WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
A leaflet distributed in Alperton ward has confused voters. On one side the leaflet, 'Alperton Ward Matters', lists the three Alperton candidates.
On the other side, proving just how much Alperton ward matters they list the same three candidates as standing for Wembley Hill ward!
Under the headline 'Your Labour Council is reducing the cost of living in Queensbury' the Labour Party is distributing the above claims in its election leaflet distributed in the ward.
Some are at best ambigous and suggest help is from the council rather than via the council. Take for example the £150 refund on Council Tax. The Council's own website is very clear this this comes from the government:
A Council response to a Freedom of Information request by Paul Lorber lists all the Covid-19 grants that have been available and is a valuable source for cross-checking claims over the forthcoming period.
You will note that the Brent Council appears to have been unsuccessful in spending some of the grants available for business, while the Schools Department has, rightly, spent to the full. Overall the 'repayment' column, totally £70m is concerning - is this unspent money that the council had to pay back to the government?
With the planning application for the Lidding Road Garages, close to the Wealdstone Brook, coming up on Wednesday (See LINK ) a reader has helpfully sent me photographs taken today of the sewage pollution in the brook. Raw faeces flowing into the water. Surely councillors cannot ignore this?
Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
It may be a coincidence, but two days after I had posted a comment about Brent’s failure to start work on its Cecil Avenue (former Copland School site) housing development, a decision to start work on a tender contract appeared on the Council’s website. My comment referred to this vacant Council-owned site having had planning permission for 250 homes since February 2021, and how Brent proposed to let a developer sell 152 of these privately, and only have 37 for affordable rent (with none at social rent levels). [If you are wondering how 37 (14.8%) relates to the 39% so-called affordable in the image below, the balance is 61 homes for shared ownership or intermediate rent level, unaffordable for most Brent families in housing need!]
Extract from “Soft Market Testing” details for prospective developers, April 2021.
The timing of this decision is of some concern. Part of the purpose of notifying intended decisions in advance is so that members of Brent’s two main Scrutiny Committees can see whether there are points which they wish to consider before a decision is actually made. But those two Committees had their last meetings of the current Council in March, and the details on the Council’s website show that the final Officer decision is scheduled to be made on 4 May, the day before the elections for the new Brent Council. This will effectively prevent any detailed Scrutiny of the decision, as the new committees will not be formed until the Council’s Annual Meeting on 18 May.
Details of the proposed decision from Brent Council’s website.
Of course, it could be argued that this decision is being made under delegated authority, given by Brent’s Cabinet in August 2021. However, as I showed in a recent guest blog (are Cabinet meetings a Charade?), the decision to include a private developer as part of the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) housing development goes back much further than that. And it involves meetings of the “off-public record” Policy Co-ordination Group (“PCG”) of Cabinet members and Senior Officers.
In another guest post, in January, I showed how the “soft market testing” of the present proposals, was put to five developers in April 2021. Their support for the opportunity has been used to justify allowing a developer to profit from the sale of 152 homes (which could have been used to house local people in housing need). That market testing was so “soft” that it was always going to appeal to them.
It then turned out, from a report to a PCG meeting in July 2020 (which I obtained under FoI), that a previous WHZ proposal had also been “market tested” in February 2020. But that only found favour with 2 out of 5 developers it was put to. Council Officers and the key Cabinet members involved do seem determined to allow a developer to profit from this Brent Council housing scheme!
Extract from the WHZ report to Brent’s Policy Co-ordination Group, 16 July 2020.
I have been trying since August last year to find out why Brent isn’t building all 250 of the homes at Cecil Avenue for rent to Council tenants, with as many of them as possible at social rent levels, which was the priority recommended by the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission. In a written answer to a Public Question for the November 2021 Full Council meeting, Cllr. Shama Tatler said: ‘it is not financially viable to deliver all 250 homes at Cecil Avenue as socially rented housing.’
No evidence has been made public to justify this claim over financial viability; but how could it NOT be viable to make all of the homes Council housing, even if they might not all be at social rents? In a local newspaper article the same month, seeking to justify Brent’s plans for “infill housing” on land at Kilburn Square, Cllr. Ketan Sheth wrote:
‘The value and cost of land in London is at an all time high: therefore, building on land already owned by the council means the building costs are lower and all of the new homes can be let at genuinely affordable rents.'
Cllr. Ketan Sheth’s article in the “Brent & Kilburn Times”, 18 November 2021.
If that is true for green spaces on existing Council estates, why isn’t it true for the vacant “brownfield” Council-owned former Copland School land? Residents in Wembley Central, where the Cecil Avenue development will be built and where he is standing as a Labour candidate for the 5 May local elections, may wish to ask Ketan Sheth that question!
I have tried since January to get one of Brent’s Scrutiny Committees to examine the Council’s alleged justification for allowing a private developer to sell 152 of the 250 homes to be built at Cecil Avenue, without success. I did manage (after a struggle) to be allowed to present a deputation to the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9 March, on the housing aspects of the “Poverty Commission Update” report which was on the agenda.
The Report tried to conceal the fact that Brent had, so far, not invested in social housing, as recommended by the Commission. My presentation to the meeting (which had to be submitted in writing because of [unexplained!] technical problems) included this plea to the councillors:
‘You, as a Scrutiny Committee, need to challenge that, and demand that Brent Council does better.
You can recommend that in meeting its Poverty Commission commitments, it should invest in more social rent housing as part of the New Council Homes programme, including at its Cecil Avenue development.’
I was promised a written response to my deputation from the Lead Member for Housing, Cllr. Eleanor Southwood. I am still waiting for that, despite two reminders. I mentioned that in the comment I posted on 10 April (see opening sentence). By coincidence (?) the following day I received an apology for the delay from Scrutiny Chair Cllr. Roxanne Mashari, who told me: ‘A written response is being prepared [and] will be with you as soon as possible.’
My parody Brent publicity photo for the Council’s Cecil Avenue housing development.
When, or if, I finally receive it, I will ask Martin to share it with you. Cecil Avenue, though a housing scheme, is not directly Cllr. Southwood’s responsibility. The Lead Member for Regeneration, Cllr. Shama Tatler, is the one working on this, along with Senior Officers (and, no doubt, the Council Leader). You can see all three portrayed in my image above.
Everything about this Cecil Avenue development, and the way it is being progressed without proper scrutiny, of decisions made behind closed doors by a small number of Cabinet members and Senior Officers, highlights the need for a more balanced Council. Only then will potentially “dodgy” decisions be challenged, and decision-makers properly held to account.
The people of Brent have the chance to vote, for change for the better, on 5 May. I hope that you, and as many of our fellow citizens as possible, will vote, and vote wisely.
Philip Grant.
One of several teenagers seen crossing the Wealdstone Brook recently - if they fell in the water they could swallow something very nasty
A comprehensive objection has been submitted on the Brent Planning Portal to the Lidding Road Garages Planning Application. The Planning Committee will consider the application next week (Wednesday April 20th) after its deferral to consider a report from Thames Water.
Planning Officers are recommending approval LINK .
Comments can still be made on the Planning Application HERE
LIDDING ROAD GARAGES PLANNING APPLICATION number 21/3248 APRIL 2022
The Wealdstone Brook is a river that starts from a spring on Stanmore Common in Harrow and runs through Harrow, into Brent near Woodcock Park in Kenton and then onto the river Brent beyond Wembley. By the time water enters the London Borough of Brent at the cross roads of Kenton Road and Kenton Lane it is already seriously polluted and reading counts taken of the E.coli bacteria in the water at the end of Lidding Road in Kenton, were one of the highest recorded from waterways in the London area. E.coli is a naturally occurring bacterium that is found in the human gut and is therefore an indicator of foul raw sewage in a water course.
This serious level of water pollution is due in part to known and unknown misconnections of the foul surface water and foul raw sewage water connections throughout its course through Harrow and the additional misconnections in this part of Kenton, Brent. Under severe rainfall events the Wealdstone Brook quickly fills to its maximum capacity before it reaches Woodcock Park and, due in part to poor maintenance, blocked and damaged foul surface water and foul sewage drains, the areas around the Brook quickly get flooded and badly polluted. The most recent recorded foul raw sewage overspill was from the manhole on the grass area at the end of Lidding Road on the 5th October 2021. This raw foul sewage over spilled onto the grass area, onto the area next to it known as the Legion Hall site and then into the Wealdstone Brook.
The Wealdstone Brook was an earth bank water course and there are numerous recorded flooding events between 1927 and 1981. In 1977 on the 16th and 17th August the Brook burst its banks and the whole surrounding area of Kenton was flooded including numerous residential properties. Following this 1977 event, works were undertaken along the length of the Brook up to and including the junction of the Kenton Road/Kenton Lane interchange – in other words mainly on the Brent side. These works included the widening, deepening and brick-walling sections of the Brook from Woodcock Park down to Wembley. The aim of these improvement works was to increase the capacity of the Brook and to speed up the flow of the water. An engineer’s report at that time indicated that these improvements would alleviate problems of flooding for 50 years – and that was 43 years ago.
The Wealdstone Brook is simply incapable of coping with the expected water run-off during storm events because it is, according to a recent Thames Water engineer, attempting to operate at over 130% capacity during severe weather events. There is an important difference between the Wealdstone Brook over-spilling its banks and the flooding which occurs around the Wealdstone Brook during severe weather events. This distinction is important in the light of the recorded history of the Brook. As stated earlier, the Brook starts its life from a spring on Stanmore Common in Harrow and continues to receive surface water from several sources as it runs towards the river Brent:
1. Surface road drains taking rain water from roads and into the Brook. Most of the outlets of these drains can be seen on the sides of the Brook and most are at a low level where their outlet enters the Brook. Many are blocked with debris due to poor maintenance and soon become unable to discharge when the flowing water level in the Brook rises.
2. Water run-off from saturated ground – such as the parks, school grounds as well as gardens which abut the sides of the Brook.
3. Damaged, broken and leaking clean water drains.
4. Misconnected foul sewage water and surface water pipes which connect to the surface water drains as in 1).
5. Springs
Even in the driest of summers and the coldest of winters, water continues to flow in the Brook.
It is when there are torrential downpours and storm like conditions that we see the full force of the Brook. Within 30minutes of a storm event in the NW London area, the Brook can be full of water moving along it at a rate of 20 tons per second. In these situations the Brook is at full capacity when it hits the culvert that runs under the Kenton Road/Kenton Lane interchange and the roads around here become flooded. The poorly maintained road drains cannot cope and cannot discharge into the Brook. By the time the water reaches the Falcon Way culvert it is also full to capacity. Again, road flooding around this area and around Lindsay Drive roundabout occurs for the same reasons. These are all HA3 0 areas of Kenton. If any problems occur further down the Brook such as blockages of the road and railway culverts or the opening of the sluice gates on the Welsh Harp, then the flow of water in the Brook is slowed resulting in areas around the Brook higher up flooding even more severely.
Flooding from the Wealdstone Brook is therefore a more complex issue than simply saying that the Brook is overflowing its banks. It is a combination of hydrology issues which vary from event to event and include such factors as the direction of the weather storm event, the intensity of the downpours, the length of the downpours and, crucially to begin with, the state of the drains. Once a storm event has started both surface foul water and domestic foul water sewer drains quickly become full, house drains overflow and the mixture of these waters pollutes the surrounding land and intensifies the pollution of the Brook.
The main Wealdstone Trunk Sewer, which follows a similar path to the Wealdstone Brook through Woodcock Park and onto the northern section of the grounds of Uxendon Manor School, has been known to discharge its contents from 6m underground to well over 3m above ground during severe storm conditions. All this foul and surface water attempts to flow into the Brook.
To put it bluntly, the drainage infrastructure in the area simply cannot cope and is not fit for purpose. For the Environment Agency and Thames Water to say that housing developments close to the Brook can tap into the present infrastructure is to ignore the numerous occasions that Thames Water and Lanes for Drains have had to clean, repair and replace various pieces of drainage pipework in the area in the past few years. And to attempt to build on and next to the present drainage infrastructure as suggested in the Lidding Road garages development proposal (Planning Application 21/3248) would land Brent Council with a substantial structural and economic ongoing problem which would be both a disaster for the residents of these new builds, the residents in the surrounding area as well as an ongoing and increasing economic burden for the Council tax payers of Brent Council. Hash Patel, a past Principal Engineer, Transportation Service with Brent Council, following flooding around the Brook on Wednesday 26th August 2015 and Wednesday 16th September 2015 stated the following:
“Regarding the River Brent and Wealdstone Brook, I am not aware that surface water has topped the banks (of the Brook). I am aware of flooding in your catchment and majority is related to inadequate capacity in the public sewer network” (my emphasis)
Thames Water knows it has to divert the damaged, broken and dysfunctional Victorian sewer pipe that runs from Woodgrange Close, through Woodcock Park, across the green field sites at the end of Lidding Road, through the back gardens of numbers 9 to 14 Brookfield Crescent and onto the manhole junction in Brookfield Crescent, before any works can take place on the site of the old Legion Hall and the grass area at the end of Lidding Road. This would be a very expensive piece of restructuring work. Best not to let them pass the buck to Brent Council.
It is wrong to consider housing developments in a flood plain zone 3 area and it is wrong to build over foul water sewers and surface water sewers. The Environment Agency and Thames Water are wrong to approve to the proposed housing development at the end of Lidding Road (Planning Application 21/3248). They are, in my opinion, acting irresponsibly.
Brent Council declared a Climate Emergency in 2019 (www.brent.gov.uk/climateemergency) and their pamphlet ‘Nature, green space and the climate and ecological emergency’ should surely be the foundation and driving force in the local Planning agenda. ‘Protect the remaining green spaces, support biodiversity, stop flooding or reduce their severity by preventing surface run off’ – all good intentions which need to be put into practice.
An Independent London Flood Review has been announced (Wednesday 22nd December 2021) into the flooding events of July 2021. The review seeks ‘to better understand the extent and causes of these floods, to assess how the drainage systems performed, and to recommend how the increasing risks of future flooding events can be managed.’
‘The review, which has been commissioned by Thames Water, will play an integral part in ensuring that the company future proofs its infrastructure to protect its customers, their communities and the environment as such severe weather events look set to become the norm across the UK.’
‘The review will also play an important role in improving the collaborative working between all parties responsible for managing future flooding risks. As part of its focus, the review will provide insights on London’s wider drainage infrastructure and broader recommendations that could be adopted by all organisations with surface water responsibilities. It is anticipated that the review will take no more than 6 months with interim reports published as it progresses.’
It would be prudent of Brent Council Planning Committee to await the findings of this review in areas where flooding has occurred and is occurring not just in severe weather events but under normal rainfall conditions. This should be particularly applied to areas designated as Flood Zones 3a and 3b by the Environment Agency such as in the Lidding Road garages Planning Application 21/3248.
‘This Independent Review will also assist with Thames Water’s role (as a Risk Management Authority) in supporting Local Authorities in undertaking their flooding investigations as required by Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010).’
‘As part of its Independent Review this inquiry will examine the flooding mechanisms and consider the performance of drainage systems against design standards.’
This will hopefully set a standard whereby Brent Council Planning Officers and Brent Council Planning Committee members can assess whether a housing development such as that proposed at the end of Lidding Road meets the necessary flood risk assessment standards or is too risky to consider until major changes have been undertaken to the surface water and foul sewage water drainage infrastructure in the area of the proposed development.
Finally, I would like to conclude on the assumed role of the Environment Agency (EA) with regards to the Wealdstone Brook and its maintenance including its banks. The EA claim in an email letter to John Poole dated 28th April 2021 that they do not own the Brook and are not responsible for its maintenance including the banks of the Brook. The EA claim the maintenance is the responsibility of the riparian owner where the banks are owned by the landowner which in the case of my garden would be me. There is just one problem with this approach to the responsibility for maintenance and repair and that is that the EA does not allow me to enter the Brook to carry out any necessary maintenance or repair. The other issue to do with this denial of responsibility from the EA and delegation of responsibility to riparian owners is that Brent Council would have to take over stretches of the Wealdstone Brook and its banks where Brent Council owned land joins the Brook or where the Council owned properties with gardens end at the Brook since they would be designated the riparian owner. This is particularly relevant in the case of the Planning Application 21/3248 since Brent Council would be deemed to be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Brook and its banks from the footbridge near the Woodcock Park Mural, through Woodcock Park, past the end of Lidding Road, past the site of the ex-Legion Hall grounds and down to the Falcon Way bridge at least on the Uxendon Manor School side of the Brook. Needless to say, if this was proven to be correct this would have very serious financial implications for Brent Council.
References:
BRENT COUNCIL – Flood Risk Management Strategy – Managing the Floods Risk in Brent - 2015
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL – Public Services and Safety Committee Report (30.09.77) – from the Director of Public Health Engineering - Flooding on 17th August 1977.
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD – Departmental Investigation into Flood Warning Arrangements in North West London – Report – (25th April 1978)
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL – RIVER BRENT FLOOD ALEVIATION SCHEME – ENGINEERS REPORT – MAY 1982 –WEALDSTONE BROOK.
HALCROW REPORT – The Environment Agency Thames Region – Wealdstone Brook Investigations – Scheme No 3721 – February 1999
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL FOR RIVER BRENT FLOOD ALLEVIATION SCHEME – WEALDSTONE BROOK VOLUME 3 (Contract no.BD3) LEDWAY DRIVE TO KENTON ROAD – January 2002.
WATER FLOW RATE (m3/s) READINGS OF THE WEALDSTONE BROOK FROM THE UNIT AT THE JUNCTION OF KENTON LANE AND KENTON ROAD – from 30TH November 1976 to 14th November 2020 DURING SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS.
SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS: WRITTEN STATEMENT-HCWS161 made by Eric Pickles (Secretary of State of Communities and Local Government) – 18th December 2014.
NOTES FROM THE KENTON DRAINAGE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12TH OCTOBER 2016
Water Industry Act 1991 – Chapter 56 – Sewerage Services – as amended.
Wealdstone Brook Water Quality meeting Thursday 22nd August 2019 which includes a map of all the misconnections of foul sewage water pipes and surfaces water pipes known at that point in time in the Harrow area.
THAMES WATER – Building over or close to a public sewer – undated but updated on a regular basis on the Thames Water website.
PINNACLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS – PROBABILITY OF FLOODING – A flood risk assessment revision 1 as part of the Planning Application for temporary classrooms on the Uxendon Manor School site – undated but probably around 2015 and includes a detailed Thames Water Drainage and Water Enquiry of the area around the school.
Flood Risk Assessment – Uxendon Manor Temporary Classrooms – April 2015 – Price and Myers – contains important information with regards to flood risk assessment in the area of the proposed Lidding Road development.
Email correspondence with Hash Patel, Principal Engineer, Transportation Services, Brent Council September 16th 2015.
London Flood Review (https://londonfloodreview.co.uk/) December 2021
Environment Agency email from Catherine MacDougall – Asset Performance Team Leader (Colne, Brent and Crane) dated 28th April 2021 (ref: HNL 12715 HH) – to John Poole.
Young people taking part in the launch
From the Royal Philharmonic Newsletter
The weekend of March 26th local partners including the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra (RPO), Brent Music Service, Brent Council, Young Brent Foundation, The Institute of Contemporary Music Performance (ICMP) and Brent Black Music Co-Op (BBMC), launched a new music academy for Brent. There is still time for young musicians to apply for a place in the pilot – deadline Wednesday April 20th 2022.
This cross-genre academy will provide a pathway to careers throughout the music industry, from music production and administration to performance in any musical style or genre.
Created in collaboration with and for the people of Brent, discussion and research with the community will continue to inform all aspects of the academy from the format of delivery and selection of training on offer right through to the name. This unique music development programme will provide professional-level training across the music industry for young people in Brent, regardless of background, prior achievement, financial or other barriers.
Designed in consultation with music and youth providers in the borough, the academy will complement provision already available for young people in Brent, creating progressive opportunities and tangible links to further education and careers through training and industry connections.
The first major stage of the academy will be a pilot programme that will take place from May to July 2022, and we are looking for passionate young people who are playing or making music in any genre or style, or with interest in music production, business, or administration to take part. If you think that you know a young person who would be interested, please visit rpo.co.uk/brentmusicacademy to find out more.
We are grateful for the generous support of Stefan and Simona Voloseniuc of SF Stefan Civil Engineering who have made possible the pilot phase of the project.
Who is the new music academy for?
The academy is for passionate young people who have an aptitude for music performance in any genre, or an interest in any aspect of the non-performing side of the music industry.
The Performance Pathway is designed for young people who sing, play an instrument or compose their own music, working in any genre or style, with a passion for collaborating and performing with others.
The Industry Pathway will explore non-performance elements of the music industry, which might include audio engineering, music production, marketing, talent promotion, event management, programming, or any other related fields.
There are no formal entry requirements. While the academy is open to all young people regardless of genre, background, or prior experience, it will cater for participants expressing a commitment and keen interest in the music industry.
Eventually, the Academy will cater for young people aged 4 – 19 years old, grouped based on skills and experience.
During the Pilot Phase, we will work with reduced numbers of young people in order to trial the model. Cohorts we are looking to work with during the Pilot Phase are:
· What does it cost?
· There is no cost for attending the music academy during the pilot phase.
· How can I apply?
· You need to be referred by a teacher, music professional, youth club or group leader, faith leader, social worker or other educational professional using the form below by 20th April 2022. We are not currently accepting applications from parents or young people themselves; please speak to a trusted adult professional and ask them to complete the form on your behalf.
· The academy team will be in touch by 22nd April 2022 to let you know if your referral has been successful and with further details. Successful referrals will be invited to take part in informal ‘audition’ workshops during the weekend of 7/8 May to give potential participants a taste of the academy programme before joining the Pilot.
· Fill in the referral form here
