Common threads emerging as Council tenants rebel over Brent's infill plans

 Newland Court, Wembley Park

Brent Council's project to use space on existing council estates to build new council homes is running into trouble from current tenants.  In a nutshell the council's commendable commitment to house people on the waiting list in council accommodation puts puts the backs up of existing residents  who feel patronised and treated with carelessness, if not disdain.  

Early on the building of 4 bungalows on existing car park and garage spaces encountered opposaition but is now nearing completion.  The saga of Kilburn Square has been frequently covered on Wembley Matters and more recently Rokesby Close, Watling Gardens, Clement Close and Newland Court have all provoked opposition.

There are several themes emerging across the borough. Claims include:

1. Consultation letters not delivered

2. Poor information, wrong information and lack of detail on the consultation letters

3. Consultation web portals that are difficult to access

4. Questions phrased  in  such a way as to provide the answers the council wnts

5. Insufficient time to respond to the consultation

6.  Loss of open space that was previously designed into estates by enlightened architects and planners that became essential during lockdown and loss of mature trees,

7. Estates picked out to cram in much needed affordable housing while the council encourages the building of unaffordable housing, often sold abroad, in other parts of the borough. 

8. The proposals are being made despite the council's lack of response to long-term issues on some of the estates.

Some residents feel that estates are being picked off one by one and suggest that those affected should get together to campaign on these themes.

 

This letter sent to Cllr Promise Knight and Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) covers some of the issues and more:

OBJECTION LETTER AGAINST A NEW DEVELOPMENT AT INITIAL STAGE OF CONSULTATION IN NEWLAND COURT WEMBLEY HA9 9LZ 

 

I am a tenant living in Newland Court for the last 22 years. I OBJECT to this planned development going ahead at Newland Court in its entirety. I am aware that currently we are at the initial consultation stage of the planning. I am also aware that there will be a further consultation in September 2022. 

 

It is important that I express how this new development will affect residents. 

 

Whether we are tenants in Newland Court as well as adjacent Grendon Garden feel about these new development plans. Several residents feel insignificant at both locations because they did who not receive the Newsletter with the Feedback form when it was supposedly hand delivered to all. 

 

After making a call to Brent Council last week, I found out that the Newsletter was delivered to every household sometime around mid-June 2022. I can confirm I did not receive it. I found out about this after speaking with a neighbour in early July 2022 only to find out that we have to respond by the end of the day of the 12th July 2022. 

 

I was aware of some plans regarding improvements to the Newland Court area has been on the agenda for about by Brent Council for the past three years. However, I as well as other residents knew nothing about this plan until a few weeks ago. We have a very short time to consider the development plan with vague and misleading information provided on the Newsletter. The majority of residents do not see this plan as an improvement like me. It is important to take into account that all residents want a pleasant space. Brent Council could be prioritising the development needs for the existing residents. We will collectively resist any new development that would prejudice safety and the livelihood of our local community. 

 

I recently supported my neighbour Marc with getting a petition signed with residents who oppose this development plan and we asked residents in Newland Court if they got the Newsletter. We went door to door and spoke with many residents. We asked them if they were aware of the development plans and most people did not read it, or did not receive it. I think it is unreasonable to expect to get a realistic input or feedback from the majority of residents and for all of us to consider the information carefully. It is important for all of us that you should provide a more realistic plan. The full extent of the development including all the dimensions and how this will affect our day-to-day lives. We believe that this development will have a direct negative impact on all the community both short term and long term at Newland Court and Grendon Gardens. 

 

It would have been more appropriate if the development plan information had not been casually sent in a Newsletter; when there was a deadline for feedback of the 12th July 12.00 midnight 2022. It is only reasonable to expect this information to have been received via recorded delivery by each resident and leaseholder at Newland Court. Ideally, a reasonable amount of time such as 30 working days to be fair. This would give us more time to raise concerns individually. We should have been provided with links to easy to understand and access drawing; maybe both to scale and a 3D Plan to give clarity. 

 

At Newland Court, we had the impression that the garages were going to be knocked down to make more car parking spaces for the residents. For many years we have been aware of that, all the Garages have Asbestos on the roofs. It is more important to address the problem with Asbestos as well as the drainage in the grounds around and between the Garages. The drains haven’t been cleaned for many years and there are issues already with flooding. However, it makes perfect sense for Brent Council to demolish the existing Garages and make more parking spaces for the existing residents instead of building these 7 town houses planned. 

 

EXISTING MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLOOKED & IMPACT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOCAL RESIDENTS 

 

Brent Council has done nothing about tackling the ongoing problems with Fly tipping, lighting in communal areas, not enough refuse bins both general and recycling, no proper security gates at the entrance, no marked parking bays, no disabled parking bays; just to name a few safety concerns raised with Brent Council over at least the last 5 years. 

 

The gate for emergency access at one end, towards the end of by 55-60 Newland Court, which has been broken for at least 10 years, it has never been repaired or fixed. The padlock on the gate has been stolen or removed many times in the last few years; Whenever it has been reported to Brent Council, they still take up to 3 weeks to replace a lost or stolen padlock every time . This is supposed to be an emergency access but because it is adjacent to Forty Avenue, many drivers normally using the busy Forty Avenue have been using it as a short cut speeding down the road without a care in the world. This is dangerous especially as many families with young children live here and they play in the little greenspace by this road after school, weekends and in school holidays. This space is close to the road and we need Brent Council to consider the safety concerns we have as existing residents’; not ignore the safety concerns we have raised many times and then decide to erect 7 houses directly on top of us. 

 

This development plan will damage the character of our street. It will psychologically affect all the residents, local community as a whole and it is not in the public interest to proceed. In accordance with the new plan, Disabled and Older Person’s walking access will be restricted as well as Wheelchair user access to name just a few concerns. 

 

We have had significant problems with the Refuse bins are overfilled. There are no cameras to deter fly tipping and it is happening on a regular weekly basis. There are no consequences for fly-tippers and this has been going on for years. There are Refuse bins for general waste as well as Recycling but they are not enough for the 60 flats at Newland Court. At present, they are located between garages, some under the flats on the greenspace, and some in the designated area .The new plan shows only one designated space for the placing of the existing bins; which residents in that Block deem to be unacceptable. This simply is unrealistic and inconvenient, as the bins will not be able to fit in that small space .It looks like we will have lines of large bins right outside the blocks to ensure there are enough bins. We strongly believe this will be impractical, very unpleasant, and dangerous for children to have to play in the small green space left. Local Infrastructure, as well as the green space will be practically gone; especially if you erect a concrete jungle, looking play area for the children. This consideration in the development plan to entertain the new kids on the block; or do Brent Council think its compensation for taking the greenspace. The reason I bring this to your attention is because it t has never been a consideration in the past for us residents with kids in Newland Court. 

 

Brent Council has not considered the current issues with parking at all. There are no allocated spaces for the disabled residents or wheelchair users and not enough spaces for the current residents. The new plans show that there will be 11 parking spaces only .I am sure they will be pay and display too. How can this be a consideration for Brent council? when we currently have maybe 30 parking spaces and these are not enough for the residents now. Some Garages are in use for some residents to park their cars; this development plan will be detrimental to those needing access for emergency services, those residents who drive and park here as well as resident motorcyclists, where will they go? Where will delivery drivers park? Where and how will the Refuse Collection vehicles get through to the Refuse Bins when you are narrowing the current road plan? We have no dimensions to view in the space between the proposed development plan and the current layout. Many parking spaces will disappear along with Garages. Are there any safety considerations that Brent Council have identified for drivers? All drivers should be able to see any potential hazard in time to slow down or stop before reaching it. 

 

We have a reoccurring issue with parents picking up their children from the Ark Academy and they use our parking spaces, park their cars blocking the emergency exit. I have reported this to WING many times over the years and they do not do anything. This issue is between Mondays to Fridays. At weekends, residents cannot park at Newland Court because if it is not an event day parking is free. So it is FREE for anyone to park here and leave their car for whole day or all weekend .There are no consequences for them only the inconvenience for residents. What can we expect from the new plans that would not make this problem a lot worse? 

 

OUR VOICES MATTER 

 

Instead of addressing the problems, we currently have and listening to us, you are going ignore us and plan to try erect 7 houses to make it worse. How many of the 7 houses will be affordable homes? If you want to reach your target to build affordable homes then stop selling all the land to developers and use the land, you own only for affordable homes that would be fair. Brent Council have already sold enough land in Wembley to private developers. Wembley Park is a concrete jungle of new developments. Why it is that existing residents at Newland Court and Grendon Gardens have to pay the price for your greed? 

 

We have no idea about the dimensions of the planned new development. It will block light for us and for Grendon Gardens. We have come to know that the roots of the large trees will damage the new development because you will need to dig the foundation for the new development. You will have to cut the Trees down the middle at the back of Grendon Gardens because so many are leaning over to Newland Court. 

 

You destroyed the beautiful Tree on the Corner at Masons Court so why  are you providing us with misleading information .We know that you will be removing the Tree at the entrance of Newland Court on the Corner of Corringham Road. You will most likely destroy the smaller existing trees in our greenspace too. How does existing destroying existing Trees and then planting new trees feel justified to you. The new trees cannot replace the charisma of the existing trees by a long shot. 

 

The impact of the construction work alone will cause mayhem on the green area and the road. There is no indication of how long this construction will take and I know residents have a lot a great deal of concern about the disruption, noise, increased safety risk as well as the inconvenience of delivery vehicles and trades people increase. Disabled and Elder residents will not be able to walk freely or use most of the parking spaces as they will be taken up by the construction for a significant period of time most likely a few years.. This will be very disturbance to the residents and the local community; as access roads and footpaths will be restricted and narrowed during works. They will not wide enough for residents who use a wheelchair , mobility scooter or a pushchair .The lack of outdoor space will have an impact on wellbeing and mental health of the local residents. 

 

There will be a significant Loss of privacy for all the residents affected. This has not been a consideration in this new development plan by Brent Council. I strongly believe the planning of the new 7. houses proposed at Newland Court with the windows that will not be able to open will cause problems of natural lighting in the new houses and a deficit in our natural lighting because these houses will block the natural light. 

 

WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS IN THE PLANS FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT I would like to draw your attention to the following

5.1 Privacy and amenity Development should ensure a good level of privacy inside buildings and within private outdoor space. Directly facing habitable room windows will normally require a minimum separation distance of 18m, except where the existing character of the area varies from this. A distance of 9m should be kept between gardens and habitable rooms or balconies. Reduced distances between new frontages may be acceptable subject to consideration of overlooking and privacy as well as high quality design and solutions, which can sometimes mitigate impacts and allow for efficient use of land. For sites within an existing street scene, the distance between front elevations should normally be determined by the character of road widths or setbacks from roads in the area. Windows may be designed to direct views in certain ways and to avoid overlooking in other directions.

https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16411795/brent-design-guide-spd1-nov-2018.pdf

 

We all believe that it is only fair that Brent Council provide us with all the answers to the points myself and other residents at Newland Court and Grendon Gardens have raised. Also provide us with an accurate scale plan with transparency on the dimensions in reference to the above for us to consider further. 

 

Yours faithfully. 

 

TONYA NIAZI

 

Rokesby Place  https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/05/brent-councils-infill-housing-plans.html

 

Gauntlett Court  https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/07/letter-lack-of-information-on-brent.html

 

Clement Close  https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/07/clement-close-residents-set-out-reasons.html

 

Newland Court https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/07/newland-court-residents-objection-to.html

 

Watling Gardens https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/06/watling-gardens-rushed-and-incorrect.html

 

Kilburn Square https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/02/kilburn-square-residents-present-900.html

 

Potential Compulsory Purchase Orders  https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/07/cabinet-to-approve-last-resort.html

 

Brent's "secret" Council Housing Projects: https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/08/brents-secret-council-housing-projects.html

 

Ditto - the Council's Response: https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/09/brents-secret-housing-projects-councils.html

 

Gauntlett Court, and Airspace explained: https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/10/brents-secret-council-housing-projects.html

 

New councillor Ryan Hack spearheads drive for a Brent without foodbanks - 'hunger is a result of political choices'

 

 

Brent Foodbank

 

Earlier this year in March I was one of many crowded into Cardinal Newman College in Harlesden for a Right to Food summit bringing together politicians, experts, the people who run food banks and especially the public  to discuss ways of tackling food poverty in the borough.There was recognition of the tremendous work done by volunteers during Covid to make sure no-one went hungry and food was delivered in safe conditions.

 

The launch at the Granville Community Kitchen and Garden

 

The campaign goes back even earlier to July 2021 when it was launched at the Granville in South Kilburn, Alex Colás, acting co-convenor of the Brent Right to Food campaign, said them :

Food poverty is the result of structural injustices connected to health, housing, employment and wider social inequalities. It needs systemic solutions that empower communities with public resources, including land, retail space and procurement directed toward a more just and sustainable local food system.

Beyond the immediate demands of Covid,at the summit, he food banks in particular were keen that the need for them should not be normalised and that the deeper reasons for food poverty should be tackled. The 'sticking plaster' approach was near breaking point and anyway, not the answer.

The summit wa organised by Alex  Colás and a young Labour Party member Ryan Hack. Ryan was elected a councillor in  May and at Full Council this week lost no time in gaining  Liberal Democrat[s leader Anton Georgiou support for a Food Justice Strategy for Brent just a year after the launch. An excellent example of cross-party working.:

 

A Food Justice Strategy for Brent

Full Council notes that:

We are seeing a national food poverty emergency borne out of political choices and systemic failings from successive governments since austerity began in 2010. Recent Food Foundation data has recorded 7.3 million adults and 2.6 million children in UK households going without food or physically unable to get food in the past month

a) Food poverty should never be seen as inevitable: from 1997 to 2010 poverty reduced significantly (1), can be tackled.
b) The UK is in the midst of an economic recession, compounded by a cost-of-living crisis as energy bills soar, and the end of the £20 uplift to benefit payments. Food aid organisations are already far busier than before the pandemic, and they are braced for a steep rise in demand in the months ahead.
c) The result is an increasingly institutionalised food aid infrastructure, effectively now part of the welfare system. This system is subsidised by the public to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds in Brent alone. Food aid organisations
act as a critical safety net for anyone unable to make ends meet – including those receiving all the benefits they are entitled to and many who are in work and still experiencing crisis.
d) The long-delayed Government Food Strategy was lauded as the plan to help address this growing crisis. It was supposed to lay out a vision for how we create, enhance, and protect sustainable food supplies. However, even the government’s own lead advisor Henry Dimbleby, whose review of Britain’s food system formed the basis for the document, said the White Paper did not amount to a strategy and could mean even more children going hungry.
e) The pandemic disproportionately impacted Black and racially minoritized communities in Brent. It underscored the injustice of food poverty for thousands of residents across the borough who were dependent on food banks and other forms of charitable food aid (including food parcels and vouchers from the council) for their day-to-day survival. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, there is a mushrooming of newly established food banks, and other forms of food support for vulnerable people provided by mutual aid groups, businesses and faith groups many of which still remain active.
f) Brent Labour stood on a local election manifesto to develop a ‘Right to Food’ pledge to confront spiralling food poverty by bringing together existing food aid organisations, growers, and other stakeholders to address rampant inequalities in accessing affordable, culturally appropriate, nutritious food in Brent.
g) A Brent Right to Food Summit was held in March 2022 at Cardinal Newman Catholic College with the participation of multiple Borough stakeholders, including Sufra NW London, Granville Community Kitchen, Brent Growers and Brent CVS. The Summit clearly reflected widespread concern over the urgency
of tackling the ongoing food emergency, both nationally and locally in Brent.

Full Council also notes the work that is already being done to address food insecurity across Bent, including:

a) The appointment of Brent Council’s Food Justice Cabinet Champion.
b) The commitment in Brent Council’s recent Health and Wellbeing Strategy to ‘work with partners on a food strategy’ for our Borough.
c) The identification in the Health and Wellbeing Strategy of potentially positive food-related initiatives, ranging from healthier catering commitment to rolling out Incredible Edible schemes; diabetes prevention programmes, and guaranteeing a fair job for a fair wage across the food sector.
d) The publication in July 2020 of the Brent Poverty Commission’s Report which included sections on food poverty, recommending that the Council ‘supports the future sustainability of food aid agencies in the borough including by further developing community garden schemes’.
e) The continuing efforts by local mutual aid groups, the Brent Food Aid Network, Growing Brent, among countless others to mitigate food insecurity across our Borough.
f) The celebration in March 2022 of a Brent Food Summit aimed at identifying the various solutions and coordinating effective responses to the food injustices in the Borough.

 

Full Council therefore resolves to:

a) Declare Brent a Right to Food Borough, joining other local authorities across the country calling for the Right to Food to be enshrined into national law.
b) Request the inclusion within a Cabinet Member portfolio of responsibility for co- developing a Brent Food Justice Strategy with representatives of local food security stakeholders, aimed at addressing the structural causes of food poverty and inequality in Brent.
c) Strive toward a Brent without food banks, where food aid is drastically reduced to an emergency response to crises through ‘cash first’ solutions such as the scaling up of welfare advice services across the borough, as well as improved
access to welfare assistance grants, school meals and supermarket vouchers for anyone in need. We want an end to normalising emergency food aid as a routine form of addressing food insecurity.
d) Support existing food aid providers through the allocation of land and suitable premises to establish or improve access to urban agriculture, community food gardens, social supermarkets and community kitchens among other initiatives; and ensure market space is available – especially in or near areas of deprivation
– to distribute nutritious, affordable and culturally-appropriate food to local residents
e) Work towards a ‘Right to Food’ dimension when formulating policy so that food becomes part of the Council’s decision-making equation.

Councillor Ryan Hack
Brondesbury Park Ward

 

 In his speech to Full Council, Cllr Hack said:

 

Last July, I launched the Brent Right to Food Campaign with a group of local activists who are mobilising against a food poverty crisis in Brent and the rest of the country, where children and nurses are using food banks in our borough.

This is a food poverty crisis which is entrenched in Tory austerity and predates the pandemic, which saw over 16,500 emergency food parcels be prepared by the Brent Food Bank for people seeking help last year.  

Tonight with that same sense of optimism of bringing change to end child poverty in Brent, my party has pledged to work toward a Brent without food banks, and to call for the Right to Food to be enshrined into national law. 

We will champion  a food justice strategy that supports the development of community gardens, social supermarkets and community kitchens for local residents. 

Hunger is a result of political choices made by the Government, and I will never stop fighting for a society where every child has access to year-round universal school meals. It is in our hands to redress this unacceptable situation. With the powerful mandate handed to the Labour Party at the recent local elections, the first step in this long process will hopefully begin tonight when Brent declares itself a Right to Food Borough.

Affordable Housing – what is the truth about different rent levels?

Guest post by Philip Grant, in a personal capacity

 

Extract from a Brent Council press release in June 2022, after Cabinet had decided to change 24 of the 125 homes on its Watling Gardens development from London Affordable Rent to Shared Ownership.

 

Martin’s blog about the 9 June Call-in Scrutiny meeting, about the award of a contract for the Council’s Morland Gardens development, mentioned a claim made by Brent’s Strategic Director (Regeneration and Environment), Alan Lunt, that London Affordable Rents were only £10 a week more than Social Rents. 

 

I was at that meeting, and was incredulous when I heard him say that. It also attracted some attention on social media. Now that the minutes of that meeting are on the agenda for the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting next Tuesday, 19 July, I have taken the opportunity to challenge that claim. 

 

This is the full text of an open email I sent to Councillor Rita Conneely, the Chair of that committee (with copy to Alan Lunt, and all members of the committee), on the afternoon of 14 July:-

 

Dear Councillor Conneely,

 

                                       This is an Open Email

 

This email will not be as long as my email to you on 12 July, on matters arising from the minutes of the 9 March meeting. 

 

It does, however, raise the same point that I made: it is important for proper scrutiny that Lead Members and Senior Officers should be honest when dealing with matters being considered by Brent's Scrutiny Committees, and should not try to mislead you in what they write in reports or say at committee meetings. 

 

The minutes of the Call-in meeting on 9 June include the record of an answer given by the Strategic Director (Regeneration and Environment) to a question from a member of your committee:

 

'In response to a question from Councillor Ahmadi Moghaddam referencing affordable rents, it was noted that these rents were only £10 more a week than social rents.'

 

That is a correct record of what Alan Lunt said about the difference between London Affordable Rent and Social Rent levels. However, there was incredulity among a number of members of the public watching the meeting (and by some councillors) over that answer.

 

I can show why many felt that your committee were being misled by that answer, by using an extract from the Affordable Housing Statement, submitted one year ago as part of Brent Council's planning application for the Watling Gardens redevelopment (21/2473), which gives a comparison between Social Rent and London Affordable Rent levels for that scheme:

 

 

You will note that both SR and LAR rent levels had been provided for this document 'by the Applicant' (Brent Council), and that the London Affordable Rents are around £50 a week more than Social Rents.

 

I am copying this email to Alan Lunt, as well as to the members of your Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee. 

  

I would strongly suggest that Mr Lunt is requested to address your committee, under item 4 of your agenda next Tuesday, as a matter arising from the minutes of the Call-in Meeting on 9 June, either to correct the answer that he gave about the difference between London Affordable Rent and Social Rent levels, or to provide the evidence that LAR 'rents were only £10 more a week than social rents', if he still maintains that to be the case.

 

On a final point, I welcome the note at the end of these minutes of 'a commitment from the Committee to want to see genuinely affordable homes for residents going forward.' 

 

As mentioned in my earlier email, Social Rents and London Affordable Rents are the only genuinely affordable rents. Lead Members and Council Officers should not be allowed to pass off Shared Ownership or any tenure other than SR of LAR as "affordable homes". Thank you.

 

Best wishes,

  

Philip Grant.

 

Clement Close residents set out the reasons they oppose Brent Council's in-fill proposal

 

 Cllr Promise Knight sets out the Council's case for in-fill

 

View of the estate currently

 

In-fill highlighted

Residents of the Clement Close estate in Brondesbury Park have set up this petition opposing the Council's development proposals put forward as as part of their estate in-fill programme. 

The consultation is due to close tomorrow, July 13th, 2022.

 

Re: New Council Homes Programme – Clement Close, Brondesbury Park (NW6 7AL)

 

Dear Cllr Promise Knight,

On Friday 24 June 2022, leaflets were distributed across Clement Close and neighbouring properties to inform residents of the proposed redevelopment of Clement Close. 

Although we understand the need for more affordable housing and agree with Brent’s Council aspiration to make the most of its under-used land and property assets, we argue that Clement Close is NOT under-used, nor is it suitable for the outlined development, and we strongly oppose this proposal. 

After careful review of your proposal, we the residents of Clement Close have put together the following summary of our concerns. The proposed development would result in:

1.    Substantial loss of privacy for many residents of Clement Close and neighbouring properties: The windows of the new buildings would be overlooking the windows and/or gardens of existing properties.

2.   Substantial overshadowing of adjoining buildings: The importance of natural light on physical and mental health has been well-established. Cramming 22 new family homes in “gaps” would have a severe impact on the wellbeing of all Clement Close residents.

3.   Loss of trees: Clement Close boasts many beautiful mature trees, which would need to be removed if the proposal goes ahead. The role of trees in a city cannot be underestimated. Not only do they absorb excess CO2 and slow down the rate of global warming, but they release oxygen, reduce wind speeds, cool the air, prevent flooding and boost wildlife. Removing these trees from the estate while increasing human occupancy by 25% would go against Brent Climate & Ecological Emergency Strategy and Brent Corporate Environmental Policy Statement, which specifically state Brent’s commitment to “enhancing the ecological value of land for which the Council is responsible”, and “integrating environmental and sustainability considerations into all decision making considered to have significant environmental implications”.

4.   Adequacy of parking/loading/turning and concerns around access for emergency vehicles: With the proposal to narrow the road to a single lane to make space for a row of new houses on the eastern side of Clement Close, parking, turning and road access would be severely impacted. Access to the far end of the site by wide vehicles, such as emergency vehicles or refuse collection trucks would be seriously compromised. The Cabinet for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security is probably aware that #1 Clement Close is a recently redeveloped, council-owned facility for adults with special needs, and that ambulances have been called to the site regularly. In addition, refuse collection trucks are already struggling with access.

5.    Increased road traffic: The increased vehicle traffic resulting from 25% more occupancy of Clement Close would result in increased congestion, noise, air pollution, directly contradicting Brent Healthy Neighbourhood scheme. It would also pose a threat to the numerous children, elderly and disabled currently living in Clement Close.

6.   Substantial impact on visual amenity resulting from the layout and density of building: the addition of new buildings, combined with the loss of green spaces, would turn Clement Close into a concrete jungle. The overcrowding would also result in higher levels of noises and disturbances, which would be detrimental to the wellbeing of all residents – current and new. This would again go against Brent’s commitment to “improving the quality of life”, as highlighted in Brent Corporate Environmental Policy Statement.

7.    Loss of existing services: the current plans appear to threaten existing amenities relied upon by many residents including: ground-floor storage cupboards for upper-floor flats, bicycle storage (some of which has only just been installed), recycling facilities. There is no clear plan for where these existing services would be rebuilt/moved to on the current plans. Most importantly for our youngest residents the plans seem to involve building over the existing climbing frame/slide and a bench which form a central part of community life for Clement Close children.

We also condemn the way Brent Council delivered this information to Clement Close residents:

• The leaflets were unenveloped and not specifically addressed to the residents who will be severely impacted by the proposal. They were delivered by hand, through the letterbox, like advertising leaflets and flyers.
• The leaflet looks innocuous enough to be ignored. The front page gives a high-level description of Brent’s programme and makes no mention of Clement Close.
• The summary of proposed development, starting with “Landscape improvement for all residents”, is deceptive.
• The leaflet does not clearly describe where the newbuilds will be located. It only makes mention of one bungalow to be demolished (#54 Clement Close). The only way of understanding the proposal is by carefully examining a map with no caption.
• The residents of #54 Clement Close were unaware of the proposal to have their home demolished and heard about it from their neighbours. It is completely unacceptable for the family whose lives would be turned upside-down by eviction and demolition of their family home to have not been properly consulted and reassured of their security.
• The time frame of under 3 weeks until the closing of the consultation phase is inadequate for the magnitude of the changes proposed.
• The feedback form provided with the leaflet is not specific to Clement Close.
• The QR code and URL provided on the leaflet link to Brent’s Community Engagement Hub, and not to the consultation page. It is not straightforward to find the consultation page from the hub.
• The questionnaire is inappropriately structured and includes leading questions such as “do you agree with …?”, which could influence respondents’ views and comments on the proposal. Such bias goes against the standards of ethical conduct and reporting of survey research.
• There is no confirmation email or acknowledgement that the completed consultation form was received by Brent after submission.

We, the residents of Clement Close and neighbouring properties, are hereby firmly opposing the current development proposal.

 

LINK TO THE PETITION

LINK TO BRENT COUNCIL'S CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSALS

Brent launches consultation on recycling and street cleaning as Veolia contract comes to an end - details

From Brent Council website

We want to hear your views on changes we want to make to recycling and street cleaning in the borough.

The contract we have to pick up your waste and recycling and to keep streets clean is coming to an end next spring. We have invited companies to bid for the new contract.

We want to take this opportunity to make some changes to the service you have received for the past few years. There are a few reasons for this:

1. The government is likely to change the way it asks us to provide recycling services over the next few years, to align with changes to national policy contained in the Environment Act 2021.

2. We are working together with local people to make Brent a carbon neutral borough by 2030. We know lots of you want to do your bit to live more sustainably and through the Let’s Talk Climate conversation, you told us that we could help by making it easier to do the right thing and recycle – including making it easier for you to know what can and can’t be recycled.

3. The council’s budgets have been stretched by the pandemic, rising prices, a growing population and a reduction in the funding we get from the government. We need to save money and so have to think differently about how these services are delivered in the future.

Proposed changes to recycling include separating certain materials in to weekly collections. The adjustment to the recycling service will save the council money and evidence suggests that it will also improve recycling rates within the borough.  

Councillor Krupa Sheth, Brent's Cabinet Member for Environment, said: 

 

These changes will mean that the council can save money and keep running service the residents need the most. This is so important after drastic funding cuts from the government since 2010. We all know that times are hard at the moment and difficult decisions have to be made to improve services in the present day, whilst also having a lasting impact for future generations.

Evidence from other councils show an increase in recycling rates when using this collection method. This is just one way of us improving in our fight against climate change.

The council has committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030 and we are serious about making changes that will benefit the residents, the borough and the planet. 

I urge residents to share their views and help to shape how their recycling is collected.

This consultation asks for your views on the changes we are proposing, please complete the survey now.

Current process for collecting recycling

At the moment, you put all your cardboard, paper, plastic, tin cans and glass recycling into one bin and we collect it once a week.

Proposed changes

We’re proposing giving you a sack to separate out ‘fibre’ (mixed paper, cardboard, newspapers etc.) from ‘containers’ (e.g. plastic, tin cans, tubs).

We would collect the two sets of materials on alternate weeks. For example:

Week 1 - we collect your containers in your existing blue top bin.

Week 2 - we collect your fibre sack, and repeat.

You will therefore still have weekly recycling collections.

With this option, general waste would continue to be collected fortnightly and food waste weekly – remaining as they are now.

Other London boroughs have tried this and found that people recycle more – this is better for the planet and on balance would likely save the council money because it’s costly to dispose of general waste and we can sell recycling to providers.

We are also looking at introducing a new free bookable Small Items Collection Service to make it easier for you to recycle textiles, small electrical items, batteries, coffee pods and paint.

Changes to street cleansing

We are also looking at moving to an intelligence-led approach to street cleaning. This means that teams will be deployed where it is needed most, supported by rapid response teams who will be on call to clean areas when needed.

This will be a move away from the current approach that focuses on teams being deployed to different streets on a rota system, regardless of whether they need sweeping. 

There  are further details of proposed changes in a document on the consultation website site HERE