Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals – please sign petition to have them all put back on public display

 A guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The Olympic Torch tile mural, covered over since 2013.

 

It is nearly six years since I first wrote about the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals at Wembley Park, and a request by Wembley History Society to Brent Council and Quintain that they should be put back on permanent public display. 

 

Now, at last, there is a real opportunity to make that happen, which is why I have launched an online petition, and why I am writing now to encourage Wembley Matters readers to sign it, please. The petition statement says:

 

We the undersigned call upon Brent Council, and its Cabinet making the decision on the Award of a Contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease, to only award a lease from 31 August 2024 for advertising on the parapets of the bridge, and not on the walls of the subway, so that the heritage tile murals on those walls can be put back on public display.

The petition is on Brent Council’s website, and you can find it HERE.

 

Brent’s 15 February 2024 advert on the Contracts Finder portal.

 

The opportunity has come because the current Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease expires on 30 August 2024. Following a suggestion I made to Brent’s then Chief Executive in 2021, the new lease is being advertised through an open tender process (rather than through a private deal with Quintain), which may mean that the Council receives a higher rental income. 

 

Crucially, again at my suggestion, potential suppliers must make two bids, one for advertising solely on the parapets of the bridge (with a minimum annual income guarantee of £90,000) and one for advertising on the bridge parapets and the walls of the subway (minimum annual income guarantee £100,000).

 

The advertising lease contract opportunity was published on 15 February, with bids to be submitted by 12noon on Monday 18 March. The decision on who to award the new advertising lease to, and which option to award the lease for, is due to be made by Brent’s Cabinet on 28 May. I’m hoping that the difference in the two best bids will be small enough to persuade Cabinet members to award a lease only for advertising on the bridge parapets! 

 

As the light panels which currently cover most of the tile mural scenes in the subway (between Wembley Park Station/Olympic Square and Olympic Way) were installed for advertising purposes, this would mean that they have to be removed, so that all of the remaining tile mural scenes can be put back on permanent public display.

 

Composite image showing tile murals on the west wall of the subway.
(Image thought to be by Amanda Rose, for Quintain, in 2019)

 

The documents issued by Brent Council for the tender process included a “location” sheet, with photographs of the tile murals on the subway walls. The composite view of the west wall mural scenes included some which I did not have images of before. The basketball player, with yellow shorts, probably represents the Harlem Globetrotters team, who played exhibition matches at Wembley Arena every year from 1950 through to 1982. They were a big attraction, and I remember watching them as a boy, on a black and white television set.

 

A Harlem Globetrotters basketball game at Wembley in the 1950s. (Wembley History Society Collection)

 

The singer, with accompanist on a grand piano, may well represent Shirley Bassey, who was one of the stars in the first popular music concert at Wembley Arena in 1959, and performed there most recently in 2003. These are just parts of Wembley’s sports and entertainment heritage that the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals celebrate. It is that heritage which I believe it’s important that Wembley Park residents and visitors deserve to have returned to them!

 

The petition is supported by background information, which I submitted with it. A Council Governance Officer informed me that they had made several ‘factual amendments’ to it, and although I told them that what I had written was factually correct, I had to accept their version, so my petition could be published. 

 

For those interested, I will set out my original text below. Council Officers did not want you to know that Cabinet members were not told about the tile murals when they were asked to award the current advertising lease, and that the lease was secretly extended by three years (in a very “dodgy deal”!).

 

Background information:

 

The Bobby Moore Bridge and subway were created under a 1991 Brent Council scheme to pedestrianise Olympic Way, in advance of the 1996 Euros football tournament. With support from Wembley Stadium, the Council commissioned a large public artwork to decorate the walls of the subway from the station, and the Olympic Way walls as you emerge from the subway.

 

That public artwork was a ceramic tile mural, made up of individual scenes celebrating a variety of sports and entertainment events from the history of Wembley Stadium and Arena. These Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals were designed to welcome the millions of people passing through the subway each year, on their way to stadium and arena events, with a colourful reminder of Wembley Park’s heritage. 

 

The subway was officially opened in September 1993 by the widow of the former World Cup-winning England football captain, who unveiled a plaque set into one of the mural scenes, showing England footballers playing at the “twin towers” Wembley Stadium, naming the bridge ‘in honour of a football legend’.

 

Stephanie Moore, opening the subway and its murals in 1993. (Courtesy of Ray Pepper)

 

In 2013, Brent Council granted an advertising lease which allowed a Quintain subsidiary to cover the murals on the tile walls with vinyl advertising sheets, and to erect advertising signs on the walls above both entrances to the subway. Brent’s Cabinet agreed to grant a further four-year advertising lease in January 2018, but were not told about the tile murals on the subway walls, which the adverts would continue to hide from public view.

 

In 2019, Quintain applied for, and were given (despite strong public opposition), permission to install LED light panels, to be used for advertising, on the walls of the subway, and larger advertising screens on the bridge parapets. The only concession they made, after campaigning by Wembley History Society, was to put the “footballers” mural scene on the east wall of the subway back on permanent public display. Later that year, Council Officers secretly extended the advertising lease for a further three years, to 30 August 2024.

 

During the 2019 planning process, Brent acknowledged that the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals were a heritage asset. At the start of Brent’s year as London Borough of Culture, in January 2020, three of the large tile mural scenes on the east wall of Olympic Way, just outside of the subway were put back on temporary display. The Council publicised the event, saying:

 

‘The tiles, which show scenes from famous sports and entertainment events at Wembley Stadium and the SSE Arena, Wembley, are part of Brent’s rich heritage.’

 

The tile murals in Olympic Way are now back on permanent public display.

The end of the current advertising lease is an opportunity to allow Wembley Park’s residents and visitors to enjoy all of the tile murals in the subway again, for the first time since 2013. Potential advertisers have been asked to submit two bids in the tender process for the new advertising lease. One bid will be for adverting on the bridge parapets only, and the other will be for the bridge parapets and the subway walls.

Brent’s Forward Plan shows that the decision on the award of the new advertising lease is scheduled for the Cabinet meeting on 28 May 2024. This petition aims to show the level of support from people in the borough for the tile mural scenes in the subway to be put back on permanent public display.

 

Composite image showing tile murals on the east wall of the subway.
(Image thought to be by Amanda Rose, for Quintain, in 2019)

 

I hope you’ll agree that these colourful tile mural scenes do deserve to be back on display, so that everyone passing through the subway can enjoy them, and get a feel for a century of Wembley Park’s history as “the venue of legends”.

 

It will only take a couple of minutes online to sign the petition, passing a couple of security tests to show that you live, work or study in Brent, and that you are a real person, not some automated “bot”. When you get to the final page, which repeats the petition, please scroll down to the bottom, where you will find the “SIGN PETITION” box to click on. Thank you!

 

Philip Grant.

A modest increase in Brent councillors' basic allowance

 

 

Debating the councillor renumeration proposals

There is always a faint air of embarrassment around the Council chamber when the issue of councillor allowances comes up at the Budget setting meeting of the Council. This year was no exception as councillors were required to vote on giving themselves a rise.

Allowances were introduced to ensure that the role of councillor was open to a wider range of people rather than just those with a high enough income or an independent income tenabling them to subsidise the role.

Some councillors have other employment in addition to being a councillor while others treat it as a full-time job.

A saving grace is that Brent has the Independent Renumeration Panel (IRP) to advise on  renumeration for London councillors. In fact the IRP in its report LINK advocated a higher basic allowance than that adopted by Brent Council (£15,960) against the Brent figure of £13,637 (up from £12,988). This is £649 extra a year for each of the 57 Brent councillors.

 

The IRP in its report said: 

[Our] research showed that basic allowances per annum in London are significantly lower than those paid in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The assessment of members’ allowances in the home nations is carried out by independent bodies whereas in England, the level of allowances is determined by the local authority members themselves. It has also become clear that allowances in many boroughs are considerably lower than remuneration received by workers in London with comparative levels of responsibilities and skills. This comparative contrast in remuneration is juxtaposed against increased workloads, time pressures, accountability, and financial pressures that councillors are presently having to manage. The Panel takes the view that it is important that there is a system of support in place that recognises the vital role that elected representatives play in local government and the full scale of their responsibilities. This support includes appropriate remuneration levels.

 

The Roberts commission considered a wide range of issues but at its heart were the key questions of: 1) how best to ensure that people from a wide range of backgrounds and with a wide range of skills are encouraged to serve as local councillors; and 2) how to ensure those who participate in and contribute to the democratic process should not suffer unreasonable financial disadvantage.

 

Within these broad considerations there can be no doubt that financial compensation or a system of allowances plays a crucial part in making it financially possible for local people to put themselves forward to take on the onerous responsibilities involved in being a councillor and indeed to continue to serve as one.

 

For this reason it is crucial that allowances for councillors across London are pitched at an appropriate level such that they make a major contribution in ensuring diverse and effective local representation. This 2023 review of Member allowances has aimed to take a step back and ensure that the recommended allowances are pitched such that they serve this crucial purpose.

 

We are clear that the Panel can only make recommendations and that each council must determine its own system and rates of allowances. However each council must have regard to our recommendations. We are concerned that a wide variation in the level of allowances between councils across London has evolved over the years.

 

Given that this year’s Panel review has been a significant stocktake and that we have made clear recommendations, with a clear rationale and for the important purpose described in this section, we strongly recommend that the findings of our review and the Panel’s position are adopted across London. This is at the heart of ensuring a healthy, vibrant and representative local government in the capital.

 

Having looked at various options, the Panel has concluded that the most appropriate approach is to determine the basic allowance as a proportion to the remuneration of the people councillors represent and has used the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) data, published by the Office for National Statistics as a basis of its calculation. The Panel has used the median wage for all London workers for this purpose. In 2022-23, this is £38,936.73 per annum. Based on a 37 hour week, and taking into account a 30% public service discount, (as has been the custom and practice) the Panel has determined that the recommended basic allowance should be £15,960.

On top of the basic allowance there are Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs) for councillor roles on committees etc. The Brent proposl this year was that these remained unchanged except for members of the Licensing Committee and chairs of Brent Connects. As Cllr Georgiou pointed out at the Council meeting these have been significantly increased. The Council reports sets out the reasons for the proposed increase:

 

Over the last two and a half years, the number of Licensing Sub-committee meetings have averaged at 20 or more per year with each hearing lasting at least half a day. Serving on the Licensing Committee bears significant personal responsibility as the committee is quasi-judicial in nature. All members are expected to strictly adhere to the Licensing code of practise, with the failure to do so risking reputational damage to the council or the risk of legal proceedings. All members on the licensing committee are expected to regularly attend the Licensing Sub-committee as well as undertake regular training and development sessions provided by the council, in addition to site visits and other applicable work.

 

Similarly with the role of Chairs of the Brent Connects Area Consultative Forums and the increasing pressures on community resilience and power, these forums will be taking on a more developed role in the council, as part of our Borough Plan commitment to enabling communities and encouraging greater involvement at a neighbourhood level in council activities

As commented on previously on Wembley Matters SRAs are an area where a council leader can indulge powers of patronage. Their potential loss via removal from a post can keep a councillor in line.

 

 

Full list of allowances (Click bottom right corner for full page view)

 

Parents, pupils, staff, unions, councillors and the local MP unite to save Byron Court Primary from the clutches of the Harris Federation - 'It belongs to our community'

 

The quiet suburban streets, lined with spring flowers and blossoms, around Byron Court Primary School. burst into passionate life today as the community rose up, united in their desire to save the much-loved school from forced academisation following a poor Ofsted report.

Meanwhile in an anonymous London Department for Education building the fate of the school was being decided by equally anonymous civil servants.

What a contrast!

Those attending were united in their belief that the school could and would improve without being handed over to the Harris Federation academy chain whose reputation is poor. Importantly they wanted the school to remain within the community and accountable to that community.

 

 

JUST 3 WEEKS TO GO: Vital Brent Council consultation on transport to school for children with special needs and disabilites

 

 

Brent Council is asking families with children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) for their views on proposals to update the Council’s Travel Assistance Policy. LINK

 

The consultation is open for another 3 weeks. There have been only 11 responses online so far.

 

The Home to School Travel Assistance policy provides support to help children and young people to travel to school when they might otherwise be prevented by disability or special need. 

 

The service currently supports approximately 1,300 children and young people in Brent. The council must provide travel assistance to children aged between five and 16 who meet the criteria set by the Department for Education. 

 

Parents have previously expressed dissatisfaction with the service that is shared with Harrow, over issues such as long journey times and difficulty in accessing help and called for a review. LINK The draft policy makes no bones about the fact that reducing the cost of the service to the Council is a significant part of the review:

 

Budgetary considerations: Free travel to school is a valuable service for many families, but budget pressures mean the Council often has to make difficult decisions about how to make the best use of the limited resources.

 

Face to face and online sessions are taking place with parents and carers to discuss the experiences and needs of local families, and in particular those with children with SEND.

 

Councillor Gwen Grahl, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools said: 

 

Every child and young person is entitled to education and no one should be prevented from accessing it because they cannot travel to school. We want all of our children and young people in Brent to have the best start in life. It’s really important that people feed into this consultation so that our Home to School Travel policy enables those who need it the right support to travel to one of our great schools.

 

The Council says the proposed changes to the policy also reflect the ambitions of the Brent SEND Strategy for 2021-2025, which focuses on the council’s ethos to allow children and young people in Brent to lead happy fulfilled lives. The consultation is open until Sunday 14 April. Its findings will help shape the final policy that will be approved by the Cabinet later this year. Those interested can read the draft policy and have their say online, on the council’s consultation page

 

There is an emphasis on children travelling more independently rather than relying on the school transport service. However, this will often mean parents escorting their children.

 

EXTRACTS FROM THE DRAFT POLICY

 

The Education Act 1996 and this policy use the phrase ‘travel assistance’ because the form this takes will vary and often does not involve the Council providing any transport at all.  The Council will determine what is appropriate in each case, taking account of its legal obligations, the needs of the applicant, safety considerations, the best use of the Council’s resources, any expressed preference and any other relevant matter.  In order to achieve as much independence and as much active travel as possible, when reviewing travel assistance  applications, we look at the potential options in the following order:

 

 

    Travel pass – This is a free pass in the form of an Oyster Card that is available for use on public transport such as buses and is the most common form of travel assistance provided. Brent Council considers that this will be suitable for the majority of children and young people up to the age of 16.

 

     Personal Travel Budget – This is a sum of money provided to parents/carers/guardians of children who are assessed as eligible for travel assistance. This allows parents/carers/guardians to arrange personalised, flexible travel arrangements that suit the needs of their child and family.

 

The sum provided is based on the safe walking distance between home and school and the number of days per week the child or young person is scheduled to attend school or college.

 

Parents/Carers/Guardians can use a PTB in any way they deem necessary to ensure their child/young person attends school regularly and arrives and leaves on time. Parents will not need to provide any evidence for how the money is spent. PTBs will not affect any of the other benefits the family already receives.

 

If attendance falls, Brent Council will contact the parent/carer/guardian and review whether the PTB is still the best mode of travel assistance. As a result of the review, the travel assistance offered may change to a more suitable mode or PTBs reduced or withdrawn, depending on consultation with the school and family.

 

The parent/carer or adult individual then assumes full responsibility for the travel arrangements and getting the child or themselves to their place of education on time and achieving good attendance. It is anticipated that the use of personal travel budgets can meet most individual needs and the Council encourages their use wherever appropriate. The provision of travel budgets can be offered in a number of ways such as mileage allowance.

 

Provision of a Travel Buddy – A travel buddy may be provided to accompany a child, young person or adult to their place of education whether using public transport or on Council provided transport. A travel buddy will only be provided where they are necessary for the safe operation of vehicles and/or the care of children and young people and where parents or carers are not reasonably able to accompany them

 

 

 

    Transport vehicles – If we have considered and ruled out all other options, we may provide a suitable vehicle, specifically adapted as necessary, to transport the child or young person. Vehicles and drivers are provided by a suitably qualified, registered, commercial provider working to contractual standards set by the Council. 

 

In general, vehicles are routed to pick up a number of children from different locations who attend a particular school. Therefore, journeys can be relatively long, and the child or young person will spend more time in the vehicle than with other forms of travel assistance.

 

Each route will be planned on the basis of the start and finish times of the place of education and the shortest possible route for all passengers on a particular vehicle.  Passengers will be picked up and dropped off at a convenient location, within a reasonable distance from their home, in many cases from recognised bus stops. A home pick up and drop off will only be made where it is deemed essential due to the individual’s significant needs.

 

If your child is accessing a collection point, you will be responsible for ensuring that your child gets safely to and from the collection point at the appropriate time. If your child’s travel assistance offer requires them to walk to a collection point, then it is expected that an adult will accompany them where necessary. You will also be responsible for your child when they are waiting for transport and when they leave the transport at the end of the day.

 

In the event of an emergency, late running of the service, or an adult not being present at a collection point, children will be taken to an agreed safe point for collection.

 

§  Other – The Council may provide any other form of travel assistance which is considered suitable and will consider any suggestions from applicants about any particular type of travel assistance.

 

There is an online consultation session tonight from 7pm until 8.30pm:

 EVENTBRITE BOOKING

 

Other sessions (note the St Raph's event is on Tuesday 26th March - Brent Council omitted the date):

 

Session 6 Booking

Session 7 Booking

Session 8 Booking

Children's Play Area - including Quad Bike course, to open at Birchen Grove Garden Centre in Kingsbury at Easter

 

 

A Quad Bike course is to open at Birchen Grove Garden Centre, Kingsbury, on Friday March 29th in time for the Easter weekend. Rides will be £2.

The course is part of a revamp at the Centre which already provides play for toddlers at Jane's Cafe.

Swings and climbing frames are already open. (Shame about the plastic grass!)

 

 

'Save our School' - Byron Court Primary resists forced academisation and privatisation: Demonstration 8am Thursday+petition

While I have been away from Wembley Matters in Australia,  staff and parents of Byron Court Primary School have moved with impressive speed to resist being forced into becoming a Harris Academy after a poor Ofsted report. Harris itself ha a poor reputation for its treatment of staff and the enormous salary of its boss. Removing the school from the oversight of the local authority (Brent Council) removes democratic accountability. With support from Brent Education Department the school is already making great progress to address the issues highlighted by Ofsted and the process of academisation would in itself be disruptive to those efforts.

The community is mobilising to save its community school.

Joint Secretary of Brent National Education Union, Jenny Cooper, said:

Our position is that the workforce, as major stakeholders in our schools, should be part of the decision making about their future; as things stand, we see our members once again suffering with work-related stress and anxiety as a direct result of the damaging process we call 'Ofsted'. One-word judgements do nothing to support or help improve our schools; all they do is help steer our school staff on a fast-track to mental breakdown.

 

 This is the wording of the petition you can sign at

https://www.megaphone.org.uk/petitions/save-byron-court-primary-school-stop-the-academisation

To: Gillan Barnard, Chair of Governors; Richard Sternberg, Acting Headteacher; Cllr Muhammed Butt, Brent Council Leader; Gillian Keegan MP, Secretary of State for Education; Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Schools

Save Byron Court Primary School - Stop the Forced Academisation

Campaign created by

⮞ JOINT PETITION BY 'SAVE BYRON COURT' PARENT CAMPAIGN GROUP AND BRENT NEU ⮜

Our school is being forced into becoming an Academy and join a Multi-Academy Trust, following a poor Ofsted rating. If this goes ahead:

🢜 everything that has made Byron Court an outstanding school before and a special place within the heart of our community will be lost;

🢜 there is no guarantee that any of the improvements or stability needed will be made; on the contrary, academisation could well bring plenty of new problems, particularly the loss of well-loved and valued teaching & support staff who could be forced out;

🢜 and yet Byron would never return to being a community school for all

Our own surveys have revealed that almost two-thirds of parents want Byron to remain a community school; the overwhelming majority of the staff want this too. Yet, we are currently locked out of any discussions and do not have a vote on the school's future.

How can it be fair or right that those who will be most affected - the staff, the families, the local community - are ignored?

We also recognise:

🢜 the significant failings with the Ofsted inspection itself;

🢜 recent changes introduced by Ofsted to make the inspection regime more supportive but which were brought in weeks after Byron's inspection;

🢜 Ofsted's 'Big Listen' consultation, which includes looking into the "impact of inspections on children, professionals, institutions and parent choices", implying an acceptance by themselves that significant change is needed;

🢜 and the school's progress, both already made and planned, under a Rapid Improvement Plan being closely monitored by Brent Council

The Secretary of State for Education has imposed an Academy Order on our school by force - this means that government officials will be making decisions behind closed doors about the future of our school. This is not fair, transparent, nor democratic.

BUT IT'S NOT TOO LATE!!!! Together we can fight to make things different

WE CALL ON GILLAN BARNARD, RICHARD STERNBERG & CLLR MUHAMMED BUTT TO:

🢜 Listen to parents, staff and the community

🢜 Fight against plans to academise the school without the consent or properly considering the views of parents, governors or the Council

🢜 Push for a delay in the transfer to any Multi-Academy Trust, to give sufficient time for improvements to be made in the school

🢜 Challenge Ofsted - express parent and staff concerns around the previous inspection; fight for re-inspection after sufficient time to review improvements, and under any new framework that comes out of the 'Big Listen' consultation

🢜 Give us the chance to remain a community school

WE CALL ON GILLIAN KEEGAN & DAMIAN HINDS TO:

🢜 Withdraw the Academy Order imposed on Byron Court Primary School

Why is this important?

🢜 Ensure an equal, non-selective environment with a focus on the whole child, an approach that doesn't achieve academic excellence or good behaviour by excluding children or making them scared to be in school

🢜 Give a say to those that it will impact most - the staff, the families, the local community

🢜 Stop the privatisation of our children's education

HOW ELSE CAN YOU HELP?

Write to your local councillors: https://bit.ly/BrentCounc

Write to Barry Gardiner MP: barry.gardiner.mp@parliament.uk

Follow us: https://twitter.com/savebyroncourt
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/savebyroncourt
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/savebyroncourt

Donate to our Campaign fundraising page: https://gofund.me/c696a920

UPDATE: Is the proposal to build 60 social rent infill homes on garage sites on Chalkhill Estate what it seems?

 

 

Is a Cabinet Report LINK about delivering 60 homes for Social Rent at Chalkhill what it seems?

Item 11 on the agenda for the Cabinet Meeting on 11 March is headed: ‘Proposal to deliver 60 homes for Social Rent on the Chalk Hill (sic) Estate.’ That’s great news, surely? But you have to read the Report to find out what it really means.

Social Rent is the most affordable of the “genuinely affordable” rent levels. It is the rent level at which the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report recommended the Council should build as many homes as possible, because most local people in housing need could not afford anything more expensive. And the Council has, so far, failed to build new homes for this rent level, unless they are existing tenants being moved from homes to be demolished.

But, hang on, does Brent own the Chalkhill Estate? Well, no. In the Report’s “Background” information section, it confirms that Brent Council transferred it to Metropolitan Housing Trust in 1996.

[It also claims that ‘Chalkhill was one of the major estates constructed in the borough by the Greater London Council in the 1960’s.’ Either current Council staff don’t know their local history, or they are trying to rewrite history, to distance themselves from the problems that led to the late 1960s “Bison” blocks being demolished only 30 years after they were built!]

In fact, it is now owned by Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing Association (“MTVH”), and it is their scheme which the Cabinet Report is considering. Cllr. Promise Knight’s “Cabinet Member Foreword” still maintains that: ‘we committed to deliver 5,000 affordable homes in the borough and are on track to achieve this.’

Her Foreword goes on to say: ‘This report sets out an opportunity to work closely with one of our strategic partners MTVH Housing to unlock 60 new social homes for residents by repurposing garage sites.’ [Note that these are now ‘social homes’, no longer ‘homes for Social Rent.’]

So, it is another infill scheme (something which Brent has not been particularly successful with so far - see my October 2023 guest post: Council housing – Does Brent know what it is doing?). But this time it is a Housing Association infill scheme, so why is Brent Council involved?

The part of the Chalkhill Estate involved in this scheme is the low-rise brick-built “Scientists” area at the eastern side of the 1960s estate. The land that MTVH want to build on ‘is subject to several outstanding third-party interests’.

It is Brent Council which has the statutory powers to over-ride these “third-party interests”, using compulsory purchase orders and stopping-up orders. As the Report puts it: ‘the scheme will be delivered by MTVH but the Council’s support will be necessary to enable delivery.’

If the proposed infill scheme does go ahead, it may produce ‘around sixty’ new homes. Although these will not be Brent Council homes, the Report does say ‘it is proposed all new homes delivered as part of the regeneration proposal on the Chalkhill Estate will comprise social housing, and the Council will hold nomination rights.’ Possibly some good news for the future.

 

UPDATE:

 This, from the Council's website, is what was decided at Cabinet on March 11th:

'Cabinet RESOLVED:

(1) To approve in principle the Council working with Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing Association (MTVH) to support the development objective of delivering new social housing within the Chalkhill Estate.

(2) To approve in principle to make Compulsory Purchase Orders of land interests within the Chalkhill Estate as identified on Plan 1 under Planning or Housing legislation to bring forward the development objectives, subject to a further specific resolution of Cabinet in respect of the making of each order.

(3) To agree advancing the preliminary stages of the compulsory purchase process on the Chalkhill Estate, including, but not limited to, land referencing, issuing section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 notices (section 16 notices), engaging, consulting and negotiating with landowners, and preparation of documentation and undertake all matters that the Council might need to undertake to inform a further report to Cabinet to make, confirm and implement the CPO, if required.

(4) To approve in principle to appropriate, subject to planning,the land identified on Plan 1 under section 203 of the 2016 Housing and Planning Act, subject to a further specific resolution of Cabinet in respect of the making of each appropriation.

(5) To approve in principle to make stopping up orders using planning or highways legislation for any land identified on Plan 1 and comprising public highway.

(6) To note the potential for the delivery of new social housing illustrated by MTVH’s current design proposals and that the current proposal will be subject to further consultation, design refinement and following that be subject of an application for planning permission to the Local Planning Authority.

(7) To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Resident Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security to enter into an indemnity agreement with MTVH to indemnify the Council for all costs associated with the compulsory purchase process on Chalkhill Estate.'