KIlburn Square campaigners: 'We are mildly relieved - and hugely frustrated'

Despite being the largest develeopment application tabled, Kilburn Square was the last item on the Agenda at Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday and discussion was abandoned when a leaking roof led to audio problems.  Wembley Matters contacted  campaigners for an update on how things stand now.

Keith Anderson, Chair of Kilburn Village Residents’ Association, which includes Kilburn Square estate and six surrounding streets,  has been coordinating a dialogue with Brent for two and a half years. He says in the aftermath of Wednesday’s unexpected outcome:

 

We are mildly relieved – and hugely frustrated:

 

·         Frustrated that Brent has pressed ahead to Committee with this non-viable, all-Council-rent version of the scheme – refusing, despite our Official Complaint, to amend the Tenure Mix to reflect the seemingly inevitable switch of over a quarter of the flats to outright sale, to make the sums work 

 

·         Relieved that the Chair’s attempt to restart the meeting at approaching 9pm – normally the target finish time – was thwarted by the continuing AV problems; we felt the Committee would be too tired to do our scheme justice after intense debates on the two previous Agenda items. But…

 

·         Frustrated that we were even listed last on the Agenda; one of the Officers acknowledged privately that this large and controversial scheme deserves at least an hour and a half, if not longer 

 

·         Frustrated that the Affordable Housing team, in their remote offices and without even engaging with the Board of the Housing Co-op (who manage the estate for the Council) concocted the original wildly over-ambitious “Mini Master Plan”, proposing 179 extra flats - 80% more households vs 2019 - on a reduced physical space

 

·         That scheme was announced three years ago; had the team stayed with what is in the Local Plan’s Kilburn Square Site Allocation (100 new flats - by 2037!)… and the 80-100 units outlined in a March 2020 Cabinet report, they could have had construction almost finished by now

 

·         Frustrated that, when comprehensive rejection from estate residents and neighbours pushed the Policy Coordination Group into agreeing a smaller scheme was needed… the reduction offered was only around 20% 

 

·         Frustrated that in that second phase the project team tried a Divide and Rule approach, with a tokenistic and controlling approach to seeking estate residents’ consent and a message to close neighbours that they should withhold their thoughts until the Planning Application arrived

 

In January 2021, Brent’s Housing Director told the Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee: “We will not force homes on anyone…we have developed only with the support and encouragement of local residents” so, how did that play out for our scheme..?

 

The PA was filed a year ago (!), with a long list of tick-box pre-engagement activities; but NO evidence of resulting community support for the scheme…

 

… whereas the Application has attracted: 

·         Around 120 individual Objections

·         A suite of 20 detailed submissions from KVRA on specific topics 

·         Supporting emails from our MP, the Green Party at City Hall, CPRE, Brent Parks Forum

·         Three Collective Objections (petitions in Council-speak) from surrounding streets, with 300 signatures

·         Three COs from Blocks on the estate, including the two most affected by the problematic Blocks C and E (the Committee Report curiously acknowledged only one…)…

·         …and a mere three supporting comments

 

So, one might have expected that, combining that with key policy breaches in areas like Climate Strategy, Amenity Space and Overshadowing, the Officers’ Committee Report would have recommended sending the scheme back to the drawing board (a smaller scheme could gain community support)?

 

But no: KVRA, working with three neighbouring RAs and the Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum as the Kilburn Square Stakeholder Group, were airbrushed out of the picture, and the outcome of the ineffective engagement process was largely dismissed

 

Martin already published the Supplementary Agenda report issued on Tuesday. Here it is, with our Riposte in red LINK. I’ll  update readers in another post on our detailed Response to the full Committee Report

 

Expect a lively discussion when our scheme comes back to Committee – now planned for first up on the November 15 Agenda!

 

Harlesden Gambling Centre refused, Mumbai Junction approved, and Kilburn Square abandoned at last night's Planning Committee

 

 Speakers against the Mumbai Junction planning application

 

Last night's Planning Committee was a funny old meeting. The Chair had to send for a bucket because water was leaking through the roof of the Civic Centre (c£100m) and evetually the meeting was abandoned when the water got into the audio system and made participants sound like fish.  Cllr Maurice raised a concern about noise coming from the floor below - it turned out not to be a riot but Navratri celebrations.  Eventually the meeting had to be abandoned because of the water seepage and the Kilburn Square application hearing was not completed.

Matt Kelcher vacated the chair for the first item because he had, prior to becoming chair spoken out against the application, (not because his Cabinet member wife Mili Patel was one of the main speakers against the Adult Gaming Centre in Harlesden).

A strong squad of ward councillors opposed the application and quoted police evidence on the damaging impact of yet another gambling joint in Harlesden. Acting Chair Cllr Saqib Butt (whose brother is leader of the council) did his best to sway the committee but four members voted against and only Butt and two others for the application. A senior officer intervened to suggest deferment but that was a gamble too far and the refusal decision stood.

The long-running Mumbai Junction application was another matter.  This had been first refused and then deferred at the August Planning Committee (after an officer intervention) so that defensible reasons for rejection could be compiled. These were included in the officers' report but despite representations by three ex-councillors (Mitchell-Murry, Lloyd and Perrin) and one current councillor (Lorber) the Committee, rather unconvincingly, over-turned their previous decision.  I couldn't possibly comment on post-meeting suggestions that they had been got at.

In answer to a question in comments, the final vote on Mumbai Junction was 5 for, 1 against (Cllr Maurice) and 1 abstention (Cllr Mahmood).

Do you have views on the provision of student accommodation in Wembley/Brent? Contribute to the London Mayor's consultation.

 

 At a recent Planning Committee meeting where an application for new student accommodation in Wembley Park was made, existing residents spoke against on the grounds that it created would imbalance and undermine community cohesion because students were short-term residents not committed to the area. There were also concerns about anti-social behaviour. Countering this officers argued that students contributed to the local financial and cultural economy.

Now the London Mayor is undertaking a consultation on provision of student accommodation to which residents might want to conribute. Details below:

The Mayor of London is consulting on new London Plan Guidance (LPG) relating to student housing, otherwise known as purpose-built student accommodation or PBSA.

The guidance supports London Plan policy H15 to best meet student housing needs as part of a wider approach to housing delivery and regeneration. It aims to unlock PBSA delivery and also address imbalances to help achieve a more mixed and inclusive London.

This event is a Q&A session for stakeholders to bring any queries they have about the document or the consultation. It assumes that attendees have watched the two minute introductory video or read the draft document, both available on our consultation site.

Questions can be submitted in advance by email to studenthousingLPG@london.gov.uk or you are welcome to just turn up on the day and ask them and listen to our responses to other people's questions.

[Images courtesy of Unite and Affordable Accommodation for Students Ltd]

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the event free? Yes.

Who is this event for? The event is open to all and is suitable for interest groups, public campaign groups, developers, landowners, agents and Londoners to ask questions and find out more.

How will the session take place and how can I join? The session will take place online. Once you have registered via Eventbrite, you will be emailed a link to join the event 24 hours before the event takes place.

Will I be able to ask questions during the event? Yes the whole event is structured around Q&As.

Do I have to submit questions in advance? You are welcome to send questions through in advance by email to studenthousingLPG@london.gov.uk which will help us prepare, but you can also just turn up and ask them and we will do our best to answer them on the spot.

Is this a repeat of the event on the 3rd November? Yes, there is no need to attend both events.

What if I have accessibility requirements? Please let us know when booking your ticket on Eventbrite. Please let us know as soon as possible. We will endeavour to meet any requests made within two weeks of the event, however these cannot be guaranteed.

Where can I find out more and share my views? To watch the introductory video, read the guidance and share your views, visit the consultation page. Consultation on the LPG closes on 11 January 2024

How can I find out more about this event? Please contact studenthousinglpg@london.gov.uk if you have any further questions about the event.

We hope you can join us. RESERVE PLACE HERE

 

The consultation, including the survey (below) will be open until 11th January 2024.

We have 2 open-to-all Q&A events in October and November, and further engagement events are also planned with specific stakeholder groups, notably the cross-sectoral Mayor’s Academic Forum and boroughs. More information on the public events can be found on the 'events' section on this page.

All feedback will be reviewed and a consultation summary document will be published alongside the final guidance.

Register to be notified of planning policy consultations(External link) or sign up for GLA Planning News(External link).

You can email the team on: studenthousinglpg@london.gov.uk(External link)(External link).

 

SURVEY

 

 

Brent Planning Officers recommend approval of Harlesden Adult Gaming Centre despite opposition from police and local councillors

 

Tonight's Planning Committee is full of controversial planning applications with Mumbai Junction and Kilburn Square returning to the Agenda (there is a Supplementary Report on Kilburn Square HERE) and are expected to have speakers making the case for refusal of planning permission.

You can watch the meeting live online HERE

Also returning to the Agenda is an application to turn two neglected shops on Park Parade, Harlesden into an Adult Gaming Centre (AGC) and reduced size betting shop.  Objectors cite anti-social behaviour and the presence of other AGC's in the area as reasons for objection. There is the additional moral and public health case against the exploitative nature of gambling joints in poor areas.

The application is unusual in that it is being opposed by local councillors, community organisations and the police:

60 objections were received in total inclusive of objections from Councillors, Harlesden Neighbourhood Forum and Harlesden Area Action Group, the Police Safer Neighbourhood Team and the Salvation Army.

 

The following Councillors objected:

 

Cllr Mili Patel –Harlesden and Kensal Green Ward

Cllr Jumbo Chan – Harlesden and Kensal Green Ward

Cllr Jake Rubin – Roundwood Ward

Cllr Elliot Chappell – Roundwood Ward

Cllr Fleur Donnelly – Jackson – Roundwood Ward

The Police objections are raised in a Supplementary Report that you can read HERE and I post an extract below:

An objection was received from the Met Police Designing Out Crime Officer, noting the following matters:

 

· That the close proximity of the public house (opposite) and off-licences either side and the nearby pawn shop can create a nurturing habitat for street drinking which in turn can increase the risk of antisocial behaviour (ASB);

· That the alleyway to the rear is not well observed and has poor natural surveillance;

· That the main entrance is recessed and provide a concealment opportunity and could be used as a toilet or to take drugs;

· That there is no mention of security in the proposal or a management plan;

· That the proposal indicates that the AGC won’t be staffed and could therefore be exploited by drug dealers or users. They consider that persons should be vetted prior to entry to ensure they are of suitable age and have not been barred;

· That the windows onto the street need to allow for surveillance into and out from the centre.

 

They also highlight that the local policing team raised the following concerns:

 

· That Park Parade has the second highest figures for recorded ASB in the town centre and is a known area where robbery often occurs, and for drug offences (both possession and supply);

· That there are organised gangs of drug dealers in Park Parade taking over and using premises to conduct their activities, and that an unsupervised venue will allow this to happen out of police view;

· That last year, an operation was conducted in the High Street where a betting shop was used by a 20 strong gang to drug deal out of sight;

· That there is a nearby college and school and that their pupils frequent Park Parade on their way to and from the education facility and could be influenced by the venue and its cliental;

· That there is a nightclub and public house opposite;

· That the town centre already has a street drinking problem contributing to ASB , and that the betting shop venues attract street drinkers;

· That there have been 6 Closure Orders in Park Parade relating to premises causing ASB or allowing criminality.

 

The Met Police advise that they have a number of recommendations should the application be granted, including:

· Security rated entrance doors;

· Video and auto intercom at entrance to ensure potential guests are vetted prior to entry;

· Glazing to main façade meets BSEN standards, with a roller shutter fixed to the exterior;

· That the recessed entrances are removed or have shutters or grills to eliminate this overnight;

· That the rear escape doors are alarmed and that they have a sufficient security rating;

· That the walls and doors of any cash room are security rated;

· That any external mailbox meets specific certification levels;

· That CCTV (with complementary lighting) is provided to specific standards and maintained by certified companies;

· That intruder alarms are installed

· That the applicant liaises with the MPS North West Licensing team.

 

Officers' comment:

The matters raised by the Met Police are acknowledged.

You might think the evidence supplied by the police is pretty daming but nevertheless planning officers recommend approval:

Recommendation: That planning permission is granted subject to the conditions set out in the report  and an additional condition requiring formal Secured by Design accreditation prior to first occupation of the units.

 

The premises shall not be used expect between the hours of 0800 hours and 2230 hours Sundays to Thursdays and between 0800 hours and 2300 hours Friday and Saturdays without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties.’

Black Women Then and Now: Chalkhill Community Centre Saturday October 28th

 

Free 3-Day Community Carpentry Workshop Oct 25th - Oct 27th

 

Email billie@sufra-nwlondon.org.uk for more info

New replacement 'Super GP Surgery' to open in Wembley Park providing space for 16 GPs from March 2024

 

Quintain yesterday announced a new GP ‘super surgery’ to open at the heart of Wembley Park. When operational, it will be the largest NHS GP practice in the borough of Brent, serving up to 25,000 patients.

Quintain said:

The 11,000 sq. ft space will be operated by Wembley Park Medical Centre, relocating from Wembley Park Drive to Humphry Repton Lane close to Olympic Way and Boxpark Wembley, a 10-minute walk from their old premises.

The build will create state-of-the-art general practice medical spaces including two clinical suites, 14 consult exam rooms, four treatment rooms, and an e-consult room. It has been designed with a double height reception and waiting area into the ground floor of the Repton Gardens residential development at the heart of Wembley Park.

The announcement of the NHS super surgery is a significant milestone in the delivery of the Wembley Park neighbourhood, which has been planned from the start to provide all the community facilities everyone needs within easy reach. 

The surgery will be delivered by Quintain as part of the Repton Gardens development, designed by architects The Manser Practice, a team with award-winning experience in the healthcare sector. The surgery will provide enough space for 16 GPs and is set to open to the public from March 2024.

London boroughs' budgets on a knife edge due to £500m budget shortfall

 From London Councils

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.