Barry Gardiner joins picket line as Lyon Park Primary School closed by strike against pay cuts

 

Lyon Park Primary School was closed today as National Education Union members went on strike to oppose wage cuts that the management want to impose on some staff as part of a restructure.

Brent North MP, Barry Gardiner, visited the picket line and told the spirited strikers:

Thank God you've got a union that actually supports you! All support to you.

It's great that you have the NEU backing you in this dispute. I know it is tough but stick it out.

Actually, you see time and time again that you win because when the union backs you, you keep on going - build the solidarityand that will mean ultimately you can win this dispute.

 

LETTER: The South Kilburn Saga: financial problems, delays, tenure changes - what is achievable now?

Dear Editor,

Brent Council are resending the Hereford & Exeter site, along with the Craik Court-Crone Court -Zangwill House (CCZ)  site back to planning, as the new buildings will need second staircases.

 

The CCZ site was due to be completed by 2029 but it will now be much later.

 

This has a knock-on effect, as all those tenants and some of those in temporary housing will now face longer waits for a new home.

 

The CCZ project is in phase 6 which now means that phases 7 & 8 will now be pushed several years forward beyond their schedules.

 

Previously the council always said 'the whole 15 year (?) South Kilburn Regeneration would be completed by 2029' but that date now looks unachievable.

 

Also, the SK budget is facing financial difficulties but for now the budget has not been changed but the council are reducing their overall Capital programme by 25% (£103M.) covering the rest of this year and 2024/25.

 

We will find out the costs of the SK Regeneration at the meeting in February 2024 when the council sets their budgets for the future years.

 

The increased costs of the SK regeneration are the result of the higher interest rates that the council have to pay for their borrowing, together with high inflation causing increases in the cost of building materials and  higher labour costs.

 

It now looks like the 72 council homes on the NWCC site due in 2025 may be the last ones for some time and I expect that the allocations have already been made, as all the needs assessments have all been completed.

 

That leaves approximately 370 tenants and those in temporary housing having to wait for several more years before they will be offered a new home in SK.

 

 

Nobody seems to be bothered about this but the Peel site LINK has only 42 homes for social rent out of a total of 308 new homes. That is roughly 15% instead of the usual 50:50. So far 38 of the 42 are already occupied with the remaining 4 homes not available until 2026.

 

The Peel site is the largest one of all the SK sites but has the lowest number of social homes available. Many of the new homes are both for private sale as usual but there are also several shared ownership properties.

 

The 72 homes on the NWCC site will be available in 2025 with allocations given in 2024, although as I understand it the possible tenants have already completed their needs assessments. NWCC is Neville House, Winstanley and some of Carlton House and the Carlton Centre

 

This might be of interest to the tenant you featured in Wembley Matters on the 4th October LINK.

 

However, it seems that anyone in SK needing a 4 bed or higher have been offered new homes in both Stonebridge and Wembley.

 

All the remaining tenants and those in temporary housing wish to remain in South Kilburn, as their children attend school there, although some of them have been offered a new larger home in both Stonebridge & Wembley, However, this causes further allocation problems for Brent over who should get priority for a new home.

 

 

The Queen's Park Cullen House site will probably need to go back to planning, as the current one was approved as far back as 2016 with the tenants decanted in 2014.

 

However, the council still do not own the site. They have been trying since 2019 to purchase the Falcon Public House but Londonewcastle will not sell it. Londonewcastle built all the new blocks in Albert Road and may be holding out to win the contract for the Cullen House/Queens Park site, but the council do not want them. So will Cllr. Butt get his way or will he be disappointed?

 

This is the key site, as Cllr. Butt said it would mark the new gateway to SK with several up-market stores in the ground floors with flats above them,

 

Countryside say because they are developing the Health Centre on the Peel site, they had to reduce the number of social homes to make it viable for them.

 

Back in 2004 I seem to remember there was NDC money set aside to fund two health centres (and not just one) but the funding was 'borrowed by the Primary Care Trust' and would be made available when the health centres were to be developed

 

But of course, the Primary Care Trust' closed down and passed its assets to the Brent CCG who themselves have now closed down and are now in the super CCG (8 CCG's)

 

So, I assume the money has long gone and that is why we are having to rely on Countryside to build it and the Council to provide the revenue to run it.

 

 

South Kilburn Resident

Kilburn Square – Brent planners seek to reduce Affordable Housing by stealth

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

The recent guest post by the Chair of Kilburn Village Residents’ Association, Kilburn Square – Decision time (Chapter One) is finally here this Wednesday, ends with a reference to a future decision which will have to be made if planning permission for Brent Council’s proposed scheme is approved. But if Planning Officers get their way, there will be no Chapter Two.

 

Martin’s earlier blog about the various Brent infill housing applications on the agenda for Wednesday evening’s Planning Committee meeting, Say after me, 'The benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm/impact/conflict with policy', showed how Brent’s Planning Officers are using claimed “public benefits” to justify ignoring any objection points against the applications they are recommending should be accepted.

 

The main “public benefit” which they say would ‘far outweigh any harm’ on the Kilburn Square application (despite the many valid objection points set out in the KVRA Chair’s recent article) is that the proposed 139 new homes would all be affordable housing. That is what the application’s Affordable Housing Statement (Final) says, despite Brent’s Cabinet giving the green light to some of them being "converted" to shared ownership or even outright sale at its meeting in November 2022.

 

The rent details from the application’s Affordable Housing Statement (Final)

 

The affordable housing proposed in the Kilburn Square application is 99 "general needs" homes at the genuinely affordable London Affordable Rent ("LAR") level, and 40 New Accommodation for Independent Living ("NAIL") flats at the "intermediate" Local Housing Allowance rent level.

 

Other local Brent housing estate applications (Watling Gardens and Windmill Court) approved in 2022, under the current Brent Local Plan policies, also showed that all of their new homes would be for genuinely affordable housing (LAR, or Social Rent level for returning existing tenants). The affordable housing condition (Condition 3) in their planning consent letters made clear that 100% of the homes would be affordable housing, as set out in those applications. The reason given for this condition was: 'In the interests of proper planning.'

 

There have been no changes in planning policy or law since those consents were issued in April 2022, so the position should be the same for Kilburn Square.

 

However, if you look closely at the proposed Condition 3 in the draft decision notice, tucked away at the end of the Planning Officers’ Committee Report for Kilburn Square, it says:

 

'The development hereby approved shall contain 139 residential dwellings. A minimum of 50 % of those dwellings (measured by habitable room or number of homes) shall be provided as Affordable housing ....'

 

I submitted an objection to this proposed condition, and I will ask Martin to attach a copy of the pdf version of it (which I submitted online, and emailed to the three key Planning Officers - Head of Planning, Development Management Manager and Case Officer – on Sunday evening) at the foot of this article, for anyone to read if they are interested. 

 

I also objected to a weird Condition 4 in the draft decision notice, also concerning affordable housing, for which there was no mention or explanation of in the body of the Committee Report:

 

The opening part of the proposed Condition 4 from the draft decision notice.

 

If the application is approved on Wednesday, as recommended by Planning Officers, allowing affordable housing Condition 3 to stand would totally undermine the "public benefits" which the application is meant to provide. 

 

A minimum of 50% of the proposed new homes would be 70, leaving 69 which Brent's New Council Homes team could "convert" away from genuinely affordable LAR rent to local people in housing need. They could even be “converted” from affordable housing to private sale, leaving as few as 30 of the 99 “general needs” homes at LAR rent level, promised by the application, actually delivered by Brent Council’s Kilburn Square project.

 

What is equally as bad is that Planning Officers are trying to do this "by the back door". When Brent wanted to "convert" some of the Watling Gardens LAR homes to shared ownership, they had to make a fresh planning application to change Condition 3 in the 100% affordable housing consent they'd received for the scheme.

 

My objection is seeking to have Condition 3 of the planning consent, if Planning Committee approve the plans, require that 100% of the 139 homes should be affordable housing, as set out in the application itself. 

 

I am also seeking that the Condition(s) should include a requirement that any change the applicant (Brent Council!) wishes to make to that affordable housing condition should be made by way of a “material change” application under Section 73, Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That type of application requires public consultation (so the chance to object), and detailed consideration of the reasons and evidence given for seeking a change.

 

I had drawn attention to the discrepancy between what the Kilburn Square application promised for affordable housing and the November 2022 Cabinet decision on “conversion” of units from LAR last February (Kilburn Square – Brent must come clean on affordable housing!). When Brent’s planning agent did not submit revised affordable housing details, Brent’s Head of Planning promised that the application would be ‘considered as submitted’. 

 

This should have meant that the affordable housing condition would specify 100% affordable housing. To change that, by stealth, to ‘a minimum of 50% affordable housing’ feels like a dirty trick, which Brent’s Planning Officers should be ashamed of!

 

Philip Grant

 

 

 

Can Wembley High Road support yet another chicken chicken shop

Guest blog post by Wembley Central resident Jaine Lunn

 

 

Yes it can, by all accounts. On Thursday  Popeye's Famous Louisiana Chicken (formerly Superdrug store)  opened in the High Road to a fanfare.   Its  planned big expansion into the UK is well on its way, along with one in Kilburn which opened last month.

 

The Wembley branch boasts a restaurant with 86 covers, making it much larger than KFC, MacDonalds and Nando's all put together.  It was certainly very busy at 12 noon today, whilst KFC was empty and not a delivery driver in sight.  Offering an extensive menu, consisting of Chicken Wraps, Burgers, Fries, Deserts and Shakes, it markets itself as a premium brand and slightly more expensive than what is currently on offer in the rest of the high road.

 

 

I did try the Saver menu which consisted of 2 x Tender Strips and Fries, which cost £2.99, the outside has a very tasty crunch, the tender strips were juicy and cooked to perfection. The fries were some of the best I’ve tasted for reconstituted potatoes. This was opening day however, and we all know that consistency is the key.  Once these big brands are franchised the quality drops off.  This is clearly noticeable with MacDonalds and KFC which are both represented in the High Road are franchise owned and their offerings look nothing like the pictures in the shop in store or on TV adverts.  I also didn't see a sign claiming the chicken was Halal, like some other stores.

 

 

 

On a serious note, there are additionally 3 shops offering pizza: Pizza Hut, Dominoes, and an Independent, 2 offers of Doner Kebabs:,the Doner, German Doner Kebab plus Amigo's which offers Chicken, Burgers, Hot Dogs, etc.  Wembley High Road is awash with ultra-processed fast foods which leads me to the latest figures relating to Brent Residents.

 

 

 

In November 2022, reported by Brent Council, 58.8% of residents were Overweight, Obese or having a BMI of over 25.

 

In August 2021, it was reported that 1 in 3 children leaving Primary School (year 6) approximately 24% were considered Overweight or Obese by the age of 11.  With Brent's planning department more concerned about expanding their housing quota, building in parks and reducing our green space that should be available for exercise these results are not surprising.  Whatever happened to them reducing the number of takeaways etc near schools?

 

 

On much lighter note, I did ask what appeared to be a Senior Rep from Popeye, why it was called Popeye Chicken ( as my only recollection of anyone called Popeye was the Sailor who ate Spinach and his very skinny girlfriend Olive Oyl who clearly never ate anything close to Fried Chicken lol.)  He informed me that the owner of Popeye chose the name after Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle from the film "The French Connection" played by Gene Hackman in the film of which he was a big fan apparently.  

 

So now you know.

 

 

 Jaine Lunn

Following talks failure Lyon Park Primary School strikes are back on - the first tomorrow and more next week

The concessions made by Lyon Park Primary School that led to the suspension of planned strikes over the staffing restructure have not been sufficient according to Brent NEU and so strikes are back on.

More talks took place during the suspension period but did not settle the issue in which at least five members of staff  expect to lose up to £4,500 pay a year as a result of the restructure.  The NEU say that in addition teaching assistants are being required to undertake unacceptable levels of cover.

NEU members at the school have voted to continue their action and will be on strike Tuesday and Wednesday of this week and Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday next week. There was an 83% turnout in the ballot of whom 100% voted to strike.

KILBURN SQUARE: Decision time (Chapter One) is finally here this Wednesday!

 

A guest post from the Chair of Kilburn Village Residents’ Association

 

WM reported three weeks ago  (https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2023/10/kilburn-square-campaigners-we-are.html  on the reaction of our local community to the (thankfully aborted) attempt to deal with this large and controversial scheme late in the evening, when the Committee clock was already into Overtime.  

 

This time, KS is the first Application on the Agenda (https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=115&MId=7565&Ver=4  ). A 6pm start is a bit early for many of our supporters to be there… but we’re pleased the Committee members will be fresh, and able to concentrate on the merits – and drawbacks – of the model in the Application as filed.

 

They will not be short of material to prompt questions:

 

·         They have the Officers’ original 61-page October 10 report, and a Supplementary report from the day before the October 18 meeting

·         But we found both of those to be less than balanced and objective

·         So we’ve provided them all with two detailed Response documents giving the very different perspective of the local community – on and off the estate

·         Both of those responses have now been posted as formal Objections on the Planning Portal (ref 22/3669)

 

The second one was linked in the last WM piece; but Martin has kindly embedded our more substantial initial response here: 

 

 

 Read it at your leisure – but here’s the message in a nutshell:

 

• We’d support a scheme just replacing two daytime-use buildings (such as Blocks A and B in the version now proposed), in line with the Local Plan Site Allocation and the April 2020 Cabinet report approving a development partnership with Network Homes
• But encroaching on the actual estate, removing valued green space and mature trees while adding more households (60% more vs 2019) to share the reduced communal space (like Blocks C and E) … is a Bridge Too Far

 

And here’s the Exec Summary

1.       This scheme is still too big, there are significant other policy breaches, and not all claims for flexibility are justified

2.       After a totally ineffective pre-engagement programme, the applicant is seeking to impose this version of the scheme despite the local community’s overwhelming call for a smaller, fairer model 

3.       The public interest benefit is tempered by affordability issues and the proposed tenure mix is unlikely to be deliverable

4.       Conclusion: we do not believe this scheme represents a fair balance, and urge the committee to decline approval

 

Two particular topics we feel are unacceptably dismissed by the Officers are the pre-engagement process and the Sandwood overshadowing by too-close-for comfort Block E 

 

The Officers dismissively say pre-engagement is not a statutory requirement, that there’s “a difference of opinion” about the effectiveness of what was done, and the Committee must determine the Application purely “on its merits”. If that were true, what was the point of mounting a superficially thorough pre-engagement effort? 

 

·         Brent regularly acknowledges the importance of consultation beyond legal requirements, and “taking the community with us”

·         We’ve often quoted senior Brent figures saying they “will not force homes on anyone” and want “a scheme that can work for everyone”

·         Brent has a detailed 2017 policy document spelling out the required process (NOT followed in the second stage consultation here)

·         The London Mayor specifically reminded the Applicant’s project team in 2021 he requires a process that is “…responsive and meaningful” – which we have demonstrated this was not

·         The project team told residents in 2021 that the engagement process was “one of three pillars” of the project evaluation

·         A senior Brent Officer was (with no irony) one of the judges for Best Community Engagement in the industry-wide “Pineapple” Awards

 

Overshadowing by Block E should be an Open and Shut case. 

 

The consultant’s report clearly says if BRE 209 guidance is strictly followed, it could be no more than 1-2 storeys.  The Officers’ report acknowledges that – and then tries to accept a series of the Applicant’s excuses for building it (five storeys) anyway

 

·         Irrelevant hypotheses about modelling the result without the Sandwood balconies, or if E were a mirror image of Sandwood’s East face (12 flats affected) – PURE SOPHISTRY!

·         Claims that living conditions in the rest of the Sandwood flats will still be fine (WRONG – residents already need lights switched on in the daytime)

·         Claims that the amount of acknowledged overshadowing across the whole scheme is modest – and acceptable given the “public interest” delivered; how is that fair to Sandwood residents?

·         Unsubstantiated statements that the guidance is largely intended for rural locations

 

The consultant’s report in the Application also talks of “site constraints” as a possible basis for lenience; but Block E is totally standalone – and removing it would not have any bearing on the rest of the scheme

 

To our minds, the Case against Block E is a sufficient valid Planning Objection to require that the Application be declined

 

Chapter Two

 

And then, if Permission is granted on Wednesday, there will have at some stage to be a Chapter Two – once a viable funding model is found and a modified tenure mix, with perhaps 30% of units for outright market sale, will need to be re-submitted to the Committee…   

 

If only the Applicant had had the moral courage to make that adjustment NOW – while the scheme is getting the fullest possible scrutiny!

 

Keith Anderson

Newland Court resident: 'The site is not a good or viable long term option for houses. We ask that the Councillors deny the application.'

This is a letter written to Brent Council by a resident of Newland Court, Wembley Park. The Council's planning application will be heard at Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday. 

Dear Brent Councillors and Committee members, 

 

I am a resident at Newland court and wish to express my dismay and concern at the Newland Court infill proposals.

 

By the Council’s own admission the residents have raised 45 objections affecting:

1. Impact of the development on the trees within the Barn Hill Conservation Area (a designated Heritage site)
2. Accuracy of the submission
3. Design and massing
4. Wildlife and ecology
5. Flood risk
6. Parking reduction 
7. Highway and antisocial behaviour
8. Safety concerns
9. Noise concerns 
10. Mental health impact 
11. Equalities concern

 

In their response, the Council have themselves acknowledged that the proposals will cause HARM, yet they have:

1. Provided yourselves with false/inaccurate/misleading/unsubstantiated information to provide assurances in favour of the development (examples of such false/inaccurate/misleading information is provided below)
2. Disregarded the reports of Council’s own officers (eg. Transport officer, Heritage officer, Tree officers etc) highlighting the flaws with the proposal and recommending for the proposal not to be accepted. (examples also provided below).
3. Brushed aside all objections by such broad-brush statements as " The potential harm is outweighed by the overall planning benefits of the scheme". Despite acknowledging the HARM, they brush them to one side, without providing any basis, or analysis on which their 'conclusion' is reached. Were potential benefit and harm criteria determined against which an unbiased analysis could be undertaken? Was there any verifiable, transparent and jointly agreed assessment carried out? No. Just broad brush statements to give you, our Councillors, false assurance to get your "yes" vote. 

 

Please don't let yourselves be hoodwinked or used through these tactics. Act fairly and with discernment. Your decision will impact the lives of many and will lead to a problem development that will be long remembered for its flawed decision-making. What is the legacy you want to leave behind? How do you want to be remembered for what you did?  

 

Examples of inaccurate/false/misleading/unsubstantiated statements provided by the Council include: 

 

 1. The Council states that “the majority of residents that expressed support for the proposed development” - This statement is incorrect and without any basis

We have asked the Council to provide the list of flats/residents who support the proposals and they have failed to provide this. The majority of residents and those living on Grendon Gardens OPPOSE this development and this is evidenced by the 45 letters of objections which the residents have raised. You need to challenge these statements made by the Council to provide you with false assurance.

 

2. The Council’s Ecological Report says that “the site does not lie within an Ecological site” but that despite this they carried out an Ecological survey. 

Yet the Council uses a chart survey dated 2007, which is outdated and ignores Philip Grant’s 2023 follow up Ecological Report which identified species of protected Bats  in the trees by the garages (protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and regulations Act 1984).  

 

3. The Council’s Arboricultural Report has mis-categorised a number of trees, provided incorrect and unsubstantiated claims about previous pruning of these trees and contradict Julie Hughes, Brent Councils’ own Tree Officers report and Grendon Gardens Arboricultural tree report.

 

4. The Council’s Submission on parking originally falsely stated that we had NO parking and their proposals increase our parking by 12! (See the image taken from their application below for yourselves)

 

Although the parking spaces were increased to 28, this provides an example of the level of false information that has been presented. We have 41 car parking spaces (which is not enough as it is) and the Council under its current plans plan to only provide 28.  

 

The Council’s Submission says that no new public roads are being created within the site and no new public right of way is being given. Yet this is exactly what is happening. Our Private Road is being turned into a Public Road with public access.

 

 

 

5) Open spaces: Council’s application states that there is no loss or change of use of any open spaces. Yet they are planning to build a play area in the one open space we have inside Newland Court.

 

 

Brent Council's application is regrettably riddled with such false claims and the proposals are built on this false foundation. 

 

Examples of the Council disregarding the recommendations of its own officers  include:

1. Brent's own Heritage Officer has concerns about the uncharacteristically narrow modern dwelling at the end of the row of traditional properties and the harm it will do to the conservation area. 
2. Brent’s own Transport Officer had recommended refusal of the proposal on the grounds that the development would:

• be contrary to Local Plan Policy BT2
• the imposition of parking restrictions for the existing residents would not be reasonable, as their properties do not form part of the planning application. 
• add to on-street parking demand in an area that is unable to safely accommodate a significant amount of parking
• be detrimental to on-street parking conditions 

3. Brent’s own Tree Officer has serious concerns about impact on the trees (which fall within the Barn Hill Conservation area) if this proposal goes ahead.

The Site is not a good or viable long term option for houses. We ask that the Councillors deny the application.