Brent Cyclists call for public support for Wembley Central - Harlesden cycling route: why and how

Guest post by Brent Cycling Campaign

 

 

TfL and Brent Council are currently consulting on walking, wheeling and cycling improvements between Wembley Central and Harlesden stations. At Brent Cycling Campaign we are really excited about this proposal which represents an important opportunity for Brent and North West http://London.You can read about the proposals here: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/wembley-harlesden

 

New proposals to improve walking and cycling between Wembley Central and Harlesden are an important opportunity for Brent. Brent Cycling Campaign welcomes and supports plans by Transport for London and Brent Council for safer streets, new cycle lanes, and new pedestrian crossings.

 

After more than three years of planning and public engagement TfL published the new plans on 10th November. The plans connect Wembley Central to Harlesden with a cycle route on quiet roads and protected space between Sylvia Gardens and First Drive across the North Circular. The proposals, which do not reduce the number of lanes for drivers, follow an existing route from London Road onto Tokyngton Avenue, after crossing the North Circular people on bikes are diverted through quiet streets around Stonebridge Park to reach Harlesden Station on Acton Lane.

 

The junction of Harrow Road with the North Circular is the most dangerous junction for pedestrians in Brent. Between 2018 and 2022 there were over 90 collisions along Harrow Road, in January 2022 a person was killed crossing the road at the junction with the North Circular, and since 2018 there have been over 100 injuries and deaths on roads along the route. With quicker and safer pedestrian crossings, and a new protected cycle lane, the improvements to the A404 / A406 junction will be an example of how Brent can be transformed into a welcoming borough for active travel.

 

 

Throughout the plans new and improved pedestrian crossings and footpaths will help connect communities. Some side roads will have raised entrances, meaning people using mobility aids or with pushchairs do not need to go up and down steep kerbs. Extended bus lanes will mean faster, more reliable bus journeys. The new route will make it much easier to access Bridge Park Leisure Centre, with two new pedestrian crossings over the main road where people are not left stranded on pedestrian islands. TfL also plan to improve the lighting and CCTV in Tokyngton Recreation Ground and Stonebridge Park making these areas safer for people traveling alone and after dark.

 

The new proposals miss some important opportunities for better walking and cycling in Brent, for example by not continuing the improvements along Harrow Road to Wembley Triangle, and by not reducing the number of motor vehicles on residential roads. However, we at Brent Cycling Campaign welcome these plans, and hope they represent the start of significant investment in better active travel in Brent. If you would like to have your say and support the proposals please see the consultation on TfL’s website.

 

This article authored by Brent Cycling Campaign first appeared in the Brent and Kilburn Times.

 

Student accommodation wins narrowly over local housing need at Brent Planning Committee

 The representations made by Cllr Ihtesham Afzal, (Wembley Hilll ward), set the context for consideration of the Wembley High Road  planning application for two student blocks, together housing 639 students,  at Wednesday's Planning Committee. Another student block at Fairgate House, adjacent to the site, of 349 beds, 35% affordable,  has already been consented. The blocks  of 20 and 22 storeys are wedged between Wembley High Road and the Chiltern railway line.

Cllr Afzal questioned why student accommodation when there was a crying need for housing  for the thousands of people on Brent's housing list.  I have embedded the video of the discussion that resulted above as it rehearses many of the arguments on both sides of the debate and important for future applications.

A particularly controversial aspect of the proposal was that unlike Fairgate House, the scheme proposed no affordable student housing at all, based on a viability assessment. 

The developer, Regal London, claimed exceptional reasons for the lack of affordable accommodation and offered £3.95m for affordable housing elsewhere as well as  £70k towards local parks.

Some councillors were perplexed by the developer's claim that there are 5 higher education institutions in the borough with a total of 4,695 students that needed accommodation and 37 higher education institutions within a convenient 45 minute journey with a total of 176,100 students. Why was Brent expected to take more than its fair share of students?

The Committee chair, Cllr Matt Kelcher, suggested that students may want purpose-built accommodation in their first year but later, having made friends, they wanted to move together into shared private rental.  The developer argued the opposite - that building such accommodation would mean that students would move in from privately rented accommodation freeing it up for families.

There was also concern about ther loss of light to neighbouring new developments as well as to the flats above the shops on Wembley High Road. and the loss of trees on what was once (and still is on the other side of the railway) a green corridor along the embankment.

Councillors were told that replacement trees (planting and maintenance) cost an average of £2,500 per tree. 58 trees woudl be lost and 41 new trees planted. The latter were of superior quality councillors were told.

Curiously, some of the councillors who had asked the most incisive questions voted for the scheme, including the Chair, Matt Kelcher, and the Vice Chair, Saqib Butt (the Council leader's brother) LINK. I leave it to readers to watch the video and see if the questions they had raised had been adequately answered.

Four councillors voted in favour of the scheme and three against. 

Those voting against an application are required to give their reasons:

Cllr Chappell - no affordable student application provided and did not agree that there were exceptional reasons for this.

Cllr Dixon - the site allocation as student accommodation was problematic, disagreed that there were exceptional circumstances to justify lack of affordable accommodation. The £3.95m to be provided towards provision of affordable housing elsewhere was not sufficient - should be renegotiated. Doesn't meet some of Brent's standards.

Cllr Maurice - site would be better off as flats as Brent has such a shortage of housing and the site could be better utilised: 'I am not happy with the whole thing'.

 

 

The proposal now has to be considered at Stage 2 by the London Mayor. No comments so far. LINK

The inexorable march of tall towers down Wembley High Road to continue at Planning Committee tonight

 

The view from down Wembley High Road - emerging developments are the thin blue lines in he distance including the former Copland School site

 

Brent planners are recommending that the Planning Committee tonight approve two new towers on Wembley High Road wedged between the Chiltern railway line and the existing buildings at 390-408 High Road (also due to be redeveloped).

 

The two towers are 20 and 22 storeys high (up from a previous application of 13 and 17 storeys in May 2023) and will provide 639  student beds.  None will be available but Brent planners suggest settling for £3.98 million in lieu (c£6,2050 per bed) :

No affordable student accommodation is proposed. Instead, the applicant is proposing a £3.958 million cash payment in lieu towards the borough’s affordable housing programme. Absence of affordable student accommodation is contrary to London Plan Policy H15. However, a payment in lieu would enable the scheme to contribute towards addressing the need for low cost rent affordable housing, for which there is a great need at a local and strategic level. Further clarification and discussion is required to confirm how the payment would be spent to ensure net additional affordable housing as well as the expected delivery timescales. GLA officers are scrutinising the applicant’s Financial Viability Assessment  to ensure that the cash payment represents the maximum viable financial contribution that the scheme can support.

 The applicant claims to have consulted widely but the consultation resulted in only 6 written comments:

A newsletter was sent to c.2, 400 residents and businesses, inviting them to two organised public exhibition events (held nearby at Patidar House on 5th and 8th July). The events were also publicised in theBrent and Kilburn Times, to ensure maximum visibility and a dedicated on-line community hub was launched at wembleygreenway.co.uk, to enable interested parties to view the proposals and leave feedback online. Freepost and project email addresses have also been publicised to facilitate options for further feedback. Six written responses were received from residents and local businesses, with a summary of their comments contained within the Statement of Community Involvement. (SCI)

 

The Brent Planning Portal does a little better with 8 objections, including this one:

I strongly object to proposed 2 storey block of Student Housing on Wembley High Road.


The proposed development will bring no additional benefit to local residents. There is already an extreme lack of affordable housing and this proposed development will do nothing to alleviate the problem. Instead this will exacerbate it, as well as put a significant strain on already over stretched local services, traffic and primary health care, council services as well the water & sewage network.


Wembley High Road is in the 91st percentile for High Air pollution with the WHO limited exceeded on PM 2.5, PM 10 and NO2 (source: https://addresspollution.org/results/66e0177a-b70b-4179-8e76-8b78463618e2). This proposed development will only increase the levels with no mitigations in place to reduce the traffic, air, dust and noise pollution for local residents whilst these works are due to take place.


This development does not address:


1. Affordable and secure housing for residents of Brent.


2. Traffic management and impact to clean air. Action to reduce air, dust and noise pollution. When construction is taking place there are no mitigations in place to actively reduce the affect on air pollution.


3. Mitigations to overstretched local services such as schools, GPs, Dentists, Youth services and sports clubs, Council services etc.


4. Ensuring that disruption is kept to a minimum. Maintaining footpaths, roads, bus stops so that local residents can go about their daily business safely and without it being impeded by works.

Building works in such a tight spot, off a very busy road,  are likely to be a nightmare and over a considerable amount of time as building commences on that site and the buildings fronting the street. The developer intends that most deliveries to the students units from a High Road bay rather than to the building itself.

 

There is a gesture towards greening in the provision of a Green Way from the Uncle Building to the site:

 

How long will the trees to the right of the site survive?

Planning officers are keen to prove the necessity of student accommodation to meet growing needs and their report is full of detailed statistics.  LINK. Together with the other site there will be 988 student bedrooms in this small area.

Concerns over tall buildings and densification are dismissed as this is a designated tall building zone (Local Plan) in an urban environment. Reduction in daylight is to be expected in such circumstances and sufficient separation between the buildings is claimed.

Planning officers conclude (my highlinghting):

The proposed development would make efficient use of the land in a sustainable location, in line with the NPPF, and is an appropriate form of development within Wembley Town Centre and Wembley Growth Area, consistent with the aims of the site allocation policy. This is identified as an appropriate location in the Borough where tall buildings can be located, and the proposed scale, massing and appearance of the buildings would relate well to the existing and emerging context. As the report acknowledges, owing to the constrained nature of the site and dense urban pattern of development in the locality, both existing and emerging, there is expected to be some adverse impacts on daylight and sunlight conditions to some existing residential properties, as well as others coming forward in the immediate vicinity. 

 

As the report acknowledges these adverse effects would be noticeable in some cases, but commensurate with development of this form within the high density urban environment that is both existing and emerging in the locality, and such impacts which are to be expected, as well as other planning harm identified (i.e. net loss of trees) must be balanced against the overall planning benefits of the proposal. Whilst the proposal is not in accordance with London Plan policy H15, due to the absence of affordable student accommodation on site, the payment in lieu that will be secured (£3.958m) which is agreed as the maximum viable, and which is to be utilised for the delivery of additional C3 affordable homes in the Borough, for which there is the greatest need at a local and strategic level, offers greater public benefit to the Borough.

 

Overall, and on balance, the impacts identified that are to be associated with the proposed development would it is considered be clearly outweighed by the overall planning benefits that would follow, including the provision of student accommodation to meet identified demand and this contributing positively towards the housing targets within the Borough, wider economic benefits, provision of the new east to west pedestrian route (as per the site allocation policy), new public realm, urban greening measures, sustainable drainage, sustainable transport contributions and biodiversity net gain (including off-site contribution)

 

Latest on Vale Farm Swimming Pool repair

There is a resolution date for repair of the gas pipe for the 14^th December.

 

Once the repair has been completed and gas connection restored, it will take a while for the swimming pool to be slowly brought back up to the correct operating temperature.

 

 

Customers of the leisure centre are being kept informed by Everyone Active.

New academy trust Wembley Secondary SEND School at Planning Committee tonight

 

Brent Council is keen to save money by reducing the need for paying for places outside of Brent and the associated travel costs to provide for the borough's special educational needs pupils and those with disabilities.

Conservative government legislation means that councils cannot build and run new schools themselves (they favour academy trusts) so the council's need has fitted in neatly with the expansionist aspirations of the Rise Partnership Trust LINK, with its own CEO,  that currently runs Manor School and Avenue School.

The school name on the planning application going to Planning Committee tonight is Wembley Manor which confusingly was the name of the infant and junior schools in East Lane changed after merger and expansion to Wembley Primary.

The school would provide 150 much needed secondary places in a site tucked away at the end of London Road and the foot of Ark Elvin playing fields:

The application site is situated at the eastern end of London Road. The northern end of the existing site contains the Ansar Youth Centre (formally known as the Wembley Youth Centre) and its associated car parking and open space. The east of the site contains a large area of hardstanding previously used as car parking and the now demolished Dennis Jackson Centre. The central and eastern elements of the site previously formed a part of the Copland School site, but were fenced off and hard surfaced for parking many years ago and did not form a part of the Ark Elvin playing fields when this was redeveloped.

 

The immediate surrounding area is predominantly terraced residential dwellings, the site is to the north of the Wembley Brook watercourse, which separates the subject site from the railway to the south. The land surrounding the brook is designated as a wildlife corridor as well as a Site in Nature Conservation (SINC). It is not within a conservation area and there are no listed buildings within the site’s curtilage. The site adjoins the Ark Elvin School playing field to the north and east.

 

The site is accessed from the existing access point from London Road, there is a well established footpath that provides access at two different points from the site which have links to the High Road and further down towards Stonebridge Park.

The area is controversial locally because of the loss of the open space, known as Copland Fields, after the academisation of Copland School, to public access. It is now fenced off with the land also going to Elsley and St Joseph's schools. The site is close to the railway bridge used by Elsley, Ark Elvin and Lyon Park pupils (and still in a terrible statement despite campaigns by local councillors and parents).

Previous history of the open land:

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2015/10/ark-elvin-land-grab-to-be-decided-at.html

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2015/10/does-butts-interference-with-ark-elvin.html

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2020/06/loss-of-copland-fields-mourned-as.html

The new school would also be on what was previously open space, some of which had been converted to hard space by the previous school. (see plan above).

The development of the school will mean the significant  loss of mature trees and the officers' report for the Committee goes into that in some detail and worth setting out here for the record (my emphasis) :

The combined canopy cover of the lost trees is 1650sqm, which is proposed to be replaced on site with a total of 23 new trees to be planted. On the assumption that the replacement trees are extra heavy standard trees (14-16cm trunk girth), the canopy radius will be approx. 1.0m (so 2.0m across) which equates to an area of approx. 3.142m2 at time of planting. This would mean that to replace the total canopy loss that the scheme would need to plant around 525 trees to compensate the canopy area lost as a result of the development. Given the constraints of the site, it would not be possible to plant this number of replacement trees. The policy also highlights that another option is for a financial contribution for off-site tree planting of equivalent canopy cover will be sought.

The typical cost of planting an off site tree is around £2,500. Therefore this would account to an off site contribution of around £1.3m. Such a cost is likely to significantly impact on the delivery [sic] of delivering the new school. Nevertheless, the applicant is proposing to plant 8 trees off site within the southern end of the Ark Elvin Playing Field. Such details could be conditioned any forthcoming consent as Brent owns this land.

Given the significant benefits of the proposal to provide much needed SEND school places within the Borough, the benefits associated with the proposal are considered to outweigh the harm as a result of the loss of the trees

 

 There is a cottage on the site that is surrounded by trees and accessed from London Road. The resident claimed in an objection to the scheme that this access road was private but officers state it belongs to Brent Council. 

That is the only objection recorded on the portal although the officers' report does make reference to a previous plan to build 170 units of housing on the site. See Wembley Matters article HERE. However, as the land was designated for educational use because of the youth clubs, permission to build on it would have to be given by the Department for Education, which is unlikely given the rising demand for special school places.

 

 The proposed building

 

Planning officers recommend approval of the application:

 

Following the above discussion, officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions.

 

The proposal would result in the provision of a new SEND secondary for which there is a significant identified need within the Borough. The new school building would be on land designated as open space which forms a part of the former Copland School site and is not publicly accessible open space, but other open areas are proposed within the grounds of the new SEND school. The proposal would result in the loss of existing trees within the site and while more trees will be planted than will be lost, the canopy at planting will not meet or exceed the canopy size of existing trees. The proposal also results in the demolition of community buildings.

 

However, a community access plan will be secured and new community facilities are also to be provided by Council at the Wembley Housing Zone site on the corner of Cecil Avenue and the High Road. Overall, the impacts associated with the proposed development are considered be outweighed by the planning benefits associated with the proposal and it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

 

 

Brent Council cite 'budgetary constraints' on providing a quality service after hearing petition on problems with the school transport service for children with special needs and disabilities

A presentation was made at Monday's Cabinet  regarding problems with school transport for Special Educations Needs children and those with a disability (SEND.  It is a joint service with Harrow Council who have the lead role.

Wembley Matters reported on the issues that had been raised by parents and carers at a Brent Fiightback meeting HERE

 

THE PETITION PRESENTATION

• Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak today. My name is Zaynab Alfadhl and I am a parent of a child with special educational needs attending a special school in Brent and residing in the borough.

• I raised this petition to plea that councillors listen to the voice of the most vulnerable; our children and young people with SEND and their families who represent their voice.

• I have spent approximately 4 years battling with Brent Council regarding the transport service not meeting my own child’s needs, and exacerbating my child’s SEND needs.

• Like many other families, I am a working parent with another child to take to and from school. It is not possible for me to take my SEND child to and from school and I heavily rely on this council service.

• In multiple complaints over the years, Brent council have failed to consider the wellbeing and their duty of care of my child in their decision making. Examples include my child being strapped in a harness which worsened his difficulties, against my wishes where I have been told ‘if I do not agree to a harness then the council will no longer be able to transport my child to and from school’. I have felt I was given no choice as I would have to consider leaving my job to take my child to and from school.

• Not at any point has the council looked at the number of children on the routes and the journey times being too long as a contributor to the distress he has been facing on the journey to and from school.

• Health professionals have been ignored including CAMHS recommendations for a shorter journey time and safeguarding concerns raised. This is a continuous concern raised by other parents.

• I have made complaint after complaint and I have not been listened too. The transport staff are rude, unsympathetic, bringing their personal lives into conversations, and refusing/resisting to give emergency telephone numbers for after hours when children are still not home. It left me no choice but to start a petition in the hope that the council will now act on this.

• Having recently joined parent forums it has come to my attention that I am not alone in this, and that many other families in the borough are experiencing the same problem with the journey times being too long, with too many children on route.

• Due to lack of specialist SEND provision in Brent many children have to travel outside the borough to school, or across the borough as there is little specialist provision in the North of the borough.

• Many SEND Children are not able to attend their most local mainstream primary or secondary school due to their complex special educational needs and are being forced to sit on buses in immense traffic conditions while being transported to and from school. Families have told me that this can range from 2-3 hours per journey, each day.

• The council state that the increase in travel times is due to the traffic and roadworks and have disregarded that there are too many children on the bus routes which is a significant contributor to travel times.

• The maximum journey time for a child of primary school age should be 45 minutes each way, and 75 minutes each way for a child of secondary school age. The council is no where near meeting this requirement.

• Brent buses have increased the number of children on buses to 12 on some routes in a ploy to save money at the expense of these vulnerable children.

• Our children are often not attending school on time and missing essential statutory education and not coming home at a reasonable time and missing essential family time. They are spending more time on the road than in school which is totally unacceptable.

• Our children’s SEND needs are being impacted by these long journeys with significant traffic delays and roadworks which is heightening their anxieties and causing immense distress both in school and at home.

• These SEND children are in need of routine, safety and predictability and are left anxious and upset while parents also wait anxiously for the service that they rely on.

• Children are not arriving to school in a state where they are ready to learn as they have already had a bad start to the day, which makes them dysregulated. My son is also an example of this. This would therefore result in behaviour difficulties, dysregulation and he certainly is not in state ready to learn.

• Another example is my son would arrive home some days between 6pm- 6.30pm. School finishes at 3pm. My son on occasions has soiled and wet himself on this long route and would come home extremely distressed as a result of being stuck on transport for 3 hours on the way home. This is one example of many that parents have too shared similar experiences.

• We urge the council to review the distress this is causing vulnerable young people and their families, and place some extra buses with less children on each route to reduce the journey times and conditions that the most vulnerable in Brent are experiencing.
  

 

BRENT COUNCIL'S RESPONSE

As a council we take the wellbeing of our children with special educational needs very seriously and are conscious of our obligations to provide suitable travel arrangements to help eligible children get to school.

 

All routes are planned by the Brent and Harrow Transport Hub using specialist software and local knowledge to arrive at school on time, no matter how many children are in the vehicle used.

 

The service uses both directly owned and operated buses, and vehicles provided by a robust group of approved contractors to ensure there is always enough capacity available to meet our obligations to provide suitable travel arrangements within the budgets available. For example, at present our directly operated routes currently run on average at two-thirds of vehicle capacity to reduce journey times.

There are however factors outside of our control that can cause journey times to be longer than planned, such as unscheduled roadworks and children not being ready to board the vehicle on time.

 

As every route, and the children on it, are unique, there can be teething issues when a new route is set up despite the best efforts of route planners, drivers, and passenger assistants. The performance of any new routes is therefore closely monitored and where required adjustments are made.

 

While we appreciate that the number of pick-ups on a route does influence the total journey time, we do have to be conscious of our responsibilities to use taxpayers’ money wisely and run efficient services within budgetary constraints. While this can be a difficult balance to get right, ensuring a good quality service is delivered for children and young people within reasonable journey times will always be our top priority.

 

Speaking to parents about the issue  it became clear that some were concerned that their children's human rights were not being recognised. IPSEA who offer independent advice to parents with SEND children wrote about the importance of parents being able to challenge local authorities over SEND provision last year. HERE

My Winter Wonderland Fun Day - Ark Elvin Sunday 17th December Noon-4pm

 

Global Human Rights Day: Open letter to the Prime Minister and political leaders, urging them to protect universal human rights in the UK.

 On global Human Rights Day, 75+ groups from across the UK issue an open letter to the Prime Minister and political leaders, urging them to protect universal human rights in the UK.

On the 75^th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) have coordinated an open letter to the Prime Minister and political leaders signed by 75+ organisations from across the UK.

Published on 10^th December 2023, global Human Rights Day, the letter highlights the United Nations’ call for a “movement of shared humanity” - a sentiment reflected by the breadth of organisations that have signed it. Grassroots groups, local charities, international organisations, professional bodies, advocates and lawyers all working in different fields and for different causes have come together to call on the UK Government to reaffirm the commitment to universal human rights, honouring the fundamental principle that human rights are for everyone.

As well as celebrating the incredible mobilisation of civil society to speak up against the UK Government’s unprincipled and unworkable Rights Removal Bill, which was ultimately scrapped this year, the letter highlights the impact that human rights have in the “small places close to home” – a phrase coined by UDHR architect Eleanor Roosevelt. It reflects on the role of the UDHR in inspiring the European Convention on Human Rights and ultimately the UK’s own Human Rights Act.

Together, the organisations tell politicians, “Anchored by common fundamental values that reach beyond divides, the UDHR makes it clear that universal human rights are part of what it means to be human, and not gifts granted by the state.”

Speaking on the release of the open letter, BIHR’s CEO, Sanchita Hosali, said:

Global Human Rights Day should be a time for us all in the UK to reflect on the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agreed across nations in the aftermath of World War II 75 years ago to protect the equal dignity of each of us. Whether in our schools or workplaces, in community centres or housing offices, at police stations and courts, in hospitals and care homes, social work departments and Government offices, our universal human rights, shared by each and every one of us should be respected and protected by those in power.”

Sadly, here at home political debate is characterised by hostility to people’s human rights and a government intent on removing its accountability to us all. Having seen off the very real risk from the Government to scrap our Human Rights Act in favour of a Rights Removal Bill, groups from across the UK have joined together to call on our Prime Minister and political leaders to do better. Yet just days ago we see the Government seeking to set down in law the removal of human rights protections for a whole group of people seeking safety in it’s latest Rwanda Bill. As we mark the 75th anniversary of the UDHR, the Government must move beyond the popularist, often dog whistle politicking around human rights, and commit to realising the vision of universal human rights as a global blueprint for international, national, and local laws and policies.

The letter: