UNPRECEDENTED RESIDENTS' COALITION OF 18 GROUPS CALL ON MUHAMMED BUTT TO TAKE CLIMATE EMERGENCY ACTION ON ASPHALT

 

From Brent Residents Against Asphalt Pavements

 

Brent’s new and unprecedented coalition – Brent Residents Against Asphalt Pavements – has called on the Leader of Brent Council, Cllr Muhammed Butt, to reverse the current policy of asphalting pavements instead of repairing broken slabs.

 

Now representing eighteen (18) residents associations and groups right across the Borough, BRAAP is pointing out that covering the many miles of pavements in the Council’s current renewal programme with asphalt involves thousands of trips by diesel-engined heavy lorries. These emit both pollutants of the air we breathe and global warming CO2. This is in direct conflict with Brent’s recently adopted Climate Emergency Strategy. 

 

BRAAP’s letter to Cllr Butt supports the just-published report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and welcomes his article in the Kilburn Times about it. There he says “This is a climate emergency. We must act now.”

 

BRAAP joint-coordinator, Robin Sharp, says:

 

Why is Brent not taking the simple option of reversing its policy on asphalting pavements? This would save hundreds of tons of CO2, unnecessarily spewed into the atmosphere, and be widely popular across the Borough? It would produce a win-win outcome.

 

BRAAP is also asking for an explanation of why Brent councillors voted against a motion at Full Council on 21 July to have the asphalting policy referred to the Public Realm Scrutiny Committee. Cllr Mashari promised in the debate to write to BRAAP the next day with an explanation but no letter has been received.

 

In the light of the IPCC’s report last week, BRAAP is more determined than ever to see an end to Brent’s environmentally disastrous policy to asphalt pavements.

Background

This month’s report by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change makes it unequivocally clear that the catastrophic floods and fires we are seeing across the world are caused by man-made activities producing greenhouse gases.  The evidence is clear that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver of climate change -  carbon dioxide from diesel lorries for example.  

 

BRAAP Background

Brent Residents Against Asphalt Pavements is a new coalition of 18 (and rising) residents’ groups across the borough representing opposition to Brent Council’s policy to asphalt pavements.   It was formed in spring 2021.

Letter to the Leader of Brent Council

BRAAP’s letter to the Leader of Brent dated 23 August 2021 is below.

 

BRENT RESIDENTS AGAINST ASPHALT PAVEMENTS

 

23rd August 2021

Cllr Muhammed Butt

Leader of Brent Council

Civic Centre

Engineer’s Way HA9 0FJ

 

Dear Councillor Butt

 

Residents against Brent’s Climate-unfriendly asphalting policy

We would like to begin by introducing you to BRAAP – Brent Residents Against Asphalt Pavements. We are now an unprecedented coalition of eighteen, yes eighteen, residents’ associations and residents’ groups across the whole of the borough. We do what it says on the tin. We don’t know of any similar voluntary grouping in Brent on this scale on any other topic of concern to the citizens of our community. We are asking you and your colleagues to hear what we have to say.

 

IPCC

This month’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report makes it crystal clear that the catastrophic floods and fires we are seeing across the world are caused by human-controlled activities producing greenhouse gases. This epoch- making document serves to reinforce Brent’s own Climate Emergency Strategy which we support, as far as it goes. Among other things that says: „We will develop and implement a sustainable procurement policy that requires sustainable practices to be considered throughout our procurement and contract management procedures.”

 

We agree with your article in the current Kilburn Times where you state‚’This is a climate emergency, we must act now.’

 

Brent’s Strategy explains that there are many actions that individuals can take towards the UK’s net zero carbon goal – and that the Council must make every effort to adapt its own policies to the same end. There is a simple cheap option that the Council could take very quickly – but it is not listed either for short- or longer term action.

 

This is to reverse the policy of replacing footway paving slabs with asphalting throughout the Borough and not to start any new asphalting contracts from now on.

 

The rationale is really a no-brainer. Asphalting the many miles of footway in the Council’s current programme is requiring thousands of journeys by diesel-engined HGVs which emit both global warming CO2 and pollutants of the air we breathe. In addition asphalt when laid down contributes to warming of the ambient air temperature, needing alleviation through planting. By contrast replacing broken paving slabs consumes minimal resources and very few HGV miles, while pulverising good slabs to make way for asphalt burns up yet more energy.

 

Voting against Brent Scrutiny of asphalting policies

This being the case we are at a loss to understand why the Council has rejected BRAAP’s fully reasoned request for the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee to examine policies involved in asphalting pavements by voting against the motion put forward by Cllr Kansagra at the Full Council on 21 July. Moreover we are dismayed that Cllr Mashari, Chair of Scrutiny, did not honour her promise to write to BRAAP the next day to explain why you and colleagues voted against scrutiny of a policy which is opposed by so many residents’ groups.

 

We look forward to your response. Could you please let us know by 31st August if you are ready to consider our proposal and include it in the Climate Emergency Strategy? We are also writing to other Councillors.

 

Best wishes

 

BRAAP Co-ordinators

 

Contacts:

 

Flavia Rittner - administrator & co-ordinator: frittner7@gmail.com

Robin Sharp - co-ordinator: robisharp@googlemail.com 

 

Brent Residents Against Asphalt Pavements

 

Aylestone Park Residents’ & Tenants’ Association 

Barn Hill Residents’ Association

Brent Eleven Streets

Brent Parks Forum

Brondesbury Residents’ & Tenants’ Association

Brondesbury Road Group

Chandos Road Group

Clifford Gardens Group

Harlesden Area Action

Kensal Rise Residents Association

Kensal Triangle Residents Association

Kilburn Village Residents Association

Mapesbury Pavements Action Group

Queens Park Area Residents Association

Roe Green Village Residents Association

Sudbury Town Residents Association

Wembley Central & Alperton Residents Association

Willesden Green Residents Association

 

 

 

St Raphael's Voice committed to work for investment & improvements to estate after decision not to redevelop

 

When Brent Council announced on August 12th LINK that redevelopment after demolition was no longer an option for St Raphael's Estate, Wembley Matters offered both resident groups active on the estate a guest post  to explain their reaction.

St Raphael's Estate Community Action posted a guest blog on August 13th welcoming the decision LINK.

Today Asif Zamir, Chair of St Raphael's Voice, puts their perspective:

We are happy to have had the opportunity as St Raphael's Voice and residents of St Raphael’s Estate to co-work with the council and KCA to develop both masterplans.

 

Having heard the announcement that redevelopment is no longer financially viable and will not be offered as an option; as per the original commitment from the council there will be no need for a ballot.

 

This has left many residents who were looking to exercise their preferred choice by way of democratic vote (Ballot)disappointed as they felt that redevelopment could have been a life changing opportunity for them financially as well as positively changed and uplifted the area they live in. Others welcomed the decision as it has meant that they will not have to make any changes and can continue with their lives and do not have to plan for any major changes.

 

Many residents are of course disappointed that they won't get the opportunity to vote on the redevelopment and that there is no longer an option for it to happen but we understand the reason for the decision and will work positively with the council to ensure the Infill plus option delivers the best possible result for residents. SRVs role has always been and continues to remain to support and ensure any consultation/work was truly led by the community. It is a role we have always taken seriously and have delivered on it. Over the last few years we have worked hard to support residents and have assisted residents throughout covid - leading the Stonebridge ward mutual aid group offering a food and medical supplies support service, we have set up the residents association which assists in the management of the estate, we have successfully set up youth sports clubs on the estate and lots more. We are committed and will continue to work hard to ensure St Raphael's Estate receives the investment it needs and there continues to be improvements to enrich the lives of residents.

 

St Raphael's should never have become a point scoring platform for organisations such as ASH who with certain individuals attempted to divide the estate - fortunately residents did not play into their hands and continued to support St Raphael's Voice- we have always attempted to be the backbone of the estate and stand up for the rights of residents and amplify their voices it was never their masterplan - it was always ours. Even though we didn't get the opportunity for a ballot, it remains a victory for the residents of St Raphael's Estate, as this process has allowed us to attract investment and further improvements.

Barnet Council's £18.8m plans for West Hendon Playing Fields at the Welsh Harp

Barnet Council have approved a scheme to go to Planning Committee in 2022 for the transformation of the West Hendon Playing Fields at the Barnet end of the Welsh Harp. 

 

Satellite image of the area as it is at present

The Welsh Harp is within the boundaries of both Barnet and Brent Councils and is jointly managed by them and the Canal and Rivers Trust.

In a Press Release LINK  Barnet Council said:

New facilities will include tennis courts, 3G artificial turf pitches, a high ropes course, bowling green, multi-use games area, outdoor gym, play area, skate park and more. There will be a Hub building with a café, indoor climbing, activity studio, nursery, soft play, community rooms, changing rooms and toilets.

Councillor Dean Cohen, Chair of the Environment Committee, said: 

It’s great to see Barnet reaping the benefits of growth in our borough. This has included vast improvements to our parks and green spaces. This latest investment comes on top of the £5million regeneration of Silkstream Park and Montrose Playing Fields, and £1.1million put into the ongoing refurbishment of Colindale Park. This will benefit the borough’s residents, businesses and visitors, and I look forward to seeing our vision become a reality.

Work on the sports hub project will continue after an outline business case for its development was approved at a recent meeting of Barnet Council’s Policy & Resources Committee. Funding for the project will come from a range of sources including the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Community Infrastructure Levy is money collected from new development which is used to fund infrastructure to support development. Part of the CIL funding from the scheme will be generated from the West Hendon estate, providing 2,194 properties – including 1,553 new homes including 543 affordable homes.

The development follows a £5million investment in the regeneration of Silkstream Park and Montrose Playing Fields, between Colindale and Burnt Oak, which was completed last year. It will follow a £1.1million regeneration of Colindale Park, which is currently in progress.

Construction of the new facilities in West Hendon is expected to begin after an outline planning application has been submitted in 2022.

Euro2020 generated a 'significant risk to public health' across the UK even when England played overseas. Public Disorder meant Covid19 checks were suspended at the Wembley Final.

 

The UK Government Events Research Programme has published a report on the Public Health Impact of mass cultural and sporting events on the prevalence of Covid 19. LINK

The report covers Euro 2020 matches including the final at Wembley Stadium on July 12th and will feed into various inquiries, hopefully including the two internal inquiries agreed by Brent Council. LINK

The disorder and stadium invasion at Wembley Stadium on July 11th when England played Italy  probably had an impact as did the nature of football crowds and pre-match socialising and drinking.

I reprint the substance of the report blow. A full version with footnotes can be found on the link above.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The increasing number of reported cases across all events reflects the increasing community prevalence of COVID-19 during that period. Both the EURO 2020 matches at Wembley and the All England Lawn Tennis Championships were mass spectator sporting events taking place on multiple days within a short period of time at an outdoor stadium in Greater London. There were similar numbers of spectators and high capacity in the stadia, reaching 75% for the later EURO 2020 matches and 100% on Centre Court at the Wimbledon final. Both required evidence of vaccination or negative LFD or natural immunity as a condition of entry. There are very markedly different numbers of positive cases reported as associated with these events, with those associated with the Wimbledon event more comparable with those reported from the other ERP events running concurrently, and with the numbers testing positive within the wider community at that time. This suggests that the EURO 2020 matches generated a level of COVID -19 transmission over and above that which would be more commonly associated with large crowds attending an outdoor sporting event with measures in place to mitigate transmission.

The number of potentially infected persons attending Wembley stadium increased as the tournament progressed, reaching more than 2,000 at the EURO 2020 final despite event goers requiring a COVID pass for entry; this was in contrast with much lower infectious cases detected at other events occurring in the same month. This raises questions on the utility of individuals self-reporting tests in reducing the prevalence of COVID infection at rare or special occasion events and the longer term deliverability of self-testing as an option to mitigate disease transmission.

Research teams present at each of these events have verbally reported stark differences in crowd and spectator behaviour (personal communication from Dr Aoife Hunt, formal report in preparation). Whilst attendees at Wimbledon were reported to be largely compliant with the crowd management measures in place, at the Wembley stadium the concourse areas became densely populated with shouting, chanting and boisterous behaviour with close contact in these areas before and during the semi-final and final matches.

 

At both venues alcohol was served, but at Wembley attendees were not allowed to take this into the seated accommodation. At both venues the compliance with risk mitigation measures was variable. However, the initial reports from research teams indicate that the Wembley spectators became less compliant with mitigation such as face coverings as the tournament progressed. In addition to this, the carbon dioxide levels reported from the concourse areas were higher than those recorded at other high risk settings in the ERP events, including the densely crowded areas at the Download music festival, and will have compounded the risk associated with the high numbers of spectators potentially infectious at the event itself (personal communication from Dr Liora Malki-Epshtein UCL, formal report in preparation).

 

Finally, the public disorder offences occurring at EURO 2020 have been widely reported, including an undefined number of ticketless fans who gained entry to the stadium. Public disorder in and around the stadium meant that COVID-19 status checks were suspended for the Final.

 

The EURO 2020 events had an increasing impact on a national scale which was not observed for other events within the ERP, suggesting that there were additional factors associated with these events and that the risk of COVID transmission was not mitigated by the control measures in place for entry to the event itself. There was increasing national interest as the tournament progressed, as this was the first time an English team were in an international final for 55 years generating a sense of the final stages being a ‘once in a generation’ occasion. This will not be replicated for all sport tournaments taking place over the winter, nor for all football matches. However, previous crowd behaviours associated with football fans has underpinned the methods used to manage these crowds including the legislation in place governing alcohol consumption within football stadia. In general terms, this has the effect of concentrating people into as few areas as possible while crowd management strategies often hold groups until they can be moved en-masse in a controlled manner. To mitigate the risk of transmission of COVID-19 it would be preferable to dissipate the crowds across as wide an area as possible and manage the movement over long periods of time, as happened at other events including the Wimbledon tennis championships. Further analysis of movement strategies will be reported as part of ERP phase 3 reports.

In addition to the cases associated directly with Wembley stadium, there was a noticeable national impact on COVID-19 case rates for key games including the Ukraine versus England quarter-final (3 July in Rome), for the England versus Denmark semi-final (7 July) and for the England versus Italy final (11 July), reflecting that in the later stages of the EURO 2020 tournament people came together across the country to watch the games and celebrate. There are higher proportions of events coded as pubs or bars on each of these dates compared to other dates for COVID-19 cases in England.

The case numbers associated with the events were detected using the routine reporting systems and were mainly from individuals who were symptomatic. As high proportions of cases, especially in young healthy individuals are asymptomatic, this is likely to be an underestimate of the full impact of these events. In addition, contact tracing is only undertaken for PCR test results and supervised LFD test results (those who are positive on home LFDs are requested to undertake an immediate PCR test) and recall bias of those contacted will vary. While there is no detailed age and sex breakdown for those who attended, it is highly likely that certain sports events (for example, football, golf) were more likely to have higher male and younger demographic attending. The age distribution also likely reflects the impact of vaccination; by 11 July 2021, more than 80% of those over 50 years were fully vaccinated and less than 30% of those under 40 years were fully vaccinated.

Contact tracing information can indicate events or locations individuals have attended while at risk of transmitting COVID-19 or places where transmission may have occurred.

It is not possible to say with certainty how many individuals transmitted COVID-19 at an event or venue, nor exactly where an individual contracted the virus. The Euro Final match did not take place until 8pm, meaning that those attending may have been engaging in social activities during their journey to the match, and prior to entering the stadium itself. Transmission of infection may have occurred at the event itself or during any of the other reported activities associated with the event, of which attending a pub or
restaurant is the most frequently reported.

Neither full vaccination nor a negative LFD test will completely eliminate the possibility of an infectious individual attending an event, but it should reduce the likelihood of someone transmitting highly infectious amounts of virus to a large number of individuals attending the event.  

 

CONCLUSION

 

The EURO2020 tournament and England’s progress to the EURO final generated a significant risk to public health across the UK even when England played overseas. This risk arose not just from individuals attending the event itself, but included activities undertaken during travel and associated social activities. For the final and semi-final games at Wembley, risk mitigation measures in place were less effective in controlling COVID transmission than was the case for other mass spectator sports events.

EURO2020-related transmissions have also been documented in Scotland where 2,632 individuals self-reported attending a EURO2020 event in the UK; and Finland, where 947 new SARS-CoV-2-positive cases were linked to travel to Moscow, Russia.

Whilst some of this may be attributed to a set of circumstances which are unlikely to be replicated for the forthcoming sporting season, other aspects may be important to consider including mitigations for spectators to consider such as face coverings when travelling to and from events and minimising crowding in poorly ventilated indoors spaces such as bars and pubs where people may congregate to watch events. It is also important that individuals are informed to reduce the risk of transmission from aerosol exposure related to shouting and chanting in large groups by improving ventilation in enclosed spaces.

Other risk mitigation measures at high community prevalence include reducing the number of persons entering events or venues who are potentially infectious or at risk of severe disease or hospitalisation by promoting attendance by fully vaccinated individuals will be important. Promoting vaccination and the wearing of face coverings for those attending events will also reduce the risk of transmission associated with the journey to and from the event and associated social activities. Finally, event organisers should consider measures to manage the density of crowds in areas such as hospitality and concessions on the concourses, and entry and exit points to the event.

 

Council accused of sneaking designation of Kilburn Square as a 'Tall Buildings Zone' into Local Plan to pre-empt opposition at planning application stage

 

Brent Council's proposal with building heights (storeys) - Kilburn High Road is top right

Guest post  by Keith Anderson, Chair of Kilburn Village Residents' Association

Ten months on from first publication of the “mini-Master Plan” for a huge infill housing expansion on the Kilburn Square Co-op Estate, while Cllr Southwood continues repeating that “Nothing is decided” about the scale of the project, Brent is still busy clearing away potential obstacles…

 

Last month Cabinet approved (LINK) a series of enabling measures. And in the proposed modifications to Brent’s Local Plan, lo and behold they’re seeking to designate Kilburn Square a “Tall Buildings Zone” – to pre-empt formal objection to a new 17-storey tower when a Planning Application is made in October.

 

  The existing tower and otherwise low profile estate from Kilburn High Road. The Council claims a new tower block will 'mirror' the existing tower to create a 'landmark'. LINK

 

Kilburn Village RA (whose territory includes the estate)  submitted this objection  on Thursday – with a request that the relevant clause be deleted…

 

• To seek to designate the tiny area of Kilburn Square as a Tall Buildings Zone is a ridiculous mis-reading of the thrust of the Tall Buildings policy laid out in MM94 section 6.1 Design, which explicitly envisages clusters of Tall Buildings
• On this really small footprint there is theoretically room for one tall building, and no scope for the prescribed stepping down…in no way can that constitute a cluster or a Zone
• MM3 4.1.2d requires that Tall Buildings should “add quality to and complement Brent’s character and sense of place”
• MM77 5.6 SE Place BSESA20 Design Principles (p222) notes the  Brondesbury Road Conservation Area adjacent to Kilburn Square and states “Development should integrate well with the surrounding context and consider character, setting and the form and scale of surrounding buildings”
• Brent has draft housing plans for a new 17-storey tower on the Kilburn Square footprint. KVRA strongly contends that such a building would fail all three policy tests. An existing 17-storey tower dates back over 30 years, and is already an anomaly in the skyscape of the surrounding area – we believe it would not be approved today. 
• The Council has produced no Heritage or Urban Design report in support of this proposed new clause; nor any evidence of potential compliance with its Climate Emergency strategy or other environmental impacts; nor of consultation with the neighbouring Borough of Camden on a Tall Building zone.
• KVRA rejects  as absurd suggestions by Brent’s New Council Homes (NCH) project team that a second tower would create a ”Landmark” for Kilburn and bring desirable “symmetry” with the (not even matching) existing tower
• In July 2021, NCH held pre-engagement Zooms with KVRA and our neighbouring RAs; in four live sessions, and at least fifty subsequent feedback forms, the proposal for a second 17-storey tower was unanimously rejected as not being consistent with the surrounding context
• With residents on the KS estate itself, an extensive engagement process by independent advisors Source Partnership is nearing completion and we are confident its conclusions will show negligible support for a new Tall Building.  
• And a petition launched by a KVRA Committee member, rejecting a new Tower, has over 800 signatures
• Clearly the current residents and neighbours of the small Kilburn Square site roundly reject the proposition that a new tower would “be a positive addition to the skyline, that would enhance the overall character of the area”
• This representation is also supported by the Chairs of neighbouring RAs Brent Eleven Streets (BEST), Queen’s Park Area Residents’ Association (QPARA) and Brondesbury Residents and Tenants (BRAT).

 

See https://save-our-square.org and sign our petition http://chng.it/xwxLyYcDhP if you haven’t already!

 

Local Plan Response Deadline 5pm this afternoon - additional background

 

Intensification Corridors

'Supporting higher density development in Brent’s town centres, Intensification Corridors and in areas with good accessibility to public transport.'

The map shows the large numbers of areas designated. Apologies re legibility - it is a screen grab from the Brent document.

Wembley Opportunity Area

 

The borders of the Wembley Opportunity Area cover Bridge Road and Grand Parade as well as Asda and its car park and Kwik Fit and the Torch public house on the corner with Forty Avenue. Notice also the strip of land which borders Ark Academy - the other side of the railway from the high rise Brook Avenue development.

The table below gives the maximum building heights in various areas. The number of storeys will vary according to the height of each storey but an average of 3.3 metres is reckoned a good guide.

A reminder from nearly 40 years ago that led to the demolition of high rise council estates in the borough:

 

Willesden and Brent Chronicle August 6th 1982

 

REPRESENTATION FORM - deadline for completion 5pm today