VIDEO: 'Protect our Green Spaces' debate at Brent Council

 

Climate change: learning from women farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India - July 20th 6-8pm Swiss Cottage Library

 

Climate change: learning from women farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India

What we saw when we visited the women’s self-help groups transforming their communities with natural farming

Thursday 20 July 2023, 6-8pm

Swiss Cottage Library, 88 Avenue Rd,
London NW3 3HA  ALL WELCOME   


SOLVEIG FRANCIS, based at Crossroads Women’s Centre, will report on her visit in November 2022 to the growing women-led natural farmers’ movement in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India.

She and her colleagues met women organised in 140,000 Self-Help Groups across 3,000 villages who are spearheading an agricultural, economic and social transformation through Community Managed Natural Farming (agroecology based on no/low tilling, crop diversity, ground cover all year round, and water conservation). They expect all six million farmers and two million landless farmworkers in Andhra Pradesh to be regenerating the soil by 2031, rejecting chemical fertilisers & pesticides, and using local seeds. This transformation benefits the land, the wildlife, the nutrition of the food, the health of the family and women’s incomes, while helping reverse climate change by cooling the earth. A new way of measuring and valuing these benefits is underway.

As news spreads, Andhra Pradesh is invited to work with other states in India and other countries to adopt natural farming. In the UK too agroecology is increasingly being taken up.  Help spread the word of this movement which gives hope to us all.

At last! The penny drops for Brent Council (at least a little) on Shared Ownership as a form of affordable housing

Wembley Matters has criticised Brent Council's definition of Shared Ownership as a form of affordable housing as put forward by officers at Planning Committee and in the Council's publicity. Contributors have quoted the Brent Poverty Commission's statement that the only form of housing affordable for Brent residents is social housing.

Credit must co to Cllr Anton Georgiou for raising the issue of the viability of shared owneship in the Council Chamber LINK.  Rather than listening to the case made, Brent Council Leader made one of his characteristic spluttering attacks on Nimbies.

A report going to Cabinet on Monday LINK contains an account of the difficulties in the shared ownership model and has repercussions for their approach, notably in Watling Gardens, of  changing tenure so that shared ownership cross-subsidises actual affordable housing.

The context is Brent Council's 2020  purchase of 92 homes in Block A and B of the Grand Union development in 2020 along with 23 shared ownership homes in Block D. The Council purchased the 23 homes to get access to the 92.

They now intend to transfer the shared ownership homes to a provider who is not named.

The report states regarding the Council managing such shared ownsership:

..the knowledge, experience and the capacity of the Council to effectively sell and manage processes such as staircasing is minimal.

 

But:

 

The Council did however consider selling homes and retaining them within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). However, the market and demand for Shared Ownership, particularly in the latter quarter of 2022 was and has remained turbulent. This is both in terms of too many shared ownership homes available in the market and appetite and demand for these homes reducing.

 

Registered Providers who work closely with Brent have shared concerns about a saturation of shared ownership in the market. Many Registered Provider include shared ownership as a form of cross subsidy for social housing for rent, this has been under further pressure following last year’s economic and supply challenges to make schemes viable. The Council also put forward a paper to Cabinet in November 2022 proposing cross-subsidy as a means for reducing the financial viability gap within the New Council Homes programme, though

politically shared ownership was not considered a favourable tenure and was only considered as a potential means of protecting the much needed social housing.

 

They suggest that there is a role for shared ownership:

 

The impact of the mini-budget back in September 2022, rising inflation and growing cost of living crisis has led to uncertainty in the market. From a practical  perspective, shared ownership offers residents who still want to buy and benefit of stability that homeownership provides and a route to do so whilst mortgage rates are high as residents can purchase a smaller percentage to keep costs down.

 

But then admit the drawbacks:

 

 

The affordability of shared ownership has however also come into question within the housing sector. Research into the ongoing cost of living crisis and housing shows shared owners are more likely to be vulnerable to financial hardship that other home owners. This is a result of both mortgage offers and the rent payments on properties being linked to inflation. Shared owners pay a mortgage on the proportion owned, which now can be as little as 10% of a property depending on when the property was build, and then pay rent which is starts at 3% of the value of the property still owned by the Landlord. Generally

25-35% is the standard amount of equity first purchased. Contractually shared ownership rents rise by the Retail Price Index (RPI) plus 0.5% each year which would have seen rises of 15.7% as of December 2022 (it should however be noted Not for Profit Registered Providers capped the rent increase at 7%).

 

Generally mortgage offers for Shared Ownership homes have higher interest rates that regular mortgages too, meaning inflation has an even greater impactwhen mortgage payments and rent is combined. 

 

They go on to give figures on the actual costs of a shared ownershio home with a value of £400,000.  Note the cost of the mortgage would be much more now as interest rates have risen sharply:

 

 

A worked example of a £400K home from Nottinghill Genesis shows a breakdown of costs where a 25% share has been purchased:

•  25% share = £100,000
• Estimated mortgage = £532 (NB this is not based on current mortgage rates) 
• Rent = £688
• Service charge = £200
• Total = £1,420

• Guidance household income required = £51,160

 

It should be noted, the average salary for a working household in Brent for 2021 was £36K

 

Quite a gap, so what to do with those 23 shared ownership homes purchased back in 2020?:

 

 

In December 2022, the Council commissioned marketing company Site Sales to sell the homes as a package on the market to Registered Providers. Registered Providers invited to bid include: Clarion, Guinness, Heylo, HSPG,Keep Homes, Legal and General, MTVH, Network, Newlon, Notting Hill Genesis, OHGO, Octavia, Origin, Peabody, PA Housing, Sage, St Arthur Homes.

 

Most of the providers who responded stated the package of homes was too small to meet their organisations acquisition criteria. Expressions of interest were received from a range of Registered Providers. Offers in full received by the Council are set out in Appendix 1 (classified as exempt).

 

Each offer was assessed against the two key criteria for the Council when considering affordable housing opportunities, the financial requirements of the Council and meeting housing demand. This includes comparing the offer against the cost incurred to the Council for the initial purchase. Using this criteria it was deemed out of the three offers received only one was considered viable, details are contained in Appendix 1.

 

 

From a housing demand perspective, Offer 3 is most reflective of the current demand, specifically affordability within Brent and offers a unique opportunity to pilot the model in Brent. It also presents the opportunity to influence the shared ownership market at a local level and use this model and an exemplar of best practice. The recommendation of this report is to approve Offer 3, this is due to concerns about the existing shared ownership model and its ability to meet Brent Residents Housing Need.

 

We cannot see the actual costs involved as Appendix 1 is exempted from public view. 

At Full Council meeting on Monday 10th July Cllr Promise Knight answering a question from Cllr Georgiou said, 'We know the the political appetite for shared ownership is waning. We've listend - you brought this up six months ago - and this is a demonstration of us listening.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

Breaking: Controversial Mumbai Junction planning application deferred from tomorrow's Brent Planning Committee

 

The proposed block of flats that would replace the bar/restaurant

The controversial Mumbai Junction redevelopment was due to be discussed at tomorrow's Planning Committee but the Council has now announced that its consideration will be deferred to a future meeting.

The proposal has met with firece opposition from local residents, Barry Gardiner MP, Sudbury Court Residents Association, and the ward councillors for Northwick Park.

I could see only one comment in favour on the Council Planning Portal and 539 against.

Brent Planning Officers had however recommended approval and deployed the 'less than substantial level of harm' argument as well as a suggestion that 'the limited conflict with policy' could be dealt with through mitigation. I leave you to sort out the sentence on affordable housing!

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, and, having regard to allmaterial planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions and obligations secured through a Section 106 Agreement. The proposal would result in the provision of 42 new homes, including 11 family sized homes, and would meet an identified need in the borough. The scheme would comply with affordable housing policy despite the absence of affordable housing as it has been demonstrated that the scheme would result in a deficit against reasonable target profit levels. The proposed development is larger than thesurrounding buildings both in terms of height and massing. As discussed the Officer view is that the design responds well to its the context and is well composed albeit it would represent a strong element in the local street views. No harm is considered to result to the setting of the Sudbury Court Conservation Area.

However, if one did conclude that a degree of harm resulted, the Officer's view is that the level of harm this would be "less than substantial" and significantly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. The scheme would be air quality neutral in relation to building emissions, but would not be air quality neutral in relation to transport emissions. The limited conflict with policy is capable of a degree of mitigation through the development of a travel plan and moreover considered to be outweighed by the planning benefits of the scheme including the delivery of 42 new homes with 11 family sized homes, contributing towards the Council's housing targets,

Lib Dem motion on protection of green spaces to be debated at Full Council tonight

 

Protecting, preserving and promoting Parks and Open Spaces in Brent

 

This Council notes:

 

Our borough is home to many wonderful green, open spaces and parks that are enjoyed by residents of all ages and backgrounds. From smaller parks like Mount Pleasant Open Space in Alperton, King Edward VII in Wembley, to historical parks like Barham Park and Gladstone Park, larger country parks in Fryent, and thriving open spaces in the Welsh Harp and Northwick Park, to name but a few.

 

These vital spaces must be protected, particularly if they are threatened by development that does not meet local need.

 

In recent years we have become even more aware of how important green spaces are for local people. During the Covid-19 pandemic and periods of lockdown, they became a sanctuary for so many who were able to spend time in them, benefiting both mental and physical health.

 

With ever increasing building works in Brent, particularly of tall tower blocks, it is crucial that new residents are able to access open spaces in the areas they move to. Sadly, most new developments do not incorporate adequate large green space, rather most include only small pocket parks that are not sufficient and often not well maintained by Housing Associations/ Managing Companies.

 

Achieving Climate Emergency targets relies heavily on safeguarding open spaces in our borough, protecting mature trees and important habitats for local wildlife. Without doing so, we risk missing these targets.

 

The decision by the Planning Committee to allow the building of houses located along the north-west corner of Barham Park goes against Brent Council’s long established Core Strategy of protecting Brent parks and open spaces from unwelcome development. The decision also undermines the whole point of local people getting involved in developing Local Neighbourhood Plans. The Planning Committee overrode the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Plan policy BP1 which specifically designated Barham Park as a green space where development or redevelopment of buildings not intended for community uses should be refused.

 

The Barham Park decision creates an unwelcome precedent putting other parks and open spaces in Brent at risk. Following that decision hundreds of local people have signed a petition on the Brent Council website, calling for the protection of parks and open spaces from development, which indicates the strength of feeling on this important issue.

 

Therefore, this Council believes:

 

1. That all of Brent’s parks and open spaces should be valued and celebrated as

vital assets in our community.

2. Parks and open spaces must all be protected from the potential of development, particularly of development that does not meet local need or that is clearly not for genuine community use.

3. The value of parks and open spaces cannot be understated; even more so as increasing numbers of local people have little to no access to their own gardens or green space.

4. The Cabinet should reassure all residents that within its responsibilities it will always prioritise the preservation of our parks and open spaces and promote these assets.

 

This Council resolves:

 

(1) To confirm its longstanding strategic position that it will recognise the value of open spaces and parks in the borough and seek to protect them.

(2) To call on the Cabinet to ensure within its responsibilities there will be no new buildings and no expansion of buildings in parks other than for legitimate  community use.

(3) To seek to strengthen its Planning Policies on protecting public parks and open spaces by confirming the principle that "real harm" would be caused if permission was granted for the building of houses or other buildings within Brent Parks and Open Spaces which were not intended for direct community uses.

(4) To incorporate in all Planning reports the potential environmental impact applications will have on our area, and how they might impact Climate Emergency targets.

(5) To work with partners across the city, from the Corporation of London, other Local Authorities and City Hall to protect, preserve and promote vital green, open spaces in London.

(6) In view of the public concern about intensification of building in Barham Park contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan policy and restrictions imposed in past disposal documents, to call on the Council and Cabinet to support the Barham Park Trust in considering a Judicial Review into the recent decision of the Brent Planning Committee to approve an application for 4 houses located along the north-west corner of Barham Park.

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou

 

Key part of Labour amendment in red - removed words and new words

 

 

Lead councillors respond to residents' demands for the renaming of Gladstone Park and Leopold Primary School

 Given recent articles and exchanges on Brent heritage I thought readers would be interested in these questions and answers to be heard at tonight's Fill Council Meeting:

Question from F. Lee to Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (Cabinet Member for

Customers, Communities and Culture)

 

In August of 2020 the Mayor of London launched the initiative for Diversity in the Public Realm to review statues street names and landmarks in London, to reflect its diversity.

 

Given that Gladstone Park was identified as such for a review and given the obvious link to Leopold II with a Primary School in Harlesden, why has there been no effective council led public consultation in relation to the issue, in keeping with the Mayor's stated initiative?

 

Councillor’s response:

 

In 2020 the council undertook a review of the name of the park as part of the Mayor of London’s Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm. This involved a review of statues, street names and landmarks in London including the possibility of a name change for Gladstone Park, and community engagement was part of this process.

 

The review was completed in in August 2021, and the decision taken by the Black Community Action Plan Steering Group was not to rename the park, but instead to develop a public art commission in partnership with the community to both acknowledge the Gladstone family’s role in the slave trade, whilst celebrating the considerable contribution and influence of African heritage to the cultural landscape of Brent. This is in line with heritage sector best practice to retain and not obscure the significant associations of a place, and where the significance of a place is not readily apparent, it should be explained by interpretation.

 

Interpretation should enhance understanding and enjoyment, and be culturally appropriate, which is what we have strived to do with the heritage trail installed in the park.

 

In reference to Leopold School, there is no direct evidence to suggest the school is named after King Leopold II of Belgium. The school was originally named in 1874, with the high likelihood that it took its name from Queen Victoria’s son, Prince Leopold (1853-1884), who was known for his interest in education. Unable to pursue a military career because of his illness (haemophilia), he instead became a patron of the arts and literature. The school has worked with pupils to explore the history of the school and produced history boards documenting its historic timeline. In doing so, no further origins of the school’s name were found in the archives.

 

 

Question from N. Scott to Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (Cabinet Member

for Customers, Communities and Culture)

 

In light of recent proposals made to the Council to change the name of Gladstone Park, due to the Gladstone family’s abhorrent role in African / Caribbean slavery, could you please let me know who and when it was decided to hold a Windrush Tea Party in that particular park from 12-4pm on 24th June?

 

With regards to the Mayor of London’s stated initiative, I am particularly concerned that the Council have made no meaningful attempt to address concerns of local residents and initiate a wider public consultation in relation to ethical name changes regarding Gladstone Park and two Leopold educational establishments - named after families who exploited, traded, tortured and profiteered from slavery.

 

Councillor’s response:

 

The council has a duty to mark Windrush Day – and does so each year. This year’s Windrush 75 celebrations follow the land art – known as The Anchor, The Drum, The Ship – which opened in the park in October 2022, and was curated by the Brent artist Linett Kamala. The Windrush Tea Party, also curated by Linett Kamala is being held close by to the heritage trail which has been installed in the park to highlight untold histories, and to recognise and celebrate the hugely valued contribution made to Brent by Black African Heritage residents and to further the conversations that the art exhibition and accompanying heritage trail began. The Brent Windrush 75 community tea party’s location reflects the council’s commitment to continue the conversation with communities about the history of Gladstone Park.

 

With regards to Gladstone Park, in 2020 the council undertook a review of the name of the park as part of the Mayor of London’s Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm. This involved a review of statues, street names and landmarksin London included the possibility of a name change for Gladstone Park.

 

Engagement with the community was part of this process, which was completed in August 2021. The decision was not to rename the park but instead to develop a public art commission in partnership with the community to both acknowledge the Gladstone family’s link to the enslavement of Africans, whilst celebrating the huge contribution and influence of African heritage to the cultural landscape of Brent.

 

This space in the park, including The Anchor, The Drum, The Ship land art and the history trail, are now a space for learning, reflection, healing, gathering and celebrating.

Brent Council accused of 'hypocritical stance' on planning guidance

 This guest post byMarc Etukudo is based on an email he sent to Brent Council yesterday:

I would like to draw your attention to an article I read this morning in the Harrowonline (Harrow Times) about Brent Council's new guidelines for developers operating within the borough. The only problem is that Brent Council does not practice what it preaches......

 

 

 Brent Council has introduced new guidelines for developers operating within the borough.

 (Source - Harrowonline - Harrow Times)

 

 

The council’s Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) aim to enhance the quality of life for local communities while creating a greener and healthier environment.

The first SPD, titled ‘Residential Amenity Space and Place Quality’, focuses on making Brent a vibrant, inclusive, and thriving community.

Cllr Shama Tatler, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning, and Growth at Brent Council expressed her pride in Brent’s pioneering efforts to tackle pressing issues such as the climate crisis and health inequalities.

She stressed that well-designed and sustainable development plays a crucial role in enriching the lives of residents.

Our residents deserve great places to live, and well-designed, sustainable development is a key factor in enriching people’s quality of life.”

 

This is yet another example of Brent Council's hypocritical stance. On one hand they say one thing, set down laws for others to follow but yet on the other hand they break every law set down by themselves for others to follow and totally ignore it for themselves when it suits them. 

The proposal planned for Newland Court is one example of Brent Council’s hypocritical stance. They are ignoring all the laws that they set out in their planning guidance to push this proposal through. In Cllr Shama Tatler’s statement she says:-

‘The council’s Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) aim to enhance the quality of life for local communities while creating a greener and healthier environment.’

‘She expressed her pride in Brent’s pioneering efforts to tackle pressing issues such as the climate crisis and health inequalities.’

‘Our residents deserve great places to live, and well-designed, sustainable development is a key factor in enriching people’s quality of life.’

How is destroying healthy mature trees that house many wildlife including many species of birds and 3 species of bats and reducing our urban green space creating a greener and healthier environment? How is this tackling the climate crisis and health inequalities in the community?

This is actually doing the opposite. Destroying all the greenery around Newland Court is going to have a detrimental effect on the mental wellbeing of existing residents who, as you already know, have been treated with systemic discrimination since this proposal started and of which, are all against this proposal.

Then building crammed tiny houses with little or inadequate amenity spaces, under what’s left of the trees that omit sticky residue and will need constant pruning. Initially, anyone offered a 3-4 bedroomed home would be glad if they are moving in from temporary dwellings. But this will also eventually affect the mental wellbeing of the new tenants after a few months of moving in.

Brent Council has not once taken the thoughts or feelings of the existing residents at Newland Court into consideration. Instead they want to turn a great place where we live, and destroy the quality of life we enjoy to build a concrete jungle on a site that just isn’t viable to build on. So much for tackling the climate crisis, health inequalities and enriching people's quality of life.

Brent Council plans to move the pavement and parking spaces to the right from where the grass starts taking away a quarter of our green space and also want to build a children’s play area which will only encourage ASB including drug users, pushers and alcohol consumption. None of us want a play area and residents who have lived here for 20, 30, 40, 50 and beyond whose kids grew up and have left home never had it. Obviously it's for the new families that Brent  wants to move into the tiny cramped new homes.   

 

All the trees you see are by the fences in the back gardens of residents at Grendon Gardens which is in Barn Rise conservation area. As you can see, all the tree canopies are overhanging by a few metres across  and over the garages that Brent wants to replace with 3-4 bed roomed houses. This means that all the trees will have to be cut back to the fences and if that doesn’t kill them and all the wildlife including 3 species of bats. Then maybe constant pruning and digging through their roots to lay down foundations for the 3-4 bedroom homes during construction will.

 

 

Trees benefit the environment

 

Trees absorb carbon dioxide as they grow and the carbon that they store in their wood helps slow the rate of global warming. They reduce wind speeds and cool the air as they lose moisture and reflect heat upwards from their leaves. It’s estimated that trees can reduce the temperature in a city by up to 7°C. Trees also help prevent flooding and soil erosion, absorbing thousands of litres of storm water.

 

 

Trees boost wildlife

 

Trees host complex microhabitats. When young, they offer habitation and food to amazing communities of birds, insects, lichen and fungi. When ancient, their trunks also provide the hollow cover needed by species such as bats, wood boring beetles, tawny owls and woodpeckers.

 

Brent Council to call for full implementation 'without delay' of Casey Review's recommendations on the MET plus additional measures

Cllr Liz Dixon is to move a motion at Monday's Brent Council backbencher's debate calling for the Metropolitan Police to implement all the Casey Review's recommendations and take additional measures:

 

The Council therefore resolve:

 

That the Cabinet Member for Safer Communities & Public Protection should write to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to confirm Brent Council’s support of the Casey Review, requesting that the Metropolitan Police make concrete efforts to rebuild the trust lost by adopting and implementing without delay, all 16 recommendations of the Casey Review.

 

This includes:

 

o Adopting a new, independent, multidisciplinary team of police officers and staff who will reform how the Metropolitan Police deals with misconduct cases, with a particular focus on how it handles sexual misconduct, domestic abuse and discrimination.

o Overhauling the recruitment and vetting system to ensure that new recruits are not drawn to the job for the wrong reasons; and revoking special qualifications where officers’ standards fall short of public expectations.

o Providing the Police Commissioner new powers that ensure that they can take strong and decisive action when the sanctions and consequences for misconduct are inadequate.

o A dedicated Women’s Protection Service with specialist units who focus on rape and serious and sexual offences and the creation of a children's strategy to focus resources on safeguarding and child protection.

 

(2) To call upon the Metropolitan Police to build an improved borough-based approach that will rebuild trust in policing across communities by investing in frontline policing - including safer communities and public protection - and ensuring victims of crimes such as domestic violence and sexual assault have appropriate, compassionate, and effective support and resources.

 

(3) To call upon the Metropolitan Police to commit to an overhaul of stop and search powers and accountability for the use of force in our communities.

 

(4) To call upon the Metropolitan Police to further their partnership working with London local government as part of boosting local accountability and scrutiny of police powers, including working closely with those communities most impacted by police activity and communities and individuals subject to the disproportionality highlighted in the Casey report.

 

Councillor Liz Dixon

Dollis Hill ward

 

 FULL MOTION