
area, both from an aesthetic and functional requirement.
Olympic Way as a piece of public
realm is showing its age. It does not present the type of quality considered
consistent with the environment necessary for a world renowned iconic venue and
the wider Wembley Park development. In the context of other pressing
infrastructure needs and other Council revenue spending requirements, a
response might be that a significant Council funding contribution towards
these changes should be a low priority. Nevertheless, this would be a
simplistic and does not take account of all factors, including limitations
associated with funding streams generated from development. CIL funding
attained by the Council is specifically related to infrastructure and is not
available to support Council general revenue spending. In addition this
proposed change in public realm should be seen as part of a wider picture about
what will be achieved in Wembley which will have far reaching positive impacts
for Brent and its prospects.
Improved public realm has a key
role in place-making. Such changes in their own right have the potential to
totally transform the perception and function of an area. It can lead to
enhanced social and economic value benefits that far outweigh the initial
investment. Notable examples of the impacts of such transformational public
realm changes are Regent’s Street, Granary Square at Kings Cross, Birmingham,
Manchester, Sheffield and Liverpool city centres. Empirical evidence set out in
valuing the Benefits of Regeneration published by CLG 2010 indicates a benefit
cost ratio of 1.4 for public realm work. Specific evidence associated with
Sheffield indicated that the £9.5 million invested in the Peace Gardens has
generated £4.5 million visitor shopping/leisure spend per annum that otherwise
would not have occurred. In addition it attracted commercial property
investment and occupiers that otherwise would not have come, improving
investment yields with the associated economic benefits of providing access to
future investor funding.
The transformational change of
Wembley has and will continue to require strong partnership working between the
Council, developers and key stakeholders. As part of providing certainty and
support for investment, the Council has previously identified that it will use
contributions generated by Quintain’s developments to support the new
infrastructure. Key elements relate to where these contributions will be
prioritised relate to the provision of new jobs and homes and improvements to
the environment and public realm. As part of the shared vision for Wembley, the
Council has worked closely with Quintain in identifying the quality of public
space that both organisations consider is necessary to enhance the Wembley
offer.
Following a design competition,
in which the council participated, Dixon Jones were selected as Architects and
Gross Max as Landscape Architects for Olympic Way. Designs have been developed
over a number of months that when implemented will:
·
Provide new hard and soft landscaping throughout
·
New coordinated crossing at Fulton Road
·
New Lighting columns with large banners and future digital screens
·
New Trees
·
Built in services to allow pop up and cultural events
·
Fast Wifi throughout
·
Containment for future digital screens
·
Wayfinding
·
Create a significant square outside Civic Centre
·
Remove of the Pedway and new substantial steps
·
Enhanced entrance to the stadium
·
New Retail / meeting point below new stadium steps
·
Removal of surplus ramps and steps adjacent to 1 Olympic Way
·
Cycle parking at Wembley Park station
·
Treatment to Bobby Moore Bridge
· Long
term management arrangements through potential for designation as a ‘Area of
special interest’
Powney, an ex-Labour councillor,
comments:
I am not not reassured by the
opacity of Quintain's relationship with the Council, or what often strike me as
the perverse judgements of Cllr Muhammed Butt in planning matters, or the
degree to which the Planning Committee is independent of the Council Leader's
influence.
The Green Party's parliamentary candidate for Brent Central, Shaka Lish, has challenged Brent Council about the felling of trees in Gladstone Park. Accusing Brent Council of an act of 'wilful vandalism' she asked, 'What is the point of cutting down our beautiful, healthy, ancient trees?' She asked if the Council had any plans to replace them. At the recent Brent Clean Air meeting at the Civic Centre, Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, extolled the benefits of trees to combat air pollution but a closer examination shows this may be no more than hot air. A Freedom of Information request by Wembley Matters LINK established that Brent Council keeps no records of trees lost, felled and replaced in its parks and that none of the 62 trees removed on Brent Housing Partnership estates Jan 1st-Dec 31st 2016 had been replaced.
Parks maintenance is contracted out to Veolia as part of the Public Realm contract and Gristwood and Toms is contracted to deal with trees over a specific height. It's ironic given all the above that Brent Council has received a Forestry Commission London's Trees and Woodland Award LINK:
Borough Tree Award - Brent Council Tree Planting Project, Sudbury Town, Barn Hill,
Harlesden and Kensal Green
The Trees and Development Award: Wembley Park – Arena Square and Wembley Park Boulevard.
Market Square (meantime planting). Quintain, London Borough of Brent
Guest post by Andrew Linnie. This issue was covered earlier on Wembley Matters LINK
R55’s Minavil House project in Alperton has been the subject
of much debate and controversy for some time now. The tower, standing at 26
storeys, will bring a huge shift in the landscape of the area, and was
described by various industry publications as the tallest building in the
entire borough. This came as quite a surprise to residents both old and new, as
the 2011 Alperton Masterplan adopted by Brent Council set out a vision for the
area of buildings up to a maximum of 17 storeys. It would stand to reason that
a building a full 9 storeys above the maximum height for the area would be a
cause for debate, but Brent Council seemed uninterested in engaging with the
discussion.
The proposal shown towering over twelve storeys above
its nearest neighbour (Submitted application drawings).
At the planning committee meeting in May, I put forward the concerns
of residents in the two minute speaking time allotted to a single objector. It
is of note that the council allows three minutes to the developer to put
forward their case. Those concerns included the loss of light and sky to
surrounding dwellings, the spurious transport impact figures used, and the fact
that the building directly contravened the supporting planning document (SPD)
for the area. These issues were largely disregarded in the ensuing discussion
among councillors and the scheme was approved. None of the three councillors
for Alperton (Cllrs Allie, Chohan and Patel) attended the meeting.
At this point I wrote a petition which over 200 residents
signed, and further problems with the development were noted. In its disregard
for context the project’s density runs off the charts, featuring twice the
number of housing units per hectare of neighbouring schemes. A conversation
with an independent transport assessor involved with another development in the
ward reinforced the assertion that the transport impact figures presented at
the meeting – of just two additional passengers per train at peak times – were
wildly underestimating the impact of a development this size. The issues of
light and sky persisted, and concerns about access and the level of parking
provided remain unanswered (there are 251 homes but only 35 parking spaces,
most of which are for a Lidl on the ground floor). It also emerged that the
architectural justifications for the project’s height from R55’s own online
publication misrepresented the scale of neighbouring buildings and created an
impression of the constructed landscape rising towards the Minavil site which,
in reality, does not exist.
The architectural justification for the project, with
the actual numbers of storeys added. It shows large leaps in height between
buildings only three storeys apart, and a small step up from 14 to 26 storeys.
The image also implies a rising contour between two 11 storey buildings of
equal height (R55).
The petition was addressed to MP for Brent North Barry
Gardiner, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, the members of the GLA including our
local assembly member Navin Shah, and the councillors for the ward of Alperton
and Brent in general.
Mr Gardiner held a meeting in the wake of the Grenfell
tragedy in which he addressed the issues of residents in high rise buildings.
Present at the meeting were many locals, representatives of housing trusts, Brent
Borough Fire Commander Mark Davis, and the Head of Planning for Brent. When
pursued by Mr Gardiner on the point of whether such proposals are assessed for
their fire risk, the Head of Planning admitted they are not. For a
disproportionately tall building with a small footprint, on a site hemmed in by
a canal, a bridge and an industrial estate, this added further grave concerns
for neighbouring homes.
Though Mr Shah’s office and Mr Gardiner were responsive to
the petition, the scheme was passed back from the Mayor of London to Brent for
approval with no intervention. Unless the Secretary of State for Planning (Alok
Sharma) decides to intervene, the building work will commence, reportedly in
November. At that point the debate will inevitably turn from one about this
particular site to one about the wider area, and what kind of regeneration the
local population want. When commitments are made to residents to lead a
regeneration area in a certain direction and then entirely forgotten at the
planning committee level, questions must be asked as to whether Brent Council
are representing the interests of local people or the interests of developers.
