Revised plans for replacing King's Drive estate garages with bungalows

£

The plan - trees to be removed in red

Proposed bungalows

The site at present

 Brent Council (formerly BHP) have been seeking areas of the borough's council estates to build new homes in its Refill Development Programme in an attempt  to build more affordable homes to alleviate the housing shortage in the borough.

Modified plans have been published to replace garages on the King's Drive Estate (between Barn Hill (the road) and King's Drive. After initial consultation the plans were put on hold due to the surprise General Election but attracted local opposition include a 100 signature petition.

Opposition came from residents of the large private homes on Barn Hill whose gardens back on to the estate and residents of the blocks on the estate. The former concentrated on the loss of trees that screen their gardens from the estate and the latter on the loss of car parking, citing shortage of parking as a continuing problem on the estate. The revised plan includes re-provision of 25 parking places for residents

Objections have also been made to the design of the proposed 4 flat-roofed bungalows and the fact that vehicular access will be restricted which is a problem on the closes on the estate with large refuse lorries often encountering problems.

King's Drive residents have accused Brent Council/BHP of deliberately running down the garages that will be replaced by the bungalows and allege that tenants were not given sufficient notice of eviction. Similar allegations have been made on other estates. 

A King's Drive resident's submission on the Planning Portal:

I have resided at the above address for over twenty years. It is a ground floor flat with the rear elevation backing onto the said garages. My living room and main bedroom overlook this view, which I would describe as quiet, with a pleasant aspect of trees, grass and wildlife. Since 2017 it has however been in a state of ‘limbo’ since myself and other residents were (with very little notice) rudely EVICTED from these garages. 


This has resulted in people from outside the estate ‘dumping’ vehicles and rubbish in front of the garages. In fact, one of the garages has been forced open and filled with car tyres. Most unpleasant environmentally? and a fire hazard! One of my main objections to the proposal is that after the recent introduction of increased parking restrictions to our area there is already a shortage of parking for the tenants and visiting tradesmen to the estate. This will only be exasperated if the building of the bungalows goes ahead. The proposed plan for extra parking provisions for existing  tenants has not been properly thought through, and could only ever be achieved with the wilful destruction of more trees and foliage to the rear of my property.

If this building goes ahead the noise, dust and vibrations will be intolerable whilst under construction. Upon completion my ‘block’ of flats will be in very close proximity to the bungalows. In fact, my ground floor flat is at the bottom of a grassed slope, which is below the projected level of the new builds, so the occupants and their vehicles will face directly down into my living room and bedroom areas leaving me with a loss of privacy, light and what was a ‘green’ outlook. The pollution of noise and dust from further occupants and their vehicles is not something that my husband and I look forward to as we are both pensioners in our seventies. We, like all the other residents enjoy the open environmental character of the area, in particular as we are on the edge of Fryent Country Park, but I fear that this is just the beginning of an erosion of this irreplaceable treasure.

In conclusion, the garages have been deliberately allowed to decay through lack of maintenance as an excuse for demolition!  

Although myself and other residents use public transport whenever practicable, Brent have a duty of care to their existing tenants to provide reasonably safe and secure parking facilities rather than misappropriate them.

Please do not allow this to happen.

Clearly the needs of people on the housing waiting list have to be balanced with the quality of provision for those living on the estate and environmental issues but the council seems not to have helped themselves win over people  through clumsy consultation that residents allege has used misleading photographs and statistics.

A report to Housing Scrutiny Committee LINK puts the building costs of the 4  units at a total of  £1,950,000 which seems quite steep considering the quality of the buildings shown in the artist's impression above.

They even managed to get the date of the amended description wrong on the Site Notice:

Further details can be found on the Planning Portal (Ref 17/5416) LINK

 Details of the Infill Development proposals across the borough are in the document below:

Free English classes in Brent

 Free, open to all, no papers needed, drop-in ok
For more information call Robin 07974 331 053.

Intermediate Classes:

Sundays 11am -1pm
Apollo Club, 375 Willesden High Road, NW10 2JR
Enrolment: 18 February
Start: 25 February
Finish: 22 April

Monday 6pm -7.30pm:
Kilburn Library, 42 Salusbury Road, NW6 6NN
Enrolment: 26 February
Start: 5 March
Finish: 26 April

Tuesday 10am - 12pm
Apollo Club, 375 Willesden High Road, NW10 2JR
Enrolment: 20 February
Start: 27 February
Finish: 24 April

Wednesday 1pm - 3pm
CVS Brent Training room, 7 Rutherford Way, Wembley, HA9 0BP
Started already, new people welcome
Finish: 28 April

Beginner Classes:
Thursdays 7pm - 9pm
Harlesden Salvation Army, 32 Manor Park Road, NW10 4JJ
Enrolment: 22 February
Start: 1 March
Finish: 19 April

Talk: Kingsbury's aircraft industry - Barham Community Library February 28th

Quintain euphoric after Brent approves the biggest yet Boxpark in Wembley

It appears that what Quintain wants, Quintain gets, although their and Brent Council's vision for Wembley may not be shared by all residents.

This is Quintain's unedited press release about the Planning Committee's approval of the planning application for a Boxpark to be situated for 10 years at the junction of Olympic Way and Fulton Road.

Boxpark and Quintain last night secured planning permission for the largest Boxpark to date. The London Borough of Brent granted permission for Boxpark Wembley, a 10 year joint venture between Quintain and Boxpark Ltd. to bring forward a brand-new casual dining and event destination, located directly on Olympic Way (known to fans around the world as the iconic Wembley Way).

Set to open in late 2018, Boxpark Wembley will be positioned in the heart of Wembley Park – an area which is being transformed into a new creative district for London. The arrival of Boxpark, home to some of the UK’s most innovative street food operators and cutting edge events, further cements the area’s emergence as one of London’s most exciting new locations.

Boxpark Wembley will house 27 food and beverage operators, a 20,000 sq ft dedicated events space and 300 capacity venue. Boxpark Wembley has been designed to cater for the millions of visitors who come to the area every year for world class sport, music and shopping, as well as the growing community in Wembley Park, with over 7,000 new homes, 500,000 sq ft of retail and leisure and 630,000 sq ft of Grade A office space being delivered. It is anticipated that 20,000 people will call Wembley Park home by 2027.

The events space will provide a year round cultural destination, creating and hosting a diverse and dynamic events programme for up to 2,000 people. Working together with emerging local artists and established talent from across the capital, Boxpark will further enhance Wembley Park's reputation as a vibrant, connected and emerging neighbourhood.

Speaking about the submission, James Saunders, Chief Operating Officer of Quintain (delivering Wembley Park), said:

“We’re thrilled to be able to say that Boxpark is now officially coming to Wembley Park. The opening will mark as huge step change in the transformation for the area, adding to the growing offer of shops, homes and activity already here. Set to open later this year, Boxpark Wembley will be a new destination for local people and the growing number of visitors to the area, to experience some of the best street food London has to offer. Boxpark is officially coming home, and we couldn’t be more excited.”

Roger Wade, Founder and CEO of Boxpark, said:

“I’m delighted that the Boxpark Wembley planning has been approved. We are looking forward to working closely with our Development Partner Quintain, Brent Council and Wembley Park stakeholders Wembley Stadium, SSE Arena and LDO to deliver a world class fan village and street food destination.” 

Gavin Elliott, Chairman of BDP, said:

“We’re really thrilled and excited that Boxpark Wembley has been granted planning consent. The scheme is a big step forward in terms of the design thinking, while still maintaining the core attributes of being a great place to eat, drink and play.”

Boxpark Wembley unit sizes will range from 500 sq.ft to 1,800 sq.ft, Boxpark is set to announce specific tenants in the coming months, ahead of the opening in autumn 2018.
For more information about Boxpark please visit: https://www.boxpark.co.uk/wembley/

Brent Council also issue their own press release with this statement from Shama Tatler, lead member for regeneration:

Cllr Shama Tatler, Brent Council's Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Employment, Skills and Growth, said:

Wembley's already known the world over but this news from Boxpark shows how far the area has come in becoming so much more than a match-day destination.

There's a real buzz being generated about the place and Boxpark's arrival in Brent will not only be good news for start-ups looking for space or for artists looking for somewhere to perform, it will also help to bring more people to the area which will be a boost for other local businesses too.

Curtains for Community Cardiology in Brent

Guest post by Peter Latham of Brent Patient Voice
 
Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) has announced that its Community Cardiology Service is to close on 28 February 2018.  So far there is no replacement. Existing patients are to be transferred to the cardiology out-patient service at the Royal Free Hospital (RFL) in Hampstead unless they opt out. 

I presume that new patients with heart conditions who need to be referred to a consultant will be offered appointments at existing acute hospitals, such as Northwick Park and Hammersmith. It is far from clear if those hospitals are set up to absorb the extra caseload in the short term – or if Brent CCG has contracted with them to take these patients.

Brent Patient Voice (BPV) members have been closely monitoring this community cardiology service since it was first thought of – before BPV began.  It was part of a scheme to create 13 ‘Out of Hospital’ NHS specialist community out-patient clinics taken over from the previous Primary Care Trust at the start of Brent CCG in April 2013 under the policy “Better Care, Closer to Home”.  

In the event, after huge effort and expenditure, only 2 of these 13 community services were set up. The others were shelved. The original thinking was that community clinics would save money via lower tariffs as well as delivering the policy slogan. Now 5 years later the strategy lies in ruins.
NHS England policy is currently to increase transferring hospital specialist out patient services to new community clinics.  The problems with the Brent Community Cardiology service provide a valuable lesson for the NHS and its patients and public on the difficulties with this that led to the abandonment of the project.

This community cardiology service started in March 2015 at the Willesden and Wembley Community Healthcare Centres provided by the Royal Free Hospital after a closely contested – some would say flawed - tendering competition and various start-up postponements. The service was originally contracted for 3 years, but it was seen as a permanent new feature of the Brent healthcare scene.

We were first alerted to serious problems with this service when the BPV chair was offered a first and supposedly urgent appointment with the community cardiology service for a date 10 weeks later than required by the contract specification.  This led to my on-site investigation, which revealed that the service was only being operated with about half the opening times required by the contract specification and various other shortcomings such as a manually operated appointments system.  We notified the CCG who thanked us for the feed-back.  It appeared that they had not been monitoring this service on-site to discover these breaches of contract by the Royal Free Hospital.

In August 2015 the CCG invited me to take part in monitoring meetings with RFL over the continuing numerous breaches of contract by them in failing to deliver the community cardiology up to contract specification.  It was not until Spring 2016 that the CCG was satisfied that the service was being provided substantially up to specification. In essence the RFL had discovered that it was much harder to recruit and retain fully qualified consultants and certain specialist technicians than they had anticipated in their bid.

There was a period of around one year during which the service was delivered more or less as required. Then in March 2017 RFL notified Brent CCG that it was no longer willing to provide the weekday evening and Saturday working that the contract specification required them to deliver, and stated that this was ‘non-negotiable’.   The CCG rejected this ultimatum and further NHS ‘contract query notice’ discussions took place, but in summer 2017 it decided it would not try to force RFL to restore the out of hours working. 

Faced with my threat of Judicial Review proceedings  further NHS ‘contract query notice’ discussions took place between the CCG and RFL. As a result in November 2017 the RFL conceded that it would restore part of the weekday evening and some Saturday out of hours working on a temporary basis.  

The RFL then notified the CCG that they were not willing to continue providing the Brent Community Cardiology Service after the end of the first contract on 28 February 2018, and would stop accepting new patients after 9 December 2017.  This apparently took the CCG by surprise. They have admitted that they understood that RFL had agreed that they would continue to provide the service during the process of procuring a new provider. It would not be surprising if RFL thought that this process might be drawn out over many months since the CCG had begun to suggest that they were looking into a community cardiology procurement across all 8 NW London Borough CCGs (the “Collaboration” arrangement).

The outcome is that the Brent CCG Community Cardiology service has collapsed contrary to the long-term plans of the CCG.  Its ‘Out of Hospital’ community service ‘Better Care Closer to Home’ policy has been all but abandoned with the transfer of the service for existing patients to the RFL out-patient cardiology department in the hospital at the more expensive hospital procedures charging tariff. Never mind the deep inconvenience for most Brent patients of travelling to the RFL Hospital close to Hampstead Heath. 

It is now less than a month before the end of the Brent Community Cardiology service.  No clear long-term proposals have been published by Brent CCG for commissioning its out-patient cardiology services.  Nor have any future patient and public consultation and involvement arrangements been published to comply with the statutory duty on the CCG under section 14Z2 of the National Health Service Act 2006 as amended.  I am currently involved in High Court Judicial Review pre-action protocol correspondence with Brent CCG solicitors on these issues.

The CCG has discovered that it is not as easy as originally thought to cut the costs of hospital out-patient services by setting up a new replacement community service.   This unhappy episode has revealed the weakness of a CCG when faced with the ruthless intransigence of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust as a major NHS provider organisation willing to repeatedly dishonour its contract specification obligations to NHS Brent patients when the CCG prove unwilling to take effective action to compel it to comply with its contract.

BPV would like to see the CCG produce a serious assessment of this sorry chain of events to establish clearly what lessons have been learned, but we doubt if it will happen. We suggest that the major mistake made by the previous Primary Care Trust was to make cost-cutting its principal objective, instead of starting with an analysis by clinicians and patients of the existing services and new ones which could be provided “closer to home” safely and in a context which would appeal to both patients and professional staff.

I have no financial or party political interest in these issues. I am a retired Circuit Judge.  I remain open minded about the merits of the NHS community specialist service model as compared with the traditional secondary hospital model.

Labour looking for new candidate in Sudbury

£

The Sudbury team in 2013. Aisha Hoda-Benn was elected in May 2014

Brent Labour are searching for a new candidate for Sudbury ward for the local elections in May after Cllr Aisha Hoda-Benn dropped out.

Cllr Hoda-Benn was elected in 2014 and reselected last year. She is currently vice chair of Brent Connects-Wembley and on the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee and the Teachers Joint Consultative Committee. She has been absent for 75% of the meetings she was expected to attend.

The only gift declaration she has made is for a tin of biscuits, valued at £19.95 from the secretary of the mosque in Sudbury.

Sudbury ward is a relatively close contest between Labour and the Liberal Democrats (2014 result)

Is Brent's gift of £17.8m to Quintain and the F.A. a step too far?

The steps that will replace the ramp - courtesy of Brent Council Tax payers

Last summer on July 24th a decision was made by the Brent Council Cabinet to spend £17.8m of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies on 'Strategic Infrastructure improvements' on Wembley Stadium and Olympic Way. Although I reported this on Wembley Matters at the time LINK under the headline 'Is £17.8m spend on Wembley Stadium public realm a good use of CIL cash?' the decision caused little discussion at the time. It was Item 24 on the Cabinet agenda and it was the beginning of the summer holiday.

Now Paul Lorber, former leader of Brent Liberals on the council, and others are querying the expenditure.  It is worth recalling the original Quintain statement about one part of the expenditure, the replacement of the stadium entrance ramps with steps:

No mention in 2007  that Brent Council would end up paying for the 'world-class entrance to the world-class Stadium.'

The Minutes of the Cabinet meeting of July 24th records Shama Tatler's justification for in effective giving back to Quintain and the Football Association (owners of Wembley Stadium) a significant amount of the CIL raised Quintain's development.  Part of the motivation to handover the cash was to get an assurance that the area outside the Civic Centre (the library entrance side) would not be built up with yet another high rise development. Brent Council had previously given outline planning permission for the site.

Councillor Shama Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills, introduced the item and spoke about the regeneration of Wembley and the need to support the ongoing transformation of the area into a thriving, attractive environment. Councillor Tatler informed Cabinet there was scope to use some of the strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds which had been raised as a consequence of development in the area, to invest in the public realm along Olympic Way. She said that enhancing the public realm was a key element in a step change of the positive experience the Council was aiming to achieve for residents and visitors, including an environment which would encourage people to dwell both before and after events. In addition, the arrangement would also ensure that the space outside the Civic Centre, currently subject to a planning permission which could be implemented, was used to contribute to the proposed educational quarter and provide more of a public square. Councillor Tatler said that this would be a joint project with Quintain and the Stadium and referred to a letter from Quintain (see Appendix 1 to the report on page 605 to the Agenda pack). She added that the report sought the approval for funds up to £17.8 million to accelerate the delivery of the public realm in two zones – B and C, with public realm works Zone A being entirely funded by Quintain (see page 594-602 to the Agenda pack).

Councillor Miller commented that the proposal was focused on a concentrated area, but it would have significant national impact. In relation to the rest of the Community Infrastructure Levy contribution, Councillor Tatler confirmed that options to spend it across the Borough would be considered.   

Zone A is Olympic Way, Zone B the area around the ramp from Olympic Way up to Bridge Road and Zone C the stadium ramp.

Brent Council made the following responses to Paul Lorber's request for further information on the plans:

“By copy perhaps the Chief Executive can explain why at a time when basic services to local residents are being starved of money the Council could possibly agree to hand over £17 million of CIL money to one entity - Quintain - a company owned mainly by an equity fund based in Bermuda. Were the Cabinet Members aware that they were handing public money to a company owned from a Tax Haven?”

The decision was made by Cabinet, to support the regeneration of Wembley Park and the role that the Stadium has not only in that, but as a piece of national infrastructure. The Cabinet report is available here (see item 24).

The decision builds upon the existing partnership between the council, Quintain and the FA to enhance Wembley Park, and must be considered not only in terms of the economic benefit which the regeneration brings to Wembley and the wider borough, but also in terms of the international reputation and national benefit associated with the location of the Stadium – which necessitates appropriate investment to create a world class public realm to go alongside it. 

The location of the ownership of Quintain was not relevant to decision, which was focussed on public realm improvements and the enhancement of Wembley Park. Cabinet resolved that the contribution is contingent on Quintain fulfilling a number of requirements for the public benefit:

a)       Not pursuing development of site NW04 adjacent to the Civic Centre to the extent currently permitted in the parameters plans associated with outline planning permission 10/3032.

b)       Working with the Council to deliver a development that better complements the role and setting of the Civic Centre, in particular creating a significant new square outside the Civic Centre Library.

c)       Agreeing a business plan and heads of terms, between Quintain and the council, for the future sharing and reinvestment of net income generated through assets on Olympic Way.

Paul Lorber replied:
 

I note that the CIL money will be used for “strategic infrastructure projects” and the Council is considering which ones. How did it come about that £17.8 million was allocated to one project before the process of considering which projects to fund have been listed or even consulted on?

As you know Councillors (including members of the Cabinet) receive hospitality from both Quintain and the FA and it seems odd that a decision on one project was made in such a rush without being assessed against a list of others.

It also seems very odd that part of this substantial sum seem to be a ‘bribe’ to persuade Quintain not to build a large building next to the Civic Centre - why would this be such an important priority for millions of public funds?

As you know many residents around Wembley and Alperton are very concerned at the height of some buildings given planning permission. In view of the approach in respect of the site next to the Civic Centre why would it not be appropriate for residents of Alperton to ask that the developer of the site on the corner of Ealing Road/Bridgewater Road to be paid a chunk of CIL money to persuade them to reduce their tower from the 26 Storeys to say a more reasonable 12?

 I hope that the priority for the £17.8 million decision has nothing to do with the fact that the Stadium is in the ward of the Leader of the Council.

In any case the report clearly does not identify other priorities in Brent in need of substantial funding. The Budget report for example identifies £300,000 shortfall of funding from the Mayor of London and of course CIL money could be allocated to Bridge this gap. 

My biggest issue is of course public money being handed over to a private company which is owned by Investors who are based in Bermuda for obvious tax reasons - when there is such a desperate need for cash to deal with the massive backlog of work to Brent’s crumbling roads and pavements. 

If the Council had consulted properly local residents would have made their views very clear. Every time they ask for anything to be done in their street - pavements, roads or verges - the answer is always the same “there is no money”.

That answer is of course not true as a staggering £17.8 million is being spent on something that most people in Brent do not regard as a priority.

in my view a wrong decision was made and Councillors were not given the right advice or proper options before making their decision. Sometimes officers advising should put themselves in the shoes of local residents - this might help determine local spending priorities.