1 Morland Gardens – an Open Letter to the Mayor of London – let us know that Brent has lost its GLA funding.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Brent Start’s former Stonebridge Centre at 1 Morland Gardens, 26 June 2023.

 

In a guest post about my recent Open Letter to Brent’s Chief Executive LINK, I said that I would also share with you a second letter I had sent on 26 June, this time to London’s Mayor, Sadiq Khan. I will ask Martin to attach a copy of that letter at the end of this article, so that anyone who wishes to read it in full can do so. Whether you do, or not, this is a shorter version of the story.

 

I’d written emails to the Mayor (all emails to the GLA go to mayor@london.gov.uk) on 3 April and 4 May, to point out, with evidence and pictures, that Brent Council’s Morland Gardens project had not “started on site” by 31 March 2023. That was the date by which Start on Site (“SoS”) had to be achieved in order to qualify for funding from the Mayor of London’s Affordable Homes Programme 2016-2023.

 

However, GLA Officers told me that Brent had claimed it had achieved the SoS “milestone” for Morland Gardens in January 2023. They were not inclined to take any action, as their funding system relied on “self-certification” by grant recipients, with a “compliance audit” only carried out after the development being funded had been completed. At that stage, the GLA would seek repayment of any funds wrongly claimed, with interest. 

 

It seemed madness to allow Brent’s project, which involved the demolition of an important Victorian heritage building and destruction of a community garden (and loss of much needed trees by a busy road junction), to go ahead, then for Brent to find that it had to repay many £m’s in several years time. The Morland Gardens project was unviable with £6.5m of GLA funding, which is why Brent applied for a larger amount from the GLA in January. This was approved, but the figure was redacted from copy emails I received in response to FoI requests.

 

That is why I wrote an open letter, addressed to the Mayor of London personally. I’ve asked Sadiq Khan to arrange for the evidence I’ve provided to be considered by the GLA’s Housing & Land and Legal teams, and to let Brent Council, and me, know whether he accepts the claim that SoS at Morland Gardens occurred by 31 March 2023, within the terms of the GLA funding agreement. If it did not, Brent should not be entitled to any funding, especially if their claim was based on false information.

 

There is a clear definition of what is required for a Start on Site in the GLA’s funding agreement document, which Brent Council will have signed. All three conditions listed have to be met:

 

 

Brent entered into a two-stage contract with Hill Partnerships Ltd (“Hill”) last September, but the only part of that which has been committed to is the Pre-Construction Services Agreement (“PCSA”), not the second “Build” stage. In the Affordable Housing Update Report to Brent’s Cabinet in November 2022, Morland Gardens was included in the section headed “Schemes not yet in contract”.

 

Brent claimed on 20 January that Hill had taken possession of the Site on 17 January 2023. However, they do not appear to have read the definition and interpretation details in the funding agreement, which show:

 

 

Hill only took possession of the 1 Morland Gardens part of the site, and put heras fencing round it. They did not take possession of the highway / community garden land, as Brent has no right to develop that land (and Hill cannot take possession of it) unless or until there is a Stopping-up Order for a section of highway, and the land has been appropriated for planning purposes.

 

That is two out of three conditions not met, what about the third? This is how the GLA’s funding agreement defines “Start on Site Works”:

 

 

It is obvious from even the 1 Morland Gardens part of the site, five and a half months after Brent’s claim, that none of the works at (a), (b) or (c) have been carried out. In answer to the GLA’s query, this is what Brent claimed (in red) as the “enabling works” under (d):

 

 

 The heras fencing was part of taking possession of the site (or part of it). Since sending my Open Letter, I have received Brent’s response to an FoI request I submitted on 1 June for evidence in support of the claims made by the Council to the GLA in January. There is clear evidence that an asbestos survey was carried out at 1 Morland Gardens in January, but the instruction to disconnect the telephone lines was not until 25 April:

 

Email from Brent’s Project Manager to Openreach, 25 April 2023.

 

Two of the most important claims made by Brent in January 2023, as part of their application for additional GLA funding for their Morland Gardens project, were that demolition was scheduled for 1 March 2023 and that main build construction works were due to begin in the week commencing 24 April 2023. These dates and events supported the impression that actual construction of the homes would ‘immediately follow on’ from the very minor “enabling works” they said had happened in January, which was a requirement if SoS was claimed.

 

On 29 June I received the response from Brent to my request for evidence of the January claims. 2(c) and 2(d) were my requests over the demolition date, with Brent’s answers in bold type following on:

 

 

Brent did not include a copy of the “attached” programme document, and although I requested that on 30 June, I’ve still to receive it as I write this post.

 

It is one thing to say that ‘the agreed programme’ [circulated by the Council’s Project Manager] ‘states 01 March as the date for demolition works to start’, but another entirely as to whether that was a realistic expectation. The Project Manager, and other Council Officers involved, were aware that no decision had yet been made by the Mayor over whether an Inquiry was necessary over the proposed Stopping-up Order (the decision was not made until 20 March), and that it would not be possible to carry out demolition unless or until stopping-up and appropriation of the land outside 1 Morland Gardens was achieved. As at 20 January, the 1 March demolition date was totally unrealistic.

 

There was greater clarity in response to my request at 4(a) over the claim that main build construction work would begin in April 2023. That claim was a fiction!

 

 

Information on the work carried out by Hill at Morland Gardens was supplied to the GLA on 24 May by Brent’s Senior Development Manager, in response to the GLA advising him of my assertion that SoS had not commenced by 31 March, and that I had submitted an FoI request to the Mayor for copies of Brent’s SoS claims. The information apparently came from a document supplied by Hill, as part of their “valuation” when seeking payment for work carried out under the PCSA up to the end of April 2023. The email said:

 

‘They have also initiated the striping out of various elements of the build and carried out the site clearance and trees and shrubs removal as per their programme attached that clearly shows activities completed to date.’

 

I could not resist including this photograph, taken on 26 June, in the Open Letter I sent to the Mayor:

 

 

It’s not hard to spot the trees and shrubs within the heras fencing at 1 Morland Gardens, which shows that no site clearance has taken place. A local resident, when writing to me last month, commented: ‘Altamira is beginning to look like Sleeping Beauty's palace, being hidden behind a screen of trees and bushes!’ You’d have thought that someone at Brent Council would have checked that the work which payment was being claimed for had actually been carried out.

 

I have followed-up my Open Letter to the Mayor of London with an email, setting out the further evidence over the false claim to SoS from Brent’s FoI response of 29 June. I concluded my email by saying:

 

‘I hope you can now confirm, to Brent Council and to me, that Brent's Morland Gardens project does not qualify for funding under AHP 2016-2023.’

 

Will Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, hold Brent Council to account over their false claim for GLA funding? We will have to wait and see.

Philip Grant.

 

 

Stonebridge pedestrians and cyclists are fed up with a so-called 'temporary' and uninviting footpath

Stonebridge pedestrians and cyclists are fed up with a so-called 'temporary' and uninviting footpath, that has now existed for several years. 

They have produced these images of the site, just south of the North Circular Road's Ace Cafe, and have asked Wembley Matters to publish it.

 

 

Brent Council's latest proposals for Newland Court infill road demonstrates it 'just isn't a viable site'

 Marc Etukudo of Newland Court, Wembley Park, one of Brent Council's infill sites has written to BrentCouncil about the impracticability and potential danger of their proposals on parking:

 

I had a meeting with a few residents of Newland Court last night and quite a few issues were raised regarding this proposal at Newland Court Ref: 22/3124. As you already know, none of the residents want this proposal to go ahead for so many reasons which you already know about but mainly because it JUST ISN'T A VIABLE SITE. Nothing about this proposal makes sense to start with and neither are any of the plans. Today, I want to bring to your attention the NEW PLANS that Brent has submitted in regards to the 12 parking spaces outside the block between flats 49 - 60 by the barrier gate end of Newland Court at the Barn rise entrance.

 

  

Please note that the 12 parking spaces already exist but what Brent's NEW PLANS intend to do is to move the parking spaces from the south side by the pavement to the north side against a raised wall and fencing in some parts, and with shrubs in the other parts. This means that everytime cars want to park they will have to let passengers off, including the elderly and kids onto the road from the passenger side because once parked up, no one will be able to get in or out of the car on the passenger side. This will also be the case anytime a car wants to pull out with passengers because it will not be possible to open doors on the passenger side.

 

IT IS A LOT SAFER AND MORE PRACTICAL TO HAVE THE CARS PARKED SOUTH OF THE ROAD BY THE PAVEMENT AS IT IS AT PRESENT

 

It also means that all the parked cars will be situated directly under the trees, constantly getting all the sticky residue from the trees and acidic bird poo that will damage the paintwork of cars that are parked there. Is Brent going to compensate for any damage to the paintwork of cars? And this is because Brent wants to turn a private road into a NEW ONE WAY PUBLIC HIGHWAY which is a very, very dangerous move for many reasons. It is going to be less than 5 metres wide and will encourage even more cars to use Newland Court as a cut through to avoid traffic on Forty Avenue which runs about 20 metres parallel with Newland Court. 

 

 

HOW ARE CARS EXPECTED TO PARK ON THE LEFT WITH RAISED WALLS, FENCING, SHRUBS AND DIRECTLY UNDER TREES

 

Over the years and till this present day we already have cars flying down Newland Court till they get to the Barn Rise entrance and find that there is a barrier and then have to reverse back. Having the cars parked south by the pavement acts as a cushion and protection for pedestrians ,especially those with kids. If the cars parking spaces were to be moved north of the road then it will become a very dangerous road for both pedestrians and  also residents trying to cross over a NEW ONE WAY PUBLIC HIGHWAY to get into their car and then have to pull out to let families including children and the elderly into the car in a very unsafe situation constantly.

 

 

YOU CAN SEE HOW NARROW THE ROAD IS THAT BRENT WANT TO ADOPT INTO A NEW ONE WAY HIGHWAY

 

And because of this, over the years kids have almost been run over by speeding cars and one child was actually hit but luckily it wasn’t fatal. But these are only the ones I know about. Introducing speed bumps a few years back has made no difference whatsoever because some cars almost take off when they hit some of the speed bumps. By building houses north of the road too with families who will have kids that will sometimes probably run out into the road will be a complete fatal disaster waiting to happen. Is Brent Council willing to take this risk????? Isn't it time common sense prevailed?????

Brent Right to Food - a discussion on Free Universal School Meals July 8th Newman College

 

Regarding the London Mayor's extension of free school meals to all primary pupils issues have arisen that have been discussed in Schools Forum. As initially it is only for a year and the Mayoral elections take place in May schools are faced with short-term decisions on recruitng extra staff to cook and serve meals and  possible expansion of the kitchens to cope with cooking extra meals. This would impact on school budgets that are already under strain of the grant does not cover all costs.  There are also issues around employment rights for extra staff employed.

Schools have been told they could supply cold lunches or vouchers instead of a hot meal that rather undermines the healthy eating aspect of the scheme as well as the benefit of a hot meal in the winter months when children's homes may be under-heated or not heated at all due to unaffordable energy bills.

Some are quite cynical about a policy in which schoools are required to badge the additionale meals scheme to the London Mayor to parents in a pre-election period (see 4.3 below)

The long-term sustainability if the scheme into the next Mayoral term is in question and a topic that should be discussed at the above meeting.

This is an extract from the officers' report to Schools Forum:

Background

3.1 In February 2023, the Mayor informed all London authorities that he will provide
funding at £440 per child for all children in Key Stage 2 to receive Free School
Meals for the academic year 2023/24. The Mayor’s ambition was that the
funding offers all primary aged children access to a hot meal at least once a
day.

3.2 In correspondence received from the Mayor’s office on 28 April 2023, a total
budget of £130 million to provide FSMs to children in KS2 who are not currently
eligible was confirmed. In line with government policy and guidance, this
funding is only for state-funded primary schools and with all other funding of
free school meals schemes, it will not extend to children in independent schools.

3.3 Brent’s indicative grant allocation is £5,212,059.00 which is based on an
assumed 90% uptake for the number of children who are not eligible for the
current Government’s FSM grant. The indicative figure is based on October
2022 census and will be finalised once May 2023 school census figures are
published in July. Payment will be at a rate of £2.65 per meal. This is above
the Government rate of £2.41 because it includes funding for costs associated
with delivering FSMs, such as administration and staffing costs in schools.

3.4 Payment will be made termly in advance to allow for upfront costs to be covered
- 50% of the funding will be paid in July 2023, with a further 20% in December
and a further 20% in March 2024. A balance of 10% will be held back for the
final payment and will be adjusted based on the census day returns in October
2023 and January 2024. A balancing payment or claw back determined by the
difference will be made before the end of the summer term 2024. Also, if take
up exceeds 90%, the final grant allocation will be a top-up allocation instead of
a clawback.

3.5 Payment will be made directly to Local Authorities for their maintained schools
and non-maintained schools, with payment to academies and multi-academy
trusts made via each Local Authority for MATs in their area. The expectation is
that local authorities pass on the exact amount to each MAT based on set
allocations.

4. Grant Conditions

4.1 As part the scheme, Local Authorities must participate in evaluation and data
submission exercises and ongoing reviews of the programme as required by
the Mayor’s office. Communication to London Chief Executives (5 June 2023)
sets out details on the grant and the monitoring process. All participating Local
Authorities will be required to register on the GLA OPS system and sign a
contract.

4.2 As the KS2 UFSM programme progresses, GLA will request regular and
comprehensive information from Local Authorities to understand the value of
the programme.

4.3 Schools and local authorities are expected to promote the Mayor’s investment
in school meals through branding and communication which will be provided by
the GLA. Participating boroughs will be required to support the distribution of
communication from the Mayor of London to all affected families, parents or
carers on a termly basis. The letter addressed to the Chief Executive (5 June)
is the first of these communications and is required to be sent out this term.

4.4 The funding should be used for schemes that:
 continue to maximise registration by eligible families for pupil premium,
which may otherwise be impacted by the move to a universal approach
through the Mayor’s Emergency Free School Meals funding

 pay London Living Wage (LLW) to catering staff and include LLW in
any future tenders

 meet school food standards and ensure school food is culturally
appropriate. Brent recognises, however, that the available funding may
not meet the full cost of providing culturally appropriate food, such as
Kosher meals.

 take a whole school approach to healthy eating, participation in Healthy
Schools London and adoption of water only policies.

 meet sustainable catering guidelines and support environmental aims.
5. Grant Implementation

5.1 The Mayor’s office established a Partnership Advisory Group consisting of
senior London borough officers to provide guidance and expert input into the
development and implementation of the programme. The Partnership Advisory
Group were supported by four task and finish groups that focus on the approach
to delivery, including grant management, monitoring and evaluation,
sustainability, and policy implementation.

5.2 Initial discussions with Brent school leaders raised several practical concerns
about providing hot meals to all Key Stage 2 children, with views gathered via
a meeting with headteachers and a survey issued to headteachers of all primary
schools (community schools, voluntary aided and academies). While some
schools responded that it would be relatively easy for them to provide additional
school meals, others raised concerns about the implications for staffing and
kitchen infrastructure, the impact on Pupil Premium Grant applications in Key
Stage 2 and impact on the school timetable, as previously reported to PCG.
These were discussed at the Partnership Advisory Groups’ most recent briefing
on 24 April 2023.

5.3 A key shift in the GLA strategy in response to implementation concerns is that
schools can choose to provide a cold lunch service where it is not feasible to
provide a hot meal. Furthermore, where LA and/or school leaders identify that
the only way that they can implement the programme is by providing school
meal vouchers, they will be able to seek the agreement of the Mayor’s office.
This will be agreed on a case-by-case basis where there are exceptional
circumstances.

5.4 The Mayor’s office is rolling out a series of workshops to support school leaders
and address practical concerns by sharing good practice models. At the first
two sessions, officers from London Boroughs that already provide KS2 UFSM
shared case studies of best practice. These workshops have been well
attended by school leaders across London and headteachers can also now
access resources from the GLA website to help their planning.

5.5 The Brent FSM Project Group chaired by the Director of Education,
Partnerships and Strategy, is meeting regularly to plan and implement Brent’s
approach in line with GLA guidance as it is issued. Key completed activity
includes the development of timeline to ensure the dissemination of funds and
a communication strategy. Brent schools were notified of the details of the
programme in May. Schools will be provided with indicative allocations this
month, which will be confirmed when the Mayor of London’s office confirm
details of the autumn grant funding in July (based on June census) and once
confirmed, the local authority will allocate the funds accordingly.

5.6 The local authority will work with schools on a campaign to encourage Key
Stage 2 parents during 2023/24 to formally sign-up to FSMs to ensure that they
can access pupil premium funding. The first wave of communication on this will
be rolled out in June 2023. The local authority has also placed an advertisement
in the local resident’s magazine Your Brent and will continue to provide further
information about the programme for local residents on a termly basis

TEACHERS ON PICKET LINES AT TWENTY BRENT SCHOOLS AS STRIKES HIT SCHOOLS ACROSS ENGLAND - BRENT TEACHERS SAY ENOUGH! ON REDUNDANCIES

 From Brent National Education Union

 

NEU members across Brent are striking this week in the fight for a fully funded pay rise in education. This follows multiple “restructures” in Brent primary schools which have led to redundancies.

 

Teachers across Brent will be on picket lines this Wednesday and Friday as part of a national strike campaign across England. Cuts to funding in schools and non-funded pay awards have led to redundancies in several Brent schools this term.

 

Teachers and supporters will be on picket lines at 20 Brent schools this week and many more will attend a demonstration in Westminster this Wednesday.

 

Jenny Cooper of Brent NEU and the NEU national executive said:

 

This government does not care about the dire state of our schools- our staffing shortages, our increased class sizes and our lack of money for basic resources. They do not care that those who were key workers in the pandemic are now being made redundant and our SEND kids are being left without adequate support. Well we say “Enough!”- we will not accept this for education- we believe another world is possible.

 

1 Morland Gardens – an Open Letter to Brent’s Chief Executive – it is time to pause and reflect

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

1 Morland Gardens behind a corner of the community garden, 26 June 2023.

 

It is nearly three months since my last guest post about 1 Morland Gardens [“Brent’s latest NON-development (and a planning complaint)”], but that doesn’t mean that nothing has been happening.

 

My blog on 4 April said that Brent Council had lost its £6.5m GLA grant funding because no “start on site” had taken place at Morland Gardens. I’ve since found out, from the GLA, that Brent Council claimed it had achieved a “start on site” in January 2023, as part of applying (successfully) for an increased grant for the affordable homes it was building there!

 

Following several Freedom of Information Act requests to the GLA and Brent Council, I can now say categorically that Brent’s Morland Gardens redevelopment DID NOT “start on site” (as defined in its funding agreement with the GLA) in January. Nor was the Victorian villa demolished in March 2023 (you can see it in the photo from last week above!) as Brent claimed in January that it would be.

 

There is still no Stopping-up Order for the highway land in front of 1 Morland Gardens, so with a continuing delay before Brent could actually start their development, and the serious risk that Brent could lose its GLA funding for the housing element of the scheme, I sent an open letter to Brent’s new Chief Executive, Kim Wright, on 26 June. I will ask Martin to attach a copy of my letter at the end of this article, so that is “in the public domain” for anyone to read should they want to.

 

As Ms Wright will not know the full story of this flawed project, I have set out the main points from its history. I have asked her ‘to cast fresh eyes over the project, with a view to initiating a “whole case review” of whether the Council should still press ahead with it.’ 

 

It is a long letter, so I will set out some “highlights” in this article. I will deal with the detail over why Brent have not achieved a “start on site” when I share a second open letter, to the Mayor of London, with you.

 

In the Affordable Housing Update Report to Brent’s Cabinet last November, Officers admitted that the Morland Gardens project was not viable. I wrote a guest post then, with an open email I’d sent to the Council Leader. My suggestion for an alternative way forward was ignored.

 

In January, Brent asked the GLA for increased funds (there was still spare money “in the kitty”, as some other schemes, e.g. Kilburn Square, would not be able to “start on site” before the deadline of 31 March 2023). The GLA asked (in black) for some information, and Brent added their answer (in red) in an email of 23 January – this is an extract from it:

 

The amount of Brent’s £43m budget for Morland Gardens already spent is redacted, but I would guess at between £3m and £4m (including at least £1.5m on moving the Brent Start college to a temporary home, which has blocked any work on the Council’s 67-home Twybridge Way housing scheme).

 

The GLA’s Affordable Housing Programme Review Board considered Brent’s application at the end of January, and agreed to replace the original funding of £6.5m (£100k for each of 65 proposed homes) with a larger new grant (amount unknown, because it was redacted) under a Project-by-Project agreement. But as this grant was also from the AHP 2016-2023 scheme, the Morland Gardens 2 project still needed to Start on Site (“SOS”) by 31 March 2023.

 

Brent had already claimed to have achieved that “milestone”, based on details set out (again in red) in an email response to GLA questions on 20 January:

 

 

The claims that work had already begun on the site, that demolition would take place in March and that the “main build” construction works would begin by the end of April were vital for showing that the project had not only started but would continue ‘without a fallow period’, which was another requirement for the funding. Those claims were confirmed when Brent Council Officers held their quarterly meeting with the GLA’s area housing team on 7 February. Here is the Morland Gardens entry from Brent’s minutes of that meeting:

 

And it was not just minor Brent Council officials supporting these (what turned out to be false) claims to the GLA. This is the list of attendees from that minutes document (with names redacted to protect their identities, though most could be named from their job titles!):

 

Although an answer in the 20 January email said the stopping-up order (still with GLA planners) ‘won’t delay the progression of SOS’, the 7 February minutes acknowledged that there were still ‘challenges with the stopping-up order objections’. Those challenges were about to increase, as although Brent had told the GLA planners that all of the objection points raised by the objectors had already been dealt with during the planning application process in 2020, the GLA planners, that same day, had asked for copies of the original objections, not just Brent’s summary of what they were!

 

Anyone who read my guest post, “1 Morland Gardens – is proposed Stopping-Up Order another mistake?”, on 28 April 2022 will know that the harmful effects of the proposed development on air quality for pedestrians was not considered as part of the planning process, and there was a whole section on that in the objection comments I submitted in May 2022. That failure to consider the increased exposure to air pollution which the stopping-up would cause was the main reason why the (Deputy) Mayor of London’s decision letter to Brent Council on 20 March said that an Inquiry was not unnecessary:

 

 

More than three months after that decision, I have still heard nothing about when an Inquiry will be held, or who will be conducting it. Council Officers have not replied to requests for information on this, so I’ve had to submit an FoI request just to find out those details. Ridiculous!

 

Brent’s long delays over the Stopping-up Order they would need for their proposed Morland Gardens development to go ahead, and attempts to mislead the GLA over “progress” on the project, have put their plans at serious risk of failure. My open letter to Kim Wright spells that out, but also suggests some alternatives. One of these could be to leave the Brent Start college, permanently, at the Twybridge Way site.

 

That site was supposed to be Phase 2 of Brent’s Stonebridge new homes scheme, and could have been nearing completion by now if Brent’s Cabinet, on the advice of Officers, had not agreed in January 2020 to use it as a temporary home (from August 2020 to August 2022!) for Brent Start while the Morland Gardens redevelopment took place.

 

The opening paragraph from “Your Brent News”, 5 May 2023.

 

There was no mention of Stonebridge Phase 2 when the Council Leader publicised his visit to some of the Phase 1 homes (recently completed by Higgins) with the Mayor of London two months ago. But perhaps there was a hint that Cllr. Butt might be ready to accept that his plans for Morland Gardens need to be reconsidered in this paragraph, further down in the same report:

 

‘While I was in Stonebridge, I also stopped by the new Brent Start Adult Education Centre on Hillside to see its new home, say hello to the Team and meet some of the students. New homes may be the foundation for families to build their lives upon, but skills and learning are the bricks that will make that foundation stronger and open up a wave of new opportunities for local people so I’m thrilled that Stonebridge residents have this new and improved centre right on their doorstep.’

 

Brent Council certainly needs to pause and reflect on its proposals for 1 Morland Gardens, and I hope they will take the opportunity to do that, and choose a more sensible path.

Philip Grant.

 

 

Fun, stalls and activities at Open Day at St Andrew’s Church, Kingsbury, on Saturday 8th July 11am - 4pm

Guest post by local historian Philip Grant 

 

 

As part of its Rekindling St Andrew’s project, the whole community is invited to come and enjoy an Open Day at St Andrew’s Church, Kingsbury, next Saturday 8 July. 

 

There will be lots of activities for adults and children, music and a barbeque. There will also be community tables, where you can talk to people who know about things like the environment and local history, and discover more about these and other subjects.

 

 

Best of all is the chance to explore the inside of this beautiful Grade II* listed heritage building and find out more about how it started life in the 1840s in Central London, and was moved to Kingsbury in the 1930s. The work of some of the best artists and craftsmen of Victorian times is on show as you walk around the inside of the church, something that anyone can appreciate, whatever their faith, or of none. You may even hear the bells!

 

St Andrew’s Church, Church Lane, Kingsbury. (Photo by Des Blenkinsopp)

 

It’s free to come along to this Open Day, between 11am and 4pm, so I hope to see you there. I will be at the Wembley History Society table for much of the day (probably in the hall behind the main church building) if you have any local history questions you would like to ask.

Philip Grant.

 

Editor's note: And I will be on the Brent Friends of the Earth stall come and say hello.

LETTER: Does Brent Council realise its councillors and CEO may be heading to prison for non-compliance?

LINK TO ARTICLE

 

Dear Editor,

After reading the agenda for the next council meeting it seems that no one is aware of this issue.

Brent Council has three months left to collect all the data to meet the requirements of The Building Safety Act by the 30th September 2023.

Failure to comply could see the council being fined, or officers and councillors being imprisoned for up to  2 years.

There are three issues that the council have to comply with:

1) Registering all their high-rises

2) Within 28 days of registration, applying for a safety certificate, including Resident Profiles.

3) Publishing a safety case,.including Resident Engagement Strategies.

FIRNTEC consultants have reported that it will take 2 months per building to collect all the data to prepare  a 'safety case' and a further month to draft a safety case.

So as Brent has around 40 buildings in scope (18metres or higher) they need to start collecting all the information to be compliant by the deadline.

FIRNTEC also say that after the safety case has been published, there needs to be 'an action plan' published for each building but they have not given any timeline for this issue.

 

Letter composed by a concerned Brent resident (details supplied)