Tuesday, 5 May 2020

Brent GP urges residents to wear facemasks


The following represents the views of the author. I am not qualified to judge its merits but have been urged to share by some concerned readers.  It was first posted on Brent Covid-19 Mutual Aid Facebook LINK

PLEASE WEAR A FACE MASK
Dear Brent neighbours,
 
I’m a GP living in Brent and one of a group of doctors and public health specialists, called Masks4All (see here: https://www.masks4all.org.uk/). We have been working hard to convince the government to advise the public to wear home-made face masks when going outdoors. This is especially important when entering enclosed spaces like shops, supermarkets and on public transport where it is not possible to observe the 2m rule.
 
We have the support of hundreds of doctors and specialists, including those in public health. Despite widespread publicity here in the UK and the fact that most countries in the world have now implemented such a policy, the government is “still considering the evidence”. Those countries who adopted masks early have done so much better than the UK in terms of infections and deaths.
We know that BAME communities have been hit very hard by Covid-19. Brent, Harrow and Barnet are among the five local authorities with the highest death rate in the UK from Covid-19. Ealing has also had a very high death toll in care homes. We believe we should use everything we can to fight this dreadful virus and face coverings are one more weapon in addition to social distancing, and hand washing.
 
There are three key points about face masks for the public: they work by protecting those around you by blocking droplet spread of the virus. They do not protect you from being infected, ie “I protect you and you protect me”. They only have an impact if we all do it. Secondly, high-grade PPE masks must be left for front line health and social care staff, because there is such a shortage of these. Thirdly, wearing a mask does not mean you can stop social distancing and handwashing; those are still critically important.
 
There is lots of information on our website: https://www.masks4all.org.uk/, including why ordinary cloth masks work to reduce transmission, and how to make your own mask. Lots of us are already making and wearing cloth masks, but not enough of us. The data indicates if 50% of people wear a mask we can cut transmission by half, and if 80% or more do so we can almost stop transmission altogether.
 
Masks for everyone will also be an important part of coming out of lockdown, when the time for that is right.
 
We can’t wait any longer for the government to make up its mind, every day means more infections and more deaths. So if you’re not doing it already, please wear a mask when you do your shopping, or go on the bus or train, or if you’re still at work, and help protect your local community. If you are happy to do so please share this. 
 
Many thanks,
 
Jonathan Fluxman

BREAKING: Ujima House planning application withdrawn on eve of Planning Committee

The Planning Application  for  Ujima House has been withdrawn and Committee members will tomorrow defer the application to a future meeting.

The application was one of several subtantial issues due to be decided at tomorrow's virtual Planning Committee meeting.

A Supplementary Report on the Agenda states:
A letter has been received that was sent on behalf of the owners of the adjoining building (Lanmor House, 370 High Road) objecting to the proposal.
This application has been deferred to allow the consideration of the matters raised within their letter.
The meeting has attracted controversy because of concerns over the difficulty of the public making representations and the failure to arrange site visits.

See LINK


Wonderful video from Brent Music Service

Brent Music Service has been working hard to provide on-line instrumental lessons to young people whom they normally teach in schools.

They have posted this uplifting video which followed calls to sing or play 'Over the Rainbow' at the usual Thursday evening 'Clap for the NHS'. If anyone has any video footage of street renditions I'd be happy to publish them:


Monday, 4 May 2020

Warning over leaving out Mutual Aid payments

A reader has contacted me to say that money he left out by his front door for a Covod-19 Mutual Aid volunteer to pay a bill was stolen before the volunteer arrived. It was inside a housing block and the reader said that he had never before been a victim of crime and now he had been while shielding with possibe Corona-Virus in his own home.

He wanted to warn other vulnerable people via Wembley Matters. The local Mutual Aid  group told me that the procedure should be that the volunteer rings the intercom or the telephone to say they are outside before the recipient puts the money out.

The Mutual Aid group have clubbed together to make up for the loss.

Please be careful.

Defer these vital planning applications until residents can participate

There are still no clear instructions on the Brent Council Democracy web page (above) on how residents can make representations on planning applications that are tabled for Wednesday's virtual meeting.

Given this blog's long-standing campaign for transparency and accountability in local government I can only echo Paul Lorber's call to Cllr Denselow, the chair of the Planning Committee and its members, that the weighty planning applications be deferred until such time as site visits can take place and residents without internet access can make representations for or against applications.

These are the applications tabled for Wednesday:

  1. APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION 

  2. 18/4919 1-26A, coachworks & storage areas, Abbey Manufacturing Estate, all units Edwards Yard, Mount Pleasant, Wembley, HA0 
  3.   Demolition and erection of a mixed use development of buildings ranging between 3 and 14 storeys in height comprising residential units (use class C3), flexible commercial floorspace falling within use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, B1(a), B1(c), D1 or D2, associated car parking, landscaping and ancillary facilities (Phased Development)


  4. 19/1241 Car Park next to Sudbury Town Station, Station Approach, Wembley, HA0 2LA 
  5.   Re-development of existing car park for the erection of two blocks of residential dwellings, with associated residential amenity space, refuse storage, cycle parking, landscaping and other ancillary works, together with re-provision of disabled car parking bays nearest to Station Approach to serve Sudbury Town Underground Station (DEPARTURE FROM POLICY CP21 OF BRENT'S LOCAL PLAN).


  6. 19/3092 Ujima House, 388 High Road, Wembley, HA9 6AR 
  7.   Demolition of the existing building and erection of a new building up to a maximum height of 39.6m comprising up to 5,000sqm residential floorspace (Use Class C3), up to 600sqm of flexible workspace (Use Class B1A, B and C), with ancillary cafe (Use Class A3) up to 600sqm ancillary floorspace, associated hard and soft landscaping, wheelchair car and cycle parking.


  8. 19/3259 1-7 and 15-33 Peel Precinct and garages, 97-112 Carlton House, Canterbury Terrace, 8-14 Neville Close, 2 Canterbury Road, London, NW6 
  9.  
  10. Full planning application for a phased development for the demolition of 2 Canterbury Road, 1-7 and 15-33 Peel Precinct and 8-14 Neville Close, and erection of seven buildings (A to G) ranging between 5 and 16 storeys, plus part basement, comprising private sale residential units (Use Class C3), shared ownership residential units (Use Class C3), social rented residential units (Use Class C3); new health centre (Use Class D1), new gym (Use Class D2), flexible use class within retail and commercial units (Use Class A1/A3/B1) at ground floor, associated landscaping, highways and public realm improvements (including new public space and market square), private open space, associated car parking, cycle parking and servicing provision
  11.  
  12. FULL DETAILS HERE 

Sunday, 3 May 2020

The Fryent Country Park Story - Part 6

The sixth and last in a series by local historian Philip Grant

 
The Fryent Country Park Story – Part 6
Over the past five weeks, we have wandered through 1,000 years of our open space’s history, up to 1980. Thank you for your company on this journey, and I hope you will enjoy the final instalment, which brings us up to date. If you missed Part 5, “click” here.

1. A Spring morning on Fryent Way, as you enter the Country Park.
As part of its plans to improve its open spaces (including the Welsh Harp) in the early 1980s, Brent Council appointed two Countryside Rangers. In 1984, Brent combined its Barn Hill and Fryent Way lands, under the name Fryent Country Park. That year volunteers, who began to help look after this open space in 1983, formed the Barn Hill Conservation Group (“BHCG”).

Among the first steps taken was the restoration of the existing ponds, and the creation of some new ones, to encourage frogs and other amphibians. The ancient hedges also needed attention, to bring the fields back to the way they had been on the Hovenden Map of 1597 (see Part 2). BHCG members collected seeds from existing trees and bushes on the Park in the autumn, growing new ones on an allotment to replant missing hedgerows.

2. BHCG’s 1988 illustrated map of the Country Park, with lists of species. (Photo of an old copy I still have!)
Group members also took part in nature surveys, to count the number of different species to be found there. Around 1990, the Park was declared a Local Nature Reserve. When BHCG members produced an illustrated map of Fryent Country Park in the late 1980s, it listed around 550 types of flora and fauna. The map included the old field names, and the rows of green dots marked new areas of woodland that were being planted at Beane Hill, in the south-east corner of the of the Park, growing ash timber for commercial sale.

Efforts to attract more public use of the Park were dealt a blow in August 1986, when Travellers occupied land beside Fryent Way. This was partly in protest against Brent Council’s failure to provide a permanent site for them to use. Towards the end of the year there were up to 400 Travellers living there, without a water supply or sanitation, and fly-tippers took advantage of their piles of rubbish to dump more. The Council took court action to evict them, but then allowed 30 families to occupy a “temporary site”, with portable toilets, near the Fryent Way car park, until a permanent site was built.

3. Traveller caravans at Fryent Way, December 1986. (Still from an RTE television news report)

The Travellers and their rubbish (tons of which had to be cleared away periodically) were a continuing source of complaint by local residents, even after the permanent “Book Centre” site in Neasden was completed in the summer of 1988. The last of the occupying caravans finally vacated the Country Park after further court action in 1990. Banks of earth were put in place along both sides of Fryent Way, to prevent vehicle access into the fields in future, and although these looked unsightly at first, they are now a grassy feature.

4. Hay meadow wildflowers and grasses, and a Gatekeeper butterfly. (Courtesy of Leslie Williams / BHCG)
An “organic” management plan is followed for the Park’s meadows, which have a rich mix of grasses and wildflowers, and are an important habitat for butterflies. Annual butterfly surveys have been carried out since 1986, to monitor the different types and their relative numbers, and several new species have established themselves. The grass is cut for hay, from July onwards, and where possible the Council markets the right to come and harvest the crop. In the photo below, from 2004, a farmer from Wiltshire was preparing to take the hay home, as winter feed for his organic herd of dairy cows, which provided milk to make Yeo Valley yogurt!

5. Hay baling in a field behind Valley Drive, 2004. (Photo by the late Ian Stokes, courtesy of BHCG
A popular corner of the Park has always been the old Bush Farm, reached along its drive from the corner of Slough Lane. Two fields were fenced off, as grazing for horses that are still kept in stables there, and BHCG has worked to restore the farm’s former orchard (shown on the 1597 map), which as well as old apple varieties has damsons, mulberries, cob nuts and hops. A wheelchair accessible path has also been created there, to allow disabled visitors to enjoy some of the fields and ponds.

6. Horses in a field at Bush Farm. (Photo by David Howard, posted on the Flickr website)

The Park is covered with a network of footpaths, and one of the tasks carried out by BHCG on their year-round Sunday morning projects is to keep these paths clear for walkers to enjoy. The photos below show volunteers working on a path near Uxendon Hill, which is part of the Capital Ring. This 72-mile long circular route, around the green spaces of outer London, was devised by the London Walking Forum and, in normal times, can be walked in easy stages. The leaflet for Stage 10, “South Kenton to Hendon”, describes Fryent Country Park as ‘one of the best surviving areas of traditional countryside in Middlesex’.

7. Before and after views from a Sunday morning footpath project. (Photos by John Parker / BHCG)
Another initiative to encourage visitors to enjoy the Park was Brent’s Countryside Day. From the 1990s, this annual show brought a range of country activities, information stands and fairground rides to the event field. Watching sheep dogs at work, or displays with birds of prey, brought crowds of many thousands. As well as seeing BHCG members demonstrating wood turning on a pole lathe, youngsters sometimes got the chance to have-a-go themselves. Unfortunately, funding for this event was one of the cuts the Council had to make after 2010.
 
8. A flyer for the 1999 Countryside Day, and using a pole lathe in 2010. (With thanks to John Parker and Rose Bennett / BHCG)

Click on the link below to read the rest of this article

Saturday, 2 May 2020

Lorber: Residents losing all trust in the planning process in Brent

Paul Lorber has returned to the attack over the planning process under Covid-19 arrangements.

In an email to Alice Lester (Operational Director for Regeneration, Growth and Employment) who responded on behalf of Brent CEO Carolyn Downs, he claims local residents share his concern over a democratic deficit in the proposed arrangements:

I regret that I am not satisfied with your reply and would like the Chief Executive to intervene. I can tell you that having discussed this with local residents that they are not satisfied with the process and more importantly that they are losing all trust in the Planning Process in Brent. Losing public trust has major implications for any organisation in the business of public service.

I will make a number of points:

1. Unless you are already an internet user you will not be aware of the changes that Brent Council has introduced in the way Planning Committees will be held. Brent residents are used to the Planning Meetings to be held in the Civic Centre as those without internet access get the information from the Brent Magazine. As the Magazine is not delivered during the lockdown they have not been informed. Further local residents association is only able to communicate any changes to their members via the internet or whatsup messages - which once again excludes a large number of people - especially the elderly and the disabled for whom the loss of the car park on this site is a major consideration.
 
2. Unless there has been a very material change to the site meeting process (and perhaps you can set out the full rules and process) it would seem appropriate for a site meeting to be held in relation to this application. From memory of site meetings while discussions have always been discouraging and residents advised that this would take place at the Committee Meeting itself the process in the past included the officers and councillors arrival, the officers explaining the applicationg and pointing to any site issues, residents' representative being allowed to set out their concerns, councillors allowed to ask questions and seek clarification. Has this changed?
 
3. There are a number of issues in the Planning Report (and when I looked on the site on Thursday the Report was still marked as draft) which a site meeting would help with:
 
a. There is no evidence that Council Officers verified the information from 2018 provided by the applicant that the car park is no longer used. Councillors making a site visit would be able to see for themsleves that cars continue to be parked in the car park even during the lock down and that prior to the lockdown there were usually between 20 and 30 cars parked there at any one time.
 
b. They could see the proposed location for what is now described as the 3 blue badge car parking spaces. They could ask the obvious question as to whether these limited car parking spaces were being reserved for the users of the station or where they could be taken up by residents living on the new estate - especially as 5 of the units will be adapted for wheelchair users.
 
c. By walking or driving through the area to get to the site they would see the extent of the existing CPZ  and get a confirmation that the surrounding streets are heavily parked. That might lead to their better understanding and lead to questions about where will delivery vehicle park, where will visitors park and where will family members coming to visit overnight park - and how will the nearby residents be impacted by their streets being used as the car park for this development.
 
d. By visiting the site Councillors would also better understand the layout of the site and the impact of overlooking on residents of Barham Close. They might also the size of the car parking land TFL intend to retain for their 'Depot' for future works to the tail lines. They might ask the obvious question why the housing development is not repositioned in such a way that the retained land is used as flexible space which could allow the retention of part of the car park for pubic use. The following point is not considered by the report because officers are clearly not familiar with the area and simply take information at face value as provided by the 3rd parties behind the development - the point is this -
 
e. TFL intend to retain a fair sized part of the car par for a Deport for as yet unspecified works. This land is accessed via Barham Close. There is a possible alternative approach which ensures that the Housing proposed is built further back on the land intended to be retained. This would free up land closer to the entrance to the station (towards the pedestrian ramp). This land could than have a dual purpose - allow the retention of a reasonable number of car parking spaces on the site (say around 25), including some spaces for a few visitors and some loading and unloading space while still being available as a Deport as an when TFL need to undertake works to the underground lines. Should any TFL needs arise they could simply suspend public use of the car park for the required period. It would of course be much easier to explain this proposal on site as councillors could walk through the whole of the existing car park and see how this would work in practice.
 
f. The planning report refers to £30,000 and £20,000 future CPZ review contributions to both Brent and Ealing. By coming on site councillors would get an appreciation and view of the area where existing CPZs operate and what is intended. I make this point because I regard as the contributions as totally meaning less - equally meaningless to the Planning Service inability to enforce the condition that any resident of the new development will not have access to a CPZ permit. If I was asking for a site visit I would take the opportunity fo ask councillors to visit the new development of Fishers & Williams Way nearby to highlight the reality of car free developments. I would firstly point out that Planning permission often require developers to contribute money towards CPZ reviews. The developer of Fishers and Williams Estate made a CPZ contribution many years ago - an on the ball councillors could ask the Officers - how was the contribution used to benefit local people and improve the situation locally? I know the answer - very little. Perhaps you can answer this point and explain why nothing has been done for at least 5 years and what the point of the extra money is. And the usually planners response to residents raising concerns about new developments causing parking problems for nearby residents that "we have asked the developers to contribute money towards CPZ reviews" will simply no longer do.

The ability of the public to influence issues at at a Planning Committee is very limited already. They are given a very short time to speak and no opportunity to respond if inaccurate statements are made by the applicant or in some cases by planning officers. The work of Councillors is to provide effective scrutiny and sometimes to listen and take account of what residents have said. The process is very skewed anyway as officers (who have been approached and been influenced by the applicant through pre meetings etc) do not give the same opportunity to residents. 

The planning application for Sudbury Town Station has been around for a while. It has been revised following discussions between the planners and the developers. The ability for local residents to have further input has been limited.

There are other large and controversial planning applications for consideration by the Planning Committee on 6 May 2020. In most cases there is no urgency to determine the application - irrespective of the virtual online meetings allowed by Government legislation. The Zoom system has not been fully tested and as you are no doubt aware has been subject to security breaches. The approach will almost certainly deny large numbers of Brent residents the opportunity to fully participate.

Brent Council exists to serve Brent residents. It should in my view do so properly and fairly. The approach of deciding planning applications, which will have major implications for local people for many years to come, is very damaging for the image of Brent Council and should in my view not be pursued. Brent Council has closed its sports centres, libraries, the Civic Centre, offices, recycling centres and many other facilities and services - it simply is NOT right that it should continue to make decisions behind closed doors about planning applications that local people are very concerned about.

Regards

Paul Lorber

Brent councillor suspended by Labour Party

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.