Sudbury Court residents fight to stop development of the former John Lyon pub

The building at present

 

Sudbury Court Residents Association are circulating residents urging opposition to the proposed development at the Mumbai Junction  restaurant formerly the John Lyons pub. Their leaflet is reproduced below. Readers will be interested to learn that the developer is Fruition who are responsible for the development and actions surrounding the City Mission Church site in Harlesden. LINK

The Mumbai Junction restaurant - formerly the  John Lyon pub  is threated with demolition so 43 flats can be built.

 

How to object to Planning Application 21/3679

The best way to object to this planning application is via the Brent website (link shown below) or you can write to Planning Dept via email to planning.comments@brent.gov.uk you could also write to Planning Department at the Civic Centre by snail mail. 

 LINK TO COMMENT ON BRENT COUNCIL WEBSITE

 

Alternatively you can search the Brent website using the above reference 21/3679 or using the ‘Simple’ search option for 231 Watford Road. More details will be available on the SCRA website. Click on the View / Make Comments tab, you will need to register and log in to make comments, this is found at the bottom of the web page. You can then move to making your comments about this application for 231 Watford Road.  

 

 Comments must be submitted by 12th November at the latest. If enough people say that the proposal is unsuitable for the area then we stand a good chance of stopping this, by enough, I'd hope for 1,000.

 

 

As you can see the proposed building towers over its neighbours, there are no architectural similarities with the surrounding buildings, and the neighbours' homes will be substantially overlooked. The massing of the proposed development is overbearing and monolithic with little to relate it to the Conservation Area.

 

The John Lyon name has historic value, John Lyon founded Harrow School 500 years ago, and his legacy still funds local charitable works such as Sudbury Neighbourhood Centre. In the last two decades the John Lyon has changed and adapted to the local population, it is without doubt a place where everyone can go, it therefore contributes to our community cohesion and understanding of each other. The loss of this community asset and meeting place within walking distance of over 3,000 plus homes, a large licensed property, would deal a devastating blow to the local community and would force the residents to drive to other destinations much further afield thus reducing Active travel in the area.

 

So, how should you phrase your objection to make the biggest impact? There are many different planning policies at play here, but the main points to make are:

·       The proposal is monolithic in design and without doubt overbearing, it swamps all the surrounding properties, even the four storey shops.

·       The loss of one of our last large well frequented Public Houses / Restaurant

·       The loss of a valuable Community Asset that enhances community cohesion.

·       The proposed building site is within an Area of Distinctive Residential Character (ADRC) and will have a detrimental effect.

·       This 1950's Public House sits in a line of similar style properties from the 1950s, its removal would certainly damage this consistent architectural heritage.

·       Its proximity to the Sudbury Court Conservation Area (SCCA) with have a detrimental effect on it.

·       The design of the proposed building, simplistic in the extreme, its height and massing are unacceptable and overbearing, there are recent builds on our local main roads that better reflect their surroundings such as the flats on East Lane opposite Pasture Road, the flats between Court Parade and Wakeling Lane, the St Georges flats on the junction of Sudbury Court Drive and Sudbury Hill and finally the flats on Watford Road either side of Stilecroft Gardens, the one to the south being a perfect match to its surroundings and ignores the petrol station architectural style/leads. All these recent properties are very sympathetic to their surroundings, being only up to four storeys high, all have pitched roofs, dormers where appropriate and to gain the fourth floor, and a smattering or Tudorbethan where appropriate. None of these developments over the last 20 years have deviated from this complementary design style which respects the surrounding area.

·       Brent's Planning Policies imply they will protect Public Houses, we expect them to apply here.

·       There will be a loss of housing and employment for several staff members adding to Brent's homeless list.

·       Sudbury Court Drive flooded at this location several times this year, it is becoming more frequent.

·       There is limited on street parking available for the almost certain transfer parking being produced by this proposal, the locale is already parked at 100% plus, this addition will almost certainly have permanent damaging effect on the local businesses.

·       The access to the site is severely restricted by the narrowness of the Service Road and the current on street parking load. A 7.5 Tonne weight limit is being imposed on the Service Road due to damage being inflicted on parked vehicles, grass verges and street trees. The site access during construction will be into a very restricted access to the Service Road just a few yards from a very busy roundabout. The alternate access from Watford Road would be extremely dangerous and is an accident black spot with at least one death attributed to.

·       Brent's Planning Policies document quite clearly that the area in question was designed for motor vehicles and that the Public Transport is poor, because of this the adoption of active travel will be an extreme challenge. The current cycle-ways are few and generally not fit for purpose.

·       The three street trees (Ash) will be in jeopardy from the building works and deliveries thereafter.

·       Those living on Amery, SCD and Watford Road - if you have seen Bats at the bottom of your garden, you must say so. They are a protected species and may well be living in the John Lyon due to its seclusion and warmth.

·       In summary the proposal is far too large, it does not respect its proximity to the CA or it being within an ADRC, it overlooks and is overbearing in nature to its neighbouring properties. The current 1950s building with pitched roof and period facade fits admirably within its surroundings. The proposal would be a eyesore within its surroundings.

·       No Affordable Housing, below standard number of family homes.

 

This and other information will be loaded to the SCRA website www.the-scra.co.uk

Complex picture of future school places provision presented to Brent Cabinet this morning

 The Brent Cabinet will discuss the latest School Places Provision Strategy this morning.  Key points include:

• In the primary sector falling demand as a result of lower birth rate and Brexit 
• Organisational and budgetary impact of this on individual schools
  
• Lower than expected demand for secondary school places making planned secondary school expansions unnecessary at this point
• Higher demand for Special Educational Needs and Disability places across the age groups starting in early years

Within this there are variations as a result of the developments in some areas such as Wembley Park, although the demographic impact so far has been less than anticipated.

The planned action for the Wembley Park area does not mention a new primary school in the Quintain development area. Readers will remember one was planned as part of the regeneration and a site earmarked close to Wembley Stadium station. Philip Grant on a Wembley Matters post raised the issue of the disappearance of plans for a primary school in the long term plans.

One of the other issues not fully discussed is the number of  secondary pupils in the south of the borough taking up places in neighbouring boroughs:

The full report is below:

  

Brent Council to purchase leasehold on 155 units in Alperton Bus Garage development at average of £280k per home

 

The Brent Cabinet this morning is set to approve purchase of a 50 year lease on 155 out of the 461 units in the  Telford Homes Alperton Bus Garage development on the corner of Ealing Road and Bridgewater Road:

To finance the purchase of this block, the Council will take a lease of 50 years from the  Asset Special Putchase Vehicle (ASPV), with rents set a current day social rents and indexed at CPI plus 1%. Upon completion of the 50-year lease, a reversionary 949-year lease will be granted a nil rent or peppercorn. 

 

 

The developer will grant the Council a 50-year lease with a 949 reversion at a peppercorn rent on completion of the contract for the 155 affordable homes. The developer will continue to insure the premises during the construction and until completion of the contract. 

 

 

Officers have been in discussion with the ASPV regarding the possibility of purchasing these homes. An offer has been on a purchase price of circa £48M via private treaty on a 50 year leasing arrangement, which means an average of £280K for each home (including a GLA grant).

The Cabinet Meeting can be watched on-line at 10am this morning HERE

Suggestions for flood mitigation measures in South Kilburn in the face of over-development

 An attempt at an Underground style map of London's 'lost rivers' and sewers (Heritage Magazine)

A follow-up post to  David Walton’s 'After the July floods urgent action needed on the depleted flood defences of South Kilburn as densification continues'. Proposed here are some sustainable environmental actions for Brent Master Developer to apply to its large South Kilburn site.

Brent as the South Kilburn Master Developer relentlessly prepares building designs, complete with planning permissions,  gift wrapped for hard to trace private enclosure, for freehold buyers/ builders on publicly owned existing South Kilburn flood defences.  All this amidst existing publicly owned social housing. Surely it constitutes major government intervention in the markets. the direct opposite of what government claims it stands for?

 

What makes off-shored private equity so worthy of being made this special case?

 

On the South Kilburn floodplain, government has designated a very large site/ growth area/ tall building zone; with 'site allocations’, Brent designed with planning permissions already in place ready for sale to private developers. The key for South Kilburn residents’ human rights, safety and future wellbeing must be that the River Westbourne and its tributaries existence should no longer be ignored by government.  Decision makers are frantically trading proposed new building site allocations with planning permissions in this flood plain zone. A third of England's flood defences are in private hands, but what about the two thirds which are in public hands and under government guardianship?

 

The deliberate denial of obvious flood risk, when comprehensive natural flood defences were designed and were protectively already in place (the estate’s original housing in designed flood protection park land), is an apocalyptic 'cancel- for- market' strategic device not used before in London. And not unlike using inflammable materials to cheaply build new homes or attempting to allow a deadly virus with no vaccine or cure to rip through society for herd immunity, this human exploitation scandal also deserves an emergency re-think, if all buildings in this water world area of London both old and new are not to be, by this environment cancel sleight of hand rendered  'sick buildings' by year 2041.

 

All South Kilburn natural flood defences which have survived this brutal public flood defence's land transfer to the market must in 2021 be strongly protected, highly valued and CIL upgraded as recreation and natural water store public spaces. While flood defences already been destroyed and replaced by new 'sick building private enclosures',  CIL funded replacements nearby must be installed in a new spirit of  real world UK climate emergency action. And why not restore residents on a partnership board for South Kilburn's very large site to steer and oversee the 35+ new 'sites' towards 2041?  The age of highly lucrative ignoring of environmental concerns and residents’ total exclusion to enable  'smooth process', clearly needs to end given the emergency situation which has become all too apparent to everyone living here. You walk past new blocks and smell the damp!

 

A basic principle for the large South Kilburn site, given its extensive flooding history and ever rising floodplain water table, should be that water is retained safely on site and that roads are no longer designed to function as sewage canals bringing ever more water down from Camden and St John's Wood and then exporting that excess on to parts of Maida Vale from South Kilburn land.

 

Living roof gardens, water butts and genuine estate wide active growing initiatives should be urgent policy for all developments (old and new) - the principle being to control water before it overloads London's crumbling Victorian drainage system from this mega density 36,000 new town called South Kilburn ‘Colony’. In Costa Rica a pioneering Earthshot winning project pays local citizens to restore natural ecosystems and has led to incredible levels of environmental protection and awareness. Why is this considered impossible in South Kilburn’s very large site development?

 

 The River Westbourne flows above Sloane Square station

 

1. This 'very large site' of clearances/ new builds ongoing since 2005 is mainly car-free housing given that two underground stations and a rail station are located in this zone. Instead of increasing adopted roads (sewage flood canals) in grids (the current hardscape in Brent’s rigid plan)- perhaps generous scale green, plant growing, active travel routes is the progressive and climate response and the  best way to develop movement and to link this with protecting and improving the plan that currently neglects surviving South Kilburn flood defence parkland?

 

All Brent highways land in South Kilburn tall building zone's 45 hectares can be re-purposed as flood defence active travel, plant growing ,widened green corridors.

 

As well as this being good for Brent taxpayer's long-term, just look at the 'sick buildings' scandals throughout South Kilburn, where for example it now costs more to repair buildings new built on a flood defence than it originally cost to first build them! A ‘flood risk always reduced from now on ‘approach as proposed here would be good for Carlton vale, good for Maida vale, good for Bayswater and good for Knightsbridge, where the River Westbourne and its tributaries flow.

 

2. Building on every South Kilburn space should be seriously questioned.

Where will extra water gathering on this floodplain go if not into people's homes (old and new) given the water always present near the surface? South Kilburn Land simply never dries-out!

 

Government should no longer environmentally cancel the River Westbourne and its tributaries as policy. COP 26 and Brent Councils own long declared 'Climate Emergency' need to become real (not zoned) for South Kilburn peoples’ lives and this estate of 'sites' all too obvious flood risk environment recognised. Note my neighbours’ living at ground level are flooded out and living in temporary accommodation along with many other local flood families. Dehumidifiers are still drying these flats out and it is November!

3. Opportunities to upgrade rather than total destroy South Kilburn's entire surviving rivers flood defence system also include:

a. Making more space for water. Higgins, a developer at Chippenham Gardens village, South Kilburn where the River Westbourne and the Malvern join is building 56 flats on top of this flood risk basin to Brent Master Developers’ design. Local people have managed to protect the historic flood defence local (reduced in size) park also located here (this based on veteran trees being preserved). However, Brent remains rigidly opposed to improving the flood defence 'pond' potential of this green space by expanding its size, scale, space, volume and depth, by re-purposing three adjacent parking bays and then squaring this off as replacement for flood defence land lost to the new Higgins development.

Plenty of children live in flats above and in basements below, the 50 plus Victorian shops of Chippenham Gardens local centre without gardens or balconies. As it currently stands this green space flood defence will be considerably reduced in size by Brent’s over-building ( so no play equipment space anymore) and will also be design ineffective in its core purpose of protecting lives and homes in this densely populated key local centre (where 11 routes and 3+ rivers meet) from sewage flood major risk liability. Given July floods such disregard of this very specific flood defence improvement 2021 opportunity seems reckless and ill advised.

 

b. Give Local Green Space Designation to South Kilburn Public Open Space, Brent Kilburn’s only remaining park scale natural flood defence. This large park forms an excellent rain garden, pooling surface flood waters for a week then gradually absorbing them. Vital to public health and safety of this very large site and clearly should no longer be Brent 'banked' as surplus brownfield flood defence land for sale with Brent building designs/ planning permissions.

This 100+ veteran tree woodland space must be strong protected with a Local Green Space Designation policy by Brent being climate actioned  for 2021. (The grass cutting tractor could also leave 2 metre of space wild around all 100+ trees to better support the local ecosystem and increase flood waters soak-up speeds yet further).

c. The removal of the large roundabout park of 40 trees flood defence on Kilburn Park Road in 2008 which also used to retain, pond and absorb flood waters has as a result become sewage flooded with highly problematic sick buildings instead.

Westminster has a retirement home that has become a ‘development site' with green space opposite this Brent major flood defence loss. Tanked/sealed underground car parks (once pumped of rising flood plain ground water), mean that Westminster developers can send its entire future excessive water problem on and into Brent homes, particularly into a brand new high density housing scheme which Brent has recently purchased! This Westminster 'site' could work well as a new underground flood water storage defence instead. Veteran trees on this site also need protecting.

Beyond this, Westminster is also re-developing its Carlton Vale Estate NW6 high quality social housing- to become towers instead? This re-development will also have a catastrophic effect on Brent's floodplain downstream. especially if the River Westbourne and tributaries remain ignored by all key decision makers as is the case in 2021.

Brent should challenge Westminster on these all too obvious sewage flood liabilities being adversely across borough boundary grown. The National Planning Policy Framework (section 14. clauses 152 to 169) form an excellent starting point.  While in a similar way Westminster should challenge Brent about the sewage flooding of Maida Vale Shirland Road directly downstream of South Kilburn’s large site with many rivers.  

d. If South Kilburn wasn't a developer colony where "development will look after itself" other solutions could be sought. In Slovakia I know a town adjacent to an historic flood risk river where the local council helps fund ground water pumps in all gardens to systematically lower the town's water table. It also encourages flood plain allotments on its land. Pumped ground water is used for gardens, allotments and for domestic toilets allowing substantial savings on water bills for locals as expensive tap water is not being needlessly wasted.

e. De-paving and permeable pavers should be required throughout South Kilburn very large site, with replacement of existing poor design new hard landscapes as a remedial measure. similar to the replacement of inflammable cladding and inflammable insulation retrofit that is already happening.

4. Given there will be five times the number of homes by 2041 on floodplain unilateral forced as South Kilburn - should the only new 'community infrastructure' in South Kilburn be tall building zone housing and a 'go elsewhere' zonal policy for all else even flood defences?

How can local estate people living a multiple excluded/ deprived estate zoned existence be expected as individuals to own this deliberate and knowing major government escalation of estate flood risk rooted in an unreasonable planned choice to cancel environmental underground rivers as environmental realities, for the brutal short term and soon to be permanent crisis economic gains? Why should City of Westminster residents own this growing cross borough boundary disaster either?

Add South Kilburn zone concentrated inflammable cladding, inflammable insulation, inflammable structure, build quality crisis and incremental withdrawal of health/ services-all points instead to a humane rethink of what "South Kilburn people getting what they deserve" should actually mean? The UN has in October 2021 declared the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment a human right and is to appoint an expert to monitor human rights in this context of climate emergency.

Is a 6,000 social housing estate set in flood defence parkland in year 2000 set to become a 36,000 new town towered on 45 public owned hectares by year 2041, with no flood defences retained? Or can this part of London do better regarding protecting human rights and reducing exploitations growing forwards?

Instead of the current land war on estate residents, a war on excessive flood plain water needs to be declared. A new urban construction model of flood management, strengthening ecological infrastructure and drainage systems is clearly essential in very large site South Kilburn zone given the catastrophic liabilities and consequences of creating a giant cross borough boundary sick buildings area (the present reckless direction of travel/ let the market decide process).

Cities like Tokyo and Singapore are planned and designed to handle one-in-100-year storms. Why is London captured in such pre-Enlightenment wilful regression regarding its own new building of very large site towns such as South Kilburn Colony towards 2041? Regents Park is an impressive part of the flood defences for Central London, while Kilburn Park (South Kilburn) flood defence for Central London has been totally cancelled for profit. Who is liable in 2021 and who will pay for what happens in the future and the damages caused?  

 

David Walton

 

FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn)

 

 

BREAKING: OPDC steps in to act as broker between Harlesden church threatened with eviction and the developer

 

Rev. Desmond Hall of the City Mission Church, Harlesden that has been threated with eviction  from its premises by developers Fruition, has just commented:

 

As a result of the collective effort and the intervention of Andy Slaughter MP, Mr David Lunt, the CEO of the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation, (OPDC) spoke to the Trustees of the church, expressing his full support for the church by promising to have open dialogue with the developers to restore matters. 

 

OPDC intend to act as brokers for the situation.

The Trustees of the church have expressed their deep gratitude to everyone involved, even though as yet the situation is not fully resolved. Today, the outcome is moving in the right direction.

 Cllr Jumbo Chan (Kensal Green ward) said:

 

I fully support the local church, including their demand to stay. Indeed, it is especially important during such uncertain times that valuable community assets such as the church (and the nursery) are not cast away for the sake of profit. I am therefore perturbed that, and despite Brent Council’s formal designation of the site as an Asset of Community Value, profiteers are seeking to eject the church.

 

Teen on her victory against Brent Council's 'inhumane' homeless housing policy: 'When I won my own case I wanted to keep on fighting for all those affected'

 

A fighter: Shadacia White

 

Six months ago LINK Wembley Matters wrote about a legal challenge to Brent Council's policy of not allowing homeless people on to the council housing list and thus unable to  bid for council housing. Shadacia White, the subject of the case, won her individual right to bid but wanted to pursue the case so that others in a similar situation would benefit.

At the time I asked Brent Council a key question:

I am planning to write about Osbornes' claim and ask that  you confirm that the Council accepts its policy is unlawful and that it intends to change the policy.

 I received no answer.

 In a blog LINK  Garden Court Chambers Housing Team take up the story:

A homeless teenager has forced a London Council to overturn its unlawful housing policy – helping more than 1,200 homeless individuals and families onto the council housing list.

Shadacia White, 18, was due to take Brent Council to the High Court on Wednesday (27 October) to stop Brent from unlawfully preventing homeless people from bidding for a council house.

But with the help of Tim Baldwin, of the Garden Court Chambers Housing Team, and housing litigation specialists at London law firm Osbornes Law, she had managed to make Brent change their policy and to put things right for those who had been affected, on the eve of the High Court hearing.

Figures from the council revealed that 1,233 homeless households who were previously deemed ineligible for council housing would have their applications for social housing updated from 29 October to allow them to finally bid for a home.

Shadacia, a university marketing student, previously won her own case to be placed on the council housing list but wanted to continue the fight to get Brent to change the policy for all homeless people.

Hundreds of homeless people in the borough have been prevented from bidding for housing for the past eight years, as they were deemed ‘no priority’.

Shadacia said:

We have finally achieved justice for the hundreds of homeless people in Brent who have been banned from bidding on the housing list despite being homeless and legal right to bid. Surely those who are homeless need a home the most, yet Brent has been illegally banning them from being placed on a housing list or placing them into the lowest priority ‘Band D’ so that they could not bid? When I won my own case I wanted to keep on fighting for all of those who are affected by this inhumane policy.

While I am pleased that Brent has finally changed its policy, it really shouldn’t have taken a homeless teenage student standing up against them to change it.

Shadacia White was originally told she would not even be considered for a house by Brent Council despite being homeless and living in temporary accommodation before she won her case and was placed on the housing list.

Shadacia, who currently lives in temporary accommodation with her mother, sister and autistic brother, has been ‘sofa surfing’ throughout her childhood. She says her childhood was hard as she rarely had a home.

She said:

The last few years have been a struggle and there were times when mum took us to Heathrow to sleep as we had nowhere else to go. Mum would just walk around all day in the cold. I went into school and told them what was happening and that I just wanted somewhere warm to stay and they got me a social worker and temporary accommodation.

Brent Council’s allocation scheme currently places applicants in priority bands D to A, where A is the highest priority. People in higher priority bands out-bid people in lower priority bands who express an interest in the same property on Brent’s housing register. People in band D are not allowed to bid at all.

Brent’s scheme currently says homeless applicants have ‘no priority’ and will be placed in band D, so that they can’t bid. The only exception to this is if Brent had accepted a ‘main housing duty’ towards a homelessness applicant. This requires the applicant to meet specific criteria that goes beyond being homeless, such as having a serious enough health condition.

The law says Brent has to give ‘reasonable preference’ to homeless people even if they are not owed the ‘main housing duty’, meaning that the current policy is unlawful.

Sam O’Flaherty, a specialist housing litigation solicitor at Osbornes Law, who represents Shadacia, said:

We are delighted that Brent has agreed to reverse its policy around placing homeless people on the housing list. It is unfortunate that we needed to issue proceedings to ensure that this happened and was done properly. As a result of Shadacia’s claim, not only have Brent agreed to change their policy by February 2022, but they have also agreed to a series of measures to ensure that homeless households do not continue to be deprived of their right to bid for social housing in the meantime, and for previously affected homeless households to be contacted and given an opportunity to join the Housing Register and bid if they are still eligible.

 Regrettably, I am not confident this would have been achieved without Shadacia having fought this all the way to the High Court. It is a testament to her that she has managed to achieve this and continued to fight even when she had won her own case.

Brent Council says that did not know about the issue with their policy until Shadacia’s solicitors wrote to them on 11 March, 2021 raising it.

The judicial review proceedings in the High Court have now been put on hold until 15 March next year to allow Brent to carry out its promised changes. Shadacia can restart proceedings before that date if Brent fail to do so.

 

Brent Council's answers to protests over proposed council estate Traffic Management Orders

 Residents of Summers Close and Saltcroft Close in Wembley received an additional consultation letter this week, following the earlier consultation on Traffic Management Orders sent to council estates throughout the borough.

The second consultation is part of a statutory process and refers to the introduction of double yellow lines following 'complaints about vehicles parked...that cause obstruction, access and visibility difficulties for vehicles intending to access/exit the location. This is a problem particularly for emergency services and collection services. It also affects the motorist's sight lines and therefore pedestrian safety.' 

This is possibly a fall-back position in case the TMO proposal is rejected.

 

Parking on the South Kilburn Estate

 In a sign that councillors' mail boxes have been running red hot with resident opposition, members of the council have been provided with a crib sheet (below) on how to answer residents' representations.  It is clear that to be really effective the number of responses, whether for or against proposals, needs to be maximised.

Cost of permits

Cabinet approved a £50 charge, as this was the lowest the charge could be set for the service to be cost neutral. These proposals are designed to ensure that parking is prioritised for residents of the estate at the cost of less than a pound a week. This initiative has not been developed with a view to make a profit but to cover the cost of enforcement on estates. Whilst residents currently pay £10, Wing Parking have made their position clear that they would need to increase their prices to continue the current arrangement, which has limited effectiveness due to legislative changes. 

 

What percentage of residents will have to vote for the consultation to be valid?

There is no specific percentage for the consultation to be valid but a 20% response rate is viewed as the norm. As we did with the pilot, if estates have a very low turnout, we will repeat the consultation with increased door knocking. 

 

What will happen if there is a low turnout but a clear majority?

We will review each the results of each estate on an individual basis, and if they have a very low turnout, we will repeat the consultation with increased door knocking. If there is a low turnout, but a clear majority and support from other consultees, e.g. emergency services, then we will proceed with implementation. 

 

What happens if residents on an estate say no to the proposal?

The current arrangement with Wing Parking is no longer operable and if residents vote against the proposals, it will not continue. Introducing a traffic management order is the only viable way to maintain enforcement on Brent Housing estates. It is important that we are honest with residents on this position, as it would be unfair if we did not make this point clear as part of the consultation. If the outcome for an estate is not to go ahead, and there are no significant risks to emergency services or recycling and refuse, this will be honoured. 

 

Should we have waited for the pilot sites to be fully implemented before consulting with the wider estates?

We know from other local authorities the effectiveness of traffic management orders and introducing off street controlled parking on council estates. Wing Parking have made it clear the current arrangement is no longer operable and they are taking action to end their existing contract with other Local Authorities. It is essential we consult with residents now to ensure they have a choice mitigating the risk of Wing Parking withdrawing the service and no available alternative. 

 

Visitor Parking

We will be offering visitor permits, but as part of the implementation, we must ensure permits firstly go to those residents living on the estate. Please note this will not affect any professional services required, such as carers or health visitors. Under the new proposal, we will be replicating the current highways offer. Information on what is available for older and disabled people is available on the Councils website  LINK 

 

Parking for Council Contractors

The arrangement that we have with trades’ people will continue and council contractors will be provided with permits to ensure they can continue carrying out repairs. Like with our current arrangement, no one is guaranteed a space. 

 

Will motorbikes need a permit?

All vehicles will require a permit to park on the estate where they are using a bay. As part of the consultation, if there are a number of motorbike users on the estate, the provision for dedicated motorbike parking can be requested by residents. 

 

Blue Badges

Where there are disabled bays already marked, they will be replaced like-for-like. If, however, there are residents, with a blue badge and no marked bays, they can apply for a bay to be converted and this can be delivered during implementation. Residents with a Blue Badge living on the estate will still be required to purchase a parking permit. 

 

Not enough parking on the estate

On the reduction of parking, unfortunately, residents will feel disgruntled and frustrated about parking becoming more pressured. This is an issue experienced nationally, but is magnified in London because of the limited space. 

 

Residents have raised concerns that building on garage sites has affected parking availability further. As a borough, there are hard decisions, which need to be made on how space is used, particularly as without new affordable homes in the borough Brent residents will not be able to stay in their community. We are incredibly proud of the New Council Homes programme and when there is a decision between providing new homes or retaining garage sites, providing new affordable homes is the priority. We have a waiting list where homeless families on average wait 16 years for a three bedroom home, and we know it is important to Brent residents that their family in the future have the choice to stay in Brent and live in affordable housing. 

 

Separately, Brent is a highly connected borough and as a Council, our members have declared a climate emergency. One of the key themes being discussed at COP26 is changing behaviours and how people move around in their communities. With more people than ever working from home, the RAC Foundation published that cars spend on average 23 hours of each day parked. We must continue to provide strong leadership on this and push people to think about how space can be used more effectively, whether this be for homes, play, exercise or the community rather than continuing a reliance on cars and car parks. This is further supported by the ULEZ charge to discourage high polluting vehicles being driven in London. 

 

For some residents, driving is the only option, which is why we do want to protect the parking that is available for those who actually live on the estates. For this to be successful, we do need residents who are able to, to think differently about how they move about. 

 

Women’s safety

The safety of women is a top priority, and we take our responsibility with the utmost seriousness. We continue to work with all partners to make the borough a safer place for everyone. 

 

We as a Landlord participate proactively in the Brent Safer Partnership and Violence against Women and Girls steering group to ensure we can do as much as possible. There is no existing evidence that these proposed changes will increase risk to women living on Brent Council Estates. We understand how recent tragedies have left residents, particularly women feeling vulnerable and angry. We strongly believe that our focus needs to be on taking action to ensure women can walk anywhere in the borough and feel safe to do so.