VeggieFest2023 Sunday 20th August 11.30am-5.30pm Cricklewood Lane

 

 Sunday 20th August 11.30am - 5.30pm 25 Cricklewood Lane, NW2 1HP

Library of Things in the swing at Willesden Green Library. Borrow tools for your home projects

From Library of Things - Willesden Green Library

 

Nothing more satisfying than a good before and after pic

 

As Summer is in full swing , bookings for the Hedge Trimmer from Library of Things are coming in thick and fast.

 

For just £10 a day (£7.50 with our concession rate), you can hire the Hedge Trimmer and spruce up your garden to enjoy the longer days .

 

We have a great selection of tools at our kiosk in Willesden Green Library and 13 more locations across London that you can reserve from £1 a day. From Hand Sanders to SDS Drills, Dehumidifiers, Tile Cutters, Angle Grinders, Staple Guns and more.

 

We love to see all your amazing projects, send us a photo for the chance to win £20 credit to use on anything you like! And remember that one-day borrow includes the day you pick up the thing and the day you return it; plus, we offer a 25% concession rate to everyone that can't afford the full price.

Check the full catalogue of things and sign up here: https://www.libraryofthings.co.uk/willesdengreen

 

Not ready to hire yet? Sign up to our newsletter to hear about exciting opportunities in your area to borrow things you need, join skillshare events and access discounts to help you save more, here: participate.libraryofthings.co.uk/newslettersignup

 

Thanks to our partners at @brentcouncil for helping us bring affordable rentals to Willesden Green locals

Rogue Wembley landlord banned from letting - one tenant lived beneath lean-to made of pallets and tarpaulin with no lighting or heating

 From Brent Council

 

A criminal businessman has been slapped with Brent’s first ever rogue landlord banning order.

So-called property dealer, Jaydipkumar Rameshchandra Valand, who lives with his family in Swinderby Road, Wembley Central, has been banned from letting out houses in England and engaging in any sort of property management work in the country for the next five years.

 

A judge issued the ban after the council proved that Valand, aged 48, had been responsible for multiple housing-related offences in Brent.

 

Valand was one of four slum landlords found guilty of raking in £360,000 by packing up to 40 tenants into a four-bed semi-detached home in Napier Road, Wembley, back in 2018. Enforcement officers discovered one of the Napier Road tenants living in a lean-to shack made out of pallets and tarpaulin with no lighting or heating.

 

Although he was slammed with a £5,000 confiscation order, Valand went on to exploit more vulnerable tenants. In January 2022, he was found guilty of breaching housing regulations at a licensed HMO property in Wembley Hill Road. Enforcement officers discovered fire safety violations, accumulating waste, disrepairs and unhygienic conditions under Valand’s management while he pocketed £1,400 a month from tenants living in unsafe conditions without tenancy agreements. He was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £3,347 in costs by Willesden Magistrates Court.

 

Valand also declared that he didn’t own a business in the UK, but Brent officers were able to demonstrate in court last year that this was a lie. He was ordered to pay in fines and costs £6,190 for this lie.

 

Councillor Muhammed Butt, the Leader of Brent Council, said: 

 

This is the first ban we have issued since Brent was given the powers in April 2018 to ban serial rogue landlords under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. If Jaydipkumar Valand breaches his five-year ban, he will face a prison sentence.

 

Brent Council takes a zero-tolerance policy against rogue landlords such as this, and we will use everything in our powers to hold them to account to safeguard our vulnerable residents.

 

The new selective licensing scheme that we introduced on 1 August is part of our commitment to protecting renters’ rights and securing a decent standard of living for all residents. Landlords who rent out properties in Dollis Hill, Harlesden & Kensal Green and Willesden Green are now legally required to have a property licence.

Wembley Brook now running freely after remedial works on the Argenta House flood site

Trench works at Argenta House

Asked for an update on works at the Argenta House site, opposite Wembley Park Station, following the floods a spokesperson for the Londonewcastle Latimer joint venture, told Wembley Matters:

Henry Construction – who are no longer on the project – carried out work at our Argenta House site. The local area is an area with known and longstanding issues with flooding. 

 

We are aware of the view that Henry’s temporary works to the nearby brook may have been a contributing factor, alongside exceptionally adverse weather, to the recent floods. After taking back control of the site following Henry’s administration and having received notification from the Environment Agency that remedial works were needed, we removed the temporary work as a precautionary step. We can see the brook is now running freely and we continue to monitor the site.

We remain in regular contact with key stakeholders including the council and the Environment Agency to support ongoing investigations in the wider area following the flooding.

 

 

Wembley High Road Post Office 'temporarily closed' - will it reopen?

 

A reader responded on Twitter:

I was in the post office on the last day it opened. The staff have been made redundant and are very sceptical about a new premises. Apparently this is normally sourced and opened prior to a closure.

Wembley Park 'regeneration v gentrification' revisited 6 years on - do the warnings in this article still hold?

Wembley Matters has been following the development of the Wembley Park 'regeneration' areas for some time. In October 2017 LINK  I published the guest post below which attempted to look forward to the impact of what the author termed 'gentrification' rather than regeneration.  Some might argue that 'gentrification' doesn't fit as very few residents lived in the largely light industrial and warehouse area that were displaced, but it could apply to the wider area with many working class people unable to continue to live here.

Since then we have seen what residents claim is over-development in Alperton, further demolition and building on South Kilburn estate with shrinking green space; masterplan for the Neasden Stations area with high rises on the College of North Wesr London  Dudden Hill site and the light industrial area between Willesden High Road and Dudden Hill; and the huge re-development of the 'one public estate' (comprising Network Homes, NHS NW London, University of Westminster Brent Council) of what will almost be a new town in Northwick Park.

This is the original article with my introduction:

 

There have been many postings on this website about Quintain's Wembley Park 'regeneration' and even more comments, particularly as the development has accelerated recently eating up warehouse and industrial units and apparently squeezing tower blocks into any spare space. In this guest posting Dilan Tulsiani stands back and considers the implications for local people as well as the locality itself.
 

On the 29^th of August 2017, Quintain, a property investment and development business, announced via its website that it was ‘spending £1m a day on construction making Wembley Park one of the UK’s biggest construction sites’. According to Quintain, there will be over 8,500 jobs created, with a further 3,000 homes under construction ‘delivered at a pace not seen at any other London development site’. The construction framework consists of six contractors, the notables being: McLaren, Wates, Sisk and Carillion. Quintain have recently shifted their construction policy from ‘build to buy’ to ‘build to rent’. They aim to build over 7,000 new homes, with 5,000 labelled as ‘build to rent’, and a further 2,300 as “affordable”.

 

Quintain and Brent Council have both resisted using the term ‘gentrification’ to describe their partnership in transforming the area. Instead, you’ll see ‘regeneration’ on practically every website or poster promoting the ongoing process. This is understandable, as the critics of any form of gentrification, are quick to label the selective description by property developers as deceptive and dishonest. Technically speaking, regeneration is embedded within the process of gentrification. The Cambridge Dictionary defines regeneration: ‘to improve a place or system, especially by making it more active or successful’. Gentrification is defined as: ‘the process by which a place, especially part of a city, changes from a being poor to being a richer one, where people from a higher social class live’. Wembley Park’s ‘regeneration’ process factually falls under both definitions (for the remainder of this article I will use the term ‘gentrification’ instead of ‘regeneration’, as it is more accurate to my subject matter). Although, to prevent an ethical breakdown, new tenants would probably cling to ‘regeneration’ as an ontological justification for staying in Wembley.

 

Residents who have lived in Brent for more than a decade will remember the industrial abyss that used to exist just a short walk from the station. In this sense, the gleaming metallic towers, illusory designer outlet and newly placed pavement are well relished. However, there are a few fundamental concerns that have simply been swept aside. Firstly, the effect on the surrounding areas. There is no surprise, that most, if not all the flats in Wembley are not “affordable”. In fact, that term is usually used to provoke a narrative of relativity concerning financial status. Quintain has invested £900 million into Wembley Park, without careful consideration and evaluation from the residents of Brent, this could lead to some serious socio-economic disparities. David Fell, a research analyst at Hamptons International states that property prices in HA9 “have risen by 14% in the last year [2016], compared to a London average of 10%.” Just down the road from Wembley Park, a two-bedroom flat is valued around £335,000. A flat of the same size, less than 10 minutes’ walk away, is valued at £450,000 - £500,000. Recently, Alto has sold two-bedroom flats in Wembley Park for £800,000.

 

A similar problem was highlighted in 2014 during gentrification processes in South Kilburn, where a member of the Residents’ Association claimed: “Those who have been living in the area are essentially being driven out. This all amounts to a social cleansing of South Kilburn.” Moreover, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations emphasised that the residents who have lived in South Kilburn for generations could no longer afford to live in their homes. These are not trivial or isolated matters. They’re simply the effects of gentrification. Wealth concentrated in one single area in this manner, will have drastic consequences. The surrounding populations will be allowed to use facilities, shops and walk the newly paved streets, but there is a cap on their indulgence of this ideology. Consider what the residents of Chalkhill think when their homes are (literally and metaphorically) overshadowed by the new apartment towers. When they, like so many other communities, have a lack of funding within their own neighbourhoods, along with other serious social issues. To name one, in Brent and Hounslow 34 high-rise buildings failed fire cladding tests issued after the horrendous disaster at Grenfell Tower. In contrast, I think it would be perfectly safe to assume that the newly built apartments in Wembley Park have some of the best fire safety systems available.

 

 Attached to this disparity of wealth is the subsequent problem of crime. There is no doubt that the new properties will have a well-maintained police presence, due to the proximity of the stadium, along with security guards for each building. Due to the disparity, crimes in the surrounding areas may increase. Let’s take some of surrounding areas as examples (take these as approximate averages): From January - August 2017, Alperton has had the average total crime rate of 118/month, Dollis Hill’s average total crime rate was 137/month, and Tokyngton stands at an average of 188/month. Tokyngton is the closest of the three areas to Wembley Park, and in recent years it has had a subsequent increase in total crimes committed. If the investment in selective industries and areas remains or increases in the next decade, there should be no surprise at the increase in crime. This correlation was well represented in gentrification processes in New York, especially Harlem. As living standards get higher, the price of property increases, more people will forcibly turn to crime – both petty and serious. The socio-cultural divide will only widen.

 

One last fundamental issue is an assessment by The FA (for those like myself who are not sport literate: The Football Association). In May 2016, The FA complained that Brent Council was considering those who visit the stadium “an afterthought”. The recent constructions sites, which appear directly outside the stadium, could present potential hazards to fans, according to the FA. In fact, these new apartments would present the highest, and thus the most expensive flats, with their own personalised view of the games below them. Wembley is already set to be overcrowded, yet with ongoing construction, and busy venues/rush hour, there should be an effective policy by the council to counter this.

 

Ultimately, I see no realistic counter-movement to what seems to be an unchecked gentrification process at Wembley. In the next decade, Wembley, just as many other towns in Greater London, will be injected with huge sums of money, none of which will aid ingrained social issues, but will make these issues less noticeable for those living in the newly ‘regenerated’ areas. In the meanwhile, surrounding populations will attempt to readjust and comfort themselves from their high price of living with the luxurious shopping outlets built on the borders between their areas and the ‘newly regenerated Wembley Park’.

 

'Is this REALLY normal?' commentary on Brent Council Planning's pre-application process

Guest post by Gaynor Lloyd

 

I read Martin's report of what he described as the shambles at Planning Committee when the Mumbai Junction application was decided. LINK  It was concerning to see that not only did officers give no assistance to Committee members in articulating their reasons for the vote against when they were in such evident difficulties but acted to press for change to deferral. An appeal to the Planning Inspectorate can give residents an opportunity to be heard. 

 

However, what I wanted to respond to was Martin's report of the Chair's comment on the normality of the Planning Committee’s pre-application meeting with Fruition Properties, the developer of Mumbai Junction.  I was the author of the complaint and made both requests for the recusal of Committee members. I do have in-depth knowledge of the background here. 

 

For me, everything started when, in preparing my objection, I spotted a one-liner in the developer's application pack: Pre-application presentation to the Planning Committee. (I also noted a meeting with Cllrs Butt & Tatler).  I was completely taken aback and followed up with a Freedom of Information Request (FOIR) about these meetings. The response provided the agenda, and pre-briefing for the Planning Committee and draft Feedback notes. I also received notes of the Cllr Butt & Tatler meeting with 4 representatives of the developer. 

 

Before making my FOIR, I had looked at the Council's protocols, and could see no constitutional basis on which such pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee could take place. I also looked at National guidance - again I could find no basis. (The Council deny this; I await the Council's evidence to the contrary as part of my Stage 2 complaint)

 

It is true that the Council added numerous provisions to its Planning Code and Protocol, re pre-application processes in November 2022, several months after the meeting with the Planning Committee - but adding those evidences there were none at the time. It is also true that the Council added them after a scheduled review of its planning processes. This was  conducted by a  Local Government Association Independent Reviewer but it seems that the Independent Reviewer could not have been aware that the Planning Committee could take pre-app presentations, as he/she pointed out that no protocols were in existence for  the engagement of any Councillor in the pre-app process, and that it would avoid confusion if, for example, ward councillors knew how they should behave when approached by residents. To be helpful, the Independent Inspector gave the Council some examples of good pre-app practice in 2 other Councils; neither of those Councils invite developers in for a cosy pre-chat with the Planning Committee who will hear their application. 

 

Did the Council devise its protocols to cover its then existing practice?

Was that existing process, right?

Is it accountable? 

How often was it used? 

Who knew about it? 

 

In a world where even a Government Department is now for "Levelling Up", what should we think of  a private and confidential meeting that planning officers can just offer at a price to categories of developer - a meeting with the very Committee to which their planning  application will be presented - when an ordinary resident with a planning objection -whose very life may be affected by the development nearby  - cannot even speak to a single member of the self-same Committee without being batted away with suggestions of the impropriety of an attempt to influence, and a direction (if they must) to give details in writing to all Committee members.

 

But, in this case, it looks worse.  I have been told by an officer that developers of "larger" projects are invited by officers to request a pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee. There is a £2000 extra fee for that private and confidential presentation to the Planning Committee. The availability of this service is not on the website - nor details of the fee nor the criteria officers apply. This is not in accordance with national guidance. How many such applications have been prefaced by a pre-meeting with planning committee is an interesting question: I have got a FOIR in on that - but it does link with Cllr Kelcher’s reported reaction to Cllr Lorber's challenge at Committee on this very topic.

 

Martin in his report says, " Cllr Kelcher reacted angrily saying that that the pre-application meeting was part of the normal process." Yes, well...it would certainly appear that it was indeed part of usual practice at the time - look at the emails trail  below - which arrived as part of the Council's  FOIR response to outline how the meeting with the Committee came about. I have asked for the redactions of names to be replaced by descriptions of postholder/members.

 

The top email of 26 May 17:16 (in very prompt response to the request from the developer's adviser below) refers to a meeting the next day between redacted names and the Chair & Vice Chair of the Planning Committee. (There was no actual planning Committee meeting in May 2022) Apparently, "they” will "bring up pre-app presentations to committee."  "Presentations" plural - clearly "business as usual". Maybe it was   but it was not a process constitutionally authorised by Brent Council in May/June/July 2022. Nor (I maintain) in accordance with national guidance. 

 

I was told that the reason for the silence on the website re the availability of the Planning Committee to developers of "larger" projects is because this is offered by officers and not available on request. 

 

 

Yet, look at the earlier email in the screenshot   - 26 May at 14:52 from the Planning Director, Stantec UK, Fruition’s consultants.  What is to be made of these sentences in their email to Team Leader North Area:" I have just had a call with my client, who informs me he has had a call with [name redacted] .... but [name redacted] has advised that we make a formal request to you that we present the scheme to the planning committee. Thus, this email is that request. Can you look to set this up as soon as possible?" 

 

Who was the call with the developer with? Clearly not the Team Leader. If the Head of Planning, surely, he could have organised it himself. Whatever, it seems that   a developer can tell a Council planning officer to set up a meeting with the Planning Committee.

 

Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks the tone of the email to the Council's Area Team Leader very telling?

 

And, talking of tone... what exactly is an ordinary resident supposed to do? Ms Lester, the senior officer charged with dealing with my complaint, had the solution off pat: "If a person sufficiently affected by the planning decision believes that the decision is legally flawed, the correct process to follow is to challenge it via a judicial review." Ah, that's alright then- if I just had the cash, and the professional advisers...Puts me in mind of the adage. One rule for one....

Brent Council challenged on apparent attempt to restrict public information on the Barham Park restrictive covenant

 

The elephant in the room at the Planning Committee that approved George Irvin's planning application to build 4 three storey houses in Barham Park was the restrictive covenant on the two small park workers' houses on the site.

'Not a planning issue' residents were told by officers as they consigned the poor elephant to invisibility.

Perhaps not but the elephant was perhaps a fly in George Irvin's or Muhammed Butt's ointment.

Now a Barham Park Strategic Property Review, including the covenant, is to take place with Muhammed Butt heading it up as Leader of Brent Council. He is also Chair of the Barham park Trustees charged with preserving and enhancing the park for the benefit of residents in the spirit of the Titus Barham bequest. 

Unfortunately residents who hoped to see the elephant properly dealt with in an open and accountable manner may be kept in the dark as a restriction has been placed on publication and thus public discussion of any proposal:

Barham Park Strategic Property Review

By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Explanation of Reasons

• By Virtue of Paragraph 3

  Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

  Condition:

  Information falling within paragraph 3 above is not exempt information by virtue of that paragraph if it is required to be registered under-(a)the Companies Acts (as defined in section 2 of the Companies Act 2006); (b)the Friendly Societies Act 1974; (c)the Friendly Societies Act 1992; (d)the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1965 to 1978; (e)the Building Societies Act 1986; or (f)the Charities Act 1993

  Information is not exempt information if it relates to proposed development for which the local planning authority may grant itself planning permission pursuant to regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992

  Information which-(a)falls within any of paragraphs 1 to 7 above; and (b)is not prevented from being exempt by virtue of paragraph 8 or 9 above, is exempt information if and so long, as in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information

Cllr Paul Lorber is challening the claim in the restriction that:

....the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information

In a letter to Brent Council officers he says:

I note the latest Forward Plan mentions a number of Reports coming to the above meeting including on issues of the Covenant, Architects Report and Governance.

There is a suggestion that some of the information may be exempt and not provided in the public reports. 

As you are aware there is a great deal of public interest and concern in relation to these matters. 

In relation to all the matters to be reported on it is clear that the Public Interest in disclosing the information outweighs any public interest in maintains the exemption.

In view of this I trust that you will ensure that all information is published in full in all the reports to be presented to the meeting (including any information & advice given in pre meetings) on which any recommendations or decisions will be based.

If any information is to be withheld please provide a list of this information and the grounds on which it is withheld and the justification why the public interest withholding it outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. 

Please confirm that this will be done.