URGENT: Express your support for the ULEZ expansion this week

 

The Furness Primary school clean air art project is one of 4 school projects led by Mums for Lungs and Linett Kamala in Brent as a result of the first round of participatory budgeting, #YouDecide.

Guest post by Amandine Alexandre, in a personal capacity 

 

Last month, I visited Mitchell Brook Primary school in Stonebridge to give a talk about air pollution to the 600-odd pupils as part of a Mums for Lungs’ project.  

When I asked the children whether they knew anyone who suffered from asthma, I was faced with a sea of raised hands. Dozens of pupils wanted to tell me about themselves, their brother or their little cousin and how their health condition impacted their life.

 

Air pollution makes children sick

 

I shouldn’t have been surprised. In London, 1 in 10 children suffer from asthma. Besides, Mitchell Brook is located just a stone's throw away from IKEA on the North Circular road, one of the most polluted spots in the UK. 

 

Still, data do not tell the whole story. Even clean air campaigners like myself need to be reminded from time to time about the faces behind the statistics and the incredible suffering, worry and grief caused by toxic levels of air pollution. This is a health emergency. 

 

Asthma in children can be mild but it can also be incapacitating and even lethal. In 2013, Londoner Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah died as a result of one too many very severe asthma attacks. She was only 9 year old and, like the pupils from Mitchell Brook Primary School, she lived near a very busy road - the South Circular. In December 2020, a second inquest on the death of Ella concluded that air pollution had played a role in her death. 

 

8 to 12 children die of asthma in London every year 

 

Sadly, the passing away of Ella is not an event as rare as we may want to think. According to her mum, Rosamund Kissi-Debrah,  a World Health Organization advocate for health and air quality, every year in London 8 to 12 children die as a result of asthma every year. Let’s not forget that asthma can also be fatal in adults.

 

This week, and for a few days only, we have an opportunity to take an important step towards protecting the most vulnerable among us in Brent. We can express our support for the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to almost the whole of London by August 29th 2023. 

 

Since October last year, the South of the borough has been covered by the ULEZ. It means that, in this part of Brent and the whole expanded area across London, drivers of the most polluting diesel and petrol vehicles are charged £12.50 to drive within the zone. 

 

The impact of this first ULEZ expansion has been positive. The level of nitrogen dioxide in the expanded area has dropped by 20%, according to a report published last week by the Mayor of London. It’s very good news as nitrogen dioxide is responsible for stunting children’s lungs, among other things. 

 

An opportunity to address an injustice 

 

Now is our chance to make sure that all children in Brent - whether they live in the South or the North of the borough or go to school near the North circular - benefit from the same protection from the most polluting vehicles. 

 

82% of vehicles driving outside the existing ULEZ zone are already compliant with the ULEZ standards but we need the number of cleaner vehicles to increase as soon as possible.

For the sake of clarity, the ULEZ expansion won’t be enough to get us the clean air that we all deserve. However, it’s a step in the right direction and an opportunity that, as Brent residents, we must grab with both hands. 

 

Please support the ULEZ expansion by using this really easy tool created by the environmental charity We are possible. 

 

To find out more about the impact of air pollution on children and how we can reduce it, you can visit Mums for Lungs here.

 

 

Time to renew efforts to safeguard the future of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre

 

 The children in the 2013 Brent Council video above are teenagers now. Teenagers facing the prospect of a future wrecked by the impact of accelerating climate change. 

Since 2013 the environment has become a major political issue and Brent Council itself has declared a climate emergency. However just two years after the video was made, Harry Mackie retired and Brent decided it could no longer fund the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre. 

After campaigns, including on this blog, the charity Thames21 took it over and continued courses and tried to find other sources of revenue. However, despite full bookings the charity eventually decided it was not financially viable to continue and signalled their desire to end the arrangement.

Since then the Centre has limped on with Thames21 providing a skeleton service, while Brent Council sought a solution.  I was a little worried about the Centre's future when I saw surveyors on the site recently. The structural condition of the classrooms has deteriorated since 2013.

Unfortunately a report going to Wednesday's Welsh Harp Consultative Committee devotes only a few sentences to the Centre and appears to be a repeat of the previous report with no indication of real progress LINK :

Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre:

Discussions have continued between Brent Council and external partner organisations who have or may have an interest in creating a viable environmental education centre. Thames 21 have agreed to provide some services for another year while discussions continue for a longer-term solution for the future of the Centre

I hope that some of our newly elected councillors who have a good record on the environment will try and put some pressure on the council to renew its efforts.

The video speaks for itself and I can assure readers that the new generation is equally involved and excited by visits to the Centre.  I hear their excited chatter as they walk past my allotment on Birchen Grove and I sometimes stop to talk to groups of pupils as their teachers marshall them at the end of the sessions.

Let's secure its future once and for all.

LETTER: Loss of Neasden Lane North green space flies in the face of Brent Council's climate emergency commitment

 

The site adjacent to Neasden Lane (North)

The proposed development - Neasden Lane is not of course devoid of traffic

 

View from above

Dear Editor

 

On Monday at the Brent General Purposes Committee LINK I objected to and voted against a "Stopping Up" order for a piece of green land which has been a grass verge area near the Neasden Roundabout on the busy section of main road next to  2 Aylesbury Street and 7 West Way near the Quinton Street housing area which leads to Blackbird Hill.

 

While local residents were consulted about the planning application they were NOT consulted about the loss of green space. A planning permission for a block of nine flats on this piece of land had already been approved earlier as part of the Labour run Brent Council's drive for infill developments. I was concerned both about the air pollution impact of the residents that will move into this block right on top of this busy and congested section of the road and the environmental impact generally of losing these types of pieces of land as Labour councillors push for the building of more blocks on every available piece of land.

 

I was the only person raising concerns and the only councillor to vote against the loss of this small green space. All the Labour councillors present, the same councillors who declared a Climate Emergency in Brent recently, and who posture and pay lip services to environmental issues all voted in favour of this piece of green land to be sacrificed to more concrete. The green land will get a block of flats, service roads and car parking with just a tiny amenity space left. As so often happens the warning signs are ignored and the same Labour councillors making these decisions will shed crocodile tears when it will be too late.

 

Cllr Paul Lorber

 

Editor's note:

More on the proposal and local opposition from Wembley Matters September 2021

The Greens and Trade Unions - deputy leadership candidates questioned

 

 

For those depressed by the prospect of a summer of debate between the candidates for the Tory leadership, the contest between candidates for the Deputy Leadership of the Green Party may offer some  hope. 

The Green Party Trade Union Group has achieved increasing prominence within the Green Party through its activities in support of trade union struggle and its insistence that the transition to a low carbon economy can only be achieved through working with trade unions. 

Here the four candidates respond to some searching questions from members. 

The candidates are:

• Shahrar Ali
• Nick Humberstone
• Zack Polanski
• Tyrone Scott

 

Bear hunters spotted on Olympic Way and Chalkhill allotment

 

I could not resist posting these photographs of what is developing into an annual event from community group Daniel's Den. The pictures by professional photographer Amanda Rose capture the joy and fun of the event.  Michael Rosen, author of the picture book Going on a Bear Hunt was so impressed that he retweeted them.

Clement Close – how Council housing began here

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant.

 

Clement Close was the subject of a recent blog, about residents’ opposition to Brent’s proposed in-fill scheme for this Council housing estate. But how did this estate come to be here, surrounded by suburban homes in Brondesbury Park? The answer lies in another time of acute housing shortage.

 

 

Some prefab homes in Clement Way, 1950s. (Photo courtesy of Brent Archives)

 

Even though they were in the middle of a major conflict in 1942, some members of the Churchill’s National Government were thinking ahead to how they would rebuild the country after the war. Housing people whose homes had been destroyed would be a major problem. One solution they came up with was the idea of temporary factory-made houses, and by 1944 local Councils were instructed to consider how many they would need, and where to put them.

 

One of the sites identified in the Borough Engineer’s report to Willesden Council on 15 January 1945 was the playing fields at Okehampton Road, where he thought there would be space for 135 “prefabs”, as they came to be known. The Council ‘noted’ the objections received by residents adjoining the playing fields, to the erection of emergency housing there, at its meeting on 19 February 1945. Despite this, at the end of May 1945 the Council applied for a loan of £31k from the Ministry of Health, for a period of ten years, and accepted tenders from two local companies to prepare a number of sites, including the Okehampton Road playing fields.

 

News of German P-o-Ws clearing a site for prefabs near Roundwood Park.
(From “Willesden Chronicle”, 22 June 1945 – Brent Archives local newspaper microfilms)

 

Because of the shortage of workers, German prisoners of war were used as additional labourers for preparing the sites, and work was underway at Okehampton Road by mid-June 1945. They would have been brought to work by lorry, probably from a large P-o-W camp near Watford. The concrete bases for prefab homes were laid out along a new street, called Clement Road (possibly after the new Labour Prime Minister!), linking Okehampton Road and Milverton Road, and a shorter road called Clement Way which came off of it.

 

The Clement Road prefab estate, from a 1959 O.S. map. (Source: Brent Archives maps collection)

 

There were several varieties of prefabs, and Willesden Council had expressed a preference for the Arcon design. But they had to take what was available, and what the Ministry of Works supplied for Clement Road was a “flat-pack” bungalow, made of timber and chipboard, supplied by America under the wartime Lend Lease agreement. While they had “all mod cons”, they’d been designed as married quarters accommodation for large U.S. Forces bases in the south of that country, so were not ideal for the British climate.

 

An American wooden prefab at 70 Clement Road in the 1960s. (Photo courtesy of Irene Ottaway)

 

 Despite this, the prefabs on the Clement Road estate provided popular homes for around 130 local families, for far more than the ten years they were originally expected to last. As they were made of timber, it’s surprising that only two (as far as I know) were destroyed in house fires – but when a fire took, hold the effects could be devastating. These photos from Clement Road in the 1960s were taken by a schoolboy who lived there. What he did not know at the time was that a baby had died inside this burning prefab.

 

Firemen tackling a blaze at a Clement Road prefab in the 1960s. (Courtesy of, and © Brian Aris)

 

Families on the estate were gradually being rehoused into permanent Council homes, but as late as 1962, some were being relet to other families in housing need. Eventually, the prefabs at the northern end of the site were cleared, and the permanent Council homes of what was to be called Clement Close were built in the 1960s.

 

 

Mrs Maisey, in the back garden of her Clement Road prefab in the late 1960s,
with Clement Close homes in the background. (Courtesy of Irene Ottaway)

 

The Clement Road and Clement Way prefabs were finally removed by the early 1970s. Most of the Okehampton Road playing fields, which Willesden Council had requisitioned for post-war emergency housing in 1945, returned to their original use, but this time as additional grounds for the adjacent secondary school (now Queens Park Community College). The northern end, accessed from Milverton Road, was kept for Council housing, as Clement Close.

 

Philip Grant.

 

(With thanks to the former residents of the Clement Road prefab estate, who shared their stories and photographs with the Brent Archives “Prefabs Project” in 2011.)

 

Editor's Note:

If you are interested in the extent of the bombing locally during the London Blitz (7th October 1940 to 6th June 1941) that led to the destruction of many homes go to this interactive site. The information goes to street level.

Climate change means extreme storms will produce significant London flooding in the future, Independent Review concludes- even if all its recommendations are implemented

 The Stage 4 report of the Independent London Flood Review, commissioned by Thames Water, has now been published.

 

After reporting on its recommendations (see below) it is noteworthy that it concludes:

 

An important finding of the Review is that, even if all of our recommendations were taken up by the relevant organisations, we would still predict significant flooding when this type of extreme storm events occur, and due to climate change these events are predicted to become more frequent. As a result, the various organisations that have responsibility for managing flood risk will need to plan, work and invest together to reduce the impacts of flooding in the future.

 

As Kilburn was hit by the double whammy of surface water and sewer water lfooding, and there are other potential flood areas in the borough as posts on Wembley Matters have indicated, it is imperative that Brent Council Scrutiny investigates the issue further in the light of the Review's recommendations

 

Non-technical summary  (Full Report HERE)

1 Morland Gardens – Brent’s new contract, clever or unlawful?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

1 Morland Gardens, June 2022.

 

A month ago, I wrote about ‘yet another twist’ in the saga over Brent Council’s plans to redevelop 1 Morland Gardens, including the demolition of the heritage Victorian villa which had been carefully restored and extended in the 1990s to become the borough’s adult education centre.

 

They could not award the contract which had been the subject of a Key Decision on 20 May, because the time limit for awarding it had run out at the end of May. [It appears that Brent’s Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment, “forgot to mention” this important fact to the Scrutiny Committee considering the “call-in” of his Key Decision on 9 June.] Brent had to conduct a third procurement process to find a contractor to carry out the work. 

 

Cabinet approved the “third attempt” on 20 June, and late on the afternoon of 14 July another Key Decision was published, to award the contract for the Morland Gardens Development. The proposed award looked rather familiar. In May, it was to award the contract to Hill Partnerships Ltd for the sum of £37,933,491. Now the award would be to the same contractor for the sum of £37,933,561.

 

Extract from the tender evaluation grid for the 14 July 2022 Key Decision.

 

The evaluation grid above is part of the process required in assessing which tender received provides “Best Value” (a statutory duty) to the Council. The fact that only one tender had been invited for this “competition” concerned me, over whether the process used was legally valid, so I raised these concerns in an urgent email to Brent’s Legal Director on 15 July.

The Officer Key Decision Report said that the award of the contract was governed by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (“PCR 2015”), and that it had been procured in accordance with those regulations, but it did not explain how that was the case. It had been awarded under the Network Homes Contractor Framework (“NHCF”), which it claimed allowed a direct award. 

 

I wanted answers, and received this from Brent’s Legal Director on 18 July:

 

‘I would confirm that Regulation 33(8) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 permits inviting a single contractor from a framework to bid for a contract where appropriate and permitted by the framework.  Inviting a single contractor is permitted under the Network Homes Contractor Framework and the Council had permission from Network Homes to use its framework in this way for the Morland Gardens contract.’

Part of Regulation 33, Public Contracts Regulations 2015.

 

I had been researching PCR 2015 and the NHCF over the weekend. I was not satisfied that this clever move by Council Officers, to effectively shift a tender already received from one “framework” (which had expired) to a new procurement process under a different framework, would comply with the requirements of PCR 2015. I replied to Ms Norman, also on 18 July:

 

‘I presume you are referring to Regulation 33(8)(a). Even though this does cover inviting a single contractor within a framework to bid, that still leaves a responsibility on the Council, under Reg. 37(6)(c), to fulfil all of the other obligations under Part 2 of PCR 2015 in determining which of the 'economic operators, party to the framework agreement' should be invited to bid.

 

It seems that the procurement procedures used for the public contract which the Key Decision seeks to award has clearly been made with the intention of unduly favouring one economic operator, Hill Partnerships Limited. This would breach the principles set out in Reg. 18. If there was no consideration of the other Lot 3 (eight or nine) contractors, then the proposed award does not accord with PCR 2015, and should not go ahead.’

 

As well as PCR 2015, any “High Value” contract awarded by the Council has to satisfy Brent’s Contract Standing Orders (“CSOs”), which are part of the rules set out in the Council’s Constitution. CSO 88 includes a requirement that where approval for the award is obtained from the Cabinet, ‘the Cabinet shall receive and consider a report setting out all relevant information necessary to enable it to give such approval.’

 

In a guest post last March, I posed the question: are Cabinet Meetings a charade? That was because many of the decisions made have been discussed in private beforehand, with the official meetings which the public are allowed to watch just used as an opportunity to tell us what a wonderful job they are doing. For the Morland Gardens contract award approval, there was not enough time for it to be properly considered before the Cabinet Meeting on 20 June.

 

Brent’s Legal Director is also the Monitoring Officer responsible for ensuring that the CSOs are followed. This is what I wrote to Ms Norman on 18 July, about that possible irregularity in the contract award:

 

‘I also believe that there is a strong case for saying that the approval given by Cabinet on 20 June does not meet the requirements of Contract Standing Order 88(c). I am attaching an extract from the letter I was about to send you which sets out my reasons for that belief, for your consideration and response, please.’

 

I will ask Martin to include the document I sent to Brent’s Legal Director, about the Cabinet approval, at the end of this post. If you are interested enough to read it, you’ll find that it includes a transcript of the 59 seconds that it took Cllr. Butt to deal with this item at the 20 June meeting, without any contributions from Council Officers (who were given the chance to speak) or other Cabinet members (who were not).

 

In my view, the contract which Brent Council proposes to award this week does not meet the requirements of either PCR 2015 or Brent’s Contract Standing Orders, in which case it would be unlawful to award it. We will have to see whether they actually go ahead and award it. 

 

1 Morland Gardens and the community garden in front of it, June 2022.

 

To me, it would be a grave error, not just legally, but because it would be a big step towards the demolition of a valuable heritage building, and the destruction of the green space in front of it, which is important for both environmental and public health reasons.

 

Philip Grant.