Thursday, 26 August 2021

Marley Walk Residents' Association appeal for expert help in opposing building of block of flats on Willesden Green Mosque car park

 

The Marley Walk Estate is tucked away beside the Metropolitan and Jubilee railway line  in Willesden Green with only one road at the end of Station Parade, Lennon Road, leading to the estate.

People on the estate are aghast at plans by the Willesden Green (Brent Central) Mosque  to build a four storey block of 21 flats, with a double basement, on the mosque car park next the the Pakistan Community Centre on Lennon Road, which will overlook the estate's Elvis Road. Such is the opposition to the plans  Marley Walk Residents Association are appealing for a expert on planning to come forward to help them prepare their case against the development. They are willing to pay for advice CONTACT.

The developer describes their proposal:

The proposal is for the erection of a new building with access to the building off Lennon Road and provides 2 levels of underground parking and parking on the ground floor for a total of 48 car parking spaces to serve the mosque replacing the existing 48 parking space on site as well as secure parking for 42 cycle spaces.

There is a provision of three floors of residential apartments on the ground floor, first, second and third floor providing 7  one bedroom apartments, 7  two bedroom units and 7 no. three bedroom apartments along with a communal roof garden.

Each flat comprises an open plan lounge/kitchen diner, bedrooms and bathroom as well as private balconies accessed via the open plan living area (excluding caretakers flat). The balconies have been designed to provide shelter and privacy from neighbouring properties.

The proposed development also includes lifts and stair cores which provides access to each floor within the building, including the basement car parks. There is a provision for two lifts – one for residents to access their flats and the roof top amenity space from the car park and the second lift for the users of the car park from the basement levels to ground floor level.


The roof top amenity area comprises of a decked seating area with walking routes interspersed with green areas and a pergola in the centre of the amenity space is also proposed. The amenity space on the roof terrace measures a total of 506m².

The housing, apart from one flat on the ground floor reserved for the Mosque caretaker, is described as 'affordable/social' but details regarding rents are not given. A number of housing associations are listed as possible managers of the property.  The developer, apart from arguing that the housing will be a community benefit, also suggests that the development with a double basement and a ground floor car  park (which includes the caretaker's flat in a corner) addresses long standing car parking problems.

 


 Brent officers covering Policy and Transport have submitted critical Consultee comments:


Policy Comment: In summary, whilst the proposed residential use of the site is supported in increasing the efficient use of land in conjunction with its existing community facility, there are some policy concerns with this application. Most significantly this is around the provision of an amount of car parking on site which has not been sufficiently justified. In addition there are concerns about the design of the scheme, particularly at ground floor whereby vehicle entrances and bin stores create inactive frontage. FULL PAPER

  

 

Transport Comment: This proposal should be resisted, on the grounds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed car park for the mosque complies with Brent Council’s parking standards or is required to meet a transport need that cannot be met by other forms of transport, contrary to Policy DMP12 of the adopted Development Management Policies 2016. FULL PAPER


At the time of writing there were 58 submissions on the Brent Council Planning Portal. 33 in support, 24 objections and 1 neutral comment. The objections tended to be very local and the supporters spread further afield. The supporters' comments were shorter than several of the more detailed objections. Below is the one neutral statement  and one each from a supporter and objector:

 

The present car park on the left and mosque on the right


NEUTRAL

A block of flats will make a difference to the area but the real issue is the parking problems generated by the mosque. But although the proposed flats will be car free this still needs to be managed. In particular the residents of Marley Walk are concerned about the access to their estate being blocked by illegally parked vehicles on Lennon Road, which is the only road into the estate and the only access by emergency vehicles.

The refuse plan does not identify an area for bulky item storage or food waste. There are already flytipping hotspots on the Marley Walk estate so how the occupiers of the new flats will get rid of bulky items must be addressed. And clarification on the food waste disposal, individual bins or a communal bin. (Albeit these are not popular)

A loading bay area should be identified on Lennon Road for deliveries to the new block. This is to prevent Lennon Road becoming blocked. Some of the current parking bays could be changed to a loading bay.

The skyline will change if the flats are built. But given the journey of the sun will have result in some reduced sunlight. This will impact on the houses at the entrance of Marley Walk and the rear gardens of Riffel Road in particular. Lennon Road may feel safer as it will be more overlooked by the new flats. Also there are claims of people currently misusing the car park so this will stop..

If residents are not to have access to the car parking areas then access to the flats from the car parking areas must be secure so that non-residential car drivers cannot access the communal areas of the flats.

It is one thing for individual residents to drive in/out of a car park but a mass exodus of cars at the end of an event could be disruptive to residents. There must be adequate sound insulation so that cars in the parking areas cannot be heard from the residential flats when they leave the site. There must also be no light penetration from headlights into residential properties or communal areas or surrounding properties.

The Affordable Housing Statement and Statement of Community Involvement states "....the proposed car park will provide much needed private parking for the community when visiting the Mosque. As a result, the proposed stresses that the current uncontrolled parking has on the surrounding streets will be removed." I disagree. The mosque has a capacity of 1k plus. The parking pressures are experienced by residents on many of the surround streets in CPZ zone MW and GB as well as the Marley Walk estate. Residents just grit their teeth on Friday and put up with cars parked on double yellow lines, across drives and on drives. And access to Marley Walk has been blocked by cars parked on the Lennon Road pavement / double yellow line making access by emergency vehicles impossible. Access/egress by residents of Marley Walk and delivery vehicles is also problematic due o the parking issues.

The Car Park Management Plan states at 2.2 "During the site visit it was observed that illegal and irresponsible parking occurs on the surrounding highway network due to the high numbers of people attending BCM." There are photos illustrating this on Lennon Road and Station Parade but any street corner with a double yellow could have been used. Illegal parking on street corners extends to Melrose Avenue.

A councillor from another ward arranged for bollards to be installed on the Lennon Road pavement outside the mosque. However this has merely narrowed the pavement and not resolved the parking issues.


The mosque car park is open to anyone to use and is frequently used by visitors to the Pakistan Community Centre. They have events running into the late evening. Some people use the car park when they travel from Willesden Green station. Use of the car park by the PCC must be incorporated into the car park management plan else it will lead to on-street parking issues.

The open access to the car parking spaces should cease and access should be managed at all times. 24/7, 365 days.

The parking bays in Lennon Road are invisible to passing motorists so are only used by drivers who know they are there. Often the bays are empty. To keep the road clear for access to Marley Walk the bays should be removed or converted to disabled parking bays, a loading bay for the new flats or bike storage.

The membership of the mosque now has older members and this has to be acknowledged. Many are disabled and cannot walk long distances. Many will be unable to walk from the car park. But often they do not drive to the mosque themselves. There should be better utilisation of taxi firms by mosque users. And drop off points outside the mosque marked out, albeit this may mean the removal of the parking bays on Lennon Rod.

To stop drivers unable to enter the car park in the new development driving into the Marley Walk estate or doing 3-point turns there should be a turning circle at the end of Lennon Road where it meets Elvis Road. At mosque times traffic marshalls should be on duty at the junction of Lennon Road / Station Parade to prevent cars entering Lennon Road unless they have a parking space booked or have a legitimate reason for accessing Marley Walk.

The parking provision in the new development will not resolve the parking problems generated by the mosque A new audit of where the mosque users who drive there come from should be undertaken. The submitted survey was done in 2020 which is not a typical year given the pandemic. A full traffic survey and transport management plan must be done, agreed and implemented before the building can be occupied.

The Travel Audit document in the planning submission is inadequate. 2020 was not a typical year for mosque usage. People who arrive early get a space in the car park. Those who arrive late park on double yellow lines etc. Evidently announcements are made requesting people not to park on double yellow lines or across drives but this clearly bas no impact.

The people who arrive early are likely to be the people who pre-book a space in the new car park. Action must be taken against those who arrive late and park on the street. Parking enforcement is non-existent as it would likely require police presence. I have been verbally challenged whilst taking photos of the parking and it is obvious I am not a parking attendant. A new Travel Plan must be undertaken to establish where the latecomers drive from.

Often the car park is used by the Pakistan Community Centre. If access is agreed by the building owners the use of the parking in the new block by the PCC must be incorporated in the transport management plan.

A parking plan is required for the construction period, both for mosque users and for builders lorries.

Whilst construction is underway there will be no car park. There must be a planning condition for a plan for where the cars that currently use the car park will park And lessons learnt from this period of time should be incorporated into a new travel plan.

 

SUPPORT

For several months past, I have worked at the mosque vaccination centre queues and admin within the vaccine centre. Never have I ever had an issue with any of this. Whilst managing the queues allowed me to observe this site and all traffic movements, including those during Friday prayers.

The site at present consists of an open space offering, somewhat disorganised, car parking ancillary to the mosque, together with surrounding rough grass and scrub, together with a 6-track railway line at rear. It is a most unprepossessing spectacle.

Having inspected the deposited plans and elevations, I have no doubt that the proposed residential block will hugely improve the visual aspects of this location, without adversely impacting on the appearance or light of adjoining premises

I understand that some local residents are concerned at the car parking situation in Station Parade and Lennon Road but my, extended, direct observation does not bear out those concerns.

It is true that, on each occasion I was present, an undue concentration of worshippers' vehicles existed during some 90 to 120 minutes around Fridays' midday prayers. At other times - my shifts included Monday and Thursday evenings as well as Friday and Saturday daytimes - there was no traffic congestion, with even the existing car park no more than half full.

Having read details of the car parking provision, and limitation, intended, together with the submitted Travel Plan, and noting the proposal for a parking superintendent to be supplied by the mosque, I have no doubt but that the present traffic problems and any associated with the proposed development can be resolved and that the current development also is within the Tall buildings act of Brent (sic) as it is only 4 floors high.
I have absolute no problem with this development as it will be an excellent development for the area to clean up the local area for both the local residents and the religious visitors in a time when religion is often frowned upon and ignored.

OBJECT

We oppose the proposed plans on four main objections outlined in detail below.

Objection 1: inadequate parking management


The car parking management plan (CPMP) prepared in support of the planning application acknowledges that congested on-street parking due to insufficient spaces in the current car park (currently 50 spaces) is a chronic issue due to usage by Brent Central Mosque (BCM) attendees, particularly for Friday prayers as well as other religious events. This is particularly the case for Riffel Road, which is reduced to single file usage, despite being used as a through-road for the surrounding area. Resultingly there is considerable disruption (both traffic, noise, and air pollution) caused by the overspill.

Firstly, the newly proposed car park of 48 spaces remains highly likely to be insufficient for current demand given that this is a decrease from existing capacity of the car park (50 spaces). Given the insufficient nature of current parking capacity and illegal/ irresponsible parking as noted in the CPMP, it is also highly probable that current demand may be an underestimate.


The Travel Plan projects a maximum of 600 visitors to BCM and given current car usage this relates to over 300 individuals including single use journeys and car sharing. Car sharing is unlikely to be feasible nor popular in current/future circumstances given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (which is likely to remain endemic in the population). Even if car sharing is taken up by the majority of car users, the proposed car park will do nothing to abate the parking issue it is trying to address, as the proposals indicate a decrease in the number of parking spaces. Furthermore we note that the estimated numbers (max 600 visitors) is a considerable decrease from the 1000 to 1500 estimated attendance for Friday prayer and other peak times as noted previously and clarification of realistic attendance is needed.


Secondly, the 21 residential flats are going to be sold 'car free'. Residents of new purpose-built developments are more likely to own a car than London residents as a whole (TfL report, 2012). In absence of allocated parking within the basement car park, residents will have to resort to using on-street parking therefore exacerbating the overcrowding and parking issues noted in the CPMP for Riffel Road and the surrounding area. There is also no indication of how this car free policy would be enforced among residents.


Thirdly, the proposed plans will not relieve the heavy congestion and traffic in the surrounding residential area including Riffel Road as BCM users arrive and leave the area. Therefore the congestion, noise pollution, and air pollution for the surrounding residential area including Riffel Road will remain the same, or will get worse.


Finally and relatedly, the proposal includes ten fast charging electric vehicle charging points. The provision of these points could draw more traffic towards the area including Riffel road given that they will represent the largest cluster of fast charging points for electric car users in the local area (for current electric charging points see: https://www.zap-map.com/live/).

Objection 2: loss of privacy and overlooking


The proposed four-storey building presents a serious loss of privacy and high risk of overlooking for residents in multiple properties living along Riffel Road. This is based on the following:


The height of the proposed development is four-storeys, which is substantially higher than the surrounding area (mostly two-storey buildings).


The large ceiling to floor windows on the north side of the proposed development will mean that gardens and rear windows of multiple Riffel Road properties will be clearly visible. This affects multiple households given that several Riffel Road buildings are converted flats.
The proposed rooftop garden will further risk loss of privacy in the gardens and households of the Riffel Road properties given the elevation.

Objection 3: overshadowing and loss of light


The proposed four-storey building will create a significant risk of looming and overshadowing. There are no nearby buildings of such a height, with the vast majority of properties in the area being two-storeys high. Moreover, the nearby three-storey properties on Lennon Road have their impact further reduced by the fact they stand at a lower position relative to sea level than the current car park. In summary, the proposed four-storey development will be considerably out of the pattern of developments and relative heights of the surrounding buildings; this significantly risks overshadowing.


Objection 4: community space usage


The proposed rooftop community space has been described as a big benefit to the current residents and future residents of the proposed development. It is unclear whether the rooftop garden will be made publicly accessible as indicated in the community consultation documents and reflected in the statement of community involvement. If it is a publicly accessible space, there is no indication of how this space will be maintained and monitored (for anti-social or illegal activities).

 

 If you are sympathetic to the Marley Walk Residents' Association case and would like to respond to their request for legal advice contact the Secretary HERE

 APPLICATION ON PLANNING PORTAL

ALERT: Is Brent Council clearing the way for development of 776 & 778 Harrow Road in Barham Park?

 

776 and 778 Harrow Road


The Barham Park Trust Committee is a curious beast as it consists entirely of members of the Brent Cabinet and last year was chaired by Council Leader Muhammed Butt.

During the year the potential development of numbers 776 and 778 Harrow Road into flats became a matter of hot controversy and in the end the application to demolish the houses and build flats was withdrawn. LINK 

The two houses are actually within the park grounds. The restricting covenants on that properties played a key part in the campaigns against development.

Some cynics said the developer would be back when things quietened down but it appears that Brent Council may itself ease the way for a developer.

A report LINK going to the Barham Park Trust Committee from the Director of Regeneration and Environment makes the following recommendation to the Committe:

2.8 To authorise the Operational Director for Environmental Services to enter into discussions with the owners of 776-778 Harrow Road to explore the possibilities of reaching agreement to amend the restricting covenants on that property for the benefit of the Trust.

Later in the report he sets out the argument:

3.16 776 -778 Harrow Road consist of two cottages within Barham Park that were subject to a freehold sale some years ago. The restrictive covenant in the sale required that the site be retained as two residential units. Planning applications have been received in the past and more recently to re-develop the site with multiple residential units namely a block of flats. This was subsequently withdrawn. The Trust is reminded of the restrictive covenant should a similar application be received again and it may be prudent for the Trust to provide a steer as to how such re-development proposals, which include seeking to amend the terms of the restrictive covenant, should be considered in the future as the site appears to be attracting the interest of developers. As set out in the recommendation in paragraph 2.8 of this report, if members of the Trust Committee are minded to explore the possibilities of amending the current restrictive covenants for the financial benefit of the Trust in discussions with the owners of 776-778 Harrow Road, there is the option to delegate authority to the Operational Director for Environmental Services to enter into such discussions.


The Trust Committee would have to make a decision or delegate a decision to officers in future as to whether to amend the restrictive covenant in respect of 776-778 Harrow Road and on what terms and for an application to be submitted to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to amend and modify the terms of the said restrictive covenant.

 

 The 'financial benefit' to the Trust may in many eyes be outweighed by the potential damage to the park land of a block of flats.

What does the future hold for Harrow's Parks and Green Spaces?

 

Headstone Manor

 

Guest post by Emma Wallace of Harrow Green Party 

In June 2021, Harrow Council published its ‘Annual Public Health Report 2021’, this year entitled ‘Let’s Go Outside: Using Nature to Recover’.  As the title suggests, the report focuses on the opportunities Harrow’s green spaces provide to ‘promote a healthier lifestyle’, aiming to encourage people to exercise and reconnect with nature.  The Director of public health at Harrow Council, Carole Furlong, has “outlined the positive impact that parks and reserves have on people’s mental and physical fitness, particularly in light of the past year, when coronavirus has dominated daily life” (Harrow Times, 9th June 2021).  Indeed, since the arrival of the pandemic in March 2020, parks and green spaces have been “propelled into the nation’s hearts and minds, proving their status as lifelines for local communities.” (Parks Fit for the Future, Local Government Association).  Many of us during the various lockdowns have come to appreciate, seek out and discover local green spaces to carry out our daily exercise, walk dogs, play sports, relax and meet others (when the rules allowed) and experience local wildlife.  The open green spaces provide time for quiet contemplation, visual relief, somewhere to breathe clean air and a break from our ever congested and urbanised neighbourhoods. 

Our green spaces have undoubtedly helped to enhance our mental and physical wellbeing during the pandemic, and it makes sense that the Council should highlight this for future community health benefits.  Whilst it is great news that they are recognising the value of our many wonderful parks and nature reserves, it is essential that the Council reflects on the other roles and purposes our green spaces have, such as supporting local biodiversity, wildlife conservation, helping to prevent climate change and local flooding.  Further thought needs to be given to how an increase in public use will impact them, both in their ability to continue to act as safe, well maintained and welcoming spaces for the community, but also how they will be able to meet biodiversity and climate targets.  There also must be some reflection on and acknowledgement of the vulnerable state they are already currently in.  In the last decade, parks have faced unprecedented council budget cuts, impacting on their maintenance and overall condition, whilst coping with a steady increase in public use.  It is these issues I will explore further below to try and ascertain what impact the last ten years have already had on Harrow’s parks and green spaces, the continued challenges they face and what actions need to be taken to ensure their future survival. 

 


West Harrow Recreation Ground

 

Harrow’s Green Belt, Historic Parks and Green Flag Awards

Harrow has an extensive amount of open green space, with 20% of the borough’s land identified as such, placing it number ten out of the thirty-two London boroughs (Natural capital accounts for public space in London, London Government, p.12).  This green space is formed of more than 80 separate areas, including parks, allotments, nature reserves and cemeteries, as captured in the Harrow Biodiversity video, commissioned for the Woodland Trust Tree Charter Festival in November 2020.  The North of the borough boasts Green Belt land, including Bentley Priory, Harrow's most important nature reserve and only biological Site of Special Scientific Interest (SINC) (Harrow Nature Conservation Forum).   In total, Harrow has ten nature reserves and several other wild open spaces in the borough (Harrow Annual Public Health Report 2021, p.12).  There are twenty-eight parks, which are distributed relatively evenly across the borough and most of which are accessible within 10-15mins of walking from a resident’s home (OPEN SPACE PPG17 STUDY, Harrow Council, p.4).  Four of our green spaces are nationally registered historic parks and gardens, including Grims Dyke and Bentley Priory.  There are also four locally listed green spaces, including Pinner Memorial Park and Harrow Weald Park (Historic Parks, Harrow Council).  On top of this, five of Harrow’s parks have repeatedly won Green Flag Awards - Canons Park, Harrow Recreation Ground, Roxeth Recreation Ground, Pinner Memorial Park and Kenton Recreation Ground – handed out annually to the nation’s best parks “as a way of encouraging high environmental standards” (Green Flag Parks, Harrow Council).  

A Decade of Increased Use

Our parks have long been considered “treasured public assets”, illustrated by the steady increase in use over the last decade (Public Parks report, Communities and Local Government Committee, 2017, p.22).  This has left them in an ever more vulnerable state, open to overuse, facilities falling into disrepair, increased litter, anti-social behaviour, wildlife disturbance and general ecological degradation.  This can be seen in part, as a consequence of Harrow’s population increasing by 7.6% over the last ten years (Population Estimates, Harrow Council) and a proliferation of building developments arising all over the borough.  New housing has repeatedly focused on high-rise tower blocks (recent examples include College Road, the Kodak site and Palmerstone Road), consisting generally of single-use apartments, with either no or minimal access to gardens or green space.  Our roads have also seen a dramatic increase in traffic over the last decade, resulting in ever more toxic air and increased dangers for cyclists, pedestrians and runners (Road Traffic Statistics, Department for Transport).  This has resulted in an increasing number of people utilising Harrow’s public green spaces for their leisure and health.  If we couple this with the recent surge in use of our parks and green spaces over the pandemic, with many more people now working from home (a trend that does not look to be fully reversed post-pandemic), our green spaces have never been under so much pressure.  

 

Bentley Priory

A Decade of Underfunding 

As the five Green Flag Awards attest, Harrow has a number of ‘jewels in the crown’ in terms of its parks.  In comparison with other boroughs though, this is a relatively low number of parks to receive Green Flag awards.  For example, neighbouring Hillingdon has sixty parks that have been awarded the Green Flag status, whilst the borough of Ealing has twenty-two Green Flag parks (Green Flag Award Winners 2020, Keep Britain Tidy).  In Harrow, there are many other parks, often smaller, less central or well-known, that have unfortunately not achieved this recognised status.  This can be seen as a consequence of our green spaces long being underinvested and neglected, lacking adequate Council funding, staffing or central strategy to create a well-connected and maintained green network in Harrow.  

There have been severe Environmental service budget cuts imposed by Harrow Council over the last ten years, with funding to our parks and nature reserves hit particularly badly.  In 2014, it was reported nationally that “Almost £60million has been axed from park budgets since the Coalition came to power in 2010 – forcing cuts in staff, early closures and equipment to fall into disrepair.” (The Mirror, 28th July 2014)  Since then the situation has only got worse, with Harrow and other councils around the country being left in an almost impossible situation, as core central government funding to local authorities has almost completely dried up.  It has been reduced particularly severely in Harrow, by 97% over the last decade (Wembley Matters, 27th February 2021).  As a result, councils such as Harrow have been driven to spend their remaining annual budgets on statutory services, such as social care, to the detriment of the non-statutory services, such as parks.  In 2015, Harrow Council introduced its most severe cuts to park services, reducing them to a statutory minimum with the aim of saving £327 000 (Harrow Council Cabinet Meeting, p.262).  This reduction in Council services was partly achieved by converting some of the parks into wildlife open space, which require less overall regular management (p.218).  The services which were highlighted for removal included, locking parks overnight, leaving grass areas to naturalised (with the exception of sports pitches), a reduction in pruning of shrubs and hedges to once a year and a reduction in litter picking and emptying of bins from twice weekly to once a week (Harrow Council Cabinet Meeting, p.262).

 

 Pinner Village Gardens

Independent Funding and Grants

Whilst many local groups and residents fought these cuts, the majority were voted through in 2015 by the Council and since then many of our parks and open spaces have suffered an ongoing decline.  Luckily, a range of Friends of park groups have stepped in to continue the overall management of a number of Harrow’s green spaces (more on this below).  To plug the funding gap for the parks maintenance cuts, including buying new plants, trees, signage, gate locks etc and also, financing bigger projects, the Friends groups now have to apply to the Council for one-off funding or independent grants from external organisations.  For example, it is the Friends groups who must be given credit for Harrow’s five parks retaining their ‘Green Flag’ status, with volunteers applying for separate funding grants to continue maintaining and improving the parks.  There is also the Headstone Manor Park regeneration project, which has been possible due to the securing of millions of pounds through a range of grants, including from the National Lottery Heritage and Community Fund (Headstone Manor).  This dependence on individual grants means that there is now an inconsistency and inequality in funding across Harrow’s parks though, with many spaces not benefiting from proactive volunteers applying for and managing the funding when received.  The House of Commons ‘Communities and Local Government Committee’ report on Public parks concluded, “it is a matter of concern that friends groups may be forced into competition with each other for scarce resources and that some parks are losing out to others. We believe that local authorities should consider their parks to be part of one portfolio, rather than as disparate individual sites.” (p.36)

Harrow’s Volunteers

Due to the severe budget cuts over the last ten years, Harrow Council has reduced or withdrawn the majority of its own park services and general maintenance, instead passing them over to volunteers.  In 2012/2013, an “army of volunteers” helped landscape and improve numerous open spaces as part of Harrow’s Green Grid scheme (Harrow Times, 17th Feb 2013).  After the swingeing park cuts of 2015, ‘Harrow Parks Forum’ was set up in 2016 to act as a collective voice for the network of now twenty-four ‘Friends of’ park groups, which aim “for all of Harrow’s Parks and Open Spaces to be beautiful, well-maintained and litter-free, safe and welcoming, to have appropriate facilities and equipment, and to be loved and used by and for the benefit of the whole community.”  Harrow Parks Forum also supports Harrow Nature Heroes, which encourages a younger generation to get involved in our green spaces, providing “fascinating and fun nature and wildlife sessions across Harrow Parks and stunning nature reserves”.  Our nature reserves and wild open spaces themselves are overseen by Harrow Nature Conservation Forum (HNCF), a Sub-Committee of the Harrow Heritage Trust, organising groups of volunteers to maintain these spaces.  There are also many other groups which play a part in looking after and advocating our green spaces, including Harrow in Leaf, Harrow Biodiversity, Harrow Litter Pickers and our two Harrow London National Park City Rangers.

These volunteers carry out essential work in maintaining and improving our green spaces in Harrow, including acting as park wardens, carrying out general gardening, rewilding, tree planting, monitoring wildlife, frequent litter picking, improving paths and maintaining facilities, locking gates, organising park events, fundraising and securing grants.   The commitment and dedication these local volunteers show is inspiring and without them I can only imagine how immeasurably worse our parks, wild spaces and nature reserves would be.  It must be recognised though that depending on volunteers to oversee and maintain our parks requires members being available on a regular basis and willing to give an extensive amount of time and energy.  The Mayor’s London Green Spaces Commission Report published in August 2020, identified that volunteers “require ongoing support and management by park services. They can add real value but are not in themselves a sustainable solution to longer term funding.” (p.23) I believe that it is unfair to expect so much from local volunteers and instead, it is the council who should be recruiting permanent, paid and well-trained staff to provide a regular and comprehensive service across all our parks and reserves.  

Privatisation and Selling off our Parks

Another consequence of a decade of severe council budget cuts is that our parks are extremely vulnerable to privatisation.  “Because of this pressure, councils are looking at options for selling off bits of land, outsourcing parks management and making money by allowing private companies to rent out the space.” (Parks Should be in public hands, We Own It).  The outcome of this is a loss of public control, removing parks from their original purpose to provide free, public, communal spaces for everyone.  Parks also have an important role to play in improving social cohesion within communities, as identified in Harrow Council’s Annual Public Health Report 2021’ (p.5).  This cohesion is undoubtedly severely hindered by the commercialisation of parks, preventing various groups of the community from accessing them.  So far, Harrow Council has largely avoided privatisation, although there have been several cases of park spaces identified for building projects.  An example of this was the 820 flat ‘Byron Quarter’ development proposed in 2017, which would have resulted in the loss of land from Byron Park (Harrow Times, 18th July 2017).  This development did not go ahead, but in July this year a new partnership between Harrow Council and Wates Residential was announced, identifying three ‘brownfield’ sites in the Wealdstone area, including around Byron Park for housing (Harrow Times, 11th Sept 2020).  Reassuringly, Ms Furlong acknowledges in Harrow’s Public Health Report that the public health department will “include collaboration with the council’s planning department to ensure there is no unnecessary loss of green space.” (Harrow Times, 9th June 2021)  I hope this proves to be true and helps towards protecting our green spaces from future developments.  

Lack of a Connected, Long-term Vision

Parks have also been seen as an easy target for budget cuts because they “are not recognised for the value they could add to a range of other statutory council services, such as public health and well-being, economic development, social care, and environmental resilience.”  (A review of London’s parks and green spaces: strategy, governance and value for THE LONDON GREEN SPACES COMMISSION, Feb 2019, p.6).  Whilst Harrow Council has recently recognised the value that our parks bring to public health, this strategy does not appear to connect with others involving parks, such as the Council’s Climate Change Strategy 2019-2024.  Instead, the Public Health report appears as a standalone report, lacking a wider strategic vision of how it converges with others or may impact the numerous other roles our parks already play.  This lack of connection between strategies has a negative impact on the health of our green spaces, as there is no acknowledgement of how the individual projects will actually impact the parks as a whole.  There generally appears to be a lack of recognition that parks are living, breathing organisms that need to be continuously maintained through the seasons to ensure their continued health (as revealed by the ongoing Council cuts to park budgets).  

Another consequence of parks and green spaces being included in separate Council strategies is the absence of a single, consistent funding model.  Financing of these schemes is either completely missing, or if included at all, consists of one-off, finite amounts of money from the individual department championing the project or from external grants, as mentioned above.  For example, there appears to be no long term commitment to investing in our parks to support the Council’s recent public health strategy, with only a fleeting reference to funding in the report: “When resources allow to ensure and promote accessibility to green spaces by improving paths, signposts and information on local green spaces, particularly in areas of Harrow with limited green space.”  (Harrow’s Annual Public Health Report 2021, p.14)  I also wrote about the absence of funding to enable the Council to meet its Net Zero Carbon strategy, which draws on parks, back in April (Wembley Matters, 3rd April 2021).  To resolve this, it is essential that the Council begins to take a “fully integrated approach to the planning, design and management of green space that could better address the potential collaboration and tensions across these areas, in the form of an overarching green infrastructure strategy.” (A review of London’s parks and green spaces, p.6)  This would then facilitate the Council pooling its resources to meet the various strategies aims, whilst being an economical and sustainable financial model.  This will then hopefully ensure the overall continued survival and environmental health of the parks and green spaces themselves.   

The Natural capital accounts for public green space in London report from October 2017 reveals how there are actually huge economic benefits to be gained from our parks and that their value far outweighs the cost of maintaining them.  A key finding for example is: “For each £1 spent by local authorities and their partners on public parks, Londoners enjoy at least £27 in value.” (Natural capital, London Government, p.3)  This is reflected in Harrow’s recent public health report, which recognises the role green spaces can play in supporting local residents' mental and physical health, minimising the need for the use of a related NHS service for example.  In London, this can amount to avoided costs “of £580 million per year by being in better physical health and £370 million per year by being in better mental health.” (Natural capital, London Government, p.3)  It is essential that the Council uses this evidence to reconsider their cuts to park services, and instead acknowledge the role they can play in meeting a range of statutory services, whilst also being extremely cost effective in the process.  This is a persuasive argument for the continued investment in parks and green spaces, saving the Council money, whilst relieving pressure on a multitude of public services.  

Conclusion - Protecting, Preserving and Enhancing our Green Spaces for the Future

If Harrow Council is serious about residents making “the most of the range of green spaces on their doorstep as we come out of lockdown” (Annual Public Health Report, Harrow Council, p.2) it is essential that they create a strategic vision for all our green spaces.  This overarching and connected strategy needs to be long term, rather than consisting of one-off, short-term projects.  It requires ongoing financial investment in our parks and green spaces and the recruitment of trained, paid staff, not dependent on individual grants or the goodwill of volunteers.  The Council must fully recognise the role green spaces can play in supporting a range of statutory services, coordinating how to best share funding and resources to help improve all our green spaces to facilitate these services.  To help with this, it is important that the Council clearly identifies the ‘social return in investment’ that parks and green spaces bring to the borough, and recognise why continued, ongoing financial investment is not just optional, but essential.  Our green spaces are something that will save the council money in the long term, whilst also benefiting the local community (Natural capital report, London Government, p.7

The Local Government Association is calling on the government to introduce a parks fund: “We must ensure that parks are accessible and are in a good state to support everyone in the future, that is why we are calling on the Government to introduce a local, flexible £500 million Green Parks Fund to help unlock small scale, affordable initiatives to help the nation’s parks and green spaces recover and flourish.” (Parks Fit for the Future, LGA).  Whilst this money would of course be of use, I believe that for their long-term future, the government must also start to fund local authorities properly again to allow councils to fully take parks and green spaces fully back under their control and management.  We pay council tax (now the second highest in London) for Harrow Council to maintain our public green spaces and it should ultimately be their responsibility to look after them.  As We Own It states, “We have enough money for them - they should be properly funded and run for people not profit.” (Parks Should be in public hands, We Own It).  It is the council who are best placed to create a connected, joined-up strategy for all our parks that ensures a consistency in maintenance across the whole borough.  Only then will our parks and green spaces receive the maintenance and management they desperately need and ensure their continued and sustainable future for generations to come. 

 

Self-administered Covid testing kits now available at every Brent Council run library for collection

 

 

From Brent Council

 

Self administered Covid 19 Lateral Flow Tests are now available for collection at every Brent Council run library.

"It’s really important to keep taking the Covid-19 tests, and to self-isolate if you test positive," said Cllr Neil Nerva, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure.

"Testing kits for people without symptoms are available in libraries and Brent Civic Centre for you to pick up and take home at your convenience. These LFT tests are easy, quick, and you will get your results in 30 minutes. I urge everyone to take advantage of this service. The virus is still with us, and we still need to be careful. We need to keep ourselves and each other safe."

The tests are available at Ealing Road Library, Harlesden Library Plus, Kilburn Library, Kingsbury Library, Wembley Library and Civic Centre and The Library at Willesden Green. Find the library opening times here.

If you are showing symptoms of Covid-19, you will need to self-isolate and take a PCR test – even if you have been fully vaccinated.                                        

For other ways to get a test in Brent, please go to www.brent.gov.uk/testing