Barry Gardiner intervenes in Newland Court planning application issues

 

Barry Gardiner has written to Brent Council CEO regarding concerns over the Council's planning application for Newland Court in Wembley Park:

Dear Ms Downs,

 

Our Ref: WL / ZA36316

Newland Court Garages, Forty Avenue, Wembley – Planning Application Reference: 22/3124
Alternative Reference: PP-11328951

 

I write on behalf of a number of constituents regarding their concerns for the planning proposals at Newland Court. I would ask that this correspondence be considered as part of the formal consultation.

 

As you are aware, I do not normally intervene in planning matters unless they have major infrastructure implications or where there is a suggestion that there may have been a failure of process.

 

In the case of Newland Court I refer to Brent’s Responsible Growth Strategy and Borough Plan. They set out a number of themes primarily: affordability, equity, sustainability and inclusivity. I am concerned that these themes may not have been sufficiently considered during the consultation process.

 

The proposed reduction of parking spaces from 40 to 12, will certainly affect the existing residents of the 60 flats at Newland Court.

 

I understand there are at least 5 disabled blue badge users living in Newland Court. It is my understanding that there are no plans to provide disabled parking bays. One of the primary benefits of disabled parking is that it ensures disabled residents have ease of access to their property. I am concerned that the accessibility of Newland Court for disabled residents will be severely restricted. This relates to the principle of inclusivity.

 

Many residents in Newland Court are reliant on vehicles for their work, and their salary does not typically permit a sudden increase in monthly outgoings. I am concerned that there may be significant financial implications for these groups should they be forced to seek parking elsewhere, aside from the inconvenience and impact it will have on their employment. This relates to the principle of affordability.

 

Security has been a long-standing issue at Newland Court and Grendon Gardens, particularly in relation to non-residents using communal areas and engaging in anti-social behaviour. I am concerned that the proposals will encourage greater use of the area and lead to increased problems of unauthorised access impacting on the security of vulnerable residents.

 

I am also informed that there have been long-standing issues at Newland Court and Grendon Gardens regarding refuse collection and that the proposal would reduce the number of refuse bins from 14 to 6. Given that the current bins already regularly overflow residents are unhappy with this aspect of the proposal. This relates to the principle of sustainability.

 

Please advise what weight was given to residents’ concerns in this regard when considering this application and how it conforms to the principles set out in the Borough Plan and Brent’s Responsible Growth Strategy.

 

Thank you for your attention to this matter and I look forward to your response.

 

Yours sincerely,

Barry Gardiner

Member of Parliament for Brent North

 

Only limited response by Labour Group members to Whip's survey aimed at listening to them

Brent Labour Whip, Steve Crabb, is trying hard to improve 2-way communication with his Labour Group colleagues, with limited success.

A recent survey of the 49 strong group achieved only 27 responses. 

Of the 27 most felt the length of Labour Group meetings and content  was about right but wanted more financial debate and data that would help them measure the Council's performance standards.

Ahead of the Labour Group Away Day, that will include a personality assessment, ('how our character, our outlook and our lived experience, shape the way we work individually and as part of a team;) the survey found only 8 members had not undertaken any personality questionnaire  and 11 had completed the Myers Brigg test LINK.

Brent MP to speak at West London Enough is Enough! Rally at Willesden Green Mosque, Friday November 11th 7pm

 

Brent Central Labour MP, Dawn Butler is to speak at the West London Enough is Enough! Rally on Friday, alongside Mick Lynch of the RMT and Jo Grady of the UCU.

Reserve FREE tickets HERE. 

The Rally begins at 7pm. The Mosque (Central Mosque of Brent)  is at the end of Station Parade.  Turn left when you leave Willesden Green station and walk along Station Parade,  parallel with the tube line.

 

 

Another blow for Brent Council's Newland Court in-fill scheme as Brent Transportation recommends 'resistance' to the plans

 Brent Transportation has submitted  comments that support the objections of local Newland Court and  Grendon Gardens residents over the effect of the application on parking. These are some key extracts:

'When coupled with future demand from the proposed houses, it is likely that 31-35 cars would seek parking within the estate. With only 12 spaces proposed, a considerable amount of parking would be displaced onto surrounding streets.'

'The only locations with reasonable parking capacity are Barn Rise and Grendon Gardens, but only limited stretches of these roads are within a 200m walk from the development. As such, there is considered to be insufficient spare on-street capacity to accommodate displaced car parking from this development.'

The conclusion is:

'RECOMMENDATIONS:- This proposal should be resisted as it stands, on the grounds that the development would add to on-street parking demand in an area that is unable to safely accommodate a significant amount parking, to the detriment of on-street parking conditions and contrary to Local Plan Policy BT2.'

This follows critical comments LINK by Julie Hughes, Brent Principal  Trees Officer that also

I have significant concerns relating to the impact that this development will have on protected trees…it is my belief that there will still be a significant amount of pressure on the Council to allow works to lop, top and fell trees which are currently protected by virtue of growing within the Conservation Area boundary, if the proposals go ahead as planned. The current spread of the trees is as would be expected for trees of this maturity, although it is likely that the Lime trees forming G4 and G6 will be re-pollarded at intervals. The construction of these dwellings in such close proximity to these trees is likely to lead to future pressure to lop, top or fell these trees due to concerns from the residents for their safety and for other associated general nuisance issues.

 
The scale of the proposed units is such that there is very minimal useable amenity space most of which will be overhung by tree canopies, as will most of the units.

In summary I have some significant concerns regarding the increased pressure that will be placed on the Council to permit lopping, topping or felling the trees within the rear gardens of Grendon Gardens, and the impact that this will have on both the visual amenity of the local area, and specifically the adjacent Barn Hill Conservation Area,

The full Brent Transportion report  is below:

 

 Philip Grant has been campaigning energetically on this blog and in correspondence with Brent Council for planning applications from the Council itself, to its own Planning Committee, should be treated  with probity and subject to the same scrutiny and standards as applications from external developers.

When Wembley went to the dogs!

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

 

A few weeks ago, during cleaning work by Wembley Park in Olympic Way, some black paint or plastic peeled off of a wall. At first the workers thought they’d uncovered a picture of a rabbit. Then someone realised it was a hare, and that it might be something to do with the greyhound racing which used to take place at the old Wembley Stadium. 

 

Sure enough, further removal of the black coating over the tiles revealed the greyhounds, and a scene which was part of the original 1993 Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals. This part of the design used the slope of the ramp down from Bridge Road on the east side of Olympic Way. Unfortunately, all three greyhounds were partly hidden behind steps which TfL had installed in 2006, as part of pedestrian access improvements ahead of the opening of the new stadium.

 

Two views of the greyhound racing tile mural, October 2022.

 

Greyhound racing played a very important part in Wembley’s history, as without it, the stadium built for the British Empire Exhibition might not have survived the 1920s. I shared the story of how Arthur Elvin saved the stadium from demolition in Part 4 of The Wembley Park Story, in 2020. 

 

A single-day “booking”, for the F.A. Cup Final, would not have paid the cost of the stadium’s upkeep each year. But Elvin saw the potential of a new sport, which had proved popular since its introduction to England at Belle Vue, Manchester, in 1926. The clue was in the name of the company through which he, with friends, purchased the stadium from the Exhibition’s liquidator: Wembley Stadium and Greyhound Racecourse Company Ltd.

 

On top of the £122,500 they paid for the empty concrete building, the company spent a further £90,000 on improvements to the stadium facilities, and on the track, lighting and kennels. They started to see a return on their investment when over 50,000 people turned up for the first evening of greyhound racing on 10 December 1927.

 

Greyhound racing at Wembley Stadium, December 1927. (From an old book).

 

Part of the appeal of greyhound racing was that it was more accessible to ordinary people than horse racing, often seen as “the sport of Kings” and the upper classes. But the big greyhound tracks wanted to keep some of the horse racing glamour. White City Stadium had already set up its “Greyhound Derby”, so Elvin introduced a competition called the “Greyhound St Leger”, which became the sport’s long-distance autumn “classic”, and a Wembley Gold Cup.

 

An advertisement for and photo of greyhound racing at Wembley in the 1930s.

 

A 1937 poster for Wembley Stadium as “The Ascot of Greyhound Racing”. (Image from the internet)

 

With up to three evening’s racing a week, 1.5 million people had passed through the stadium’s turnstiles in the first year. Part of the attraction was that strict controls at Wembley meant the races were fair (unlike at some of the smaller, less regulated tracks), so that punters could be sure the results of each six-runner race were honest, and the betting was not “fixed”. Another attraction was that Wembley always put on a good show.

 

A parade of the greyhounds before a race. (Brent Archives – Wembley History Society Collection)

 

 
Uniformed attendants open the traps at the start of a race.

(This and remaining images from an old book)

 

Some of the most important greyhound racing meetings were held on a Saturday evening. But what about when this clashed with an F.A. Cup Final? No problem, as far as Arthur Elvin was concerned. The Cup Final always kicked-off at 3pm, and there was no extra time or penalty shoot-outs in those days. As soon as the Cup had been presented and the spectators had left, 400 men (Elvin among them, with his sleeves rolled up) would be clearing the tons of litter, restocking the bar and refreshment kiosks, and putting up the lighting around the track, ready for the evening’s race meeting at 8pm.

 

Three leading greyhounds approach the finish in a tight race.

 

The original Wembley greyhound track was 463 yards long and on grass. The artificial hare which the greyhounds chased was electrically powered, and ran on a rail around the inside of the track, at speeds up to 40mph (64 kilometres an hour). Some races were held during the Second World War, in daylight (because of the “blackout”), but a number of dogs were killed when a V1 flying bomb landed on the kennels, just to the north-east of the stadium, in 1944.

 

When the 1948 Olympic Games were held at the stadium, greyhound racing was suspended for a few weeks. The greyhound track had to be dug up, to prepare a cinder track for the athletics events, and after this Wembley had a sand track 436½ yards (399 metres) around, with its hare on the outside.

 

Preparing the running track for the 1948 Olympic Games.

 

From the 1950s onwards, greyhound racing at Wembley continued two or three times a week, all year-round. It was still very popular, and attracted large crowds, not just from the local area. It was so popular that when the football World Cup was held in England in 1966, one of the Group 1 matches, France v Uruguay on 16 July, had to be played at the White City Stadium, because Wembley refused to cancel its regular Friday evening greyhound meeting!

 

A greyhound race over hurdles at the Wembley track.

 

However, by the 1990s fewer people were attending greyhound racing, and the Wembley track began to make a loss. The news that the ageing stadium was going to be demolished, and a new one built, hastened the end of a sport at Wembley which had lasted for over 70 years. The last greyhound racing meeting was held there on 18 December 1998.

 

Do you have any memories of “going to the dogs” at Wembley Stadium? If so, please share them in a comment below.

 

Philip Grant.

SCANDAL UPDATE: Brent Council's remediation costs for Granville New Homes, puchased from Higgins for £17.1m, could rise to £22m plus VAT. Number of residents due to be decanted during works is uncertain.

 

The buildings known collectively as Granville New Homes sold by builders Higgins to Brent Council for £17.1m now look likely to cost Brent Council taxpayers  £20m-£22m to bring up to standard. Market conditions, including the cost of materials means that officers warn the council that costs could rise further. If more people have to be decanted than allowed for whilst works go on, that will also add to costs.

The whole thing is a scandal and a nightmare for residentts and tenants in which Higgins seem to have got away scot free. They have even been given additional work by Brent Council:

 

The report going to Cabinet on November 14th clearly outlines the poor quality of the build:

4.0  Survey Findings

4.1  There are two main issues with the blocks. These are the water ingress at various locations in the blocks and uncertainty about the fire rating of the external and internal walls and floors. These two issues are interlinked as they are generally related to the same construction elements. Thus, both issues will be resolved in tandem.

Fire Safety

4.2  The fire risk assessment for the blocks, and the subsequent intrusive investigations have identified that the construction is poor. The blocks have two distinct methods of cladding. One is formed of cementitious panels and the other is of brick effect panels. Both of these appear to have a variety of insulation materials, including expanded polystyrene, mineral wool and void spaces. Because of this, the fire rating of the blocks is uncertain. However, they will certainly not comply with current building regulations and are unlikely to have complied with the class 0 requirements at the time of construction.

4.3  The panels and insulation will require to be removed and replaced with A1 or A2 rated materials to comply with building regulations.

Water Penetration

4.4  The properties have suffered from water penetration for many years. Attempts at remediation have been unsuccessful.

4.5  Ridge Consultants were commissioned to undertake an intrusive survey of the blocks and to identify any significant areas of defect.

4.6  Ridge’s findings are as follows:-

o The external envelopes on these buildings have been constructed from relatively inexpensive materials and there is evidence of poor-quality workmanship.

o There is a lack of information available, relating to the original build and it is clear that what has been installed on site has not worked.

o The doors and windows are suffering rot and timber decay, which is not, a defect readily associated with buildings of this age.

o The horizontal surfaces to the external envelopes (roofs, balconies and walkways) have been poorly finished.

o A further note is that none of the components that have been installed should have failed because of age.

4.7  Ridge’s recommendations are as follows:

o   ·  The defects noted in relation to the buildings’ external envelopes are not easily repairable in a way that will offer a guaranteed and satisfactory solution. On this basis, the only available option is to replace the facades, roof coverings and balcony waterproofing systems.

o   ·  All specified systems and products will have long insurance backed guarantees. All designers and the main contractor will provide warranties. The Council’s legal team will review these before making any appointments.

 

4.8  A key to being able to complete these works without decanting residents is being able to work without disturbing the internal blockwork leaf of the system. It is likely that once the cladding is removed, the blockwork wall behind it will remain intact. This may mean that not all residents require being decanted. Only vulnerable residents may require decanting.

Energy Efficiency

4.9  As a consequence of the fire safety works specification. The energy efficiency rating of the properties will also be improved.

5.0  Works undertaken to Date

5.1  It was identified that the blocks have suffered from a number of defects, which included fire safety issues, water penetration, window and cladding defects.

5.2  In addition to the above the Fire Brigade served FWH with Enforcement Notices, which led to a waking watch to be introduced in the blocks.

5.3  A comprehensive communal and dwelling interlinked fire alarm system has been installed into the properties. This has now been set up with alarm monitoring arrangements.

5.4  In addition, combustible materials have been removed from communal areas and additional fire stopping has being installed. The waking watch has been removed as the alarm monitoring has been commissioned and now in use.

5.5  The fire alarm system will be monitored in order that any suspected smoke or fire is alerted to the London Fire Brigade.

6.0  Budget Requirements

6.1  The nature of the works is significant and therefore costly. The estimated cost of the works and associated works and consultancy services is £19,870,804. This includes costs associated with supporting more vulnerable residents such as respite care and temporary decanting, inflation and a contingency. The works are high risk and the market is currently extremely volatile in terms of costs and pricing, hence the large contingency. In addition, it is prudent at this stage to make provision for the potential decant of a significant number of residents who may not be vulnerable but who may not be able to stay in their homes during some or all of the works. Therefore, Cabinet is requested to allocate £22M plus VAT to this project.

6.2 The difference in cost from the 6 December Cabinet report is due to ongoing uncertain market cost conditions, and the addition of VAT. Some allowance has been made for ongoing building cost inflation. However, due to several uncertainties in the marketplace and world events, there may be further building cost increases. Cabinet will be advised of this should this become apparent during the course of the project.

 HISTORICAL INFORMATION

Brent Executive Plans including Wembley and South Kilburn when there was a Liberal Democrat-Conservative Coalition LINK

Impact Needs Assessment completed by Robert Johnson, then Housing and Community Care Project Manager, South Kilburn, now a Labour councillor.  LINK

Reponse to a Freedom of Information Request re the South Kilburn Redevelopment LINK

London boroughs in 2023-24 will face the most challenging financial outlook they have experienced since 2010. Tough choices ahead.

A Parliamentary Briefing by London Councils ('The Voice of London Local Government') sets out in stark terms the choices (or lack of them) that local council, including Brent, will be facing next financial year:

London boroughs have suffered from chronic underfunding for far too long. Boroughs’ overall resources are now 22% lower in real terms than in 2010 – even though there are now 10% more Londoners (almost 800,000) to serve.

The Covid-19 pandemic added £3 billion of financial pressures to London boroughs in 2020-21 and 2021-22 but these were largely funded by national government. However, the high demand pressures in many services haven’t subsided, especially within homelessness, services for children with special educational needs and disabilities, children’s social care, and – most significantly – in adult social care. The impact of long covid, interaction with the huge NHS backlog, and increasing delayed transfers into adult social care, is leading to overspending.

Outer London boroughs, as the lowest funded authorities per capita in the country, have particularly few resources to alleviate these growing pressures.

Rising inflation and cost-of-living pressures

The energy crisis, soaring inflation, the increase in the National Living Wage and cost-of-living pressures on residents have added huge additional financial pressures to London boroughs’ budgets.

Despite the 7% increase in core spending power from the 2022-23 local government finance settlement, London boroughs need to make up to £400 million of savings this year.

That funding gap will almost double to more than £700 million next year (2023-24), based on the plans set out by the government’s most recent Spending Review. The scale of the challenge is colossal.

For context, £700 million is equivalent to:

• What London boroughs spend in total on public health each year (£703m)
• More than London boroughs spend on homelessness and housing services (£615m)
• Retrofitting 27,000 homes to help achieve London’s net zero goal
• Delivering 46,000 apprenticeships to boost young Londoners’ skills and employment opportunities
• A year of care for 64,000 Londoners in nursing homes.

Local authorities are highly dependent on central government funding. There is no realistic way that boroughs could currently raise the £700 million through other means. If boroughs were to try raising the £700 million from London’s council taxpayers, council tax bills would need to rise by around 18%. Without a significant increase in funding, a further £700 million will be required in 2024-25 and 2025-26.

In total, the forecast funding gap is £2.4 billion over the next four years – which is almost £1 billion higher than London boroughs were planning for a year ago. This is the most challenging outlook boroughs have faced since 2010. Any further cuts to council funding will make the situation even tougher.

Difficult decisions for London boroughs

There is no painless way for London boroughs to make savings on the scale required. Any low hanging fruit and basic efficiencies are long gone. Staff numbers have been reduced by a third (80,000) since 2010. Many boroughs have delivered significant transformational programmes, which can only be done once.

London boroughs have worked hard to protect their budgets, but many now face the prospect of having to make severe cutbacks to vital services including bin collections and filling potholes, social care for adults and children, support for low-income households and preventing homelessness.

To deal with this challenge, boroughs are now starting to discuss some incredibly tough choices which they haven’t had to do before. These include:

• Cutting back adults and children’s social care packages to the statutory minimum 
• Cutting back community safety and domestic violence to the statutory minimum 
• Cutting back homelessness services to the statutory minimum 
• Cutting voluntary sector funding 
• Cutting back youth services 
• Withdrawal from the delivery of adult social care day services  
• Withdrawal from the delivery of leisure services  
• Reductions in Home to School transport 
• Turning off street lighting 
• Less frequent waste collection
• Less frequent street cleansing
• Reducing public health support on obesity, and smoking cessation
• Increasing parking charges
• Significant asset rationalisation

How the government can help to protect local services

Cuts to council services will damage our communities. However, they will also undermine the government’s ambitions to boost economic growth, level up the country, and help residents through the cost-of-living crisis.

The pandemic showed what London boroughs could do when adequately funded and given the powers to deliver more for our residents. We need the same partnership approach between central and local government for tackling cost-of-living pressures.

We’re therefore asking for local government to be protected from further cuts by increasing business rates and grant funding in line with inflation next year. The government must stick to the funding plans set out in the Spending Review at the very least, rather than make any further reductions to council budgets.

Boroughs desperately need more certainty over longer-term funding to ensure public money is spent well. Despite the three-year Spending Review, local government only had a one-year settlement (effectively for the fourth year in succession), and there continues to be no clarity about plans for wider reforms to local government funding.

We’re asking for the government to confirm a two-year local government finance settlement and publish it as soon as possible.

Amy Leppänen, Parliamentary Officer

amy.leppanen@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Technical consultancy contract worth £383.5k awarded for Strathcona site's expansion to accommodate 2 forms of Islamia Primary School

Minesh Patel, Brent's Corporate Directot, Finance and Resources, today awarded the £383,554.18 technical consultancy contract to expand the Strathcona site to accommodate Islamia Primary School.

The full professional fees budget  is £0.9m out of a total budget for the project of £10m.

The Islamia Governing Board's consultation about the school's highly contested move from Queen's Park to Preston is still going on but the tendering process began in August 2022. 

The Officer's report states:

Islamia Primary School, currently based at Salusbury Road, has been served
notices to vacate by the Yusuf Islam Foundation, as owners of the site where
Islamia Primary School is currently based by July 2024. The Strathcona site is
a vacant site previously occupied by a primary school (the “Strathcona Site”)
following Cabinet approval in 2019 to close Roe Green Strathcona School by
July 2022 because of falling pupil numbers. The Strathcona Site has been
identified as having development opportunities to increase the site capacity
from a one-form entry primary school to a two-form entry primary school.

In September 2022, Cabinet approved the development of the Strathcona Site
to a two-form entry primary school in order to preserve the future of the Islamia
Primary School.

In order to deliver the required new two-form entry primary school, the Council
is proposing to appoint a contractor using a DfE’s Framework. This framework
promotes early contractor appointment (i.e. following RIBA 1) and so the
technical consultancy services organisation will need to provide the following
services throughout the commission to deliver the expanded school:

1. Employer’s Agent and Project Manager
2. Quantity Surveyor
3. Technical Design Advisor(s)
4. CDM Advisor

The report notes that the brief may have to be changed if the eventual decision is for a new build w form entry school  rather than expansion which is the Council's favoured option. Expansion means  refurbishment of the current block and con struction of a new block. Islamia Governing Board is pressing for the former.

The report notes:

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources & Reform has been consulted as part of the drafting of this report. They have also been kept up to date with progress on the project.

Queens Park and Preston Ward members will be kept appraised on project
milestones such as the planning application submission, statutory consultation and any works on site.