Saturday, 12 September 2020

The Welsh Harp Reservoir Story – Part 4

Fourth of the guest series by local historian Philip Grant


The Welsh Harp Reservoir Story – Part 4

Thank you for joining me again, as we sail towards the finishing line of our local reservoir’s story. If you missed Part 3, you will find it here.


1. A sailing race on the Welsh Harp Reservoir, 2011.

Sailing became an important use of the Welsh Harp in the years after the Second World War. Several large companies, such as Handley Page and Smiths Industries from Cricklewood, set up their own sailing clubs for employees. Others were local organisations, such as the Wembley Sailing Club (formed in 1953) and the Sea Cadets. The various clubs have since come together under an umbrella organisation, the Welsh Harp Sailing Association, based at Birchen Grove, which leases the reservoir for all water-based sports and leisure activities.


2. Sir Frederick Handley Page (left) at a dinghy naming ceremony for his company's sailing club, c. 1954.
    (Photo courtesy of the Handley Page Association)

The reservoir had come into public ownership in 1948, as part of the post-war Labour Government’s nationalisation of transport industries, which eventually saw it managed by the British Waterways Board. Under another environmental innovation from that time, the reservoir and its shoreline were made a Site of Special Scientific Interest in 1950, particularly for their importance to rare bird species, but also for the plant life at the water’s edge.

Most of the land around the Welsh Harp was still in a mixture of private and local authority ownership. I mentioned in Part 3 that Willesden Urban District Council had purchased 40 acres of land on the north side in 1928. We saw in the articles on Church End and Chapel End that Willesden had opened a new cemetery in 1893, but because of the district’s large population, this was already filling up. It planned to put a cemetery here, but Kingsbury Council objected, saying that it wanted the area used for housing. After a public inquiry, the Government agreed to loan Willesden the money for a cemetery, but said it must sell Kingsbury 14 acres nearest to the reservoir for recreational use. This later became the Welsh Harp Open Space.

3. Willesden's 1950 plans for its Kingsbury Lawn Cemetery, and Garden of Rest. (From the National Archive)

After Kingsbury merged with Wembley in 1934, Willesden’s plans were further delayed, as the new council tried to buy the land from it, for its own cemetery needs. The only thing that the two councils managed to agree on, when war came in 1939, was that they could both use what is now the Birchen Grove allotments site for mass civilian burials, if the need arose (thankfully, it didn’t!). Under the new post-war planning regulations, Willesden applied again in 1950 to use their land as a burial ground. Approval was eventually given and their Kingsbury Lawn Cemetery was consecrated in 1954, with the superintendent’s house and chapel built by 1956. Despite this, the ornamental gates at the top of Birchen Grove have never welcomed a funeral! 
 

4. Sculling finalists and the British eight at the Women’s European Rowing Championships, 1960.
    (Source: Brent Archives – Willesden Chronicle photographers’ negatives)

On some websites, you will read that the Welsh Harp was the venue for the rowing events at the 1948 London Olympic Games. That’s incorrect (in fact, they were held at Henley, on the River Thames), but the reservoir did host the 1960 Women’s European Rowing Championships (“click” for a detailed article on these). That event was organised by Willesden Borough Council, and the competitors were accommodated at the then recently opened John Kelly Girls School (now part of Crest Academy), just up Dollis Hill from Neasden Recreation Ground.

5. Brent Regatta ad. from 1966, and the 1969 inter-Council rowing race. (Brent Archives online image 9787)

The Council had run a Whit Monday Willesden Regatta on the reservoir for many years, and this continued as the Brent Regatta after it merged with Wembley in 1965. One of the highlights for the crowds was watching teams of local councillors from a number of London Boroughs taking part in rowing race over a 500-metre course. The photo above shows the Brent boat winning the 1969 race – I wonder who would be in the crew if the race was still held today (any nominations?). This annual bank holiday regatta ended in the early 1970s.
 

 6. Two views of activities at the Youth Sailing Base. (Images from Brent Archives)

It was not just adults who could enjoy water sports on the Welsh Harp. In 1964, the year before it was disbanded, Middlesex County Council opened a Youth Sailing Base on the northern arm of the reservoir, where thousands of young people learned to sail or canoe safely. Another important facility for local youngsters came in 1973, when Brent Council opened the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre (“WHEEC”) on part of the proposed cemetery site. A large nursery, to grow plants for Brent’s Parks Service, also opened on the site in 1977.
 

 7. The 1956 cemetery chapel building, later used by the WHEEC and (here in 2011) by Energy Solutions.

The importance of the Welsh Harp for nesting water birds had long attracted ornithologists to the area. When proposals for a marina, close to a key nesting area near the Welsh Harp public house, were put forward in the early 1970s, a number of them came together to oppose this. The Welsh Harp Conservation Group was formed in 1972, and their volunteer members have helped to look after the habitats on and around the reservoir ever since (in a similar way to the Barn Hill Conservation Group, featured in my Fryent Country Park Story).

 8. Welsh Harp Conservation Group volunteers at work, winter 2008 and summer 2011. (L. by Roy Beddard)

As well as looking after nesting rafts and bird hides, and the wider vegetation of the area to encourage wildlife of all sorts, the group has played an important part in recording the natural history of the reservoir, and sharing this with visitors. From a first guided walk on a bank holiday in 1976, they expanded this to provide monthly wildlife walks. When my children were young (in the late 1980s or early 1990s) our family benefitted from one of these walks. For the first time in my life I got to see beautiful Great Crested Grebes, an unforgettable sight!
 

9. Great Crested Grebes, courting and nesting on the Welsh Harp. (Photos by Roy Beddard and Leo Batten)

While there was relative peace and quiet for the bird nesting grounds at the eastern end of the reservoir, there were major developments taking place not far away, at Staples Corner. The narrow roadway under the Victorian railway viaduct was causing major traffic problems on the North Circular Road, especially when it was planned to start the M1 motorway from here. A massive Brent Cross flyover was built in the 1960s, to carry east-west through-traffic over the top of this bottleneck. You can see this in the photo below, and I have added part of a 1921 image to help show the line of the viaduct, which you can just see in the modern picture.
 
 
 10. Staples Corner, with North Circular Road flyover and the railway viaduct (including 1921 comparison).

You may be wondering what happened to the Welsh Harp public house, which featured in Part 2 of this story. It had been replaced by a more modern building in the 1930s (the fate of a number of historic inns in our area), but it fell victim to more roadworks when the north-south A5 flyover was built over Staples Corner in the 1970s. It was demolished in 1971, and its site was where the north-bound slip road, from Staples Corner towards West Hendon, passes the entrance to Priestley Way, a service road for a small industrial estate. What a sad epitaph for the inn which gave the Brent Reservoir its more popular name!


11. The 1930s Welsh Harp public house in 1971, and the site as it is now. (1971 photo by Geoffrey Hewlett)

Going back to the reservoir, this does have to be drained occasionally, both for major maintenance work on the dam and to remove the rubbish which unfortunately gets dumped in it. One remarkable feature when this happens is that the original winding course of the River Brent can still be seen, just as it was when it marked the boundary between Kingsbury and Hendon parishes to the north, and Willesden parish to the south, when the land was first flooded to create the reservoir in 1835.
 

12. The River Brent flowing through the drained reservoir in 1974. (Photo by Leo Batten)

In 2012, responsibility for the reservoir was passed to the Canal and River Trust, a charity set up when the Government abolished the publicly-owned British Waterways Board. Questions were raised about how safe the reservoir might be in the event of a severe storm, after a similar Canal Age dam at Whaley Bridge in Derbyshire was in danger of collapse in 2019. Luckily, it emerged that as well as regular checks, further reinforcement of the dam with concrete had been carried out in 2005-07, following detailed studies of how extreme heavy rainfall might affect the Welsh Harp reservoir, and the river downstream of it. Brent Council also issued a statement following the Toddbrook Reservoir emergency, with links to information for anyone who feels the need for reassurance.

Earlier, I mentioned facilities that had been set up for young people near the reservoir. Sadly, Barnet Council closed the Youth Sailing Base, which they inherited from Middlesex County Council, in 2004, and sold off its site to a developer for building luxury waterside apartments. Instructors from the Base went on to set up the Phoenix Canoe Club, so that there is still a place on the Welsh Harp where youngsters can enjoy this sport.

13. Pond dipping at the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre. (Photo courtesy of Harry Mackie)

The Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre went from strength to strength. Back in the 1980s, my daughters were among the thousands of local school children each year who have enjoyed learning about nature in a hands-on way, from enthusiastic experts. But the squeeze on local authority spending has also hit the former cemetery site. By the 1990s, Brent Council had closed its Parks Department nursery, which later reopened as the private Greenhouse (now Birchen Grove) Garden Centre. 


During the past ten years, cuts to funds allocated to youth services first saw the WHEEC receive financial support from the Careys construction group, then its threat of closure. Luckily this environmental “jewel in the crown”, celebrated in a 2015 Council video, was saved when Brent passed the Centre to the Thames 21 charity, under a Community Asset Transfer in 2016.
 
 

 
 
 
I hope you have enjoyed discovering more about “the Welsh Harp” in this series of articles. With all Brent’s Libraries now open again (with restricted hours), you can find even more information and pictures in Geoffrey Hewlett’s 2011 book, “Welsh Harp Reservoir Through Time”, in the local history section at ref. 942.185. 

14. The reservoir in 2010, and the cover of Geoffrey Hewlett's book. (Photo: London Canal Museum)

But it’s also a place to visit and enjoy, on our doorstep, if you can do so safely, whether for a walk, some wildlife watching or perhaps to learn to sail or paddle a canoe. After all, it is (officially) the Brent Reservoir!

Philip Grant

Next weekend we’ll take the No.32 northbound from the Priestley Way bus stop (by the site of the Welsh Harp Inn) for a one-off special article, then ride the same bus route southbound for a new local history series. Hop aboard “Wembley Matters” to find out where these journeys will take us.

Last Rights: The Case for Assisted Dying - NW London Virtual Book Tour September 16th


We’re taking our new book, Last Rights: The Case for Assisted Dying, on a virtual book tour. On Wednesday 16th September we'll be speaking to supporters in North West London.

Register today to hear Lloyd Riley, co-author of Last Rights: The Case for Assisted Dying & Policy and Research Manager at Dignity in Dying, discuss the ins and outs of writing the book and campaigning for assisted dying.

When: 18:30 - 19:30, Wednesday 16th September
Where: Online (register here)
Lloyd will shed light on the book's findings to supporters of the campaign in the North West London area and what you can do locally to help. In this hour, we'll answer your questions, discuss ways to influence local decision makers and in particular invite any local people who have experience of terminal illness to speak out.

Last Rights: The Case for Assisted Dying is a call to arms for society to take an honest look at how we die in the UK. As the pandemic has exposed everything that is wrong in our relationship with dying, our assisted dying laws must be re-examined as the country begins to recover.

If, like us, you feel that we've been getting dying wrong in this country for far too long, please join us for this frank, insider discussion.
Looking forward to seeing you there!

All the best,

Fran Hall 
Dignity in Dying

P.S. Join us for this fascinating discussion - register today!

Brent Council Cabinet, Scrutiny,and Planning Committee appointments

The full list of appointments to Brent Council committees has now been published ahead of Monday's Council AGM and can be viewed HERE

It confirms the unofficial list published by Wembley Matters earlier.  The Lib Dems remain unrepresented on any committee. The nominations will be rubber-stamped at the meeting.


Brent Planning Committee proceedings told in Tweets

 I tweeted proceedings of Monday's Planning Committee in real time and reproduce the three main items below to give you a flavour of the proceedings. The latest tweets appear first for each application.

The meeting started late, presumably this was the reason. Cllr Deneslow will be replaced at Monday's Council AGM by Cllr Kelcher.

 

CLAREMONT HIGH SCHOOL 3G PITCH
 

 


(Last tweet bove should be Claremont not Kingsbury. Kingsbury High School withdrew a similar application after opposition from residents)

BRIDGEWATER ROAD, ALPERTON

 

WATKIN ROAD, WEMBLEY PARK







Ideas on responding to the government's 'developers' charter' White Paper


The Government's Planning White Paper has so far received little discussion locally but its proposals could have a far reaching impact on the borough and leave us defenceless against greedy developers, sub-standard housing and loss of amenity.

I publish below, with his permission, a detailed article by Paul Burnham of Haringey Defend Council Housing LINK which contains some suggestions on answering the consultation questions.

The government’s White Paper Planning for the Future, published on 6 August, threatens to rip up the planning system which was set up in 1947, based on public control over all changes in the use of land.

It is Robert Jenrick who is leading on this policy – the man who fast tracked planning permission to save a developer friend millions of pounds, after sitting next to him at a Conservative party fund raising dinner.

The White Paper brazenly suggests that this government is going to increase developer contributions to housing and infrastructure – by scrapping the specific obligation to provide affordable housing.

Why should we believe such nonsense.

Parts of the country are to be labelled as ‘growth’ or ‘renewal’ zones, with little opportunity to oppose bad development plans. Powers for local authorities and communities to oppose bad schemes are to be severely restricted or scrapped completely.

The plans are predicated on redefining “affordable housing” as lower cost market provision, rather than council or social rent.

It is a top priority to stop this developers’ charter.

The loss of local authority powers and the loss of public scrutiny mean that there will be widespread opposition to these plans.

Unsurprisingly, the policies are being pursued with dishonest and evasive arguments.   But don’t be deterred. Please take a few minutes to complete the on-line consultation form, to build the opposition to the White Paper.

Please ask your residents association, Councillor, trade union or MP to make their objection as well. You may want to use the suggested responses below.

This consultation ends at 11:45pm on 29 October 2020.

https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/MHCLG-Planning-for-the-Future/

Q3. Our proposals will make it much easier to access plans and contribute your views to planning decisions. How would you like to find out about plans and planning proposals in the future?

Other (please specify):

Comment: Your proposals severely restrict public participation in practice

Q4. What are your top three priorities for planning in your local area? (Please select only 3 answers)

Building homes for the homeless/ Increasing the affordability of housing/ Other (please specify):

Comment: Building 100,000 new council homes a year at normal council rents.

Q5. Do you agree that Local Plans should be simplified in line with our proposals?

No. Detailed plans are necessary to take proper account of the affordability and accessibility of housing for all including the poorest.

Q7(a) Do you agree with our proposals to replace existing legal and policy tests for Local Plans with a consolidated test of “sustainable development”, which would include consideration of environmental impact?

No. This reduces the ability of communities to challenge bad plans.  

Q8.(a) Do you agree that a standard method for establishing housing requirements (that takes into account constraints) should be introduced?

No.  The housing requirement needs to take account of those who need secure affordable rented housing (i.e. council and social rent), and not just testing the accessibility of owner occupation as you are proposing.

Q9(a). Do you agree that there should be automatic permission in principle for areas for substantial development (Growth areas) with faster routes for detailed consent?

No.  Local authorities and communities need to be able to challenge bad developer proposals which do not provide affordable and council housing, and which segregate tenures. etc.

Q9(b). Do you agree with our proposals above for the consent arrangements for Renewal and Protected areas?

No.

Local authorities and communities need to be able to challenge bad developer proposals which do not provide affordable and council housing, and which segregate tenures. etc.

‘Renewal’ tends to mean that great improvements are promised, but we need to be able to see and challenge the detail before these plans are accepted.

Q10. Do you agree with our proposals to make decision-making faster and more certain?

No. Local authorities and communities need to be able to challenge bad developer proposals which are driven by profit rather than housing needs.

Q11. Do you agree with our proposals for digitised, web-based Local Plans?

No. Stop trying to kid us, there is nothing new about the internet, all plans are web based these days already. Hard copies of the plans should also be made fully available for ease of reference.

Q14. Do you agree there should be a stronger emphasis on the build out of developments? And if so, what further measures would you support?

Yes. Stop land banking by developers and housing associations.

Q15. What do you think about new development that has happened recently in your area? Other (please specify):

Excess provision of unaffordable housing designed to price out local people.

Q16. Sustainability is at the heart of our proposals. What is your priority for sustainability in your area?

Other:

Social sustainability as specified in Chapter 2 of the NPPF (2019) and Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly, to which it refers. This means banning the excess supply of unaffordable housing which is the prime driver of forced gentrification and social exclusion, stopping estate redevelopment schemes, and building 100,000 new council homes a year nationally.

Q21. When new development happens in your area, what is your priority for what comes with it?

More affordable housing.

Q22. (a) Should the Government replace the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 planning obligations with a new consolidated Infrastructure Levy, which is charged as a fixed proportion of development value above a set threshold?

No. This proposal is cynically designed to allow (and in practice, to encourage) local authorities to reduce funding for council and social housing, in order to pay for infrastructure costs which are being squeezed by government cuts in revenue support grant. 

Q22. (c) Should the Infrastructure Levy aim to capture the same amount of value overall, or more value, to support greater investment in infrastructure, affordable housing and local communities?

More value.

Greater investment in infrastructure, affordable housing and local communities is needed from developers – but also from government in the form of direct investment. Building social rent housing pays for itself in reduced benefit costs.

Q23. Do you agree that the scope of the reformed Infrastructure Levy should capture changes of use through permitted development rights?

Yes.

Q24. (a) Do you agree that we should aim to secure at least the same amount of affordable housing under the Infrastructure Levy, and as much on-site affordable provision, as at present?

Yes.

Q25. Should local authorities have fewer restrictions over how they spend the Infrastructure Levy?

No.

Q25 (a) If ‘yes’, should an affordable housing ‘ring-fence’ be developed?

Yes.

Q26. Do you have any views on the potential impact of the proposals raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?

Yes.

The proposals restrict the right of local authorities and communities to influence bad development proposals which are driven by profit seeking private developers. Reducing the scope of local plans would undermine policies which protect groups with protected characteristics, and other lower income groups, and those without savings, or in debt. Merging affordable housing obligations with infrastructure contributions will tend to undermine housing provision for the most deprived groups. Implicit throughout this document is the redefinition of “affordable housing” as lower cost market provision, rather than understanding the assessed need for social rent housing for those with lower, insecure and variable incomes, and especially those with low savings or who are in debt. The focus on funding affordable housing through developer contributions ignores the well documented failures of this strategy as developers very effectively game the system, not only by reducing their contributions in immediate cases but though policy capture at local authority level as well.  

The outcome if these proposals were to be adopted would be more overprovision of unaffordable housing, weaker public policy controls over the vested interests of the private developers, less provision of really affordable housing, and more stigmatised housing developments with tenure segregation, worse housing for the poor, etc. This would adversely people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010: ethnic minority groups, especially black and Asian people and people of mixed heritage, and female headed households especially single parent female headed households.

IT GETS WORSE 

 

In addition to the planning White Paper, the government is also proposing four parallel and very nasty changes to the current planning system:

(ONE) Housing targets which will pressurise councils to demolish council estates in London.

(TWO) Prioritising ‘First Homes’ discounted home ownership, with prices capped at £250,000 outside London and £420,000 in London, over other forms of affordable housing.

(THREE) Removing the requirement to provide affordable housing in developments of up to 40 or 50 homes (instead of 10 as at present).

(FOUR) Extending the Permission in Principle consent regime to cover major developments of up to 150 homes.

As with the White Paper, please make your objection in person, and through your organisations.

This one is urgent, bearing in mind the closing date of 1st October.

https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/MHCLG-Changes-to-the-current-planning-system/

suggested responses are offered to 13 of the 35 questions below.

Proposal ONE: The standard method for assessing housing requirement numbers in strategic plans

Q1: Do you agree that planning practice guidance should be amended to specify that the appropriate baseline for the standard method is whichever is the higher of the level of 0.5% of housing stock in each local authority area OR the latest household projections averaged over a 10-year period?

No.  The formula is based on the affordability of home ownership, when it is decent secure and really-affordable homes for all that are required, and not this obsession with the over provision of market sector dwellings.

The National Housing Federation predicts that ‘in London the likely uplift for targets will be about 50%’. The formula used will produce high numerical targets for the production of unaffordable homes in London in particular, and would be used to force councils to pursue demolition and gentrification plans which are targeted against working class communities.

Q3: Do you agree that using the workplace-based median house price to median earnings ratio from the most recent year for which data is available to adjust the standard method’s baseline is appropriate? If not, please explain why.

No. This formula is based on private ownership alone. It is housing for all including secure council and social rent which is required as a priority.

Q4: Do you agree that incorporating an adjustment for the change of affordability over 10 years is a positive way to look at whether affordability has improved? If not, please explain why.

No. The basis of the assessment should be the number of people on the waiting list including concealed households, and newly forming households.

Proposal TWO: Setting developer contributions for First Homes

Q8: The Government is proposing policy compliant planning applications will deliver a minimum of 25% of onsite affordable housing as First Homes, and a minimum of 25% of offsite contributions towards First Homes where appropriate. Which do you think is the most appropriate option for the remaining 75% of affordable housing secured through developer contributions? Please provide reasons and / or evidence for your views (if possible):

i) Prioritising the replacement of affordable home ownership tenures, and delivering rental tenures in the ratio set out in the local plan policy.

ii) Negotiation between a local authority and developer.

iii) Other (please specify)

The proposed target of 25% of affordable housing as First Homes should not be proceeded with. This proposal directs affordable housing policy towards near-market and market-supporting options rather provision for those most in need, i.e. council housing at social rents.

Q15: Do you agree with the removal of the site size threshold set out in the National Planning Policy Framework?

No. Affordable housing policy based on housing needs assessments, with priority given to the greatest need, must be applied to all sites without exception.

It would be a retrograde step to widen the ‘exceptions’ to affordable housing policy.

Proposal THREE: Supporting small and medium-sized developers by reducing affordable housing requirements

Q17: Do you agree with the proposed approach to raise the small sites threshold for a time-limited period?

No.  This would damage the interests of the homeless and those in the highest housing need.  Affordable housing is not a burden on the housebuilding industry, instead affordable housing should be the purpose of the housebuilding industry.

Q18: What is the appropriate level of small sites threshold?

i) Up to 40 homes

ii) Up to 50 homes

iii) Other (please specify) one dwelling

No exceptions.

Q19: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the site size threshold?

No. The government’s argument is disingenuous. This is not about assisting small and medium enterprises in the building industry, instead it is about finding an excuse to roll back criteria for the social sustainability required in development, as specified in Chapter 2 of the NPPF (2019) and Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly, to which it refers.

Q23: Are there any other ways in which the Government can support SME builders to deliver new homes during the economic recovery period?

Yes.

Proposal FOUR: Extension of the Permission in Principle consent regime to cover major development

Q24: Do you agree that the new Permission in Principle should remove the restriction on major development?

No. This is a bad proposal which would severely limit the capacity of local authorities and communities to challenge bad development proposals.

Q28: Do you agree that publicity arrangements for Permission in Principle by application should be extended for large developments? If so, should local planning authorities be:

1.     required to publish a notice in a local newspaper?

ii) subject to a general requirement to publicise the application or

iii) both?

iv) disagree

If you disagree, please state your reasons.

Local authorities must write to all local residents

Q32: What guidance would help support applicants and local planning authorities to make decisions about Permission in Principle? Where possible, please set out any areas of guidance you consider are currently lacking and would assist stakeholders.

Proper local authority and community scrutiny must be retained in full.  

Impacts of proposals: Public Sector Equality Duty

Q35: In light of the proposals set out in this consultation, are there any direct or indirect impacts in terms of eliminating unlawful discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations on people who share characteristics protected under the Public Sector Equality Duty?

None of these four of these proposals advance equality of opportunity, and all of them are directly harmful to people who share characteristics protected under the Public Sector Equality Duty: Black Asian and Minority Ethnic households, disabled people, and female headed households.

The recommendation is to withdraw these proposals. The government should provide affordable housing grant at an adequate level to build 100,000 new council homes a year at normal council rents.

 

 

Thursday, 10 September 2020

Scrap Section 60/George Floyd Solidarity Demonstration Friday 3.30pm Kilburn Police Station

 

Brent Trades Council and Stand Up to Racism have organised a  demonstration calling for the scrapping of Section 60. Section 60 has been widely used in Brent and Westminster. The demonstration is part of the Day of Action as the trial of George Floyd's alleged killers begins.

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows a police officer to stop and search a person without suspicion.

Where a Section 60 is in place, it means police can search anyone in a certain area, for example, when there is evidence that serious violence has taken place or may take place.

It is set for a limited time and allows officers to stop and search people without reasonable grounds.

According to the organisers black people are 10 times more likely to be stopped by police than white people and BAME people four times more likely.

The demonstration is a 3.30pm on Friday Septembetr 11th outside Kilburn Police Station, Salusbury Road, NW6 6LT.  Nearest station Queens Park (Bakerloo and Overground)

Social distancing and Covid19 hygiene measures must be observed.


Kilburn Police Station,  Queens Park