We're going on a Bear Hunt in Chalkhill tomorrow!

 

The Barham Park planning decision – Brent explains why three Cllrs. who declared an interest were allowed to take part in the 12 June meeting

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

General view of the 12 June Planning Committee meeting, from the webcast.

 

There were a number of blog articles last month about the Barham Park (776/778 Harrow Road) planning application, which was controversially approved at Brent’s Planning Committee meeting on 12 June. Some of the comments on them referred to connections which Committee members might have with the applicant, George Irvin, including free tickets received from him to one of his funfairs in April 2023. One committee member had declared receiving these.

 

I had written to Brent’s Corporate Director for Governance about this issue, and did so again a few days before the meeting. In her absence, my email was dealt with by Brent’s Head of Law. On 9 June I wrote this in an email to her:

 

‘Whatever value was estimated, by Cllr. Begum or others, for the gift they received in respect of the Funfair at Roe Green Park, just a few weeks ago, in order to receive that gift, councillors were given George Irvin's personal email address and mobile phone number, and had to contact him personally to obtain it. That should be sufficient to debar them from having any part in a decision on an application which if approved would be to Mr Irvin's financial benefit.

 

In case you are not already aware, application 22/4128 is a controversial one, strongly opposed by many residents, both individually and through their Residents' Associations. It is a sensitive matter, and one where it is important that the Council is seen to be dealing with it openly and fairly.’

 

 

The application details from the 12 June Planning Committee agenda.

 

Despite this, Cllr. Begum was allowed to take part in the Planning Committee meeting which decided Mr Irvin’s application, along with two other councillors, Saqib Butt and Akram, who had also declared some sort of connection with him at the start of the meeting. I requested a detailed explanation of why this had been allowed, and this is the response I received from Brent’s Head of Law on 5 July:

 

‘Cllr Begum was not required by the provisions of the Brent Member’s Code of Conduct (Code) to declare the gift, she did so in order to be transparent.  Although she was not required to refer to the gift at the meeting itself, she chose to do so, again in order to be transparent.  Cllr Begum was advised prior to the meeting that although the provisions of paragraph 34 of the Code did not apply, she might nonetheless choose to consider whether a member of the public knowing the facts about the gift would reasonably consider it likely to prejudice her judgement of the public interest. Cllr Begum chose to remain in the meeting and did not act contrary to the Code in doing so.

 

The information in the statement by Cllr Begum did not indicate that the applicant was a person connected to her under paragraph 30 of the Code.

 

In relation to Cllr Akram and Cllr S Butt, both in fact stated that the applicant and signatories on the petition had followed/connected with them on social media through their work as Councillors.  They were specifically asked to confirm that it was not a personal connection and they confirmed that it was not. It is clear from their statements that they were bringing the circumstances to the attention of the committee and the public in order to be transparent and were not declaring that the applicant or signatories on the petition were “connected persons” for the purposes of paragraph 30 of the Code.  Accordingly there was no reason for them to leave the committee meeting.’

 

I have replied, on 6 July, as follows:

 

‘Dear Ms Henry,

 

Thank you for your email of 5 July, which clarifies the basis on which Councillors Begum, Saqib Butt and Akram were allowed to take part in considering and deciding Mr Irvin's application at the Planning Committee meeting on 12 June.

 

You were aware, several days before the meeting, that there was public concern over Cllr. Begum's participation in considering and deciding this application, as she had received a gift of free funfair tickets from the applicant only two months beforehand. In those circumstances I have to express my surprise that she was allowed to choose whether to take part in the meeting - surely it would have been best to advise her not to take part.

 

You say that Cllrs. S. Butt and Akram were specifically asked to confirm that they had no personal connection with the applicant, and that they confirmed that they did not. However, it is strongly rumoured (though I have no hard evidence) that they do have a social connection with Mr Irvin, either directly or through their close relative, Cllr. M. Butt, the Council Leader and Chair of the Barham Park Trust Committee.

 

I will leave these views for you to consider, and will not pursue them further with you, but I will share the explanations provided in your email of 5 July with others who have an interest in this matter. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

In order to be transparent, Cllr. Rita Begum has declared a number of other items in her Register of Interests on the Council’s website, including that she is an ‘Ambassador for Gem environmental building services LTD and Paytap’ and a ‘Director of R.B Associates PVT LTD’.

 

Two examples from the “Who we work for” page of Gem’s website.

 

Gem Environmental Building Services Ltd’s (“Gem”) website describes the company as ‘one of the fastest-growing maintenance companies in London.’ Their clients include a number of London Boroughs, including Camden, Islington, Tower Hamlets and the City of Westminster (but not Brent – yet). But why do Gem need a Labour councillor as an ambassador?

 

The Companies House website shows that R.B Associates PVT Ltd (Company No. 14533968) was incorporated in December 2022, with a registered office at a private address in London NW10, and its sole director and shareholder Ms Rita Begum. The nature of its business is shown as ‘environmental consulting activities’. Perhaps that is where any fees for acting as an ambassador will be paid to? 

 

But, of course, Cllr. Begum has been transparent about these interests, so that’s fine, isn’t it?

Philip Grant.

Brent Council 'were not called to ' Wembley Brook floods in Tokyngton Avenue - background to the flooding

Tokyngton Avenue residents are still clearing up the damage caused when the Wembley Brook burst its banks and flooded gardens and some homes on Tuesday, after heavy rains.

The flood comes after warnings on Wembley Matters about the danger of floods as a result of climate change and extreme weather events. The brook flows behind Tokyngton Avenue houses to the west and past Stonebridge Park station before joining the Brent.

Brent has a number of waterways including the River Brent, the feeder canal, Weladstone Brook, Wembley Brook and a number of streams now in conduits including Sladebrook, and Mitchellbrook that feed into the main water courses/

Five fire engines and 35 fire fighters attended the flood, pumping out water and cutting off electricity to ensure safety. 

Some residents feel the impact was worsened by the building works going on in the area.

 

 

Much of the area near the station has been built on and there are plans for new tower blocks right next to the Wembley Brook. 

 

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/04/how-many-people-know-about-big-very.html

 

 

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2019/08/lets-build-28-storey-housing-block-on.html

 

Stonebridge Place

Argenta House

This will involve concrete aprons close to the brook area and contrasts starkly with the River Brent to the east on the other side of the River Brent where a flood plain has been retained as open space in Monks Park and St Raphaels Estate.

I am afraid Tokyngton residents may not have seen the last of the flooding. 

A Brent Council spoksperson said they were not called to the incident but will be seeking to understand the causes. Meanwhile Chris Whyte of the Environment Department said,  'If there are specific and unusual causal factors, then we would be happy to look into these.'  Chris.Whyte@brent.gov.uk

EXTRACT FROM DRAFT LOCAL PLAN

Wembley Brook and River Brent are potential sources of flooding and the majority of the site is within Flood Zone 3. Part of the site is within including extensive flood zone 3b (functional floodplain). Development, other than water compatible uses, will not be acceptable within functional floodplain. Any flood modelling from applicants which seeks to justify a revision to the functional floodplain boundary will need to be agreed by the Environment Agency.

Brent teachers strike for fully-funded pay increase

 

 

Members of the National Education Union in London went out on strikefor a fully-funded pay increase in large numbers yesterday with some schools closed. 

Brent NEU members were featured in an ITN London News bulletin explaining their case.

'Fully-funded' is a demand that the government increases school budget to enable schools to pay the increase without causing cuts and redundancies.  Teachers do not want to get an increase at the expense of worsening education provision and redundancies amongst poorly paid,  but vital,   largely female, support staff.

A considerable number of Brent schools are facing deficit budgets already and a failure to  achieve full-funding will worsen the crisis. Restructuring of staff, creating voluntary redundacies is taking place across the borough.

At the same time the deteriorating salaries and conditions of service of staff, during a cost of living crisis. means that teachers are leaving the profession in droves and management faces huge difficulties in  recruiting staff.  High house prices or rents mean that young teachers, when they want to start a family, have no choice but to move out of London.

Meanwhile the government is in denial.

There will be another strike on Friday.

Pictures from yesterday's strike (contributed)

Evening with authors Kamilla Shamsie and Caroline Smith - Monday 10th July - Preston Comunity Library

Evening with authors Kamilla Shamsie and Caroline Smith - Monday 10th July 7pm

Author Kamila Shamsie and poet Caroline Smith will be joining us at the library on the at 7pm to read from their books and poems.  Full details were in our last mailing, but the poster is attached again below.

Further information:  More tickets have been released.  To get a ticket click on the following link:  Eventbrite:  https://prestoncommunitylibrary.eventbrite.co.uk
 

If you have difficulties then email us at the address below. If after booking you find you can't come, please either go to Eventbrite and cancel or let us know by emailing us at prestoncommunitylibrary@gmail.com.  This means that we can give the ticket to someone else.

 

 

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?????