Saturday, 26 March 2022

Fryent Country Park extra! – Horse racing at Bush Farm

I am grateful to Philip Grant for this latest investigation into our rich local history 


Two years ago, I wrote the first of a series of articles about the history of the area which is now Fryent Country Park. In six parts, this told its story from more than 1,000 years ago up to the present day, but there are always new things which can come to light.

 

As a result of a reader’s comment, the “Cold War” story of the bunker on Gotfords Hill was uncovered in an “extra” article. Now, an enquiry from William, who is researching the history of horse racing in Victorian times, has led to the discovery of another piece of Fryent Country Park’s story that we didn’t know before.

 

Bush Farm stables, at the entrance to the Country Park from Slough Lane.

 

Steeplechases organised by John Elmore of Uxendon Farm in mid-Victorian times were mentioned in Part 2 of The Preston Story. As early as April 1830, Elmore was involved in organising a private race match between the wealthy owners of two top horses, “Niagara” and “Wonder”, for a stake of £300 each. “Niagara”, with Captain Martin Becher (whose name now graces a famous Grand National fence at Aintree) in the saddle, won the four-mile contest for the horse’s owner, Mr Caldecott.

 

A Harrow Steeplechase from 1864 pictured in a sporting paper. (Courtesy of William Morgan)

 

The cross-country course from Brockley Hill to Elmore’s farm on the northern edge of Barn Hill became the scene of further high stakes steeplechases. Another course, around the fields of Uxendon and Forty Farms, also proved popular with spectators, although a water jump across the Wealdstone Brook proved fatal to several horses before the approach to it was improved. John Elmore continued as organiser of and host to racing at Uxendon until the early 1860s.

 

The original enquiry Wembley History Society received was about the racecourse at Hendon, run by William Perkins Warner, the landlord of the Old Welsh Harp. I wrote about him in Part 2 of the Welsh Harp Reservoir Story, and mentioned that he had organised big horse racing meetings as part of the attractions that brought thousands of visitors to his tavern. What I didn’t realise at the time was that his steeplechases, that went across the fields of Kingsbury, were not run from the Welsh Harp itself!

 

The Grandstand at Warner’s Welsh Harp racecourse. (From the late Geoffrey Hewlett’s collection)

 

Warner had taken on the lease of the tavern, and the fishery on its adjacent reservoir, in 1858. By February 1862, he was one of the promoters of a horse race meeting, with a course that began and ended in a field beside the inn. A report on this experimental meeting, in the “Bell’s Life” sporting newspaper, said that it was: ‘just sufficiently satisfactory to prove that something much better might, with judicious management, be brought to issue.’

 

A two-day race meeting in September 1862 drew large crowds to the Welsh Harp, and by 1864 this Hendon fixture was a regular feature of the racing calendar. “The Era” wrote in 1865: ‘the Meeting held on the ground in the rear of the Welsh Harp, Hendon, on Thursday and Friday, must be pronounced the very best ever seen under the auspices of Mr Warner, who has done all in his power to place the affair on a respectable and permanent footing.’ 

 

By this time, Warner had begun organising steeplechase races, over artificial fences, on his course beside the Welsh Harp, but these did not do as well. In December 1866, in conjunction with Edward Topham (the famous handicapper, who staged the Grand National at his Aintree course), leased land from Joseph Goodchild of Bush Farm, and put on the “Metropolitan Grand Steeplechases, Kingsbury (Edgware)”. 

 

A hedge between two fields on the Bush Farm land, with Harrow Hill in the distance.

 

The course they designed for the two-day meeting was described by the “Sporting Times” as one of the best around London. The oval-shaped course was a mile and a quarter long, and each lap included seven natural fences. These would have been existing hedges between the farm’s hay meadows, cut down to a manageable size for the horses to jump, along a course marked by wooden posts. But where exactly did this race course go? 

 

The site of Bush Farm still exists, and its fields were saved from housing development by Middlesex County Council, who bought the land from All Souls College in 1938, to create the Fryent Way Regional Open Space. Although the course never appeared on any published map, a series of sketches from a meeting in September 1875, published in “The Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News”, did supply some clues.

 

“Kingsbury Showers”, some sketches from a rather wet autumn race meeting in 1875.
(Courtesy of William Morgan)

 

Several of the sketches showing racegoers at this Kingsbury meeting include details of the landscape in the background. I decided to take some of these images with me, when I went for a walk on the Country Park on a bright January day, to see whether I could identify where the artist had been standing when he drew them. I believe that I had some success!

 

The approach to Bush Farm from Slough Lane, 1875 and 2022.

 

I’ve coloured in the landscape details on an extract from the sketches, to help with the comparison. I’m certain that racegoers approached the course up the driveway to the farm from Slough Lane. The present Stables building is in the same place as a farm building in the sketch, and may even still have part of the earlier structure within its construction.

 

Looking west across Bush Farm’s Home Field, 1875 and 2022.

 

I think that this second pair of “then and now” images are again viewed from about the same place. The shape of the distant hills against the skyline is very similar, as is the slope of the land. The course was described as having an uphill run-in to the finish of 300 yards, and you can just make out the “matchstick” figures of two horses and their riders approaching the final fence at the far side of the field. That would fit with the distance from the bottom corner of Home Field to where the grandstand appears in the 1875 sketch. 

 

The original steeplechase course was described as a pear-shaped oval, with the stand at its narrow end. As Bush Farm was leased from All Souls College, all of its fields will have been within Kingsbury Parish. Using all of this information, I have set out what I believe is a possible route for the mile and a quarter (ten furlongs) course, which does cross seven hedges.

 

Possible 1866 Kingsbury Vale steeplechase course (in brown), marked on an 1895 O.S. map.

 

Overnight rain between the two days of the original race meeting at Bush Farm in December 1866 ‘reduced the ground to the “slough of despond” ’. If you’ve taken a walk on Fryent Country Park in winter, you’ll understand the problems that wet clay, especially when churned up by galloping horses, would have caused. A low-lying field, like “Honey Slough” (on the left as you come down Fryent Way from Kingsbury Circle, after passing Valley Drive) did not get its name for no reason!

 

Future December meetings here were often troubled by wet ground or frost, and by competition from a Christmas meeting at Kempton Park (which still continues), but Spring and Autumn race meetings proved popular. This kept the Bush Farm course, known as “Kingsbury Vale”, in use for a dozen years. The course was lengthened to two miles, by going over the fields north of Barn Hill as far as Uxendon Farm. Part of its appeal was the open hay meadows and natural hedges, and racing papers such as “Bell’s Life” referred to it as ‘the charming Kingsbury Vale.

 

Looking north-east across Meade and Warrens fields on ‘the charming Kingsbury Vale’ course.

 

Crowds of 10.000 were not uncommon at the course, despite the lanes leading to it being narrow and in poor condition. Part of the attraction was the number of runners, including some good quality horses, attracted by the prize money offered by Warner to the winners. You can see him (with the beard) in one of the 1875 sketches above, alongside the caption “Cup presented by the owner”. 

 

The drink which was freely available (also supplied by Warner, from his Welsh Harp tavern) and the opportunity for betting, on races that (as far as Warner could ensure) were not “fixed”, were also reasons why these race meetings were popular. But they were not popular with everyone! By 1873, letters from local residents were appearing in “The Times”, and other papers, complaining about the ‘ruffians’ and ‘thousands of the biggest scoundrels and blackguards’ which the race meetings attracted to Kingsbury.

 

Warner found himself before the Magistrates Court several times for allowing illegal cash betting to take place on the course. Prosecuted for this offence at the December 1877 meeting, he was fined £7-10s plus costs, despite providing evidence that he’d done his best to prevent it. The fine was relatively small, but a bigger blow came when the Edgware magistrates refused him a licence to sell refreshments (alcohol!) at his race meetings. 

 

The loss of income from drink sales meant there was now little profit for Warner from this horse racing venture. The final straw came when the December 1878 meeting had to be cancelled because of frost, and the Kingsbury Vale course was abandoned. It would have become illegal anyway, under the Racecourses Licencing Act of 1879, which banned unlicenced horse racing within 12 miles of Marble Arch.

 

I’m glad that dealing with the enquiry has helped to identify where the Kingsbury Vale race course was. It has also given me the chance to share its story with you. I am grateful to William Morgan for allowing me to use information from his forthcoming book, “Strongholds of Satan” (volume 1 – covering the lost Victorian race courses of the south-east and East Anglia), to help tell that story.

 

Young people enjoying a horse ride on Fryent Country Park. (Photos courtesy of the Bush Farm Collective).

 

Horse racing at Bush Farm ended more than 140 years ago, but there are still a few horses kept at the stables on its former site, which continue grace the fields of this part of Kingsbury. Now, they are not ridden to jump the blackthorn hedges, but to give enjoyment to youngsters (and some adults) for recreation, as part of the many attractions of Fryent Country Park.


Philip Grant.

 

 

 


Friday, 25 March 2022

Will the London Mayor's new London Plan guidance on Whole-Life Cycle Carbon Assessments and Circular Economy Statements help reduce carbon emissions?

 

The Mayor of London has issued new guidance which should help environmental campaigners in assessing Brent Council claims about the carbon impact of new developments and demolitions:

The Mayor of London has adopted two new pieces of London Plan Guidance (LPG), which set out the requirements for Whole Life-Cycle Carbon (WLC) Assessments and Circular Economy Statements. These apply to the largest developments in London that are referable to the Mayor, however, boroughs are encouraged to apply the policies for smaller developments. 

These support the Mayor’s priorities, such as a Green New Deal, and implementation of London Plan 2021 policies SI 2 Minimising greenhouse gas emissions and SI 7 Reducing waste and supporting the circular economy.

Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessments

The WLC guidance requires developments to show how they have calculated and minimised the carbon emissions that come from the materials, construction, and the use of a building over its entire life, including its eventual demolition and disposal. It gives a true picture of a building’s carbon impact and encourages the retention and reuse of existing structures and materials.

Circular Economy Statements

The CES guidance puts circular economy principles at the heart of designing new buildings, requiring buildings that can more easily be dismantled and adapted over their lifetime. It treats building materials as resources rather than waste, and puts in place a clear hierarchy, prioritising the retention of existing structures above demolition, where this is the more sustainable and appropriate approach. 

 

·       Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessments guidance https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/london-plan-guidance/whole-life-cycle-carbon-assessments-guidance

·       Circular Economy Statements guidance https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/london-plan-guidance-and-spgs/circular-economy-statement-guidance-consultation-draft

EXCLUSIVE: Brent Council suspends Veolia's management of confidential waste after data breach


Wembley Matters contacted Brent Council after a Coulsdon resident emailed:

 I'm a big fan of your blog Wembley Matters. I thought you might be interested in the below......


A Veolia lorry has driven through Brighton Road in Coulsdon (CR5 2BE), leaving confidential letters sown all over the street that look to be from Brent Council........

All sorts involved, letters containing full names addresses etc and some very confidential matters.

Many of these letters have ended up in people's gardens. Veolia and the council have been round picking them up since monday

Surely this is a serious breach of the DPO laws?? 

I didn't manage to get a picture unfortunately, but if you speak to some residents you might hear some interesting tales... you may also wish to ask the council about it?

Of course I did. 

I have established that Veolia transports Brent Council confidential waste to Croydon for shredding in purpose designed confidential information bags. This is also done by other nearby councils contracted to Veolia.

I understand that about 700 items were involved and Brent Council has been collecting them and informing those affected. Some of the items in the gutter were in a poor state and unreadable.

Brent Council told Wembley Matters that this collection and contacting of residents took time but only a small proportion of the 700 items were confidential.

 

A Brent Council spokesperson said:  

 

We sincerely apologise to the Brent residents affected by the data breach by our waste contractor Veolia. 

 

As soon as we were made aware of the error we took immediate steps, together with our contractor, to recover the information. Following several sweeps of the area where the loss took place, we have done everything possible to safely recover the information. We are notifying relevant parties, where appropriate, and the incident has been reported to the Information Commissioner.

 

We are working closely with Veolia and have suspended their management of the council’s confidential waste for the time being. A full investigation is now taking place into how this incident happened so lessons can be learned and more robust measures put in place to ensure this can never happen again.

 

A Veolia spokesperson said:

We would like to apologise to all residents who have been affected by this unacceptable incident and have taken immediate action to recover and secure any confidential waste.
 
We take this matter extremely seriously and are conducting an urgent investigation into the circumstances of this incident and will continue to work closely with Brent Council in order to limit any impact.

 

William Relton, Coordinator of Brent Green Party commented:


I understand that Veolia's contract with Brent is coming to an end soon. I urge Brent Council not to renew the contract and take all waste disposal and recycling, particularly items of a confidential matter, back in-house. Why any organisation would pay another commercial organisation to shred its confidential materials is quite beyond me.


Wembley Matters will report the result of any investigation by the Information Commissioner and any measures or fines imposed as a result of this breach.

LETTER: Cllr Mashari responds to SKPPRA letter

 

Dear Editor

 

As many people will know, I continue to suffer with long Covid after having been infected with Covid 19 twice in 2021. I became very ill at the end of last year and correspondence during my illness at this time may have been missed. It may have been more helpful (and kinder) if Mr Rushe had chosen to enquire about the status of his response with me upon my phased return to work rather than deciding on this course of action, which could run the risk of being perceived as a partisan move so close to the local elections. 

The allegations and tone of Mr Rushe’s letter attempt to undermine and erase the significant personal and professional investment I put in to listening to library campaigners and working with them to find a way for the libraries to stay open- efforts which could be verified by those involved with the campaigns at the time. I have always acted with integrity and heartfelt solidarity in my dealings with each of the community library campaigns in Brent. 

I stood against the then cabinet member with responsibility for libraries, Cllr James Powney, in an internal election precisely because I believed that the council needed to change its direction and take a more collaborative approach to working with communities impacted by the library closures. Upon my election as cabinet member I met with all library campaign groups face to face and worked tirelessly alongside them to secure the conditions for successful volunteer-led community libraries. I will not take credit for the fantastic and exhausting work so many inspiring community activists have undertaken to establish community libraries but I believe most of the library campaigns would agree that my taking over as cabinet member at the time changed the tone between campaigners and the council and that I played a not insignificant role in the journeys of the community libraries. I was also responsible for initiating the Councils’ first ever Community Asset Transfer strategy to ensure local residents could have much more democratic choice and ownership over the fate of public buildings.

I am sorry that Mr Rushe (who I understand does not represent the Preston Community Library group or speak on their behalf) is frustrated by the actions of the council but it is unreasonable to attempt to lay blame personally at my door for these frustrations. 

I am not able to comment on discussions between the cabinet and library campaigners since I resigned from the cabinet, and have not been privy to all communication and discussions between both parties. I am also not able to comment on what circumstances and events may or may not have legitimately changed or come to light since my own discussions with the Preston Library campaign all those years ago.

What I do know is that the Preston Community Library group will be moving into their brand new library premises in April 2023 and are currently in discussions with the Council on the layout and fittings of the building. Brent Council has also provided a temporary home to the community library free of charge at Ashley Gardens. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and personally thank the Preston Community Library Campaign for coming so far and for successfully securing a space for the community library in the face of savage local authority cuts from central government, which ultimately have been the root cause of library closures right across the UK.

I hope this assists in providing a more accurate record and context of my personal involvement with the library campaigns in Brent and I look forward to the new community library opening early next year. 

Cllr Roxanne Mashari

 

LETTER: Promises, Promises...

 Dear Editor,

 

It is local election time and existing and prospective councillors are on doorsteps or in hustings making promises. We recall our community’s experience of an election promise.

 

On the 7th May 2014 at a public meeting in St. Erconwald’s Church Hall, Councillor Roxanne Mashari then a member of Brent Council Cabinet and still a Councillor today said:

 

‘Therefore this Labour administration the Labour Party in Brent will offer the building at a peppercorn rent to a local community group who can provide a sustainable community library and that is our pledge’.

 

The ‘building’ was the Preston Library Building – the only publicly owned community space in our area. The matter was an election issue because the Labour administration closed the library in the face of widespread opposition.

 

Years of evasion followed while the Council looked for every possible excuse (school use need etc.) to renege on their promise.

 

Eventually Brent submitted a planning application for the redevelopment of the site and faced down persistent, reasoned, and evidenced opposition that the redevelopment was contrary to their promise, is contrary to the Local Plan, will increase the flood risk, and will result in climate abuse. Brent ignored these issues in years of ‘community consultation’ and twice granted planning consent for their own development. The matter then proceeded to the High Court for Judicial Review.

 

At the second Judicial Review – the first one quashed the planning consent – and faced with a High Court Judge finding for a second time that the development is contrary to the Local Plan – the Labour administration instructed its lawyers to invoke the Senior Courts Act – a law introduced by the Thatcher Government to limit the involvement of ordinary citizens in government decisions.

 

To the astonishment of many including their own supporters a Labour Council (who persistently say they are constrained by Tory Government cuts) used the tools of the Thatcher Government to impose its development on our community.

 

On 26 June 2020 in a video meeting – we asked the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive to honour Councillor Mashari’s Pledge. They did not deny the pledge or what it meant for the library, but the Chief Executive replied that an administration coming into office after an election could never be bound by the promises made by a candidate for council in an election campaign.

 

The pledge was referred to the Council’s Monitoring Officer who administers the Brent Members Code of Conduct. This describes the expected integrity, accountability, and honesty of members – qualities which most residents would see as relevant to a failure to keep a public promise.

 

In a decision published on 26 August 2021 the Monitoring Officer decided that too much time had passed since the pledge for it to be in the ‘public interest’ to investigate the matter. She added - as an individual Member of the Council and the Cabinet, Cllr Mashari had no power to make a binding commitment on behalf of the Council or Cabinet.

 

Residents should therefore heed the advice of the Monitoring Officer - candidates cannot make promises and don’t be patient when they mislead.

 

Despite Brent Council’s appalling treatment of our community, we believe in free speech and a right of reply. On the 15 October 2021 we asked Councillor Mashari to explain why she had not kept her promise because we intended to publish this review and wanted to give her a right to reply.

 

Within an hour Councillor Mashari replied that she would make a substantive response by next Tuesday. (19 October 2021).

 

On the 23 October 2021 she said she was ill but would address the points you have made here thoroughly. Please be assured that I will reply as soon as possible.

 

We never heard again from Councillor Mashari.

 

It seems for Brent councillors ‘next Tuesday’ just never comes. Next Tuesday’ never comes either for Brent Council’s ‘promise’ to tackle the climate emergency.

 

Brent Council demolished the library in December 2021.

 

Instead of giving the building to the community as Councillor Mashari promised, it was given to a demolition contractor to take to landfill to aid in the Council’s destruction of the planet.

 

Michael  Rushe,

Chair

South Kenton Preston Park Residents Association

 

Thursday, 24 March 2022

Brent Cycling Campaign calls for local election candidates to commit to 5 key pledges

 

 


The local branch of London Cycling Campaign, has launched its #ClimateSafeStreets campaign to get Brent’s next council leader to commit to bolder action on climate and zero carbon roads transport by 2030 – when the Mayor of London says the entire city needs to be carbon neutral. Brent Cycling Campaign is asking the candidates likely to be council leader, as well as other candidates, to commit to a set of borough-specific pledges including: 

  1. Protected space to cycle on major roads,

  2. Activate places by enabling inclusive active travel access to all places where we work, live, study, shop and play;

  3. Children-friendly neighbourhoods with more school streets and low traffic neighbourhoods;

  4. Double cycle parking provision for short and long stays;

  5. Create logistics hubs to limit Heavy Good Vehicles traversing through the borough.

In the run-up to the 5 May local elections we are asking residents to go to lcc.org.uk/climate to find out more about the borough campaign and send an email to candidates supporting it.

After putting in your postcode you will land on this page:

Brent Cycling Campaign said:

Tackling the climate crisis demands bold action and fast. In Brent, road transport emissions account for 49% of NOx and 22% of CO2. We need our next council leader to hear loudly and clearly that they need to do more to swap cars for walking, cycling and public transport whenever possible. We’re asking candidates to commit to our pledges before the local elections. We will be hosting a Hustings on 20th of April, organising a Climate Safe Streets Ride and sharing a short video to make the climate crisis, our polluted, congested roads and healthy, active alternatives to cars a big issue they can’t ignore.

New app turns any street ‘Climate Safe’ in minutes

The Brent Cycling Campaign will also be using exclusive London Cycling Campaign access to new visualisation tool BetaStreets throughout the local election period to showcase what streets in the borough could look like if made ‘Climate Safe’. LCC will also be shortly releasing a new video showing how Londoners are being enabled to ditch their cars and switch to cycling by new schemes being rolled out across London.

Those responding to LCC’s social media most frequently indicated the following as the worst streets in London:

  1. Lewisham Gateway, Lewisham

  2. Old Kent Road, Southwark

  3. Green Lanes, Haringey

  4.  A406, North Circular 

  5. Holloway Road, Islington

We are looking forward to re-imagining Brent streets with this tool, based on suggestions sent by Brent residents who have enough of polluted, congested and dangerous roads. 

For more information on Brent Cycling Campaign’s Climate Safe Streets campaign: lcc.org.uk/brent and a summary of our asks here.