Wednesday 28 June 2017

Loss of the Corrib will cause material and cultural harm to the community


The planning application for the site of the Corrib Rest, Salusbury Road, Queens Park, will be heard this evening at Brent Civic Centre.

Save The Corrib campaigners have written the following to the Planning Committee.


We are campaigning for a better solution for the Corrib Rest pub and community rooms as we do not feel that the planning officers have grasped fully the community value of the Corrib planning scheme and its value to the wider community. 

We would draw your attention to details which we consider are important and yet not considered in any detail.  we appreciate the workload of councillors is high and so have kept this simple without great detail and hope you can give this some of your attention.

The report fails to mention that The Corrib started as the Irish Culture Centre in the 1980's, and was a publicly owned building covering an area 4 times the current Corrib. In 2000 much of the Corrib was converted to social housing with the remaining portion being sold on the clear legal understanding that the public function rooms on the first floor were to be protected by the 106 agreement, ensuring that they served as a community facility.  They are, in effect a publicly owned asset, held in trust by Brent for the community.  Ashcross bought the building with the 106 conditions attached, it is these conditions, set in place to protect this asset that he now is asking Brent to ignore. Brent should resist this request and follow the example of Camden and reject the loss of community space.T

The report does not reflected the wider use of the Corrib, which extends well beyond the QPARA area. The report gives, we consider, undue due weight to the QPARA involvement to the exclusion of other parties.  The views of Kilburn, Kensal and Cricklewood residents associations are not recorded, nor are other stakeholders views included, for example, Tulip Siddiq's  letter of objection, is not mentioned. The planning history not addressed and the previous rejections are not outlined in sufficient detail.

The report does not address the local need for community space. The Corrib is the largest community centre in South Brent centre out side the Granville. There is no impact assessment on the loss of this facility and that existing resources are booked up for over 3 months. Brent will look extremely foolish if they give away their interest in this community asset at the same time as advertising in the Brent Magazine for community facilities they can fund, especially in Kilburn

The proposed 106 agreement is not compared with the existing and the report seeks to underplay the loss in space, facilities and access. The so called community room is 70% smaller than the current ones and the usage time is reduced by 50%. The new Corrib can only cater for a max of 225 persons whilst the existing Corrib can take up to 1000 persons

The main first floor function room, with its high ceilings, sky lights, spring floor, kitchen and bar is our "village hall". Its unique ambiance and airiness provide an ideal location for weddings, and musical events etc, as well as the usual leisure activities. The second function room also has a bar and kitchen. Plus the rooms can be combined to form a single room of over 350sqm. The rooms are accessed directly from the street via a magnificence stair case. The facilities also benefit from 2 sets of WC's and showers / changing room, topped of with disabled lift, access via rear.

In contrast the proposed room is 153sqm, has one shared WC opening directly onto it, the ceiling will be low, light and ventilation limited. Access is via 3 sets of doors, difficult for the elderly, impossible for those carrying drinks, also access is right through the bar area, not ideal for children or those who's religious beliefs require them to avoid alcohol. Lack of changing facilities will further reduce its amenity value. As does the lack of street access to Hopefield, as requested by 2 Hopefield residents

No weight is given to the fact that since it closed there have still been noise complaints. Noise is a management issue not a planning one. No mention is made of the fact that Brent officers did not consider the historic noise complaints sufficient to take action against the Corrib

Report conclusion says ‘would make efficient use of site and reopen the pub. The Pub was closed by developer solely to enhance planning application and was viable and in use when sold.  It was sold just to fund one partners retirement fund.

The report missed out the fact that the loss of 530 sqm of space on first floor gives a gain to developer of £5M in property value. With a further £3M from the conversion of the 3rd floor.

The report dismisses the threat to the viability to the pub of the community room, which will reduce the bar area by 50% and will put the pub at risk conflicting with Brent’s policy to protect pubs and not convert them. CAMRA define this type of application as a "Trojan Horse", where the reduction of pub size deliberately aims to render it unviable leading to its eventual conversion to residential. The report fails to mention that looking at the layout of the pub it is clear that the massive hall way to the flats separating the community room from the pub will render this room unusable in the long term, thus finally killing the Corrib.

No mention is made of the fact that Ashcross are considered by QPARA as unsuitable as guardians of any community asset, backed up by Ashcross's treatment of Kensal to Kilburn Transition Town. No mention is made of Ashcross's and Iceni's  involvement with previous "asset stripping" of pubs. 

We consider there will be immense material and cultural harm to the community from the loss of this facility . We believe the rooms should be retained as set out in the existing 106 agreement and this application rejected.  We hope, for the benefit of the communities of Kilburn, you will agree also.

Regards
Kevin Barrett and Lloyd Fothergill
for the Save the Corrib Campaign
representing the near 2000 petitioners and 148 objectors
 

Tuesday 27 June 2017

It could only happen in Brent! John Duffy on the Corrib

Cllr John Duffy (Kilburn) has intervened in the controversy over the planning application for the Corrib Rest in Queen's Park which is being discussed at Brent Planning Committee tomorrow. He has written the following to members of the Planning Committee and requested that it be read out in his absence. (Note the original has been lightly edited)

Dear Cllr Agha,

Following a meeting  a number of residents raised some concerns about the report concerning the lost of a community  asset to build private housing at the Corrıb Rest.

Let me clarify somethıng whıch offıcer seem to continually mentıon and to make everything as clear as possible. I have no complaints about the initial consultation. Officers continue to answer this question that was never asked , to add unrelated information as a smoke screen. 

Our concerns are pure and sımply about the report and the recommendations within the report to cut the community/provision by over 70%. Officers are well aware that 140 residents objected to the lost of community space and a request to defer the report to the July meetıng  so a meeting could be called to discuss the recommendations. This was ın my opınıon not unreasonable, however thıs was denied by the offıcers. I asked them were there any  financial, staffing or legal reasons why the officers could not defer  the report to the July meeting. Offıcers faıled to give a reason why they are being so difficult on a issue of local democracy. The officers answer merely said officers have the legal power to ignore requests from the public. The issue I asked the commıttee, was do you believe they are acting reasonably.

The report itself is I believe being sugar-coated in favour of the developer,  officers have left out the ( no mention whatsoever ) the loss of 70% of the  community space available or the 50% cut in hours of its use. If a committee member were to read the report it would suggest the developer is offering an increase of community use not a massive cut.  Also I raised the issue of the use of the words “40HR minimum hours community use” by officers. The report is actually saying  is 40hr will be the maximum  amount of hours in the 106 agreement and any other hrs over the forty would be unenforceable. Again I am sorry to say officers deferred to legal-speak instead of answering my question saying there is no obligation on the developer to allocate more than the minimum hours. I think that’s clear and the reference to minimum is accurate and not misleading – more hours may be allocated, but are not required to be.” It is clear the developer has said NO to any additional hours.

However the most puzzling answer to my questions to officers was in answer to thıs  question 
Will you confirm that I as a elected representative in the Area and an objector was not sent notification of the meeting.

Legal offıcer’s answer  
“In relation to your email of today, I have been informed that there were indeed two people that did not receive a copy of the details for the Committee, and accordingly they will be provided with the relevant information by post today.

Frankly that answer would be better suited to a Kafka novel than a planning commıttee. I finally received notice today, Tuesday (48hrs) that they did not send me notifıcation of the meetıng 5 days before.

Would it not have been easier and save time, for the legal officer to have apologised  and told me last Thursday instead of going into legal speak. However the legal offıcer said it does not matter  that they did  not send me notifıcation as an elected councillor  and an objector , as a member of the public told me anyway. It’s for you to decided whether you think that is also reasonable.

The truth is if I had been informed at the right time, I would not have committed to a work related trip abroad and I would have been there on Wednesday nıght.

The other ıssue I have concerns about is the way officers have sought to divide opinion on the merits of the plannıng application. Whereas I believe the residents of QPRA have a rıght to have the major say in the planning application the size, structure, parking and opening hours. However the disposal of 70% of a community asset is not for only for QPRA  and QPRA alone , its for the users and residents whether it be a Salsa dance class or a food bank to have their say , these people come from the greater Kilburn  area and other parts of Brent. The entrance will be via the pub which will rule out religous groups (particularly Muslims), Mothers and Baboes groups and other children's groups. A further issues is that there is only one WC.
Finally and most importantly, I believe officers are bringing the council into disrepute, by their approach . It’s just over a year ago that the Cabinet tried to shut down the Granvılle community centre  wıthout even a cursory attempt at consultatıon. The cabinet apologised  and the lead member resigned. Sınce then the new lead member for planning and regeneration Cllr Tatler has said community use in Kilburn is a priority and wishes to see it expanded .

Cllr Tatler and the cabinet have now committed themselves to expansıon of community provision.
To confırm this Cllr Tatler  last week place a large ad in the Brent Magazine( page 45) saying one of the priority for bids for using the CIL is community activity in Kilburn and askıng for bıds to come forward. It beggars belief that officers are choosing to ignore a clear policy and are recommending a 70% cut in community space and 50% cut in hours at a time when we are askıng for more ......... If policy can be changed or ignored by officers to cut communıty services, it makes it look like the administration  are in power, but not in control wıthout a clear vision or strategy.

It could only happen ın Brent!!!!!

Thıs report is wrong and goes against council policy of expanding community provisıon in Kilburn. Therefore ı urge you to reject the plannıng applıcatıon. 

Clean Air for Brent - Public Meeting July 6th


Brent Council and new coalition group Clean Air for Brent (CAfB) invite you to our high-profile public meeting:

The Air We Breathe: how  pollution is affecting us and what we can do about it at Brent Civic Centre, Thursday 6th July, 7-9pm.

Doors open for stalls and refreshments from 6.30pm.  Free event - all are welcome.

Speakers include:
World-renowned health expert Prof Sir Michael Marmot (view profile), Simon Birkett, Founder and Director of Clean Air in London, Cllr Eleanor Southwood, Cabinet Member for the Environment, Brent Council , and Elliot Treharne, Air Quality Manager, GLA.

Hywel Lloyd of think tank, IPPR, will facilitate an interactive discussion. 

It's your chance to question the experts, learn what our authorities are doing locally about air pollution, and what you can do.

Nearly 9,500 people die early each year in London due to long-term exposure to air pollution; in 2016, there were 1,810 road deaths on Great Britain's roads.

Monday 26 June 2017

Support CNWL strikes to defend sacked UCU rep Indro Sen

From UCU London Region

Please support the London Region UCU Day of Action *this Wednesday 28th June*  to show solidarity with all those branches in the region who are in dispute.

Ø Support College of North West London – on strike *THIS WEDNESDAY* to Defend sacked UCU Rep Indro Sen!

Ø Support Lewisham and Southwark College – lunchtime protest *THIS WEDNESDAY* against massive job cuts!

Ø Support Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College - on strike *THIS THURSDAY* against redundancies!

What you can do:

·      Visit picket lines, send delegations and banners to branch protests

·      Send messages of support to CNWL: Colin.Purkey@cnwl.ac.uk,
 Lewisham & Southwark: Pascale.Herreman@lscollege.ac.uk and Ruth Fishman
Ruth.Fishman@lscollege.ac.uk, EHWLC:  Matthew Cookson m.cookson@wlc.ac.uk

College of North West London

  - You will recall Sen addressed the UCU congress and informed you then  that the Branch was then in the middle of an ERS ballot. We are happy to inform you that following a favourable ballot with 83% prepared to take strike action under the new draconian law, union has called our branch for two days strike action in support of Sen. This is despite our member  having to face uncertainties over their jobs due to the impending merger planned to take place on 1 August 2017, subject to ministerial approval.


  - We will be striking on Wednesday 28th  June 2017 and Saturday (enrolment day) 1 July 2017. The addresses for picket lines on the 28 June are College of North West London, Brent NW10 2XD ( nearest tube Dollis Hill  ( main campus) and at Wembley Park , HA9 8HP. For 1 July picket will only be at Willesden Campus.

  - This will be the third and fourth day of strike action that members  have been called on to take strike action in support of Sen. Members remain  resolute despite receiving threatening and intimidating letter from our Principal Andy Cole.

  - Following Sen's address to Congress, we would like to thank all those  Congress delegates who has supported our campaign by signing our petition and making donations at the conference which was over £500.

You can support us further by:

·        Signing the petition, which is now 1238  strong at : https://www.
change.org/p/college-of-north-west-london

·        Sending messages of Support to our branch Chair Colin Purkey, at:
Colin.Purkey@cnwl.ac.uk

·        Donations from your branches can be made at :
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/isabelle-rah-1

·        Sending messages of Protest to : the Principal,  Andy.Cole@cnwl.ac.uk and copying it to Sen at senkingsland@hotmail.com and Colin at Colin.Purkey@cnwl.ac.uk You may find some of the comments put down
by the petitioners useful in deciding what to write.

·        Hold lunch time demonstration in support of our fight and send us pictures that we can then pass on to our members.

·        Send delegates to our picket lines on the strike days to College of North West London Brent NW10 2XD and let Colin Purkey know if you can send a delegate on either of the days.