Timely new campaign launched: 'United for Warm Homes, Brent' Kick-off event 7pm November 30th on-line

 

A number of local organisations and campaign groups have joined forces as part of a new coalition calling for a response to the energy crisis that ensures no one goes cold in winter.    
 
United for Warm Homes, Brent is a new local campaign which aims to bring together communities concerned about the impacts of rising energy bills to advocate for affordable energy and demand the right to a warm home.   
 
The partnership involves a variety of organisations that work on local issues including housing, food banks, parks, faith groups and environmental protection. They hope that by working together towards a common goal, they can win the fight for warm homes that don’t cost the Earth.  
 
The average energy bill has almost doubled in the last year. Even with the government’s recently announced package of emergency financial support, it’s expected that around six million people will be in fuel poverty in the UK this winter – that’s almost double the number in 2021.  
 
In Brent alone, recent analysis found that there are 95 energy crisis hotspots, in almost 55% of Brent’s neighbourhoods – neighbourhoods where the energy crisis is most acutely felt. 
 
Clearly, the sky-rocketing price of energy is hitting some people harder than others. That’s why United for Warm Homes, Brent is calling for additional financial support to help those who need it most and to stop people going cold this winter. 
 
But financial support is only a short-term fix. To put an end to the energy crisis we need solutions that will get to the root of the problem - our heat-leaking homes and dependence on expensive and volatile gas.  
 
The UK has some of the worst insulated homes in Europe. That means they require more energy to stay warm and therefore cost more to heat.  
 
By rapidly rolling out a council-led, street-by-street insulation programme, targeted first at the most in-need households, hundreds of pounds can be saved each year on the average annual energy bill. United for Warm Homes, Brent wants this to be at the top of the agenda for local and national decision-makers. 
 
This is needed alongside getting UK homes off costly gas for good, which more than 80% depend on for things like heating and hot water. Instead of extracting more fossil fuels, boosting investment in cheap, clean renewable energy will help to bring down bills quickly, because renewables can be developed faster than more oil and gas.  
 
The solutions that will lower our bills permanently are also the same that can cut the climate-changing emissions our homes produce, so they are a win-win for both people and planet.  
 
The new local partnership will be one of many across the UK contributing to a much bigger national movement calling for the transformation of our energy system and a drive to insulate UK homes. 
 
United for Warm Homes, Brent will be holding its kick-off event online at 7pm on 30^th November for members of the public who would like to learn more about the partnership and get involved in the campaign. 

To register for the event go to https://brentfoe.com/WarmHomesEvent.

To find out more about the national campaign please visit www.unitedforwarmhomes.uk.  
 

 
Ian Saville joint coordinator of Brent Friends of the Earth, said: 
 
 

We all deserve to live in warm homes that don’t cost the Earth. But with energy bills nearly double what they were last year, and living costs such as food and rent spiralling, millions across the country are facing a bleak and miserable winter.  
 
No one in Brent should have to go cold just to be able to feed their families or pay their rent. We recognise that there are so many of us locally who want happier, healthier communities. By coming together, we want to build a powerful local partnership that wins the fight for warm homes.  
 
We believe we can achieve this by demanding the solutions that are simply common sense. Insulating our heat-leaking homes and investing in cheap, clean renewables can both save households hundreds on their energy bills and lower costs for good. The great thing is that these solutions are also what’s needed to protect our planet and ensure that future generations have a world left to grow up in.

Local campaigns that have signed up to the campaign include Brent Friends of the Earth, Sufra Food Bank, Brent Parks Forum, Divest Brent, Advice4Renters, Transition Town Kensal to Kilburn, Harlesden Neighbourhood Forum, Granville Community Kitchen and Harlesden Mums who Cycle.

Next Week: Hidden Heritage - An-Nisa Society in Conversation with author Fatima Manji on Britain's long-standing connection with the Muslim world. November 24th at The Yellow, Wembley Park

 

 

On Thursday November 24th 2022, Brent residents and those from further afield will be able to learn about Britain’s long-term links with the Muslim world. 

 

Fatima Manji, Channel 4 News presenter, will be talking about her ground-breaking book, ‘Hidden Heritage’.

 

The event, to mark this year’s Islamophobia Month, has been organised by Wembley’s An-Nisa Society, and will be held at The Yellow, 1 Humphry Repton Lane, Wembley Park, HA9 0JL, from 6-8pm.

 

TICKETS £5.98 BOOKHERE

 

Extracts from Reviews

 

"This is such an important, brave book that sheds a calm, bright light on the complexity of history at a time when simplistic assumptions have become the norm. It is truly brilliant" 

 Elif Shafak

 

"A timely, brilliant and very brave book" Jerry Brotton, author of This Orient Isle: Elizabethan England and the Islamic World

 

"A compelling read about a history of Britain rarely cited and one that enriches an understanding of our complex, intriguing and wonderful past" Daljit Nagra

 

VENUE

 The Yellow, corner of Harbutt Road and Humphry Repton Lane

 

Wembley Park Tube, 83, 182 and 206 bus or Wembley Stadium station (Chiltern Line)

Brent Planning Committee: Tower blocks, back gardens and the Climate Emergency

 

It may seem odd that a 349 bed triple-tower development in Wembley High Road went through Brent Planning Committee with scarcely a murmer last night while a proposal for a single dwelling in Brondesbury Park had a professional planning advisor speaking on behalf of residents and suggesting  possible legal action against the Council,  and a 5 minute speech against by a ward councillor.

While much attention has been given recently to the Council's proposals for in-fill on its estates, and objections by residents to the subsequent the loss of green space and trees, less attention has been paid to what called be called 'private in-fill' when back gardens are built on.  This is often through extensions or outbuildings at the side and bottom of gardens. The suspicion is that some of these are let out - 'beds in sheds'.

Last night's application was for building on the back garden of 7 Sidmouth Road, a house that has already been divided into flats. This was the latest application in a series which had been refused.

 

Cllr Erica Gbajumo submitted the following objection:

I write in order to formally object to the planning application 22/1282, located at 7A Sidmouth Road, London, NW2 5HH.


This borough does not need additional luxury homes which will be unaffordable to residents in desperate need of housing. This is a council which promised to build '1000 council homes' with the intention of supporting our most vulnerable residents in Brent with housing. The approval of this application would be a step away from this Council's pledge made in May 2022.


Moreover, in July 2019, Brent Council declared a climate and ecological emergency, a decision which many will agree was a step in the right direction in order to combat climate change. One of the aims of the climate emergency was to continue to double the number of trees planted in the borough.


The loss of trees, particularly category B and category C trees, will be detrimental to the area. This part of the Brondesbury Park ward is well known for its leafy green nature, and the removal of trees, will harm the biodiversity as well as being detrimental to the leafy green character of the local area.


I therefore call on the planning committee to not only scrutinise the application, which has made a CIL application to fund their unaffordable housing project, but to also reject the application based on the reasons outlined above.

 

A request by Cllr Gbajumo and Cllr Hack that consideration of the application be deferred because late changes had not been consulted on was rejected by officers on the grounds that these changes were only minor and did not require further consultation.

Cllr Ryan Hack made a careful considered presentation to the committee:

 

A particularly worrynging aspect of the case was the officers' argument that despite the loss of the garden and its trees and habitats that the development did less harm than the benefit of a new house. This could set a precedent when future schemes come before the Committee. Private back gardens could be a goldmine for the owners of similar properties. 

The link with the urgent need to take into account the Climate Emergency scarecely figures in the Planning Committee's deliberations.

The planning application was approved by the Committee with Cllr Dixon and Cllr Maurice voting against. Cllr Dixon's reasons were the net loss of habitat, lack of clarity on how the development constituted less harm to the community and concern over drainage.  Cllr Maurice was concerned that the Council may face a costly legal challenge and that the development was out of character being too large and he disliked the design. He was also concerned about drainage and the potential for sewage discharge in the event of heavy rain.

Resident promises legal action if Minterne Road planning application approved tonight

 

A planning application to demolish six garages in Minterne Road, Kenton, and replace with a 4 bedroom house will be heard at Planning Committee tonight. A supplementary report has been published today reporting a further submission by a local resident. The report is published below

A local resident has objected to the proposal re-iterating their concerns that the plan is not feasible and will destroy the neighbourhood and severely impact their privacy as the proposal would overlook their garden and side of their house. 

They requested that the Planning Committee make a site visit to further understand the impacts. The objector has also specified that they would take legal action against council if the proposal is approved.

The concerns raised about (sic) in terms of impact on the character of the neighbourhood, privacy and overlooking to neighbouring properties have been discussed within the committee report. 

Members of the Planning Committee do make themselves familiar with the site and the surrounding context prior to considering the application at the committee meeting. A formal Planning Committee site visit was not considered necessary in this instance as it is possible to understand the proposal, the site and its context from the information available to members.

 
Recommendation: Remains to Grant Consent subject to conditions as set out within the draft decision notice.

349 student bedroom accommodation in 13,16 & 17 storey building in Wembley High Road likely to be approved tomorrow

 

The present buildings, Pitman House and Fairgate House, 390-402, 402-408 High Road Wembley

The replacement building

The plans for a massive student accommodation block to replace Pitman House and Fairgate House on Wembley High Road, comes to Plannning Committee tomorrow.

Thge plans are for a party 13, part 16 and part-17 storey buildng housing 349 student bedrooms and a range of communcal spaces, along with three commercial units at ground floor level. 

Following other high-rise buildings on the High Road this is consider acceptable by officers. The building would almost face the controversial Cecil Avenue/Copland site where Brent Council is proposing a high density 9 storey building and close to the 17 and 19 storey Wembley Link (416 - 44 High Road) and the 27-storey Twin Towers (Uncle building) that replaced Chesterfield House.

The mock-tudor shops wedged between will begin to look very much out of place.

 Figures indicate the number of storeys

The land behind the development, between it and the railway line, is also likely to be  developed as a continuation of the Wembley Link concept:

The planning application has attracted few comments and only two objections.That is quite surpising given its size and potential impact. The Brent Trees Officer regrets the loss of trees in the development and is pessimistic about the survival chances of new trees to be planted in a shaded space.

Student accommodation and its suitability for the area and any potential problems are not directly addressed but Officers have this to say about that aspect of the proposal:

…Student housing contributes to Brent’s housing targets, at a rate of 2.5 bedspaces to one conventional housing unit, and the provision of accommodation for 349 students would equate to 139.6 new homes, which would contribute towards the wider target of 650 dwellings within the whole of the site allocation. To date within the wider site allocation, planning permission has been secured for 256 homes within Wembley Link scheme (18/3111) and outline consent secured for 5000sqm of residential floorspace (upto 54 homes) within Ujima House (19/3092).

The accommodation would be secured by condition for occupation by full time students enrolled on UK accredited and based further education courses during term time (for not less than 39 weeks of the year). The remaining time, (outside term time,) the Council is content that the units may be rented out on short-term lets, perhaps assisting tourism within the summer vacation period. This will apply to all of the student rooms. The majority of the units (51% of bedrooms) would be provided through a nominations agreement with one or more higher education providers, through the s106 agreement. This demonstrates that the accommodation would meet a specific London need, in line with policy H15 of London Plan and policy BH7 of Brent’s Local Plan.

A draft student management plan has been submitted, setting out how the development would be managed through an on-site staff presence providing a point of contact for students but also for local residents who might be concerned about any incidents of anti-social behaviour. Management and maintenance of communal facilities, emergencies and security measures are also addressed. An updated document would be required as a condition prior to occupation, and would provide a dedicated contact for local residents.

Officers recommend approval of the application subject to conditions and a Section106 Plan.

Residents' Association launch petition calling for Islamia Primary School move to Strathcona site to be stopped

 A second petition on the Islamia Primary School proposed move to the Strathcona site in Preston ward has been launched. This follows a petition in the summer by a group of Islamia parents that opposed the proposed site and called instead for the school to occupy the South Kilburn site earmarked for the merged Carlton Vale Infants and Kilburn Park Juior schools. That petition was signed by 509 people by the time it closed LINK.

The second petition is by South Kenton & Preston Park Residents' Association (SKPPRA) and appears on the Change website. It opposes the school based on the traffic and environmental impact and its affect on neighbouring school pupil numbers.  SKPPRA insist that their opposition is not based on the faith nature of the school and that they represent a multi-ethnic community.

The interests of the two sets of petitioners converge in terms of opposition to the site but the governing board and Brent Council insist that there is no alternative. Both Brent Council and the Yusuf Islam Foundation have searched for an alternative site in the borough and found none. Brent Council insist that the new South Kilburn site is an integral part of the estate regeneration and its expanding population and would be open to children of all faiths and none. In any case it would not be ready in time for occupation given the eviction deadline. The Islamia Primary Governing Board said that if Brent Council were, nevertheless, to provide that site they could try and persuade the Foundation to extend their occupancy for the required period.

The informal stage of the consultation on the move ends tomorrow. The Governing Board will then start the formal statutory consultation and report on its outcome. Brent Council officers will then  provide a report and recommendations for the Brent Cabinet who will make the final decision.

The petition can be found HERE and had 265 signatories at the time of writing.

The petition

Islamia Primary School, currently in Kilburn NW6 are being evicted and have been given two choices by Brent Council, to either close down or move to Strathcona Site HA9. The 6 mile move to this new site is not supported by the existing school parents, teachers, governors or the local residents of the new site.

A new school in the area will have serious environmental impact on the area causing pollution, lower air quality and damage to the climate, not forgetting health and safety concerns of the general public.  

Three existing schools near Strathcona site are already under subscribed and a new school will only exacerbate the situation.

We urge you to sign the petition so that Brent Council Cabinet Members can take this into consideration.

In a recent public meeting with Islamia Primary school the Local resident's state: "We want your school to stay open, but we don't want it here"!

Consultation period ends on 16th November 2022

Islamia Primary School move - minutes of September 12th Cabinet Meeting that set the process in motion

In view of the intense interest in the proposed move of Islamia Primary School to a site in Strathcona Road, Preston ward, I thought it might be useful to publish the minutes of the Cabinet Meeting of September 12 that set the process in motion:

 

This report details a proposal regarding the relocation of Islamia Primary School and seeks approval to the associated capital project business case and statutory consultation process.

Decision:

Cabinet NOTED the comments by Sofia Moussaoui, representing the Governing Body of Islamia Primary School, who had requested to speak on the report in relation to the future of Islamia Primary School. 

 

 In commenting on the proposals within the report she advised that the main aim of the Governing Body moving forward was to secure the future of Islamia Primary School.  As such she advised the Governing Body remained committed to ensure that the necessary funding and a suitable, viable alternative site was secured for the school.  This recognised the advice from the Council that the South Kilburn site identified as the preferred alternative by the parents who had signed the petition was not a viable option given the timing of its availability and allocated use.

 

In advance of the report being considered, Councillor Butt again assured the petitioners about the formal consultation that would need to be undertaken by the Governing Body, should the recommendations be agreed, along with the work being undertaken with the School and Governing Board in order to maintain and secure the schools future provision on the basis of the proposals identified.

 

Having noted the report, including the exempt information within the appendix, and the comments raised by the petitioners and Governing Body representatives at the meeting Cabinet RESOLVED:

 

(1)       To note the historical context and background set out in the report.

 

(2)       To note that the Yusuf Islam Foundation has issued eviction notices to its Voluntary Aided Islamia Primary School and that the future options for the school were for the school to either relocate or close.

 

(3)       To note the proposal to relocate Islamia Primary School to the Strathcona site as a 2FE school and agree to allocate up to £8.0m capital towards the total project costs of £10.0m, noting that the preferred option was estimated to cost £9.11m.

 

(4)       To approve the delegation of authority to agree pre-tender considerations, procure and award the necessary works contracts valued in excess of £5m to the Corporate Director Finances and Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools and Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Reform.

 

(5)       To note that if the school relocated to the Strathcona school site, the site could be transferred into the name of the Yusuf Islam Foundation who would be required to hold the site for the benefit of the Islamia Primary School. Further details in terms of ownership would be set out in a Trust Deed. This would ensure that the primary school would be protected from eviction in future. (My emphasis)

 

(6)       To note that a statutory consultation process to allow the relocation of Islamia Primary School as a 2FE Primary School to the Strathcona site would need to be undertaken and that the Governing Board would be responsible for making this proposal through statutory consultation.

 

(7)       To acknowledge that, should the Strathcona site be used for Islamia Primary School, then an alternative site would be required to deliver Post-16 SEND provision.

Minutes:

Following on from consideration of the petition relating to Islamia Primary School, Councillor Muhammed Butt (Leader of the Council) advised that he had accepted a request to speak on the report from Sofia Moussaoui, representing the Governing Body at Islamia Primary School.  In commenting on the proposals within the report, Sofia Moussaoui advised that the main aim of the Governing Body moving forward was to secure the future of Islamia Primary School.  As such she advised the Governing Body remained committed to ensure that the necessary funding and a suitable, viable alternative site was secured for future provision of the school.  This recognised the advice from the Council that the South Kilburn site identified as the preferred alternative by the parents who had signed the petition was not a viable option given the timing of its availability and allocated use.

 

In advance of the report being considered, Councillor Muhammed Butt again assured the petitioners about the formal consultation that would need to be undertaken by the Governing Body, should the recommendations in the report be agreed, along with the work being undertaken with the School and Governing Board in order to maintain and secure the schools future provision on the basis of the proposals identified.

 

Councillor Gwen Grahl (Cabinet member for Children, Young People and Schools) then introduced the report which set out proposals for the relocation of Islamia Primary School.  In considering the report Cabinet noted the outline of options reviewed along with the capital project requirements and business case supporting the option to develop the former Strathcona school site as a two form entry site for the School.  The report also set out the statutory consultation requirements that would be required in order to deliver the project.  In thanking the petitioners and representatives of the school Governing Body for their comments, Councillor Grahl advised that she acknowledged the concerns and frustrations raised but, at the same time, felt it important to recognise the limited options available in relation to the availability of alternative sites to secure future provision of the school.  In terms of reference to the new school site within South Kilburn, confirmation was provided that this had already been allocated for use as a replacement for Carlton Vale Infant and Kilburn Park Junior School as part of the wider South Kilburn regeneration masterplan with the new school also not available until September 2026.  Members noted it would also not therefore be available as a viable option on the basis of the timing, given Islamia Primary School were required to vacate their current site by the end of July 2024.

 

Taking this into account, members were advised of the significant effort which had gone into development of the Strathcona site as a viable alternative for the school along with the assurance of the Council’s continued commitment to work with the school and parents in order to ensure a smooth transition, should the proposal be approved, including on how best to facilitate travel and access particularly for more vulnerable pupils.

 

In recognising that the preference identified by the petitioners for allocation of the new school site in South Kilburn was not a viable option, members supported the efforts being made to safeguard the long term future of the school working with the Governing Body and Trust in terms of the provision of a suitable permanent site that could be developed to accommodate the school and on which it would be possible for parents to contribute and outline their views as part of the statutory consultation process.

 

Having considered the report, including the exempt information within Appendix A, and the comments raised by the petitioners and Governing Body representatives at the meeting Cabinet RESOLVED:

 

(1)      To note the historical context and background set out in the report.

 

(2)      To note that the Yusuf Islam Foundation has issued eviction notices to its Voluntary Aided Islamia Primary School and that the future options for the school were for the school to either relocate or close.

 

(3)      To note the proposal to relocate Islamia Primary School to the Strathcona site as a 2FE school and agree to allocate up to £8.0m capital towards the total project costs of £10.0m, noting that the preferred option was estimated to cost £9.11m.

 

(4)      To approve the delegation of authority to agree pre-tender considerations, procure and award the necessary works contracts valued in excess of £5m to the Corporate Director Finances and Resources, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools and Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Reform.

 

(5)      To note that if the school relocated to the Strathcona school site, the site could be transferred into the name of the Yusuf Islam Foundation who would be required to hold the site for the benefit of the Islamia Primary School. Further details in terms of ownership would be set out in a Trust Deed. This would ensure that the primary school would be protected from eviction in future.

 

(6)      To note that a statutory consultation process to allow the relocation of Islamia Primary School as a 2FE Primary School to the Strathcona site would need to be undertaken and that the Governing Board would be responsible for making this proposal through statutory consultation.

 

(7)     To acknowledge that, should the Strathcona site be used for Islamia Primary School, then an alternative site would be required to deliver Post-16 SEND provision.

Supporting documents:

• 07. Future of Islamia Primary School.docx, item 8. PDF 484 KB
• Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 8./2 is restricted

Brent Cabinet asked key questions on conversion of council housing to other tenures, including Shared Ownership

 Cllr Anton Georgiou addressed Brent Cabinet this morning on issues surrounding affordable housing in the borough and the New Council Homes Programme. Brent Council Leader, Muhammed Butt said the Council would come back to him with a detailed reply but said that he hoped that the council and its officers were not being accused of deliberately misleading the public. Cllr Butt went on to attack 'nimbies'  who claimed to support council housing but opposed housing applications at Planning Committee meetings.   As much of the opposition currently is from council tenants concerned about the detrimental impact of  in-fill applications that is stretching the nimby label somewhat. 

Cllr Georgiou's presentation:

Collectively our main objective must be to ensure that the Council are providing the homes our community needs, in doing so, reducing the growing housing waiting list in Brent and also reducing the number of people in temporary accommodation. 

 

The demand for Council homes is significant and will likely grow in the coming months and years. Many will turn to Brent to assume their housing needs.

 

Whilst I welcome the update in the report presented to Cabinet this morning, entitled, ‘Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes’, I would specifically like to ask some points of clarification.

 

The report references 684 new Council homes, which is a different figure than the one provided by the Leader to Scrutiny last week. I believe you quoted 768 following questioning by myself, what does that figure refer to? 

 

To the 684 homes referenced in the report, can Cabinet please confirm what these units consist of…

 

On Rent levels:

 

How many of the 684 are:

 

• at Council rent level 
• at London affordable rent level 
• at London housing allowance rent level 
• how many are shared ownership 

 

What kind of tenures do the 684 represent:

 

• how many are assisted living
• how many are temporary accommodation 
• how many are social rent homes
• how many have shared ownership tenure 

 

Further to that, are there any shared ownership homes within the HRA account? 

 

If yes, how many please?

 

To shared ownership specifically…

 

The Report recommends the "conversion" of homes from London Affordable Rent level to Shared Ownership, but then further down at recommendation 2.8 states that the Cabinet, will agree to commission a report into Shared Ownership demand in the borough. 

 

How can the report recommend conversion of London Affordable Rent to Shared Ownership without fully understanding the demand? Where is the evidence? Are these really the type of homes our community truly wants and needs?

 

It must also be noted that Shared Ownership is already being provided in significant numbers as part of the affordable housing component of many private developments in Brent. 

 

Here are a few examples but not an exclusive list:

 

• Euro House ................................. 141 units
• Bridgewater Road ......................... 119 units
• Northwick Park Hospital ................ 111 units
• Alperton Bus Garage ...................... 98 units
• Abbey Manufacturing Estate ............ 66 units
• Watkin Road ................................. 61 units

 

These figures were all correct at the time of approval by the Planning Committee.

 

It is important to agree that Shared Ownership is not and never will be an affordable housing model. The umbrella term used by government is wholly inaccurate and I would go as far to say purposefully misleading. 

 

There is no need for Brent to be considering a ‘shared ownership offer’ when it is fact that this housing model is in no way affordable to local people, or even potentially, what local people want. Many Alperton residents and others in Brent are already trapped in Shared Ownership schemes. It is a nightmare. 

 

Therefore, I implore Cabinet to 

 

-      reject the recommendation to convert London Affordable Rent units to Shared Ownership

-      to not allow developers to get away with using Shared Ownership to mask their failure to provide more genuinely affordable units

-      and finally to not pursue a Brent Shared Ownership Offer without facts and evidence that there is demand for this type of housing in Brent. I for one do not believe there will be, if the true scam of Shared Ownership is explained to local people.