Wembley reduced to 50% share of Neighbourhood CIL from 83% in new Cabinet proposals

EXISTING DISTRIBUTION

PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION

Widespread complaints about the unequal distribution of Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy monies have resulted in a proposal going before the January 14th Cabinet that will reduce Wembley's share of Neighbourhood CIL from the present 83% to 50% of the total fund - that is a proposed total of £4.23m versus what would have been £7.06m using the existing distribution method.

Wembley retains the lion's share with other areas getting an equal share of the remainder but significantly more for the most part than they get now.  This is Option 4 in the table below:

 The report provides the following commentary on the options:

.        Option 1 (Retain existing distribution). This would be unpopular in light of the review. A significant number of the focus groups and interviews saw the distribution of NCIL funds and concentration of money in Wembley as unfair. Wembley stakeholders were keen to retain a significant sum of NCIL as they are impacted the most by development in the area. However, based on current and future projections, the gap in NCIL funds available to Wembley and the remaining four ClL neighbourhoods is set to increase. 


.        Option 2 (No distribution). NCIL receipts could be used anywhere across the borough. Bidders could propose projects to access funds irrespective of where the funds were generated. This would be easiest method of distribution and would allow equal access to

.        Option 2 could also help mitigate any impact felt by a different community beyond the NCIL boundary. However greater monitoring would still be required to ensure that one part of the borough was not disproportionately allocated funding. The disadvantages of this option are that the areas more greatly affected by development will lose out on the total value of NCIL receipts that would have been allocated if the existing distribution model were retained.

.        Option 3 (Equal Distribution). NCIL receipts would be redistributed equally across the five CIL Neighbourhoods. This would be appealing to areas that do not currently attract significant development. However this approach may disadvantage communities that are impacted most by development. 


.        Option 4 (Wembley 50% cap – other areas equal). Wembley’s NCIL fund would be capped at 50% of the total NCIL receipts generated in the borough. The remaining 50% would be divided equally between the remaining four CIL Neighbourhoods. This option would ensure that a greater proportion of NCIL Funds is allocated to the Wembley Neighbourhood where the majority of development currently takes place but also ensure that wider impacts of development are addressed elsewhere. 


.        Option 5 (Wembley 50% cap – other areas proportional). Wembley’s NCIL fund would be capped at 50% of the total NCIL receipts generated. The value of NCIL available in the remaining four CIL Neighbourhoods is set proportionally based on the amount of NCIL raised in their area. Based on current NCIL receipts the proportion would be Harlesden 41.86%, Kilburn 21.05%, Kingsbury 20.63% and Willesden 16.46%. This option would ensure that a greater proportion of CIL Funds is allocated to the Wembley Neighbourhood, however in the future, areas where there is less development will receive fewer NCIL funds. 


-->
Other proposed changes are minor and subject to change when a decision is made on ward boundaries except for a proposal to enlarge the decision making group evaluating proposals to four (Option 4):

Comments welcome.

Brent Council apologises to pensioner over flooded flat repair delays

Disabled pensioner John Healy has received an apology from Brent Council over delays in repairing a leak in his South Kilburn block which flooded his kitchen in September leaving him without power and an unusable kitchen for a long period. LINK

In a response to John's complaint a Brent Council officer wrote: 

I am sorry to learn that you experienced a leak in your home and of the impact and inconvenience which this situation may have had on you.

On review of our records, we recognise that there was a delay in resolving the leak into your home as it proved difficult to trace: eventually we identified that it was found to be coming from a property which is located three floors above your home. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere apologies on behalf of Brent Council for our failings in this regard and any additional stress and inconvenience caused as a result.

The Council offered a small token payment ' in recognition of the inconvenience caused as a result of the leak and for our service failure in terms of customer care.' John has accepted the offer.

The Anti-Apartheid Movement and Nelson Mandela in Brent – learning from history

 I am pleased to kick off the New Year with this fascinating article from Philip Grant. Thank you very much Philip for your many valuable contributions to Wembley Matters.
 

The struggle against apartheid in South Africa is now history, and a talk at Wembley History Society on Friday 18^th January will relate how Brent and London played a part in the movement which helped to bring about freedom, equality and democracy in that country.

But is the Anti-Apartheid story, and that of Nelson Mandela, the key figure who symbolised the struggle, still relevant today? I would say that the answer is a definite “Yes”. Many abuses of human rights remain in our world, and there are lessons to be learned about why and how they should be challenged, and how they can be overcome. 

Visitors are welcome at the history society’s talk, and I hope that many will come, and be inspired by it. By way of encouragement, I will share with you a little “local history” about Nelson Mandela.

The African National Congress, a multi-racial organisation seeking the right to vote for all South Africans, not just those who were white, was in its infancy when Nelson Mandela was born in 1918. He joined the ANC in 1943, while working as a lawyer in Johannesburg. His active involvement in the campaign against apartheid (the racial segregation imposed on his country by a hard-line white-only government) often saw him arrested for alleged sedition, and even prosecuted (unsuccessfully) for treason in 1956.

After the ANC was banned in 1960, Mandela went “underground” to organise resistance against South Africa’s repressive government. Early in 1962, he secretly left the country, visiting a number of African countries and coming to England in April. It was during that visit that he addressed a meeting of the Willesden Trades Council at Anson Hall. I have not been able to find any mention of this event in the “Willesden Chronicle” microfilm records at Brent Archives, so the only item I have to illustrate his visit to the borough that year is a photo of the hall.

Anson Hall, Cricklewood, in 1960
(from Brent Archives online photos, No.82

On his return to South Africa, Nelson Mandela was arrested in August 1962, and jailed for five years, after being convicted of leaving the country without permission. While serving that term, he was charged, along with other ANC activists, with sabotage (which he admitted) and plotting the violent overthrow of the government. Following a trial in 1964, at which Mandela’s defence speech gained world-wide attention (despite the South African government’s attempts to censor it), he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. 

That might have been the end of the story, but Suresh Kamath’s talk will show that it was not. The Anti-Apartheid Movement in this country eventually led to a “Free Nelson Mandela” concert at Wembley Stadium in July 1988, marking his 70^th birthday. The growing pressure for change in South Africa, from this and other initiatives, finally saw President F.W. de Klerk lift the ban on the ANC and release Mandela from prison in February 1990.

Badge for the 1990 Wembley Stadium concert (from Brent Museum).

There is much more evidence of Nelson Mandela’s second visit to Brent, in April 1990, than the one 28 years earlier (with all but a few months of that time as a prisoner). He was invited to address a “Free South Africa” concert organised in his honour, at Wembley Stadium on Easter Monday. He came, and gave a moving speech calling for a continued effort to end apartheid, and bring democracy for all in his country. This aim was finally achieved four years later.

Front page report of Nelson Mandela
at Wembley, from the “Wembley Observer” 19 April 1990.

Unfortunately, although the front page of the “Wembley Observer” showed a smiling Nelson Mandela meeting Brent dignitaries, it was another local story that grabbed the headlines. Brent had planned to mark the occasion by making Mandela a Freeman of the Borough, but the plans went wrong at a Special Meeting of the Council the previous Thursday. Party leaders had agreed that it should be a free vote, but at the last minute Conservative councillors were instructed to vote against awarding the honour, and the resolution did not gain the necessary two-thirds majority.

Extract from the scroll which would have been presented to Nelson Mandela in April 1990, making him a Freeman of Brent. 

In an attempt to ensure that ‘it was duly resolved’ to award the honour to Nelson Mandela, a second vote was taken, and this time the resolution was passed. However, in order to stop the Mayor and Council Leader (Labour’s Dorman Long) from going ahead with the presentation of the scroll and ceremonial casket (which had already been prepared, at a cost of £1,500), the Conservatives obtained a High Court injunction, on the grounds that the second vote was void. 

If anyone who was at that Special Council meeting would like to add a comment below, I would be interested to know what the reasons were for the preventing Brent’s award of the Freedom of the Borough to Nelson Mandela in 1990. 

It was not until June 2013, a few months before his death at the age of 95, that our Council unanimously resolved to confer the honour of Freeman of the London Borough of Brent on Nelson Mandela LINK . By that time it was clear to all, from Nelson Mandela’s words, actions and example, that this was a man worthy of the honour. Even though his time in our area was only a brief one, Brent’s links with his name and the anti-apartheid struggle, and the lessons to our community from all that he stood for, are strong.

Last year, on the centenary of Nelson Mandela’s birth, Martin posted a blog calling for some lasting recognition in Wembley for the 70^th birthday concert at the Stadium, which ‘did an enormous amount to communicate the struggle against apartheid’. LINK 

With the Council gearing-up its plans to celebrate being London Borough of Culture in 2020, it is surely time to push for a permanent memorial to Nelson Mandela’s links with Wembley.

Philip Grant

You have until Thursday January 3rd 5pm to influence Brent's Local Plan

The consultation  on Brent's new Local Plan ends at 5pm on Thursday January 3rd so there isn't long to get your response in. Full details can be found HERE.

I will be putting aside a certain cynicism about the Local Plan, based on how often planners ignnore the principles set out in the current one,  and hope that many other residents will do the same. The Plan will establish the context of planning decisions and thus the nature of our area for years to come - at the very least we should establish a strong demand for the retention and enhancement of green spaces.

The borough has been split into 7 'Places' and an initial weakness appears to be that Wembley is split rather confusingly between Central Place (Wembley Park) and South West Place (Wembley Central). One would think that the relationship between the two parts of Wembley was crucial in terms of roads, bus and railway transport as well as offices and retail ands thus shold be treated as one place.

Respondents can choose between responding to the details for a particular place (Central Place questionnaire is below as an example) or the overall plan.



This is the East Place questionnaire covering Dollis Hill (including Staples Corner), Neasden and Welsh Harp:

 

The Spring 2018 consultation indicated a split between the general public,  and developers and what were referred to as 'professionals'.  This was particularly evident over high rise flats and the amount of really affordable housing in new developments:

Question 15: Solutions to meeting growth challenges, e.g. tall buildings, lower rise buildings but compromise on standards, or rely on character to inform height/density.

.        2.32  Tall buildings – answers focussed on the need to meet targets with potential to contribute to townscape, those not in favour identified them as eyesores, changing character and perceptions of safety and unlikely to provide affordable housing with criticism of Wembley Park design quality. 


.        2.33  Lower buildings/ compromise standards – there was little support for compromising standards which was considered likely to adversely impact on quality of life/ mental health. 


.        2.34  Take account of existing character – this was supported the most but most people interpreted this as meaning no tall buildings. 


How this is addressed in the Preferred Options Local Plan

2.35    The Plan principally take account of existing character, but recognises that in accordance with London Plan that a positive strategy and sites will have to be identified for taller buildings. The Local Plan focuses on providing ‘clusters’ of tall and increased height, whilst removing opportunity for isolated tall buildings. Lower scale, but taller buildings than exist are identified for intensification corridors and town centres.

Question 16: Where do you consider are the most appropriate or inappropriate areas for tall buildings and why?

2.36    The responses to this part were limited, consistent with the general antipathy towards these types of buildings.

How this is addressed in the Preferred Options Local Plan

2.37    The approach taken forward is to cluster tall buildings in highest Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) areas and those areas where the Tall Buildings Strategy points to such opportunities as part of a positive plan-led strategy.

Question 19: Should higher density housing in suburban areas with greater public transport accessibility be through: conversion/ extensions to existing buildings; infill in spaces between buildings; comprehensive redevelopment of sites, or other?

2.42 Limited number of responses – positive about reuse of buildings and comprehensive redevelopment, but negative about infill.

Question 23: Appropriate affordable housing target.

2.50    From the general public there was more support for the 50% target, although many questioned the affordability of affordable homes provided. The professionals considered 50% too high and pointed to the 35% target set by the Mayor as a recognition of this, as long as viability could still be assessed where lower proposed.

How this is addressed in the Preferred Options Local Plan

2.51    The Plan is consistent with the Mayor’s approach of a strategic 50% target but with a viability threshold of 35% approach. Tenures will be focussed on rented products that even at their maximum are accessible to those on benefits.

Question 24: Greater flexibility in relation to on-site affordable housing provision?

2.52    The general public were against this flexibility as it was likely to polarise communities, developers sought greater flexibility.

Question 25: Affordable Housing Tenure Split?

2.54    The majority of respondents considered that there needed to be a mix, with products genuinely affordable and also those that catered for those working/ wanting to buy. Developers wanted flexibility/ pragmatism on a site by site basis.

How this is addressed in the Preferred Options Local Plan

2.55    Taking account of the needs and viability assessment work a preferred local mix that maximises London affordable/social rent/affordable rented products is prioritised (70%) as a proportion of the affordable housing but also seek a minimum 30% intermediate (shared ownership/ London Living Rent).

Here is the link to the various 'Place' proposals and questionnaires: (see map above to locate your 'Place')

• Central (.docx, 27.0kB)
• East (.docx, 22.3kB)
• North (.docx, 26.9kB)
• North West (.docx, 22.5kB)
• South (.docx, 22.6kB)
• South East (.docx, 22.4kB)
• South West (.docx, 22.8kB)

 

Full details and on-line survey HERE

Alternatively, comments can be submitted by email to planningstrategy@brent.gov.uk or by post to Paul Lewin, Team Leader Planning Policy, Brent Council, Engineers’ Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ, setting out clearly the page number, paragraph, policy, figure or image the comment relates to.

A Passage to Britain - Barham Community Library January 8th

Where to recycle your Xmas tree in Brent - available from Monday

Looking to recycle your Christmas tree? Check out our drop off points which will be available from Monday, 31 December 2018 - Sunday 13 January 2019. Download the leaflet (.pdf, 1.18MB).

• Roe Green Park (Entrance off Kingsbury High Road)
• Woodcock Park (Entrance off Shaftesbury Avenue)
• Silver Jubilee Park (Bottom of Townsend lane)
• Barnhill Open Space (Top of Barnhill)
• Welsh Harp open space (Carpark)
• Gladstone Park – Kendal Road Entrance
• Preston Park Recreation ground (Car Park College Road)
• King Edward VII Park( Car park St Johns Road)
• Northwick Park (by the Car Park)
• Barham Park – by main car park/Library
• One Tree Hill (Bridgewater Road)
• Chalkhill Rec Ground/New Linear Park (Chalkhill Road)
• King Edward VII Park Willesden (Doyle Gardens next to City Academy)
• Stonebridge Recreation ground (Car Park at Albert Terrace)
• Roundwood Park (Main Entrance Harlesden Road)
• Villiers Road Pocket Park (Entrance to Villiers Road)
• Furness Road Pocket Park (Entrance off Furness Road)
• Brondesbury Pocket Park
• Queens Park 
• Woodhouse New Park (Entrance off Albert Road)
• Plus Abbey Road Reuse and Recycling Centre.

Henry Cooper of Wembley - new article available online

Guest post from Local Historian Philip Grant

A few weeks ago, Wembley Matters broke the news that a new Blue Plaque (the first in Wembley for 40 years) had been put up in Ealing Road, remembering former resident, professional boxer and greengrocer, Henry Cooper LINK .

Now an illustrated article, “Henry Cooper of Wembley”, is available online, for anyone who wants to find out more about the life of the man, his links with Wembley and the reason that the commemorative Blue Plaque above his former shop at 4 Ealing Road is a deserved memorial to him. You can find it on the local history articles page of the Brent Archives website LINK .

-->

Queensbury developer called out on dodgy Christmas tactics - don't let this slip under your radar

Re-posted from Save The Queensbury website. LINK We are used to consultations taking place at inappropriate times so that they slip under the public's radar. Is this another example?

This week has seen a cynical (desperate) attempt by Redbourne to swamp the local council and residents with three plans, at what is the busiest week of the year. 

Two planning applications have been thrown in this week, with variations on the same theme:– 48 flats with insufficient Affordable housing. This is AS WELL AS the scheme currently being appealed. The new plans are Scheme A and Scheme B. See below Let’s call the scheme being appealed Scheme C. 

A,B and C downplay the existing building, all have a replacement pub doomed before it even opens because of its substandard design. The developer is trying to portray  that there are few options for The Queensbury other than demolition. 

We disagree. There is a plan D, which would make less profit but retain the existing building. This developer is clearly not interested in Plan D. 

PEOPLE OF WILLESDEN STAY FOCUSSED: What is important is to comment on Plan C – the Refused scheme which is being appealed. The government’s planning inspector needs your comments by 3rd January.  

There are sound planning reasons to object to all of these plans as being detrimental to Willesden and Mapesbury: 

• The replacement building does not preserve or enhance the conservation area – especially looking from inside the conservation area 
• The existing building makes a positive contribution to the historic interest of the area, which will be lost 
• The existing building also makes a positive contribution to the setting of the listed station, which according to the previous Appeal inspector, would be desirable to preserve
• The mass of the base block (to the rear) is too bulky for the setting
• The design of the proposal is detrimental to the conservation area
• The proposal contains a pub but the design is poor – there is no soundproofing built into the design which means complaints from those above, and the pub becoming unviable. Those in the business refer to this as a “Trojan Horse” 
• There is insufficient affordable housing proposed 
• There are no safeguards for Busy Rascal, i.e. no legal agreements for them to continue whilst building works are underway. Nothing in the plans about how they would operate in the new premises. Both were promised by the previous developer as planning conditions. 

ONLY AFTER you have commented to the inspector, turn your attention to the new scheme via Brent’s website: 

Planning apps 18/4675 https://bit.ly/2LrpCTY 
And 18/4701 https://bit.ly/2rJpYfD 

Only comment once, but mention the other when you do. Neither of these will be considered before the Appeal. If the Appeal is kicked out (again) then so will these two.

Merry Christmas to you all. Let’s hope it’s a good one, without scheme A,B,C.