65 out of 91 Brent estates consulted reject an estate parking scheme, 13 going ahead, 13 to be consulted further - full details

 In  October 2021 Brent Council ran a consultation on the parking arrangements on its council estates (off Street Car Parking) and had to extend the consultation because of the poor response rate, On April 5th I requested a copy of the outcome from the council having seen an image of a spreadsheet that was barely readable LINK.  Search 'estate parking' on this blog for more background including a 'call in'.

They turned this, without consultation into a Freedom of Information request, which sucecssfully kicked it into the long grass with the answer due the day after the Council Election. This was duly sent to me yesterday:

My Request:

Could you supply a spreadsheet for each Brent estate where parking proposals were made including:

The number of residents affected
The number of returns
The number for the suggested scheme
The number against the suggested scheme
The Council’s decision.

 

Brent Council response.

I have attached the information you requested, which is on the attached spreadsheet. 

It shows a breakdown of the results including the amount of properties affected, number of returns, numbers for people that voted for the scheme, numbers that voted against the scheme, undecided votes, numbers of unconfirmed votes, and the council decision based on a majority of those that voted. 

To gather the above information, we proactively reached out to residents to garner their feedback in three main ways:

 

To gather the above information, we proactively reached out to residents to garner their feedback in three main ways: 

• We posted consultation materials to all residents in the proposed areas, with a prepaid envelope to make it as easy as possible to complete the survey and send back their responses.
• A web link was included in the consultation material, so that residents had the option to go to a dedicated web site to complete their survey and respond to the consultation that way.
• Face to face meetings were arranged for residents at locations near their estates to discuss the consultation and respond to the survey.

In addition to the above, we also placed posters of the consultation in communal areas on all estates that were consulted. 

In acknowledgement of the fact that the initial response rate was low, we extended the consultation period by one month to allow time for further engagement.

Basing the decision on a simple majority of those who voted made little allowance for the low response rate. I have added a column to the spreadsheet giving the response rate per number of households consulted.

So for example in  Chichester Rd, Canterbury Court, Gorefield House, Alpha Hs, Cambridge Ct, out of 373 households consulted only 30 responded with 15 for a scheme, 14 against and 1 described as 'unconfirmed'. The majority of one was enough for the council to go ahead with a scheme. Response rate 8.4%.

In  Blake Court, Austin House, Dickens House out of 341 household only 14 responded 5 supported, 7 against and 2 unconfimed ,the Council decided not to have a scheme. Response rate 4.11%.

The largest number of household consulted in one go was Lansbury Cl/Owen Way/Henderson a total of 483. Only 41 responses were returned 8 for, and a more emphatic 33 against.  Response rate 8.04%

Most clusters of households were much smaller so in Petherton Court there were only 2 responses out of 9 and both in favour so a scheme goes ahead.

There may be a lot of people out there who do not know the outcome for their estate which may become a headache for the new crop of councillors.

Out of 91 consultations only 13 parking schemes will be implemented, 65 were rejected and 13 will be consulted on further.

Note Pilgrims Way/Summers Close  result was not provided by Brent and my request has been treated as a  further FOI request! Do let me know if your estate is not included.

Spreadsheet below. Green fill means parking scheme going ahead, yellow it is going for further consulattion, no fill scheme means scheme not going ahead.  All spellings are those of Brent Council. Response rate column has been added by me. Click bottom right-hand corner for full page version. 

The Buttocracy continues in Brent - albeit slightly dented

 

Labour won 86% of the 57 Council seats on just 51% of the votes last night adding to the case for a proportional voting system.

However, the opposition doubled with 5 Conservatives elected (Kenton 3 and Queensbury 2) and Paul Lorber performing a convincing 'Come Back Kid' routine for the Liberal Democrats in Sudbury where Cabiner member Thomas Stephens was defeated, to join Anton Georgiou and his running mate in Alperton.

There had been plenty of nail biting during the final stage of the count when 'mixed votes' are laboriously recorded on tally sheets. These are votes where people give a vote to different parties (sometimes one for each!) rather than vote a party slate.

The Liberal Democrats will now qualify as a party group and like the Conservatives be entitled to seats on some committees although Labour will still have a hefty majority.

Although winning none of the 16 wards in which it stood a single candidate the Greens performed quite strongly in line with the national picture becoming the second or third party in some wards with a total of 7,580 votes. Their highest percentage votes were in Brondesbury Park, Cricklewood and Mapesbury, Willesden Green, Kilburn and Queens Park.

Attention will now turn to the Labour AGM where the new Labour Group will elect the deputy leader and chairs of the two Scrutiny Committees. Cllr Butt will exercise his patronage in other positions including Cabinet and the important Planning Committee.

The Labour Group AGM takes place on Saturday May 14th. The recommendations then will be rubber-stamped at the Council AGM on May 18th (5pm)  along with committee membership, the leadership of the opposition groups and the installation of a new Mayor, widely tipped to be Cllr Tariq Dar.

Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will also be electing their new Group leaders.

Detailed results on a ward by ward basis can be found on the Brent Council website:  LINK

 

Barry Gardiner MP takes up the issue of pollution in the Wealdstone Brook

Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North, in whose constituency some of the sewage pollution of the Wealdstone Brook, has occurred has taken up the issue with the CEO of Thames Water, Sarah Bentley, and the Environment Agency.

Dear Sarah Bentley

 

Re: Pollution Event at the Wealdstone Brook

 

I am concerned that Thames Water claim that the ongoing pollution incident at the Wealdstone Brook is the result of misconnections upstream. You will be aware of the work that your officials have been doing over a number of years with the Brent & Harrow Flooding Working Group which I established with John Timms MBE. Part of this work was to address the problem of misconnections which has blighted the Brook for so long. However, it is clear to us that the current pollution is not the result of domestic or industrial misconnections, but rather of an asset failure on the part of Thames Water. As such it represents a Category 2 Pollution Event and for this reason I am copying Emma Howard Boyd and Sir James Bevan at the Environment Agency to this letter.

 

In one of your recent speeches you were good enough to refer to my constituent, John Timms, and acknowledged that the company had learned a great deal about the local catchment from the monitoring and graphic representations which he had compiled over almost a quarter of a century. Key to his work is the data on water quality and river levels which can indicate when there is a problem with one or more of your assets such as the Dual Manhole Chambers. It is for this reason that we in the Flooding Working Group have not only insisted on the need for a proper separation programme and the need to track misconnections upstream (which your officers have strenuously resisted on cost grounds), but also on the importance of putting Flow Monitors into the surface water sewer at strategic points.

 

You will understand that in the Dual Manhole Chambers where an inspection cap is missing from the surface water sewer, it allows the foul water to back up into the surface resulting in precisely the sort of pollution incident that has afflicted the Wealdstone Brook now since February. The same pollution event can arise from a fracture in the surface water chamber which it is Thames Water’s responsibility to maintain. Had you followed the advice of the Flooding Working Group and installed Flow Monitors as suggested, we believe the latest incident could have been instantly identified and remediated. Their lack has meant that Thames Water has not been able to identify the source of pollution and is putting forward what your officials must surely recognise is a highly unlikely claim that it is the result of domestic misconnections.

 

I am aware that you are seeking to identify the pollution source and work with the riparian Authorities to clear detritus and flush the Brook with clean water to get rid of the toxic smell. I would also ask that you now install the Flow Monitors as requested so that incidents such as this do not keep happening.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Barry Gardiner

Member of Parliament for Brent North

 

Tomorrow is the deadline for submission of completed Referral Forms for the new Brent Music Academy

 Tomorrow is the extended deadline for applications to the new Brent Music Academy:

A new music academy for Brent

Do you know a young person who excels – or has the potential to excel – in music? Or a young person who shows an aptitude or interest in the non-performing side of the industry?

We’re looking for passionate young people playing or making music in any genre or style, or with interests in music production, business or administration, to take part in a pilot programme for a new music academy during May, June and July 2022.

Working with local partners, this new initiative will provide professional-level training across the music industry to young people in Brent regardless of background, prior achievement, financial or other barriers.

Who is it for?

We are looking 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, though young people should consider their skills and interests against the criteria listed in the referral form below to see if the academy will be a good fit for them. 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:

• Performance Pathway – 3x cohorts based on experience:
  • Young people not yet learning/practicing an instrument but demonstrating good musical foundations (Suggested ages: school years 5 – 7)
  • Early career players, learning/practicing an instrument for 1 – 2 years, demonstrating commitment and keenness to learn. Roughly equivalent to ABRSM grades 1 – 2 if relevant. (Suggested ages: school years 5 – 8)
  • Advanced players, with good technical proficiency and an interest in developing further. Roughly equivalent to ABRSM grades 5+ if relevant. (Suggested ages: school years 7 – 11)
• Industry Pathway – 1x cohort for young people aged 14 – 18 years old with an interest in, and desire to explore one or more aspects of the music business, production or administration.

What does the pilot scheme look like?

Pilot activity will depend on whether you are participating in the Performance or Industry pathways.

Performance Pathway students will attend weekend sessions in June and July 2022. Times and Brent locations will be confirmed once students are registered.

Industry Pathway students will attend some weekend sessions during the period, and may also take part in project-based work outside of school time, including during the first week of summer holidays. Project work will allow students to put specific skills into practice. Times and Brent locations for activities will be confirmed once students are registered.

Participants will need to commit to attending as many sessions as possible to take part. 

The sessions will be led by professional musicians and industry workers and facilitated by highly skilled educationalists from diverse backgrounds.

What does it cost? 

There is no cost for attending the music academy during the pilot phase. 

To apply

Young people interested in the academy need to be referred by a teacher, music professional, youth club or group worker, faith leader, social worker or other educational professional using the form below by 6^th May 2022. We are not currently accepting applications from parents or young people themselves; if you are a parent or young person interested in the programme, please speak to a trusted professional and ask them to complete the form on your behalf.

The academy team will be in touch by 13 May 2022 to confirm whether your referral has been successful and with further details. Successful referrals will be invited to take part in ‘taster sessions’ in late May, before joining the Pilot in June and July.

 

REFERRAL FORM LINK

Thames Water deny sewer collapse or finding the cause of sewage in the Wealdstone Brook - the search for the stink goes on as summer approaches

This afternoon Thames Water issued the following statement on yesterday's story that reported claims of a a sewer collapse in St Leonards Avenue, Harrow,  and speculation that this may have been the cause of raw sewage pollution of the Wealdstone Brook.

There is not a collapsed sewer in this area, however we have relined a section of pipe as part of our planned maintenance work in which we proactively inspect the sewers and repair any defects as we go. We do not however believe the section we relined has been leaking into Wealdstone Brook and our investigation into the source of the pollution in the watercourse continues.

BREAKING: Has the cause of the Wealdstone Brook stink been found at last?

NOTE THURSDAY MAY 5TH - SEE SEPARATE POST. THAMES HAVE DENIED A SEWER COLLAPSE IN THE AREA

St Leonards Avenue and Wealdstone Brook from above

After 11 weeks of foul sewage in the Wealdstone Book causing an overpowering stench, not to mention possible dangerous gases, it appeared tonight that the cause may have been found.

McAllisters, hired by Thames Water, are said to have found a collapsed foul sewer on the corner of St Leonards Avenue in Harrow. Thames Water have asked McAllisters to reline it.

 

Enough is enough! Foodbanks urge you to sign the petition to increase benefits by at least 7% to keep pace with inflation

 

In its latest email to supporter Sufra NW write:

 

Even before the additional rise in fuel prices due in October, more and more people are finding it impossible to pay their bills and buy enough food for their families. 

 

Our benefits system should reflect the true cost of living and provide a safety net for the most vulnerable. Instead it’s leaving food banks to pick up the pieces. Sufra has seen an unprecedented level of demand from new food bank users – and so have fellow members of the Independent Food Aid Network.

 

Enough is Enough!

 

This petition calls on the UK Government to urgently increase benefit payments by at least 7% to keep pace with inflation, alongside longer term improvements to the benefits system.

 

The petition is being shared by the Trussell Trust, the Independent Food Aid Network and Feeding Britain.

SIGN THE PETITION HERE

 

The Petition

 

Food banks cannot and should not pick up the pieces of UK government inaction against the rising cost of living. 

 

The cost of living is rising rapidly and increasing numbers of people are finding it impossible to cover their essential costs because their income is insufficient. A perfect storm is here and the future looks bleak with a further rise in fuel prices when the energy price cap rises again in October. People with money worries are turning to charity and being forced to take on debts. People need help now. The benefits system should reflect the true cost of living and ensure it keeps people from falling into hunger and poverty.  

 

The Chancellor has so far failed to provide enough security for people on the very lowest incomes to weather the current storm. With every day of inaction, the food bank where I work prepares for more people to be forced through our doors. Other food banks in the Trussell Trust network and members of the Independent Food Aid Network and the Feeding Britain network are telling the same story. This is no longer about the cost of living - for many, this is about surviving. 

  

The benefits system should reflect the true cost of living; instead it's leaving food banks to pick up the pieces.  And yet for the first time ever, food banks in the Trussell Trust network provided more than 2.1 million food parcels to people across the UK outside of 2020/21, the height of the pandemic. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Food banks and other charitable food aid providers which are part of IFAN and the Feeding Britain network are seeing similar devastating increases. 

 

More and more people are being put at risk of destitution, unable to afford the absolute essentials that we all need to eat, stay warm, dry, and clean. Food banks, food pantries and other food aid providers across the UK are working even harder just to keep families afloat as the essentials we all need in life are becoming increasingly out of reach and many food bank workers are feeling exhausted and over-stretched. This cannot be right.  

 

Enough is enough.  

 

Please sign this petition which calls on the UK Government to urgently increase benefit payments by at least 7% to keep pace with inflation. Longer term, it must introduce a commitment in the benefits system to make sure everyone has enough money in their pockets to prevent destitution.  

 

Steph Maxwell, Uttlesford Foodbank Coordinator  (Trussell Trust Network)

This petition is being shared by the Trussell Trust, the Independent Food Aid Network and Feeding Britain.

 

LETTER: Brent is prioritisng housing targets over community support on Kilburn Square

 Dear Wembley Matters Editor

 

You have previously published reports of the long-running saga of Brent’s “Infill” housing expansion scheme on the Kilburn Square Co-op estate. I’m a near-neighbour, and have friends who live on the estate itself.

 

Despite good words from the Cabinet Housing Lead and various Officers, the project team is now preparing for Planning Application a design that our combined local community still considers as much larger than what the site can reasonably support without transforming its character and damaging the health and wellbeing of current and incoming residents.

 

I find bitterly ironic the contrast between this scheme and a mirror-image story about a current project in Barnet: https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/19937298.residents-lose-latest-fight-save-east-finchley-green-spaces/ . A Council facing acute housing shortages seeks to build houses on green space next to existing homes, in an area deprived of green space, against the protests of residents. Sound familiar? The twist is that this is a Conservative Council; and the Labour group are defending the interests of the current residents…

 

Kilburn Square was a major topic at a Kilburn Ward Zoom Hustings hosted last week by Kilburn Village Residents’ Association and two neighbouring RAs. As the election is almost upon us, I’d like to share with your readers the following Letter which the Brent and Kilburn Times Editor is about to publish

 

Yours sincerely

Nicky Lovick

 

“Dear BKT Editor

 

In the heart of Kilburn, just off the busy and polluted High Road, Brent plans to impose a major housing expansion scheme – currently 144 extra units - on a well-balanced and mature estate that a Brent Housing Officer has described to our MP as “brilliant”. Our local community is incensed.  Here’s the story:

 

·      On its Kilburn Square estate, Brent Council has been seeking for over 18 months to design a scheme for further housing expansion, that “can work for everyone” and “balances” the acute need for new social housing with protecting the health and wellbeing of existing residents

·      Engagement last Summer produced near-unanimous rejection of the scale of the original scheme by estate residents and neighbours

·      In agreeing to design a smaller scheme, Brent acknowledged three major objections: a new tower, the loss of Trees and Green Space, and the much-increased density of residents.

·      It is now preparing a Planning Application for a scheme (its “Approach A”) https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16420113/kilburn-square-newsletter-issue-2-2022.pdf  that addresses only one of these (the tower)…

·      …and retains two new blocks that would remove green space and mature trees, aggravate an existing deficit of Amenity Space and increase the resident population by 67% vs 2019

·      Kilburn Ward is in the most deprived category for green space in the whole Borough – and the Climate Strategy is supposed to INCREASE green space, not remove it

·      A three-month Council engagement effort, with tightly constrained options and the exclusion of trusted Independent Advisors Source Partnership, identified only 10% of estate residents willing to express any support for Approach A

·      Brent has sought to exclude the local community from debate before fixing the project scale, despite representations from the Kilburn Square Stakeholder Group (KSSG) and over 50 recent emails from concerned neighbours seeking a smaller scheme

·      Lack of any serious communication going to ALL neighbouring streets means many close neighbours are still in total ignorance of the expansion plan

 

For more details, see https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/03/letter-response-to-cllr-southwoods.html

 

Brent’s Housing Director has said publicly they “would not want to force homes on anyone, so where they had built had been with the support and encouragement of local residents and Ward Councillors”. Empty words in relation to Kilburn Square!

 

Estate residents and neighbours alike acknowledge the social housing crisis and will accept SOME further development – but this scheme is still too big, and unfair to current estate residents.   

 

Wouldn’t it be great if all candidates standing in Kilburn (Brent) Ward would promise that, if elected, they will NOT support a Planning Application for the scheme in its current shape, and will work closely with the KSSG and all their electors to propose a more balanced and fairer scheme…?

 

At a Ward Hustings last week, hosted by three Residents’ Associations, three Party speakers agreed with that sentiment… and one did not. I’ll leave your readers to guess which one.

 

Nicky Lovick

Brondesbury Road resident (name and address supplied)”