The Wembley bus that disappears on Event Days

 England play Malta tonight at Wembley Stadium so once again the 206 bus that runs between Kilburn Park and The Paddocks in Wembley Park will be curtailed at Bridge Park:

Kick-Off isn't until 7.45pm but the bus stops running at 2.45pm affecting secondary school pupils travelling towards Harlesden.

Stops affected:

Residents have been trying to get the Council to do something about this for decades and the need is now greater because of the increased number of events at the stadium. A local residents submitted a question to Krupa Sheth to try to pin down when the promised introduction of full working on event days will be implented:

 

Question from Peggy Wylie to Councillor Krupa Sheth (Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure & Climate Action)

 

The 206 bus route is for many living in the Kings Drive, The Paddocks, Salmon Street area a real necessity. However, when there is an event scheduled at Wembley Stadium no 206 service is provided to the area after 11.00/noon (or even earlier) because the service is curtailed at Brent Park.

 

The suspension of this service to the Wembley Park, Kings Drive, The Paddocks and Salmon Street area disproportionately affects our most vulnerable residents - the elderly, disabled, parents with small children and women travelling home alone at night. It also affects people needing to travel from this area to reach their place of employment and in particular those that work for Tesco, IKEA.

 

 

Brent's local plan for our area proposed the opening of North End Road to allow traffic to and from Bridge Road, Wembley Park, which would enable the 206 to serve our area on event days. The changes to the road layout have been completed and yet we are still deprived of our bus on event days.

 

As a result, can the Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure & Climate Action advise if the combined forces of the London Borough of Brent, Transport for London ("Every journey matters!") and Wembley Stadium Limited will listen and take note of residents' needs and finally commit to seeking an urgent and permanent solution allowing the 206 bus to run its full route to the Paddocks on Wembley Stadium event days?

 

Response:

 

Transport for London (TfL) are responsible for the provision of bus services in London and consult on route changes and frequencies to improve services and efficiency.

 

Brent liaises with TfL on the bus services provided in the borough and requests improvements to satisfy the needs of residents and businesses. Brent also liaises with TfL buses for Wembley Stadium events where it is necessary to curtail / divert services for security. However, the council is committed to implementing infrastructure improvements identified under the Wembley Area Action plan and

recently completed the North End Road connection and Wembley 2 Way working projects which will enable bus services to be provided via this route on stadium event days in the future.

 

TfL carried out a consultation earlier this year on proposed changes to bus routes 92, 206 and 440 through the Wembley Park area with a view to simplifying the bus network following the introduction of two-way working arrangements in the area and which would allow for services to continue to serve the area on event days. The plan below outlines the proposals for all three services.

 

 

 

Following the consultation and following subsequent route tests, TfL has advised that the proposed changes to routes 92 and 440 will now go ahead, but a revised change to route 206 is to be implemented. This is due to the need for further works to signalise the junction at Bridge Road/North End Road (which is planned) control parking, and to strengthen a culvert. The latter is now required in order to support the intention to introduce electric buses on the 206 route. As such, and for the immediate future at least, route 206 will continue to serve Fulton Road and Rutherford road (see plan below). It is intended that all these changes will be introduced during 2024.

 

 

 

 

The Council will continue to work with TfL to deliver improvements to bus services through the area on stadium event days and throughout the borough.

 

Editor's Note:

 

On event days I often find people at The Paddocks bus stop vainly waiting for a 206 bus. At the weekend this is often after they have been walking in Fryent Country Park. They have sometimes waited for an hour. Public tramsport acess to the Park should be enouraged.

At Brent Park you find confused passengers told to disembark, milling around trying to find an alternative  route home. Often quite young school pupils are stranded.

UPDATED: Cost of putting Granville New Homes right rises to £25m. Brent Council purchased them for £17.1m

 

Tucked away in the Housing Management Update tabled for next Thrsday's Scrutiny and Wellbeing Committee is the above paragraph, devoid of context.

Granville New Homes were built via  partnership between Higgins and Brent Council in 2009, and purchased by Brent Council for £17.1m.

In 2021 mounting defects led to the independent Ridge report that put the costs of remediation at c£13.5m:

 

 

Philip Grant queried a report to Scrutiny in October 2021  that put the costs of remediation at £18.5m and Debra Norman replied for Brent Council LINK:

 

As you point out, page 26 of the Ridge Report gives the cost estimates as totalling £13,645,000 but the Cabinet, ASAC and Scrutiny reports refer to estimated costs of £18.5m.  You query why this is and whether there is a second specialist report on fire safety issues which accounts for the difference.

 

 

This figure of £13,645,000 is included in the £18.5m referred to in the reports.  As set out in paragraph 3.9 of the Cabinet report, that higher figure also includes the cost of fire safety work already undertaken and paid for by FWH, e.g. the waking watch over the premises and a new fire alarm system, and a contingency figure.  In addition, paragraph 3.9 make clear that the total figure is inclusive of VAT, which FWH and I4B, unlike the council, would be required to pay.  The final sentence of 3.9 should have read that the £18.5m is “based on” an estimated value from Ridge, but in the overall context of the paragraph I think the position was clear.

Brent Council had rejected various options to address the problems including a rebuild.

 Instead they settled for a complex financial arrangement with FWH (First Wave Housing) disposing of the blocks to the Council's Housing Revenue account. LINK

The Extraordinary Scrutiny Committee of October 2021 asked some tough questions, not least Ketan Sheth's on why Higgins was still being offered contracts by the Council after its Granville New Homes failure,. With superb irony Higgins having been involved with building a block that needed £13.5m/£18.5m remediation was awarded the remediation countract, for another faulty block, Merle Court.

The Committee were told that the amount of time that had passed since 2009 meant the Council were not likely to succeed in any settlement claim against Higgins. I believe that changes in the law about time limits means that is no longer the case and there are reports that the Council may be in tlaks with Higgins.

Certainly that is something that Scrutiny should take up with the Council as well as the failure to complete the works by October 2023 as first forecast and of course the rise of costs to £25m which with the original purchase price of £17.1m brings the total to c£42m. It would also be useful to know if the bald £25m is the end of the story or other costs will need to be added as in Debra Norman's response.

It may be instructive for Scrutiny Committee members to revisit the Minutes of their October 2021 meeting. Here is an extract:

The Committee queried whether the Council, as Guarantor of FWH, had chosen to challenge FWH on the issues. Minesh Patel advised that the Council’s role as a Guarantor was to meet with the Board of FWH on a regular basis to go through Key Performance Indicators and understand how the Company was running. The Guarantor had not been made aware of any issues prior to the final Ridge report.

Hakeem Osinaike (Operational Director Housing, Brent Council) advised that the properties were managed by Brent Housing Management (BHM) on behalf of FWH, and they had managed the repairs in those blocks up until the inspection. He advised that it was in rectifying the fire safety issues a decision was taken to rectify any other issues as well.

The Committee noted that Higgins had been appointed to design and build the blocks in 2009, and had heard from residents and staff that there had been problems with the blocks since they were built. They queried what legal action against Higgins, as the contractor, had been pursued, considering the roofs had been previously replaced when FWH took over the building. Peter Gadsdon confirmed that BHP had replaced one of the roofs before FWH took over, and once FWH had taken over they had done works on water ingress issues and had planned to replace all roofs over time as part of previously published business plans for the Company, with an original cost estimate of £2m – 2.5m. With regard to any legal action taken, Peter Gadsdon advised that the records showed the building had been signed off and handed to the Council, but he was unable to comment on anything before 2017 when FWH took over the buildings. He advised that FWH had not had any conversations with Higgins regarding the defects which they were made aware of in May 2021. Legal advice was previously sought about whether there was any chance of redress but due to the passage of time were advised it was unlikely. The Board’s priority was to ensure the properties were repaired back to safety.

Continuing to discuss the contract with Higgins, the Board queried why the Council were not communicating with them on this considering they were current contractors on other blocks being built. They queried whether there was a risk of this happening in other blocks that had been built or were being built. Minesh Patel advised that he did not have the details on the construction contracts with Higgins as that was a procurement process, but nothing had been brought to his attention that there were any concerns on any of the blocks Higgins had worked on.

Councillor Southwood advised that the contractor had been awarded work by the Council through a procurement process without prejudice, the specification of which would have applied modern building control and expectations to whatever they built, and which would include monitoring on the delivery of their contracts. From a FWH perspective it was highly unlikely any other stock would have these issues as Granville New Homes were the only medium rise buildings in the assets. Peter Gadsdon added that, like the Council, FWH and i4B commissioned stock condition surveys and had Fire Risk Assessments in place and there were no issues in that regard. Councillor Southwood agreed to provide written assurances to the Committee that there was no issues in any of the blocks Higgins had worked on, and further information on the procurement process such as whether past performance of a contractor was considered before awarding a contract.

 

Philip Grant adds:

 

 

Another interesting sideline on Granville New Homes is that Brent Council is supposed to have acquired Granville New Homes (for its Housing Revenue Account) from First Wave Housing Ltd for £0 in early 2021. [That should probably say early 2022]

This was part of a refinancing arrangement that would reduce the interest payable on the £17.8m loan Brent had made to Brent Housing Partnership Ltd (as it was then called) to buy Granville New Homes from Higgins (or to pay them for building the four blocks).

It appears that the £17.8m loan is still outstanding, but according to the Charges Register in the Companies House records for First Wave Housing Ltd (as at today, 16 November 2023), that loan is still secured on a property known as Granville New Homes!

How can a loan be "secured" by a 'Fixed Charge over land known as Granville New Homes, Granville Road, South Kilburn, London NW6 0JJ', when First Wave Housing Ltd no longer owns that property?

And another odd thing from the Companies House records. Despite owing Brent Council £17.8m on a loan for a property it no longer owns, as at 31 March 2023, First Wave Housing Ltd had £11,028,334 in its bank account, up from £4,231,167 at 31 March 2022. What is going on?

Perhaps the Community & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee should be asking Peter Gadsdon, Corporate Director of Resident Services, about that, when he makes his Report to its meeting next week. He should know the answers, because he is also a Director of, and Company Secretary of, First Wave Housing Ltd (a company wholly owned by Brent Council, but a separate legal entity from the Council).

LINK TO FIXED CHARGE CERTIFICATE

 

All three of Brent Council's estate infill applications approved tonight

 

Kilburn Square opponents of the infill plans in the public gallery

 

 

 

 

Which should not surprise regular readers who will have got used to 'What Brent Council wants, Brent council gets' as far as the supposedly politically independent Planning Committee goes.

It's sad to see months of research, campaigning and well thought out representations by residents come to nothing as the Kelcher-Butt Juggernaut crunches on.

The three applications had much in common - new homes squeezed into estates at the expense of loss of green and amenity space, mature trees and access to daylight.

Kilburn Square was approved by 7 votes to one (Cllr Mauricer), Clement Close (which has received less publicity) approved unanimously, and Newland Court 6 for, 1 against (Cllr Maurice) and  1 abstention (Cllr Seelan).

The pressing need for council homes trumps the quality of life of existing council residents every time.  However, as Cllr Georgiou pointed out, there is often the possibility of a compromise that provides additional homes on estates as well as respecting the views of existing residents. Speaking  in favour of the Kilburn Square application on behalf of himself and Cllr Conneely (Kilburn ward councillors),  Cllr  Molloy supported the application saying that the area was much less densely built than Paris or Barcelona and the opposition came from the owner occupiers of nearby streets.

As I have observed over years of attending Planning Committee residents attending for the first time are often shocked by the proceedings - not just the mumbled, often incoherent, contributions but the factual mistakes that shocked residents try to point out but are quickly silenced. Poor chairing enables senior planning officers to ramble on down all sorts of bye-ways.

Tonight there were desperate attempts to correct one officer who several stated that one flat facing a proposed new building, was north facing, when the plan on the screen clearly showed it was east facing. The resident who actually lives in the flat was told she was not allowed to speak, so decisions were made based on misinformation.

After the meeting, having watched it on the livewebcast, Philip Grant sent Wembley Matters this comment about the Kilburn Square proceedings:

 I've just watched the live webcast of the Planning Committee meeting for the Kilburn Square application.

Whether or not 100% affordable housing should be set down in Condition 3, rather than 'a minimum of 50%' was a live issue, with 100% supported by two Kilburn Ward councillors and Cllr. Georgiou, on the basis that anything other than that would not be acceptable if the application was accepted.

After fudging around it, Planning Officers finally admitted that the Committee could impose a 100% affordable housing condition, if that was what they decided was necessary to justify the harm which the application would cause.

There was some discussion about whether Brent Council would ever reduce the level of affordable housing from 100%, given their election promises and the acknowledged need for genuinely affordable homes.

The Chair, Cllr. Kelcher, said if the Council (or Cabinet) tried to reduce the amount of affordable housing, there were ways that could be challenged, such as call-in. He then moved the discussion on to other points of the application, and never came back to the affordable housing point. 

In particular, he did ask committee members whether they wished to change Condition 3 from 'a minimum of 50%' to 100%. At the end of the discussion he just asked who was in favour of accepting the recommendation to approve the application, putting up his hand and noting that five other Labour members of the Committee did the same.

Cllr. Kelcher must have known that his wife, Cllr. Mili Patel, supported a Cabinet decision in November 2022 which would mean the "conversion" of at least around 40 of the LAR homes proposed for Kilburn Square to "intermediate" homes, or even to private sale. 

The Vice Chair of the Committee, Cllr. Saqib Butt, also quick to put his hand up, must have known that his brother, the Council Leader, both supported and spoke in favour of the "conversion" of LAR homes at Kilburn Square at that Cabinet meeting.

Planning Committee could have ensured that 100% of the 99 general needs homes they approved for Kilburn Square were protected as genuinely affordable homes through Condition 3. They could also have ensured that any change to that which the Council later wanted to make would have to be by way of a fresh application for a "material change" (under Section 73, Town and Country Planning Act 1990), which would then need proper scrutiny and a possible further decision by Planning Committee.

The Chair of the Committee made sure that they did not even get a vote on that point (so that he and none of the other Labour councillors were seen to be directly voting against 100% affordable homes).

That is not how planning decisions on important points should be made - but it is the level that planning in Brent has sunk.

 

Brent Council open consultation on new Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) 24/7/365 on its Council Estates - £50 annual fee per permit

 There was an attempt by Brent Council a few years ago to introduce Traffic Management measures that were not popular. Another consultation has been launched. Parking permits will be £50 per year and in the first instance limited to residents. There will be a review regarding visitor permits once the scheme is operation. This was a particular concern for some residents who have a cultural tradition of visiting relatives as an extended family.

The Council warns that parking on estates will have to be suspended for a maximum of two days (weather permitting) while signs and new road markings are installed.

From the consultation website LINK:

We are consulting on estates across Brent regarding the introduction of Traffic Management measures. This will mean that the council can control parking on the estates in the same way that it does on public roads and will make parking safer, fairer and easier.

As a part of this consultation, we will be running a series of workshops where discussions will take place on each of these estates. The estates and the corresponding workshop details can be found below.

To sign up to one of the workshops, please click on each of the workshops (1-5) which will redirect you to an Eventbrite page. Booking through the links below guarantees your entry, however if you are unable to book through these pages, there will availability on the day at the venue if you wish to attend.

For more information on what is being proposed at each state, please click on the name of the estate which will open a plan of the proposals.

(Note the workshop for Summers Close and Saltcroft Close is given as two different vekues on the website and the printed brochure. There may be other mistakes - I have not checked them all.)

Workshop 1 - The Church of the Ascension, The Avenue, Wembley HA9 9QL Time: 7 - 9pm on 21st November 2023

• Newland Court
• John Perrin Place
• Mason Court
• Eskadale and Loweswater

Workshop 2 - Brent River College, 364b Stag Lane, Kingsbury NW9 9AE Time: 7 - 9pm on 21st November 2023

• Sutherland Court
• Essoldo Way
• Westcroft Court
• Summers Close and Saltcroft Close

Workshop 3 - Maharastra Mandal London, 306 Dollis Hill Ln, London NW2 6HH Time: 7 - 9pm on 23rd November 2023

• Lecky House
• Gladstone Park, Mascotts Close, Sandcroft Close and Oxley’s Road

Workshop 4 - Christ Church Brondesbury, Brondesbury NW6 7BJ Time: 7 - 9pm on 28th November 2023

• Rosedene
• Frontenac House
• Cavendish Close
• John Barker Court

Workshop 5 - Brent Indian Association, 116 Ealing Rd, Wembley HA0 4TH Time: 7 - 9pm on 29th November 2023

• Gloucester Close
• Lodge Court and Manor Court
• 255-261 East Lane
• Rokesby Place
• Stanley Avenue and Lightley Close

If you would like to have your say on our proposals, please follow a link to our survey here (https://bit.ly/BHECS), or click on the 'Have your say' button on the top of the page. Survey closes at 23:59 on 13 December 2023.

Why do we need to make these changes?

Vehicles parking in an unsafe and inconsiderate way blocks roads and pavements, and are making it difficult and unsafe for residents to move around their estates, as well as hindering access for the Council’s refuse collection vehicles. Residents on the estates are also finding it more and more difficult to find a space to park their car. More seriously, unsafe parking can prevent fire engines and ambulances from getting to the estates for emergencies.

How do the new controls work differently to the current ones?

Under the current system, Wing Parking (enforcement agents) are not legally allowed to access DVLA information, meaning they can only ever enforce against estates residents, not those parking there without permission. The new system will make it easier for the Council to enforce against vehicles parked poorly or inconsiderately which cause problems in the estates. These stricter controls have been proven to deter nuisance estate parking when used by other London authorities.

What are the benefits of these changes?

• Residents should find it easier to access a suitable parking space.
• There should be less disruption to emergency service vehicles, allowing them to respond more rapidly to issues on the estates.
• Unauthorised vehicles will be deterred from entering the estates and parking in resident bays, which will increase parking availability for estate residents.
• Unobstructed footways will improve parking accessibility and safety for pedestrians, the mobility impaired and pedestrians with pushchairs.
• There should be an improvement in access for Council services, including a reduction in missed waste collections.

Lyon Park Primary strikers on second day of the strike: 'We are the backbone of the school' - VIDEO

 

 

There was no need for me to ask anyone how to get to Lyon Park Primary School this morning when I took the shortcut over the railway bridge from London Road. Loud cheering and chanting echoed through the quiet suburban streets off Ealing Road and served as my guide. 

The strikers were in great spirits on the second day of their walkout and their sense of togetherness was strong and getting stronger as they talked about their struggle against wage cuts and worsening of conditions, including transfers to term-time only contracts.

As I have pointed out on Wembley Matters now for several years the worsening school funding crisis and subsequent redundancies affect support staff in schools the most, but have a knock-on effect on teachers' conditions and the quality of education offered by schools.

Lyon Park Primary is not alone in Brent in suffering from a deficit budget but it is he first to implement such drastic cuts after failing to be granted a licensed deficit by the local authority. What is happening at Lyon Park will be a test case closely watched by the governing bodies and senior management of other schools.

The support staff I spoke to this morning were diverse and mainly women whose pay has never been generous but have a fierce commitment to the children they work with.  Many have been at the school for more than 30 years and working with the second or third generation of children. They are proud of their role and the way it has evolved into a professional (though often unrecognised as such) job over the past few decades.

The support staff described themselves as the backbone of the school, well known to the local community and often the first port of call for both parents and children experiencing difficulties.

They emphasised that they played a valuable part in moving the school out of the Ofsted 'Requiring Improvement' category and now feel betrayed.

Three days of strikes are planned for next week and further escalation thereafter. 

It appears that the management has been taken aback by the strength of the strike action and the support and solidarity strikers have received. I understand that the unions are due to meet with the headteacher for talks on Monday morning.

Stay tuned to Wembley Matters for further updates.

 

Best Broasted, Willesden Green - dine for Palestine relief tonight

 

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