490 families renting in Wembley Park will find themselves with a new landlord following Quintain's sale to KKR of two Wembley Park blocks, Alameda and Beton. However, those tenants who have been complaining about the management of the blocks LINK will be stuck with Quintain Living as KKR have appointed them to manage both the retail and resident elements of both buildings.
The sale is part of Quintain's strategy to sell off blocks to use the cash to finance further building.
Quintain's Press Release
KKR, a leading global investment
firm, today announces the acquisition of two high-quality, purpose
Build-to-Rent (BtR) multi-family buildings from Quintain, the developer
and asset manager behind Wembley Park, for an undisclosed sum.
Alameda and Beton, completed in 2019 and 2020 respectively, comprise 490 BtR units across two
buildings and circa 40,000 sq ft of retail and leisure space. The
buildings hold BREEAM “Excellent” and WiredScore “Platinum” ratings.
KKR is making the investment through
its European Core+ Real Estate strategy, which invests in high-quality,
substantially stabilised assets with medium-term value growth potential.
Residential is a thematic priority for KKR’s overall European real
estate strategy, given its strong structural growth drivers, including
population growth and urbanisation to support greater demand for rental
housing. The transaction builds on KKR’s strong Real Estate platform in
the UK and across Europe where the team also invests across logistics,
industrial and commercial real estate through KKR’s platforms.
As part of the investment, KKR has
appointed Quintain to manage both the residential and retail elements of
both buildings, marking Quintain’s commitment to manage properties as a
third-party manager for investors in BtR through its Quintain Living
management platform.
The transaction forms part of
Quintain’s wider strategy to dispose of stabilised, early-generation
residential assets at Wembley Park, repay debt and to invest in ongoing
development, with a focus on BtR, neighbourhood retail and placemaking.
Charles Tutt, Head of UK Real Estate at KKR, commented: “We
are pleased to acquire two high-quality assets in Wembley Park, one of
London’s most exciting residential neighbourhoods. This investment
underscores our conviction that residential real estate will continue to
benefit from structural growth drivers. Located within an established
submarket with excellent connectivity to Central London, the assets are
well positioned to benefit from the favourable dynamics of the London
residential market.”
Ian Williamson, Head of Core+ Real Estate in Europe at KKR, added: “This
acquisition expands on our European real estate strategy, which
includes investing in high-quality residential assets. The Core+ sector
is proving to be a strong strategy given its ability to structurally
grow in areas where there is an imbalance in supply and demand,
particularly as investors seek attractive risk adjusted returns in a
dynamic macro-environment. KKR is well positioned in a competitive
market given our global track record, the strength of the KKR platform
and our sophisticated investment approach.”
James Saunders, Quintain CEO, said: “This
deal underlines our commitment to recycling capital from non-core and
stabilised assets to re-invest in new homes at Wembley Park, where we
have two new buildings underway and on track to be delivered by 2025. We
are also delighted that KKR has appointed Quintain Living to continue
managing Alameda and Beton. This marks the first step in the roll-out of
our Quintain Living management platform to third-party operators.”
Both the Barham Park Trust Committee and the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meet on Wednesday January 24th. The former includes the 'High Level Review' of the Barham Park accounts promised by Kim Wright, Brent's new CEO at the special call-in Scrutiny Commitee held on October 26th to consider issues around the accounts (Minutes of the meeting).
I am satisfied that the
objectives and scope which I set for the review have been met. Furthermore, I
am satisfied that the review did not identify any material issues relating to
the accuracy of the accounts. However, there have been areas identified where
the accounts could be presented in a more clear and transparent way moving
forward. This is particularly in the way rental income is presented and how the
netting off of income and expenditure is shown.
3.9 There were also some
helpful observations made regarding operational practices concerning the
running of the Trust which could impair, or be perceived to impair, the
Council’s arm’s length relationship with the Trust. In particular:
1. The trust not having its
own bank account (up until recently);
2. The award and management
of NCIL funds for park improvements being managed by the Council;
3. A lack of rent reviews
undertaken by the Trust owing to the ongoing feasibility study commissioned by
the Council;
4. Cash advances being paid
to the Trust for rents overdue.
3.10 I have discussed these
actions and observations with the appropriate officers, and all have agreed to
implement the actions. In addition, whilst the rationale for the practices set
out at 3.9 is clear existing practices are neither improper nor have any impact
on the accuracy of the accounts, I have asked officers to review its management
of the Trust to ensure that appropriate segregation and separation is in place
where appropriate to clearly distinguish between activities of the Council and
activities of the Trust,
Cllr Paul Lorber, one of the councillors instigating the Call-in is not satisfied and requested to speak at the Barham Park Trust meeting. The chair of the Trust, and leader of the Council, Muhammed Butt refused his request.
Cllr Lorber then wrote to all Brent councillors making his case:
Dear
Colleagues
If you see
mistakes and wrong doing you should never be afraid to speak up. You should
also not allow yourself to be fobbed off.
At
successive meetings of the Barham Park Trust I highlighted the errors in the
presented 2022/23 Accounts. The 1st version of the accounts went to a meeting
on 5 September and had to be withdrawn at the last minute. The revised accounts
presented to a reconvened meeting on 26 September did not make much sense
either.
At a
subsequent meeting of the Scrutiny Meeting I made the point that those
misleading and inaccurate accounts hide the truth of how the Barham Park Trust
Charity financial affairs have been mismanaged - making the point that the
mismanagement has cost the Charity around £100,000 - with on going losses going
forward.
You will
see from the Agenda of a reconvened Barham Park Trust Meeting that the Chief
Executive commissioned a “high-level consultancy based review” relating to the
concerns and issues raised.
The Chief
Executive then explains that the review was NOT intended to do - it “was only
ever limited to a narrow scope…”
The aim of
“high level reviews” “of limited scope” should be obvious - not to uncover
anything embarrassing and to protect senior Councillors and officers of the
Council at all costs.
The Barham
Park Trust Charity exists because 87 years ago a resident of Sudbury donated
his home and gardens for the enjoyment of local people in our area.
He
entrusted the management of his gift to the local Council - first Wembley BC
and later it’s successor - Brent.
We all -
Councillors and Officers - have a joint duty to look after and protect the
bequest from Titus Barham.
I take my
duty seriously and have tried to engage both with the Trust Committee and
Council Officers to help to highlight the mistakes they made so that correct
Accounts are prepared and ongoing losses being sustained by the Charity are
stopped.
I
requested the right to speak at the meeting on 24 January. The Chair has
refused my request to speak.
Prior to
that refusal I prepared a written submission to assist the Committee in their
deliberations on the 24th and ask some searching questions of the officers.
Mistakes
can happen. I will not criticise Councillors or Officers for making mistakes as
long as they correct them when they are pointed out to them.
I will not
however accept or tolerate mistakes which those in power and authority then try
to cover up.
Cllr Lorber sent two documents with his email that are embedded below:
There is likely to be little change in Brent Council's final budget compared with earlier drafts. Wednesday's meeting of Scrutiny Committee will hear a presentation on the Budget Task Group's recommendations.
A concern repeated from previous years is around accessibility, transparency and clarity. You may recall that they had argued for calling a cut a cut, rather than a saving last year.
In all there are 11 recommendations. ACE Brent (Action on climate and ecological emergency Brent who have been advocating for more joined up cross-department work on the climate emergency will be pleased with Recommendation 3 on a 'green budget'. Voluntary organisations will welcome Recommendation 4 that recognises if the Council signposts the sector to mitigate the impact of cuts it should first discuss with them how the mitigations will be delivered in practice.
There is similar common-sense in Recommendation 5 that advocates a strategic approach to income generation while warning of the dangers of over-commercialisation. It emphasises the importance of complicance with current policies on empty properties and business rates. Recommendation 6 suggests the renting out of Council meeting rooms for external use. There is still a shortage of such spaces to hire in Brent.
Campaigners for the retention of the New Millenium Day Care Centre will be disappointed that Reccommendation 9 advocates the retention of the building for community use but not as a Day Centre.
An imaginative flourish is Recommendation 10 that suggests a Community Impact Levy on Wembley Stadium tickets.
The Budget Scrutiny Task
Group makes the following recommendations to Cabinet. Budget Presentation and
Communications
Recommendation 1 –
Improvements to budget communications:
The Task Group acknowledge
the improvements that have been made to the consultation and engagement process
following the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24, but believes further work is
still needed to better communicate to residents what the vision, mission, aims and priority
protection areas of the upcoming Budget are. This also includes ensuring communications meet
agreed accessibility standards, such as writing documents in plain English in line
with the average Brent reading age. These revisions will help build a greater understanding of the
priority areas safeguarded in the proposals and enable residents to provide more
meaningful/influential consultation feedback. As an example the Task Group received evidence
that there was only one proposal from the Housing portfolio as the Council had made a
concerted effort to protect housing services and the most vulnerable; Although it
could be assumed that an area not featured in the proposals would be protected, such
information should be made clearer in the draft Budget for the lay person. The Task Group recommend
that the Council includes a concise, summary page in the Budget (and in future
budgets), adopting more accessible language which makes it clear what its vision,
aims, and priority protection areas are.
Recommendation 2 –
Developing clearer and concise proposals:
Some of the proposals are
generally vague and lack clarity around the possible impact(s) on residents and partners
(e.g. 2024-25 CR02, 2024-25 FR02, 2024-25 RS21, 2024-25 CHW03, 2025-26 CHW02 etc.) The
Task Group recommend that the Council review the proposals ahead of
publication of the final Budget to ensure that the final proposals and their possible
impact(s) can be clearly understood and are accessible to all Brent residents. This review
could be actioned collaboratively with a lay-panel (e.g. resident focus group) and in
future years by including additional questions in the consultation. These
suggestions could also help achieve recommendation 1.
Recommendation 3 -
Alignment with climate action commitments in Borough Plan 2023-27:
Building on the
recommendation made as part of the Budget Scrutiny Task Group Review 2023/24, there still needs
to be greater alignment between the draft Budget and the Borough Plan 2023-27, particularly
in relation to climate action. The Task Group appreciates changes being made to the corporate
reporting template to include a ‘Climate Change and Environmental Considerations’
section - this good practice should also be applied in the budget setting process.
The Task Group recommend that the Council adopt a ‘green budget’ which clearly
outlines the climate and environment implications of each proposal. This will assist
the Council in its urgent climate commitments, includingthe goal to become
Carbon Net Zero by 2030.
Stronger Partnership
Working with the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS)
Recommendation 4 - Shared
Outcomes Framework:
Although the Council has
understandably prioritised protecting the VCS and frontline services over other areas in
its proposed budget, there is scope for stronger partnership working with the sector.
During the Stakeholder Session (please see section 3), VCS partners expressed concerns
that mitigations proposed in the draft Budget were centred around signposting to the
VCS, however there had been no discussion or collaboration around how these mitigations
would be delivered or achieved in practice.
The Task Group recommend
that the Council explores a shared-outcomes framework with the voluntary sector
for the benefit of residents/service users. As part of this work, the Council
should urgently discuss and collaborate with the VCS in relation to budget proposals that involve
them and/or may have an impact on their service provision.
This discussion could
build on the Task Group’s recommendation from the Budget Scrutiny Task Group
Review 2023/24 which suggested a collaborative strategy with the VCS to enable these
organisations to identify and secure new income streams.
A shared-outcomes approach
could avoid future service cuts, avoid service duplication and save the Council money
long-term. Additionally, it would ensure that a consistent dialogue is maintained with the VCS
throughout each financial year around issues like council budgets rather than the
current approach which has meant budget discussions with the sector take place after
proposals have already been drafted.
Income Generation
Recommendation 5 –
Establishing a strategic approach to income generation:
The Task Group commend the
Council’s creativity/efforts to generate additional income to bolster its finances, and
particularly welcomes proposals such as 2024-25 FR01, 2024-25 RS13, and 2024-25 RS14.
However, more could be done to generate even more income.
The Task Group recommend
that the Council develops a longer-term, strategic approach to income
generation (accompanied with yearly action plans) rather than focusing on piecemeal
proposals year to year. The strategy should include a robust monitoring process that
enables holistic working across all departments to create synergies for income
generation. Specifically, allocating a dedicated, cross- departmental resource to
work across the Council to investigate and identify additional opportunities
for income generation e.g. compliance with mandatory HMO licensing, compliance
with council tax on empty properties, and business rates evasion.
Establishing a longer-term
approach will help the Council to be more resourceful and self-sufficient in the absence of
large central government funding pots. Strategic interventionscould enable the Council to
address areas of improvement in its operations and recoup income that would have been
otherwise due, as well as identify new creative ways of generating income. The Task
Group however recognise a balanced approach must be adopted that ensures the
Council does not become over-commercialised and learns from local authorities that have
experienced financial difficulties (i.e. entered s114 territory2) due to certain commercial
choices.
Recommendation 6 –
Renting out Civic Centre meeting rooms:
The Task Group acknowledge
the efforts the Council has made to rent out spaces in the Civic Centre to generate
additional income, however believes there are additional opportunities that can be
realised. The Task Group recommend that additional space, specifically meeting
rooms, in the Civic Centre are made available for external hire given that staff no
longer work 5 days per week in the office. To complement this suggestion, some council
meetings could be moved outside of the Civic Centre to be held in other community
assets in the borough.
Not only could this
recommendation generate additional income, but it could provide residents and businesses
with office space and workspace solutions in the heart of the borough. It could also
encourage members/officers to increase their use of other community facilities in the borough
and spread the Council’s visibility more equally throughout the borough.
Recommendation 7 –
Implementing additional shared service arrangements:
The Council’s efforts to
generate additional income by offering shared services to other local authorities are welcomed.
Notable examples include proposal 2025-26 CYP04 which intends to sell additional
respite bed nights to other local authorities at the Ade Adepitan Short Break Centre. Another
instance is the formation of the Shared Technology Services (STS), an IT shared service
for the councils of Brent, Lewisham and Southwark, whereby Brent is the host borough
for the service. The Task Group recommend that the Council explores further
opportunities for shared service arrangements, learning lessons from its current
arrangements and from good practice of the shared service models that already exist across
the country.
It is acknowledged that
there is not a single model that suits all councils, localities, or types of service provision, and
that this recommendation will take time to scope out. However, if delivered effectively, the
Council would be able to generate additional income, reduce duplication, potentially
increase investment in services, and reimagine services to better meet the needs of residents.
Lobbying and Advocacy
Recommendation 8 -
Housing Subsidy Loss:
Although the Task Group
welcomes the increase to Local Housing Allowance rates via the Autumn Statement 2023,
further pro-active work could still be carried out with neighbouring local authorities, London
Councils, and the Local Government Association (LGA) to seek reform to the Housing
Benefit Subsidy rules. The Task Group recommend that the Council works with the
above mentioned associations to lobby for positive change to the Housing Benefit
subsidy rules which currently caps the amount the Council can claim back from the
Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) to 90% of the 2011 LHA rates per household
for TA provided, and which places financially onerous restrictions on the types
of TA the Council can provide to be eligible for housing benefit subsidy. Such reform would enable Brent to significantly
reduce its overspends, and to have access to a
wider pool of affordable temporary accommodation to deal with increased demand in
homelessness.
Recommendation 9 –
Retaining use of New Millennium Day Centre
The Task Group accept that
alternative provision will be put in place to mitigate the impacts of ceasing use of the New
Millennium Day Centre. It would nevertheless be disappointing to lose a vital space in the
borough that brings local communities together and which allows the Council to achieve its
'Borough of Culture' legacy ambitions. The Task Group recommend that the
Council explores options to retain the building for community use.
The Task Group welcome the
financial contributions made by Wembley Stadium towards the Council’s event day
management costs (e.g. cleansing and waste management, highways management,
enforcement etc.), however recognise that these contributions do not cover the full extent of
the costs incurred by the Council for its operations on event days.
The Task group recommend
that the Council explores options with the Stadium for a ticket levy, whereby the
Council receives a proportion of each ticket sale in order to fully recover costs
incurred or to provide for further enhancement of the Council’s event day operations.
Recommendation 11 -
Delegation of budgets and decision making to Brent Integrated Care Partnership (ICP):
The Task Group note that the
success of many of the proposals are dependent on effective partnership working with
health partners (e.g. 2024-25 CHW01, 2024-25 CHW03, 2025-26 CHW03, 2025-26 CYP06 etc).
It was heard that the established working arrangements and governance in the Brent ICP
provide opportunities for closer working between the Council and NHS partners. These
working arrangements have enabled health funding to be transferred to Adult Social
Care to support residents and the local health and care system.
However, the Task Group
understand that the centralisation of decisions on NHS budgets away from the borough to
North West London Integrated Care Board (NWL ICB) has reduced the ability of the
Brent ICP to address local needs and may have increased future demand on the system. For
example, in accordance with ICB processes, the ICP has submitted robust
business cases for paediatric continence services, nursing provision for children in special schools,
and to manage pressures on CYP and adult mental health services. All of these
business cases are still awaiting a decision after many months, while need continues to increase.
The Task Group recommend
that the Council continues to advocate and make the case to NWL ICB for both
a better alignment of NHS resources to population need and for an increased
delegation of budgets and decision making to Brent ICP.
Not only would devolution to
place allow for more effective collaboration between the Council and local health partners
but it would also allow for implementation of service change at greater pace. Additionally,
the Task Group is of the view that the ICP is better able than NWL to tailor services to
the needs of Brent’s diverse communities with greater flexibility to respond to changing needs or
circumstances.
The BBC yesterday LINK published government data which showed that the London Boorough of Brent had the highest number of flytipping incidents of all Ennglish boroughs.
The news that there were 35,000 incidents of flytipping in Brent in 2022-23 was greeted with a distinct lack of surprise on local social media.
The Kilburn Times has followed up LINK the letter published last week on Wembley Matters about bank closures in Willesden Green and the impact on the elderly, disabled and those without a smart phone or internet access LINK.
It reports that Willesden Green councillors have written to both National Westminster Bank and Lloyds Bank about the impact on residents:
In a joint letter to Lloyds and NatWest, Willesden Green ward
councillors Saqhain Choudry, Janice Long and Tom Miller called the
closures "deeply disappointing" and asked for cash machine operator LINK
to open a ‘banking hub’ so customers of all banks have a physical
premises.
The councillors said: “Willesden Green has now fallen victim to the
surge of branch closures that is blighting local small businesses, the
elderly, and other vulnerable groups.”
Next weekend (26 to 28 January) is the RSPB’s Big Garden Birdwatch, and
a chance for us all to take part in the world’s largest garden wildlife survey.
I’m lucky enough to live in a house with a garden, but you don’t need one to
take part. You can watch, and count, on the balcony of a flat, or in a local
park or other open space that birds visit. It just takes an hour of your time,
plus a bit more reporting your results, and you can find out how on the Big Garden Birdwatch website.
2.Greenfinch and Goldfinches around a seed feeder.
You are likely
to see more birds if you are able to provide them with some food during the
winter. Some types of small birds seem to gather in small flocks at this time
of year, and recently we’ve enjoyed having a mixed group of Goldfinches and Greenfinches
coming to our feeders. Although we have a nest box each for Blue Tit and Great
Tit pairs (at opposite ends of our back garden), they also sometimes come to
the garden with Coal Tits and the beautiful little Long Tailed Tits (I’m sorry
that I don’t have a photograph of these to share – they are rather shy!).
3.Great Tit eating seeds, with inset showing its front markings.
4.Blue Tit and Goldfinch near fat ball feeder.
5.Goldfinches waiting while a Starling feeds on fat balls.
A garden bird
that isn’t shy is the Starling, and they will make smaller birds wait while
they feed. Occasionally only a single Starling will arrive, but usually they
appear in a posse – I think the most I’ve counted at one time during a
birdwatch is seventeen. They may look black, but up close, their markings and
colours are amazing, with greens, purples and lots of little white speckles
across their breasts.
As you can see
from some of the other photos, many small birds have some intricate and
colourful markings too. That even goes for the Robin (only one pair in the
garden, as they are very territorial!) and the occasional Sparrow that we see,
usually on the ground under the feeders, picking up what other birds drop.
Although we had
seen Ring-necked Parakeets flying around the area (particularly on Barn Hill)
for a number of years, it was only in 2020 that the first one landed briefly on
a tree in our garden. Now they are regular visitors, often arriving in pairs,
and the most we have seen at one time is six. They seem ready to wait patiently
for their turn, unless something scares them away first. Sunflower seeds are more
popular, but some will also peck at the fat balls.
6.A pair of Parakeets feeding, while another waits.
7.A Ring-necked Parakeet on the fat ball feeder.
The Parakeets
are very agile for their size. The Feral Pigeons and Wood Pigeons that visit
our garden usually can’t get at the feeders, unless there is a conveniently located
branch next to the fat balls. But when other garden birds are busy feeding, we
often see pigeons on the grass underneath, eagerly making the most of the seeds
or bits of fat ball that are dropped.
One Feral Pigeon,
who like the others was too big to use the small bird perch on the seed feeder,
was so keen to get at the food there that it tried to fly up from the ground
and hover. Over a number of days, it gradually developed this “skill”, until it
could spend a few seconds beside the feeding hole. I doubt whether the seeds it
got were worth the energy used in getting them, but it was interesting to watch
this “humming bird” pigeon!
8.The “humming bird” pigeon in action.
Our local Kingsbury
Feral Pigeons usually spend their time, and get their food, in Kingsbury Road
and Roe Green Park. However, one thing we do provide for the birds all year
round is their other vital need, water. I think all the different types of birds
that visit our garden have drunk from our water bowls, but that is not all they
need them for. And when fresh water is put out, it is often Feral Pigeons who
arrive to enjoy it first.
9.Feral Pigeons drinking and bathing in fresh water.
10.A Jay, with its crest up, enjoying a bath.
Jays are not the
only less usual “garden birds” that we are lucky enough to see. We also have
occasional visits from Green Woodpeckers and Great Spotted
Woodpeckers. Water is especially important during dry periods, like those we
often get during the summer, or when the ground is frozen. One of the first
jobs in the morning, in weather such as we’ve had last week, is to put some
extra water in the kettle, when making a cup of tea, so that there is some
available to remove the ice from the top of the water in our bowls. Having water
to drink, when none is available elsewhere, was probably why we had a rare
visit from a Pied Wagtail, last time we had snow lying.
11.Pied Wagtail walking through the snow, after drinking some water.
I would not have
thought of Crows as a garden bird, until one started visiting us five or six
years ago. Within months, the male’s mate was also coming, and since then they
have been a regular part of our garden bird life. Watching their behaviour has
given us a fascinating insight into crow family life, and I will share a little
of that with you.
12.Mr Crow having a bath.
Crows like to
have a bath, sometimes coming back into the bowl several times and splashing
about. On some summer days, Mr Crow gets so wet that he cannot take off, so
hops down the garden and up into our apple tree to preen and dry off, before
flying away. But drinking and bathing is not all that Crows use the water for.
They have a
varied diet, including making use of dropped takeaways, and food found (from
bins?) behind shops and restaurants. Crows can carry surprisingly large items
in their beaks. Sometimes they bring food to wash if they don’t like something
on it (such as peri-peri sauce on their chicken), or if they have buried it and
then dug it up again. At other times, it is to soften up the food - bread,
pizza, meat on bones and dog biscuits (stolen from a neighbour’s garden) are
some examples.
13.Mr Crow with a chip that needs softening.
14.A Crow washing and breaking up a cooked chicken leg.
Softening food
is particularly important when there are young to feed. Bread or meat needs to
be broken up at the bowl, then swallowed into a pouch in their throats to carry
back to the nest. The young Crows, usually two each year, are dependent on food
provided to them for many months. When they do start flying, we often see them
first in a nearby tree. It will be weeks before they are finally confident
enough to come to the garden, still begging food from their parents.
For the rest of
their first year, the young Crows are steadily educated (and disciplined, when
necessary, to know their place in “the pecking order” over food). They must
learn the skills of preparing food, bathing (watching their first attempts can
be amusing), and what the various calls mean, and how to make them. Mr Crow is
a very patient teacher.
Each year, one
of the young Crows, it can be either a male or a female, is trained to be a
helper. While the other one (or occasionally two) are made unwelcome by the end
of their first year, the helper stays as part of the family, to assist Mr Crow
in bringing food while Mrs Crow is on the nest, and in looking after the next
year’s young Crows during their early months.
15.Mr and Mrs Crow having breakfast, January 2024.
Although the
Crows can usually find their own food, and come to the garden mainly for the
water, we do provide some for them during the winter. As Starlings would take
the opportunity to gobble up any food, if the Crows were not quick enough to
arrive, we’ve started putting it on a plastic plate, with a bowl over it. Mr
Crow has the guile and strength to tip up the plate, so that the food is there
on the grass for the family to eat.
16.A squirrel eating from the Crows’ plate.
While there are few
garden birds who would dare steal the Crows’ food while they are there, a
cheeky squirrel will sometimes have a go (the local squirrels visit all of our feeders!).
While most of the family would not take on a squirrel, we’ve seen Mr Crow creep
up behind one, and dash in to peck its tail! Our garden is certainly part of
this Crow family’s territory, and they can often be seen and heard, cawing as a
group from trees or rooftops to warn neighbouring crows away from it.
I hope this
article has encouraged you to take part in the Big Garden Birdwatch, but more
than that, to spend more time watching, and feeding if you can, the garden birds
where you live. They can be a great source of natural beauty, interest and fun.
Philip Grant.
A copy of this article can be downloaded from HERE
If Philip's article has encouraged you to take part see the RSPB video below or visit the website HERE
