NW2 Residents' Association's objection to the 'over-bearing' B&Q Cricklewood development

Beware of the tendency to cut off height in development illustrations

 

An idea of the footprint

'Ghost' blocks

I am grateful to North West TWO Residents' Association for permission to repost this very useful article from their website LINK

We strongly object to this planning application. Many of our reasons have already been well expressed by our fellow residents’ associations, our individual members and many others; we won’t repeat them all.

We note that much of the application is speculative, conditional and non-committal (“should be provided”, “should be designed”). It avoids saying that things will be done in accordance with the application, and the only assurances are that the development will be a fine thing for Cricklewood. These assurances are not well-founded and only bolster the impression that this developer is not committed to the project.

The application seeks to justify excessive height, massing and density by claiming the proposal solves trivial or non-existent problems.

Repeatedly, the 25-storey tower is described as an aid to wayfinding and legibility. No evidence is presented that people are having trouble finding their way. Central Cricklewood is highly legible with one main road, the A5, and one significant crossroads leading to Cricklewood Station on one side and Willesden Green Station on the other. Finding the way from Cricklewood Station is helped by Legible London signage and if finding the station were a problem, more signs could be provided. They would be cheaper and far less obtrusive than a 25-storey tower block. All this self-serving justification does is emphasise how starkly visible the development would be from all around.

The application makes much of providing a public pedestrian and cycling route between Depot Approach and Cricklewood Lane.

– It would not serve pedestrians coming to or from the Railway Terraces via Kara Way; that route is already blocked at Kara Way.

– It would not serve cyclists travelling between Cricklewood Lane and the A5 junction with Depot Approach. The concept fails to meet Transport for London’s London Cycling Design Standards. Diverting off straight roads to cycle up and down sharp inclines and in amongst pedestrians fails to satisfy the core outcomes of directness, comfort, coherence and adaptability to increasing volumes, and breaches the principle that bicycles must be treated as vehicles, not pedestrians.

– It would bring pedestrians and cyclists into conflict with each other.

– The traffic and transport sections of the application make no attempt to evaluate likely use or benefits of this feature.

A pedestrian route would have to be provided so residents of the development can move around it, and it cannot reasonably be gated. It’s not a community benefit and declaring it a cycle route only benefits the applicant.

The application criticises Cricklewood for not having a library or a town hall, but does not say it will rectify this or offer any other community facilities, with the exception of public access to the spaces between building plots. It calls one of these spaces a Town Square, though it would sit apart from the roads, and shows it with a brightly lit cinema or advertising screen shining into the windows of the residents across Cricklewood Lane (no assessment of this impact is offered).

The developers have no clear ideas on how the ground-floor commercial spaces would be used, and no strategy for encouraging appropriate uses, let alone allocation to develop the community. There is no policy to ensure they are let and do not remain empty as at nearby Fellows Square.

No social housing is offered and there is only an “aspiration” to provide the minimum of 35% “affordable” units. This fails to meet London’s needs and it fails to meet the needs of our community. The application should be rejected for this reason alone.

The statement of community engagement makes it clear that the developers have not consulted Cricklewood residents so that our views will be taken into account. The statement ends with a brief series of rejections of every criticism, and the plans have not been modified to take any concern into account. That was not engagement.

The open space in the development is not commensurate with the increase in population, which would increase demand on existing and prospective open spaces. The application avoids quantifying this.

The impact of the development on its surroundings would be significant and adverse, as the report from Montague Evans states repeatedly. That report hopes that good design might somewhat mitigate the significant adverse impacts. This does not address the fundamental problem.

Whether 15-storey or 25-storey, these blocks are not appropriate for this area. The tallest buildings around or in process of gaining approval are 9-storey, and they are the exception. Most of the entire neighbourhood is 2-storey or 3-storey. Not even the blocks of Brent Cross South, at some distance, are so high. These blocks would dominate the area. They would be overbearing, far too high and excessively massive. They would be detrimental to the neighbourhood and incoherent with it. Barnet, Brent and Camden still have no joint plan or co-ordinated approach to Cricklewood’s development, but it is clear that there is no prospect of similar development in the Brent and Camden parts of central Cricklewood.

The application states “There will be significant changes to some local views as a result of the regeneration of the Site. These changes and the visibility of the tallest elements on the Site signal the regeneration of the Site and the positive changes brought to the neighbourhood in returning the Site back into active use.” The current residents of Cricklewood and anyone that comes to live on the site would have to live with the permanent changes this development would make and their direct and lasting impact on our lives. These tower blocks cannot be justified by being called a “signal”.

More about this planning application

Our quick guide to making objections

Make your own objection – or say more

A greener, fairer Greater Brent? Join Brent Friends of the Earth week of action

 

From Brent Friends of the Earth

Brent FoE Green and Fair Recovery action

This is the week of action - we want to hear your views in our campaign for a green and fair recovery from COVID-19.

What could this look like in Brent? Please comment with your ideas

Also, join our online discussion on Sunday 11th October 10:30-12, around how to achieve a green and fair recovery, and influence government ahead of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

To join the Zoom Meeting, email info@brentfoe.com for the link, or join our mailing list via www.brentfoe.com.

We will also be hosting a virtual lobby with Brent MPs Tulip Siddiq and Dawn Butler. Details to be confirmed soon!

Mixed response to proposal to rename section of Meadow Garth after Neasden Temple founder

Brentfield School Nursery entrance - the main school entrance is the other side of the barrier

The Mandir on the left - Meadow Garth section that could be renamed ahead

The Cabinet next week will decided whether to agree to rename a section of Meadow Garth in Neasden after the founder of the Neasden Temple (BAPs Swaminarayan Mandir) Pramukh Swami, the spiritual leader of the Swaminarayan sect until his death in 2016.

He inaugurated the Mandir in 1995 and the 20th anniversary was celebrated in 2015.

 

The proposal is to rename the section of Meadow Garth from Brentfield Road to the barrier (see first photograph) 'Pramukh Swami Road.'

Brentfield Primary School objects because the proposal splits the site with the nursery entrance in Pramukh Swami Road and the main entrance in the retained section of Meadow Garth. They point out that the school has recently rebranded with the Meadow Garth address and in addition say that  the change does not reflect 'our community or th school community.'

The change is strongly supported by several residents in the affected section of Meadow Garth but other residents object on ground of the inconvenience, stress and expense that will be caused.

The London Fire Emergency and Planning Authority (LFEPA) object:

The proposed name is not the easiest to pronounce and could be received wrongly during call handling. It is always better to act on the side of precaution when choosing street or building names to minimise the risk of delay when attending an incident. We do object to the renaming of part of 'Meadow Garth Road' as it currently doesn't present any issues for us in terms of locating this address. The guideline states that renaming/renumbering existing streets and buildings is normally only considered when changes occur which give rise to problems for the occupiers, post office, emergency services etc.

This was later qualified by the LFEPA Borough Commander who said that this was advice from the national guidelines, 'but you are free to make any decision you wish.'

The officers say the Cabinet should take the objection seriously as delays of a few minutes in response times can have serious life consequences for firefighters and residents.

On the cultural and visitor attraction aspects the report states:

The Temple is an important asset to Brent, both for residents and as a visitor attraction; it provides valued facilities to many residents and visitors. Although the rationale for applying for the name change has not been clearly set out in the application, it is important to recognise the desire of the Temple to have a street presence which reflects its culture and that of its thousands of attendees and visitors.

 The report leaves the Cabinet to make a 'finely balance' decision:

Clearly the statutory responders and the school are not in favour of the name change along with some residents of Meadow Garth. On balance this would often lead to a rejection of the name change. However, given the need to reflect diversity in the borough and the significance of the Temple to the life of the Borough, Cabinet may well decide that this is a change which they would wish to support.

 

4. 
   

   
   

    

Uncovering Kilburn’s History – Part 2

Welcome back to this second instalment of Kilburn’s story. If you missed Part 1, please “click” on the link.

 

1. The location of several Kilburn pubs on a map from 1800. (From Google Maps World, on the internet)

 

Modern Kilburn is well known for its many public houses, but these only continue a long tradition. The position of Kilburn on a major route facilitated the establishment of several inns from the 15th century onwards. The “Red Lion” claims to have been established in 1444, and “The Cock” was probably around by the early 1500s. The “Black Lion” may date from 1666, but it is the story of “The Bell”, which existed by 1600, that we will look at here.

 

 

2. The Red Lion in 1789, and the frieze on the later building, with 1444 date. (Brent Archives image 2024)

 

A spring of water with medicinal properties (it was impregnated with iron) in Abbey Fields gave rise to Kilburn’s reputation as an 18^th century pleasure resort. It was in the grounds of The Bell. In 1714 the spring was enclosed in a brick reservoir. By 1733, The Bell’s proprietor promoted the water as a cure for stomach ailments, in imitation of the nearby Hampstead Wells.

 

3. The Bell Inn, 1750, an illustration from Walford’s 1878 book. (From the Kilburn & Willesden History blog)

 

Joseph Errington became the landlord of the pub, which came to be called “Kilburn Wells”, in the 1770s. He placed an advert in The Public Advertiser in July 1773 which lists its many attractions:

 

 

‘Kilburn Wells, near Paddington. The waters now are in the utmost perfection: the gardens enlarged and greatly improved; the house and offices re-painted and beautiful in the most elegant manner. The whole is now open for the reception of the public, the great room being particularly adapted to the use and amusement of the politest companies. 

 

Fit either for music, dancing or entertainments. This happy spot is equally celebrated for its rural situation, extensive prospects, and the acknowledged efficacy of its waters; it is most delightfully situated near the site of the once famous Abbey of Kilburn, on the Edgware Road, at an easy distance, being but a morning’s walk, from the metropolis, two miles from Oxford Street; the foot-way from the Mary-bone across the fields is still nearer. A plentiful larder is always provided, together with the best of wines and other liquors. Breakfasting and hot loaves.’

 

 

 

4. A late 18th century engraving of Kilbourn Wells. (Brent Archives online image 2026)

 

Despite seeking to welcome ‘the politest companies’, Kilburn Wells soon acquired a notorious reputation, as it attracted visitors from the nearby Belsize House, an immoral place of entertainment!  

 

In 1801 Dr John Bliss, a famous physician who specialised in treating gout, carried out a series of experiments and analysed the water from both Kilburn and Hampstead. He wrote about Kilburn – 

 

“The spring rises about 12 feet below the surface and is enclosed in a large brick reservoir, which bears the date of 1714 on the key stone of the arch over the door. The water collected in the well is usually of the depth of 5 or 6 feet but in a dry summer it is from 3-4, at which time its effect as a purgative is increased…. When taken fresh from the well a few inches under the surface it is tolerably clear, but not of a crystal transparency – at first it is insipid, but leaves and evident saline taste on the tongue. At rest, and even on alight agitation, no smell is produced but on stirring the water forcibly from the bottom of the reservoir, it becomes turbid from impurities which have been collected in it, and a considerable odour is emitted like that from the scouring of a foul gun barrel.” 

 

Bliss said that when between one and three pints were taken at very short intervals, the purgative operation was slow and gentle. He recommended it for indigestion and various other problems.  

 

Until 1819, when duelling was outlawed, Kilburn Wells was also a favourite spot for duels, being suitably secluded. A particularly infamous duel was fought here on 2 July 1792, between James Maitland, the 8th Earl of Lauderdale and General Benedict Arnold, ‘America’s first traitor.’ Arnold was an officer in the American Army, and when in command of the garrison at West Point, he secretly negotiated to be paid for surrendering his garrison to the British. He later defected and lived comfortably in Britain.

 

5. 8th Earl of Lauderdale, by Gainsborough, and a contemporary illustration of a duel. (From the internet)

 

During a speech in the House of Lords, Lauderdale had insulted Arnold, who challenged him to a duel at Kilburn Wells. Thankfully, unlike in the illustration above, neither participant was hurt. In fact, only days before, Lauderdale had ‘duelled’ on the same spot with the Duke of Richmond, but their argument was settled with a shake of hands!

 

The Bell was also the scene for dog fighting and pugilism - bare-knuckle fighting, the original form of boxing. Bare-knuckle fighting was very popular in the 18^th and 19^thcenturies and attracted big crowds. In 1783, one of its most celebrated figures, Daniel Mendoza, beat John Matthews here in a fight that lasted 2 hours. 

 

 

6. Two engravings, by Gillray (1790s) and Kinsbury (1789), of the boxer Daniel Mendoza. (From the internet)

 

Mendoza, from Whitechapel, was the first Jewish champion fighter, and was Heavyweight Champion of England from 1792 to 1795. He developed his own concept of fighting. His popularity, and acceptance by British royalty (his patron was the Prince of Wales, and he was the first Jew ever to speak to King George III) helped elevate the reputation of Jews in English society, which was deeply anti-Semitic at the time. 

 

Despite the fact that at the height of its popularity Kilburn Wells could rival the nearby Hampstead Wells, some of its owners went bankrupt. In 1837, the line of Robert Stephenson’s London & Birmingham Railway (later the London & North Western) went through Abbey Farm fields, cutting the Kilburn Wells gardens in two. The part next to the pub became a tea garden, and that on the other side of the railway, which contained the well, became a kitchen garden.

 

7. The Old Bell (left) and new railway line, c. 1840. (Image from Allan Russel, on Twitter)

 

The wells were in decline, but under its original name, The Bell remained popular as a tea garden and a tavern. The Old Bell pub was demolished and rebuilt in 1863. The well disappeared in the Victorian building boom.

 

8. "The Old Bell", in its Victorian building on Kilburn High Road, 2010. (From the internet – pubwiki)

 

The memory of Kilburn Wells lives on in the name of the Wells Spa House (1a West End Lane), and a stone plaque on No.42 Kilburn High Road at the junction with Belsize Road, which says that this was the site of Kilburn Wells. There is also a black stone square on the ground in front of the building.

 

9. The plaque marking the site of the Kilburn Wells, 2007. (Brent Archives online image 5867)

 

Eventually, Kilburn developed to be more than just a place of pubs and farms, and we will explore that side of its history next week. I look forward to sharing that with you.

Irina Porter, Willesden Local History Society.

 

A special thank you to local historian Dick Weindling, co-author of 'Kilburn and West Hampstead Past' and History of Kilburn and West Hampstead blog

Brent Council announces 'Days of Action' in areas worst affected by Covid19 to reinforce rules

Brent Council Press Release (unedited)

Some of the areas worst affected by the coronavirus pandemic in Brent will receive additional support, as part of the Keep Brent Safe initiative.

A team of council officers made up of staff from across a range of services, including enforcement officers, will be out and about to remind individuals of the social distancing rules, hand out free ‘Keep Brent Safe’ face coverings and ensure businesses and individuals are complying with restrictions.

The teams will be in Church End on Wednesday 7 October, Harlesden Town Centre on Thursday 8 October and Ealing Road on Friday 9 October.

Brent’s Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure Councillor Neil Nerva said:

I want to thank everyone in the borough for continuing to do their bit to keep Brent safe.  The vast majority of individuals and businesses have made big sacrifices to comply with the rules to protect themselves, and their loved ones. However, we know that some people still need more information and support – which will be provided by our teams across these days of action.

Where individuals and businesses continue to refuse to follow the rules, more serious enforcement could take place including escalating situations to the Police.

Businesses that are putting individuals at risk by not following the rules can be reported to the Citizens Advice Consumer Helpline on 0808 223 1133 or by emailing trading.standards@brent.gov.uk  

Large gatherings should be reported to Brent’s Community Safety team by calling 0208 937 1058 or emailing community.safety@brent.gov.uk

Residents are invited to share their own local initiatives, that are providing support to individuals during the pandemic, using #BrentTogether on social media.

Schools Adjudicator finds Islamia Primary's new admissions arrangements disadvantage siblings

The Schools Adjudicator, whose role is to ensure that school admission arrangement are fair and conform to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, has issue a determination in the case of objections to revised admission arrangements at the state-funded Islamian Primary School in Brent. The governing body at the school determines its own admission arrangements.

 

The case raises important issues regarding class (in the guise of professional status) and race (relating to the Somali population).

The objection by two individuals relates to the criteria applied when the 60 pupil intake school is over-subscribed. 

 

The adjudicator summarises the criteria as:

 

a.     Looked after Muslim children and previously looked after Muslim children.

b.     Children of staff.

c.     Muslim children of at least one parent who has reverted to Islam (not born in the Islamic faith). Up to a maximum of 25 per cent of the PAN (Planned Admission Number).

d.     Muslim children of parents who are former pupils of the school (alumni) since it became a Voluntary Aided school (1998). Up to a maximum of 15 per cent of the PAN.

e.     Muslim children who have a sibling at the school.

f.      Other Muslim children.

g.     Other looked after children or previously looked after children.

h.     Other children.

 

 The objectors argument is summarised:

 

1.              Taken together, the objectors argue that newly-introduced oversubscription criteria giving priority to Muslim children of at least one parent who has reverted to Islam and Muslim children of parents who are former pupils of the school (alumni) are in breach of paragraphs 1.9 e) and f) of the School Admissions Code (the Code), which prohibit the giving of priority to children, respectively, on the basis of any practical or financial support parents may give to the school and according to the educational status of parents applying.

2.              Both objectors point out that, as a result of the introduction of the new criteria, the priority for children with siblings at the school has become the fifth rather than the third oversubscription criterion. The objectors refer to the “disadvantage” and “hardship” this will create and describe the change as “unfair.” Paragraph 14 of the Code requires admission authorities to ensure that the practices and the criteria used to decide the allocation of school places are fair.

 

The objectors felt that the priority given to alumni was made on the basis of their  ability to give support to the school including financially through voluntary contributions. One objector said:

“During the [consultation]meeting the panel explained to the parents in attendance that they wished to encourage alumni to come back to the school as they tended to be professionally successful, therefore they could ‘share their skills to drive standards up, hold the school to account and give something back thanks to their professional status.’

 

The Adjudicator comments:

 

My task at this stage, though, is not to come to a conclusion about what the true reasons for the new criteria are, but to determine whether those criteria are in breach of the Code. In order to qualify under either of the criteria, parents are not required to make any financial contribution to the school or to give it practical support, or indeed to pledge to do. The governing board may hope that parents may do so, but it is not necessary to gain priority for a place. I therefore do not consider that they are in breach of paragraph 1.9 e). 

Similarly, with reference to paragraph 1.9 f), there is not a requirement that parents demonstrate that they are employed in a particular occupation. In order to be considered alumni of the school, parents must, of course, have attended it. I do not regard this as conferring an “educational status”, which I take to relate to educational achievement, including qualifications obtained at school and in further and higher education. I do not uphold the objection on the grounds that the criteria giving priority to the children of alumni and reverts breach paragraph 1.9 of the Code.

 

The Adjudicator adds on this and  the issue of 'reverts'  LINK (people who become Muslim as did the original founder of the school Cat Stevens/Yusif Islam):

Whilst it is clear that there is strong disagreement about the appropriateness of the reasons the admission authority has given for giving priority to children of alumni, those reasons could not be described as arbitrary or irrational. With respect to the priority of children of reverts, it is common practice for schools with a religious character to differentiate between adherents of the faith of the school in their admission arrangements, for example, on the basis of for how long or how often they attend a place of worship. It is not unreasonable to take account of when someone became a member of the faith (provided this can be established objectively) and to give their children priority for places at the school as they may need more support than children born into the faith. I therefore consider that these criteria meet the test of reasonableness.

There was a further argument made in correspondence that the Adjudicator termed 'very important':

 

In her initial objection, this objector argued that the proposed changes “will directly impact families from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.” She develops the argument in subsequent correspondence, explaining that there has been a change in the demographic profile of the school, due to a large number of Somali families being housed in what was previously the catchment area. She says, 

 

“This has translated into a net increase of Somali children and their siblings securing spaces at Islamia due to closeness to the school, being within the catchment area and having sibling priority.  l believe these changes are aimed at reducing that through decreased sibling priority.

Moreover, since there are close to no Somali alumni from 20 years ago and traditionally no reverts from Somali heritage these changes will effectively exclude a large portion of parents  and directly affect their ability to secure spaces for a second, third or fourth child. I believe these changes are discriminatory and aimed at curbing the access of poorer families from specific ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds usually in need of more spaces.”

 

 The Adjudicator found that the revised arrangements discriminate against siblings and adds a warning (my stress) regarding the above point:

 

I have found that the arrangements unfairly disadvantage siblings. Although the objector’s arguments appear to me to have some merit, it would be difficult to establish whether the effect of the proposed changes would be specifically to disadvantage the Somali racial group. Indeed, any finding in this matter would not add materially to my conclusion relating to unfairness. I therefore make no further comment, other than to stress the importance of the admission authority’s monitoring of the effect of the arrangements in future years to ensure that they do not run the risk of a successful challenge that they may cause indirect discrimination on the grounds of race. Indirect discrimination occurs when a practice or criterion, which applies to everyone in the same way, has the effect of disadvantaging a group of people who share a protected characteristic listed in the Equality Act 2010. It is a defence against indirect discrimination if the criterion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

 

Summary of Findings

 

1.              The consultation conducted by the admission authority prior to the introduction of new criteria prioritising the children of alumni and reverts met requirements. The criteria do not contravene paragraphs 1.9 e) and f) of the Code as they do not give priority to children on the basis of practical or financial support parents may give or on parents’ occupational or educational status. I do not uphold these aspects of the objection.

 

2.              Children of alumni and reverts (up to 40 per cent of the total to be admitted) have a higher priority to siblings, some of whom might not obtain a place. The disadvantage to siblings and their families is not outweighed by the benefits the new criteria bring. The arrangements do not meet the requirements of fairness in paragraph 14 of the Code. In this respect, I uphold the objection.

 

Determination

 

3.              In accordance with section 88H(4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, I partially uphold the objection to the admission arrangements for September 2021 determined by the governing board for Islamia Primary School, Brent.  

 

4.              I have also considered the arrangements in accordance with section 88I(5) and find there are other matters which do not conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements in the ways set out in this determination. 

 

The Chair of Governors at the school has been contacted for a  comment but has not yet responded. 

 

The full report can be found HERE