Council of Europe calls on member states to recognise the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right

Strasbourg, 27.09.2022 – In a Recommendation on human rights and the protection of the environment adopted today, the Council of Europe calls on its 46 member states to actively consider recognising, at national level, the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as a human right.

Considering that measures to address the triple planetary crisis of climate change, loss of biodiversity and pollution are essential to the better enjoyment of human rights, the Committee of Ministers underlines the increased recognition of some form of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment in international legal instruments (including regional human rights instruments) and national constitutions, legislation and policies.

In the implementation of this Recommendation, member states should ensure respect for a number of principles, according to the Committee: general principles of international environmental law, such as the no harm principle, the principle of prevention, the principle of precaution and the polluter pays principle; the need for intergenerational equity; the no discrimination principle; access without discrimination to information and justice in environmental matters, participation in environmental decision-making and environmental education.

The Committee also expresses concern about the disproportionate effect environmental degradation may have and calls on member states to take adequate measures to protect the rights of those who are most vulnerable to, or at particular risk from, environmental harm.

In addition, the Recommendation stresses the importance for governments to co-operate with sub-national entities, civil society, national human rights institutions, regional institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights, environmental human rights defenders, economic stakeholders, indigenous peoples and local communities, cities and regions.

Finally, member states are encouraged to require business enterprises to act in compliance with their human rights responsibilities related to the environment.

 

Background

 
The United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 48/13 of 8 October 2021 recognised the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right.

The Council of Europe’s long-standing commitment to environmental protection has resulted in the adoption of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (“Bern Convention”), the Convention on Civil Liability for Damage resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment, the Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law and the Landscape Convention.

The Council of Europe’s Manual on Human Rights and the Environment contains principles emerging from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and decisions and conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights.

LETTER: I accuse Brent Council of systemic discrimination against current estate residents

 

Dear Editor,

‘Systemic discrimination can be described as patterns of behaviour, procedures, routines, policies or practices that are part of the structures of an organization (Brent Council) and contributes to less favourable outcomes for minority groups (Newland Court Residents). Behaviours may include dismissive or derogatory comments, gossip, ignoring others, judgemental attitudes, isolating others, laying blame, lack of respect, labelling, intimidation, name calling, bullying, and physical altercations.’

 

Newland Court

 

  Brent Council have shown nothing but Systemic discrimination towards the residents of Newland Court over their proposed ‘infill’ plans of building 7 TINY town houses by demolishing the garages at Newland Court. They have shown no empathy been dismissive and ignored our thoughts and feelings to go ahead with this ‘infill’ contributing to a less favourable outcome for the residents (especially the elderly and disabled) of Newland Court who they are treating like a nobodies or a minority group.

 

These new 7 TINY town houses are so tiny that the width of the first unit is around 3.3 metres. The other units are between 5.8 and 6.2 metres in width and are going to be 3 and 4 bed roomed houses. These tiny houses are going to have their own gated security and their own bin and cycle storage with a front and back fore-court all within each unit. And Brent wants to reduce our urban green space and build a new playground for these new residents after all these years of ignoring our children’s needs for a play area. Our children are now adults.

 

For years we have asked for:-

1)     New security gates installed at both entrances for the safety of residents, to stop drug pushers, drug users and to stop fly tipping.

2)   Proper security lighting and cameras installed for the safety of residents.

3)   Not reduced parking spaces but more made with at least 4 disabled parking bays.

4)   Bins situated away from the flats because of the stench. (The bins have never been jet cleaned or disinfected and more bins not less to service 60 flats.

5)    Drainage sorted out because water accumulates when it rains heavily at the entrance of Newland Court.

 

We all know that there is a chronic shortage of social housing and the truth is, there always will be because the councils let it happen. Brent Council’s favourite slogan as an excuse is always ‘there’s a chronic shortage of affordable housing’ yet Brent Council are building 250 "New Council Homes" on the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue in Wembley. They have had full planning permission for this scheme since February 2021, although it will probably be early 2023 before work begins (so much for the 'urgent need' for new homes that they talk about). 

 

And guess what? 152 of these new homes at Cecil Avenue, on land Brent Council already owns, will be for Brent's "developer partner" to sell privately, for profit. But under the proposals for Cecil Avenue, approved by Cabinet on 16 August, only 37 of the 250 homes will be for London Affordable Rent, and none will be for Social Rent (which the Brent Poverty Commission Report in 2020 said should be the Council’s priority for genuinely affordable homes). That is why Brent Council needs to squeeze 7 new TINY homes on the Newland Court estate, and other such Council "infill" schemes. 

 

Brent Council have known for years that the roofs of these garages that they want to replace with the 7 houses have asbestos but have deliberately let them run down and have done nothing about it. A few years ago an elderly disabled resident who still parks her car in one of these garages contracted lung cancer, believes she got it from the asbestos but can’t prove it. She only has one lung now. What measures are going to put in place to ensure the safe removal of the asbestos and the safety of the current residents? Probably none as the residents are just nobodies, a minority group to Brent Council. 

Asbestos roof

Three councillors, their architect and other team members met with residents living at Newland Court as part of the pre-planning stage of this development. This enabled residents to directly feed into the design of privacy, parking and trees. It was a waste of time and just a pen pushing procedure just to say that they had consulted with us. 

They said no trees would be removed during the site meeting. LIES!! In the final plans they are removing 13 trees from our view which were specifically positioned where they are many years ago to make a screen between Newland C0urt and the gardens of the residents of Grendon Gardens. They prevent overlooking between Newland Court and the residents gardens of Grendon Garden.

 

These trees which are a mix of sycamore, lime and ash were designed to make a pleasant landscape and form part of our URBAN GREENERY and are therapeutic to residents, especially those who can’t get out much as it helps their mental wellbeing and reduces depression and anxiety. They are homes to robins, magpies, parquets and even the occasional bats that have been sighted by keen residential bird watchers. Birds have their nests in these trees and the different chirping and tweeting sounds that they make will be greatly missed if these trees are removed.

 

Some of the landscaped trees to be removed

We spoke about the need to retain our parking spaces, being reduced from (around 40 down to 12) as we have at least 5 residents who are disabled badge holders, several cab and delivery drivers and other self-employed car users. They haven’t even factored any disabled parking bays in their new plans and to drive us into despair they intend to introduce pay and display all around the streets by Newland Court because of the impact of the overflow this will cause. Instead Brent Council are now trying to imply that parking along Newland Court is not designated for car parking (even though we’ve parked there for years) as there are no formal demarcated parking bays.

 

Loads of estates don't all have designated parking bays but have controlled parking with signage stating valid permit holders only just like Newland Court has. I have lived at Newland Court since 1988 and about 15 or so years ago Brent introduced parking restrictions and charged us £10 for permits and another £10 to have a visitors permit. Earlier this year we received letters from Wing Parking saying that we wouldn't be charged anymore for our permits. We still had to have them displayed or we would be ticketed. We all wondered why?? But guess what??? We were still all clueless about this proposal and now we know why.

 

They are actually reducing our residual waste bins from 14 to 6 and taking some of our urban green space to make way for the limited 12 car spaces they intend to leave us with and create a playground for the new residents. Not only is it unfair to have our residual waste reduced from 14 to 6 as the 14 we have is not enough for the current residents but we want them away from our urban green space so that the residents and visitors do not have to endure the stench every time we enter our flats. When emptied they stink and have never been jet washed or disinfected.

 

The 10 metre overlooking rule is actually around 8 metres at one point and around 9 metres at another even though Brent’s planning guidance recommends 18 metres for overlooking. Do you know how imposing and close the proximity of having buildings only 8-9 metres that close will feel like? So as you can see, there are lots of flaws in their plans apart from them ignoring a lot of their own Brent planning guidance. Brent Council DO NOT care about their residents’ interest. Brent Council have shown nothing but Systemic discrimination towards the current residents of Newland Court.

 

Marc Etukudo

Address supplied

 

Healthwatch Brent: Standing Together Against Cancer with Dame Cally Palmer, National Cancer Director, NHS England. Zoom Tuesday September 27th 6-7pm

 

Standing together against cancer

 

Most of us can share a personal story about cancer, whether from our own experience or that of a loved one. 50% of people in the UK will face cancer at some point in their life – and the vast majority will see it impact a family member or friend.

 

On 27 September Dame Cally Palmer, National Cancer Director for the NHS, will join us to talk about the importance of putting up a united front to make cancer easier to diagnose and treat. From raising awareness of vital health screenings to giving more patients access to the latest technology and treatment options, how can our communities, health professionals and politicians all come together to make a difference? 

 

Dame Palmer also brings first-hand experience as CEO of The Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and will share the reality facing our hospitals as they deal with backlog of patients caused by Covid.

Eventbrite link: https://lecture27september.eventbrite.co.uk

 

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84114005040?pwd=TFBzZ29Xa1A5b1l3MnlUQ3FJTSs5Zz09

 

Meeting ID: 841 1400 5040

Passcode: 132308

BREAKING: NATIONAL TRUST DON'T TRUST TRUSS

Released today:

Hilary McGrady, Director General of the National Trust, said:

The National Trust has a long history of standing up for nature and our countryside, from our founders' campaigns to protect the Lake District to Operation Neptune in the 1960s. We've shaped and advocated for greater protections for nature and heritage throughout our long history, safeguarding the landscapes that make this country so special. 

It is this spirit that I am writing today. We are at a crucial moment for our natural environment. Nature is in decline and we need bold action on climate change. These concerns are shared by the public: poll upon poll show that further ambition on Net Zero and nature are widely supported.

Rather than ramp up action to support our environment, this Government appears however to be heading in the opposite direction. Environmental protections are dismissed as 'burdens', whilst investment and growth are pitted against nature and climate action. 

The new Investment Zones represent a free-for-all for nature and heritage, yet we know that green spaces and beauty are vital to attract investment and for a good quality of life. Likewise a rumoured return to EU-style land subsidies will squander one of the biggest Brexit opportunities for nature, fatally undermining improvements to the nature, soil and water upon which sustainable food production depends

The Trust will always defend protections for nature and heritage, and we will respond in full to any proposals. The UK has led the way in recent years on environment action - from farm subsidy reform to COP26. It mustn't abandon this for our future's sakes.

All quiet at the Ealing Road Mandir earlier today

 

The Mandir and its compound

Earlier what appeared to be a briefing took place in a corner of the compound

Police at the entrance

I visited the Mandir in Ealing Road when social media had said a demonstration was due to take place. All was quiet and although there were many people in the compound at first, they dispersed when no demonstrators turned up. 

Police told me that they were there to reassure the temple worshippers. Some stayed near the entrance and others patrolled nearby parts of Ealing Road. 

Across the road a minister and some of the congregation from the church that is opposire the Mandir were keeping a sympathetic eye on events. A local stopped to ask me what was going on and he firmly rejected divisive religious politics, pointing to all the different places of worship for different religions on Ealing Road. He added that what was going on in India should not be imported into Wembley.

I left at 1pm and I hope that things remained peaceful.

Muhammed Butt calls for unity in the face of attempts to cause community conflict. Barry Gardiner urges community to leave intervention to the police. Police step up patrols of places of worship.

Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council,  took to social media this morning to call for unity in the face of rumours concerning possible demonstrations outside places of workship today. He said:

Brent Council is a great example of our communities living and working together for a future full of hope and ambition for all. There is no space for hatred or division in Brent. Those who conspire for hate and division you are not welcome. We will be United against your hatred.

Brent Council had earlier issued a video appeal from faith leaders  on Twitter - unfortunately the sound is poor. LINK

 

The rumours started about a possible demonstration outside the Mandir in Ealing Road, Wembley  which Valent Projects was unable to trace but cited attempts by  'foreign networks' aimed at causing sectarian strife.

 

 

Veteran councillor Tariq Dar also intervened on social media appealing to the Muslim community:

Barry Gardiner MP yesterday advised the community to leave matters to the police:

 

I’ve contacted the police about the incitement to demonstrate at a Hindu temple in my constituency tomorrow. Anyone thinking of demonstrating should stay away and recognise that hate crimes carry jail sentences. Hindus should not go to “defend” the mandir. That is the police job.

An intervention by Bob Blackman, Harrow East Conservative MP , in a letter to the new Home Secretary, Suella Barverman last week, appeared to be unhelpfully one-sided:

 

 

 Brent police yetserday said they were aware of the rumours and today stepped up patrols on Brent places of worship and tweeted a photograph of police at the Ealing Road Mandir.

Cllr Anton Georgiou, an Alperton councillor, was on the case early on and had written to his ward constituents:

I am very concerned about the events in Leicester that have been raised with me by several residents in Alperton and across the borough. It is disturbing to see tensions escalate in this way. No one should live in fear of the possibility of being attacked or harmed based on ethnicity or religious belief. 

 

On Thursday, at a meeting with senior Police officers, including the Borough Commander, Sara Leach this issue was raised. The Police are aware that from Monday many in our area will begin Navratri celebrations. The Police have been provided with details of events. This coming Wednesday there will be a meeting between the Police and members of the community which I hope will reassure all on the steps the Police will be taking to guarantee residents are safeguarded over this Festival period and as we also approach Diwali next month.

 

 I have already reported the possibility that a demonstration will take place tomorrow outside the Mandir on Ealing Road to the Police and Chief Executive of Brent Council. A resident had already sent me this information. When I hear back, I can update. 

 

Be assured, I will continue to do what I can to highlight this issue. If you receive any further messages or details of any demonstrations taking place in Brent please let me know in the first instance, as I will inform the Police immediately.

Rokesby Place – Brent tries to justify its planning malpractice

 Guest blog by Philip Grant, in a personal capacity.

 

Architect’s drawing of the two infill houses for the Rokesby Place car park.

 

I will try not to make this guest post too long, as I will ask Martin to attach two long letters at the end of it. But I hope that as many “Wembley Matters” readers as possible will take the trouble to read this, and the letters. This is a follow-up to my article earlier this month, which included my letter of complaint to Brent’s Chief Executive over alleged planning malpractice.

 

The letters are about the level of rent which the future tenants of two “affordable” New Council Homes on an infill scheme at Rokesby Place will have to pay. More importantly, though, they deal with the way in which Brent’s Planning Officers went against the rules meant to ensure that the Council’s own planning applications are dealt with impartially and transparently – and how they have tried to justify the actions they took.

 

Extract from the Rokesby Place planning application, 22/1400.

 

The planning application for Brent’s Rokesby Place “infill” housing scheme was made in April 2022, and was quite clear that the two houses would be for Social Rent. But when the Officer Report was prepared on the application, for the Planning Committee meeting in August, no mention was made of Social Rent, and the “affordable housing” condition in the draft consent letter said that the homes must ‘be delivered as London Affordable Rent units’. 

 

There was nothing in the published documents to show how or why Social Rent had been changed to the more expensive London Affordable Rent (“LAR”). I had to issue an FoI request to uncover that information. This led to the first part of my 5 September complaint, that there was no reason for, and no justification for, any change from Social Rent to LAR, and Planning Officers had been wrong to change it.

 

I received the reply to my complaint letter from Carolyn Downs on 16 September, but I believe it was probably drafted for her by the top officer(s) in Brent’s Planning Department. This was the reason given for why they recommended LAR, rather than the Social Rent level shown by the application they were asking Planning Committee to approve:

 

Extract from the letter of 16 September from Brent’s Chief Executive.

 

I have set out my response to that in my letter of 22 September below. Briefly, Planning Officers should not be changing what an application says just because they think it should be different, to do so for one of Brent’s own applications (although why, when it’s a Council application, was the Project Manager ‘the applicant’?) was not being impartial, and no ‘clarification’ was needed, because the application was clearly for Social Rent!

 

The action which Planning Officers took raises serious concerns for other Council housing schemes, especially a number of forthcoming “infill” schemes (Newland Court, Kilburn Square, Clement Close, to name just a few): 

 

·      Will they treat other applications for Social Rent housing (as recommended by the Brent Poverty Commission Report, and as supposed to be provided under the GLA’s 2021-26 affordable housing programme) as if they should be for LAR? 

 

·      Will they interfere with other details which have been published in the application documents, and recommend different conditions to Planning Committee, without disclosing that they’ve done so?

 

Even though they had failed the “transparency” requirement in the Local Government Association’s “Probity in Planning” guidance, by not telling Planning Committee that the application was for Social Rent, the Council’s view was that members, when making their decision, ‘were aware that the application was originally for the provision of Social Rented homes.’ I could hardly believe the reason they offered to justify this:

 

Second extract from the letter of 16 September from Brent’s Chief Executive.

 

This was the conclusion which Brent’s Chief Executive came to (on the advice of Senior Planning Officers) in response to my complaint(s):

 

The conclusion from the letter of 16 September.

 

I have not accepted that conclusion, for reasons set out in detail in my letter of 22 September. In case you don’t feel like reading it in full, here are some paragraphs from near the end of it which sum-up my position:

 

‘Planning Officers seem to take the view that as Social Rent and LAR are, on the present figures, ‘very, very similar’, then it does not matter whether the affordable housing provided is one or the other. That would not matter for compliance with policy BH5, but as I pointed out in my letter of 5 September, it would matter for the tenants of the two new homes at Rokesby Place. 

 

As you quoted, from the Brent Local Plan Glossary, these affordable homes will be ‘for those whose needs are not met by the market.’ They will be Brent families in housing need, quite probably on limited incomes. By charging them LAR rent levels, rather than Social Rent, even on present figures, they will have to pay £772.20 a year more. As the annual rent increases for these two types of affordable housing are linked to CPI, by the time the houses are built each tenant will have to find nearer £1,000 a year more if LAR is charged, rather than Social Rent.

 

If a planning application states that the affordable housing tenure will be Social Rent, that complies with policy BH5, and should not be changed without good reason. And if there are reasons for changing from Social Rent to LAR, they need to be set out transparently, both for the Planning Committee and the public. That was not done on this application, so even if Brent Council believes it achieved the “right” answer, the way it was achieved was wrong. So wrong that it needs to be put right.

 

I hope you can now agree that the new Brent Council affordable housing at Rokesby Place must be for Social Rent, as applied for on the Council’s behalf under application 22/1400.’

 

I’m putting this correspondence “in the public domain”, so that anyone interested can read it and make up their own minds. If you agree that something has gone wrong here, please feel free to write to your local councillors about it, with a copy to carolyn.downs@brent.gov.uk .

 

Philip Grant.

 The letters - click bottom right corner for full page version.