The presentation and discussion of the Divest petition
Cllr Matt Kelcher today presented a petition of nearly 1,400 Brent residents calling for Brent Council to divest its pension fund from fossil fuels. In the video above you can see him outline why investing in fossil fuels is bad policy, bad economics and bad politics. He said local people feel strongly about the issue in the light of the climate emergency and Brent Council should follow the lead of 9 Labour boroughs with divestment policies,. 'Not to divest makes us part of the problem and not part of the solution...We should do it NOW, when we can make the biggest impact.'
In her response Cllr McLennan (Deputy Leader and lead for resources) offered to work with Divest Brent and Friends of the Earth on the issue.
Today's Cabinet will be asked to approve procurement for the next phases of the South Kilburn regeneration project. It includes a plan for Brent Council funding (via Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy) of infrastructure to make the project more attractive to developers:
Within the NWCC project, there is a high level of affordable housing (54% by habitable room) which may have an impact on the overall viability of the scheme.
Therefore,it is proposed,to make the procurement more attractive to potential developer partners, the Council will contribute to the infrastructure/public realm costs. The infrastructure and public realm costs relate to the external works,which include soft and hard landscaping, and infrastructure works including drainage, utilities and services (electricity, gas, water and telecoms).
A cost plan was prepared by the Council’s cost consultant, Deloittes.This proposed contribution will in turn support the overall viability of the scheme, which will lead to the Council receiving the desired quantum of affordable housing and envisaged outcomes and wider benefits.
The Councils Capital Investment Panel, in April 2020, supported £4.9mfrom the capital pipeline for infrastructure and public realm projects for the external works, from Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding.
The Council plans to dispose of some of ther sites on a long lease and say, 'there is potential capital receipts and future overage payments from the private units'.
The proposed rents for the affordable units managed by Brent Housing are set out:
Of particular importance to existing tenants is the allocation of the new housing:
The new affordable homes in NWCC and later
developments are available to existing South Kilburn Council tenants currently
living in properties due for demolition as part of the South Kilburn
regeneration programme.
As with all schemes that are part of the South
Kilburn regeneration programme, full consideration is and will continue to be
given to residents and leaseholders with protected characteristics,
particularly people with disabilities and / or other types of vulnerabilities
due to older age, childcare and/or caring responsibilities, socio-economic status
(single parents and large families). The Council will/has ensured that the
options put forward to tenants and leaseholders provide reasonable and
affordable alternatives that enable them to remain in the area and maintain
their family and community ties, as per Article 1 of the First Protocol and
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The re- housing team
provides help to secure tenants through the moving process, additional support
and services to those who require it.
Join the Brent Friends of the Earth and London Assembly candidates to hear how they plan to tackle the climate crisis. Wednesday 7-9pm
About this Event
An opportunity to hear from the local London Assembly candidates
about how they will address the Climate Emergency and other
environmental challenges. The candidates will outline their existing
proposals and respond to questions from local groups as well as the
wider community.
Note - due to a glitch you cannot register if you leave the question box blank. If you do not wish to ask a question just type 'No question' in the box and you will be able to register.
Recently it has often seemed that planning officers speak directly on behalf of developers at Brent Planning Committee, rather than giving a balanced view in the light of an application's short-comings and the submissions of local residents.
Wednesday's application by Wembley National Stadium Ltd to increase the number of full capacity non-sporting events, an attendance of up to 90,000 rather than 51,000, is no exception.
The proposal:
Planning officers state:
Many objectors consider that the number of events
currently held at the stadium already has an unacceptable level of impact on
local residents. However, it should be borne in mind that this
application does not affect the number of events that take place at the
Stadium, just the capacity of the crowd. Unlimited events at up to 51,000 can
take place within the terms of the existing planning consent. Additional
mitigation measures would be secured. Some of these measures would relate to
all major events and some would relate to the additional non-sporting events.
These mitigation measures are considered
to be sufficient to warrant the additional 9 full capacity events proposed.
They later remark:
WNSL do not currently intent to hold concerts on more than four consecutive nights.
Note the 'currently'.
Live music events contributed substantially to WNSL's income in the past and went into deficit when music events were scaled back from the 2015-16 and this is clearly an attempt to to retrieve the position. LINK
There were 37 representations made on the planning portal, including one from Barn Hill Residents Assocation. All but 2 were opposed to the application, one was in favour and 2 neutral.
Local residents were concerned about the impact of the increase on the quality of their daily lives, already impacted by crowds at the stadium in normal, non-Covid times.
This is the planning officers' conclusion to their report:
The objections received indicate that there is a
level of impact currently experienced by local residents as a result of events
at the stadium, with concerns predominantly focussed on anti-social behaviour,
transport issues, air quality and noise. Some impacts are to be expected, given
the size of the stadium and its siting in a location surrounded by residential
properties and businesses, within a dense urban area.
The original cap on events was imposed to manage
the impacts until such time as specific transport improvements had been made.
Whilst most of these have taken place, not all of them have been realised.
Circumstances have changed since the original planning permission in 2002,
which suggest that the final piece of transport infrastructure (the Stadium
Access Corridor) will not be provided in its originally envisaged form, but
other changes to the road network have now taken place or are currently
underway. Therefore, the Council considers that the cap remains relevant.
Clearly, to increase the number of higher capacity
events to accommodate up to 9 additional major non-sporting events per event
calendar year would imply an increase in the impact. However, a wide range of
mitigation measures are proposed to help mitigate these impacts. There are
ongoing efforts to reduce the number of vehicles on an event day. A number of
mitigation measures are proposed to continue this work, including additional
parking enforcement capacity and an updated Event Day Spectator Travel Plan to
promote sustainable travel patterns. WNSL and public transport operators work
closely to promote sustainable transport solutions and maximise the efficiency
of the network. This in turn contributes to reducing noise and air quality
issues.
Infrastructure works including two-way working in
the area to the east of the stadium and the opening of a link between the
western end of North End Road and Bridge Road to provide an east-west route past
the Stadium that is capable of being kept open at all times before and after
Stadium events will improve traffic flow in the area and assist residents’
movements on event days.
The Trusted Parking Scheme aims to ensure
authorised car parks are responsibly run in a way that would limit their impact
on neighbouring residents and reduce local congestion, whilst the Private Hire
Management Scheme would reduce the number of vehicles in the area around the
stadium after events have finished.
Employment and Training benefits for Brent
residents would also be secured by the proposed scheme.
With regard to antisocial behaviour, a financial
contribution would be paid by the Stadium to Brent Council per additional major
non-sporting event. This would go towards mitigation measures as agreed between
WNSL and the Council which may cover measures to address anti-social behaviour
such as additional public toilets.
Whilst it is appreciated that local residents face
challenges on event days, the direct economic benefits for the local Brent
economy of stadium events are also recognised including spending on
accommodation, food, drink and other ancillary items within the Wembley area.
The uplift in the event cap would also create additional event day steward and
catering positions. Whilst some types of business would suffer on event days,
many would benefit from the influx of people to the area.
In summary, it is recognised that there is a level
of impact associated with major events now, and that this would increase with
an increase in the number of high-capacity major events. However, the measures
proposed would ensure that this is moderated as much as is reasonably
achievable. All are considered necessary to mitigate the increased number of
major events which this application proposes.
A further consideration is that the stadium can be
used for major events up to 51,000 now without restriction and remaining within
this limit would mean that no additional mitigation measures would be formally
secured. Measures including the training and employment opportunities would
apply more broadly to stadium events, not just the additional major
non-sporting events for which permission is sought under this application and
would therefore provide wider benefits to local people and the local economy
more generally.
The proposal is considered to accord with the
development plan, having regard to material planning considerations. While
there will inevitably be some additional impacts associated with an increase in
the number of higher capacity non-sporting events, a range of mitigation
measures are proposed, and some benefits are also anticipated. The proposal is,
on balance, recommended for approval.
The start of the long-running patient campaign to persuade Brent Council to divest its pension fund from fossil fuels
From Divest Brent
For
over 3 years campaign group Divest Brent have been working to persuade the
Council to divest its Pension Fund from fossil fuels. In 2019 the Council
declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency and specifically agreed to redirect
investments to renewal, sustainable and low carbon funds. Indeed some
investments have been made in this area but the majority of the Pension Fund is
still invested in funds which include fossil fuels.
Extract from the Climate Emergency Strategy
Simon Erskine, Co-ordinator of Divest Brent, said:
We
welcome any moves by the Pension Fund to invest sustainably and to help with
the transition to renewable energy – but the fact is that whatever green
investments the Fund may have, while it continues to invest in fossil fuels it
is part of the problem.
Having achieved nearly 1,400 signatures Divest Brent is
now ready to submit its petition to the Council. On April 6 Councillor Matt
Kelcher will present the petition to the Brent Cabinet on behalf of Divest
Brent. Mr Erskine said:
We were originally going to present the petition to the
full Council meeting in July but the Cabinet will be discussing the Council’s
draft Climate Emergency Strategy. Following campaigning by Divest Brent the
draft Strategy now includes a section on the Pension Fund’s investments – and
we decided that this was the best time to submit the petition, when the Cabinet
was anyway looking at the issues involved.
Divest Brent has written a joint letter to Councillor
Krupa Sheth, Council Environment lead, with Brent Friends of the Earth, calling
on the Council to divest the Pension Fund as part of the Climate Emergency
Strategy.
The presentation of the petition comes hot on the heels of
a report entitled “Divesting to protect our pensions and the planet”
which gave a comprehensive breakdown of the extent that UK Councils were
invested in fossil fuels. 3% of Brent’s Pension Fund is thought to be invested
in fossil fuels - £26 million. Compared to the £40 million invested in 2017
this looks like an improvement – until it is realised that much of the
reduction is due to a fall in value of fossil fuel investments.
The Council has admitted that, while much of the Stock
Market has suffered from Covid 19, they have lost £8 million by failing to
divest from fossil fuels before the pandemic. They are not alone in this – with
UK Councils having lost £2 billion altogether over the last 4 years – but £8
million is still a serious loss compared to the Pension Fund total of £800
million.
With the outlook for fossil fuels never worse as the
electric vehicle revolution starts to kick in and governments look to move away
from gas as a means of heating our homes, Pension Fund committee members could
find themselves in breach of their duties to protect the value of the Fund if
they do not start to move seriously towards divestment.
Watch the Cabinet meeting and hear the Council's response live at 10am tomorrow LINK
There are three items at Tuesday's 10am Cabinet meeting relating to the Climate Emergency. (The meeting can be viewed live HERE).
In an unusual move the campaign group Divest Brent is presenting a petition calling on the Brent Council Pension Fund to divest from fossil fuels.
The Cabinet will also be considering the approval of the Brent Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy 2021-2030 that has gone through some changes as the result of consultation and submissions.
Unfortunately the Strategy does not include specific targets and milestones. The Council explain:
Due to the long-term nature of the Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy the current financial situation facing all councils following the Covid-19 pandemic the detailed document does not contain a detailed action plan or route map for the next ten years.
The overall aim is to achieve carbon netrality by 2030. Readers unsure of the difference between carbon neutrality and zero carbon can read more HERE.
The Strategy is arranged around 5 themes:
1. Consumption, Resources and Waste
2. Transport
3. Homes, Buildings and the Built Environment
4. Nature and Green Spaces
5. Supporting Communities
I have embedded the document below (Click bottom right to enlarge)
The third item is a £3.234 grant to improve the energy efficiency of some Brent Council owned buildings. The grant is fro the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme managed by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I was struck by how many of the buildings chosen are comparatively new or recently refurbished.
The officers' report provides examples of decarbonisation measures for 10 of the buildings:
After I published
John Healy’s personal account of his fears as a disabled pensioner, living on
the 5th floor of a South Kilburn council block with no fire alarm
system, of succumbing to a fire in the wake of Grenfell LINK as no Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan
(PEEP) was in place LINK, Brent Council issued this statement:
Personal
Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP) are essential for anyone who may need
assistance in the unlikely event of being advised to leave a building because
of fire. We're concerned that something seems to have gone wrong here and have
contacted Mr Healy to put it right.
Last year, we proactively reached out to all tenants, asking anyone who needed
assistance to complete a PEEP. We don't seem to have received a PEEP from Mr
Healy and will be investigating what has gone wrong here, along with Mr Healy's
comments about not being able to reach us.
Three weeks later and 7 months since John first
completed his PEEP application form the PEEP is not yet in place and the assurance
he needs that his hearing and mobility disabilities would be catered for in the
event of a fire has not been provided – Brent Council is failing in its duty of
care to one of its vulnerable tenants.
John told Wembley Matters on March 31st:
After
26 emails and numerous phone calls during the whole of March, they annoyed me
yesterday by asking me "to clarify why I need a PEEP?".
In
the previous 26 emails, I have given several council officers and councillors
all the information they asked me for, as to why I need a PEEP but none of it
seems to have been understood by any of them.
I
now know how those Grenfell residents must have felt when they tried to inform
Kensington and Chelsea council and their TMO. To be honest I expected
more from Brent Council but they have shown me that they are no better than any
other council in London.
The council say they only became aware
of my situation when I completed a new PEEP application online on the 19th
March 2021 and entered it on their PEEP database on the 22nd March 2021.
All my previous emails and phone calls over the previous 6 months have no
bearing on my new application, says my Buildings officer. In other
words, he never even saw the article in Wembley Matters as it was published on
the 12th March 2021, or anything else that I sent since early Sept. 2020, after
returning my first PEEP application form.
I made a first stage complaint, but I sent it
before hearing from the council, that my application only began on the 19th
March 2021. After sending in my complaint, I did receive an apology from the Lead
Officer for Housing, Neighbourhoods and Community Wellbeing, which I assumed
was in connection with the complaint but the officer never actually mentioned
the word 'complaint' in her email.
Mr Healy is ready to give up and resign
himself to sleepless nights over his fears for himself and other residents
caught in this bureaucratic nightmare.
Surely Brent Council, which has been
awarded ‘Disability Confident Leader Status’ as a provider, commissioner of
services and an employer LINK, should be doing better?
UPDATE: A Brent Council source has said that the stripping below is for the installation of Hostile Vehicle Mitigation measures and not due to the state of the road. There is no word on whether the reinstated surface will be block paving or tarmac.
When Brent Council's £100m Civic Centre was built it was decided that a building of such distinction required an equally distinctive road surface so £852,000 was spent on block paving. Given that it was a route for heavy construction lorries it soon deteriorated although Brent Council also blamed severe weather.
Further money has been spent on ongoing repairs but observers have now seen that a section of Engineers Way outside the Civic Centre has been stripped:
Engineers Way yesterday
Former Brent Liberal Democrat leader Paul Lorber, has written to the Council to ask if the road is going to replaced by asphalt as in other parts of the borough and why similar remedial action cannot be taken at Station Approach in Sudbury.
It looked yesterday from the stack of blocks visible on the site as if the block paving is going to be replaced. I think we need to know the additional costs involved.
Meanwhile with Engineers Way closed while work continues on the controversial , Fulton Road is the main access road to the stadium area. Residents of the new build have been complaining about the traffic jams caused by huge trucks accessing building sites with considerable difficulty and the damage caused when they have to mount the pavements.
At the other end of Olympic Way work is continuing on the linking of North End Road to Bridge Road with considerable incovenience to pedestrians. An initial justification given for the link was that buses could use North End Road as a detour on event days and maintain a better bus service to residents. The 206 to the Paddocks was curtailed on event days. It now appears that there may have to be a weight limit on the new link which might affect these plans.
