1 Morland Gardens – Is Brent Council “busy doing nothing”?

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The Victorian villa, “Altamira”, at Hillside, Stonebridge, in October 2023.

 

When I was growing up in the 1950s, there was a song by Bing Crosby that I often heard on the BBC Light Programme (now Radio 2). It was fun to listen to, and the words have stuck in my brain: ‘We’re busy doing nothing, working the whole day through, trying to find lots of things not to do ….’

 

I’m beginning to wonder whether the Council are singing that tune over 1 Morland Gardens. It is now more than four months since I wrote that Brent was reviewing its plans for this site in Stonebridge, after the 2020 planning consent for its proposed development there had expired. A report was supposed to be prepared, for submission to Brent’s Cabinet, with new proposals for the site. No report has yet emerged, and there is nothing on the Council’s Forward Plan for such a report to go to Cabinet in April or May 2024.

 

Although the original plans were flawed, including as they did the demolition of a locally listed heritage building and the construction of flats over a community garden, causing air quality problems, the site could still be used for a sensible development. This could include an updated college facility for Brent Start (currently stuck in a temporary home that the Council moved it out to, at a cost of £1.5m), or other community use, and some much needed affordable housing, while retaining and re-using the 150-year old Victorian villa, which was, until recently, in excellent condition.

 

Doing nothing with the now vacant Council-owned building would be worse than doing something. And damage caused to the building, while it was in the hands of contractors last year, is in urgent need of repair. So, what is Brent Council planning to do? 

 

In order to find out, I sent this open email to Brent’s Chief Executive and Head of Capital Projects on 25 March, headed: 1 Morland Gardens, NW10 - its future, and the protection of this Victorian heritage building.

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Wright and Mr Martin,

 

1. I was told last November that, following the expiry of the Council's planning consent for its proposed 1 Morland Gardens development, a review of future plans for the property was being carried out, headed by Mr Martin, and that this would report back with proposals to Brent's Cabinet for a decision.

 

I submitted a paper to that review on 20 November 2023, but four months later, the report of that review has not yet been published or submitted to Cabinet, and it is not shown as an item for decision during the next two months on the Forward Plan.

 

Please let me know whether the review has been completed. If it has, when will the report be submitted to Cabinet, and made publicly available? If the review has not yet been finalised, please let me know the reason for the delay, and the date by which the report and recommendations on the future of 1 Morland Gardens are expected to be ready.

 

2. In my open letter of 30 October to you, Ms Wright, I finished by including a photograph of damage to the slates on the roof of the Victorian villa (which had been carefully restored by Brent Council in the mid-1990s, to provide a permanent home for its adult education college). I wrote: 'please ensure that urgent action is taken to replace the missing slates on the roof of 1 Morland Gardens, so that the condition of the empty property is not allowed to deteriorate further.'

 

Following the unsatisfactory reply to that point by Mr Ghani, on your behalf, I wrote again on 20 November, saying: 'There have been further strong winds and heavy rain since I saw the heritage building three weeks ago, so that point is even more urgent now, if expensive damage to the fabric of the property is to be avoided.'

 

It appears that nothing has been done to address this damage to the property, and it has got worse during the winter weather. Here are three photographs, taken yesterday (24 March) by a fellow "Friend of Altamira", with arrows indicating the damaged areas:-

 

Front view of 1 Morland Gardens, showing missing slates, 24 March 2024.

 

 

1 Morland Gardens from corner of Hillside, showing missing slates on south wing of Victorian villa.

 

 

1 Morland Gardens, showing serious damage to slate roof on north wing of Victorian villa.

 

The initial damage was not present when the building was occupied by "Live-in Guardians" up until January 2023, so was probably caused by contractors during the time that 1 Morland Gardens was under the control of the Hill Group (possibly during asbestos survey work). I realise that those removing slates at the edge of the roof thought at the time that the building would be demolished, so that failing to put them back in place did not matter. 

 

However, this locally listed heritage asset (one of only two in Stonebridge Ward) is not currently due for demolition. It would be a travesty if its condition was allowed to deteriorate further, particularly if this was deliberate neglect by Brent Council, to use as an excuse for further proposals to demolish this much-loved, beautiful and still eminently usable Victorian building. 

 

As a reminder, if any were needed, Brent's own adopted Historic Environment policy on "Valuing Brent's Heritage" states:

 

'The effective preservation of historic buildings, places and landscapes and their stewardship is therefore fundamental to the Council's role.'

 

I am copying this email to the Lead Member for Customers, Community and Culture, and to the councillors for Stonebridge Ward, for their information.

 

I look forward to receiving an update on the situation over the review of the future of 1 Morland Gardens, and to hearing that the necessary repairs to the roof of the Victorian building are being carried out. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Residents in Minster Road, Kilburn advised to close windows due to smoke from house fire

 From London Fire Brigade

Eight fire engines and around 60 firefighters have been called to a fire on Minster Road in Kilburn.

The fire has occurred at a three-storey detached house converted into flats. A ground floor flat is alight.

People in the area are advised to keep windows and doors closed due to the amount of smoke being produced. Road closures are also in place including on the A5 (Shoot-Up Hill) at the junction of Minster Road. Drivers are advised to find alternative routes with traffic disruption expected.

The Brigade's 999 Control Officers have received around eight calls about the fire. 

The Brigade was called at 1047. Crews from West Hampstead, Paddington, North Kensington and surrounding fire stations are at the scene.

The cause of the fire is unknown at this time.

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