London Greens: Turn grey concrete into green space to stop London flooding

From Green Party at City Hall

 

Queen Caroline Estate, Hammersmith & Fulham

 

At a time when London is flooding regularly, the Mayor has only delivered one hundredth of his annual target to improve drainage.  

Over 100,000 square metres of London that should have improved drainage using SuDs (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) has not been delivered since 2019. The Mayor has also confirmed he is unable to properly track progress under questioning from Zack Polanski AM today. 

SuDs are designed to reduce risks around flooding which are increased during winter months and the Mayor is on course to miss this target for the third year in a row.[1] 

When Zack has asked for more data on SuDs, he has been told the GLA does not hold detailed data on installation by year. Figures given often say more is happening but are unspecific on how much or where this is taking place.[1] 

Green London Assembly member Zack Polanski says: 

You can’t track progress if you don’t know what’s being done. The climate is getting more volatile than ever, and London risks another season of flooding. 

I would urge the Mayor to not only meet his target but also make up the shortfall. The grey concrete that covers too much of London can gather rainfall into devastating floods which particularly threaten those living in basements. 

We must break up that concrete and replace it with green spaces that absorb water, letting it drain away over time instead of flooding our homes. The Mayor has missed this target for too long – he must commit to taking SuDs seriously, prioritising tracking and encouraging boroughs, businesses and landowners to do more.

The Mayor has a target for TfL to drain 50,000 square metres a year of highway catchment into SuDs. In 2021/22 TfL only installed SuDs that drained 500 square metres.[1] 

[1] Data from two MQs by Zack Polanski AM on London’s Sustainable Drainage System progress MQ 2022/0016 https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/londons-sustainable-drainage-system-progress and MQ 2022/3603 https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/londons-sustainable-drainage-system-progress-2  

 

Year	TfL   (sq m)	Boroughs (sq m)	Boroughs (number)	Total	Shortfall
2019-20	80	‘at least’ 22,437	13	22,517	27,483
2020-21	1,750	9,715	12	11,465	38,535
2021-22	500	6,785	No figure given	7,285	42,715

  

In total this is a shortfall of 107,733 square metres of land that could have been given drainage using SuDs. 

Note that the answer to MQ 2022/3603 says that the GLA does not hold fully detailed data on SuDs.

Rooting out misinformation on tonight's Broadview planning application

 Readers may wonder why so much fuss is being made about the Broadview Garages infill application. My answer in this case would be that it is essential that Brent Planning Committee members should be making decisions based on correct factual information provided by officers and that Brent Council should be doing all in its power to protect our green spaces and the borough's trees - particularly when our tree cover is lower than some comparable London boroughs. Furthermore the Council has a duty to  protect our designated Local Nature Reserve and Grade 1 Site of Importance to Nature Conservation in Fryent Country Park. If accepted this application would set a precedent for nibbling away at the edges of the Country Park.

In an email to the Chair of the Planning Committee and the relevant officers, Philip Grant has provided factual photographic information that MUST be taken into account. Tonight's  6pm Planning Committee meeting can be viewed on a Live Feed HERE:

 

Item 5 - Broadview Garages - application 22/2531

 

I would not normally write to you so close to a meeting, but there is an important point on the Broadview Garages application which you need to be aware of, so that the Planning Committee decision this evening is based on fact, and the correct interpretation of planning law in relation to the facts.

 

It was my objection comments on 9 December which led to the Supplementary Report, but that report still does not reflect the true position over a key point, the location of an environmentally significant ash tree, referred to in the application as tree T1. You can see this, as the closest tall tree to the garages, in photograph BV4, which was submitted as part of my comments and should be available for the Committee to view this evening:

 

 

The application's Arboricultural Impact Assessment ("AIA") said that tree T1 'is growing on the site boundary’, but several Broadview residents in their objection comments pointed out that it is growing within the adjacent Fryent Country Park.

 

Despite this the Officer Report states incorrectly that tree T1 is ‘located within the application site’. I provided photographic evidence that tree T1 is growing within the Country Park, and is NOT located within the application site. Yet the Supplementary Report published yesterday still tries to justify the Officers' false claim that this tree is within the application site!

 

I responded with a further objection comment yesterday afternoon, sending a copy of it (see below*) to the Development Management Manager and Head of Planning, and Mr Glover has replied to confirm that he has received my email. 

 

To prove my point about the location of tree T1, this is the photograph BV7 which I sent to Brent's Planners on 9 December. It was taken from within Fryent Country Park, and shows the base of the trunk of tree T1, the concrete fence post which marks the boundary on the far side of the trunk, and the garages beyond them:

 

 

 

 

The main legal point, which the Brent lawyer attending the Planning Committee meeting this evening needs to be asked to advise members on, in the light of the fact that tree T1 is NOT within the application site, but is actually within the Country Park, which is a Local Nature Reserve and a Grade 1 Site of Importance to Nature Conservation, is the effect of Section 197, TCPA 1990.

 

The Officer Report recommends: ‘That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.’

 

That recommendation was made on the incorrect assumption that tree T1 was within the application site. Your Committee needs to know whether tree T1 can legally be removed, under Section 197, as proposed in the application. If it cannot, then the application must fail.

 

Thank you for taking the time to consider this email. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

(a resident of Queensbury Ward, within a short walk of Broadview)

 

 

Brent Planning Officers wriggle on an Objector's hook: Their unconvincing Supplementary Report on Broadview infill application

 

The test for proposed developments - Philip thinks the application fails on at least three of these factors

I admire Philip Grant's tenacity in attempting to persuade Brent Planning Officers that words and facts do matter in terms of their reports to the Planning Committee.

 Unfortunately their response seems to be, 'We note what you say but we know what we mean so it doesn't matter and we will ignore what you say.'

The Officers have written a response to Philip's  detailed Objection to their latest infill application and I leave you to make your own mind up as to whether their response clarifies matters or is further obscuration. Their response in the form of a Supplementary Report is embedded below followed by Philip's Response to the Case Officer.

The Planning Committee will be discussing the application on Wednesday.

 

 

These are  Philip Grant's further comments that he has sent to the Case Officer and copied to David Glover and Gerry Ansell in response to the Supplementary Report above.

I have now read the Supplementary Report, published on 13 December, and these are my comments on it:-

Affordable Housing:

The planning policy position at Broadview Garages is exactly the same as it was for the Rokesby Place application in August 2022. Both were Brent Council “infill” schemes providing two family sized houses. 

The Supplementary Report argues that ‘each application is assessed on its individual merits.’ The merits in both applications were identical.

The Rokesby Place consent letter, as recommended by Planning Officers and approved by Planning Committee, included a planning condition stating that: ‘The residential dwellings hereby approved shall be provided as affordable housing in perpetuity, and shall be delivered as London Affordable Rented units ….’

The reason for that condition was stated to be: ‘To ensure the delivery of affordable housing within the development ….’

The affordable housing condition in the Rokesby Place consent, and the reason for it, are just as necessary on the Broadview Garages application, if it is given consent.

There is no justification for Planning Officers to say, over the Broadview Garages application, ‘a condition is not considered necessary in this case.’

Trees:

The Supplementary Report says: ‘The plans submitted as part of this application shows T1 tree to be within the site close to the boundary.’

However, my objection comments of 9 December included photographic evidence to show that tree T1 is growing with the wooded area of Fryent Country Park, NOT within the site.

The Supplementary Report tries to cast doubt over where exactly the boundary might be, saying: ‘Council's park team have also been consulted on this aspect and it has been stated that the boundary would require surveys which in most cases accurate boundaries are difficult to be established.’

But the boundary is NOT difficult to establish in this case, because Wembley Council put a fence along it when the Broadview Estate was built, c.1960. The concrete fence posts are still in place, and as my photograph BV7 showed, the trunk of tree T1 is on the Country Park side of the boundary, not on the garages side. 

This attempt to try maintain the false view, put forward in the AIA, that tree T1 is within the site boundary gives every impression of Officers deliberately misleading the Planning Committee.

The Supplementary Report fails to include, and respond to, the final point I made, in bold type, in my objection comments document, which I will repeat here:-

The Officer Report recommends: ‘That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.’ But the application includes the removal of tree T1, so that it DOES NOT meet the requirements of Section 197, and should therefore be refused.

To go ahead with that recommendation, without bringing my objection on this point to the attention of Planning Committee, and explaining to them why you believe I am wrong (if that is the case), would be a grave error.

You appear to be arguing that removing tree T1 would be acceptable, because a similarly sized replacement tree would be planted away from the site. Are you honestly saying that Brent Council will plant a 15+ metre high semi-mature ash tree to replace tree T1?

TFL information on London travel during upcoming strikes

 

Between Tuesday 13 December 2022 and Sunday 8 January 2023, there will be national rail strike action.  Over the Christmas and New Year period, there will also be service changes and planned works. This will affect some services but most TfL services, including most of the Tube, will run during this time. If travelling during this period, plan ahead, check before you travel and leave more time for your journey. Our Journey Planner and TfL Go app can help you plan your journey as required.  National rail strike action Elizabeth line services will be disrupted during national rail strike action on the following days: Tuesday 13, Wednesday 14, Friday 16 and Saturday 17 December 2022 Tuesday 3, Wednesday 4, Friday 6 and Saturday 7 January 2023 The Elizabeth line will operate in three sections and run a reduced service each strike day: Liverpool Street (national rail platforms) and Shenfield between 07:30 and 18:30 only Paddington and Abbey Wood all day Paddington (national rail platforms) and Heathrow Terminal 4/Reading between 07:30 and 18:30 only A good service is expected by late morning on Thursday 15 and Sunday 18 December 2022, and on Thursday 5 and Sunday 8 January 2023.  There will also be national rail strike action between Saturday 24 and Tuesday 27 December. More details on travelling over the festive period are below. Visit our strike page for more information.

Brent Council Cabinet confirms megaphone protection order will not limit/affect protests

 

Jonathan Fluxman spoke at today's Cabinet Meeting about Brent Trades Council's concerns  LINK that proposed Brent-wide Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO ) prohibitions on the use of megaphones and amplified microphones would curb the free speech rights of political campaigners and protestors.

 

Fluxman said that in the present form in which the prohibition was framed there was no exemption for such protests, He went on to criticise what he termed a 'flawed consultation and said that Brent Trades Council should have been directly consulted on this aspect of the PSPO proposal.

 

Commenting on the meeting he said:

 

We were pleased to hear several reassurances from Cllr Butt that the PSPO is not intended to limit protest.  My comments are now on record.   I said in its present form there is no exemption, and we would like to see the wording of the exemption to ensure our rights to protest are protected.  Cllr Butt said everything would be minuted and the right to protest would not be restricted: the right to protest is protected in law.

 

He also said we would be added as stakeholders in future, and indicated to the officers  that they should do so.

 

We do need to ensure that the wording of the PSPO is clear when it is published, but it is all minuted, and the Cabinet were clear that the our fundamental rights to demonstrate will not be limited. 

 

 

Wembley High Road Carol Singing on December 17th 3pm-6pm - donations towards a Food Bank

 

Kingsbury: The Bells of St Andrew’s ring out again

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

 

A typical English Church Bell. (Image from the internet)

 

If you think you’ve heard church bells ringing recently, you might have believed you were imagining it. But the chances are that you were hearing the chimes from the bells at Saint Andrew’s, in Church Lane, Kingsbury. After being silent for around twenty years, the eight bells in the tower above the church are ringing out again, especially on Sundays.

 

St Andrew’s New Church, Kingsbury.

 

The peal of eight bells was cast by C.J. Lewis of Shepherds Lane, Brixton, in 1880. They were a gift to the church from Mrs Imbert-Terry, in memory of her daughter. The Imbert-Terrys were from a French landowning family, who lived at Chester Terrace on the edge of Regent’s Park, and worshipped at St Andrew’s. It was then a fashionable Victorian church in Wells Street, in London’s West End. If you don’t know the story of how the church, with its bells, came to be where it is today, you can read my article about Kingsbury’s Recycled Church on the Brent Archives local history website.

 

A record of some notable bell-ringing events on the St Andrew’s bells in Victorian times.
(From “St Andrew’s Church, Wells Street, 1874-1897”, reprinted in the 26 November “Order of Service”)

 

Musical bell ringing, or change ringing, has been going on (mainly in Britain or countries with a British tradition) for centuries, and is now a hobby for pleasure as well as part of church life. It needs a team of ringers, and a fellow Wembley History Society member, now living in the USA, recently wrote:

 

‘I was an avid Church Bellringer when I lived in the UK.  I learned to ring while at University, and rang at Kingsbury, St Andrew’s during the University vacations, and also for the year I still lived in Kingsbury after I graduated.  When I rang there in the 1980s the bells were “rough-going”, and I heard that they’d subsequently become unringable.’

 

I believe the reason why the St Andrew’s bells stopped ringing was that the structure of the church spire was found to have become too weak. The whole “ring” of eight bells weighs 4.25 tonnes, with the largest “E flat” tenor bell weighing more than a ton. They could not risk any bells becoming dislodged, and falling on the bellringers far below!

 

So that the bells could ring again, they’ve been fitted with an electronic chiming mechanism. This allows them to be rung by a hammer hitting the bell, rather than the original manual method of pulling on the bell rope, and the bell being swung round on a large wheel. The bells were rededicated by the Bishop of Fulham, following a Mass for the Feast of St Andrew on Saturday 26 November.

 

The Bishop rededicating the bells at St Andrew’s on 26 November 2022. (Photo by Irina Porter)

 

A peal of bells was rung straight after the rededication, and will ring out every Sunday at around midday, after the main morning service at the church, and on other special occasions. Every day, at 8.30am, 12noon and 6pm, a single bell will ring the “Angelus”. This is a call to prayer, common in the Catholic Christian faith, and also followed by some C. of E. “Anglo-Catholic” churches like St Andrew’s. The Angelus is three chimes of the bell, rung three times with a short break between each, to remind the faithful to say three prayers, three times a day.

 

Martin has kindly recorded the peal of bells at St Andrew’s, and put it into a video, so that you can enjoy them, even if you are not within earshot of the church when they are ringing.

 

 

Towards the end of the video, you will also hear singing from the Romanian Orthodox congregation at St Andrew’s Old Church. If you don’t already know the long and fascinating history of that heritage building, hidden away in the churchyard just behind “new” St Andrew’s, you can read it in this illustrated article on the Brent Archives local history website.

 

A team of church bellringers, ringing a “change”. (Image from the internet)

 

It is hoped that work can be carried out to strengthen the spire at St Andrew’s, so that the bells can be rung manually again, as well as mechanically. This would allow anyone, from whatever faith, or none, to come and learn the art of bellringing, and enjoy this traditional musical hobby (and way of keeping fit!).

 

The church has recently been awarded a grant from the National Lottery Heritage Fund, and will be launching a project, “Rekindling St Andrew’s” aimed at sharing the church’s history and facilities with the wider local community. I’m sure that many people will enjoy the chance to take part in secular activities within the beautiful Victorian interior of this Grade II* listed building – and some, in time, to have the opportunity of making the bells ring, in teamwork with new friends. 

 

Look out for news of this project in 2023, and in the meantime, enjoy the bells of St Andrew’s!

 

Philip Grant.

 

What's happening at Reservoir Cottage, Welsh Harp?

 

Reservoir Cottage om Birchen Grove, next to to the Wembley Sailing Club and the Welsh Harp itself, has been hidden from view for many years by trees and vegetation.

In fact on the way to my Birchen Grove allotment I have in the past found delivery people wandering around searching for the entrance.

That changes in July ths year when the cottage was sold by auction. The first bid was £425,000 but that quickly rose to £50K and £60k finally being sold for £644,000.

The cottage itself from pictures on the auction site LINK is not in very good condition but the site is quite large as this image shows - the border is in red.

 

The clue may be in this statement on the auction site:

This property / site may be suitable for redevelopment subject to obtaining the necessary consents. Prospective purchasers should rely on their own enquiries with Brent Council: 0208 937 5210 or https://www.brent.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning

 

Work has already started on clearing the trees and vegetation. Compare the picture above with this view taken today:

 

 Brent Council told me on Friday that removal of vegetation did not require planning permission but it appears that trees are involved. The Council also said that no planning application had been received for the site.

The cottage is a locally listed building. This designation has not saved other Brent buildings. In fact, Symal House redevelopment is coming up at Planning Committee next week. Despite being noteworthy for its 20th century construction method officers are recommending acceptance of the planning application that will see it demolished.

The entry in Brent's Local List recognises Reservoir Cottage's historical importance:

The 'dam keeper' would monitor water levels and operate the sluice gates on the dam as needed.

Any development has the potential to impact on this currently quite green space which is opposite the Birchen Grove allotments and the entrance road to the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre and the Garden Centre, and the side road to the Welsh Harp Open Space car park.