Saturday, 19 February 2022

South Kilburn's Pete Firmin on 'Not the Andrew Marr Show' tomorrow

 From Not the Andrew Marr Show (Pete has contributed to articles on this blog about South Kilburn issues and we wrote about his suspension HERE):

A Labour member and local party activist for over 40 years, a former postal worker and member of the CWU, Pete Firmin would seem to be the kind of person Labour would need to help the party back to power.

However, he has been told he is no longer welcome in Labour and has been sent an expulsion letter.

Show solidarity with Pete on tomorrow morning's Not the Andrew Marr Show (10:30-12:30am), when we hear his response to his expulsion and what he feels is going wrong with the party.

REGISTRATION HERE

Year 2 tell it how it is!

 

 

 

From More than a Score

Year 2 pupils have never spent a full year in school without Covid disruption. But these children will sit more government tests than any other class this year.

Last term, they took the phonics screening check. Next term, they’ll be facing their year 2 SATs. This is not the way to instil a love of learning.

Best wishes

Jill and Alison at More Than A Score

PS. If you haven’t done so, please Write To Your MP today. It will only take a minute.

 

Can you help solve the Wembley Girl mystery?

 Guest post, by local historian Philip Grant:-


Wembley History Society receives email enquiries from around the country, and the world, about a wide variety of aspects of our area’s past. Some we can answer easily, from information we already hold. Others take research, which can uncover some fascinating stories, like that of a 1960s music shop, or a remarkable Indian lawyer who lived here. Occasionally, we receive a query that we can’t answer. The origin of a “Wembley Girl” figure is one of those, which is why I am writing this, to ask if you can help, please!

 

Wembley Girl’s face.

 

Our enquirer and her late husband bought the Wembley Girl figure ‘many moons ago’ from an antique dealer who claimed, ‘she is rather rare’. The painted figure is around 15 inches (38cm) tall, and the email sending its photograph said the owner would love to know more about the story behind this model, where and when (and by whom) she was made, and what her connection with Wembley is.

 

The Wembley Girl figure.

 

There is no doubt that the figure is a “Wembley Girl”, because that name is clearly shown on the base of the model:-

 


There is no makers name or mark on the base, and no stamp to show where the figure was made (if it was made outside this country, it might have had “Made in ….” stamped underneath). The only other clue is the number “24”. This could be a number referring to the mould it was cast from, or if it was a limited-edition model, the number of that particular piece. Or it could represent the year 1924.

 


Wembley would certainly have been widely known in 1924, because that was the year the British Empire Exhibition (“BEE”) was staged here. 17 million people came to Wembley Park for the BEE in 1924, and most of them went away with a souvenir of some sort. Hundreds of different picture postcards and a wide variety of small china ornaments were available from stalls around the exhibition grounds.

 

 

Empire Stadium souvenir cup. (From Alan Sabey’s collection)

 

 

A BEE souvenir ornament, made by Cauldon Potteries Ltd. (From Alan Sabey’s collection)

 

But what connection could the Wembley Girl figure, which would have been a more expensive item than these mass-produced souvenirs, have had with the BEE? She certainly appears to be making an exhibition of herself, although that would go against the generally wholesome theme of the BEE! This is just speculation, but my guess would be that, if the figure did come from the BEE in 1924, it was connected in some way with the Pears’ Palace of Beauty.

 


An advertisement for the Pears’ Palace of Beauty. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

This ornate building, in the BEE’s Amusement Park, was created by the House of Pears to promote their soap, which they said had been ‘for 130 years the servant of beautiful women.’ Inside the building were 10 tableau rooms from different ages, and inside each (behind a glass screen, to protect them from admiring visitors) was an actress, styled and dressed as one of the most beautiful women in history.

 

The actresses, playing characters from Helen of Troy and Cleopatra, to Nell Gwynne, Sarah Siddons and Miss 1924, worked in pairs, sharing the 13-hour days that the Palace was open in shifts. They worked 10am to 1pm and 7pm to 11pm one week, and 1pm to 7pm the next, for £5 a week. They were one of the biggest attractions in the 40-acre Amusement Park, with 750,000 visitors paying one shilling and threepence each to see them in the 1924 season.

 


Postcard showing the entrance to the BEE Amusement Park. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

The Wembley Girl figure may have been inspired by the women in the Palace of Beauty (perhaps Miss 1924?), but she was not an official souvenir. Pears’ only offered souvenir bars of their soap, and a set of postcard pictures of the beautiful women (in their costumes), in their gift shop. If Wembley Girl was made for the BEE, it is more likely that she was sold in a kiosk close to the Palace of Beauty, for men who had been to the Pears’ exhibit, but wanted a souvenir which was a bit more “racy”.

 

Pears’ Palace of Beauty at the BEE Amusement Park in 1924. (Image from the internet)

 

If you know anything about the origin of the Wembley Girl figure, or even recognise its style and who might have made it, please provide the information in the comments below. If you are tempted to make any rude comments, about what her owner describes as her ‘rather deshabille’ appearance, please don’t! 

 

Thank you.


Philip Grant.

Friday, 18 February 2022

Important Independent Sage statement on free Covid-19 tests & payments to support self-isolation

Alongside NHS leaders, members of Independent SAGE condemn the reported decision by the Government to stop free COVID-19 tests and payments to support self-isolation in England. Although we were initially sceptical about the utility of lateral flow tests in the absence of more financial support for isolation, widespread availability of these tests alongside existing PCR tests might have contributed to reducing peak infections both in last summer and this winter.  

Our concerns about removing access to free tests include:  

a) increased risk of spread of Omicron and any subsequent variants, leading to more illness, death and burden on the NHS and more risk of new variants emerging; 

b) a disproportionate impact on many of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in society, especially those in public facing jobs that bring them into frequent contact with large numbers of people and those who cannot choose to isolate; 

c) loss of the reassurance provided by lateral flow tests to those considering the safety of meeting with others, especially isolated elderly friends and relatives; 

d) loss of ability to determine if you have Covid and then voluntarily self-isolate;  

e) loss of ability to determine when you are no longer infectious if you do fall ill with Covid;

f) reduced ability to make the early diagnosis needed to enable those who might benefit from the new antivirals to receive them rapidly, when they are most effective; 

g) reduced access to care for long covid if no proof from a positive test; 

h) reduced volumes of samples sent for genetic sequencing, thereby limiting our ability to detect and track newly emerging variants; 

i) loss of intelligence on the continuing course of the pandemic; 

j) widening inequalities, as those able to afford tests will continue to get them while people on low incomes will not. 

k) A disproportionate and adverse effect upon the ability of clinically vulnerable people to safely engage with society.

Independent SAGE calls on the Government to publish, immediately, the scientific evidence and risk assessments on which it has based this decision. It further calls on the devolved administrations not to follow this path until they have seen convincing evidence that it is safe. 

 

Storm Eunice brings down gable in Wembley - Bridge Road blocked

 

Debris outside the former Barclays Bank (Credit: AmandaRosePhoto) @amandarosephoto

 

 (Credit: AmandaRosePhoto) @amandarosephoto


Bridge Road was closed by police (Credit: AmandaRosePhoto) @amandarosephoto

 

 It was fortunate that no-one was hurt when the gable wall above the former Barclay's Bank came down in Storm Eunice today.  The bus stop is close by following its removal from the bridge but people had taken advice and stayed at home.

The British Transport Police station is directly opposite the formewr bank so they were wablt to act swiftly.

LETTER: Two Brents are emerging fast - shrinking suburbia and corporatist growth areas

 Dear Editor,

Regarding Brent Article 4- REMOVING PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS RELATING TO CHANGES OF USE FROM RESIDENTIAL FAMILY HOUSES TO HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION confirmed by the Council on 3rd February 2022 and coming into force on 1st November 2022.

This applies to the whole of the London Borough of Brent, but excludes the area designated as the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation Area, the draft Local Plan’s site allocations within the Church End Growth Area and all parts of the other seven Brent Growth Areas- Alperton, Stonebridge, South Kilburn, Northwick Park, Neasden, Burnt Oak/ Colindale, Northwick Park and Wembley corporatist colonial zones.

 

Why has the Council introduced this Article 4 to parts of Brent? Brent's answer is that:

 

...currently all Brent dwellings can be turned into smaller houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) without the need for planning permission. Smaller HMOs are shared houses occupied by between three and six unrelated individuals, as their only or main residence, who share basic amenities such as a kitchen or bathroom. There are currently about 17,000 HMOs (small and large) in Brent.

 

The Council recognises the importance that HMOs have in meeting housing needs. They provide accommodation that is more affordable for some people.

 Nevertheless, when there are significant concentrations of HMOs it can cause issues. They change the character of an area and result in adverse impacts, for example higher amounts of anti-social behaviour. They also reduce the amount of larger homes (3+bedrooms) that are available for families.

 

As such the Council wants to be able to manage the development of HMOs and consider whether change of use from family dwellings is acceptable. Requiring planning permission will help in doing this. It will ensure that where a new HMO is applied for (except where exclusion applies) there is not an overconcentration. It can also help address elements that might impact on anti-social behaviour (such as waste management). It will also allow the Council to ensure a reasonable amount of larger homes for families remain available"

 

- but not in: Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation Area, the draft Local Plan’s site allocations within the Church End Growth Area and all parts of the other seven Brent Growth Areas. Why?

 

Two Brent's are emerging fast, one of family homes population de-growth suburb-bias and one of corporatist population growth "we can do whatever we want" extractive colonialism where existing social, health, education infrastructure, public open spaces and flood defences are built on and destroyed by political/ market design.

 

Combine this Article 4 major change with the Royal Institute of British Architects proposal last week for a £38 billion mass insulation of inter-war suburbs for health, wealth and social benefit gains. And Brent's persisting with 'Growth Areas' even though the new planning bill (which included this GA planning idea) was ditched in September 2021 by Michael Gove, all can see clear that Brent is a Local outlier, risk hungry and politically indifferent to its Growth Area high tax, less and less public services zones.

 


David Walton

 

What's going on and off Wembley High Road? Latest photographs and some questions

From our very local correspondent

Elizabeth House work is almost complete except for a few bits on the ground floor, all the scaffolding has gone and cladding replaced.

Next door, Wembley Place (old Brent House site) was completed and signed off in Easter 2020, although no one moved in until October 2020 and that was just the Social Housing portion.  There are two retail outlets on the Ground Floor, Costa Coffee, and a Sainsbury's Local.  It was not long after Sainsbury's had been shopfitted and ready for opening that scaffolding went up outside and around various parts on the ground floor.  On asking residents and Sainsbury's recently as to why it's there, nobody seems to know!  I have never witnessed anyone working on any parts.  Rumours abound.  1) that balconies glass is not safe? 2) some cladding bricks were loose and falling off?  No one really seems to know, perhaps you can do some detective work?
 
 

 
 
 

Our three trees have been removed from the Triangle and replaced with some large wooden planters?  What's that about?
 

Last week I saw several workmen digging out the places where trees once were on the High Road to install new ones!!! Obviously of the right kind???? and it would appear that Brent have added some new Urban Art in Electric Orange colour warning Paan Spitters that they could be fined £100.  Interestingly I spoke to Brent  Enforcement Officer  who said despite working for them for 3 years and Paan Spitting being one of his big bug bears like the rest of us, no matter that he has tried relentlessly he has never been able to catch a perpetrator in the act. LOL.  I think it mostly happens at night.

 

 

Behind the Twin Towers (developer's name 'Uncle and the site of Chesterfield House) two more blocks are going up, one of 17 storeys and 1 of 19, being constructed by Henrys (same as twin towers) with same developer "Squarestone Hub"  I think on planning it's listed as the Wembley Link, you will see from photos they continue to build on the Chiltern railway cutting as it has been purchased by them.  The view from the back of my house shows that they have built in front of the gap between the twin towers which will definitely obscure most of the sunlight when it sets in the West.  It's funny because these towers are directly behind Daniels, Nando's etc and cannot be seen if you are  on  the High Road at all.  

 




Uncle have at least 4 retail units which they appear to be struggling to let.  I have not seen any activity in any of them, perhaps they are too expensive to lease, and also they will require a full shopfit which is not cheap.  I'm surprised that one of the Coffee lot haven't taken one of them but considering there are now 3 Costa's in Wembley plus one next door called Chico Nero, and then Shakes and Bagel's across the road, perhaps too much competition.
 
On another note, what happened to the Community Centre supposed to be located at Ground Floor Level of Uncle, under the 21 storey tower.  I noticed it's now occupied by a company called Little Village which is a foodbank come recycling clothes for babies and toddlers? I  couldn't get access and couldn't find anyone to talk to.
 
Also their landscaping is looking past its sell by date, isn't planning supposed to monitor that, to ensure it's kept up to date?


 

Wednesday, 16 February 2022

OPDC consultation on Harlesden Canalside Development

 

I am afraid you missed the first event that was held this afternoon but there are more chances coming up:

 

From Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation

Before submitting a planning application to Brent Council, we are holding a public consultation to seek community feedback on our final designs.

The consultation will take place between 16th February and 2nd March and to support the consultation, we’re inviting the community to join us at one or more public events:

(Events on Thursday 24th February and Saturday 26th February will only be held on Zoom.)

Venue events

Community consultation event: site tour, presentation and Q&As*

Wednesday 16th February 2pm until 4pm

Grand Junction Arms, NW10 7AD

Drop-in public exhibition, view plans, ask questions and leave feedback*

Saturday 19th February

Between 12 and 4pm (drop-in)

Grand Junction Arms, NW10 7AD

Online events

Online consultation event: presentation and Q&A

Thursday 24th February

6pm until 7pm

Zoom, online

Online consultation event: presentation and Q&A

Saturday 26th February

11am until 12noon

Zoom, online

Book your tickets to come to our events HERE

*please note that only the events on the 16th and 19th February are held in Grand Junction Arms. Online events on Thursday 24th February and Saturday 26th February will only be held on Zoom.

From 16th February you will be able visit this consultation platform to view plans and fill out an online feedback form at:

http://www.consult.opdc.london.gov.uk/harlesdencanalside