WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Following consideration of responses, both Brent and Camden Councils approved the application to re-designate the Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum.
This means the Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum will be able to continue the preparation of a neighbourhood plan in their area.
South Kilburn is not included in the Forum.
Consultation responses can be found HERE
Kilburn Village Residents Association (KVRA) also presented a petition this morning about the proposed tower block and infill on Kilburn Square. The petition of 900 signatures was presented byMargaret von Stoll a founding member of the Kilburn Square Co-op:
Kilburn Square Petition speech to Brent Council Feb 7 2022
Good morning Councillor Butt, Cabinet Members and Officers
My name is Margaret von Stoll. I’m a longstanding Kilburn Square resident, and founding member of the Kilburn Square Co-op.
I’m here to present a 900-signature petition against the scale of the council’s proposals for infill development at Kilburn Square, and to voice our disillusionment with the pre-consultation process to date.
Despite repeated requests for more meaningful engagement, we have just been informed that the Council intends to submit its Approach A to Planning – an option which fails to address our concerns about our existing green space, and about overcrowding on the estate.
We feel let down by the undemocratic decision-making, and an inadequate and unprofessional engagement process. I would like you to listen to our concerns. You'll see they impact on Health, Environment, Community Engagement, Scrutiny and other portfolios as well as Housing.
Last year we were relieved when Source Partnership was selected as our independent Advisor We were led to believe that they would be allowed to work as a neutral channel between the Council and residents throughout the process
Their resident survey on the original scheme concluded;
“There is very little demonstrable support for the Council’s proposals, or trust in the consultation process”
That powerful statement was omitted from the published summary; and our request to send the full report to every household was refused. And since the re-set decision, Source has been largely sidelined. This is simply not acceptable!
Councillor Southwood:
You have acknowledged our community’s concerns, stating that you now sought “a scheme that can work for everyone”. That Brent would:
· ensure the team would work “in collaboration with residents”
· and balance the housing targets with respect for the wellbeing of estate residents
We are here to say, Brent’s actions and latest decisions prove otherwise.
Our ‘design workshops” have proved to be one-way Drop-Ins, residents being instructed to choose from limited design proposals, without being allowed to state on record that none of the proposals address our concerns. We’ve been told “these are your options, your vote will be wasted if you don’t choose one”.
This engagement process is tokenistic, and gives only the illusion of collaboration with affected residents. You have held community-led co-design efforts elsewhere – why not on Kilburn Square? To tell us the scale and shape are fixed, and then offer us further engagement is disingenuous and totally unfair.
Brent is proud to have one of the largest social housing programmes in London. We believe you should be creating homes and places we can all be happy to live in - not just more housing. The London Plan stresses that the optimal capacity of a site is not the same as the maximum capacity.
We do accept the need for SOME additional housing. But Amenity Space at Kilburn Square is already much lower than Brent’s own policy norms require; and the scale of your current proposals would make this much worse.
Whilst increasing the number of homes at Kilburn Square by 60% may make economic sense, and achieve targets, there will be significant detrimental impact to our health and wellbeing through the overcrowding, loss of health and community facilities and loss of mature trees and open green space.
Brent’s Climate strategy seeks to increase green space - not remove it. New research shows we are the area most deprived of green space in the whole Borough. Your Approach A proposal will remove our green lung – which helps mitigate flood risk and the appalling air quality from Kilburn High Road.
Finally, let me point out that our petition is also addressed to the Chair of the Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee – for good reason. Brent’s Housing Director assured the Committee in January that “they would not want to force homes on anyone, so where they had built had been with the support and encouragement of local residents and ward councillors”. We urge the Council to honour that philosophy in relation to Kilburn Square; and, even at this late stage, to genuinely engage with residents to create a more sustainable solution.
Responding Cllr Southwood thanked Margaret for her 'helpful and detailed overview of the journey so far' but said the com mitment had always been to blance balance the provision of genuinely affordable homes with the benefits to the original residents of the estate. She recogniseed concern over the height of the proposed tower, the density of the proposals and the value that residents put on the green space.
Architects had come up with proposals to meet, in variable ways, the residents' concerns which result in proposals A and E. She said that she would agree to disagree with the residents over their criticism of the level of engagement. The tower height had been reduced and the issue of density could be picked up during the planning process.
Southwood said that over-crowded families, currently in homeless accommodation without a voice, would be given priority in the additional housing. The Plan A proposal was now entering the formal phase and would include work around the green space including making better use of it.
Cllr Butt in a notably more aggressive contribution said that he made no apologies for building homes and addressing the needs of children for the stability that would give them a secure future. Concerns would be taken into account but decisions had to be made that would not suit everyone - 'I will make no apology for that'.
Margaret von Stoll was muted on zoom when she tried to come back on those remarks.
A further comment is expected from KVRA later this week.
Sonia Francis (no relation) presented the Tokyngton residents' 320 signature petition about littering, flytipping and street drinking to the Brent Cabinet this morning LINK that was publicised on Wembley Matters last month.
After publication, and before today's Cabinet, a site meeting was arranged in the area, attended by Cllr Butt (Brent Council leader and ward councillor), Cllr Krupa Sheth (lead member for Environment), Chris Whyte (Operation Director Envirnment), the Council Enforcement Manager and three Neighbourhood Enforcement Officers as well as local residents.
Quite a turnout!
Responding to the petition presentation Cllr Sheth said she agreed that there was a definitely a problem in the are aznd that the council would agree an Action Plan, hold regular meetings with residents and set up a Whats App grouo for residents to report concerns. In terms of the detailed request she said that action was limited by budget constraints but she would work with enforcement officers, council officers and Veolia to clean up the area.
Chris Whyte added that it was good to hear directly from residents and the council could not deny that there were problems in the area. Cllr Butt said that a Fixed Penalty Notice was served on a street drinker during the site visit,
Brent Cabinet will consider an important update on the main new homes project areas on Monday. Affected residents need to check out details particularly over the type of tenure envisaged - does 'Affordable' mean Council rents, Social rent, London Affordable Rent, Shared Ownership etc? Arrangements for decanting during new build, the amount of green space taken up by in-fill, delivery times are all key:
7.0 New Council Homes Programme (NHCP) - Significant Scheme Updates
7.1 Grand Union (Northfields Site), Alperton. A total of 92 properties are
expected to be handed over at the Grand Union site in 2 phases of 46 units
each. After the properties were advertised, a successful viewing cycle for the
first 46 homes took place in December 2021 into January 2022. A number of
clients have viewed, accepted and have beenverified for sign up. Viewings are currently taking place for the remaining 46
properties in phase 2 and sign-ups will take place once the properties have
been handed over by the developer.
7.2 Church End (99 homes £5m+). The Council is the freehold owner of the entire
Church End Car Park site and has two separate planning permissions to deliver
the following:
· Planning
permission (ref: 13/1098) was granted for 34 affordable homes, ground floor non-residential
use space, a new market square and the stopping up of Eric Road.
· Planning
permission (ref: 13/2213) was granted to develop this part of the Church End Car
Park site for 65 affordable homes, 7 car park spaces and 298sqm of retail use space.
7.3 The Council is currently evaluating contractor tenders to bring forward the
on-site delivery of the above planning permissions. As closing the current
Church End market is fundamental to achieving a start on site by March 2022,
the Council has adopted the following two-phase plan to relocate the market to
ensure that traders are not moved away from their core customer base and that local residents do not lose the
benefits of this service provision:
· Phase 1
(March 2022 – July 2022): The Church End market will be moved to one half of
the current car park site in order commence enabling works on the vacant half
of the site before the end of March 2022. The market will continue operate on a
twice a week basis (Wednesday and Saturday) whilst enabling works being are undertaken until
July 2022.
Please refer to Appendix 1 to view Phase 1 of the market relocation plan.
· Phase 2
(August 2022 – August 2025): After the Church Road public realm improvements
and bus diversion works are complete, the Church End market will move to Church
Road and will remain there until the Church End redevelopment works are complete
and the new market square can be used.
Please refer to Appendix 2 to view Phase 2 of the market relocation plan.
7.4 Officers have provisionally allowed a three-year programme period to
complete detailed design and construction of the Church End development. Once
contractor appointment is confirmed, then the Council will be in a more
informed position on the key dates and these will be communicated to the relevant stakeholders in the near future.
7.5 Windmill Court - The existing estate comprises of 138 - 1,2 & 3 bedroom
flats between the existing tower and the maisonettes as well as a community
centre, kids play area and two-storey car-park. Within the maisonettes, there
are nine leaseholders and nine tenants, all of whom are being consulted
regarding the proposals. Brent are negotiating with the leaseholders to purchase their properties while the tenants will be
decanted off-site and have a right to return to the new homes. Four tenants are
proving difficult to contact or refusing to engage with us therefore we will
need to proceed with the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) process ASAP whilst still trying to get a
negotiated agreement.
7.6 Officers are aiming for vacant possession by March 2022 with a view to
start on site by September 2022. Planning application has now been submitted,
which include proposals for the two-storey car park and 16 of the 18
Maisonettes will be demolished. Following this, two new 7-storey blocks will be
built offset on either side of the tower, which in total will equate to 60 new affordable housing homes giving a net uplift of 44 units.
The two remaining maisonettes will be reconfigured into new studio flats at the
base of the tower.
The community centre will be extended and remodelled in its existing location
as well as this there will be changes made such as a new children’s play area
& half basketball court, the introduction of outdoor adult exercise
equipment, upgrades to landscaping (new trees planted), pedestrian routes, site
security by way of gated entrances and perimeter fencing and ground level parking.
7.7 In terms of resident engagement, this has been done by way of online resident panel sessions (8 in total), onsite drop-in sessions, regular newsletters, letters, flyers, surveys and phone calls. There will also be an updated webpage on the Brent website with all the communications to date for residents to view. Now that the planning permission has been submitted more resident engagement will undertaken over the next few months.
7.8 Watling Gardens. The existing estate includes 2 x 12 storey towers that
will be retained plus 12 bedsit bungalows and a deck access block of 30 x 1
bedroom flats that will be demolished. Decanting and leasehold buybacks have
been underway for the last 12 months and are now finalising the last few
tenants, who are currently being moved out.
We therefore anticipate vacant possession by February 2022. All tenants who
have been decanted have a Right to Return to the new homes and a local lettings
policy is in place to enable those living in the retained blocks who are in
housing need, to have an opportunity to move to the new homes.
7.9 A planning application has been submitted for 125 new affordable rented
homes including a 45 flat extra care scheme with a range of communal activity
areas and 24 hour staffing plus eighty 1, 2 and 3 bed and general needs homes.
In addition to the new homes, the planning application provides for significant upgrading of the estate
landscaping and public realm with a new Multi-Use Games Area and playground.
The scheme is due to be considered at Planning Committee on the 23rd February
and is currently being prepared for tender to provide for a start on site in
June/ July 2022.
7.10 The building works are ready to go out to tender pending planning approval
with 3 contractors. We have already had initial contractor discussions in
December 2021.
7.11 Kilburn Square, The current site comprises nine buildings, seven that
accommodate residential use.
7.12 In the autumn of 2020, the Council started engaging with the residents
about a proposed infill development of Council homes. As a result of resident
feedback the designs are still evolving; with a focus on reducing height,
density and loss of open space whilst still providing a significant number of genuinely affordable council homes.
As a result, of the consultation, five options where put forward, the Council is currently considering all five options, following which officers will communicate the outcome to residents. The Council intends to meet the timetable set by the GLA grant funding with a start on site by September 2023.
7.13 Alperton Bus Garage site, Cabinet has approved the acquisition of 155
homes to be let at affordable rents. This former bus garage development will
deliver 461 homes altogether, 155 of which the Council will acquire. The
Council will enter into a 50 year leasing arrangement, which will see the homes
transfer to the Council for a peppercorn at the end of the Lease. The new homes are expected to be handed over during
the year 2024/25.
7.14 St Raphael’s Estate, The GLA’s change of approach to the funding of
replacement units using grant has placed a large number of regeneration schemes
in jeopardy across London and has meant a fundamental rethink into the approach
to the overall funding of these schemes. As a result of this change in grant
funding coupled with adjustments to the project cash flow model in order to reflect programme and market changes,
the redevelopment of St Raphael’s resulted in a project viability gap of
-£110.2m. This was considered unviable.
7.15 The Council’s commitment to the residents of St Raphael’s was for a
community led approach to the master planning of their estate, culminating in a
resident ballot through which residents would be able to demonstrate their
support for redevelopment, with infill development being the default option.
This route to ballot has always been predicated on having a redevelopment masterplan that was financially viable and therefore
able to be delivered.
7.16 In line with this commitment, and because the delivery of the
redevelopment masterplan was no longer considered financially viable, the infill
masterplan is now being progressed, with a community led approach being
followed as before. The infill masterplan consists of clusters of new homes in the north and south of the estate, facing the river
along the western edge of the existing homes, and some in underused pockets of
land within the estate. It currently has the potential to deliver 370 new
homes; 334 flats and 36 houses. The detail is likely to change as the design is
developed. Homes are forecast to be 100% affordable, owned and managed by the Council.
7.17 The design of the phase 1 site in the south of St Raphael’s started in
July 2021, with start on site currently forecast for winter 2022/23 and
completion winter 2025/26. The design team will, as before, take a co design
approach to the design of the buildings and public realm improvements.
7.18 In addition to the development of new affordable homes, there is the potential to deliver significant place making improvements, which arguably, whilst not as transformational as full redevelopment, have the ability to improve the lived experience for St Raphael’s residents. We have called this ‘infill plus’. Early priorities for delivery in 2021/22 ahead of the delivery of the Phase 1 site, are focused on the issues identified through recent consultation with residents. They centre on improvements to the care and maintenance of the estate and target green spaces, waste management and parking as well as providing a temporary building for use by the community and project team. We have already improved the public realm and dealt with primary issues of residents’ concerns such as; abandoned vehicles, grounds maintenance, basket ball court and the Wates compound. More significant improvements to the public realm, estate connections and community facilities will be delivered alongside the delivery of the new homes over the coming five years, in collaboration with the community.
Consideration of wider Council objectives for health, culture, education, climate emergency etc. will also be brought to bear in these discussions.
7.19 South Kilburn Regeneration, Unity place has now completed and progressing
well towards full occupation. This scheme will have delivered 235 Council homes
as well as an event space, car parking and open spaces. The Neville and
Winterley’s scheme is currently in the final stage of the procurement process
for a delivery partner. The affordable housing delivered on this site, as well as future developments, is
to remain in the ownership of the Council.
7.20 South Kilburn has a number of sites that have been submitted to Planning
for a decision in the coming months, this will then lead onto new tender
processes expected to go live this year. Officers continue to explore
opportunities in South Kilburn to deliver an increased number of Council homes
while still ensuring a sensible balance between different housing tenures and place making priorities, as required in the
Master Plan. The option of having one delivery partner for the remainder of the
masterplan is also being reviewed. Officers are currently working towards
promoting opportunities to decant a number of the blocks more quickly. This has
arisen due to the desire to avoid long-term maintenance works, which will create unnecessary expense, both for the Council
and Leaseholders. This can be achieved by a variety of means including
identifying more decant opportunities for residents and accelerating the
building programme.
Residents on the north Brent borders with Harrow will not be surprised that another dispute has broken out with Harrow School wanting to close a footpath used by the public on grounds of anti-social behaviour. This is the latest enclosure move by the private school.
A discussion is underway on the website Next Door LINK. This is a quote from the initial post:
To summarise: there is a path going through one of Harrow School's many fields, just off the West St in Harrow. It leads through a road between two of the John Lyon's buildings and then comes up towards the Byron Hill Road. This path is taken every day, pretty much exclusively by the students of the local Roxeth Primary School and their parents. Not once did I see any of the children or their parents damage property or behave in a disruptive manner.
After speaking to some local people, it turns out this path had been in use by the public for over 25 years. It's the shortest way up the hill, and in a borough where most of the green spaces seem to be fenced off by the Harrow School, it's a pleasant walk, much more so than walking around on some of the extremely narrow paths up the hill. However, Harrow School informed me that it's private property and in a couple weeks they will be installing a coded gate between the cricket field and the road passing through John Lyon's so that parents like me will no longer be able to walk through.
Considering Harrow School (and John Lyon) both enjoy the financial benefits of being registered charities, it seems obscene to block people's right of way in such a manner, for reasons which on inspection appear both flimsy and petty.
Gareth Thomas MP has got involved and has organised a zoom meeting for Tuesday at noon LINK
Speaking on behalf of Harrow Green Party, Emma Wallace said:
It is concerning to hear of Harrow Schools latest plans to block a footpath that has been in use by the public for decades. There appears to be little to no evidence of anti-social behaviour along this path, with pupils & parents of Roxeth Primary School using it on a daily basis to get to and from school. The path provides them with the shortest route up the hill and ensures children don't have to walk along the extremely narrow footpaths and roads that can be found going up the hill. This seems to be more about the school blocking a historic right of way for the local community use, rather than about safety concerns for their students.
This situation is not without precedent - in 2017, footpath campaigners won a 14 year victory against Harrow school who had been trying to divert two historic, public rights of way that cross its playing fields LINK.
In 2020, Harrow School appealed and won against Sadiq Khan's refusal of planning permission for a large sports hall to be built on Metropolitan Open Land. The Mayor had cited in 2018 that the proposed sports building was an "inappropriate development within Metropolitan Open Land and causes substantial harm to the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land by reason of its excessive footprint and its location." LINK
And in 2021, John Lyon failed in its latest bid to remove planning restrictions to expand the school LINK.
Harrow School must respect the rights of public access on the Hill, ensuring that the local community can continue to enjoy this historic part of Harrow, rather than just a small, privileged elite.
A clear route out of the problem for a footpath that has been used for more than 20 years is available to campaigners on the Open Spaces Society website HERE
Martin Redston in high vis jacket protesting over redevelopment of Willesden Green library
I am sad to hear via social media of the death of Martin Redston, a Brent man of many interests, totally involved in our community. A model 'active citizen' who was terrier like in his campaigns for justice and afraid of no-one. My condolences to family and friends.
Martin in Neasden Shopping Precinct with the Christmas lights he funded in the background
I bumped into him on several occasions recently and he told me about his illness and the poor outlook. Nevertheless he kept going and was at the last Brent Connects meeting where, ironically, he backed my request made via the chat, that the meeting pay tribute to another veteran local local campaigner, Dilwyn Chambers. Now it is my turn to pay tribute to Martin.
Martin as actor
I am sure others will write about his involvement with Brent Arts, the Mad Hatters Theatre Club and other organisations but it is through the Keep Willesden Green campaign and later, his pursuit of Dominic Cummings that I best knew him.
Martin had his own civil engineering company, Redston Associates LINK
Martin was co-chair of Keep Willesden Green LINK, a campaign set up to fight the redevelopment of Willesden Green Library and the subsequent loss of the much-loved Willesden Bookshop, other amenities in the building, the open space in front and the Victorian library. We also opposed the sale of public space behind the library for a private development of flats.
In order to save the public space Martin launched a campaign to get it protected through designation as a Town Square.
That campaign, along with the effort to save the bookshop, was lost but the Victorian library was retained.
Martin's co-chair of Keep Willesden Green, Alex Colas said:
Martin's tenacious campaign to register the area in front of the Willesden Green Library as a town square failed. But his David-like fight against the Goliath developers and their Council allies galvanised residents in saving our Library turret as a local landmark. It stands as a fitting tribute to Martin's efforts on behalf of the local community.
Brent Arts said
Martin Redston, 1949-2022 , was long time chair of Brent Arts, a local charity.Martin was a tireless campaigner for local causes such as saving the Old Library and the Queensbury Public House, both in Willesden where he lived.He was a participant in art events including art shows held inside St.Catherine's Church, Neasden, community drama with Madhatters Theatre Club and the Kingsbury Operatic Society (KAOS).
On top of this he found time to sit on numerous local committees including the successful Neasden Festivals Group.Any messages of sympathy to his wife Sheila and family can be sent to stablesinexile@gmail.com
His most recent high profile campaign was over Dominic Cummings breach of Covid regulations where he launched a crowdfunder to raise £30,000 for a jusicial reviw of the failure of the DPP to investigate Cummings' actions. On his crowdfunder page he wrote:
My name is Martin Redston and I am bringing judicial review proceedings against the Director of Public Prosecutions for his failure to properly consider the actions of Dominic Cummings, the chief advisor to the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, in relation to a potential breach of Regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020/350.I, like many other citizens, have fully complied with the Government’s lockdown requirements at all times. Despite the police and the public having been made aware of Mr. Cummings’ potential breaches of the rules since 22nd May 2020, there has been no investigation into those potential breaches in London.Why does this matter?The rule of law should apply for all persons, irrespective of any friendships in government. The public health measures which were put in place to protect us must be applied to everyone, including in particular those who helped to make the rules. A number of individuals in public office who have flouted those strict rules have resigned. That provided some accountability for breach of the law by those who are central to the public health message and the need to encourage full compliance. In respect of Mr. Cummings, however, representatives of the Government have taken to social media in support of him. The Attorney-General has tweeted in support of Mr. Cummings’ actions. This raises a real concern over the state’s obligation properly and fairly to investigate the case of Mr Cummings where a law officer has prejudged it by issuing a peremptory statement that sought to exculpate Mr Cummings, without due process of the law.
Martin lived long enough to see echoes of that case in 10 Downing Street.
Martin was passionate abour righting injustices and not afraid to take risks in launching legal proceedings. Many of his campaigns have been reported on Wembley Matters. Here are a few links:
Speech at Muhammed Butt's first meeting as Council Leader regarding Willesden Green Library (May 2012)
Reasons for Rejecting Willesden Green Library Plans (June 2012)
Public Inquiry into registration of Willesden Green public space as Town Square (December 2012)
Martin's comments on Public Inquiry report (February 2013)
Martin's comment on rejected of Town Square registration (March 2013)
Concern over the cutting down of apparently healthy trees by Brent Council (July 2014)
Martin launches campaign for judicial review of DPP's failure regarding Dominic Cummings (June 2020)
Guardian report on Martin's campaign (June 2020)
After refusal of case Martin says 'This isn't over yet' (November 2020)
Martin persists and ask for permisison to Appeal ther case (November 2020)
'We can't give up now' (January 2021)
The most recent intervention I can find is about the Neasden Gyratory system just 5 months ago on Brent's Have Your Say site !
I have just caught up with the Planning Committee Meeting that considered and approved plans for a 3G all-weather pitch at Queens Park Community School (QPCS).
It was a controversial application where both sides, Brondesbury Park Residents Association (BPRA) and QPCS, brought in some big gun experts to advise on their case, which must have been at considerable financial costs. It was a very lengthy meeting with public representations made on both sides and Cllr Gbajumo speaking on behalf of the 3 ward councillors in support of the school's application.
BPRA had submitted a petition of c300 signatures opposing the application. They pointed out that most objections were from nearby homes whilst supporters were mainly well outside the area. They expressed the view that the views of those that lived nearby should be given more weight but were told that this was not within planning guidance. They noted that only 20% of the 1200 pupils had written in support of the application.
The speaker on behalf of the BPRA claimed that they had been lied to by the school throughout their dealings and questioned their integrity. He asked if the appplication was for the benefit of the school and the local community or mainly for commercial reasons. Out of school hours use would be for 67% of the time. The headteacher had said the school was cash rich but to make it commercially viable they would have to have the commercial usage applied for.
Cllr Kelcher asked about the potential benefits of the pitch. The BPRA speaker replied that at first they did not want the pitch at all but wanted to negotiate but could not do so because the lines of communication were severed. They felt that other pitches were available in the area and these were more appropriate as not near people's homes. The fact that the pitch would be open until 9pm. Monday to Friday, 6 or 7pm at the weekends, would be harmful to the community and its way of life. BPRA suggested a weekday cut-off of 6pm for both school and community use. Questioned by a councillor he said that if the finish time was 6pm he would probably write a letter of support for the application himself, probably with conditions such as a more enviromentally suitable pitch surface.
There was some discussion about alternative sites with some dispute about how long it would take pupils and residents to walk to Capital City Academy.
Another local resident addressing the committe said, 'We would like to keep our evenings. Our children's bedrooms will overlook the pitch.' She said that her 5 and 6 year old went to bed at 7.30pm. The school had acknowledged there would be increased noise. She did not have an objection to children, it was adults yelling from the pitch that concerned her.
A local resident, who said he was a member of the BPRA but had not attended any of their meetings because as far as he knew none had been called, spoke in favour of the application. He lived 250 metres way from the site and loved to hear people playing. He said there was a shortage of pitches in Brent and Kilburn based on his personal knowledge as a football player. QPCS and Brent had a proud record of providing top players. He had played on the current grass pitch. It was water-logged in the winter and rock-hard in the summer. He spoke of the importance of sport and exercise for people's well-being and physical health.
The headteacher of QPCS, speaking for the application, said that an all-weather 3G pitch was needed to enable her pupils to access the full physical education curriculum. At present pupils were unable to choose to do A Level PE because the necessary facilities were not available. Pupils from poor housing where there was not safe access to outdoors, needed the proposal facility that they could use after school. Brent Council was contributing £95,000 Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levey monies to the pitch deveopment. It would promote health and wellbeing and contribute to pandemic recovery. The school would balance community and commercial interests. 14 community organisations were supporting the provision including Brent Sports, QPR Hub and Brent Centre for Young People. The latter used football to help teenagers express their emotions in life-changing work. She concluded on the public good of the application, 'We all want a better society where young people are no longer at the mercy of local gangs or crime.'
Questioned by councillors the headteacher said Claremont and Capital City had received no complaints about their pitches, despite them having been opposed. Capital was open until 10pm. Both had been fully booked.
Responding to a question about the need for commercial revenue from after hours lettings she said that the overall capital cost would be £300,000 with £95,000 of that provided by the council. The school would be committing £200,000 of its reserves that trustees/governors would seek to recoup from commercial lettings over the next 3-5 years. This would replenish their reserves for other earmarked uses including school boilers.
The QPCS headteacher outlined to the committee the context of children travelling outside their postcode. Children's safety could be a deal-breaker with parents relecutant to let their children travel outside the area. There was a significant risk for young males from gangs, there were muggings and females risked sexual assault. This meant that provision at school, at the end of the school day was safer and would reassure parents.
There was a limited discussion about environmental concerns regarding the 3G surface of rubber crumb. BPRA had wanted a more envirommentally friendly surface The head said that staff had been concerned about this and were satisfied that the material would have a minimal impact on the environment.
Cllr Erica Gbajumo, speaking on behalf of all three Brondesbury Park Labour councillors said that they supported the proposal. Later opening was necessary because of people's working hours. She invited the committee to agree that some of the BPRA's claims were 'over-the-top'.
Cllr Kelcher, suggested that the councillors were taking a risk, ahead of the May local elections, in supporting the application despite residents opposition. Cllr Gbajumo responded that there were residents in favour but in any case it was not about the election but doing the right thing.
After further discussion the committee agreed suggested amendments to the conditions and voted unanimously in favour of the application.
From Brent Council website:
Granted planning permission subject to the conditions (as amended below) and informatives set out in the report and supplementary agenda:
Condition 7 – Community User Agreement to include clarification on the definition of Community Use, the availability of the facility for community use and the cost
Condition 9 – Tree report/planting schedule to be amended to allow flexibility in the location of new trees, to allow additional planting between the pitch and Aylestone Avenue and to provide for an increase in the number of new trees to be planted.
Officers' Report to Committee LINK
Statement on behalf of Brondesbury Park Residents Association LINK
A video of the Planning Committee discussion on this item (c90 minutes) can be see HERE
