1 Morland Gardens –Brent’s latest NON-development (and a planning complaint).

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

1 Morland Gardens on 1 April 2023. (Photo by Margaret Pratt)

 

The photograph above is similar to one that introduced a previous guest post in January 2023 (1 Morland Gardens – How many more times can they get it wrong?). It was taken on 1 April, but this is no joke. The “April Fools” are at Brent Civic Centre. 

 

If the Senior Officers, Council Leader and Cabinet members had listened, to me and others opposing their plans for redevelopment of the (now former) Brent Start college at 1 Morland Gardens since early 2020, they could have amended their project. They could have retained the heritage Victorian villa they seem determined to demolish (in complete contravention of the Council’s own heritage planning policies), and had a scheme which still delivered perhaps 20 affordable homes as well.

 

The wide footpath, from Hillside, with community garden on the right. (Photo by Margaret Pratt)

 

Instead, they pressed ahead with plans which were supposed to deliver 65 affordable homes, built partly on land that is a wide footpath and a community garden. They currently have no legal right to build on that land, despite claiming it is part of their site, and there are objections to the Stopping-up Order they would need. That is because their plans would force pedestrians to walk through heavily polluted air, and remove many trees, in breach of Brent’s Air Quality Action Plan and Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy.

 

The funding for the project, which Brent’s Cabinet approved in January 2020, included £6.5m from the GLA’s Affordable Housing Programme 2016-2021. Although this programme was extended to 2023, local authority projects for funding under it had to “start on site” by 31 March 2023. As a number of photographs taken around 1 Morland Gardens on 1 April by a Willesden Local History Society member show, no actual work had begun on the site by then.

 

Blue hut in the car park at 1 Morland Gardens, 1 April 2023. (Photo by Margaret Pratt)

 

An “Oasis” self-contained welfare unit (including canteen and toilet facilities) had recently been delivered to the former college’s car park, ready for any workers to use. But none of the “Start on Site Works”, as defined in the GLA’s funding agreement, had been carried out by the key date. Brent Council has therefore lost that £6.5m funding, for a scheme it was already admitting, in the November 2022 affordable housing report to Cabinet, was unviable. So the Cabinet approved recommendations to “value engineer” the 1 Morland Gardens project.

 

Construction details from the February 2023 Construction Logistics Plan.

 

From the latest documents I have seen, that “value engineering” means ditching the more environmentally friendly “award winning” design which was given planning consent in 2020, and switching to a traditional concrete frame, with precast infill panels. This will require much stronger foundations, involving 454 20-metre-deep concrete piles across the site. It seems all too reminiscent of the methods used to build Brent Council’s Chalkhill and Stonebridge estates in the late 1960s / early 1970s, which had to be demolished around 30 years later!

 

Construction of a “Bison” concrete block of flats at Chalkhill, c.1967.

 

My title mentions a planning complaint, and I will ask Martin to attach a copy of my open letter of complaint to Brent’s Head of Planning at the end of this post, for anyone interested in the details. It concerns the Construction Logistics Plan (“CLP”) for the Morland Gardens development (application 22/4082) which I wrote about in my January 2023 article.

 

That application could and should have been refused, yet I found out last week it had been granted consent on 27 March. But it wasn’t the CLP submitted with the application in December 2022, it was a completely new one submitted in February 2023. That new CLP was not published on Brent’s planning website until 17 March, there was no consultation on it, and even those of us who had commented on the original CLP were not notified of its existence!

 

I don’t think the secrecy over it was part of a “plot” to try to get the CLP approved in time for work to “start on site” at 1 Morland Gardens by 31 March (it was too late for that), but this is far from the transparency Brent residents are entitled to expect, especially when the application relates to a proposed Council development.

 

Will the loss of the £6.5m GLA funding make Brent Council finally accept that their current plans for 1 Morland Gardens are hopeless? It should do, but the past 3+ years have shown that their foolishness is not just confined to April.

Philip Grant.

 

New Government measures to tackle sewage dumping scandal are a drop in the ocean

 In response to the Environment Secretary's announcement of the Government’s new ‘Plan for Water’, Legal Director of Good Law Project, Emma Dearnaley, said:
 

Overwhelming public outrage has finally forced the Government’s hand on the sewage scandal blighting our country.

But the reality is that the Government’s ‘new’ plan, some of which is repackaged from previous years, only aims to reduce the number of sewage spills by private water companies through storm overflows into our rivers and beaches by 10,000 per year - to a mere 290,000 a year based on recent figures. This is a drop in the ocean.

We need more robust and urgent action to bring the shocking practice of sewage dumping to an end if we are to protect our waters for generations to come. That is why Good Law Project is supporting a number of legal challenges to hold this Government and water companies to account over what has become one of the biggest environmental scandals of our times.

Controversial Barham Park planning application returns with new proposals

 

Existing houses

 Rejected proposal

New proposal

Proposals for the redevelopment of the modest ex-park keeper's 'cottages' in a corner of the much-loved Barham Park have returned after proposals made in 2021 were rejected, opposed by both the local residents' association and local councillors. LINK

The planning situation is complicated by conditions on the land  LINK and the role of the Barham Park Trustees chaired by Brent Council leader, Muhammed Butt.

 

 

The new proposal is for demolition of the existing 2 houses and replacement with four 3 bedroom, 5 person, 3 storey houses. 

 Although the Brent Council planning portal states that there are 11 comments on the planning application at present one is from Chiltern Railways and another from a resident which just records their objection to the proposal. I have asked Brent Council about uploading the other comments and also if restrictive covenants on the land have been taken into consideration.

Brent Council's Heritage Officer has submitted a comment:

• A Heritage Statement has been submitted with this application which describes the significance of theheritage asset(s) and to understand the potential impact of the proposal [NPPF 194].
• It should have included a Statement of Significance and the Greater London Historic Environment Record consulted.
• Notwithstanding this, I am satisfied with the overall design approach based on the half-timbering present in the existing locally listed buildings.
• I am also satisfied that the new build will not harm the significance or setting of the park given the location.
• The western part of the park was outside the original ‘Sudbury Lodge’ grounds and only became part of the park in the 20th century and is not the most significant part of the park. The proposed development, although more visible in relation to this area, will not harm the importance of the public open space nor impact upon the ability to experience the area of the original historic landscape park.
• Views from within the heart of the park show that the development will be mainly masked by trees and in any case, its overall scale and design would not be seen as out of keeping.
• In terms of the setting of the locally and listed buildings, they are set within a very secluded area where they are screened from view from the wider area of the park.
• The Council can be content that the proposal will preserve the character and setting of the park of local special architectural or historic interest.

The site is close to the Chiltern Railways line and they have submitted a comment:

Chiltern Railways have no objection to this proposed development. We would, however, point out that it is in the best interests of the developer, Brent Council and Chiltern Railways to ensure that the proposed three storey dwellinghouses are built to a standard that mitigates any impact the operation of railway services will have on the inhabitants.
 

Looking at the proposed development site, the 4 new houses would be located within a 20m distance of the Chiltern mainline. The line provides regular commuter railway services connecting the West Midlands, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire with London Marylebone Station.
 

As per the Acoustic Assessment Report enclosed in the planning documentation, we would like to raise the fact that Chiltern trains run on the mainline from approximately 05:00 to 01:00 the next morning, so their will be significant noise and vibration impacts for the future residents of the site. There may also be freight trains running during the night-time, which create additional noise due to their slower speeds and heavier weight. As such we would like to stress that the proposed property be given suitable noise insulation to mitigate the impact of the railway line nearby.
 

We also operate Sudbury and Harrow Road Station which is located approximately 70m from the proposed development site. Whilst the station is used a limited number of times for example it recorded 15,352 entries and exits in 2021/2, many through trains travel through the site creating noise impacts for the proposed development. The station will also have automated service and safety announcements, including warning announcements when fast trains are passing. As such we agree with the contents of the acoustic assessment report, that suitable noise proofing and glazing be put in place in this development to mitigate these impacts on the future residents.

The Thames Water submission is more detailed than is often the case:

 EXTRACT

The proposed development is located within 15 metres of a strategic sewer. Thames Water requests the following condition to be added to any planning permission. "No piling shall take place until a PILING METHOD STATEMENT (detailing the depth and type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement." Reason: The proposed works will be in close proximity to underground sewerage utility infrastructure. Piling has the potential to significantly impact / cause failure of local underground sewerage utility infrastructure.

 

We would expect the developer to demonstrate what measures will be undertaken to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer. Groundwater discharges typically result from construction site dewatering, deep excavations, basement infiltration, borehole installation, testing and site remediation. Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. Should the Local Planning Authority be minded to approve the planning application, Thames Water would like the following informative attached to the planning permission: "A Groundwater Risk Management Permit from Thames Water will be required for discharging groundwater into a public sewer. Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. We would expect the developer to demonstrate what measures he will undertake to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer.

As far as I can see no mature trees are proposed to be removed, although at present Tree Preservation Orders have not been made on them. 

Full documentation and comment opportunity HERE,

98% of NEU Members Who Voted Reject Government Pay Offer

 

From National Education Union

The NEU consultative ballot on the Government's pay offer has been rejected by an overwhelming 98% of NEU teacher members in England on a turnout of 66%.

191,319 serving teachers in state schools in England have voted to reject Gillian Keegan's offer in less than six days.

It is not surprising that the offer has been rejected. The offer was not fully funded, would have meant teachers in England would see their pay fall even further behind their counterparts in Wales and Scotland and it would represent another two years of real-terms pay cuts.

It would do nothing to reverse the problems of recruitment and retention in our schools.

Commenting on the result, Dr Mary Bousted and Kevin Courtney, Joint General Secretaries of the National Education, said:

This resounding rejection of the Government's offer should leave Gillian Keegan in no doubt that she will need to come back to the negotiating table with a much better proposal.

The offer shows an astounding lack of judgement and understanding of the desperate situation in the education system.

We have today written to the education secretary informing her of the next two days of strike action on 27 April and 2 May that NEU teacher members in England will now be taking.

These strikes are more than three weeks away; Gillian Keegan can avoid them.

No teacher wants to be on strike. Nor can they accept this offer that does nothing to address the decades of below inflation pay increases making them the worst paid teachers in the UK. The offer will do nothing to stem the teacher recruitment and retention crisis which is so damaging to our children and young people's education.

The education secretary has united the profession in its outrage at this insulting pay offer. It is now for her to rectify that situation by starting to value education. The NEU is ready as we have stated all along to negotiate with ministers, but this time we hope a lesson has been learnt.  Gillian Keegan needs to start negotiations with respect for the profession she is supposedly representing in Government.

To parents we say that we have no wish to disrupt education, indeed our action is aimed at getting the Government to invest in the education of this generation of children and the people who teach them.

We are asking our school reps to plan with head teachers to ensure that year 11 and year 13 students have a full programme of education on the upcoming strike days.

Let’s talk about the Monarchy - K&KBetter2023 Wednesday April 19th 2023 7pm

 

From Kensal and Kilburn Better 2023

#NotMyKing, April 19, 2023 at 7:00 PM is an event where Kilburn and Kensal people can ask, ahead of the coronation: do we want this monarchy?

 

Recent polls show 30% of the British public want to end the monarchy and 55% want to keep it. It is surprisingly difficult to have a proper discussion in public - in Parliament or on the TV or radio - about the future of the monarchy. This is a chance to do that!

 

We have two brilliant speakers for this event!

 

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a multi-award-winning journalist, author, and commentator

Graham Smith is CEO of the group Republic & author of upcoming book "Abolish the Monarchy"

 

Some of the many questions!

• Can hereditary public office be justified in 2023?
• Does monarchy prop up the whole edifice of privilege in the UK?
• How much power does the monarchy have?
• How much wealth does it have and how much do we pay for it?
• What is the truth about the monarchy's value to the tourist industry?
• How much power are governments able to hold without accountability because of the existence of the monarchy?
• What about Prince Andrew?
• If we have an elected Head of State - maybe similar to the president in Ireland - would that be better?
• Can we fix our broken democracy without ending the monarchy?

 

Everyone very welcome! Including, of course, strong royalists! Let's discuss!

 

VENUE:  St Lukes West Kilburn, Fernhead Roa,d London W9 3EH

 

TICKETS  £5 to cover costs LINK

LETTER: 11 letters from Brent this year demanding cumulative annual rent for an allotment plot vacated in 2015

Dear Editor,

Brent Council has been pursuing me for seven years for payment of a series of invoices which it knows perfectly well were issued in error. This year I have received eleven - yes, you read that right, eleven! - demands for payment of a debt of £93.80. The two reminders which arrived in the post yesterday threaten me with "legal proceedings ...... without further notice". I want to emphasise that I do not owe Brent Council any money, and they know that I don't.

The background to this is that in 2015 I decided to give up my tenancy of an allotment at Kinch Grove. I believe the plot was re-let the following year, but I continued to receive invoices for the rent which - perhaps foolishly - I ignored. In 2020, having received a cumulative bill for several hundred pounds, I spoke to a helpful officer in Debt Recovery, and then to the Allotment Service who confirmed that every invoice since 2015 had been issued in error. I hoped that would be the end of the matter.

This year I returned from holiday at the beginning of February to find four demands for payment of a new invoice issued in 2021. I spoke to the same  - very helpful - officer in Debt Recovery, who told me that mine was by no means an isolated case. The Allotment Service, he said, "know about this, and keep on doing it". After I received a further three reminders, the Allotment Service claimed on February 28 that they would issue a credit note, but yesterday I received another two letters, now threatening immediate legal action, at which point I made a formal complaint to the Council. Unfortunately I have no faith that this will resolve the problem, but I do hope that publicising this on Wembley Matters might help others who find themselves in a similar position.

 

Philip Bromberg

(Address supplied)

NAHT takes first step towards judicial review proceedings against Ofsted following its failure to pause inspections

From the National Association of Headteachers

Yesterday school leaders’ union NAHT wrote to His Majesty’s Chief Inspector to demand a suspension of Ofsted inspections while steps are taken to address the risk to the mental health of school staff and enable suicide risk prevention to be put in place.

The letter is the first step in judicial review proceedings and cites Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which imposes obligations on public authorities to take reasonable steps where there is a real and immediate risk of a loss of life.

NAHT argues that the recent death of Ruth Perry, and the citing of Ofsted inspections as a factor in the deaths of 10 teachers*, indicates the human rights of school staff are not being protected by the current Ofsted regime and that immediate action is needed to minimise harm and protect lives.

NAHT has called on Ofsted to pause inspections whilst a review is carried out to identify and put in place immediate measures to minimise the risk of harm to school staff.

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, said: 

The tragic death of Ruth Perry has shone a light on the intolerable pressure placed on school leaders and their staff during Ofsted inspections. It shouldn’t take a tragedy to force change, but Ofsted has shown no inclination to change on its own.

We have requested that Ofsted works with NAHT, as recognised representatives of school leaders, to identify and agree immediate actions that can be taken. It is essential that these actions are discussed and agreed with NAHT if it is to make any meaningful difference. It needs to be done with us, not to us. Up until now those requests have been ignored. As such, we have no alternative but to go down this route.

Whilst Ofsted have issued warm words, that is simply not good enough and it has shown nothing like the understanding or urgency that this situation requires.

School leaders are determined that this should be a watershed moment and that such a tragedy can never be allowed to happen again.

NAHT have demanded a reply from Ofsted by Thursday 6 April.  

* As revealed in a recent Observer article. The underlying academic report cited by The Observer can be found here.

TfL proposals for a new high-quality Cycleway between Wembley and Willesden Junction

 From Transport for London

Since April 2019, we have been working closely with Brent Council to develop a scheme that would make it easier for local people to walk and cycle between Wembley and Willesden Junction.

Our proposals for a new high-quality Cycleway between Wembley and Willesden Junction would make streets in the area safer and more pleasant by enabling people to walk and cycle more and drive less. This would help us to reduce air pollution, carbon emissions and congestion in the area.

The proposals would support local businesses by keeping existing loading and parking bays and introducing new and improved pedestrian crossings over Harrow Road. Better street lighting and more trees and plants will help make the area feel safer and more welcoming.

An update on previous engagement

From January to March 2020, we spoke with communities in the Wembley, Stonebridge, and Harlesden neighbourhoods to help us develop our proposals so that they meet local priorities. We have now published a detailed report on this engagement. The report details who we spoke with, what we found, and includes actions and recommendations that we have taken forward. The pandemic delayed the publication of this report and the project overall until now as we were forced to pause work on some of our walking and cycling schemes.

Phase 1: Wembley Central station to Harlesden station

In Autumn 2022, vital investment was secured as part of TfL’s funding agreement with Government to take forward our key priority Healthy Streets schemes to make the capital's roads safer and more attractive for those walking and cycling.

We and Brent Council have since agreed to progress the first phase of walking and cycling improvements between Wembley Central station and Harlesden station. 

 Frequently Asked Questions

Why have you chosen this area of Brent for this scheme?

Cycling in London has grown significantly over the past 15 years. There are now more than 670,000 cycle trips a day in London, an increase of over 130% since 2000. 

In 2017, TfL published its latest Strategic Cycling Analysis (SCA) - the latest datasets, forecasts and models showing potential locations across London where cycling demand, current and future, would justify investment.

The SCA identified the Wembley to Willesden Junction corridor as being on one of the top six routes in London with the greatest potential future demand for cycling, but only if we provide new facilities to help and encourage people to cycle.

A fully segregated cycleway was originally considered on main roads between Wembley and Willesden Junction. In light of local concerns around road congestion this has since been scaled back to a less intrusive scheme based mostly on quiet residential back streets, with some main road segregated sections where impacts on traffic are expected to be low.

Work on this scheme was paused in March 2020 due to the pandemic and resumed in autumn 2022 following our financial settlement with Government, which provides us with funding to spring 2024. 

What benefits does this scheme aim to bring to the local community?

Seven people tragically lost their lives while cycling in London in 2022. That is simply unacceptable.

Between 2015 and 2018, 24 collisions on between Wembley and Willesden Junction involved cyclists. In the same period 93 collisions involved pedestrians. One person sadly lost their life. 

Between 22 January 2018 and 28 December 2020, 90 collisions occurred on Harrow Road (where we are proposing to build a section of segregated cycle track and improve pedestrian crossings) resulting in 109 casualties. Nine of these casualties were cyclists. Fourteen were pedestrians, two of which sadly suffered serious injuries.

We would improve this by providing a safe cycle route connecting Wembley Central and Harlesden stations. Crossing the A406 north circular is particularly perilous and puts many would-be cyclists off getting on a bike in the first place. 

Our proposals will provide a fully segregated cycle track over the north circular, giving cyclists of all confidence levels a safe route between communities on the north and south of this busy junction for the first time. Making cycling a safe, attractive, genuinely viable alternative to completing local journeys by car would decrease the reliance on driving, reduce congestion, make the area more walkable, and improve air quality.

What is Vision Zero for London?

Vision Zero represents our aim to eradicate deaths and serious injuries from our roads and make London a safer, healthier and greener place by 2041.   

Major cities around the world are taking a stand to end the toll of deaths and injury seen on their roads and transport networks by committing to Vision Zero. London is at the forefront of this approach and the Mayor's Transport Strategy sets out the goal that, by 2041, all deaths and serious injuries will be eliminated from London's transport network. 

It is neither inevitable nor acceptable that anyone should be killed or seriously injured when travelling in London. When we leave our homes each day, we should feel safe and confident about the journey ahead. 

The proposals for a safe walking and cycling route between Wembley Central and Harlesden stations are part of the work we are doing towards meeting the Vision Zero.

Will this scheme cause more congestion in the area, especially on Wembley Stadium event days?

The first phase of the scheme - between Wembley Central and Harlesden stations - will run mostly along quiet residential streets. The only section of the scheme currently proposed on main roads is the section on the A404 Harrow Road/Brentfield which crosses the north circular between Sylvia Gardens and First Drive. 

We continue to engage with Brent Council and The Football Association / Wembley Stadium about post-event traffic arrangements. As we are not proposing to reduce road capacity on Harrow Road southbound towards the north circular (which is the main exit route for most traffic after events) we do not anticipate the scheme will increase congestion. This is something that we, The FA and Brent Council will continue to monitor very closely.

Will the residential streets you are proposing to run the scheme along be able to cope with the predicted number of cyclists using the scheme?

• North side of A406: London Road, Tokyngton Avenue, Sylvia Gardens
• South side of A406. First Drive, Stonebridge Park, Albert Terrace, Milton Avenue, Shelley Road, Mordaunt Road

We are confident that these streets will provide more than enough safe space for cyclists without impacting on residents who will continue to be able to access and park outside their homes.

In the future, should the scheme prove popular enough that cyclist numbers increase to a level where these streets can no longer safely accommodate them, we will consider bringing forward  proposals for a fully segregated cycle track along main roads between Wembley Central and Willesden Junction stations. 

In spring 2023 we plan to launch a public consultation on proposals for this first phase.

If you want to find out more about this project, email us at: localcommunitiesandpartnerships@tfl.gov.uk(External link) and quote “Wembley to Willesden” in the subject line.