BREAKING: NATIONAL TRUST DON'T TRUST TRUSS

Released today:

Hilary McGrady, Director General of the National Trust, said:

The National Trust has a long history of standing up for nature and our countryside, from our founders' campaigns to protect the Lake District to Operation Neptune in the 1960s. We've shaped and advocated for greater protections for nature and heritage throughout our long history, safeguarding the landscapes that make this country so special. 

It is this spirit that I am writing today. We are at a crucial moment for our natural environment. Nature is in decline and we need bold action on climate change. These concerns are shared by the public: poll upon poll show that further ambition on Net Zero and nature are widely supported.

Rather than ramp up action to support our environment, this Government appears however to be heading in the opposite direction. Environmental protections are dismissed as 'burdens', whilst investment and growth are pitted against nature and climate action. 

The new Investment Zones represent a free-for-all for nature and heritage, yet we know that green spaces and beauty are vital to attract investment and for a good quality of life. Likewise a rumoured return to EU-style land subsidies will squander one of the biggest Brexit opportunities for nature, fatally undermining improvements to the nature, soil and water upon which sustainable food production depends

The Trust will always defend protections for nature and heritage, and we will respond in full to any proposals. The UK has led the way in recent years on environment action - from farm subsidy reform to COP26. It mustn't abandon this for our future's sakes.

All quiet at the Ealing Road Mandir earlier today

 

The Mandir and its compound

Earlier what appeared to be a briefing took place in a corner of the compound

Police at the entrance

I visited the Mandir in Ealing Road when social media had said a demonstration was due to take place. All was quiet and although there were many people in the compound at first, they dispersed when no demonstrators turned up. 

Police told me that they were there to reassure the temple worshippers. Some stayed near the entrance and others patrolled nearby parts of Ealing Road. 

Across the road a minister and some of the congregation from the church that is opposire the Mandir were keeping a sympathetic eye on events. A local stopped to ask me what was going on and he firmly rejected divisive religious politics, pointing to all the different places of worship for different religions on Ealing Road. He added that what was going on in India should not be imported into Wembley.

I left at 1pm and I hope that things remained peaceful.

Muhammed Butt calls for unity in the face of attempts to cause community conflict. Barry Gardiner urges community to leave intervention to the police. Police step up patrols of places of worship.

Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council,  took to social media this morning to call for unity in the face of rumours concerning possible demonstrations outside places of workship today. He said:

Brent Council is a great example of our communities living and working together for a future full of hope and ambition for all. There is no space for hatred or division in Brent. Those who conspire for hate and division you are not welcome. We will be United against your hatred.

Brent Council had earlier issued a video appeal from faith leaders  on Twitter - unfortunately the sound is poor. LINK

 

The rumours started about a possible demonstration outside the Mandir in Ealing Road, Wembley  which Valent Projects was unable to trace but cited attempts by  'foreign networks' aimed at causing sectarian strife.

 

 

Veteran councillor Tariq Dar also intervened on social media appealing to the Muslim community:

Barry Gardiner MP yesterday advised the community to leave matters to the police:

 

I’ve contacted the police about the incitement to demonstrate at a Hindu temple in my constituency tomorrow. Anyone thinking of demonstrating should stay away and recognise that hate crimes carry jail sentences. Hindus should not go to “defend” the mandir. That is the police job.

An intervention by Bob Blackman, Harrow East Conservative MP , in a letter to the new Home Secretary, Suella Barverman last week, appeared to be unhelpfully one-sided:

 

 

 Brent police yetserday said they were aware of the rumours and today stepped up patrols on Brent places of worship and tweeted a photograph of police at the Ealing Road Mandir.

Cllr Anton Georgiou, an Alperton councillor, was on the case early on and had written to his ward constituents:

I am very concerned about the events in Leicester that have been raised with me by several residents in Alperton and across the borough. It is disturbing to see tensions escalate in this way. No one should live in fear of the possibility of being attacked or harmed based on ethnicity or religious belief. 

 

On Thursday, at a meeting with senior Police officers, including the Borough Commander, Sara Leach this issue was raised. The Police are aware that from Monday many in our area will begin Navratri celebrations. The Police have been provided with details of events. This coming Wednesday there will be a meeting between the Police and members of the community which I hope will reassure all on the steps the Police will be taking to guarantee residents are safeguarded over this Festival period and as we also approach Diwali next month.

 

 I have already reported the possibility that a demonstration will take place tomorrow outside the Mandir on Ealing Road to the Police and Chief Executive of Brent Council. A resident had already sent me this information. When I hear back, I can update. 

 

Be assured, I will continue to do what I can to highlight this issue. If you receive any further messages or details of any demonstrations taking place in Brent please let me know in the first instance, as I will inform the Police immediately.

Rokesby Place – Brent tries to justify its planning malpractice

 Guest blog by Philip Grant, in a personal capacity.

 

Architect’s drawing of the two infill houses for the Rokesby Place car park.

 

I will try not to make this guest post too long, as I will ask Martin to attach two long letters at the end of it. But I hope that as many “Wembley Matters” readers as possible will take the trouble to read this, and the letters. This is a follow-up to my article earlier this month, which included my letter of complaint to Brent’s Chief Executive over alleged planning malpractice.

 

The letters are about the level of rent which the future tenants of two “affordable” New Council Homes on an infill scheme at Rokesby Place will have to pay. More importantly, though, they deal with the way in which Brent’s Planning Officers went against the rules meant to ensure that the Council’s own planning applications are dealt with impartially and transparently – and how they have tried to justify the actions they took.

 

Extract from the Rokesby Place planning application, 22/1400.

 

The planning application for Brent’s Rokesby Place “infill” housing scheme was made in April 2022, and was quite clear that the two houses would be for Social Rent. But when the Officer Report was prepared on the application, for the Planning Committee meeting in August, no mention was made of Social Rent, and the “affordable housing” condition in the draft consent letter said that the homes must ‘be delivered as London Affordable Rent units’. 

 

There was nothing in the published documents to show how or why Social Rent had been changed to the more expensive London Affordable Rent (“LAR”). I had to issue an FoI request to uncover that information. This led to the first part of my 5 September complaint, that there was no reason for, and no justification for, any change from Social Rent to LAR, and Planning Officers had been wrong to change it.

 

I received the reply to my complaint letter from Carolyn Downs on 16 September, but I believe it was probably drafted for her by the top officer(s) in Brent’s Planning Department. This was the reason given for why they recommended LAR, rather than the Social Rent level shown by the application they were asking Planning Committee to approve:

 

Extract from the letter of 16 September from Brent’s Chief Executive.

 

I have set out my response to that in my letter of 22 September below. Briefly, Planning Officers should not be changing what an application says just because they think it should be different, to do so for one of Brent’s own applications (although why, when it’s a Council application, was the Project Manager ‘the applicant’?) was not being impartial, and no ‘clarification’ was needed, because the application was clearly for Social Rent!

 

The action which Planning Officers took raises serious concerns for other Council housing schemes, especially a number of forthcoming “infill” schemes (Newland Court, Kilburn Square, Clement Close, to name just a few): 

 

·      Will they treat other applications for Social Rent housing (as recommended by the Brent Poverty Commission Report, and as supposed to be provided under the GLA’s 2021-26 affordable housing programme) as if they should be for LAR? 

 

·      Will they interfere with other details which have been published in the application documents, and recommend different conditions to Planning Committee, without disclosing that they’ve done so?

 

Even though they had failed the “transparency” requirement in the Local Government Association’s “Probity in Planning” guidance, by not telling Planning Committee that the application was for Social Rent, the Council’s view was that members, when making their decision, ‘were aware that the application was originally for the provision of Social Rented homes.’ I could hardly believe the reason they offered to justify this:

 

Second extract from the letter of 16 September from Brent’s Chief Executive.

 

This was the conclusion which Brent’s Chief Executive came to (on the advice of Senior Planning Officers) in response to my complaint(s):

 

The conclusion from the letter of 16 September.

 

I have not accepted that conclusion, for reasons set out in detail in my letter of 22 September. In case you don’t feel like reading it in full, here are some paragraphs from near the end of it which sum-up my position:

 

‘Planning Officers seem to take the view that as Social Rent and LAR are, on the present figures, ‘very, very similar’, then it does not matter whether the affordable housing provided is one or the other. That would not matter for compliance with policy BH5, but as I pointed out in my letter of 5 September, it would matter for the tenants of the two new homes at Rokesby Place. 

 

As you quoted, from the Brent Local Plan Glossary, these affordable homes will be ‘for those whose needs are not met by the market.’ They will be Brent families in housing need, quite probably on limited incomes. By charging them LAR rent levels, rather than Social Rent, even on present figures, they will have to pay £772.20 a year more. As the annual rent increases for these two types of affordable housing are linked to CPI, by the time the houses are built each tenant will have to find nearer £1,000 a year more if LAR is charged, rather than Social Rent.

 

If a planning application states that the affordable housing tenure will be Social Rent, that complies with policy BH5, and should not be changed without good reason. And if there are reasons for changing from Social Rent to LAR, they need to be set out transparently, both for the Planning Committee and the public. That was not done on this application, so even if Brent Council believes it achieved the “right” answer, the way it was achieved was wrong. So wrong that it needs to be put right.

 

I hope you can now agree that the new Brent Council affordable housing at Rokesby Place must be for Social Rent, as applied for on the Council’s behalf under application 22/1400.’

 

I’m putting this correspondence “in the public domain”, so that anyone interested can read it and make up their own minds. If you agree that something has gone wrong here, please feel free to write to your local councillors about it, with a copy to carolyn.downs@brent.gov.uk .

 

Philip Grant.

 The letters - click bottom right corner for full page version.

Green Neighbourhoods Climate Fair - Kingsbury, Saturday 11am - 4pm

 

From Brent Council

Want to find out more about what we're doing in our Green Neighbourhoods in Kingsbury? Come along to our climate fair to get involved!

We will be joining forces with Barnhill Conservation Group's Open Day and holding our Kingsbury Climate Fair in Roe Green Walled Garden on Saturday 24 September from 11am - 4pm.

There will be a host of activities including an upcycling workshop, learn how to grow plants in small spaces, tips on reducing food waste and find out all about bees. You can also enjoy homemade baked goods in one of Brent's hidden gems! 

Residents can still have their say on the Green Neighbourhood pilots via our online surveys and interactive maps by clicking here. Engagement ends on 31 October.

For further details, please contact Brent Council's Climate Team by emailing climateemergency@brent.gov.uk.

Residents attempt to hold Brent Cabinet members to account with public questions. Did they succeed?

Useful information for Grendon Gardens residents re trees on the border with Newland Court

 The belt of Grendon Gardens trees that border Newland Court clearly visible in this satellite view

 

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity 

TREES:

I have not yet had chance to look at the planning application documents, but there is some information I can share with potential objectors to the Newland Court development, based on personal knowledge from having to advise a relative who used to live in the Barn Hill Conservation Area.

The boundary of the Conservation Area runs along the back fence/wall at Newland Court, with all of the back gardens, AND all the trees in them, of Grendon Gardens within the Conservation Area.

Para. 6.5, "Natural Environment", of Brent's Barn Hill Conservation Area Character Appraisal includes the following statement:

 

 

'Barn Hill has a very green character defined by the relatively densely planted trees to garden boundaries and along the roads of the estate. Species such as Cherry, Purple Plumb, Hawthorn, Oak and Ash proliferate. These trees help to provide a natural framing for views in and out of the area and between buildings. These trees are an essential part of the character of the area and the mix of deciduous and coniferous trees is part of the now prevailing character.'

 

The Barn Hill Conservation Area design guide, at para. 5.3, "Trees", in the "Gardens" section, says:

 

'All trees in the Barn Hill Conservation Area that have a diameter greater than 75mm [that's about 3 inches], measured at a height of 1.5m [about 5 feet], are protected. You will need permission to carry out even the most minor of work to a tree. It is always best to contact Planning & Development for advice on the best way to protect the trees in your garden.'

If you are a Grendon Gardens resident who has trees at the bottom of your garden, backing onto Newland Court and Brent's proposed development site, you might want to contact Brent Council's Tree Protection Officer (I wouldn't personally recommend contacting Planning!), and seek her advice on how the trees in your garden should be protected. 

 

Ask for her advice in writing, and quote it as part of your objection to Brent's planning application, if you wish to object to it.

Email address:  Julie.hughes@brent.gov.uk

High Court challenge on PEEPs (Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans) gets the go ahead

 From Disability News Service

Two campaigners have won permission from the high court to challenge the government’s refusal to ensure that all disabled people can safely evacuate from high-rise blocks of flats in emergencies.

Georgie Hulme and Sarah Rennie, co-founders of the disabled-led leaseholder action group Claddag and both of them wheelchair-users who live in high-rise buildings, have been told they can apply for a judicial review of the decision made by former home secretary Priti Patel.

Patel rejected the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s recommendation that all owners and managers of high-rise residential buildings should be forced to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for all residents who might find it difficult to “self-evacuate”.

That rejection – on the grounds of “practicality”, “proportionality” and “safety” – came despite a promise from prime minister Boris Johnson that he would implement all the recommendations from the inquiry’s first phase.

Hulme and Rennie have now been granted permission to seek a judicial review of the decision and have been told they have an “arguable” case.

It is hoped the court will hear their legal challenge by the end of the year.

The judge who heard their application has also agreed to cap their costs, so if they lose their case they will have to pay a maximum of £20,000 towards Home Office costs, as well as court fees that are likely to be no more than £1,500.

Claddag has so far raised nearly £16,000 through a crowdfunding appeal, but still needs to raise about another £5,500 to continue with the case.

Claddag’s solicitors, Bhatt Murphy, are working on a “no win no fee” basis, and if Rennie and Hulme are successful with their case, all the unused donations will be returned.

Hulme told Disability News Service: 

“Whilst the permission for a hearing is great news, the fact that the government needs to be held to account in this way is sadly another example of how it considers disabled, deaf and older people’s lives as less worthy.

“We appreciate the devastating impacts of both the cost of living and the building safety crises, but any small donation will help us, as a community, to get our day in court.”

The government’s rejection of the PEEPs recommendation came even though those who responded to a consultation on the proposal overwhelmingly supported their introduction.