Boroughs
in the capital will need to make over £500m of savings next year to
balance their budgets, new analysis from London Councils reveals.
Based on its latest survey of council finances, the cross-party group
warns that nine in ten London boroughs expect to overspend on their
budgets this year – estimated at over £400m in total across the capital.
London Councils says boroughs face a perfect storm of prolonged high
inflation, fast-increasing demand for services, and insufficient
government funding – leading to a growing risk of financial and service
failures.
Growing pressures on adult and children’s social care, as well as the
capital’s worsening homelessness crisis, are the biggest drivers of
boroughs’ overspends. London Councils estimates that almost 170,000 Londoners
– equivalent to one in 50 residents of the capital – are currently
homeless and living in temporary accommodation arranged by their local
authority. Boroughs expect to overspend on temporary accommodation by
£90m this year.
Ahead of the government’s Autumn Statement in November, where the
Chancellor will set out his future spending plans, boroughs are calling
for urgent action to boost support for local services and stabilise
council finances.
London Councils has launched its key priorities for the Autumn Statement, which include:
An overall funding increase of at least 9% (in line with what was received last year).
Investment to reduce homelessness, including through uplifting the Local Housing Allowance and Homelessness Prevent Grant.
Reforms to the broken local government finance system, such as
giving councils longer-term funding settlements and more devolved
powers.
Cllr Claire Holland, Acting Chair of London Councils, said:
“Borough finances are on a knife edge – with grim implications for the future of local services in the capital.
“The combination of higher costs due to spiralling inflation,
skyrocketing demand for services, and insufficient levels of government
funding leaves boroughs in an extremely precarious position. The
pressure is relentless – we face a £400m shortfall this year, which
rises to £500m next year unless the government provides more support.
“Councils play a vital role in their communities providing essential
services and in tackling so many major challenges, such as addressing
homelessness, unlocking economic growth, and making faster progress
towards net zero.
“The government must use the Autumn Statement to bolster council
finances. This will be crucial for helping boroughs stabilise budgets
and sustain London’s local services.”
London boroughs’ resources remain almost a fifth (18%) lower than in
2010, despite there now being almost 800,000 more Londoners – broadly
equivalent to a city the size of Leeds). This has been exacerbated by
over £1bn in unfunded and underfunded new burdens over that period, such
as the government transferring responsibility to local authorities for
financing Council Tax Support and a host of other measures.
London Councils also highlights a recent report from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank
that found London local government funding is 17% lower than its
estimated relative need – by far the largest gap of any region in
England.
The Brent Corporate Director of Finance and Resources has issued a grim warning on the Council's financial situation following a significant over-spend on the housing service caused by a high level of demand due to increased homelessness, reduced supply of suitable temporary accommodation and subsequent higher costs. The forecast spend of £16.3m is nearly five times the original budget.
The Director informs the Cabinet that the 'seriousness of the Council's financial position cannot be understated' and stresses the need for more measures than had been planned in order to control expenditure to address the underlying issue that 'the Council's net expenditure is significanty greater than the available sources of in-year funding'.
Extracts from the report (Full Report that is available HERE)
The Council’s revised
General Fund revenue budget for 2023/24 is £291.2m. The revised budget includes
planned revenue savings in-year of £13.5m and the status of these are set out
in Appendix A. There is a forecast overspend of £13.4m against the revised
revenue budget at Quarter 2. If sustained until the year end, this would
require a transfer from unallocated reserves.
Equally, any overspending
not dealt with in 2023/24 would, potentially, carry over into 2024/25 thereby
increasing the requirement for further savings in that year whilst at the same
time providing reduced scope to draw on the Council’s reserves.
The seriousness of the
Council’s financial position cannot be understated.
The scale of the financial
challenge for 2023/24 and 2024/25 is such that, in addition to work currently
underway to implement savings in 2023/24 and to identify new savings proposals
for 2024/25 and 2025/26, the Council will need to implement further measures to
control expenditure in order to address the underlying issue that the Council’s
net expenditure is significantly greater than available sources of in year
funding. Further details on these measures are set out below.
Local government is facing
the most challenging financial environment for many decades. Many councils are
overspending and depleting their reserves; most are experiencing the adverse
effects of high inflation, high interest rates and significant increases in
demand due to demographic changes. Some are even declaring bankruptcy by
issuing s114 notices. Concerns about future levels of government funding are
widespread. Against this backdrop, Brent has maintained a strong position in
terms of financial resilience and sustainability with a good track record of
delivering savings and balancing the overall budget. However, the position for
2023/24 has worsened significantly and the current forecast will require the
Council to take urgent actions in the short and medium term to maintain
financial control.
The main cause of the
forecast overspend is within the Housing Service, where high levels of demand
due to a rise in homelessness and reduction in supply of suitable accommodation
are expected to result in an overspend of over £13m. Section 3.8 of this
reports sets out the Council’s strategy in dealing with thesignificant increase in costs of providing
temporary accommodation for those homeless people to whom the Council owe a
legal duty. While Brent is not in the financial situation of those Council’s
that have recently issued, or threatened to issue, a Section 114 notice
(legally required when the council cannot balance its budget, unlike the NHS
and other parts of the public sector councils are not allowed to carry a
deficit) all efforts must be focussed on positively changing the financial
position.
In addition to these actions
and the additional oversight provided by the Budget Assurance Panel, further
measures are considered necessary to prevent the situation worsening. These
will include, but are not limited to, controls on new spending decisions,
limits on new recruitment, reduction in the use of agency workers, bringing
forward in year savings and other mitigations to reduce expenditure. These
sensible, proactive and prudent measures will provide more assurance over the
Council’s spending decisions and reduce the risk that the budget position
deteriorates further. These measures will remain in place until the end of the
financial year, and updates provided to the Cabinet in future forecast reports
and budget reports.
The report also includes updates on the viability of two major projects:
The Wembley Housing Zones
project is expected to experience a viability pressure when updating the
project plans to meet potential fire safety regulations. Work is already
underway with the contractor, Wates, to reduce the impact of any changes
required. The Morland Garden project is experiencing significant viability
challenges whilst also being subject to a significant delay in the
project delivery timescales dependent on the outcome of the public inquiry in
relation to the stopping up order.
Frank Dabba Smith, Mustafa Field and Danny Maher from the Brent Multi-Faith Forum, said:
We are aware that the trauma of the horrific violence of the last few days will be felt by innocent people in the Middle East region for generations to come. We are aware, too, that there are many people living in the London Borough of Brent who will be mourning the loss of family members, friends, and colleagues. We deplore all forms of violence and find any rejoicing at the suffering of others to be abhorrent.
We understand that this enduring and terrible conflict is deeply complex and embedded in historical trauma occurring to both sides. However the real suffering and pain must feel in a group’s narrative, cycles of abuse and violence must be ended. If not, committing hateful acts including violence, hostage-taking and a myriad forms of discrimination will only result in perpetuating more of the same.
We hold that the root of all faith / no faith must consist of the safeguarding of all life through the exercise of kindness, compassion and love. We support those of all faiths / no faith who are engaged in the struggle for peaceful dialogue, cooperation, conciliation and the equitable sharing of precious resources in the Middle East.
We are deeply committed to the safety and welfare of those of all faiths / no faith in Brent. There is no excuse for antisemitism, Islamophobia or any other hate crime. Exacerbating communal tensions will not be tolerated. We stand with the Metropolitan Police and Brent Council in urging the immediate reporting of any threatening behaviours.
Falling school pupil numbers and subsequent school closures and amalgamations were a feature of my early years in teaching in the 1970s and the issue has returned post-Brexit as pupil numbers fall.
Camden has already been hit and there was a local warning when the Strathcona site closed. Now Brent Council is wrestling with managing pupil numbers and school provision. in the borough. A review of primary provision was promised last year and focused on Planning Area 4:
The above table shows how the actual admissions compared with the PAN (Planned Admissions Number). 30 is one form admitted at reception, 60 two forms and 90 three forms, 45 is a class and a half and results in either two small single age classes or mixed age classes.
The only two oversubscribed schools were Donnington (single form entry - one class per year) and St Joseph's a Roman Catholic school. There are parents who prefer a small school such as Donnington where vulnerable children feel less threatened than they would in a school with large numbers of pupils and a big site. Our Lady of Lourdes is also one form entry.
Single form entry schools are becoming much less common in London but this may change in time. Brentfield, Furness, John Keble, Newfield, St Mary's C of E and Stonebridge are all around or well below one form of entry. They tend to have higher per pupil costs than larger schools.
The two sites of Leopold Primary have a combined form of entry of 4 classes.
Brent Council explains the background to their proposal to close the Brentfield Road site of Leopold Primary in phases from September 2025. The site was previously the Brent Teachers Centre andPupil Referral Unit.
Leopold Primary School
currently has capacity for 120 places in each year group with 60 on the
school’s main site on Hawkshead Road and 60 on the Gwenneth Rickus site (Brentfield Road).
Leopold Primary School achieves good outcomes for pupils across both sites and
was rated by Ofsted as ‘Good’ in June 2022.
Leopold operates as a
split-site school with one leadership team and staff who work across both the main
school site on Hawkshead Road and the Gwenneth Rickus site.
On national offer day in
2023 for Reception places in 2023, 60 places were offered and there remained
60 spare places across the two school sites. As with other schools across
the borough, the actual Reception cohort now on roll is higher due to late
applications, which would have been diverted to other schools had Leopold’s
capacity only been 60. Demand for Leopold Primary School has been falling
since 2018 and the Gwenneth Rickus site operates as one form of entry in some
year groups, including Reception and Year 1.
The Leopold Gwenneth Rickus
site was opened in September 2013 as annexed provision in response to
increasing demand for primary school places. The site was previously used by the
borough as a school improvement centre, running courses for education professionals.
Now that demand has reduced, there is no longer a need for this
additional site to be retained as there are sufficient spare places on both the Leopold
Primary School main site and in other local schools to accommodate future demand
for primary provision in the area.
In January 2023, there were
628 pupils at Leopold Primary School compared to 767 in January 2019, with
282 pupils educated on the Gwenneth Rickus site.
The proposal is for the
status of Leopold Primary School to return to that of prior to 2015 when the school
operated with two forms of entry from one site only (Hawkshead Road). A phased
closure of the Gwenneth Rickus site is recommended to avoid
disruption to as many pupils and their families as possible. As the Hawkshead
Road site has a central location within the planning area, it is anticipated that
over time pupils from the Gwenneth Rickus site would move to the main Leopold
Primary School site. Other local schools will be able to accommodate any pupils
who wished to move school.
Parents of future Reception
children would continue to have a range of schools to choose from. Only two
schools in the area (Donnington Primary and St Joseph’s RC Primary School)
were oversubscribed on national offer day for the September 2023 intake. There
are several schools with spare capacity close to the Gwenneth Rickus site.
There were built-in problems with operating on two sites that are some distance apart including staff movement and travel time and the difficulty of shaping the two sites into one school with a shared ethos. Despite the difficulties the school has been very successful.
Many felt that it would have better if they operated as two separate schools but Government rules did not allow it. School expansion was allowed but not the opening of new community schools - any new school had to be an academy or free school.
The proposal is for a phased closure, as in the Strathcona case. The site would be used for other educational purposes so that it would be available for any recovery in pupil numbers. Several alternative uses are mentioned in the Cabinet paper but not the possibility of it being used by Islamia Primary School. There is likely be a reduction in staffing as the school shrinks.
Also included in the proposals is a reduction in the size of Mitchell Brook Primary so that it takes 60 pupils a year rather than 90. This proposal is supported by the school:
The proposed reduction of
the Pupil Admisison Number at Mitchell Brook Primary School from 90 to 60 would help to reduce
spare places in other schools in the planning area. Mitchell Brook Primary
Schools is rated as ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted (September 2021). It is anticipated
that Mitchell Brook Primary School will remain a popular school. However, any
children who are unable to secure a place at the school would be able to access
places at other local schools in the immediate area.
The school is in support of a reduction of the
school’s PAN and has raised concerns about the constraints of continuing to
operate as three forms of entry due to the school’s confined site. Although
forecasts indicate low demand in Planning Area 4 in the short and medium term,
the spare building capacity created by reducing the school’s PAN could be
brought back into use in the future at a time when demand rises again
The proposals would have to go through a consultation process. An indicative timeline is included in the paper.
Campaigners will be sharpening their swords for next week's Planning Committee as two controversial planning applications are heard. (Wednesday 18th October 6pm) Mumbai Junction is from a private developer while Kilburn Square is from Brent Council itself.
Swords may not be much of a match for the developers' bulldozer (soon to be driven by Keir Starmer!) but a lively meeting is in prospect.
Mumbai Junction (John Lyon pub) proposal
The Mumbai Junction application was deferred at a previous meeting when officers intervened to derail a straight rejection by the Planning Committee. LINK Officers felt that the reasons for rejection put forward by the members were inadequate and would open the Council to an expensive appeal.
Officers have now come forward with a report that still recommends approval of the scheme but suggests reasons that the Committee could give for rejection. There is an air of 'On your own head be it' about the report:
Officers remain of the view that the scheme is compliant
with the policies that have been set out. It has been clearly demonstrated that
the proposed development would deliver the maximum reasonable amount of affordable
housing (in this case no affordable housing). A late stage review mechanism
would be secured within a Section 106 Agreement to capture any off site
contributions towards affordable housing in the event that viability improves.
Officers do not consider there to be any substantive grounds for refusal based
upon the affordable housing provision as the scheme is in line with the
relevant policies.
If members are minded to go against Officer advice a reason
is suggested below:
The proposal would fail to provide an appropriate level
of Affordable Housing to meet an identified local need within the Borough. This
would be contrary to Policy BH5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies
H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021).
In summary, the scale and massing of the proposed
development is larger than the surrounding context and represents a departure
from policy BH4 in this respect and one could reasonably consider that this
departure warrants the refusal of planning permission.
However, officers consider the overall appearance to be appropriate
in light of the site’s specific characteristics. Furthermore, the benefits of
the scheme (including the delivery of homes in the borough) are considered to
outweigh the policy departure from Policy BH4.
Nevertheless, if, bearing in mind the discussion above, the
Planning Committee are still minded to refuse the application, then the
following reason for refusal could be considered:
The proposed development by reason of its scale, design,
bulk, massing and siting in relation to the suburban context of the site would
appear as an excessively dominant building which would have a detrimental
impact on the character of the surrounding area. This would be contrary to
Policies DMP1, BD1 and BH4 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policy D4 of
the London Plan (2021)
It is legitimate for Members to ensure that the optimum site
capacity is achieved within development proposals. However, officers consider
that this has been achieved for the site.
Notwithstanding the officer recommendation, if the Planning
Committee are still minded to refuse the application for this reason, then the following
reason for refusal could be considered:
The proposal would fail to optimise the capacity of the
site and this would result in a deficit in relation to local needs, in
particular affordable housing. This would be contrary to Policies DMP1 and BH5
of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies D3, H4, H5 and H6 of the London
Plan (2021)
Kilburn Square proposal
The Kilburn Square proposal has also been controversial and changes made since the first version of the application have included the removal of a second tower. However, issues such as densification, loss of daylight, loss of amenity, loss of green and play space, loss of 13 mature trees and fire safety remain concerns. The officers' report introduces a new concept (to me anyway) of 'doorstep play space' that conjures up visions of terraced cottages opening straight on to the street.
Officers' report:
Following public consultation, objections
from a total of 117 people have been received. One objection has been received
from MP Tulip Siddiq for Hampstead and Kilburn (objection reflects concerns of
residents within this constituency), as well as an objection from the Campaign
to Protect Rural England (CPRE) charity and an objection from the Brent Parks
Open Space Forum. One objection has also been received from Sian Berry who is a
Green Party member within City Hall.
Four (4) petitions have also been received
against the development. These include:
· Petition containing 21 different signatures
representing objections from residents of AlgernonRoad
· Petition containing 103 different signatures
representing objections from residents of Brondesbury Road, Brondesbury Villas
and Donaldson Road
· Petition containing 14 different signatures
representing objections from residents of Sandwood Court
· Petition containing 176 different signatures
representing objections from residents of Victoria Road, Victoria Mews and
Hazelmere Road
After a long and detailed discussion of the objectors' alleged 'harms' of the scheme and what officers see as its benefits LINK officers' conclude:
Conclusion
247. The proposal would provide 139 new
homes including 40 extra-care homes and 99 Use Class C3 homes. At least 50 % of
those homes would be Affordable, with 70 % of the Affordable homes provided at
London Affordable. The proposal is considered to constitute a well composed
series of blocks that fit well within their context. The proposal will result
in the loss of some of the amenity spaces within the site and some car parking,
but improvements to the remaining amenity spaces and play spaces are proposed whilst
car parking has been demonstrated to be sufficient to meet demand. All new
homes will be "car free" and will be supported by a Travel Plan.
Cycle parking has been provided for existing and new residents along with
electric vehicle charging points.
248. The buildings will be near to existing
heritage assets and 'Less than Substantial Harm' has been identified to the
significance of the Kilburn Conservation Area. However, a balancing exercise
has been undertaken with regard to paragraph 202 of the NPPF, it is considered
that the very limited 'less than substantial harm' that has been identified is
significantly outweighed by the public benefits that would be afforded as a
result of this development.
249. When considering other impacts, the
development would result in some impact to the light and outlook of a number of
neighbouring occupiers both within and adjacent to the existing site. Although
the proposal has been designed to limit the degree of impact , it has been
noted that there would be some losses of daylight which would be material to a
limited number of windows on existing properties. When considering the impacts
on the overall living conditions of these neighbouring occupiers, the would
largely be modest and not have a significant effect on the function of the
function of the properties as a whole. Furthermore, when considering the site
allocation, the requirement to make efficient use of land and the impact of any
meaningful development would have in comparison, the proposal would achieve an appropriate
balance. The benefits of the new dwellings, a policy compliant provision of
affordable housing and the NAIL accommodation, for which there is an identified
need.
250. In addition, the development would
enhance security within Kilburn Square by providing natural surveillance, CCTV
and appropriate security features. Landscaping would be improved with
additional planting and a layout that would provide an attractive setting for
the resultant buildings and more useable areas for recreation.
These public benefits are significant and
would far outweigh any harm that has been identified and the application is
considered to be in compliance with the Development Plan when read as a whole.
251. It is therefore considered that the application should be approved subject
to the conditions set out,
If you along to the meeting in person it may be an idea to take a flask and sandwiches - it may be a long one. (Also accessible online).
Towards the end of October, we are planning to carry out a five-month programme of essential maintenance work at Brent Reservoir Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), also known as the Welsh Harp.
What will this include?
The reservoir works, which are supported by players of People's Postcode Lottery,
will include repairs to the chains and rods that operate the
reservoir's sluices; and repainting the Valve House Tower from where the
sluice gates which control the water levels in the reservoir are
operated.
To complete the statutory works, which are required
under the Reservoir Act 1975 and were identified during an inspection in
2021, the reservoir will need to be fully drained.
A fish rescue
will be carried out whilst the reservoir is being drained. As well as
employing our own dredging contractor to clear debris from the
reservoir, we are planning to work with volunteers and our partners to
clear the rubbish that is expected to be revealed when water levels are
reduced.
A significant urban wild space
Ros
Daniels, our director for London & South East, explains: “The Welsh
Harp, with Brent Reservoir at its heart, is one of London's most
significant urban wild spaces. We are planning to carry out these
essential statutory repairs to the reservoir's structures over the
winter months so as not to impact nesting birds, including great crested
grebes.
KEEP YOUR CHILDREN OFF THE MUDDY DRAINED AREA
“The Reservoir will remain open to the public throughout
the works, but signs will be up warning people not to walk onto the
Reservoir's drained area and mud.
“Sadly we are expecting to see a
lot of rubbish again when the Reservoir is fully drained, just as we
did back in January 2021, when we partially drained the reservoir to
inspect the dam and Valve House.
“We’d like to work with
volunteers and our partners to take the opportunity to clear as much of
the rubbish that will be revealed as possible, and we are planning to
launch a Crowd Funding campaign to help support that work”
A joint vision
Also known as The Welsh Harp, Brent Reservoir was built in 1835 to supply water to the Grand Union Canal. Today, surrounded by buildings and fast roads, it provides valuable green open space for people and wildlife.
Made
up of representatives from us, the Greater London Authority, London
boroughs of Brent and Barnet, London Wildlife Trust, Thames21, the Welsh
Harp Strategy Group was formed in 2019 to work together to create a
Joint Vision for the future of the site as a place for wildlife and
people. The group is planning to publish its Joint Vision for the site
on 28 July.
Timeline
Monday 25 September
We
started two-week programme of reed marsh habitat improvements at the
East Marsh, using our specialist contractor Land & Water Services.
Monday 2 October
Our Crowd Funding campaign is live, and we're asking for your support for rubbish removal once the reservoir is drained.
Monday 30 October
We
plan to start draining the reservoir ahead of statutory maintenance
works, including repairs to the chains and rods that operate the
reservoir’s sluices and repainting the Valve House tower.
Wednesday 1-3 November
Our contractor Rothens will begin a three-day programme of debris removal from the reservoir.
Friday 10 and Wednesday 22 November
We are planning some volunteer clean-up events. People will be able to sign-up to take part via our Eventbrite links.
Video created from photographs provided by the letter writer
I reported on last week’s Brent Renters meeting calling on Brent Council
to take action on bad landlords, but what happens when it is the council itself that is the bad landlord? Wembley Matters has received this letter.
Dear Editor,
South Kilburn is a lively and friendly community.
My neighbours are quiet but ever so respectful.
We look out for one another.
With a predominantly Black and African community the English language is
not the first language of most residents however, it does not create a barrier.
In fact, it sometimes draws people together in support for each other, whether
it be housing, schooling, benefits, or young people’s needs. We support each
other where we can.
There is a great deal of deprivation and poverty.
With many temporary tenants living in council properties and being
charged £440pw, the cost of living crisis, is nothing new to them. Many of them
have been living in such conditions for 9+ years, hardly temporary?
They were promised that, should they vote for the regeneration bid, upon
its succession, they would be placed in new-build properties with a choice of
paint colour, kitchen fittings, flooring, and new white goods, some even a dish
washer!
However, this has not been the case. The council carried out housing
needs assessments for every individual to gain knowledge of exactly what was needed
but, they failed to deliver many of their promises and continue to do so.
Many tenants have been forced to move to new areas outside South Kilburn
despite being promised they could stay.
Not enough new-builds and not enough of the required bedroom sizes!
But didn’t the council carry out assessments? Yes they did?
What happened to the planning and the order of blocks to be-rehoused?
After the succession of the bid, it all changed – it all fell apart and
promises were broken.
So, the people moving to new-builds received the promises of flooring
and paint etc. However, the others
forced to take re-lets are being failed.
They must move urgently- within 1 week, to properties with no flooring
down, an empty shell.
Where are they supposed to find the money to start all over again?
There are disruption payments to be had according to the council yet,
many are refused and if they are lucky enough to be chosen to receive it, they must
wait up to 3 months to receive it!
Some are reimbursed for their flooring and white goods, some even for their
curtains but some are not, with the council picking and choosing who can and
can not be reimbursed. It this discrimination?
But Countryside and the Mayor’s office are providing the council with
this money to take care of the tenants. If it’s not going to tenants, where is
it going?
They are not even following their own promises and despite the tenants
complaining to heads of departments, they are simply passed from pillar to post
with no answer.
The council have no fear of breaking the law as the tenants have no-one
fighting for them. Even MP Tulip Siddiq is doing nothing to assist vulnerable
tenants.
Is it because Labour can not fight itself?
The electricity bills in the blocks are huge and the saddest part is,
regardless of how much they do spend on heating, the properties are ice cold.
The health risks to tenants living in damp and mould riddled flats are
at an all time high.
One of the residents, a mother of 4 and 3 asthmatics had pneumonia three
times in one winter and the year before 2 pneumonia and sepsis. Still, she was
afraid to put the heating on because she could not afford the bills and was
falling deeper and deeper into utility debt. How could she find a way to clear
it when all avenues seemed to be closed?
They are left in thousands of pounds worth of debt because of the
electricity bills. The properties are insufficient, no insulation and ineffective
heating units.
Go and earn more money you say?
With the majority of residents having at least one person working, it’s
impossible to up your income.
Why? As the wage increases the more hours you work, the council simply reduce
the Housing Benefit top-up that is essential to pay the £440pw rent. They trap
you into the Benefits system with no hope of getting out unless you become
secure tenants paying council rents.
The more you earn, the less Housing Benefit you receive and the family’s
chance of living better is diminished.
We have hard working families paying £440pw rent and £1000/£2000 pm
electricity! That’s without council tax, water, food etc
What happens then? The children suffer.
Less food on the table, freezing cold mould and damp living conditions, parents
constantly stressed because they can’t make ends meet and provide even
essentials for their children or themselves.
No talks of holidays, new clothes, toys or even a day out!
We have knife, gun and gang crime around every corner - but it’s the norm.
The last three to four months have taken a turn for the worst, become
more dangerous due to the high number of squatters living in the blocks.
All night long it’s screaming, fighting, cursing and break-ins.
Parents and children are fearful to step into the blocks and afraid to
open their front door! Cannabis farms growing, pipes and boilers being stolen
and sold for money resulting in tenants homes being flooded and their few
positions ruined.
Whilst we are fearful, we are concerned with the amount of squatters who
have nowhere to turn. They run their own rings, charging other squatters to
live in abandoned houses in the blocks. When they can’t pay up, they beat them
up and throw them out. It’s horrifying, the wails and screams, the sounds of
blows to the bodies of desperate and destitute men and women.
Prostitution, it’s also included in the list, men coming and going all
night because the women are being pimped out and beaten.
The council put two security guards outside for four days. Whilst they
are in their car with no toilet or place to get a warm drink, the squatters are
upstairs in the blocks and there’s no change.
Then we have the schools, they seem to run the same ethos as Brent Council,
ignore complaints and carry-on?
Despite receiving petitions and concerns of safeguarding from parents, they
simply choose to ignore it. The governors simply refuse to hold meetings with
parents?
They take the case to Brent education and the same response?
They take it to Ofsted who agree based on information received, it needs
to be investigated.Ofsted write to
Brent Council and raise concerns requesting investigation and Brent reply to
Ofsted with ... No further investigation needed!!
What do we expect to produce in South Kilburn?
The next generation thriving and positively optimistic about a bright
future?
Where would they ever get this impression from when all they see is doom
and gloom?
Parents working hard but never having enough.
Parents, that when chidlren look at them, their faces are etched with pain and
struggle.
From where are the young people given hope and is it the faults of the
parents, or the people with whom the responsibilities and power is given to
make a change?
Poor housing, poor schools and
poor finances.
No opportunities to thrive yet still, you see the smiling friendly faces
of the South Kilburn tenants toward each other, while secretly, their hearts
and hopes are broken.
I love living in South Kilburn, the residents are very special people
who deserve more.
A large house at 26 Salmon Street, Kingsbury NW9, built within the last 10 years, is set to be replaced by a four storey block of 13 flats.
Wembley Matters warned that the approval of Krishna Court, a block of flats that replaced a family house on the opposite corner of Queens Walk, could lead to similar applications. Krishna Court, claimed to have been an addition to Brent housing stock, is in fact an AirB&B and despite being notificed as far as I know Brent Council has taken no enforcement action on it. Krishna Court is 8 flats. The application for 26 Salmon Street (image below) is for 13 flats.
Developers are consulting with the public this evening and tomorrow about their plans. See LINK
We are proud to bring forward
this development of much need high quality homes, having undertaken a
significant design process for this new building. We are looking forward
to meeting our neighbours, hearing your comments, and considering them before
submitting an application in the autumn.
This proposal, for much-needed homes, is for
a four-storey building with 13 new homes including:
Two studio flats
Three 1-bed flats
Four 2-bedroom flats
Four 3-bedroom flats
Community Amenity Area and Play Space
We are including a secluded courtyard and community amenity area and play space at the rear of the site.
At the ground floor, large amenity areas for all residents are
provided fronting onto Salmon Street and adjacent to 43 Queens Walk.
Parking
Parking will be provided at the side of the property on the Queens
Walk elevation. We are including 7 car parking spaces and 23 cycle
spaces.
When residents commented that this post was the first they had heard of the proposal I rang the PR company and they say they wrote to neighbours on Salmon Street,
Queens Walk, Deanscroft Avenue, Tudor Close, Bruno Place and part of
Kingsmere Park.
On the other side of Salmon Street at Number 39. It says it is a family home...
