BREAKING: Veolia to be awarded new integrated Brent Council Public Realm contract worth £137m over 8 years

 The first Brent Council Cabinet of 2023 will be requested to award the new  Integrated Easte Waste Collections and Winter Maintenance contract to Veolia:

[Approve] the award of the Integrated Contract to Veolia Environmental Services UK Ltd for an initial contract period of eight (8) years, with an option to extend for a further eight (8) year contract period in the estimated sum of £17.13m for 2023/24, circa £137m over the initial 8-year term of the contract or circa £274m over the full 16-year contract period.

The new contract introduces a twin stream recycling system of paper and card recycling in bags one week and remaining blue bin recycling in the next week.  There will also be a new small items collection service. Education and Communication on waste services will be provided in-house.

Frequency of street cleaning on a rota basis will be ended and instead there will be an 'intelligence led' response by a Task Force to respond to litter hot-spots.

The webcast of the Public Ream Scrutiny Committee meeting  that considered the issue can be viewed HERE.

The Committee had been concerned about the discrepancy  between the on-line consultation rejection of the changes and the acceptance of the changes in the much smaller face-to-face consultations. An officer had admitted that the street cleansing changes would not produce a better outcome but were made necessary by financial constraints. 

The Cabinet Report states

A report on the Integrated Contract procurement programme was considered by Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 13 December 2022. The Committee's recommendations are included below and these will be taken forward by officers in early 2023.

i) Produce a diagram/flowchart detailing all milestones from May 2019 when the Redefining Local Services (RLS) programme was first initiated.
ii) Review household bulky waste collection charges, including consideration of a sliding scale of charges linked to the number of items to be collected, rather than the current fixed rate of £35 for up to five items.
iii) Undertake a feasibility study on the potential for introducing a mixed approach to paper/card recycling collections, to explore whether any recycling collection rounds in the borough would be more suited to the use of bins rather than sacks.
iv) Arrange a session with ward councillors and Neighbourhood Managers to inform the design and development of the new recycling engagement and communication plan that will accompany the roll out of the new recycling service. 
v) Liaise with the West London Waste Authority to ensure access is reinstated for pedestrians and cyclists at the Abbey Road Household Reuse and Recycling Centre.
vi) Improve collaboration between in-house enforcement teams and collection operatives in identifying fly tipping hot spots and collating evidence, to remove the burden from residents. 

You can judge for yourselves whether the final report to Cabinet takes the recommendations into account.

 I have embedded the full report below. Service changes can be found in 7.4 onwards (Twin Stream Recycling) and in 7.15 onwards ( Intelligence-led Street Cleansing).

 

Opposition to 20metre 5G Mast in Mapesbury Conservation area - consultation closes January 12th

 View of existing area where mast and cabinets would be installed outside 112 Walm Lane [Streetview] Note: Pole in foreground is not the proposed mast.

Mapesbury Conservation Area Border (Brent Council) - Site in red

 The placement of the mast and cabinets

 

The height of the mast against tree and 112 Walm Lane

Editor's Note: There has been a suggestion that there is a petition opposing this mast. I have not seen one and so do not have a link. If you know of one please send the link to wembleymatters@virginmedia.com  Individual responses to the Planning Portal LINK are more effective anyway as I understand petitions are counted as just one objection.

 

The latest controversy over the erection of a 5G roll-out mast is in Willesden Green, just within the Mapesbury Conservation Area border. Although the planning application gives the address of the Queensbury pub (due to be redeveloped) at 110 Walm Lane, the site is actually outside the block of flats at 112 Walm Lane, on the corner of Dartmouth Road.

The proposal sent to neighbouring residents and displayed nearby gives a closing date for comments of Thursday January 12th 2023.

Application Number 22/4004
Location Street Record, Walm Lane, London Proposal Prior approval for proposed 5G telecommunications installation comprising a 20m street pole and additional equipment cabinets on footpath adjacent to 110 Walm Lane, London, NW2 4RS (Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and is in accordance with the Electronic Communications Code (as amended))

You may comment on-line by using the ‘make comments’ tab or by e-mailing planning.comments@brent.gov.uk. Make sure you provide the application  number, your name and postal address. Your comments and address will be publically available, although your name won’t be. You may check what the final decision is by selecting “track application” on our website.

Please make your comment by 12/01/2023; after that we will make a decision on the proposal as soon as possible.

As with all such proposals the default position is approval to aid the roll-out of 5G transmission as part of the government's diginal vision. The applicant states:

The proposed installation supports the UK Government Digital connectivity vision and provide a basis for support from the local planning authority to speed up digital infrastructure rollout set by Ministers on 27 August 2020. Such development will facilitate educational benefits, providing access to vital services, improving communications with the associated commercial benefits for local businesses, enabling e-commerce and working from home as well as enjoying access to social, media and gaming for leisure time activities.
In accordance with the requirement set within National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) guidelines; the proposed ‘Streetworks’ design has been selected to minimise visual impact upon the street scene by integrating with existing street furniture.

 

The applicant claims their proposal meets Brent Council's criteria for 5G installations but note the final point regarding Conservation Areas.

One local resident has submitted a comprehensive Objection:

This proposal is completely misguided and should be rejected.

It would create an unacceptably intrusive, overbearing and incongruous feature at a very prominent location, wholly out of scale and inconsistent with nearby buildings and structures, and would materially impact the character and appearance of the Mapesbury Conservation Area and the Willesden Green Conservation Area, as well as of Willesden Green Station and St. Gabriel's Church, both grade II listed buildings.

It's extraordinary that the applicant has managed to find a site for this 20 metre mast that would materially impact the character and appearance of not just one but two separate conservation areas and two separate grade II listed buildings.

Further, while the applicant asserts that the site is outside of the Mapesbury Conservation Area, according to the official map of the Mapesbury Conservation Area (https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16402740/mapesbury-conservation-area-map.jpg) the boundary of the conservation area runs down the middle of Walm Lane and therefore the site is within the conservation area. In any event our comments are relevant regardless of whether the site is or not within the conservation area: if outside it would still be on the boundary of the conservation area and would have just as a material impact on the visual amenity and character of the conservation area as if it was inside it.

In more detail, my objection is based on the following:

(A) The mast would be very significantly taller than all surrounding housing. At 20 metres it would be almost double the height of the adjacent Westerly Court (11 metres), which itself is taller than all other surrounding housing on the north side of the railway, and more than double the height of street lighting and trees.

(B) The mast would be very close to the top of the hill, which would increase even more its actual and perceived height compared to the surrounding housing, including the two conservation areas.

(C) The mast would be located in a corner plot, increasing its visibility and prominence.

(D) The mast would be directly in line with the north face of Westly Court, meaning that its entire height would be visible from the whole north side of Dartmouth Road.

Factors (A), (B), (C) and (D) will exacerbate the visual prominence of the mast which will be seen over a wide area. It is likely that it would be visible from every first or second floor south facing window in the Mapesbury Conservation Area.

The streetview up and down Walm Lane between St. Gabriel's Church and the top of the hill where Willesden Green Station is located is a critical and integral element of the Mapesbury Conservation Area's character and appearance. Further, the northward streetview up Walm Lane and across the top of the hill in front of the Willesden Green Station is a critical and integral elements of the Willesden Green Conservation Area character and appearance. Both of these would be completely ruined by the mast, which would tower above and overbear all of these views.

(E) The mast would be in very close proximity (70 metres - 3.5 times its height) to Willesden Green Station, which is a Grade II listed building, and would significantly impact the appearance of the station and of the open space in front of it (which is part of the Willesden Green Conservation Area) when approaching from the north (from the Mapesbury Conservation Area) and the south (through the Willesden Conservation Area).

(F) The mast would be right in the straight line of sight between Willesden Green Station and St. Gabriel's Church, which is also a Grade II listed building and is located about 10 meters lower down the hill (meaning that it would tower above the church in the background when approaching the church southwards along Walm Lane).

The applicant has taken no account in its application of the fact that the visual amenity and character of two Grade II listed buildings will be materially impacted by the proposal, as set out in (E) and (F) above.

(G) Finally, given that the applicant has taken no account of the above factors in the design of the mast (other than to say that the site is outside of a conservation area, which appears to be inaccurate and in any event is immaterial), the proposal itself does not comply with the design principles set out in the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England (2016 Edition) - in particular those set out in Appendix A.

While not directly relevant to my objection to the application, I would also like to highlight that:

- The area in the vicinity of the site is already very well served by broadband internet and further developments are currently ongoing (e.g. Hyperoptic is currently installing fibre underground throughout the conservation area), so there is no "critical need" for this 5g infrastructure, notwithstanding what the applicant says in its application. This should be taken into account when considering the balance between the need for this specific 5g mast and other public policy considerations (such as public amenity) when assessing this application.

- The proposed siting of the equipment boxes at the street level is completely irrational. It is proposed that they will be located in the middle of the public footpath, significantly reducing the available space for pedestrians and other users. What is the applicant's rationale for occupying so much footpath space and inconveniencing pedestrians, rather than siting the boxes beside the existing boxes on the east edge of the footpath?

- There is already a telecoms mast located along the train line on the south side of the Tube railway tracks, adjacent to Lydford Road. Given the presence of multiple conservation areas and listed buildings in the vicinity of the proposed mast, what consideration has the applicant given to reinforcing and/or sharing that mast, consistent with the requirements of the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England (2016 Edition), or otherwise siting the mast along the railway at a suitable distance from the existing tower, where it would not be as much an eyesore?

- There is already a telecoms mast located along the train line on the south side of the railway tracks, adjacent to Lydford Road. Given the presence of multiple conservation areas and listed buildings in the vicinity of the proposed mast, what consideration has the applicant given to reinforcing and/or sharing that mast, consistent with the requirements of the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England (2016 Edition), or otherwise siting the mast along the railway at a suitable distance from the existing tower, where it would not be as much an eyesore?

 Regarding alternatives, as suggested by some of the Objectors, including updating existing masts in the area, the Applicant states:

The very nature of installing new 5G mast infrastructure within such an urban setting requires a highly considered balance between the need to extend practical coverage reach with that of increasing risk of visual amenity intrusion. In this location, existing mast sites are not capable of supporting additional equipment compliment to extend coverage reach across the target area and prospective ‘in-fill’ mast sites are extremely limited.

There is an acute need for a new base station to provide effective service coverage and in this case, the height of the proposed street pole is the minimum required to bring the benefits of 5G to this area.

XR announce a tactical change for 2023 - disruption no longer the primary tactic: 'relationships over roadblocks'

 In a press release this morning Extinction Rebellion announce a move away from disruption as a primary tactic. They say:

When XR burst onto the scene four years ago, few could have imagined the seismic shift it would bring about in the climate movement, the climate conversation, and the world at large. 

But despite the blaring alarm on the climate and ecological emergency ringing loud and clear, very little has changed. Emissions continue to rise and our planet is dying at an accelerated rate. 

The root causes? A financial system prioritising profits over life, a media failing to inform the public and hold power to account, and a reckless government entrenched in corruption and suppressing the right to protest injustice.

As we ring in the new year, we make a controversial resolution to temporarily shift away from public disruption as a primary tactic. We recognise and celebrate the power of disruption to raise the alarm and believe that constantly evolving tactics is a necessary approach. What’s needed now most is to disrupt the abuse of power and imbalance, to bring about a transition to a fair society that works together to end the fossil fuel era. Our politicians, addicted to greed and bloated on profits won’t do it without pressure.

We must be radical in our response to this crisis and determined in our efforts to address the climate and ecological emergency, even if it means taking a different approach than before. In a time when speaking out and taking action are criminalised, building collective power, strengthening in number and thriving through bridge-building is a radical act. XR is committed to including everyone in this work and leaving no one behind, because everyone has a role to play. This year, we prioritise attendance over arrest and relationships over roadblocks, as we stand together and become impossible to ignore.

The conditions for change in the UK have never been more favourable – it’s time to seize the moment. The confluence of multiple crises presents us with a unique opportunity to mobilise and move beyond traditional divides. No one can do this alone, and it’s the responsibility of all of us, not just one group. It may be uncomfortable or difficult, but the strength of all social, environmental, and justice movements lies in working together. As our rights are stripped away and those speaking out and most at risk are silenced, we must find common ground and unite to survive.

It’s no secret that those in power are hoarding wealth and power at the expense of ordinary people, while ignoring the consequences of their greed. Emissions continue to rise, but they couldn’t care less. But people do care, and changes to democracy that free and empower the voices of the people through Citizens Assemblies could balance the tables and bring about the positive societal tipping point we all need.

Choose Your Future – 21st April and beyond – The Big One – Houses of Parliament – 100,000 people. 

Read more here.

An Olympic Games tile mural – let’s get it back on permanent display!

 Guest post by local Historian Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

On 1 January 2022 I shared with you an open letter that I’d sent to Quintain’s Chief Executive Officer, seeking his agreement that his company would not seek to renew its advertisement consent, covering the tile murals on the walls of Olympic Way. I thought I’d made a good case, and was very pleased to receive a positive response two months later.

 

The sports tile murals on the east wall of Olympic Way, back on display in August 2022.

 

As well as uncovering the American Football, Rugby League and Ice Hockey tile mural scenes in 2022, Quintain’s Wembley Park company also commissioned a new mural. This replaced the missing section of the former “Live Aid” mural, beside the drummer which was the only section left of the original 1993 design. Since it was completed last November, Paul Marks’s “Reverb” mural has been added to the Wembley Park Art Trail.

 

The ”Reverb” tile mural, nearing completion in November 2022.

 

Regular readers will know that Wembley History Society has been campaigning since April 2018 to get Quintain and Brent Council to put all of the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals, celebrating Wembley’s sports and entertainment heritage, back on permanent public display. Our first success was the mural scene in the subway, showing England footballers playing at the “twin towers” Wembley Stadium, which was left uncovered when Quintain (with Brent Council’s consent) replaced their vinyl advertising sheets in the subway with LED light panels.

 

The “Footballers” mural, flanked by LED light panels.

 

Now, 2023 provides an opportunity to get another of the subway’s mural scenes back on display. As well as marking the centenary of the original Wembley Stadium, the year will also be the 75^th anniversary of the 1948 London Olympic Games, for which Olympic Way was built. I hope that it will also see the mural celebrating those Games uncovered, in recognition of that important part of Wembley’s sporting heritage.

 

The Olympic Torch tile mural, beside a photograph from the 1948 Games opening ceremony.

 

So, this New Year I’ve sent another open letter to Quintain’s Chief Executive Officer, James Saunders. This is its full text:

 

This is an open letter

1 January 2023

Dear Mr Saunders, 

 

The 1948 Olympic Torch tile mural at Bobby Moore Bridge, Wembley Park.

 

Happy New Year! 2022 was a good year for Olympic Way, and I am hoping that, with your support, 2023 can be even better.

 

Following my 1 January 2022 letter to you, and your reply of 2 March, it was good to see the three sporting tile mural scenes on the east wall of Olympic Way back on permanent display from August 2022. They have been appreciated and enjoyed by residents and visitors ever since. More recently, the “Reverb” mural by Paul Marks, on the opposite wall beside the original drummer, has brightened up that space, although I must admit to some disappointment that it could not have related more closely with the “Live Aid” stadium concert theme.

 

During 2022, I have continued to work with Quintain’s Wembley Park team on projects to promote the history of Olympic Way. There are several additions to enhance the sharing of that history with visitors nearing completion, but I am writing to suggest another one.

 

In April 2023 we will celebrate the centenary of the original Wembley Stadium, and in July 2023 the 75^th anniversary of the 1948 London Olympic Games, for which Olympic Way was built. One of the tile murals in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway, the first scene on the left as you come down the steps from the station, was designed to celebrate that heritage at the start of the famous route to the stadium:-

 

This mural, which depicts an Olympic torch relay runner on his way to the stadium for the opening ceremony of the 1948 Games, with the Olympic flag behind him, is currently hidden behind LED light panels. My suggestion is that this mural scene should be uncovered, and put on display for the 75^th anniversary in July 2023 (and hopefully, permanently). 

 

The Olympic Torch mural is next to the “footballers” mural scene, which is already on display, so that it should not be too difficult to extend the lighting “frame” around that scene to include this mural celebrating the 1948 Olympic Games at Wembley Park, once the three or four light panels covering it, and their supports, have been removed.

 

I will email a digital copy of this letter to members of your team at Wembley Park, who I am already in touch with over other local history enhancements for Olympic Way. 

 

I look forward to hearing from you that displaying the Olympic Games mural scene will be another addition to those enhancements by the summer of 2023. Thank you.

 

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

Newland Court residents' champion reveals Brent Council's potential crime over bat roost within the local vicinity of infill development (Amended)

 

Soprano Pipistrelle (Photo: eurekalert.org.)

Writing on behalf of Newland Court, Wembley Park, residents, Marc Etukudo has submitted an email to Brent Council officers and councillors that raises serious issues of possible environmental law breaking:

 I would like you to accept this email as a formal objection being submitted amongst others submitted against Brent Council’s proposal to build 7 townhouses at Newland Court garages, planning application reference 22/3124. It has been brought to my attention that out of all the ‘infill’ proposals submitted by Brent Council's agent* on behalf of the Council's New Council Homes Team  not a single one has been refused planning permission and every single one has gone to a planning committee meeting and all have been approved. Can you please confirm if this is correct? 

BAT ACTIVITY AND ROOSTING  

I have been informed by the Bats Conservation Trust that if I think a wildlife crime has been or is being committed I should report it to the police. Once I have done that I have to ensure I get a reference number and then let them know about the incident by emailing investigations@bats.org.uk. They will then be able to assist the police, bat workers, members of the public and professionals by giving advice and information about bats, roosts and the legislation. 

So, as I feel that a crime is about to be committed at Newland Court garages by Brent Council in terms of the removal of trees where at least 2 species of bats are active and may roost, I intend to file a report at Wembley Police Station against Brent Council if the proposal is approved in its present form*. The reason being is that although the ecological report from Waterman’s survey does show two species of bats active along the line of trees, their survey is unreliable, because only one surveyor carried it out, at the wrong time and without covering the line of trees properly. 

         

               

The survey was done more than two weeks after it should have been carried out to check whether there was any bat roost in the garage building they identified as a low possibility roost site. Furthermore, carrying out bat surveys when street lightning could influence an inaccurate reading as bats would only normally be seen in dark conditions as they are sensitive to bright lights. Hence the survey reported a sighting of a soprano pipistrelle that was recorded 28 minutes after sunset and 11 passings of the common pipistrelle were recorded 55 minutes after sunset proving that the whole survey wasn’t conducted properly and therefore unreliable.

 

The same can also be said of the survey on birds. The survey reports sightings of starlings, bullfinches, dunnocks, sparrows and song thrushes. I believe that this is an inaccurate survey recorded as it was taken from a reference grid recorded between 2002 and 2018. If a proper survey was conducted then sightings of robins, magpies, pigeons, crows and even parakeets would also have been sighted and recorded because those are the birds we see out our kitchen windows on a daily basis therefore also acknowledging that the bird survey is also flawed and inaccurate.  

 

 

DESIGN GUIDE

 

In the design guide document which was approved by Planning Committee and Brent's Executive (now Cabinet) in 2013, the boundary shown in the Design Guide, which includes the site of the Newland Court garages within the Barn Hill Conservation Area, must be treated as the correct boundary since 17 June 2013. Yet Brent Council’s agent has submitted a different conservation map boundary showing Newland Court garages outside the conservation boundary lines which is yet more evidence they continued to submit misleading information on their planning application to fast track this proposal through at any cost. * 

 

The evidence is there in the Design Guide itself, which states:

 

'This Guide was produced by the London Borough of Brent and adopted by its Executive on 17 June 2013. On 16 January 2013, the Planning Committee agreed to consult publically on a draft Barn Hill Design Guide which had been prepared in discussion with the Barn Hill Residents Association. Letters were sent to all owner/occupiers in the Barn Hill Conservation Area and Ward Councillors on 28 January 2013, giving 28 days to comment on the draft Design Guide. A ‘drop-in session’ for residents was held at Brent Town Hall on 12 February 2013 to give residents an opportunity to discuss the proposals with Officers. On 17 April 2013 the Planning Committee considered the consultation responses and the resulting proposed changes and agreed that the revised Design Guide be reported to the Executive for adoption.  Executive agreed to this on 17 June 2013.' 

 

 

HERITAGE REPORT submitted by the Heritage Officer states that:-

 

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 (as amended) requires that with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. NPPF. Paragraph 189 recognises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and seeks to conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.

 

This statement reveals reasonable doubt from the Heritage officer in regards to whether this proposal will preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area. This is also taking into consideration that all the officers’ reports (Heritage, Transport, Tree) have been done on the assumption that Newland Court garages do not fall within the conservation boundary. This is yet another misleading application submission by Brent Council planning officers.

 

TRANSPORT OFFICER

The Transport Officer's report also states that ‘At the current time, the application cannot therefore be supported, given the large volume of parking that would be likely to be displaced from the site onto surrounding narrow streets’. This is even probably after he had seen the parking survey which I have already previously noted as being flawed and misleading.

TREE OFFICER

Even Brent council’s own Tree Officer, Julie Hughes has significant concerns relating to the impact that this development will have on protected trees. She also goes on to say that she has 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.

 

Below is a Topographical Survey map sheet of the coverage area from the canopies of the trees that overhang above the Newland Court garages from the gardens of the residents of Grendon Gardens. They show the extent of the tree canopies of the trees in the back gardens of Grendon Gardens much more clearly than the site plans submitted before to Brent Council. I believe this is the reason why the garages at Newland Court are within the boundary of the Barn Hill Conservation area. The diagram below shows that the canopies and roots of the trees cover most of the garages in Newland Court. It would mean that one half of all the trees would have to be chopped off if this proposal were to go ahead. If this doesn’t kill the trees, then the trees would then need constant pruning and lopping every few months as the pruned branches continue to re-grow.    

 

 

With all these mitigating factors:-

 

• The fact that Brent is breaching a lot of their planning guidelines to fast track this proposal.
• The overlooking rule for one in which you and I measured and found Brent's measurements inaccurate.
• Misleading information on the garages being within the boundary line of Barn Hill Conservation Area
• Unclear clarification of the boundary wall between Grendon Gardens and Newland Court. 
• The removal of or damaging protected healthy trees in the Barn Hill conservation area.
• Misleading information supplied by planning officers on the parking survey.
• Misleading information on the ecological report made by Watermans. 
• The systemic discrimination on existing Newland Court residents.
• The reduction in residual bins for existing Newland Court residents.
• The removal of 40 car parking spaces and reducing it to 12.
• The site not being suitable for the proposed development.
• The Heritage Officer having concerns on this proposal.
• The Transport Officer having concerns on this proposal.
• Brent's Tree Officer having concerns on this proposal. 

 

Even MP Barry Gardiner after seeing the facts and not normally one to get involved in planning issues wrote to the Chief Executive voicing his concerns on the way the planning officers were treating the existing residents of Newland Court over this proposal. With all the objections and facts that you have before you regarding this particular proposal, I’m sorry but there is no way that this planning application should be granted. That is, if every single detail in the form of objections and real facts that you and your team now have before you which should form a serious case for refusal. But if it doesn’t then there is something also very seriously wrong. 

 * Note an earlier version of this blog has been edited to remove inaccuracies in the original email to Brent Council for which Marc Etukudo has apologised.