The Jewish Chronicle is reporting that Cllr Aslam Choudry has been suspended by the Labour Party while an investigation takes place following complaints over a video that he shared in a local Whats App group.
Cllr Choudry is a former Mayor and currently Chair of the Audit and Standards Committee. He is one of the three councillors for Dudden Hill ward.
The proposed buildings on Sudbury Town Station Car Park
The Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday May 6th (6pm) will be a virtual meeting. The Agenda on the Council website states:
Note: Please note the press and public
will be welcome to attend this as an online virtual meeting. The link to attend
and view proceedings will be available via the Live Stream page on the
Democracy in Brent website.
The Agenda does not state how members of the public may make representations at the meeting, a normal Planning Committee provision, which ensure the public's voice is heard.
However,in correspondence with former Council Leader and Liberal Democrat General Election Candidate, Paul Lorber, the Council has stated:
It is possible to
speak at the Committee Meeting (online or via the telephone) subject to the
restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one
objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the
discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the
Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or
representing a group of people.
To address the
committee you must speak to Democratic Services at least one clear day before
the meeting. Please telephone the Democratic Services Officer, Mr Joe Kwateng,
on 020 8937 1354 during office hours or email committee@brent.gov.uk
Apart from the Sudbury Town Station proposal that Lorber was concerned about (see image above) there are also applications for a mixed used development at the Abbey Manufacturing Estate/Edwards Yard site in Wembley for 3-14 storey buildings, an 11 storey building on the site of Ujima House in Wembley High Road, and Peel Precinct and neighbouring sites in South Kilburn for 7 buildings of 5-16 storeys. A pretty heavy agenda by any measure and issues on which the public may well want to make representations. Paul Lorber wrote to Brent Council CEO outlining his concerns over the absence of site meetings as well as the rights of residents witout internet access:
As you know I raised with you concerns about dealing with Planning Applications during this crisis. As in most cases applicants will not be able to pursue or implement any approved applications there seems no great urgency to rush applications through and deny members of the public an opportunity for a proper say.
It is normal for many residents to attend Planning Committee when they are concerned about an application. Determining applications on line denies them this opportunity. Any resident not on the internet or not familiar with the new technology faces an even greater disadvantage and unfairness.
It has been a long standing practice in Brent for many decades for planning applications which are either controversial or subject to great concern or opposition from residents to be subject to a site visit. Site visit were an important opportunity tfor members of the Planning Committee to better understand the concerns being raised and to see things on site. The reasons for this are obvious - explanations and information on paper only do not tell the full story.
The planning site meetings are also an opportunity for residents to point out the their concerns directly to Councillors.
I am concerned that going ahead with planning applications subject to Planning Committee Meetings, because of the nature of the application or the large level of opposition,in the way proposed undermines the normal Brent Council approach of meaning full public involvement and Brent Council's commitment to Open Government. All the advantage is handed over to the Applicants who have had the opportunity of direct access to Council Officers denied to the members of public. It is those officers who then advise Councillors in Planning pre meetings or in other ways outside of public scrutiny.
The lack of site meetings as a major change to the way planning meetings have been dealt with in the past which also undermines the whole process.
In my view Brent Council should suspend dealing with any applications which are subject to material number of objections and only deal with applications which fall into the category dealt with under delegated powers or those where no materail number of objections have been received.
Besides the risk of extra challenges to decisions were made there is a much more serious issue of public confidence in the whole planning process in Brent.
I trust that you will consider my concerns seriously and suspend the process of dealing with Planning Applications in the proposed way.
Lorber has now issued a formal complaint as a result of his dissatisfaction with the Council's response to his letter:
The Brent Council decision to proceed
with planning applications in the way proposed in your letter has a number of
implications:
1.It denies
members of the public (or even Councillors) to request a site meeting.
2.It denies
any member of the public without the internet or ability to join the online
meeting of the right to participate.
In view of
this any consideration of this application should be deferred until such time
as things return to normal, site meetings are possible and all memebers of the
public are free to attend a normal Planning Committee Meeting in Brent.
The proposals for the redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens on a prominent corner site in Harlesden/Stonebridge have attracted much controversy over the loss of a well-loved landmark in the Italianate style villa presently occupying the site. LINK There has been an argument about its relative heritage merit and whether alternative proposals should be considered which would preserve the villa. LINK
Brent Council have kindly supplied me with the advice of the Council's Principal Heritage Officer which I hope will be given due weight.
Application Number 20/0345
Consultee Details
Name: Mr Mark Price Principal Heritage
Officer
Email: mark.price@brent.gov.uk
On Behalf Of: Principal Heritage Conservation Officer
Comments
SIGNIFICANCE: 1 Morland Gardens is a
Locally Listed Building [a non-designated heritage asset] but not in a
conservation area nor a statutory listed building. The local list description
(attached) confirms and sets out its significance. It has a significance score
of 8 out of 12 and therefore it should be considered an important local
heritage asset of high significance.
ADVICE:
The Heritage Statement submitted with the planning application [at 8.8]
confirms the authenticity and the intactness of the building and therefore its
relative significance and states that Externally, the Victorian house remains
mostly intact and The houses south-facing façade still makes an impression on
those passing along Hillside. However, although the report considers the
history and use of the building, it does not put it into the immediate local
context of Stonebridge nor as a building type within the Borough of Brent. It
is therefore difficult to come to any judgement about its potential loss.
Furthermore, it does not make a case for its demolition or give any comment on
the merits of the replacement building.
The NPPF at paragraph 8 states that an
Analysis of relevant information can generate a clear understanding of the
affected asset, the heritage interests represented in it, and their relative importance.
It goes on to point out at paragraph 9 that Applicants are expected to describe
in their application the significance of any heritage assets affected,
including any contribution made by their setting (National Planning Policy
Framework paragraph 189). In doing so, applicants should include analysis of
the significance of the asset and its setting, and, where relevant, how this
has informed the development of the proposals.
Unfortunately, such information
has not been provided.
Brents DMP 7 [b] is quite clear that
applicants should provide a detailed analysis and justification of the
potential impact (including incremental and cumulative) of the development on
the heritage asset and its context as well as any public benefit and [at c]
argues to retain buildings where their loss would cause harm. With this in
mind, the applicants should seek further advice from a heritage specialist to
gather further evidence in support of this application. The specialist might
offer different conclusions or mitigation measures for the Council to consider.
I am aware that the D&A Statement at
section 5.1, Heritage, alludes to the fact that the Design Team have carefully
considered a wide range of development options for the application site,
including options that retain the historic core of the building. Also that the
proposed building is not without considerable design merit. However, the
development options need to be carefully set out and argued as part of the
planning application and form part of the heritage statement along with the
architectural merits of the new design as well as the other public benefits [as
defined by the NPPF] to countenance demolition.
In my view, therefore, this additional
information needs to be obtained before a proper assessment of the proposals
can be determined.
I am pleased to publish this spin-off from Philip Grant's series on the history of Fryent Country Park
One of
the encouraging things about sharing the local history I know is that other
people sometimes add things that I didn’t know! This has happened through
comments made in response to Part 3 of
the Fryent Country Park Story.
One
comment, from Wally, which began with memories triggered by an old photo of a
gipsy camp, went on to say: ‘On top
of “Mole Hill” in about the 60's an underground bunker was dug and buried and
we saw its construction. Never found out what it was for or if it's still
there.’ “Mole Hill” was actually Gotfords Hill, which today looks serene in its
country landscape, but I had heard rumours about something “secret” which used
to be there.
1. Looking across the Country Park fields, to Gotfords Hill, Kingsbury
and beyond.
An
anonymous comment followed, first saying: ‘I remember the bunker and what was inside,’ and later adding: ‘like a
man hole cover in a concrete surround, a jacobs ladder leading down to a couple
of rooms one with a early warning machine.’ There had obviously been something
on that hilltop, but what was it?
The following day another comment arrived, which
provided hope that we might soon have the answer. Brian wrote: ‘I have some
photos of the bunker - not very good ones and I can't remember where I got them
from, so I don't know who owns them.’ A day later, he had sent them to Martin,
and we had our first glimpse of the Gotfords Hill bunker.
2. Royal Observer Corps volunteers at Gotfords Hill, 1968.
3. ROC men around the open trap door to the bunker.
The photograph above gives a
clear picture of five of the men, four of them wearing the uniform of the Royal
Observer Corps (“ROC”), a volunteer organisation linked with the RAF. Do you
recognise any of these men, or are you one of them, who could tell us more?
Once
the uniform was clear, it led me to an excellent website run by the Royal Observer Corps Association, which
has helped provide the following information.
The Observer Corps was set up
in the 1920s, to help the RAF in keeping track of enemy aircraft that might
attack this country during any future war. I had heard that Gotfords Hill was
the site of an observation post during the Second World War, and that would
explain its later use by the ROC.
Although the RAF had radar
around the coast, to help spot approaching formations of German bombers during
that war, it relied on a network of observation posts to help track their
movements once they were over Britain. The post on Gotfords Hill probably
reported directly to Fighter Command HQ at Bentley Priory, on the type and
number of planes they could see, and the direction they were flying. Because of
their vital work during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz, King George VI awarded
the Observer Corps its Royal title in 1941.
After 1945, the nature of any
future conflict changed, with faster jet aircraft and the development of
nuclear weapons. The role of the ROC also changed, and from 1957 it was brought
under the control of the new United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation
(“UKWMO”). Between then and 1963, around 1500 underground ROC posts were built,
in a network across the whole country. Many reused old ROC locations, such as
Gotfords Hill.
Wally’s comment was right,
when he said that an underground bunker was dug and buried there in the 1960s.
The bunker had reinforced concrete walls, one foot thick, and could only be
reached by ladder down a 14-foot concrete shaft from the surface. The Gotfords
Hill bunker opened in 1961, and was named ROC Post Colindale (which has led to
at least one website saying it was in the London Borough of Barnet!). It was
reached via a footpath across the field from Valley Drive, and through a locked
gate in the high wire fence surrounding the site.
5. ROC members around the top of the bunker, with Valley
Drive in the background.
The bunker consisted of two
rooms, a monitoring room and a storeroom (with a chemical toilet in it). The
Cold War was at its height in the early 1960s, and in time of an emergency the
job of these ROC posts would be to report where nuclear bombs had exploded, and
to monitor the spread and toxicity of the radioactive fallout. Two or three
observers would be expected to seal themselves into the bunker, and stay there,
potentially for many weeks!
6. Inside the monitoring room in the Gotfords Hill bunker.
The radioactivity readings,
from equipment linked to the surface, would have been used alongside reports
from neighbouring posts (Acton, Northolt, Chorleywood, Kings Langley and Bowes
Park/Haringay) and data from the Met. Office to predict where the nuclear
fallout would spread to, and alert people there of danger coming their way. If
you are interested, there is a public information film [“The Hole in the
Ground” (1962)] on YouTube, all about these methods:
I remember those times, as my
grandfather was an active member of the Civil Defence Corps then. Aged 11 to
13, I was “volunteered” to help, as a casualty, with a number of their training
exercises. For one big exercise there was no gory make-up, just dozens of us
delivered to a mock casualty clearing station in a local school. We each had a
card listing the symptoms we had to describe to the first aiders, whose task it
was to decide what to do with us. My “condition” was radiation sickness, and
the symptoms were awful! Since then, I’ve been convinced that nuclear weapons
should never be used again.
As the threat of a nuclear war
with the Soviet Union diminished, half of the underground ROC bunkers were
closed in 1968, and Gotfords Hill was one of them. The photographs that Brian
shared with us are dated 1968, and may have been taken as the ROC members paid
a last visit to their post (if whoever took them would like to get in touch, we
would be happy to give a proper acknowledgement). Although the hatch and its
surround have gone, the sealed-off bunker underneath must still be there!
7. Closing the hatch to the bunker in 1968, with the fields
of the future Country Park beyond.
The final photo shared with us
shows the metal hatch being closed; but the pictures have also “lifted the lid”
on the mystery of the Gotfords Hill bunker. It is now part of the Fryent
Country Park Story!
Thankfully, the bunker never
had to be used for the purpose it was built to serve, but history can teach us
things, if we are willing to learn. In the 1950s, the government perceived a
danger which threatened the life of everyone in the country. They planned for
what would be required to deal with that threat, put in the resources necessary,
and trained the staff and volunteers who would be involved. Even though that
threat passed, without becoming a reality, the country was prepared.
Philip Grant.
IF YOU ENJOYED THIS YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THE SERIES OF ARTICLES ON FRYENT COUNTRY PARK
Daniel’s Den Snipathon is our major fundraising event of the year! 26 days of snipping activities all raising money for Daniel’s Den!
It was launched on Sunday April 26th 2020 by Linda and her daughter Shauna! This is the video of Linda having 26 inches cut off her hair - it was an epic community event!
Lots of neighbours came to cheer her on (social distancing rules in place!
Follow the link to donate!
https://t.co/BexMnn9HNx
About Daniels Den Snipathon
The 2.6 Challenge has inspired us to run a 26-day fundraising campaign called Daniels Den Snipathon. Everyday someone or something will be snipped!
It will kick off on Sunday April 26th 2020 (the day the London Marathon should have been run) when one of our volunteers Linda will cut off her hair all 26 inches of it!!
Here is her story
'What I love about Daniels Den is that its not just a job or volunteering opportunity - its family.
It is not just a session, set up, run, pack away and done its so much more. It reaches further - building links with other organisations, developing relationships with the children and families, with the other volunteers, with the people who run the venues where our sessions are held and the wider community.
The staff and volunteers offer a non-judgemental ear and share suggestions and advice. Its a huge support network.
I remember when my daughter started full time school and she asked me why I was still volunteering at Daniels Den as she wasnt there anymore. I said "if there were no volunteers when you started going to DD it would not have been such a good place would it? No one to do the craft, no one to make the juice and fruit, no one to do singing time etc". It took her a while to get her head around it, but finally did.
I'm the volunteer fundraising events coordinator and this idea has been floating around in my head for a few months - but the time seems right now. People need to be part of something at this time, to give them something to be involved in as we cant meet them at the moment.'
So everyday someone in Daniel's Den is going to do a snipping challenge. Photos and videos will be shared. Here are just some of the challenges taking place
Cuthbert the Caterpillar is going to have his 'hair' trimmed
Titch and Roxy, Lindas dogs are going to have the hair in their toenails clipped
Danielle will snip baby Hallies fingernails
Our children will make a collage of their favourite things
The money raised will help our fundraising targets for the year and enable us to reach more families.
We have decided to donate 26% of what we raise to two charities close to our heart - St Luke's Hospice and our local women's refuge! And the hair that Linda snips will be donated to the Little Princess Trust to make wigs for children that have lost their hair due to cancer treatment.
The motto of our charity is TEAM Together Everyone Achieves More and all donations are welcome.
The
TUC is today calling on government to introduce tough new
measures to ensure that before lockdown restrictions are eased, all
employers assess the risks of their staff team returning to work outside
the home.
In
a new report, the TUC outlines what government and employers need to do
to keep workers safe at work after lockdown is eased, and to give staff
the confidence they need:
Risk assessments in every workplace
The
union body is demanding that every employer in the UK be required to
carry out a specific Covid-19 risk assessment, developed in
consultation with unions and workers.
The assessment must:
Identify what risks exist in the workplace and set out specific steps to mitigate them, including through social distancing.
Be agreed with the staff trade union, where there is one.
Be
signed off by one of the UK’s 100,000 trade union health and safety
reps, or by a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspector, to make sure
that it is robust.
Be
completed and communicated to workers before they are expected
to return to their normal place of work, which means that
employers should start work on their assessments now.
Employers
who fail to complete their risk assessments or put the appropriate
safety measures in place should face serious penalties, including
prosecution.
Workers have been failed
These
are demanding measures, which represent a step-change in the UK’s
approach to health and safety at work, says the union body.
But
the TUC believes that too many workers have already been put at
unnecessary risk during the pandemic, including through lack of personal
protective equipment (PPE) and inadequate social distancing
procedures.
Safety concerns
New
TUC polling, also published today, shows that 2 in 5 (40%) workers
surveyed, along with those who have recently become unemployed, are
worried about returning to the normal place of work, including half
(49%) of women.
Asked about their specific concerns:
2 in 5 (39%)
are concerned about not being able to socially distance from colleagues
when back at work, and over a quarter (28%) are concerned about not
being able to socially distance from customers or clients.
Over a third (34%) are concerned about exposing others in their household to greater risk.
Nearly
1 in 6 (17%) workers across the economy are concerned about not having
access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) at work.
TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said:
Many
employers have struck sensible deals with unions to protect
workers’ health, safety and wellbeing. But too often decent employers
are let down by those who play fast and loose with safety.
We
need tough new measures from government to reassure working people that
their health and safety is a priority. Too many workers have already
been forced to put their health on the line during this pandemic.
We
all want everyone to get back to work and start rebuilding Britain. But
workers need confidence that they won’t have to put themselves or their
families at unnecessary risk.
Government
must ensure that every employer performs a comprehensive risk
assessment before asking staff to return to work. And bosses who don’t
take steps to protect workers should be prosecuted.
If
workers are asked to work in conditions they think are unsafe, they can
refuse. And they should know that their unions will have their back.