Kodak site trees saved in campaign led by Harrow Green Party GLA candidate

 

Harrow Green Party are very pleased to announce that Barratts, developers of the Kodak site in Harrow, have officially withdrawn their planning application (P/2661/20) to remove 26 trees along Harrow View Road.  After leading a campaign against the removal of these mature trees, with over 350 people submitting objections against the application, Harrow Greens are delighted that the developers have recognised the importance of these trees and acted accordingly.  

 

Emma Wallace, GLA Green Party candidate for Brent and Harrow  said:

 

This is fantastic news for Harrow, ensuring that the trees continue to provide a green welcome to people travelling along this busy thoroughfare, continue to support the local ecosystem and wildlife, and help limit air pollution, both now and into the future.  

 

This campaign proves that community action can work when acting together, standing up for our local area and the vital wildlife and green spaces we still have in Harrow.  I hope that Barratts will now ensure that they look after these trees and that any maintenance carried out is completed carefully and sympathetically, ensuring the overall health of these trees is preserved.

 

Healthy Neighbourhoods meeting motion for October 16th published

The motion for the Extraordinary Meeting has been published.  I am not sure when as I have been on a zoom call.  If it was after 5pm as appears likely (my meeting started then) it gave no time for residents to study the motion  before the deadline for making an application to speak passed.

I hope officers will recognise this and make allowances for requests received after 'close of play'.

Extraordinary Council Meeting – 16 October 2020

Motion submitted by members who have requisitioned the Extraordinary Council meeting

Healthy Neighbourhood Scheme

To instruct the Lead Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning to provide a comprehensive rational for the introduction of the temporary Healthy Neighbourhoods in the various areas.

This to provide details about how these areas have been chosen; how it impact targets; mitigations, if any; viability of the monitoring of the scheme; what prior public and stakeholder engagement has taken place; the equity of the trade-off between loser  residential streets and gainers; the risk of increased congestion on certain residential roads and implications on emissions; the methodology to be used to evaluate the outcome, notably the goal of lower overall traffic volumes; and the measurements in place to secure adequate baseline data for ALL streets affected (including the connector roads).

How to speak at Healthy Neighbourhoods Special Council Meeting - deadline today

In response to queries from readers I asked Brent Council for the procedure for anyone with a view on the Healthy Neighbourhood to speak at the Extraordinary Council Meeting on November 15th.  This is the answer from the officer concerned:

We've had a number of enquiries relating to this meeting so happy to respond, with an outline of the process and timescales.

In terms of the date for this meeting, I can confirm that it will be taking place next Friday 16 October 2020 at 3:30pm.  As you'll be aware this has been arranged, following the submission of a request earlier this week, as an Extraordinary meeting of the Council for the purpose of considering a motion submitted on the Healthy Neighbourhood proposals.  An agenda for the meeting is due to be published later today, which will include details on the motion to be considered and this will be available to view and download via the following section of the Council's website:

http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=180

I should point out that next week's meeting (as is current practice given the restrictions in place relating to corornavirus) is being held virtually via zoom but will also be webcast live, for those wishing to follow proceedings without contributing.  The live webcast will be available to view via the following link: 

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/democracy-in-brent/local-democracy/live-streaming/

For anyone wishing to speak, as this is an Extraordinary Council meeting they would need to request a deputation with the deadline for doing so close of play today.  Under the deputation procedure they would then have up to 5 minutes to speak at the meeting, but any request would need to be submitted in writing to  katie.smith@brent.gov.uk (email would be fine) and cc to me james.kinsella@brent.gov.uk  and will need to specify what the deputation relates to and also who will be speaking and who they be representing.  We will also need a contact email address and phone number.  

We do have a limit of three deputations per Council meeting, so if we should receive more than three request to speak within this timescale the usual process would be to select which deputations go forward by way of a ballot.

In terms of petitions, unfortunately the same deadline will apply.  There is the ability for the lead petitioner to request a debate at Council on petitions which contain over 200 valid signatures.  A valid signature is taken as being from someone who either lives, works or studies in the borough so the signatures provided would need be to be checked beforehand with the petition either provided in hard or scanned copy or via the Council's e-petition facility. 

I realise these timescales are now very tight, given the date for the meeting, but am sure you'll appreciate this has been called as an Extraordinary meeting of the Council and hope this helps to clarify the position.

Heathrow Third Runway: Legal victory to be defended in Supreme Court

 The Friends of the Earth victory in the battle against a third runway at Heathrow Airport will be defended in the Supreme Court today.

 

Following the environmental campaigners’ triumph in the Court of Appeal earlier this year, Heathrow Airport Limited has appealed to the Supreme Court in a last-ditch bid to rescue its plan for the runway.

 

Lawyers for Friends of the Earth will argue that Court of Appeal judges were right to rule that the Government’s decision to give the runway the go-ahead in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) was unlawful. 

 

They ruled that the Government could not ignore its international climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement, which requires the UK to sharply and quickly reduce its investment in fossil fuel infrastructure.

 

Judges said the Secretary of State for Transport (then Chris Grayling) had breached s10 of the Planning Act 2008, and acted irrationally by disregarding the Paris Agreement, the non-CO2 warming impacts of aviation, and the effects of climate change beyond 2050. He also breached his duty to undertake a lawful strategic environmental assessment in accordance with the requirements of the SEA Directive and the SEA Regulations.

 

Following the judgment, the Government and Arora Holdings decided not to pursue their legal case any further, but Heathrow Airport Limited pressed on and was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

Friends of the Earth is represented by Leigh Day solicitors and barristers David Wolfe QC of Matrix Chambers, Peter Lockley of 11 Kings Bench Walk Chambers and Andrew Parkinson of Landmark Chambers.

 

Will Rundle, head of legal at Friends of the Earth, said:

 

“Without the government in the picture, this case has become one about business interests versus the wellbeing of people everywhere facing the impact of the climate crisis.

“The Court of Appeal rightly ruled against the expansion of Heathrow, and we’re now here to defend our historic win for the planet. The government accepted illegal advice to ignore the Paris Climate Agreement when making the initial decision to approve the third runway. Heathrow is now trying to completely ignore this fact with its appeal.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court will now make an authoritative ruling and remain confident the court will re-affirm that the Paris Agreement cannot be ignored, and all the damaging climate impacts of Heathrow expansion must be fully considered in any decision over expansion.”

 

Jenny Bates, climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said:

 

“As we plan for a future in the wake of the dreadful Covid-19 pandemic, it’s key that the UK invests in low-carbon, resilient infrastructure and creates green jobs in sectors such as clean transport, renewable energy and home insulation. A new runway at Heathrow is the opposite of what we need to be building. It would lead to a huge increase in emissions and undermine the UK’s duty to fight the climate crisis.

 

“Heathrow has talked up easy fixes to get the Third Runway pushed through, but these fixes rely on undeveloped technology, and ineffective carbon offsetting to make their plans appear more climate friendly.”

 

Rowan Smith, solicitor in the environmental law team at Leigh Day, said:

 

“We trust that the Supreme Court will agree with the Court of Appeal when it concluded that there was absolutely no legal means by which the Government could ignore its international climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement.

 

“They made it clear that such an omission fatally undermined the lawfulness of the policy to allow a third runway at Heathrow Airport. 

 

“The Lord Justices simply followed the legal framework set by Parliament and found that the Secretary of State was legally bound to consider the Paris Agreement which was so obviously material to a decision on Heathrow Airport expansion.”

 

UPDATE Extraordinary Full Council Meeting on Healthy Neighbourhoods Friday October 16th

 

An  Extraordinary Full Council meeting will be held on Friday October 16th to discuss the Healthy Neighbourhood Scheme. The meeting follows a request from members and currently is due to be held at the not very convenient time, for those with children requiring pick-up from school and working councillors, of 3.30pm. The motion on the agenda will request further clarification from the Lead Member for Regeneration. Cllr Shama Tatler, about the scheme.  

This follows concern expressed at the recent Labour Group meeting LINK over issues such as consultation with residents, the decision making progress, and the criteria for judging the success or otherwise of the schemes that are already in place. Sources suggest the meeting with be short, perhaps only 30 minutes.  As with all Full Council meetings, except the AGM, residents should be able to make requests to speak.

The meeting has not yet been advertised on the Council website but normally 5 full working day's notice is required to speak at a meeting or present petitions  so any applications should be made as soon as possible. james.kinsella@brent.gov.uk

The agenda has not yet been published for the meeting.  I will publish it as as soon as it is available.

NW2 Residents' Association's objection to the 'over-bearing' B&Q Cricklewood development

Beware of the tendency to cut off height in development illustrations

 

An idea of the footprint

'Ghost' blocks

I am grateful to North West TWO Residents' Association for permission to repost this very useful article from their website LINK

We strongly object to this planning application. Many of our reasons have already been well expressed by our fellow residents’ associations, our individual members and many others; we won’t repeat them all.

We note that much of the application is speculative, conditional and non-committal (“should be provided”, “should be designed”). It avoids saying that things will be done in accordance with the application, and the only assurances are that the development will be a fine thing for Cricklewood. These assurances are not well-founded and only bolster the impression that this developer is not committed to the project.

The application seeks to justify excessive height, massing and density by claiming the proposal solves trivial or non-existent problems.

Repeatedly, the 25-storey tower is described as an aid to wayfinding and legibility. No evidence is presented that people are having trouble finding their way. Central Cricklewood is highly legible with one main road, the A5, and one significant crossroads leading to Cricklewood Station on one side and Willesden Green Station on the other. Finding the way from Cricklewood Station is helped by Legible London signage and if finding the station were a problem, more signs could be provided. They would be cheaper and far less obtrusive than a 25-storey tower block. All this self-serving justification does is emphasise how starkly visible the development would be from all around.

The application makes much of providing a public pedestrian and cycling route between Depot Approach and Cricklewood Lane.

– It would not serve pedestrians coming to or from the Railway Terraces via Kara Way; that route is already blocked at Kara Way.

– It would not serve cyclists travelling between Cricklewood Lane and the A5 junction with Depot Approach. The concept fails to meet Transport for London’s London Cycling Design Standards. Diverting off straight roads to cycle up and down sharp inclines and in amongst pedestrians fails to satisfy the core outcomes of directness, comfort, coherence and adaptability to increasing volumes, and breaches the principle that bicycles must be treated as vehicles, not pedestrians.

– It would bring pedestrians and cyclists into conflict with each other.

– The traffic and transport sections of the application make no attempt to evaluate likely use or benefits of this feature.

A pedestrian route would have to be provided so residents of the development can move around it, and it cannot reasonably be gated. It’s not a community benefit and declaring it a cycle route only benefits the applicant.

The application criticises Cricklewood for not having a library or a town hall, but does not say it will rectify this or offer any other community facilities, with the exception of public access to the spaces between building plots. It calls one of these spaces a Town Square, though it would sit apart from the roads, and shows it with a brightly lit cinema or advertising screen shining into the windows of the residents across Cricklewood Lane (no assessment of this impact is offered).

The developers have no clear ideas on how the ground-floor commercial spaces would be used, and no strategy for encouraging appropriate uses, let alone allocation to develop the community. There is no policy to ensure they are let and do not remain empty as at nearby Fellows Square.

No social housing is offered and there is only an “aspiration” to provide the minimum of 35% “affordable” units. This fails to meet London’s needs and it fails to meet the needs of our community. The application should be rejected for this reason alone.

The statement of community engagement makes it clear that the developers have not consulted Cricklewood residents so that our views will be taken into account. The statement ends with a brief series of rejections of every criticism, and the plans have not been modified to take any concern into account. That was not engagement.

The open space in the development is not commensurate with the increase in population, which would increase demand on existing and prospective open spaces. The application avoids quantifying this.

The impact of the development on its surroundings would be significant and adverse, as the report from Montague Evans states repeatedly. That report hopes that good design might somewhat mitigate the significant adverse impacts. This does not address the fundamental problem.

Whether 15-storey or 25-storey, these blocks are not appropriate for this area. The tallest buildings around or in process of gaining approval are 9-storey, and they are the exception. Most of the entire neighbourhood is 2-storey or 3-storey. Not even the blocks of Brent Cross South, at some distance, are so high. These blocks would dominate the area. They would be overbearing, far too high and excessively massive. They would be detrimental to the neighbourhood and incoherent with it. Barnet, Brent and Camden still have no joint plan or co-ordinated approach to Cricklewood’s development, but it is clear that there is no prospect of similar development in the Brent and Camden parts of central Cricklewood.

The application states “There will be significant changes to some local views as a result of the regeneration of the Site. These changes and the visibility of the tallest elements on the Site signal the regeneration of the Site and the positive changes brought to the neighbourhood in returning the Site back into active use.” The current residents of Cricklewood and anyone that comes to live on the site would have to live with the permanent changes this development would make and their direct and lasting impact on our lives. These tower blocks cannot be justified by being called a “signal”.

More about this planning application

Our quick guide to making objections

Make your own objection – or say more

A greener, fairer Greater Brent? Join Brent Friends of the Earth week of action

 

From Brent Friends of the Earth

Brent FoE Green and Fair Recovery action

This is the week of action - we want to hear your views in our campaign for a green and fair recovery from COVID-19.

What could this look like in Brent? Please comment with your ideas

Also, join our online discussion on Sunday 11th October 10:30-12, around how to achieve a green and fair recovery, and influence government ahead of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

To join the Zoom Meeting, email info@brentfoe.com for the link, or join our mailing list via www.brentfoe.com.

We will also be hosting a virtual lobby with Brent MPs Tulip Siddiq and Dawn Butler. Details to be confirmed soon!

Mixed response to proposal to rename section of Meadow Garth after Neasden Temple founder

Brentfield School Nursery entrance - the main school entrance is the other side of the barrier

The Mandir on the left - Meadow Garth section that could be renamed ahead

The Cabinet next week will decided whether to agree to rename a section of Meadow Garth in Neasden after the founder of the Neasden Temple (BAPs Swaminarayan Mandir) Pramukh Swami, the spiritual leader of the Swaminarayan sect until his death in 2016.

He inaugurated the Mandir in 1995 and the 20th anniversary was celebrated in 2015.

 

The proposal is to rename the section of Meadow Garth from Brentfield Road to the barrier (see first photograph) 'Pramukh Swami Road.'

Brentfield Primary School objects because the proposal splits the site with the nursery entrance in Pramukh Swami Road and the main entrance in the retained section of Meadow Garth. They point out that the school has recently rebranded with the Meadow Garth address and in addition say that  the change does not reflect 'our community or th school community.'

The change is strongly supported by several residents in the affected section of Meadow Garth but other residents object on ground of the inconvenience, stress and expense that will be caused.

The London Fire Emergency and Planning Authority (LFEPA) object:

The proposed name is not the easiest to pronounce and could be received wrongly during call handling. It is always better to act on the side of precaution when choosing street or building names to minimise the risk of delay when attending an incident. We do object to the renaming of part of 'Meadow Garth Road' as it currently doesn't present any issues for us in terms of locating this address. The guideline states that renaming/renumbering existing streets and buildings is normally only considered when changes occur which give rise to problems for the occupiers, post office, emergency services etc.

This was later qualified by the LFEPA Borough Commander who said that this was advice from the national guidelines, 'but you are free to make any decision you wish.'

The officers say the Cabinet should take the objection seriously as delays of a few minutes in response times can have serious life consequences for firefighters and residents.

On the cultural and visitor attraction aspects the report states:

The Temple is an important asset to Brent, both for residents and as a visitor attraction; it provides valued facilities to many residents and visitors. Although the rationale for applying for the name change has not been clearly set out in the application, it is important to recognise the desire of the Temple to have a street presence which reflects its culture and that of its thousands of attendees and visitors.

 The report leaves the Cabinet to make a 'finely balance' decision:

Clearly the statutory responders and the school are not in favour of the name change along with some residents of Meadow Garth. On balance this would often lead to a rejection of the name change. However, given the need to reflect diversity in the borough and the significance of the Temple to the life of the Borough, Cabinet may well decide that this is a change which they would wish to support.

 

4.