Wembley Triangle works catch-up plus Cecil Avenue development progress

 

Wembley Hill Road

Wembley High Road looking south

 

High Road looking north

 

 

The core of new flats on the Copland/Cecil Avenue site
 

 

Traffic lights and crossing at Bridge Road/North End Road junction coming soon?

 

Since the North End Road was re-connected to Bridge Road at Wembley Park in June 2021 LINK concerns have been raised about the danger to pedestrians and cyclists at the road crossing as no lights were installed. Traffic came in 3 directions and visibility of the junction from further down North End Road is poor.

 In August 2021 I sent Brent Council a video of the danger, particularly for families with children walking from Chalkhill or the Bridge Road bus stop to the Civic Centre, Wembley Library or the LDO. Crossing North End Road was made more difficult by terrorist prevention concrete slabs that were eventually replaced by bollards.

 

At the time Brent Council said they were liaising with Tranport for London over installing signalling at the junction. Four years later, as you can see from the images above, it looks as if we are almost there.

Unfortunately, on the issue of allowing the 206 bus to re-route via North End Road on Event Days, raised  at the same time with the same answer about liaising with TfL , no progress has been made.

At present the 206 is curtailed at Brent Park on event days and Wembley is not served.

Pressure continues on Brent Council to divest from companies complicit in human rights abuses in Palestine - presentation at Pensions Sub-committee

 

 

Unusually the public gallery was packed last night at the meeting of the Brent Council Pensions Sub-Committee that oversees the council's Local Government Pension Scheme. Brent Council workers and non-teaching school staff form the bulk of members of the scheme. Chair of the Pension Sub-committee Cllr Robert Johnson declared an interest at the meeting as he is a member of the Scheme as a former Brent Council employee.

The full presentation and response can be seen in the short video above. The Chair of Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign told the Sub-Committee that more than 2,000 residents. local workers and students had now signed the petition calling for divestment from funds complicit in human rights abuses in Palestine and elsewhere. The Council should take urgent action as it did over South African apartheid in the past.

The call for ethical investment was shared by many including environmental campaigners.

The Council's response was carefully worded and took less than two minutes.  Listen to it above to see whether it fully answers the points made earlier in the presentation.

The presentation asked for a list of the LGPS investments. This was supplied to national PSC in 2020 but when asked last year Brent Coucnil said they were unable to supply a list.

 

These were the top five of their complicit investments in 2020 and a check on whether they still have such investments would be helpful:

HSBC £4,663,056

HSBC invests over £830million in, and provides financial services worth up to £19billion for, companies arming Israel. These investments include up to £100million worth of shares in the company Caterpillar, who supply the Israeli army with bulldozers which are weaponised and used to demolish Palestinian communities, build Israel’s illegal settlements and apartheid infrastructure including the apartheid wall and military checkpoints. For more info: https://www.palestinecampaign.org/campaigns/stop-arming-israel/

Barclays £1,252,342

Barclays is a British multinational bank and financial services company. Barclays hold approximately £1,167.6 million of investments in companies that are known to supply the Israeli military. This includes Babcock, BAE and Boeing, Cobham and Rolls Royce. More information available in War on Want’s 2017 ‘Deadly Investments’ report.

BAE Systems  £970,233

According to CAAT, “BAE Systems is the world’s fourth largest arms producer. Its portfolio includes fighter aircraft, warships, tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, missiles and small arms ammunition. It has military customers in over 100 countries. BAE has a workshare agreement with Lockheed Martin producing the US F-35 stealth combat aircraft. Israel, for example, took delivery of its first F-35 in 2016. According to Investigate, a project by the American Friends Service Committee, BAE has worked in cooperation with Lockheed Martin and Rafael to produce and market the naval Protector drone used to maintain the siege of Gaza along the Mediterranean coast.

Smiths Group £316,811

According to CAAT “Smiths Group is a global technology company with five divisions: John Crane, Smiths Medical, Smiths Detection, Smiths Interconnect and Flex-Tek. Smiths Connectors is part of Smiths Interconnect and comprises Hypertac, IDI and Sabritec brands. Products include connectors used in fighting vehicles, unmanned vehicles and avionics systems.” They have applied for a number of military export licences to Israel.

Rolls Royce £294,535

Rolls-Royce is a British manufacturer that produces military aircraft engines, naval engines and cores for nuclear submarines. Despite arms comprising only 26% of its total sales, it is still the world’s 17th largest Arms trade. In 2014, the year of Israel’s arial bombardment and ground invasion of Gaza, which killed over 2,200 civilians, nearly a quarter of them children, Rolls-Royce was granted export licenses for engines for military aircrafts to Israel.

 

 

Butt gets a bruising in Alperton by-election. Lib Dems win with increased vote share

 Charlie Clinton (Lib Dem) speaks after vote declaration

 

Charlie Clinton swept to victory in the Alperton by-election yesterday with an increased vote share. The by-election took place in unusual circumstances following the resignation of Anton Georgiou as a result of pressures on his personal life casued by the release from jail of a stalker.

Brent Greens decided not to field a candidate and called on other parties to do the same as a principled stand against violence in public life.  In the event Conservatives and Labour went ahead and Reform joined them.

Cllr Muhammed Butt had allegedly received the news of Georgiou's resignation with glee and Labour threw everything into the campaign. Barry Gardiner MP and Labour councillors joined party members in a huge effort to gain the seat for their 19 year old candidate, daughter of a former councillor.

 

 

Charlie Clinton outside the blue blocks in which he lives opposite Alperton Station

 

 Paul Lorber, Leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Brent Council said:

The stunning victory for Charlie Clinton and the Liberal Democrats is down to the amazing had work by Anton Georgiou and the Lib Dem team for Alperton over many years.

Winning over twice as many votes as Labour was beyond our expectations but shows how much trouble Labour are in since the formation of their Government. Things will get even worse for Labour as they put up taxes and cut services. 

With Charlie's election the Lib Dem Group is back to 3 on Brent Council and we will continue to punch above our weight in challenging the Labour Leadership on the many bad decisions they are making.

We are grateful to the Brent Green Party for their solidarity with Anton Georgiou by not putting up a candidate in Alperton.

 

An ex-Brent Labour Party member reviewed the result for Wembley Matters:

 

As a long-term resident of Brent, an ex-Labour Party member and a lifelong trade unionist I have watched with horror what has been happening in Brent Labour since 2010 when the current administration come into power. I am very aware that the Tory Party austerity policies has put local councils, especially metropolitan boroughs, and Labour controlled ones and suffer financially. However, some of the decisions and direction of travel in Brent have not been what most of us would consider being aligned with Labour Party values, nor for the good of residents.

 

The campaign in Alperton was a prime example of Brent Labour’s lack of care about Labour Party values and the residents they are supposed to represent. 

 

There were several messages spawned by Brent Labour that were untrue and misrepresented.

 

Blaming the LibDems for the general untidiness of the ward, along with fly tipping etc is unbelievable. Brent Labour has the tools at their disposal to sort these issues, not the LibDems, all a LibDem councillor can do is make a noise to Council Officers, whereas, a Brent Labour Councillor, such as they have in Alperton, can request the Leader and Cabinet Member to rectify these issues by directing Council resources to where they are needed in the ward. That didn’t happen, so the mess in Alperton is down to Brent Labour, so electing another one is pointless?

 

Telling us we need Social Housing while allowing all the available land to be turned into either flats for sale, or more likely private rentals is not the way to go. We are told that Brent is supplying hundreds of Affordable Homes, 80% of an unaffordable rent is still too high for Brent’s housing waiting list applicants, as are even London Affordable at is it 60% of the inflated rental values. Then there are the Shared Ownership properties, these are known to be overpriced and very difficult to sell and realise even the original investments for those that buy in.

 

Basically, in the eyes of Brent residents they see Brent Labour as being the out and out supporter and facilitator of their best friends the developers and private landlords (such as many of their own councillors). The Leadership are not shy of accepting gifts (Irvin’s fairs, lunches, receptions and more no doubt) and why would the Council (Barham Trustees, chaired by the Leader) remove the covenant off the park warden buildings in Barham Park for a paltry £200,000?  I look at Ealing Road library forecourt and wonder how they are getting away with that ridiculous occupation. Maybe they know someone?

 

Brent Labour have let Brent’s environmental services decline into an ineffective service while spending ridiculous amounts of money on the Civic Centre, publicity, and other unnecessary spending. There are so many other failings of this Brent Labour led council that are wrong, it is not surprising that residents don’t vote Labour in sufficient numbers anymore, as shown in recent elections, even before the Labour nationally lost a lot of their support over its recent ineptitude. Citing the Labour Government as an issue is partially true, but it is far from the real issue for Labour in Brent, Brent residents need a Council that listens, does the right thing, tells the truth because it is worth telling and represents the electorate first.

 

I really believe that this Labour group believe what they are doing is the right thing and that they lost Alperton because residents don’t understand how wonderful the council is!!!! 

 

PETITION: Urge Gareth Thomas MP and Nigel Railton to Abandon Plans to Close Kilburn Post Office

 

Life in Kilburn has started the petition below:

 

We have been a regular user of the Kilburn Post Office for many years and can personally testify to its essential role in our community. With its ever-present long queue, it serves not only as a vital service provider, but also as a social hub where discussions vibrate and connections are made.

The decision by Gareth Thomas MP and Nigel Railton to close the Kilburn Post Office strikes at the heart of our community. Kilburn Post Office is not just a service - it is part and parcel of Kilburn's social fabric, aiding in connecting its residents and supporting local businesses.

Moreover, in the larger picture, the closure affects more than just local conversations. Post Offices nationally contribute significantly to local economies; this includes Kilburn. Our Post Office facilitates local business interactions, providing necessary services like postage, banking, official form filling, identity verification and utilities, thereby empowering our local economy.

Therefore, we appeal to Gareth Thomas MP and Nigel Railton to consider the detrimental impacts of their plans on our town centre. The closure of the Kilburn Post Office will not simply inconvenience the local people; it will rip out a part of our social fiber and damage our local businesses. Please consider our plea, and do not shut down a significant pillar of our community. Please sign this petition in solidarity with the community of Kilburn and for the survival of our cherished Post Office.

 

For reference here is a report on the impact of Post Offices. https://postofficeimpact.publicfirst.co.uk/

SIGN HERE

UPDATED WITH VIDEO LETTER: Tokyngton SNT & Brent Council - 'Stop passing the buck and do something about this danger'

 

 

Dear Editor,

 Delivery drivers on bikes are zooming down the narrow disabled access from Wembley Hill Road (it's between the White Horse Bridge and the Fatburger Restaurant)  through Juniper Close and across the footpath at busy Oakington Manor Drive.

 

 There are also  e-bikes and scooters:  no stopping, no slowing,  no regard for  safety.  It is terrible after c around 6pm with 20 or so in  30 minutes.  Just waiting for a fatality.   

 

We have tried Tokyngton Safer Neighbourhood Team: No help.  Brent Council passes the buck to the police.   

 

This is a dangerous public safety issue.  Who can help?   

 

We do not want a cycle hub  here to attract more bikers.   It's a known area of anti-social behaviour.

 

A local resident

Note from Editor: To help readers visualise the issue this is a video of the route from Wembley Hill Road, next to Wembley Stadium Station, via an alleyway and Juniper Close to Oakington Manor Drive: 

Hazel Road Victorian Mission Hall – why proper Heritage Statements matter in the planning process.

 Guest Post by local historian Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-

The Victorian former mission hall, alongside the 2002 Hazel Road Community Centre.

 

Last month, Martin published an article “Kensal Green residents oppose the demolition and redevelopment of Victorian community centre building in Hazel Road.” The local residents’ association had already contacted Willesden Local History Society, to ask for any help which could be given with the heritage aspects of the planning application, 25/0041. I’m a member of that Society, and as I already have experience of dealing with similar planning cases (“Altamira” / 1 Morland Gardens!), I was asked to take a look at it.

 

Looking at the application documents, it was clear that the Making The Leap charity and their planning agents had not even considered the Victorian building they own to have any heritage impact on their proposals. They just planned to knock it down, along with the Hazel Road Community Centre beside it, and build a modern office block on the site. It appears it was only after Brent’s former Principal Heritage Officer pointed out that the Victorian building was a non-designated heritage asset that they asked a consultant to prepare a Heritage Statement to support the application.

 

It came as no surprise to me (based on past experience) that the firm they paid to consider the building’s heritage value, and how that should be dealt with for planning purposes, came out strongly in support of its client’s application!

 

‘The Proposed Development would achieve numerous public benefits, including high quality community and training spaces, landscaping improvements and the enhancement of all community facilities, that would convincingly outweigh the slight harm caused by the demolition of the existing non-designated heritage asset.’

 

However, the “quality” of the research which had gone into the three-page “Heritage Statement” document (which had no maps or photographs, and only a slight knowledge of the building’s history) was rather undermined in the next sentence: ‘In conclusion, the Proposed Development is in accordance with the Barnet Core Strategy ….’

 

It will come as no surprise to regular readers of “Wembley Matters” that when I conducted a more thorough examination of the building’s history, its heritage significance and how the correct Brent Local Plan policies applied to the case, I came to the opposite conclusion. I have set out my views in a detailed Alternative Heritage Statement, which Martin has agreed to attach at the end of this introductory guest post, for anyone who is interested to read, or glance through. 

 

The original Willesden Local Board record of the 1888 planning application for the Mission Hall.
(Source: Brent Archives Willesden planning microfilm for application number 1970)

 

What is now Harriet Tubman House was the Christ Church Mission, built in 1888 to replace a temporary “tin tabernacle” of the same name in Ponsard Road, College Park (now part of the site occupied by the Mayhew Animal charity). Football fans may remember that the mission’s football team, Christ Church Rangers, formed in 1882, was the start of the club which would become Queens Park Rangers.

 

The Victorian building is a heritage asset of high significance, which should be protected by Brent’s heritage planning policy BHC1, while the claimed ‘numerous public benefits’ involve little public benefit, and in some cases no benefit at all (the reality of ‘the enhancement of all community facilities’ is actually a cut from two full-time community rooms totalling 245sqm floor area to one room of 115sqm).

 

There are also some major breaches of other Brent planning policies (DMP1, BP6 South East and BD1), which all require new developments to complement the historic character and scale of their setting. I apologise for the differing perspectives of the two images I’ve combined below, but I have tried to ensure that the scale of the imposed architect’s image of the proposed new office block matches that of this view along Hazel Road. I think anyone can see that it would be out of character!

 

View along Hazel Road from the east, with the proposed office block imposed
instead of the Victorian mission room and community centre buildings.

 

My Alternative document below (the only one of the two which I believe deserves the title of Heritage Statement) took a lot of time and effort to prepare, and I cannot promise to assist in this way with any other planning application. However, it was clear to me when I looked at the planning documents, researched the building’s history and visited the site, that KGRA and their supporters have a strong case, including a strong heritage case, for opposing this application. Their efforts deserved my support, and I hope that application 25/0041 will be withdrawn, or refused. 

 

 

Whether that happens or not remains to be seen – this is Brent, after all!

 

 Philip Grant

 

 

 

 

 

Are Brent Council representing the interests of developers, rather than those of Brent residents?

 

The open space and surroundings

 Centre the up to 5 story block on the green space

 

 SEGMENT OF REPRESENTATIONS AT PLANNING COMMITTEE

 

  

There appears to be a widespread feeling that Brent Council is no longer representing the interests of residents, but instead represent the interests of developers.

This has been evident for some time but particularly in the case of the recent Pellat Road application and the Barham Park covenant removal.

In the video above the resident speaker represents 300 family homes and Cllr Kennelly his constituents.

The full discussion can be heard in the video that can be found on the Brent Council website. LINK

Normal practice is that the developer and planning officers negotiate changes beforehand and so what is presented to the Planning Committee looks like a 'done deal', especially when residents' concerns receive shortshrift.

At this Planning Committee the developer's agent was particularly bouyant claiming that their plans hd received 'the ringing endorsement of the [Brent} case officer' and  the place making manager described the application as 'exemplary'.

It was only under questioning that they admitted that in the consultation out of 10 responses 9 opposed the application and one was neutral.

Neverless the Planning Committee  approved the application with just Cllr Johnson against. Another feature of Committee proceedings is that those against have to give their reasons,  but those voting for the application do not have to give reasons for support. This is particularly galling when committee members who through their questioning indicate major concerns but still vote for the application.

Cllr Johnson cited concerns about parking, the overbearing nature of the proposed 5 storey building, and it not being in keeping with the local area.