Clean Air for Brent call for thorough air quality assessment for new Empire Way primary school

A gross under-estimate of traffic?

A spokesperson for Clean Air for Brent (CAfB) has commented on the proposed 630 pupil primary school on the site of the York House car park on Empire Way, Wembley:

We know that children in schools on busy roads in Brent are being regularly exposed to illegal levels of air pollution. It’s imperative therefore that Brent Council put air quality at the top of their list of considerations for any new school being proposed in the borough.  A child attending school will have 8 years’ worth of exposure, and it is during these years that children are said to be most vulnerable to the harms of pollution, including asthma, poor lung development etc.

In any case it is hard to see how this proposal aligns with Brent’s current Air Quality Action Plan which states that ‘ The council will review all new planning applications for potential air quality impacts and require all new development have no additional impact on local air pollution as a minimum requirement.’

Given that a superficial air quality assessment was done in 2015, Clean Air for Brent are calling for an up to date Environmental Impact Assessment to be done. 

The Council must do this not just for the children but so that parents can use this information to decide whether they want to send their child to a school that is located on a busy main road, and therefore its air quality environment likely to be highly compromised by passing traffic. 

The decision on whether to grant  planning permission for the school is due at the Planning Committee on Wednesday. LINK

New round of Neighbourhood CIL bids, value £6m, now open - deadline June 30th

From Brent Community Infrastructure Levy Administration. Note that the decision on whch projects to fund are made by the Head of Planning Alice Lester and the Lead member for Regeneration, Highways and Planning Cllr Shama Tatler.

Brent Council is now accepting applications for Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)  funded projects that aim to improve the local area.

You have until 23:59 on 30 June 2018 to apply.

There is approximately £6m available, so if you, or any Brent residents or community groups you work with have a good idea, please visit our webpage www.brent.gov.uk/CIL  (scroll to the ‘spending CIL’section) where you can find out more about the application process and shortlisting criteria.  

If you have any questions about the application process please email CILadmin@brent.gov.uk

If you would like support with your application please email support@cvsbrent.org.uk

From the webpage:

Strategic CIL

We are required to spend the levy's funds on the infrastructure needed to support the development of Brent. This is known as ‘Strategic CIL’.
View the list of strategic infrastructure the CIL will be spent on (.pdf, 167.7kB), in accordance with Regulation 123 of the CIL Regulations 2010.

Neighbourhood CIL

We must also spend CIL funds on priorities that are agreed in consultation with the local community. This is known as ‘Neighbourhood CIL’. To help manage Neighbourhood CIL priorities and spend, Brent has been divided into five ‘CIL Neighbourhoods’; Harlesden, Kilburn, Kingsbury, Wembley, and Willesden. 15 percent of CIL receipts generated in each CIL Neighbourhood will be spent on Neighbourhood projects.
See the Current CIL Neighbourhood Boundaries (.pdf, 1.12MB)

How are CIL Neighbourhood priorities decided?

Priorities for each CIL Neighbourhood are set for three years, following consultation with ward members, residents, businesses and other stakeholders. Priorities for each Neighbourhood Forum will be agreed and set for the duration of their Neighbourhood Development Plan.

• View the current priorities and amounts for each neighbourhood (.pdf, 255.2kB)

How do I submit Neighbourhood project ideas?

Once Neighbourhood Priorities are agreed, community organisations, residents and businesses and other stakeholders will be invited to submit proposals for neighbourhood improvement projects that align to these priorities. These projects may be delivered by community organisations, council officers or other third party organisations.

A scheme will not be funded unless it meets all essential criteria. The shortlisting criteria for projects are as follows:

• Meets the terms of the CIL Regulations  (2010) as amended
• Has community backing
• Supports, and where possible mitigates the impact of, the development of the area
• Reflects the priorities of the Council & CIL Neighbourhood
• A one-off scheme that does not require additional revenue funding in its delivery or its operation ( or identifies how additional revenue funding may be met)
• Benefits the broadest section of the community
• Offers value for money 

Neighbourhood CIL project proposals may be submitted two times a year. The 2018/19 deadlines for submission are:

• 30 June 2018 (11.59pm)
• 1 December 2018 (11.59pm)

The Head of Planning and Lead Member for Regeneration, Highway and Planning, will rank all project proposals received for each CIL Neighbourhood by the submission deadline, according to how well they meet the shortlisting criteria, and a shortlist of projects to fund will be agreed. Projects that are not shortlisted will also receive notification and may request feedback on their proposals.

Where can I get help to develop my project ideas?

1. Read the guidance contained in these web pages along with the Brent Neighbourhood CIL allocation process note (.pdf, 809.3kB) and Brent Council’s standard terms and conditions of funding (.pdf, 254.0kB).
2. Save the Neighbourhood CIL application form (.pdf, 3.62MB) (PDF) to your computer and open it with the latest version of Adobe Reader. Do not use preview or any other application.
3. Email the completed application form to us by the submission deadline
4. Please contact us if you require further support to develop a project proposal

What Neighbourhood projects have received funding?

• View the current list of projects that have been awarded funding (.pdf, 219.5kB).

Contact Us

ciladmin@brent.gov.uk

Brent consults on design guide for new developments - but will it be followed?

In a press release on Friday Brent Council announced consultation on a new Suppelementary Planning Document (SDP1):

Residents, businesses and developers are being called to have their say on a document that will influence future development in Brent.

The supplementary planning document (SPD1) sets out a number of principles that new development in Brent must be in line with, in order to receive planning permission.

The principles include things such as respecting the character, landscape, streetscape, architectural and historic environment of the area and ensuring new development is of an appropriate size, scale and mass in design which goes well with neighbouring development.

Cllr Shama Tatler, Brent Council's Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Highways and Planning, said:

We are very much open to new development in Brent and it's important that new buildings are to the standard and appropriate design that our residents want to see in the borough.

That's why this document is so important, as it will set out the principles by which future applications will be judged.

The document has gone through a process of consultation where earlier feedback has been taken into account and amends made to the version we are seeking views on now, so the opinions given by residents, businesses and developers really do matter and I'd encourage everyone to have their say.

More information is available online at www.brent.gov.uk/spd1

 Guidelines are of couse only effective if they are followed and Brent's record is not great. Too often planning officers' reports find spurious reasons for allowing through a development that does not meet the existing guidelines.

Here are some examples that acccording to the guidelines of developments would not be approved  alongside actual developments that have been approved.

The 'Twin Towers' (Chesterfield House) currently being built on Park Lane/Wembley High Road

Lakeside Way, Wembley Park

Willesden residents protest over asphalt pavement (Kilburn Times)

The full draft of the SDP1: (click on bottom right cross to enlarge to full size):

Plans for bungalows on Kings Drive garage site to be decided on Wednesday

The trees behind the garages are in the gardens of Barnhill residents

The car park, eventual access to the bungalows

The 'poor quality' trees on the boundary

3D view of the development, note the absence of the Barnhill garden trees behind the bungalows

Ariel view. Expensive private Barnhill houses on left, Kings Dricve council estate on the right

Site at present with garages

Proposed site plan

I have to state an interest on this issue as I am a resident on the King's Drive/Pilgrims Way estate although not in the immediate vicinity of this planned development. The proposal to build four affordable bungalow homes on the current garage site is part of a Council strategy to find space for new homes on Brent estates on under-utilised or redundant areas. Details of schemes across the borough can be found HERE.

This scheme aroused a lot of opposition on the estate and hence the referral to Planning Committee for their consideration. The issue is one of balancing the need for new affordable homes with potential loss of amenity to current residents. In particular estate residents felt that the garages had been deliberately run down and not marketed for rent which enabled the Council to declare them not needed.  There was also concern at the potential loss of parking spaces and the loss of the trees. The garages form a sort of barrier between the expensive private houses of Barnhill and the council house blocks with the mature trees in the Barnhill gardens screening the view of the blocks.

There was no detailed survey of the Barnhill garden trees but the report, answering concerns about the trees overhanging the bungalows, says that under common law they can be cut back to the boundary.

A parking space will be provided for each bungalow and an additional 25 'communal' parking spaces will be provided. When I visited this evening there were 25 cars parked on the site.

A potential problem is difficulty of access. This is already a problem on the estate's cul-de-sac roads with parked vehicles blocking access to delivery lorries. Residents on Saltcroft Close suffer from many missed blue and grey bin collections because of this issue. They were not collected this week.

Full report HERE

Brent councillors declare support for Village School strikers

Letter in current Kilburn Times

Uo to now Cllr Jumbo Chan has been a lone Labour councillor voice in first of all supporting staff at The Village School in opposing academisation through a Multi Academy Trust, and then, when the school academised,  in supporting the strike aimed at safe-guarding working conditions.

Interestingly he has now been joined by 14 Labour colleagues including Michael Pavey and Roxanne Mashari who have both challenged Muhammed Butt for the leadership,  several newly elected councillors as well as veterans.

I hope this is a welcome sign of some independent thinking and action that will be carried through into other issues.

Do afternoon Cabinet meetings reduce accountability?

I thought that the early timing of the first Cabinet meeting of the new administration was deliberately fixed to allow a General Purposes Committee (with almost the same personnel) to take place afterwards, but the next Cabinet meeting is at 4pm on June 18th.

This switch to office hours clearly makes it easier for officers, and perhaps reduces costs, but at the same time restricts the ability of the public who are in employment or have school age children to attend to watch proceedings or make representations. The same must go for backbench councillors who work.

The last Cabinet meeting only lasted about 20 minutes as major items were rubber-stamped and it is likely that Cabinet meetings held at 4pm will routinely be over by 5pm.

This may be a small point but is part of a gradual erosion of transparency when it is even more important that a council with a very large majority and a tiny official oppositon is held to account.

Is this worth £17.8m of our CIL money? Proposals for Olympic Way.

The new public space

The Agenda of the next Planning Committee LINK contains plans for the space next to the Brent Civic Centre/Wembley Library. Readers will recall that modification of the original outline permission for this site was what Brent Council hoped to gain from their decision to use £17.8m CIL money, contributed by Quintain, to replace the Pedway to Wembley Stadium with steps, along with other improvements to Olympic Way.

The planning application for the Pedway is separate, and commitee members are told that  this decision can be made independently of that application. However, the area included in the application overlaps the Pedway (NW04) below, so depends on its removal. If the Pedway is not removed some parts of the propsoed building on the plot will not go ahead.

A further condition is changes in the height and length of the new building adjacent to the space. The height is raised from 88.5m to 100m and the length is shortened from 57m tp 41m as seen from Olympic Way. The gaps between the new building and the one to its north will be reduced from 21m to 12m.

The plan includes a canopy/colonade along Olympic Way and a single storey pavilion building. The report mentions a potential bridge to the Civic Centre but does not provide any detail.

The new square with the replacement steps

The design brochure is posted below: (Click bottom right for full size)

Alison Hopkins rages against the machines - both mechanical and political!

Former Liberal Democrat councillor and Dollis Hill resident Alison Hopkins has reacted angrily to Sadiq Khan's decision to allow the Cricklewood Aggregate Superhub to go ahead.
In a statement for Wembley Matters she said:

This just shows that protests by some Brent councillors to the Mayor of London were simply grandstanding in the run up to the election: those photos of them wearing facemasks were a stunt. When Brent Labour realised the depth of fury at the proposals for both the aggregate terminal (Cricklewood Superhub) and the waste transfer facility (WTF), Cllr Butt hastily asked Barnet to arrange a so-called “consultation” meeting at the Crown, earlier this year. But, Brent councillors had ALREADY had presentations from Barnet about how wonderful Brent Cross would be back in October 2017! They didn’t bother telling any residents about the WTF planning application though – and there have been far too many cosy behind the scenes meeting between both the Leaders of both councils and senior officers, as well as with developers. 

Sadiq Khan is the latest Mayor of London not to support people in Brent, Barnet and Camden who oppose the Brent Cross “Regeneration” and the resulting mess. Livingstone lauded it, Boris approved it and Sadiq has rolled over in front of the juggernaut that is Hammersons and the Brent Cross developers. There’s far too much cosiness in all this. Originally, for example, the North London Waste Authority objected to moving their WTF to “our” side of the tracks. . They suddenly withdrew ALL objections at the last possible moment . I've done several FoI requests since, but they are evasive as hell on the subject. Add in the fact that the developers have consistently been mendacious about so called consultations and the results of said consultations and you’ve the perfect storm. 

As I’ve said before, those of us who live on the edges of Brent and Barnet are ignored by our respective councils. In Dollis Hill we could end up being the filling in a sandwich of rubbish dump and aggregate terminal. 

For Brent, it’s all about Wembley. And shops. For Barnet, it's all about Brent Cross. And shops. Not much difference between them, is there? 

I've asked Barnet Council when the WTF will go to their Planning Committee, but they’re being very evasive on that. The recent rubber stamping of what’s known as the Brent Cross CPO3 – Compulsory Purchase Order 3 – by the Secretary of State might have been a very different matter if there had been real political opposition from Brent councillors and MPs. But instead, what happened was active support by Brent for road layout changes which will have an appalling impact on people in Dollis Hill and Cricklewood. 

But then, I’ve an email from one from one councillor who thinks the WTF isn't that bad – and during the elections, Labour canvassers and councillors simply didn’t know the difference between the aggregate terminal and the WTF. One of them actually told me that the WTF had been given planning permission by Paul Lorber. (!) They also consistently told local people that it was far too late to stop the dump or the aggregate terminal. That really wasn’t the case, but it would have taken real political will and challenge which seems to have vanished entirely. 

Both the WTF and aggregate super hub are a disaster for us all. It's also appalling that what used to be a cross party and almost all party campaign against the so-called Brent Cross regeneration  is now not. This transcends party politics and ought to have had proper opposition from Brent and from local MPs as it once did. Navin and both Carolines are honourable exceptions in all this, as are the local Greens, but who is actually standing up for us?

-->