Saturday 18 April 2020

The Fryent Country Park Story - Part 4

The fourth in a series of guest posts by local historian Philip Grant

 
Welcome back, to our wander through the history of one of Brent’s best open spaces. If you missed the previous instalment, please “click” on Part 3 (which has “links” to Parts 1 and 2).

 
1. A view across the fields at haymaking time, with Kingsbury and Stanmore Common beyond.
The story so far has brought us up to the early 20th century. The hay trade, which had been the main source of income for Kingsbury’s farmers, was declining by this time. In part, this was due to the import of cheaper foreign hay, but the introduction of motor vehicles was also having an increasing impact. New uses had to be found for many of the local pastures. Some, like Fryent Farm, had switched to keeping dairy cattle. 

George Withers, at Little Bush Farm, had become a breeder of, and dealer in, polo ponies. You might not imagine our area as a centre for playing polo, but in the early 1900s there were at least two local polo grounds. The Kingsbury Polo Club occupied land that is now the site of Roe Green Village, and part of Roe Green Park. There was also a polo ground, with stables and fields for the ponies, centred where Greenhill Way now stands (which is why the road across this hill is called The Paddocks!). The First World War put an end to the polo clubs, after their ponies were requisitioned by the army in 1915.

 
2. Little Bush Farm, in a postcard from c.1920.  
(Courtesy of the late Geoffrey Hewlett)
After the war, the spread of suburban housing would bring about greater changes. When Wembley Park was chosen, in 1921, as the site for the British Empire Exhibition, Blackbird Hill, Church Lane and Forty Lane were all converted from narrow country byways to wide modern roads, to make the exhibition easier to reach. This better access to the area also attracted property developers. In 1923, Wembley Golf Course was purchased by Haymills Ltd, who were soon building streets of detached homes on the southern slopes of Barn Hill.
 
3. The cover of the 1922 "Metro-Land" booklet.  
(Wembley History Society Collection at Brent Archives)
Around 27 million visitors came to the British Empire Exhibition in 1924/25. Many were attracted by the pleasant countryside, close to London. The Metropolitan Railway was already promoting the districts along its line as “Metro-Land”, a healthy place to live, from which the man of the house could commute “to town”. Wembley Council could see the danger of overdevelopment, and in 1927 purchased 50 acres at the top of the hill from Haymills, to be Barn Hill Open Space.

In 1929, the Metropolitan Railway announced that it would build a branch line from Wembley Park. Construction began on this Stanmore Line in January 1931 [“click” on the link for full details]. The route curved around Barn Hill and through Uxendon Farm, which had already been demolished to make way for it, on its way to Kingsbury.
 
4. Uxendon Farm, about to be demolished in 1929.
 (Brent Archives online image 0498)
Haymills had already purchased more land, to the north of the hill, from Preston Farm. These were the fields known as Upper and Lower Hydes, and Bugbeards – the latter may seem an odd title, but this field name was first recorded in the 15th century, and a document from 1642 lists five men in Harrow Parish with the surname Bugbeard! In 1934, Haymills stopped building in the area, and sold their undeveloped land to George Wimpey & Co. 

On the Kingsbury side of our future country park, Masons Field in Old Kenton Lane had been sold to the London General Omnibus Company in 1927, for a sports ground. Just along the lane, another field beside the Junior Mixed and Infants’ School (now Kingsbury Green) was acquired by Kingsbury Council as a recreation ground. Little Bush Farm had closed by 1930, while Hill Farm had become a horse-riding establishment, the Premier School of Equitation.

5. Hill Farm and its pond, in Salmon Street, c.1920.  
(Brent Archives online image 0480)


Having established the Barn Hill Open Space, Wembley’s Parks Committee had to make sure it was looked after. In March 1935, a report from the Council’s Surveyor referred to an annual loss of “decayed and rotting trees”, and suggested a regular programme of tree planting. One of his proposed schemes for Barn Hill was to ‘plant approximately 4 dozen Lombardy Poplars in the form of an avenue leading from the top of the hill to the gate on the east side adjoining Town Planning Road No.17 (Kingsbury).’ Some of those poplars are still a skyline feature.
 
6. Part of the Kingsbury U.D.C. 1926 Town Planning Scheme map. 
 (With thanks to Gareth Davies)

Proposed future main roads were something that local Councils had to include in the town planning schemes the government asked them to prepare in the 1920s. Kingsbury had been a separate Council area, until it became part of Wembley Urban District in 1934. Its T.P. Road No.17 was built in 1934/35, and named Fryent Way. Another of the new roads included in the 1926 scheme would have run from Slough Lane, by Bush Farm, to Fryent Way, and the kerb stones for that junction are still in place, just south of Valley Drive! All of the land between the Stanmore Line and Salmon Street was zoned for future housing development.
 
7. Bush Farm in a postcard from c.1930. (Brent Archives online image 0479)      

By the end of 1935, Wimpeys already had a planning application approved to build two new streets, with 362 houses, between Uxendon Hill and Fryent Way. As the map extract below shows, housing development was also spreading northwards on the other side of Barn Hill. Salmon Estates Ltd had put in an outline application to build homes at 8 per acre, on all the land beyond Salmon Street zoned for housing. Then, in January 1936, they submitted detailed plans for houses on both sides of Fryent Way, north from the junction with The Paddocks.

8. Extract from the 1935 O.S. map, showing Salmon Street and the Hill Farm land due for development.
The rapid spread of suburban housing around London had given rise to the idea of a “Green Belt”. In 1934, Parliament gave Middlesex County Council powers to acquire land for this purpose, and during the following year it worked out, with local councils, how such purchases could be financed. The area which is now our country park was identified as land suitable for such a scheme.

In early 1936, the County Council put a compulsory purchase order on the Wimpey’s land north of Barn Hill. There was a court battle over how much compensation the developer should receive. When this was settled in 1938, Wembley Council contributed 25% of the cost, and the fields were added to its Barn Hill Open Space, with some used as sports grounds.

In March 1936, Wembley’s Planning Committee “disapproved” the Salmon Estates planning applications, on the grounds that the land was now reserved for open space purposes. Again, it was 1938 before the purchase of the fields in Kingsbury Parish from All Souls College was finalised, and they became Middlesex C.C.’s Fryent Way Regional Open Space. As part of the Council’s policy, the existing farm tenancies on the land were allowed to continue.

You may think that this is the end of the story, and that things have stayed the same on our open space since the late 1930s. However, there will be more to discover next weekend, if you wish to!


Philip Grant

LINKS TO OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS SERIES










Friday 17 April 2020

CBI weclomes extension of Job Retention Scheme


Dame Carolyn Fairbairn, CBI Director-General, said:
The Chancellor’s welcome extension of the Job Retention Scheme beyond the end of May will help protect the economy and prevent unnecessary job losses through this new lockdown phase. Once again, the Government deserves credit for showing agility in the face of unprecedented challenges.

This extension means that firms will no longer be forced to issue redundancy notices over the next few to days to comply with 45-day consultation requirements, and can instead return to focusing on protecting jobs and their businesses.
  
No firm wants the Scheme to last for longer than it needs to, but it’s absolutely clear that these vital support systems must stay in place until it’s safe for people to return to work and we can begin to restart and revive our economy.

Thursday 16 April 2020

Brent Council puts out a call for new foster carers to avoid Covid-19 disruption to children

From Brent Council

We are calling out for new foster carers to join us in Brent to ensure we have enough homes for the children who need us most.

Whilst the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic is having an impact on us all, some things do not change - our local, vulnerable children still need caring families to look after them.

Anyone who lives in Brent or a neighbouring authority and meets these five basic requirements can apply to foster with us:

1.         Over 21 years old (there is no upper age limit)
2.         Have indefinite leave to remain in the UK
3.         Have available living space: space for a cot in the bedroom to foster babies (0-2 years-old), or a spare room in the house to accommodate older children
4.         Live in Brent or the neighbouring boroughs so that travelling for foster care purposes is easy for you and your foster children
5.         Enjoy spending time with children, and be loving, kind, open-minded and inclusive.

Applicants will undergo an online assessment consisting of virtual meetings and visits, aimed at keeping them and their families safe and protected. Given the urgent need for foster carers, the application process, which normally lasts between 4 and 6 months, can be fast-tracked in certain circumstances.

Cllr Patel said:
We need to make sure that we have enough carers to deal with the challenges posed by Covid-19 and that throughout, our children have someone to look after them. They have experienced disruption before and we do not want them to go through this again. There are lots of caring people in Brent who have what it takes to foster and we hope to see some of them step up to help vulnerable children during this challenging time.
Anyone who is interested in fostering is encouraged to speak to our team directly by calling 0800 001 4041. There is a social worker at the other end of the line from Monday to Friday, between 9am and 5pm. 

Alternatively, to find out more about fostering and to check the support and rewards package, please visit brent.gov.uk/fostering.

At last a response to Brent Scrutiny's recommendations on air quality

Readers will recall that there was some disquiet that Scrutiny Committee reports are merely noted by the Brent Cabinet rather than responded to in detail with action points. This was particularly true of Scrutiny's recommendations on Air Quality which were made after painstaking investogation and consultation with local organisations.

Now 5 months after the initial report Cabinet is to discuss an Executive reponse at Monday's virtual meeting (4pm).

The report is below - comments welcome. Click bottom right corner for full page version:


NHS workers warn of the dangers of premature full re-opening of schools

NHS workers are circulating an open letter to Matt Hancock regarding the dangers of the complete re-opening of schools too early.  NHS workers can add their names HERE

NHS staff support school workers

PLEASE READ AND SIGN THE OPEN LETTER BELOW

Dear Matt Hancock,

As NHS workers with children currently attending school, we are worried about recent speculation that schools could be wholly reopened soon.

The risks of working at the current time should not need explaining to the government. Your own working patterns have resulted in widespread, high profile infection among the ministers and professionals we see on TV every day. The Prime Minister required intensive care treatment, which, in his own words ‘could have gone either way’. We too have seen the impact of this virus at work in essential jobs - although those of us who have had it, may never know because we have not been tested and no antibody test is on the horizon.

The systematic review in the Lancet recently (see below) concluded that evidence regarding the impact of school closures is ‘equivocal’. What is not equivocal, however, is that social distancing works and that school closures ‘flatten the curve’ for other infectious respiratory diseases - such as influenza. The reason findings are equivocal about school closures, per se, for coronavirus specifically is because nobody has kept schools open while maintaining the other measures. What does that tell you? Do not make us the global guinea pigs. It is self-evidently unwise to force hundreds of people into small rooms in small buildings during a pandemic.

Many of us go into small primary school playgrounds of inner-city schools along with the families of the 120 other children for each year group. We are part of a workforce that receives media attention when workers die from this virus. Our risk is higher because of inadequate PPE and exposure to a larger viral load, but other workers are not separated out or counted in the data. We each reflect on the uncounted care workers, transport workers and shop workers who are losing their lives. Their deaths do not make the front pages, but nor do they work in environments that are deep cleaned as often.

There is no cure for coronavirus and there is no vaccine. It is not fair to increase teachers’ risks while not knowing how many people are losing their lives because of work, because a teacher's work means sharing rooms and equipment with many people, from many households, again and again. Some teachers have already tragically died from the virus, and we do not want to risk any more. The conditions of strict widespread testing for suspected Covid-19, rigorous contact tracing and scrupulous adherence to quarantining must be met before a return to schools - for the enduring safety of teachers and the wider community.

Until we know more about the transmission of this virus and the risk factors for severe illness. Until we know that staff can access PPE, virus tests and accommodation if they live with vulnerable people. Until we know that children will not learn that their teacher has died because of an infection caught in their class, we should remain sensible and wait.

The economic harm of keeping schools closed is significant - but is known. This means the government can act and intervene to mitigate this harm. We do not know about the harms of reopening schools yet. The example that is set by opening schools earlier than is known to be safe runs counter to all the messages you are sending - that the recent slowing of hospital admissions should not be taken as a premature signal that we are safe.

Iain Wilson, NHS nurse

References:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30095-X/fulltext
https://www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-stop-speculation-about-schools-reopening?fbclid=IwAR25fXV31JAr0vX5EHqMd9Qhi-B3boJVn2CC0yMUDx3V-5b2-Uk7Ja5uAno

Wednesday 15 April 2020

Green Party must stand shoulder to shoulder with workers during Covid-19 crisis




The Committees of Green Left and Green Party Trade Union  Group (both Green Party organisations) have issued the following statement:
Green Left and Green Party Trade Union Group (GPTU) call on all Green Party of England and Wales’ publicly elected representatives, MP, Assembly Members and Councillors, to seek out and work with trade unions and local and national authorities to ensure that:
· all essential workers are provided with adequate protective equipment, sanitary measures and testing during the CV19 crisis. We note that this should not only include health and caring workers but also cleaners, food and pharmaceutical distribution and preparation workers, transport workers and security workers. 
· no threats of dismissal, pay cuts or other means of coercion are used to compel workers to work when they are in danger of transmitting or contracting CV19. 
· workers who take industrial action due to the unsafe attitude of some employers and government, are supported, so that they do not suffer financial and/or disciplinary sanctions for taking such actions 
· attempts to organise non-unionised workers are supported.
*The Green Party of England & Wales (GPEW) is a significant political presence at local authority level with over 300 Councillors many organised in the Association of Green Councillors (AGC). 
They and other public representatives can play a positive role in defending workers rights at a local level. 
We would also ask local Green Parties to stand shoulder to shoulder with workers over this issue at this very important time.

Tuesday 14 April 2020

Brent pays local businesses more than £12m in COVID-19 grants - apply now if you haven't done so yet

From Brent Council

Local business have received more £12million from Brent Council in grant payments aimed at supporting them through the COVID-19 crisis.

Since opening for applications two weeks ago, Brent Council has in the past fortnight paid out a total of £12.3million to 875 businesses through the Small Business Grant Scheme and the Retail, Leisure and Hospitality grant scheme.

Through the Small Business Grant Scheme, a one-off grant of £10,000 is available to businesses currently eligible for small business rate relief, rural rate relief or tapered relief to help them meet ongoing business costs, whereas the Retail, Leisure and Hospitality grant provides a payment of either £10,000 or £25,000 to eligible businesses to help meet ongoing costs.

Cllr Shama Tatler, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member responsible for business said:
I’m glad that so many have come forward to access this support which could be a lifeline for many businesses and for people’s jobs in the borough.

These are unprecedented times and we want to ensure that each and every business that’s eligible for this support receives the help they are entitled to as quickly as possible.
 
As 875 businesses will be able tell you, all we need is a few details to get the payment made.

The sooner we receive these details the sooner we can get the grants paid, so get your forms in and help us spread the word.

NEU calls for clarity on Government's school re-opening plans - Letter to Boris Johnson

From the National Education Union

Letter to Prime Minister calling for end to unhelpful speculation on school and colleges reopening.

In the light of unhelpful speculation on the further opening of schools and colleges the joint General Secretaries of the National Education Union are calling on the Prime minister for clarity on how Government will make such a decision.

Given that a full return to the school population will increase risks to our members and the children in their care the NEU is asking for the modelling, evidence and plans that will form the basis of any decisions made by the Prime Minister and his Government to be shared.

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing to you on behalf of the members of the National Education Union. First, let us say that we wish you all the best in your personal recovery from the virus.

Our members are hard at work, supporting the children of key workers and vulnerable children who are still attending schools. They are helping efforts to support vulnerable children at home. They are doing their best to support children’s learning in these unusual circumstances.

We are pleased that you, other ministers and Chief Nursing Officer have acknowledged their efforts in helping NHS staff to be at work.

Our members are disturbed, however, by increasing media speculation that schools will soon be re-opened. We consider this speculation to be most unhelpful: it may undermine people’s resolve to stick to social isolation. We are disturbed that it is seemingly being stimulated by unnamed Government ministers.

Given that an early return to full school populations will mean an increased risk to our members and the children in their care, we are writing to ask you to share your modelling, evidence and plans.
As a matter of urgency, and certainly well before any proposal to re-open schools is published, please can you share with our members:

· your modelling of the increased number of cases and mortalities among children, their parents, carers and extended families, and their teachers and support staff, as a result of the re-opening of schools.
· whether such modelling is based on some notion that social distancing could be implemented in schools. (We ask this because our members think it would be a foolhardy assumption.)
· whether your modelling would be based on concrete plans to establish regular testing of children and staff, availability of appropriate PPE and enhanced levels of cleaning - with all of which we are currently experiencing severe difficulties.
· whether your modelling would include plans for children and staff who are in vulnerable health categories, or who are living with people in vulnerable health categories, not to be in attendance at school or college?
· your latest evidence concerning the groups of people who are most vulnerable to death or life-changing consequences as a result of the virus, for example the evidence of the impact on those who live in crowded accommodation, those with different comorbidities, those from different ethnic groups and of different ages and sexes.
· whether the Scottish Parliament, the devolved assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland and our neighbours in the government of the Republic of Ireland agree with your plans.

Further, given that in re-opening schools and colleges, you would be asking our members to take an increased risk, we believe they have a right to understand fully how any such proposal belongs within an overall Government strategy to defeat the virus.

In this context, please could you give the firmest of indications:

· whether you are developing plans for extensive testing, contact tracing and quarantine in society as a whole? Our members see that countries successfully implementing such strategies have many fewer cases and many, many fewer mortalities than we do in the UK.
· if you are developing such plans, how long it will take to put them in place and how low the number of virus cases needs to be before such a strategy can be successful?
· whether you intend these plans be in place well before schools are re-opened. (This seems essential to us.)
· if you are not developing such plans, what is your overall approach and is it dependent on an assumption that those who have had the virus are subsequently immune?
· of your assessment of the strategies in place in South Korea, where there is a clear policy of testing, contact tracing and continued school closures?

We have written to you as representatives of staff who in the event of schools re-opening would be asked to accept an increased risk for themselves and the children they teach.
You will appreciate that our attitude to the issue of reopening is dependent on the answers to the questions above.
Again, we wish you well in your recovery and in your efforts to bring our country through this crisis.

We restate our willingness to work with you on finding solutions to the problems posed by the current situation.

We look forward to your urgent reply.


Yours sincerely

Mary Bousted Kevin Courtney
Joint General Secretaries

Joint General Secretary