How to spot a Covid or Vaccination Scam - advice from the Metropolitan Police

 

Brent & Harrow GLA candidates announced

The statement of persons nominated was issued on the Brent Council website this afternoon:

 

Willesden Green Garage developer gets 6 extra private flats in exchange for one 'affordable' bedroom

 

 

Density in the age of Covid

 

It might seem a stark summary but that is what Brent Planning Committee voted for last night when  the developer sought a variation in consent to allow 6 private flats on the same building footprint (so squeezing more into limited space) and the only benefit their agent could muster when challenged was that they were offering ONE extra bedroom in ONE of the affordable flats.  They also claimed that moving the building back from the pavement by 1.2m would be a benefit to the residents who had opposed the changes. All other 'benefits' appeared to favour the developer. 

Because of the higher number of private flats the proportion of affordable housing actually FELL as a result of the granted variation.

A view that this was more than a minor variation to the granted scheme, which itself had been decided by an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, and should be a new application, came to nothing.

There was an attempt by councillors to draw attention to the disbenefits of a denser development at a time of Covid when people were at home more but only Cllr Maurice voted against granting the change in consent on those grounds as well as parking issues.

Public concern about Coronavirus drops sharply, but it remains the biggest issue facing Britain

 From IpsoMori - interesting to see poverty and inequality moving up in the list of concerns.

The March 2021 Ipsos MORI Issues Index records the first significant drop in concern about Covid-19 since June 2020.The proportion who name the coronavirus as a big issue for the country has fallen from 72 per cent in February to 49 per cent this month. One third see the pandemic as the single biggest issue (34%), a decrease from almost six in ten last month (57%).

 

While economic concern has held steady, there has been a fall in the proportion of the public naming Brexit as an issue. This month 26 per cent cite the UK’s exit from the EU as a worry, the joint-lowest score for this issue since the vote to leave in 2016 (concern was also at this level in April 2020). This month’s score is seven percentage points lower than last month – and half the level of concern recorded in December 2020 (60%).

 

There has been an eight-percentage point increase in mentions of the NHS as a big concern: 24 per cent mention it as an issue. Fieldwork occurred between 5 and 11 March, covering the period when the Government announced a one per cent pay rise for NHS staff.

 

Other issues that have risen significantly from last month include Poverty and inequality (up 6ppt since February), education (up 4 ppt), unemployment and immigration (both up 3ppt),

 

 

 

 

While concern about Coronavirus has fallen across all groups since last month, there is a distinct pattern by age, with older and younger Britons now significantly less concerned than those in the middle age brackets. The proportion mentioning the pandemic as an issue stands at 44% among 18-34s, 59% among 35-54 year olds, and 43% among the over 55s. By contrast, in February these figures were 70%, 76% and 72% respectively.

 

Those aged 65 and over are among the least likely to mention the pandemic as a big issue; 39% do so, meaning it is their joint-top concern alongside the economy (also 39%).

 

 

QAnon and Conspiracies: Should We Be Worried? - Watch the video and give your views

 

 

 I am grateful to  Kensal Kilburn Better 2021 for permission to embed this video on a very important subject.  They would welcome any comments so please leave them below and I will pass them on or Tweet to @KKBetter2021

This is a video of the 26th March 2021 talk "Conspiracy Theories and the Digital Dark Arts: How Worried Should We Be?" Hosted by Tom Lennard @To_Murse. 

 

How worried should we be about conspiracy theories, and are they a threat to democratic norms and digital freedoms? Who benefits from these theories, and how do we help to stem their proliferation and draw people away from such destructive beliefs? How can we distinguish between "conspiracy fact", such as Watergate or MKUltra, and "conspiracy fiction", such as chemtrails and vaccine-microchipping? 

 

Joining the discussion were: - Jitarth Jadeja, a former QAnon believer-turned-spokesperson for those re-emerging from conspiracy-led beliefs. - Booker Prize long-listed James Meek, author of the recent LRB essay Red Pill, Blue Pill that looks at the power of conspiracy theories in the UK. - QAnon Anonymous Podcast's UK correspondent and researcher Annie Kelly, writer of the article Mothers for QAnon. - Educator and social psychologist Alexandra Stein, author of Terror, Love and Brainwashing: Attachments in Cults and Totalitarian Systems. 

 

Stay tuned for future events! You can find Kensal and Kilburn Better 2021 on Twitter at @KKBetter2021 :) Thanks for watching.

 

Key questions asked over Network Homes suitability as a development partner in Northwick Park scheme

 

Network Homes, with its head office located in Wembley, is one of the partners in the massive development at Northwick Park as well as an adviser to Brent Council on the building of council houses in the borough LINK.  Network's other partners at Northwick Park are Brent Council,London NW University Healthcare NHS Trust and the University of Westminster. It comes under the auspices of the government's One Public Estate policy which aims to maximise the return on public property.

Network Homes have been embroiled in the cladding scandal and warned in January 2020 that it would need to pass on most of the £200,000,000 that needed to  spent on remediation of its estate would have to be passed on to leaseholders. With its properties requiring so much work doubts have been raised over the quality of its housing.

 Although the Planning Committee has a quasi-statutory role and is supposed to be non-political Brent Council is a developer itself in this case.

Cllr Daniel Kennelly, a member of the Planning Committee, took up concerns over  Network Homes  at last night's meeting.

He wanted reassurances of the long-term viability of the project with Network Homes as a partner given its financial difficulties  and wanted to be assured that they properties they built would be safe. He noted that Network was facing long-term difficulties regarding its cladding responsibilities 'down the road' - what they had done had been 'criminal'. 

Officers responded that they did not look at the financial viability of the developer itself but of the financial viability of its project - did it give sufficient return to the developer on the basis of what they would build and the income it would derive. Network would have to adhere to fire regulations and the plans were for brick build with no cladding. The fire strategy would be considered under reserved matters and rigorously checked.

Kennelly continued to press on the impact of the overall scheme if one partner collapsed financially:  would other partners be liable to its costs? A lead officer responded that different entities in the partnership would be responsible for their own section of the development and would not be responsible for the other parts. He pointed to the  financial collapse of a building company which, after it crashed, its development had been bought by another company and completed.

The councillor sought assurances that although there was an undertaking that there would be no ground rent on the scheme would there be other costs on top of the rent. An officer replied that planning did not control service charges. Cllr Johnson was concerned that the existing NHS residents on the Network Homes estate that was to be demolished would get first refusal on new 'intermediate' (MF not genuinely affordable) properties. He was concerned that they would not be able to afford them. Officers replied, rather obviously, that this would depend on their salary. Network Homes had been engaging with them about their options. NHS staff would not be eligible for London Affordable Rent properties as these were allocated to people on the Council's housing list.

Cllr Kennelly also asked about the large number of trees that would be removed in the development and asked how long it would take for the present level of carbon capture  by existing trees to be reached by the new planning. An officer commented that this issue was not captured by planning guidance at the moment while another said it would depend on the rate of growth of the different tree species planted and what was done with the felled trees - if they were burned and released carbon this would add to the carbon capture requirement. Replacement trees would not  all be saplings and there woduld be a substantial increase in the overall number of trees.

Representations by Brent and Harrow Cyclists over  safe routes around and  through the development were largely dismissed as referring to the new through road that had already been approved. Officers said there was not enough space on the road for segregated cycling and that a single crossing at the junction with Watford Road would make life easier for cyclists and pedestrians, but as there was heavy traffic flow on Watford Road, maintaining the flow was the priority. John Fletcher (Highways) said they would take the representations into consideration as the scheme got underway and offered to meet with the cyclists to walk through the site.

Given some of the less than convincing  answers by officers (I have never heard so many 'sort ofs' in such an important meeting), it is surprising that the application was unanimously approved.

 

 

Brent Council offer up to £25k to reactivate local shops in Church End, Neasden and Willesden town centres

 From Brent Council

Brent Council is on the hunt for landlords in targeted areas across the borough who would like to sign up to a regeneration scheme that aims to bring empty shops back into long-term use.

 

The council have launched a new pilot scheme to reactivate empty premises on local high streets and support local businesses. Vacant space activators Meanwhile Space have been contracted to deliver the scheme, and are working with Brent Council to engage landlords, offering grants of up to £25,000 for shop improvements.

 

The scheme aims to reactivate 3-6 empty shops in targeted areas of Church End, Neasden and Willesden Green town centres. Landlords have been contacted with details of the initiative and invited to make an application for their shop, with a closing deadline of Sunday 18^th April 2021. Improvements will be made to each successful vacant premises up to the sum of £25,000 per unit.

 

The pilot scheme will support local businesses in need of a premises but unable to take on a full lease, or who may struggle to pay rent on town centre premises. The pilot scheme will provide an opportunity for these businesses to develop a sustainable business model in the medium and long term with the aim of going on to rent a high street unit on commercial rates.

 

Alan Lunt, Strategic Director for Regeneration & Environment at Brent Council, said:

 Our businesses and high streets have taken a big hit from the pandemic and now is the time to look for opportunities to turn that around and build back a better Brent for businesses and residents. Through activation of empty shops we hope to stimulate long-term demand for space in the area and support the economic recovery of our neighbourhoods.

 

Details of the scheme and opportunity for landlords can be found at

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-community/regeneration/cu rrent-projects/meanwhile-pilot-scheme/

Planning officers back developer's application to squeeze an extra 6 private units out of Willesden Green Garage development

 

View from Park Avenue

"The proposal is considered to have a high quality design that has regard to the character of its surroundings and would have an appropriate relationship with the surrounding buildings and would not result in harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed Building."  Officers' Report

Kingsley Court the Grade II Listed Building opposite the site

 

 The garage site

Brent Planning Committee will decide this afternoon whether to accept changes to the extant planning permission for the garage site at the junction of St Pauls Avenue and Park Avenue, Willesden Green. There is likely to be discussion about whether the changes amount to a 'minor amendment'  to the planning permission already granted or necessitate a new application. Committee members will be aware that a previous planning appeal against refusal of planning permission succeeded.

The main change is the addition of 6 private flats for sale at market rates requiring changes in the internal layout.:

     PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

 The 6 extra units obviously means some changes in the internal layout. This includes multiple flat entrances from landings. I suggest that this level of traffic is worth looking at in the context of Covid19  contagion  as well as the reduction in size of the units.

Five of the private floors would exceed the Housing SPG target of 8 homes per floor per core (with 2 x 9, 2 x 10 and 1 x 12 homes per core on the respective cores). However, this is not considered to have a significant impact on the quality of accommodation or levels of social cohesion.

There are 13 comments about the development on the Planning Portal, all of which are objections from neighbours. Some refer to the extant application rather than the revisions. This comment is about the revisions:

 I am concerned that in increasing the number of units this will have several adverse impacts, and would like to raise the following issues:


1. The increase in units has not led to a change in the number of affordable units. why not? A revised Financial Viability Appraisal should be submitted to ascertain whether further affordable units would have to be incorporated due to the improved viability.

2. More family units are not being added, as obviously this is an attempt to squeeze more out of the site.

3. Disabled bays are being lost. Changes to basement car parking do not offer a more efficient layout but do fail to meet either the London Plan requirement of space for 10% of the flats or Condition 6 in respect of spaces for disabled parking (7 not 8).

4. The reduction of landscaping elements does not help mitigate noise levels in the amenity spaces.

5. The provision of outdoor amenity space ("winter gardens") does not come up to the standard aimed for by Brent. There is a bigger overall shortfall and 5 units would fail to meet the London Plan's minimum of 5 SQM.

6. The iron railings with vegetation behind in the approved scheme are apparently to be replaced by a solid brick wall along St Pauls Avenue which would have a detrimental effect on the street scene especially with the removal of the green roof over the ramp.

7. As another resident has commented: the changes in palette and landscaping mean the proposed amendment is no longer "in keeping with the urban character and appearance of the area".

8. Since the last application, COVID-19 has led to major changes in peoples lives - with workers/residents spending more time at home - is now the time to approve smaller flats?

9. Issues around parking, servicing and deliveries associated with the proposed development have not been further considered in the latest documents. This is particularly relevant due to the continuing increase in on-line sales and home deliveries.

11. Near neighbours have concerns that: Aspects of the proposed changes that would worsen the situation are the omission of the landscaping features which were in the central space as well as around the perimeter and the large open spaces on the 3rd and 4th levels which are particularly concerning to neighbours.

10. The additional 6 self-contained units, enlarged external floor space and repositioned and redesigned ramp constitute a proposal that is significantly different.

11. Para 17 of the Committee Report confirmed that the scheme now approved would result in a density above the London Plan matrix range . The further intensification now proposed does not represent sustainable development and there is no justification for the significant harm that would result.

12. The significant changes to the internal layout and the increase in units beyond the reduction to 70 originally approved by the planning officers exceeds the scope of a 'Minor Amendment' and requires a new planning application.

 

The application will be heard this afternoon at 4pm.  View live HERE