Quantcast
Channel: WEMBLEY MATTERS
Viewing all 7136 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Stonebridge 1981: 'Don't burn it down - let's build!' The Brent Council v Leonard Johnson hearing

July 29, 2020, 3:23 am
$
0
0
The young campaigners at the disused Stonebridge bus garage
Paul Anderson, who worked with Leonard Johnson from the beginning of the project in 1981, was cross-examine don his witness statement by Ms Holland, Brent Council's Counsel.

He said he had attended a youth club on Stonebridge which put on lots of activities against the background of agitation and riots elsewhere in the country.

Anderson said that HPCC did have a written constitution, he had seen it and many activities were borne out of that constitution. 'We were young 20-22, and talented and worked with the CDA (Co-operative Development Agency). We couldn't have been part of Itec if we didn’t have a constitution.'

He could not give the exact date of the constitution but said it was produced around 1981-8.

Holland asked if it could have been the Steering Group constitution he was remembering. Anderson said, no, HPCC still had their own constitution. They had a General Meeting to elect people and had to put something together to say how they would operate. The constitution developed, 'We were active in stopping people destroying our community. We did it our way. Alice Holt (CDA) would have known what HPCC stood for, we were part of the Steering Group. We had so many activities that we had to have rules and regulations - we did it our way. We knew we had to have some sort of governance to the best of our understanding. As we developed, we got all sorts of professionals coming in to help is.'

He added, 'I'm passionate about this. It's an asset and they're trying to take it away.'

The Judge asked if there was any document that covered aims and objectives, financial controls, voting etc.

Paul Anderson said they did. They had to have a quorum and voted for chair, treasurer.  The contributed what they could. HPCC was on a learning curve - he was there.

Anderson was asked if he had the constitution with him. He said he hadn't brought it. He would have to look in the attic but they'd had a constitution to this this day.  He promised to try and get it for the court.

When he appeared to go off the point Ms Holland said sharply, 'Answer my questions. This isn't a street protest.'

Anderson said, 'I am a member of Bridge Park. I believe we own Bridge Park, we put a lot into it. Bridge Park belongs to the community.' He denied that there was any monetary in the case for him personally. He said he did not see himself reaping any financial benefit from the asset as it was for the community.

He continued, 'We had a vision to become self-sufficient. That's what we told the community: "Don't burn it down - let's build!" We campaigned to get the old bus garage, ran classes. When we got it, the message went out that this belongs to the community - not just to HPCC. We made the building what it is.'

Ms Holland asked about the vision, generation of revenue and aim for self-sufficiency within 5 years. She asked if Anderson was part of a project aiming to purchase the site.

Mr Anderson said the vision was making what the community wanted happen. A place for education, performance, training -'It was ours. People were inspired and helped to build the project.'

Holland said, 'You didn’t think you were owners. You could have sold it.'

Anderson said it hadn't crossed their minds that they could sell it.

Holland challenged, 'It didn't cross your minds because you didn't own it.'

Anderson: 'Nobody thought we'd sell it. It was the community's.'

The Judge intervened asking, 'You didn’t think the property was yours?'

Mr Anderson responded that they expected at one point they would get it. 'The message was that it was ours. We own it but we weren't going to sell it.'

Holland put it to him that they knew they didn't own the land but sometime in the future it could happen.

Anderson said he accepted that.

Holland continued, 'The anticipation was for the Community Co-operative, not HPCC.' Anderson replied that HPCC represented the community. Whatever mechanism allowed that to happen.'

Challenged by Counsel that only two mentions of his name could be found in documents and that he wasn’t involved in setting up Bridge Park, Anderson said there were many facets in the project and different roles. He was involved in the Itec and put his heart and soul into it: 'To see that taken away. Turned my back and it was gone. It was awful.'

He said he was not directly involved in meeting with the council [setting up Bridge Park] but involved in working with the DTI and council for the IT project.  He was not involved in setting up the HPCC but was a living witness of the campaign and getting the community behind the project. 'It was beautiful.'

Mr Cottle asked Anderson about a document written by representatives of the HPCC in July-October 1981 entitled, 'Realities of Life in Stonebridge' and another with the same title dated December 1981. Anderson said the two were slightly different.  The Stonebridge Bus Garage Steering Group document was more about what would be put in there, the other was a contextual report.

The next witness was former Labour councillor Bertha Joseph, who switched to the Conservatives in 2007.

Ms Joseph said that at a Labour Group meeting held when Merle Amory (now Abbott) was leader in 1986/87, Amory informed those present that HPCC was planning to buy the bus garage. Joseph had joined the council in 1986.

Holland pointed out that the garage had been bought by the council 4 years before - that didn’t make sense.  Joseph said she remembered Amory saying it at the time.

Holland suggested it was the Steering Group that could buy, not HPCC. Joseph said it was the HPCC that was around at the time. She had known about their work before becoming a councillor and the awful lot of work they did for young people at Bridge Park.  She was a 24-year-old councillor and had never heard that it belonged to the council. It was a community project. When the community heard that HPCC was buying the garage they were excited. The council didn’t have a connection with young people. She saw Leonard as the leader - the President.  The police had no control. There was no riot because of the project.

She added that taking it away now would be devastating for the community.

The next witness was Richard Gutch who had worked for the council but for a few years after he left continued to offer pro bono advice to the project when they requested it., and again more recently. He had met with the new project manager at the time and as an outside helped them assess contractors,

Gutch has asked to amend his witness statement because following Carolyn Downs' cross-examination he now knew the proposed development involved more than a swimming pool. He had thought it was a private development contrary to community use.

Ms Holland asked about the transfer of land to Brent Council from London Transport: 'Are you clear that Brent accepted the land?'

Gutch agreed but said HPCC were working very well as partners and when resources allowed would be legal owners. He understood that there was an expectation that they may be able to get a lease with an option to buy but that would be dependent on the project's sustainability. Brent were the legal owners.

Mr Gutch said that Johnson recognised that initially with help from funders Johnson recognised that that the land would be in the name of Brent. Gutch's advice was that it was great to have a vision but to take one step at a time.

Holland quoted a 1982 document with a factual statement that the council was purchasing the bus garage for this project. Gutch said, 'Yes but would be run and eventually purchased by HPCC.'

Ms Holland followed up stating it was always ultimately the council's property.  Gutch agreed and said as the council was making a contribution, they set out safeguards on how a potentially risk situation went.  Safeguarding ownership rested with Brent as was true of all Urban Projects.

Turning to the issue of Mr Watkins of Watts County Holland said that the significance of his meeting with him was about ownership.  Gutch said that Watkins had a number of facilities in Watts. He told HPCC that ownership enables you to do more things. It inspired Johnson and others to that aim.

Holland questioned Gutch again about ownership and the Urban Programme funds. Summing up she said that the asset was ultimately the council’s at the end of the day. Gutch agreed. She quoted GLC conditions, 'acquired for and controlled and run by the community.' Gutch agreed.

Gutch told Mr Cottle that he stood by his statement that it was 'not for the benefit of Brent [Council] in its own right.' The point was that it was being run by HPCC as a community-controlled project which had impressed funders who would not normally be politically sympathetic.

Both Counsels are preparing written submissions today and the hearing will continue tomorrow, (Thursday)


↧
Search

Judgment in Brent Council v Bridge Park case not expected until September. HPCC blow when constitution not found

July 30, 2020, 11:31 am
$
0
0
After hearing closing submissions from the Counsels for Brent Council and Leonard Johnson the Judge, Michael Green QC,  said he was unlikely to deliver his Judgment before September.  He said that he would decide on a legal basis if the defendants had a beneficial interest in the Bridge Park site but said that in itself that would not resolve the issues between the parties.  He said that the parties needed to talk together: 'Everyone needs to move on.'

The issue of whether HPCC had a constitution in its early days remained unresolved today when Mr Cottle admitted to the Judge that a search yesterday had failed to come up with a copy. They had found a copy of a draft working ducment for the Bus Garage Steering Group, a later organisation that included HPCC members.

The constitution was vital to establishing the status of HPCC and thus its claim for an interest in the land which is the nub of the case.

The Judge told Mr Cottle that if there was a document he needed to know. He said, 'Perhaps the other side would have wanted to ask  Mr Johnson and Mr Anderson questions about it.' The Judge said the document needed to be located and handed over to the Court. It was amazing that the council had not insisted on a constitution befor handing money over to HPCC.

The two sides in the dispute had sent the Judge  more than 100 pages of written closing submissions which enabled proceedings to take less time than expected.  It did mean for those observing the case remotely exchanges were harder to follow today with frequent references to the submissions, ancillary documents and legal precedents.

Mr Cottle asked to submit amendments to the Bridge Park case one of which related to Mr Leonard Johnson's status.  Cottle said this would be signed tomorrow and the Judge asked that it be signed and a photograph of it sent to him.

The submissions related to the issues that have already been reported on here and included the conflict between the parties on the status of HPCC and its charitable purpose and aims; whether HPCC could be said to have an interest  in the land and the status of 'an aspiration' to buy the lease; who actually owned the project, the implications of the Covenant required by the GLC and its implications for future use of the land and whether it was indented for charitable purposes,; the role of Brent Council in the early stages of the project and the implications of the different funding streams in terms of ownership and any subsequent breaches of conditions; whether there was a conditional trust at the commencement of the project and many more complex issues accompaned by references to rulings in previous cases and legislation one side or the other thought was relevant.

Brent Council was anxious to prevent any future action by the defendant in terms of a restriction on the land arising from the claim and said that their development project was 'respectful of the Bridge Park legacy.'




↧
↧

Cautious limited re-opening of four Brent libraries. Face covering and Test & Trace details required

July 31, 2020, 2:28 am
$
0
0
From Brent Council

At the beginning of July, Brent Council began a phased reopening of library, arts and heritage services to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for staff, residents and visitors returning to their local libraries.

Wembley Library and The Library at Willesden Green were the first to reopen. Ealing Road Library and Kilburn Library will reopen on Monday 3 August. The opening hours will be 10.30am - 2.30pm.
We are currently working hard to make Kingsbury Library and Harlesden Library Plus Covid-secure, and expect both to reopen during August.

Brent Council request contact details for all library visitors to support the NHS' Test and Trace' programme. Adult visitors must also wear a face covering. This is mandatory unless you are in an exempt group and you may be asked to leave if you refuse to fill to complete the Test and Trace or wear a face covering.

Customers will be able to borrow and return books and DVDs and reserve computers, however there will a limit on the number of people able to enter the libraries at any one time.

A number of services including Wi-Fi, newspapers and journals, and study facilities will not be available for now, but this will be reviewed regularly. The Willesden Gallery and Brent Museum and Archives will also remain closed for the time being.

Residents are encouraged to continue using the e-Library to access thousands of e-books, e-magazines, newspapers and other digital resources from the comfort of their own home, by visiting www.brent.gov.uk/elibrary.

Brent Museum and Archives also has exhibitions, school resources and access to the museum, archive and photography library online for everyone to enjoy.

To support library users during this time, all items currently out on loan have been automatically renewed until Tuesday 1 September and the Brent libraries phone 020 8937 3400 and email service libraries@brent.gov.uk will be available Monday to Friday from 10am-5pm if customers need any help with their account details or accessing the e-library.

Brent’s Home Library Service will be restarting, delivering books and magazines to vulnerable residents, using our strong team of local volunteers. If you are unable to leave your home and would like to know more about this service please contact the library service.

Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure, Councillor Hirani said:

The reopening of Wembley Library, The Library at Willesden Green, Ealing Road Library and Kilburn Library is a really positive step, however we still need to be cautious as COVID-19 has not gone away.
That’s why these four libraries will be open on a very limited basis at first with safety measures in place, so we can make sure we’re taking every step to protect staff and visitors.

Residents can access the e-library at the click of a button so I’d urge people to continue using this if they can. If you do choose to visit the library, please make sure you maintain social distancing at all times and follow the instructions of the library staff.

As part of the phased reopening of the libraries service, these libraries will be the first to open with plans to open the rest when it’s safe to do so.
↧

The Preston Story- Part 2

August 1, 2020, 3:36 am
$
0
0

The second part of a series of four by Chris Coates 

                                                                  
We left the end of Part 1 of the Preston Story in the 18thcentury, with the landscape scarcely changing over the previous 500 years. In the early 19th century, the population grew slowly – in Preston and Uxendon together there were 64 people in 1831 and 105 in 1841. Preston was still very much a rural area, but not a contented one.


Preston and its surrounding area, 1832. (Extract from the Environs of London Map, 1832)

The agricultural depression after the Napoleonic Wars caused problems for both farmers and their labourers. Following the Enclosure Acts 1803 and 1823, the continuing fencing off of common land by large landowners caused problems for tenant farmers. An ‘Anti-Inclosure Association’ distributed manifestos throughout Harrow Parish and there was a petition to Parliament in 1802 and fence breaking incidents locally in 1810. In 1828, when there was a further outbreak of violence in the area, Harrow’s only fire engine and six crew were called into action at Uxendon as desperate workers burnt haystacks and threatened local landowners. 

Unrest continued and in 1830 local workers were active in the Swing Riots, a widespread protest across South East England, which used arson and machine breaking against the increasing use of agricultural machinery and the subsequent unemployment and lower wages. The Uxbridge yeomanry cavalry and the militia were mobilized to shield London when rioting spread to the Harrow area at the end of November 1830.


Swing rioters (in Kent), 1830. (Image from the internet)

Tenant farmers called for a reduction in rents. Lord Northwick, who held the manor of Harrow with land bordering Preston, accused local farmer Thomas Trollope, the novelist’s father, of conspiracy and had his crops seized. Anthony Trollope described Lord Northwick as 'a cormorant who was eating us up'. Northwick received a threatening ‘Swing Letter’ demanding a reduction of rent and warning that “our emisaris shall and will do their work - you have ground the labouring man too long”. The 1834 Report of the Poor Law Commissioners showed wages of agricultural labourers in Harrow district to be around 10/- per week or £26 per annum “supposing work is available all year round - which for most it is not “.

Despite poor wages, the area continued to attract migrant labour. In 1841, there were 415 migrant haymakers, mainly from Ireland, living in barns and sheds in Harrow. The 1851 census clerk for Preston and Uxendon notes these conditions for in-house migrant workers: “All persons entered as lodgers are those only who occupy generally part of a bed, at the usual charge of 1/6 per week, including washing and attendance, with a seat by the evening fire”. Some seasonal workers settled down in Preston. In 1851, the Irish family occupying Forty Farm cottage had a child born there, and there are Irish and West Country domestic servants elsewhere.

Preston House and tea rooms, 1912. (Brent Archives online image 331)

 
Early in the century, Preston House was built on Preston Hill near four cottages recorded therre in 1817. The census shows Preston House was initially a ‘country residence’ leased to various professional men, including a corn merchant, a surgeon, a cigar importer and a solicitor. Around 1880, Preston House was acquired by George Timms (d. 1899), who turned the grounds into the Preston Tea Gardens.


An advertising card for the Preston Tea Gardens, c.1910. (Brent Archives online image 6864)

The Tea Gardens flourished well into the next century and the building survived until the 1960s when it was demolished for flats. By 1864, the four cottages were replaced by a pair of Victorian villas, now 356-358 Preston Road – the oldest surviving houses in Preston. They must have had a fantastic view over the surrounding countryside, to Harrow-on-the-Hill.

356 and 358 Preston Road. (Image from Google Streetview)

Further down Preston Hill, Hillside Farm was also hosting the 'Rose & Crown' beershop in 1851, run by the farmer’s wife, Sarah Walker, and her daughter. Hillside Farmhouse was also demolished in the 1960s, but Hillside Gardens recalls its location. Lyon Farm remained in the hands of tenant farmers with its profits going to the Harrow School that John Lyon founded [see Part 1]. The Uxendon Manor Estate had sold Preston Farm to the Bocket family some time before 1799 and it was held by various people until last farmed by the Kinch Family, after whom Kinch Grove is named, in the 20thcentury. By 1820, the Wealdstone Brook at the bottom of the Hill had a ford and a footbridge, making the route to Kingsbury more accessible.


Farms at Preston in the 1890s. (Extract from a large-scale Ordnance Survey map)
At Uxendon Manor, life had settled down after the tumultuous events of the 16thand 17th centuries, with the Page family still owning the farm until 1829 when the land passed to Henry Young (d. 1869), the junior partner of the Page's solicitor - with some suspicion that he had obtained the lands fraudulently! The original Manor House was demolished and a new farmhouse built just a little further north [now 18-20 Uxendon Hill]. The farm drive led west to a gated entrance lodge. In the 19th century, this was the only building on Preston Road between Preston House at the top of the hill and Wembley Farm [built around 1805] at the junction with East Lane.

Forty Farm, with the farmer showing off one of his horses, c.1910. (Brent Archives online image 1205)

In 1850, the tenant farmer John Elmore made Uxendon a venue for steeplechases and was well known for its "sensational water jump”, while Forty Farm was famous for horses. By the 1880s, Forty Farm was also known as South Forty Farm because a new farm, North Forty Farm, had been built [now Newland Court on Forty Avenue]. Part of the fields on the southern slopes of the hill behind the farm became Wembley Golf Club in the 1890s – the course stretching up over Barn Hill pond.

I wonder how many golf balls were lost in there!

The Harrow-on-the-Hill cutting, London & Birmingham Railway, 1838. (Image from the internet)

It was the arrival of the railways which started the slow change of the area from countryside to suburbia. The world’s first main line - the London to Birmingham Railway, built by Robert Stephenson and opened 1837, carved its way through Harrow Parish and soon a network of railway lines crossed the district. Horse drawn buses ferried passengers from villages like Preston to Wembley station, known from 1882 as Wembley and Sudbury. The 1881 Census shows several railway workers - railway plate layers, clerks and train drivers – living in cottages along East Lane to what is now North Wembley Station. Some settled, but others moved on as the network grew.


An 1890s map showing how railways were shaping the Preston of today. (Extract from an O.S. map, c.1895)

In 1863, the first Underground railway opened. By the 1870s, it was expanding north-west from Baker Streetvia Willesden Green to reach Harrow-on-the-Hill in 1880. The construction of the Metropolitan Railway effectively destroyed Forty Green, although South Forty Farm continued into the 20th century. Further changes were underway – following the 1894 Local Government Act, Preston broke its historical connection with Harrow and became part of the newly formed Wembley Urban District. No longer ‘rural’ – at least officially. 

A Metropolitan Railway steam locomotive, early 1900s. (Image from the Wembley History Society Collection)

Towards the end of the century, and especially after the development of the Wembley Park pleasure grounds in the 1890s, the Preston area began to be seen as a pleasant location for other leisure activities. Uxendon became popular with shooting enthusiasts. By 1900, the Lancaster Shooting Club was established there and the celebrated Bond Street gunsmiths Holland & Holland had a shooting ground nearby. An Uxendon Shooting School was set up behind the rebuilt farmhouse, roughly where Alverstone Road is now, and had a 120 ft high tower for hurling targets. It survived until 1932 when the Metropolitan Line extension from Wembley Park to Stanmorecut across the land and housing development started on the site.

Uxendon Shooting Club, c.1910, showing the rebuilt farmhouse. (From the collection of the late Geoffrey Hewlett)

When the Olympic Games were held in London in July 1908, the ground was sufficiently important to be used for Olympic clay pigeon shooting competition. The shooting club, which was a two-mile walk from the nearest station, joined local residents in petitioning the Metropolitan Railway Company to open Preston Road Halt on the opposite side of Preston Road to the current station in May 1908. [A proposal for a station in 1896 was rejected because there were not enough residents]. 

Clay bird shooting competition at Uxendon, 1908 Olympic Games. (From the “Daily Mirror”, 7 July 1908)
The station’s status as a halt meant it was a request stop and initially many trains failed to slow down enough to enable the driver to notice passengers waiting on the platform. Eventually, the booking office clerk was instructed to wave a red flag from the platform when passengers turned up.

Houses on Preston Road, c.1920 [note the unmade road and gas street lamp!]. (Brent Archives online image 329)

Preston Road Halt triggered the first commuter development in the district. Several large Edwardian-style houses [a few of which survive] were built along Preston Road opposite the Avenue from 1910 to 1912, and the Harrow Golf Club opened just south of the station in 1912. The photograph below shows a view across what would become the Preston Park estate. The Clubhouse was demolished during the development of Grasmere Avenue in the 1930s.

Harrow Golf Club, Preston Road, early 1920s. (Brent Archives online image 8947)

The absence of a full-time station and the purchase of unused fields for staff sports clubs by companies like Debenhams and Selfridges, kept Preston as a rural area into the early 20thcentury. Preston Road was still a twisting country lane and the Wealdstone Brook could be described as ‘one of the most perfect little streams anywhere, abounding in dace and roach’. 


"Pretty Preston Road" - postcard of a rural scene from the early 1900s. (Brent Archives online image 328)

However, in 1915,an employeeat the Metropolitan Railway Company coined the name “Metroland” – and things started to change – which we will look at in Part 3, next weekend.

Chris Coates.
↧

Mutual Aid network in Kilburn comes to the aid of a tree scheduled for removal - and saves it!

August 2, 2020, 11:50 am
$
0
0
Guest post by Dan Judelson

Local councils removing trees agains the wishes of residents is a hot button issue. Sheffield has doubtlessly been the worst example of this  LINK  but here in Brent plans to remove trees saw produced a well organised and eloquent defence of mature trees and opposition to their removal in Furness Road. The result was a commitment from the council to fashion a new approach with removal being a last resort LINK.

So when notices appeared last Friday (24th) on trees at either end of Algernon Road, Kilburn, warning that one was scheduled for removal the following Monday, it became a small scale test of this new policy. The good news is that thanks to local residents quickly raising the alarm, along with fast responses from local Brent councillors and officers alike, the decision has been reversed and the tree saved. How it happened is at least as important as the fact that it did happen.
(Photo courtesy Sophie Capel)

Like many other areas, Kilburn has set up a number of mutual aid groups, at both ward and hyper local street level. While the intention was to support neighbours in need during the lockdown to counter the Covid pandemic, it has of necessity meant that people not necessarily in direct contact with one another before now have the ability to communicate quickly when issues come up.

This is exactly what happened in this case. WhatsApp messages and tweets went out on Friday evening. Emails were sent to local councillors and officers that evening and over the weekend, protesting that the tree was not "dead” as the signs claimed. One councillor, Faduma Hassan, asked for her email address to be circulated so that residents could contact her and she could show the strength of opposition to the plans and contacted the lead member for environment. Others contacted residents in nearby streets - put in touch via the street level groups - who had some experience of dealing with the council over tree preservation. 

Monday morning rolled around and when one of the residents went to talk to the contractors who had arrived, they discovered that the council had indeed changed the work order. The trees at one end were to be pruned and a stay of execution of two weeks place on the tree scheduled for removal. Further good news came the following day, with an email from the council tree officer. Gary Rimmer said they now thought that the tree could be saved and would be pollarded, not removed. He included a welcome apology for the lack of notice too.

So this was a great result, with Brent being pushed to re-examine their plans and change them, in less than 48 hours. 

It would not have happened but for the ability to circulate information so fast, without excellent and timely responses from Councillor Hassan and Gary Rimmer, taking residents concerns seriously - and perhaps being aware of the pressure from previous incidents, thank you Furness Road campaigners and Harlesden Area Action for acting so fast back in November 2019. It’s also worth noting that in that instance too, the local councillor, Jumbo Chan was quick to back residents concerns LINK .

There are two concerns remaining, however. A new housing development, at the other end of Algernon Road is nearing completion. These photos show how many trees were removed to make way for it:
 
(Photos courtesy Stuart Fry)

When the building is completed, Brent needs to be held to its commitment to replace the lost trees with ones on the same spot or, in this case, nearby. Brent needs to acknowledge that replacing a mature tree, wide canopy and all, with a young sapling, is not really replacing anything at all. See LINK . 

Brent declared, rightly, a climate emergency. We need to make sure their actions on this are as serious as their warm words. It may well be that local mutual aid groups, set up to support isolated neighbours needing shopping and having prescriptions filled have a longer term role in the maintenance of local democracy, too.

↧
↧

BREAKING Brent issues urgent warning over Covid 19 cases rise in the borough

August 3, 2020, 9:58 am
$
0
0

FROM BRENT COUNCIL

An important message from Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council.

Today I have to share an urgent warning for everyone in Brent. For the first time in several weeks confirmed cases of Covid-19 in Brent are rising again, with 41 people testing positive for the virus over the past fortnight.

We are all rightly worried about a second wave of the virus and the recent increase in cases, which have also been seen elsewhere across the country. With this in mind I am asking for your help to prevent a second wave of the deadly virus in Brent.

Together, we all need to pay maximum attention to our surroundings at all times. We desperately want to avoid a situation where we cannot visit each other’s homes again.

I know you are likely to have heard this advice before but it is now vital that we all continue to act on it:
  • Wash your hands, or use hand sanitiser, regularly and for at least 20 seconds
  • Wear a face covering in shops and supermarkets, on public transport and when in other indoor spaces where keeping apart from others isn’t possible. Please always take a face covering with you when you leave your home in case you need to use it.
  • Get a free test now if you have any Covid-19 symptoms
  • Stay at home if you test positive for the virus, or have been in contact with someone who has tested positive.
Please pass this message onto your family, friends and neighbours. More information is here if you need it

I know we all want to get back to doing the things we love. However, we cannot do that if cases continue to rise. Let’s not throw away the hard work and sacrifices made by so many of our friends, neighbours and loved ones during lockdown.

Together, by following the NHS advice, we can stamp out coronavirus in Brent and prevent a second lockdown.
↧

1 Morland Gardens – update on the Brent v. Heritage planning battle - Next round at Planning Committee on August 12th

August 4, 2020, 6:41 am
$
0
0

Guest blog by Philip Grant, in a personal capacity.


If you have read my guest blogs on Brent Council’s planning application 20/0345, you may have missed two recent comments. I will set these out below, for ease of reference, as well as drawing attention to some interesting flaws in the “public benefits” of the proposals (supposed to justify demolition), that have emerged from recent “consultee comments” I have now seen.

1.The Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, with 2 Morland Gardens beyond, from the top of Hillside.

I have added this comment to my How significant is significance? blog of 25 June:

FOR INFORMATION:

I have now received a copy of the consultee comments by Brent's Principal Heritage Officer, on the Heritage Impact Assessment and other evidence submitted since his original comments in April 2020.

I can imagine that he was under pressure from those at the Council promoting this application to confirm the HIA assessment that 1 Morland Gardens is a heritage asset of "low significance".

 
He has resisted reducing the building's score from 8 out of 12 (although from his reference's to the architect, H.E. Kendall Jnr., I suspect he would have liked to increase the architecture score to 3 out of 3, but has also resisted doing that). Despite keeping the same score, he has changed his original significance description from "high" to "medium".

Here are the Principal Heritage Officer's comments of 29 July 2020 on significance:

'1 Morland Gardens is a Locally Listed Building [a non-designated heritage asset] but not in a conservation area nor a statutory listed building. The local list description confirms and sets out its significance. It has a significance score of 8 out of 12. This actually places the building at ‘medium’ significance rather than of high significance as I stated in my initial advice.

National Planning Guidance, Historic environment, paragraph 8 states that an ‘Analysis of relevant information can generate a clear understanding of the affected asset, the heritage interests represented in it, and their relative importance.’ I have therefore considered the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) report by Lichfields submitted by the applicants and comments made by other consultees such as the Victorian Society and those with a special interest. I have thus taken into account the available evidence and necessary expertise [National Planning Policy Framework para.190].

The HIA asserts that ‘according to Brent’s local listing criteria the following score is more appropriate to the building: 6/12, due to the authenticity of the building being affected by its 20th century alteration and extension and the lack of its surviving historic context.’ It has been given ‘low significance’. I have looked closely at the reasoning and I do not share the view on the determination that was made.

I am persuaded by Anthony Geraghty MA PhD, Professor of the History of Architecture at the University of York. He rates Henry Edward Kendall Jr. as ‘an architect of considerable importance whose nineteenth century villa characterises work by an architect of genuine and lasting significance.’ This is supported by the Victorian Society who make the point that the Stonebridge Park Estate was a development by a Victorian ‘architect of note’ and a ‘good
surviving example of a key aspect of Kendall's small, domestic works’. 

It is clear to me that 1 Morland Gardens should be considered a local heritage asset of special interest. There are only 2 of this belvedere towered design left in Brent. There are many examples of Italianate origin seen in the Borough (throughout the South Kilburn Conservation Area, for example) but these are by speculative builders and not by a significant architect like Kendall.

With this in mind, I am firmly of the view that the building is of ‘medium’ significance with a score of 8 out of 12 as none of the evidence provided introduces anything much new.'

2.Elevation drawing from the plans submitted in February 2020.


I added this comment to my Why Brent should withdraw its application to demolish 1 Morland Gardens blog of 20 July:

FOR INFORMATION:


This morning I received (from "The Office of the Leader") a letter from Amar Dave (Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment), in reply to my open email of 19 July, on behalf of Brent Council as applicant in this case (20/0345). He replied to all the points I had raised, and I will summarise his long letter below.


He said that the architectural and historic significance of the Victorian villa had been understood at an early stage of the planning process, saying: 'The assessment was reviewed by planners following submission and we were informed that it was a very thorough assessment of the condition of the historic building.' - My response to this would be that if their assessment had demonstrated a proper understanding of the building's significance, they would not have been asked to provide one, several months after their original application was submitted!


He did not agree my assertion that 65 homes, a new education centre and affordable workspace was an overdevelopment of this small site, saying: 'Further, the results of our option appraisal and public consultation within the locality showed significant need for these facilities in Stonebridge.'


In response to my assertion that the "low significance" assessment was false, he said: 'This report provided an independent assessment of the significance of the locally listed building.' He also said: 'The validity of the HIA has been confirmed by the Planning Officers.' - My response would be that, despite what the Planning officers might have said, the Council's Principal Heritage Officer has rejected the HIA's claim that the significance score should be reduced from 8 out of 12 to only 6 out of 12.


In response to my question of whether the Officers and councillors proposing this scheme 'really intend to use the HIA, seeking to deceive Brent’s planning committee into approving a planning application which they should really reject?’ Mr Dave has said: 'The HIA is part of the suite of planning documents to be assessed by officers, and considered by the Planning Committee. This will include in the report the assessment of the Council’s own Principal Heritage Officer. The Committee will be able to come to their own judgement on the significance of the building, and will balance this against all other aspects of the scheme.'


He has also said: 'We do not accept your assertion that a decision as either landowner, or as a planning authority, to agree this scheme would put "every other heritage asset in Brent at risk of demolition".'

The Council does not intend to withdraw its planning application.

3.Revised ground floor plan for 1 Morland Gardens, submitted June 2020.


I wrote in my Brent Relents! blog recently that the Council had agreed to change its practice of not making “consultee comments” on planning applications publicly available on its website. Those comments can be really valuable in identifying weaknesses in applications that affect you, and it’s not only the Heritage Officer’s comments that are of interest on this application.

Transport and access: The original plans included a loading bay, for deliveries and refuse collection, as a lay-by on Hillside, but both TfL and the Council’s Transportation Unit said this was unacceptable, because of the danger it would cause to pedestrians. The loading bay has now been moved to the end of Morland Gardens (a cul-de-sac), taking a bite out of the “Arrival Garden” at the entrance to the new adult education college. More of that garden’s paved area has been lost because the GLA objected to the lack of visitor cycle parking.


The loading bay will be the only place where deliveries can be made to the entire proposed development, and is reached along a minor side road with parking spaces on both sides. The latest comments from the Transportation Unit still have concerns about access and servicing of the building. ‘This servicing area will be convenient for the relocated refuse store and the college, but less so for the lower ground floor workspace’. The answer suggested is that: ‘… to ensure the loading area does not become congested, a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan is sought as a condition of any approval.’


That suggested plan (‘to be approved before the building is occupied’) just covers the college and the affordable workspace on the lower floors. What about deliveries to the 65 homes on the upper floors? Given experience during the Covid-19 lockdown, and the growing switch to online shopping, the people living in those homes are likely to need many deliveries as well. It is 50 metres from the loading bay to the entrance door for the tall block of flats, and over 100 metres to the entrance of the homes further down Hillside. Each trip by a delivery driver will take a long time, so where will the other delivery vans or lorries park while waiting for their turn? And can you imagine the nightmare when 65 families are moving into their new homes?


One of the factors causing more deliveries will be that the new homes will be “car free” – no parking spaces (except for disabled) and no permits allowed for street parking. In reality, many residents will have cars (the planning estimate is around 58, based on data for the number and mix of units). What is the answer to this problem? A familiar one to those who have seen previous planning cases – a Section 106 agreement for ‘a financial contribution of £32,500 towards the introduction of a year-round Controlled Parking Zone in the vicinity of the site’!

4.A view of the site - taken from a Google maps 3D satellite image.


Environmental: If you compare the “Google” view with the new ground floor plan above, you will see that the proposed new building comes much closer to Brentfield Road and Hillside than the existing building. The 1994 Harlesden City Challenge garden (which Brent’s application describes as neglected – well, whose fault is that!), and the wide pavement area behind it will be built over, with a much smaller “Arrival Garden” in front of the college entrance instead. In spite of this, the Council’s proposals are claimed to provide ‘improved public realm’.

The latest Stage 1 comments from the GLA point out that the new plans only deliver an “Urban Greening Factor” of 0.2, which falls well short of the target of 0.4, saying: ‘The applicant should therefore seek to improve the quantity and quality of urban greening across the site.’ They also point to the continuing lack of an ecological statement, outlining the impact of the development on different species, and measures to provide a biodiversity gain, in line with London and National planning policies.

Air quality also has a “red flag” against it in the GLA’s comments. 1 Morland Gardens is in an Air Quality Management Area, next to one of the poorest air quality sites in Brent, at the junction of Hillside and Brentfield Road. The ’baseline local air quality’ is poor. The development needs to deliver an Air Quality Neutral assessment for both building and transport emissions, and the GLA are not satisfied that it does. It is already clear from the application’s own assessment that the Nitrogen Dioxide levels would be too high to allow windows to be opened on the ground floor (college) and the next two floors (of homes) above!

Although the plans will provide a one metre wider pavement along Hillside, instead of a low wall then open space, the pavement will be flanked by the building itself (see elevation drawing above). Fumes from the passing traffic will be trapped, and instead of the curving wall and wide pavement turning into Morland Gardens, pedestrians (including students arriving on the No. 18 bus to the Hillside Hub stop) will need to walk up to within 5 metres of the busy junction.

Water: Thames Water have pointed out that the revised plans submitted do nothing to answer objections to the proposals which they made in March. ‘Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing SURFACE WATER infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this development proposal.’ In other words, the increased rainwater run-off would be too much for the local drains, and if no action is taken to address this, a heavy storm (more likely with Climate Change) could cause water to flood down Hillside! They want a condition added that no properties should be occupied until ‘all surface water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed.’ The developer (the Council) would have to pay for those upgrades.

The second objection from March that had still not been dealt with by 6 July was: ‘The proposed development is located within 5m of a strategic water main. Thames Water do NOT permit the building over or construction within 5m, of strategic water mains.’ By taking so much of the site (and adjoining public realm) for the new building, the Council have caused this problem. If they don’t make its “footprint” smaller, the main drinking water supply pipe for this area will have to be moved further out under the highway, at the Council’s expense, before any construction on the site can begin. Imagine the traffic chaos on Hillside / Brentfield Road that will cause!

Despite these weaknesses, and more, in the Council’s plans for 1 Morland Gardens, you can be sure that Planning Officers will recommend it for approval, probably at the “virtual” Planning Committee meeting on 12 August. Willesden Local History Society hope to participate, with my support, to oppose the application.


Philip Grant 

Editor's Note:  

The Planning Committee on August 12th starts at 6pm (following a pre-meeting at 5pm) and after the preliminaries of declarations of interest and approaches, 1 Morland  Gardens is the first item.  The proceedings can be viewed live via a link to the Webcast on the Agenda here: http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=115&MId=6107

 
↧

Alperton & Wembley Central are 'blooming lovely' - Best Garden Competition results

August 6, 2020, 2:51 am
$
0
0
This year, as part of #Blossom2020, Wembley Central and Alperton Residents Association (WCARA) ran their first ever Best Garden Competition - they were impressed by the enthusiasm, passion and commitment shown.

First prizes, kindly presented by The Chase star and local resident Shaun Wallace, were awarded as follows:
BEST BACK GARDEN
 
Best Back Garden - Amarbai Patel, Alperton Resident - prize kindly donated by Birchen Grove Garden Centre



BEST FRONT GARDEN

Best Front Garden - Sandhya Patel, Wembley Central Resident - prize kindly donated by Birchen Grove Garden Centre

BEST USE OF SMALL SPACE


Best use of Small Space – Nawaar Al-Ahmed, Alperton Resident

Highly Commended prizes were presented as follows:

Back Garden - Neera Lakhmana, Wembley Central Resident & Jyoti Desai, Alperton Resident

Front Garden - Kit Friend & Siobhan Cafferkey, both Alperton Residents

Best use of Small Space – Manisha Patel, Wembley Central Resident

A token ‘thank you’ gift of a selection of seeds was presented to all other entrants.

Pictures of the winning gardens can be seen here:  https://www.wcara.org.uk/latest-news

↧
Search

Cross party campaign needed to oppose Jenrick's assault on the community's already limited say on new developments

August 7, 2020, 3:44 am
$
0
0
The Wembley Park skyline from Barnhill
Residents of Brent may feel frustrated that their opposition to developments in South Kilburn, Alperton, Wembley Central, Sudbury, Queensbury and Wembley Park have been swept aside at Planning Committee and may think there is already a 'planning free for all' in the borough, but if government proposals go through the situation will become worse with that Committee's role curtailed.

London Councils said yesterday:
London Councils has stated its strong opposition to “any moves towards a planning free-for-all”. 

Responding to the government’s white paper on planning policy, London Councils expressed concern that the changes will severely restrict boroughs’ ability to uphold quality standards and to ensure affordable housing targets are met.

The cross-party group, which represents all 32 London boroughs and the City of London Corporation, is opposed to eroding councils’ control over development in their area through zoning arrangements.

These arrangements risk mirroring the lack of control local authorities have over notoriously poor-quality permitted development rights (PDR) schemes. PDR often produces low-quality residential accommodation in unsuitable locations, with no requirement for affordable housing, and a loss of employment space.

Boroughs are particularly alarmed by the white paper’s proposed abolition of Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy agreements, which local authorities use to make sure development includes affordable homes. Weakening council planning powers will also make it more difficult to push developers on reducing carbon emissions, undermining national climate change measures.

Cllr Darren Rodwell, London Councils’ Executive Member for Housing & Planning, said:

These changes are potentially disastrous for Londoners and could reduce the amount of affordable housing built in the capital.  

London is suffering the most severe homelessness crisis in the country and the chronic shortage of affordable housing is at the heart of this. It would be a massive step backwards if the government undermined boroughs’ ability to ensure new development in London includes affordable homes. 

Councils play a crucial role in the planning system, safeguarding our communities’ long-term interests and upholding quality standards. While we support ambitions to build more housing, we strongly oppose any moves towards a planning free-for-all – which would lead to lower quality and fewer affordable homes in London. 

We will be sharing our concerns with ministers. Councils  certainly need more detailed information and reassurance from the government over how these changes would work.

London Councils has repeatedly highlighted inadequate funding, rather than the planning system, as the key factor explaining the capital’s housing pressures.

Boroughs grant around 50,000 planning approvals each year and there are approximately 305,000 new homes in the capital's development pipeline. Boroughs do not have – and are not being given – powers to make developers build out planning permissions. Instead, the white paper would remove their ability to ensure good quality, sustainable development with sufficient affordable housing.

There are currently 243,000 London households on council housing waiting lists. Over 58,000 homeless households are placed in temporary accommodation by London boroughs. The capital accounts for two-thirds of homelessness in England.

To address the shortage of affordable housing in the capital, London Councils is seeking increased government investment and improved support for council housebuilding. This requires an end to all national restrictions on the use of Right to Buy receipts, so that every penny raised from council house sales can be reinvested in replacements, and confirmation of long-term social rent levels.

London’s council housing stock is under considerable pressure. 287,000 London council houses have been sold through Right to Buy since the policy’s introduction in 1980. In 2016-17, 3,138 council homes were sold in London and only 1,445 replaced.

Commenting on the proposed abolition of Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) agreements, Cllr Shama Tatler (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning) and currently a candidate for Labour's NEC, said on Twitter:

S106 whilst a technical element of planning not only secures affordable housing commitments on a development but also a wide range of infrastructure guarantees AND locks in commitments to local employment opportunities

Under these streamlined reforms in planning what is there to ensure delivery? Timely delivery? Can't see how developers will be pushed for delivery after permission is granted. 

Commenting  on Robert Jenrick's claim of a 5 year delivery delay in developments she said:

Nearly 90% of all planning applications are determined within 13weeks. Large schemes rightly need time and scrutiny to make sure they contribute to the placemaking of an area, affordable housing and infrastructure.

A proposal that the requirement for a proportion of affordable housing be provided should be raised to only apply to developments of 50 units and over she pointed out:

A large proportion of site allocations and schemes in Brent are on small sites with less that 50 homes. This is going hugely impact affordable housing delivery.

We can expect to see planning applications for 49 units as developers maximise their profits from market price housing.

In an exchange with me on Twitter, Cllr James Denselow, currently Chair of Brent Planning Committee, even doubted that the Committee would continue to exist under the proposals:




The website ONLondon LINK reported Green Party AM Sian Berry's comment which will be of interest to people on Brent's estates, particularly St Raphael's:

Green Party AM and mayoral candidate Siân Berry was also critical, saying an “imbalance of power” in a planning system “already heavily weighted towards big developers over local communities” will be made even worse by centralised “top down targets” and reduced scrutiny and rights.

“People living on estates in London will be chilled to see whole areas proposed to be set aside for ‘growth’ or ‘renewal’ without a single mention of the rights of people already living there,” Berry said. “These new proposals don’t even set out whether residents will have a real say over the areas where they have made their homes and communities being earmarked for instant planning permission.”

Liberal Brent Councillor, Anton Georgiou (Alperton) told Wembley Matters:
Planning decisions have a massive impact on local communities. It cannot be a free for all allowing rich developers to force massive tower blocks and regeneration in our area. There must be local scrutiny and local control to help protect our community and ensure the concerns of residents are heard throughout the decision making process. But also to ensure that the right type of genuinely affordable and social homes are being built. These top down changes are wrong and must be stopped.





↧
↧

72 years on – the Olympic marathon race at Wembley, 1948

August 7, 2020, 11:19 am
$
0
0
Guest blog by Philip Grant


Two weeks ago, we celebrated the 1908 Olympic marathon race on its 112thanniversary, with a video including newsreel film of the two leading runners, with a crowd in Wembley High Road watching them.

The Olympic marathon runners on a circuit of the track, before leaving Wembley Stadium, 7 August 1948.

When I wrote to Joe Neanor, who had made the video, he said that he had also recently run the 1948 Olympic Marathon race route – and he supplied a link to a colour film of the race, which took place 72 years ago today. That race started and finished in Wembley Stadium, and went out and back along Forty Lane, Fryent Way and Honeypot Lane to Stanmore, with a loop through the countryside of Hertfordshire. It was a tough course, with plenty of hills to climb!
 
The 1948 Olympic marathon course map and details. (Images from the internet)

If you watch the video below, it will take you back in time, and you will spot scenes you recognise, as they were in 1948, including Olympic Way and the Town Hall. As the runners head back towards Wembley, there are some key moments in the race, along Fryent Way with what are now the fields of Fryent Country Park in the background. And the finish in the stadium is almost as dramatic as that in the 1908 Olympic marathon!


↧

The Preston Story – Part 3

August 8, 2020, 4:00 am
$
0
0
Guest blog by Chris Coates of Preston Community Library. Plenty of material here, especially the video,  for local teachers who are teaching the Second World War to Year 6 next academic year.


Part 2 of The Preston Story ended in the early years of the 20th century with Preston still a rural hamlet. Its small population were employed on farms or as servants in the large houses starting to appear along Preston Road – their middle-class residents now able to commute into London from the ‘request stop’ Halt on the Metropolitan Railway. At weekends, the population was swelled by visitors to the two golf clubs, the shooting grounds and the various sports grounds owned by London-based companies.


1.A 1930s postcard of Preston Hill, with bridge over the Wealdstone Brook in the distance.
(From the Wembley History Society Collection – Brent Archives online image 8979)

The years following the First World War brought fast moving change to Preston. Local farms had specialised in producing hay for the 1000s of horses in London - Uxendon and Forty Farms were 100% meadow land in 1900. As motor traffic increased the demand fell, so some farms closed while others down-sized. In 1907, there were 66 farms in Wembley and by 1937 there were only nine.


2.The rib-making workshop for aeroplane wings at Hooper & Co, North Wembley, 1917.

At the same time, new industrial areas near Preston attracted workers away from agriculture and, during the war, women were encouraged to leave domestic service for better paid, though often dangerous, work in factories. In Kingsbury, there were 4 aeroplane companies including The Aircraft Manufacturing Company, which by 1918 was employing 4,400 people, more than half of them women. Another company, Hooper & Co, moved to East Lane, North Wembley in 1917 to build the Sopwith Camel and produce spare parts for other planes. The site – later the GEC estate – covered 40 acres including a flying ground and railway sidings. British Oxygen also moved to East Lane in 1918, as did the Wrigley [chewing gum] Company in 1926. 

From 1921, Christ Church College, Oxford, Harrow School and other landowners sold their Preston estates for building development. Developers were attracted by the good transport links both into London and to the North. Local roads, including Forty Lane, had been widened and improved to ease visitor access to the 1924-5 British Empire Exhibition and the train network had been extended and modernised. The Metropolitan Line was electrified through to Harrow by 1908 and the Bakerloo Line, running on L. & N.W.R tracks, electrified out to Watford Junction by 1922. A large triangle of land was created between the lines where commuters might find the Metroland dream of a modern home in beautiful countryside plus a fast rail service into London.

 3.The cover of the 1921 edition of the Metro-Land guide. (Image from the internet)


The term "Metro-land" was coined by the Metropolitan Railway Company’s marketing department in 1915 to promote sales of housing on its land in the North-west London suburbs. The Company did not build housing in Preston, but other developers were clearly influenced by the Metroland ideal of Tudor Revival design. Sadly, John Betjeman gives only a passing [literally!] reference to Preston in his many Metroland poems:

Smoothly from Harrow, passing Preston Road,
They saw the last green fields and misty sky….      Baker St Station Buffet [1954]

4.The Preston Hotel, c.1930.(Brent Archives online image 1680)

Housing and shops spread along Preston Road in the 1920s. Several builders were involved in the development, notably Clifford Sabey who built the Preston Hotel (now The Preston) c.1927 and Preston Park Primary School in 1932. The lovely Harrow Golf Clubhouse, that we saw in Part 2, overlooking peaceful fields and the meandering Crouch Brook, was demolished in 1928 and the Preston Park Estate began to cover the whole golf course and fields beyond up to the Bakerloo Line boundary, taking some 12 years to be completed.


                 5.An aerial view looking west from Preston Road, 1932. 
                           (From “Britain from Above”, image EPW037564)

This aerial photograph, taken in 1932, looks west across the growing Preston Park Estate. Logan Road, Carlton Avenue East, College Road and Preston Road down to St Augustine’s Avenue can clearly be seen, with the Crouch Brook crossing Glendale Gardens, the school grounds and the fields beyond. Sudbury Court Estate in the distance is nearing completion.

6.Exterior and interior views of The Windermere, built 1938. (Images from the internet)

Some developers included outstanding designs. The Lawns Court estate on The Avenue, was built in the Moderne style on the old Forty Farm estate around 1931.  The Windermere, a Grade 2 listed pub in Windermere Avenue, was built in 1938 in the Dutch style, with Art Deco interiors. To enhance the attraction of the area for commuters, the old Halt was replaced with a proper Preston Road station, built to the west of the road bridge in 1931-2, and a new station, South Kenton, on the Bakerloo Line, was opened in 1933.


7.A newspaper article about South Kenton Station, from the Nottingham Evening Post, 1 February 1934

 
By now it was clear that the new heart of Preston would be to the south of the old hamlet. More shops appeared around the station in the 1930s and by 1936 Preston was being described as ‘a high class and rapidly growing residential area with a population of between 6,000 and 7,000 people’. Under Wembley's Town Planning Scheme 1931-2, the remaining country lanes in the area were improved and Clay Lane re-named Preston Hill - both it and Preston Road became straightened and widened suburban streets by 1937. Preston Manor Secondary School was built in 1938 for the families moving into the area.


8.Carlton Avenue East from the corner of Longfield Avenue, c.1935. (Brent Archives online image 10539)
[Note the newly-planted lime trees, and the absence of traffic!]


Development moved north-east of Preston when the Metropolitan Railway extension from Wembley to Stanmore (later the Bakerloo and today the Jubilee Line) was opened in 1932. The final remnants of the old Uxendon Manor estate that we looked at in Parts 1and 2 were demolished to make way for it. Forty Green began being built over as early as 1923, but in the years that followed housing covered the whole of Uxendon, except for Barn Hill Open Space, which had been purchased by the Council from the owners of Preston Farm in 1927.

 
The demand for building workers far outstripped local availability. As in previous times, migrant or incoming labour was vital. Government schemes brought unemployed workers from ‘Distressed Areas’ in the North to meet the inter-war development boom in the South East. My father came down from Durham on such a Scheme and was put to navvying on building sites in Kingsbury. After finding work more suited to his skills, he, like many generations of migrant workers before him, settled in the area.

 9.Bombs dropped on Preston, 1 October 1940 to 6 June 1941 (where multiple bombs fell, number shown).(Image from the bombsight.org website)

The Second World War came to Preston in August 1940, when incendiary bombs were dropped on Barn Hill. Later in the Blitz, the area was hit more severely. This bombing map from the 1940s shows 43 High Explosive Bombs dropped from October 1940 to June 1941 in Preston, probably aiming for the rail networks or for North Wembley’s industrial complex - especially the GEC Research Centre where radar systems were being developed. 


10.Wembley's A.R.P. Post 32, in The Avenue, c.1939. (From a Brent Archives local history article)

The A.R.P. [Air Raid Precautions] Post above was in The Avenue, Wembley Park. The wardens’ name-sign for their base shows a rattle, to warn residents of a possible gas attack, and a bell to signal the ‘all clear’ afterwards. A.R.P. wardens also enforced the ‘blackout’. Heavy curtains and shutters were required on all private residences and commercial premises to prevent light escaping and helping enemy bombers locate their targets. 

At the start of the war, Government evacuation schemes moved children out of the cities. In 1940, the City of Benares, an evacuee ship on its way to Canada, was torpedoed by a German submarine with heavy loss of life, including 77 evacuated children. Many Wembley children were on the Benaresand 7 pupils from Preston Park Primary School were among those who died. Further plans to relocate British children abroad were cancelled. 


11.Excerpt from Preston Park Primary School diary, September 1940, listing 7 pupils lost on City of Benares.

British Restaurants were set up for those made homeless, but later became open to all, serving meals each day at 1 shilling for 3 courses. There were 8 British Restaurants in Wembley, including Preston [1943] at 3-7 Lincoln Parade, Preston Road - the building survives at the junction with Carlton Avenue East. 

 12.War Savings poster, 1942. (Image from the TUC Library Collection)


Everyone on the Home Front was expected to contribute in some way – in war work, ARP, the Home Guard or the War Savings Campaign. Elmstead Avenue’s War Savings Group managed to collect £40,000 for the war effort through its activities. Children were encouraged to help collect recycling. There is a short silent film of Kenton Boy Scouts doing just that in Woodcock Hill!



Families with space were expected to accept billeted essential workers, Land Army women working on the remaining Preston farms, or refugees. Wembley’s Empire Pool acted as the Middlesex Reception Centre for European refugees and many were found temporary homes locally. The Church of the Ascension church hall [built 1937] in The Avenue set up a refugee club. The Church itself was not built until 1957.


13.Metropolitan trains come and go at Preston Road Station, while a steam train races past on the British Rail tracks. (Photograph taken by a trainspotter in October 1962 – Brent Archives online image 8654)

After the war, a prefab estate was built for bombed-out families at Tenterden Close, Woodcock Hill, and was there until the late 1960s. Housing development continued to the north and east of Preston Road, and The Mall was extended to the Wealdstone Brook, cutting across playing fields to make a more direct route from Preston Hill to Kingsbury.  In 1947 another place of worship, a Liberal synagogue, was built on Preston Road. By 1951 Preston's population had risen to 12,408. The company owned sports fields on Woodcock Hill were bought by Middlesex County Council for Wembley in 1957 and renamed the John Billam Sports Ground after a previous Mayor.


                  14.Preston Road Station, c.1960. (Brent Archives online image 8636)

             15.Shops in Preston Road c.1960, from the junction with Grasmere     Avenue.    (Brent Archives online image 8628


By the early 1960s, all of Preston's old buildings in the original hamlet had been lost. Preston Farm, Hillside Farm and the Preston Tea Gardens demolished for flats and John Lyon’s farm replaced by John Perrin Place – a council housing estate. After hundreds of years with little change, within 50 years the tiny village of Preston had become a radically different place – and very much part of London. 

If you have memories of Preston in the Second World War or the years following, please share them in the Comments box below. Do return for Part 4 of the Preston Story when we will look at our area today.

Chris Coates,
Preston Community Library
↧

Colindale Police Station 4Front protest - lessons for Brent?

August 8, 2020, 1:45 pm
$
0
0


4Front is a youth project based in Grahaeme Park, Barnet.  Yesterday the project hit social media when a 14 year old youth was arrested by police and youth workers intervened.

This was the police account of the incident.
A 14-year-old boy [A] was arrested on suspicion of possession of cannabis. As officers carried out the arrest, a group began to gather around officers and obstructed the police vehicle from leaving the scene. Further police units attended.

A further two people, a 23-year-old man [B] and a 25-year-old man [C] were arrested on suspicion of obstruction of a constable. The police vehicle left the scene and the group followed on foot to Colindale Police Station; a group of approximately 30 to 40 people remained outside the building.
A cordon is in place around the police station and a Section 35 dispersal order was authorised and further officers are supporting the dispersal of the group. 
4Front have previously complained about 'over policing' of the area and they are taking legal action over a previous incident when head of Community Support, Kusia Rahul, was arrested when he went to support a user of the project being questioned by police.  He had showed his ID on a 4Front lanyard but police demanded his car licence, which he said was not necessary as he'd established his ID. DETAILS

4Front released a video and preliminary statement about yesterday's event on Instagram HERE

According to the Huffington PostLINK, Project member Temi Mwale, named by September's Vogue as one of Britain's most influential activists, said at the scene:
We’ve been assaulted so many times here today. We have two members of my staff team that have been arrested.

We have several young people who have also been arrested. This is what we’re dealing with and I’ve told them we want it to be deescalated and yet they’ve refused.

This community is sick and tired of the way we’re being treated and now we need your support. We’re meant to be out there tomorrow, Tottenham police station, but instead we’re out here at Colindale police station right now.
Those arrested have been released pending investigation.

The incident is relevant because, although it happened in the London Borough of Barnet, the police Basic Control Unit (NorthWestBCU) also covers Brent and Harrow.

A number of factors combine at the moment: oppressive summer heat, Black Lives Matter concern over police conduct towards the black community (not helped by the Fryent Country Park incident), and frustration at the continuing lockdown.

Good police-community relations  really matter at such a time. Back in 1986 with riots in Brixton and Bristol, Brent avoided riots because of the action of a small group of black youngsters in  setting up the Bridge Park project.  Significantly at the time their efforts were strongly backed by Brent Council and the local police commander.

Now in Brent we are awaiting the court's judgment on the battle in which Brent Council is fighting the original Bridge Park campaigners and their successors for possession of the site, and people are waiting to see if the police, who took pictures of the bodies of the women at the Fryent Country Park murder scene, are going to be brought to justice.

Borough youth facilities have been cut back  rwith just a remnant at Roundwood,  Stonebridge Adventure Playground has been closed and the land sold off, the playschemes that used to operate across the borough in the summer, are now largely closed.

Section 60 orders are creating tension in some areas of the borough.

It was not clear at the Bridge Park trial that the current Brent Council understands what a formidable achievement it was that the young campaigners of the time addressed groups of youth on our estates stopping a riot with the slogan, 'Build Don't Burn.'  The presentation of the Council case paid lip service to the founders of Bridge Park but there were moments when the mask slipped: 'Answer my question - this is not a street meeting' to one of the founders  and a reference to the new development catering for the demographic of today - not the 1980s.  Both QCs, the judge and most of the council witnesses were white. The defendants black.  None of the current Harlesden or Stonebridge councillors supported the Bridge Park campaign in court.

Surely there is a need for councillors at this crucial moment to get out into the community, make links with the young, hear about their concerns and act on them.   The network they build may be vital over the hot summer ahead.



↧

Family visits on now at Fryent Country Park, Kingsbury - ideal weather to visit

August 9, 2020, 3:59 am
$
0
0
After recent unhappy events in the park, Barnhill Conservation Group are welcoming children and their families to Fryent Country Park today using the entrance between 109-111 Valley Drive, Kingsbury.

It's a lovely day to explore the park and you'll be sure of a warm welcome from Larry!

 



Thanks to Noreen Scott for the photographs

↧
↧

EXCLUSIVE: Councillor calls on colleagues to reject 'weak offer' on Labour Group democracy that reinforces Brent Council leader's power

August 9, 2020, 11:20 am
$
0
0
Brent Council Leader is not always happy with councillors who are independent thinkers

In May 2020 Cllr Muhammed Butt had been leader of Brent Council for 12 years, having gained power at the AGM which saw Ann John ousted as Leader.

The Labour Group AGM this year has been delayed, possibly until September, depending on Covid restrictions, so a report on democracy in the Council appeared timely.

Cllr Butt has already had rule changes put in place, with the support of the Labour Group, which makes him no longer subject to annual re-election as Leader.

Decisions are made mainly by a 10 person Cabinet and most of them also serve on the General Purposes Committee with the addition of one Conservative representative. Much power resides in the Leader who allocates the various positions that attract additional allowances. It's unclear how much this is influenced by votes of the group rather than the Leader's  personal preferences.

It is no secret that many backbenchers are frustrated in their role. Without any additional position they feel they are no more than a conduit for residents' complaints about missed waste collections and potholes - just referring them on to officers in the various council departments.

There have been some happy exceptions to the rule in task groups set up by Scrutiny Committees but mostly backbenchers are kept out of policy making except for the ritual raising of hands at Full Council meetings. Some brave souls, who not want to vote for the cuts or other controversial matters, either absent themselves entirely or sneak out to the lavatory when the vote is taken.






Cllr Gill has written to Cllr Thomas Stephens and all members of the Labour Group giving his reasons for leaving. He is critical of  Stephens' chairing and questions his motives in producing what he calls a 'soft report.'

He points of that over the last 10 years the number of elections held within the group over the 4 year period of an administration has gone from 48 to 8.

 Gill claims that his call for more elections and term limits was answered by 'democracy causes arguments and disharmony' and that this sounded more like more like a North Korean apparatchik than any kind of Democrat.

His email alleges that a loophole that would enable the Leader and Deputy leader to swap jobs after the 8 year terms was up, and thus continue for another year, was pointed out but that the loophole was not closed by the Chair.

Gill claimed that direct elections were rejected and an unspecified  selection procedure supported  instead that he said would allow the Leader to vet any people he did not like and keep them off the shortlist.

He concludes that this was a 'soft report'  and calls on his councillor colleagues to vote it down until they get a better offer.

The report is embedded below for readers to consider the arguments:



↧

Help from Brent Council for those hit financially by Covid19

August 11, 2020, 2:12 pm
$
0
0
From Brent Council

Resident’s Support Fund

If you are a Brent resident and have been impacted financially or personally by Covid-19, you could be eligible for financial support. We have funding that allows us to help residents that need additional help due to Covid-19.

The Resident’s Support Fund provides additional help in the form of an interest-free loan, grant or both.

We recognise that residents have been impacted in many ways by Covid-19 and we are committed to doing all we can to support our resident’s at this difficult time.

Who can apply

You can apply for a grant or loan if you:
  • are a Brent resident
  • aged 18 or over
  • have been impacted by Coronavirus
  • and do not have more than £6,000 in savings at the time of the application
You must be willing to provide any reasonable supporting information that is needed by us to make a decision and take any reasonable steps we may suggest.

What the grant or loan can be used for:

  • Rent or mortgage arrears, even if you are already getting Housing Benefit
  • Council Tax arrears
  • Housing Benefit overpayment arrears
  • Household expenditure (food, utility bills and fuel)
  • Paying off debts e.g. credit card loans
  • Counselling and mental health services
  • Skills training and further education to support employment
  • Getting access to the internet, a laptop or both

How to apply

If you are in need of financial support, and meet the above criteria, apply online. HERE

You can also retrieve and continue with an application you have already started.  To retrieve an existing application, you will need the application reference number that was emailed to you.  HERE


When you can expect to hear

We aim to assess your application within 10 working days. You will receive confirmation from us in writing to confirm the decision we have made.

If you have requested help towards your rent, Housing Benefit overpayments or Council Tax, we may pay any funds awarded directly into the associated account.

If your grant is unsuccessful, we may be able to refer you to a credit union to help you with an interest free loan.
↧
Search

Planning Committee votes to demolish 'beautiful' Altimira (1 Morland Gardens) - Chair votes Against

August 12, 2020, 12:03 pm
$
0
0
1 Morland Gardens
The approved redevelopment
Brent Planning Committee tonight approved the Council's own development plans for 1 Morland Gardens despite please to respect it as one of only two heritage buildings in the area.  The Italiante Villa will be demolishedand replaced by the building above.

There had been 48 initial objections to the plans with a further 15 when plans review, a 330 signature e-petion against and a 36 person written petition from Willesdneh Local History Society.

There were just 3 comments on the Planning Portal in support.

Chair of Brent Planning  Committee Cllr James Denselow voted against mainly on grounds of confusion over the DMP7 policy on heritage and view shared by Cllr Maurice who also voted against and felt additionally that the Council as applicant could have done more work on the proposal.

 In his presentation to the Committee Roger Macklen said:

I have lived in Stonebridge since 1947, and as well as being a local resident, I’m a member of Willesden Local History Society. 

Stonebridge has changed during my lifetime, much of it not for the better. Many of the newer buildings are tasteless and have nothing to please the eye. 

1 Morland Gardens, or Altamira as I know it, is a beautiful landmark building that has been around since 1876. 

It was part of the original Stonebridge Park, that gave its name to the area. 

Please see the two photos we sent you - Altamira and its neighbour have been an impressive part of the scene by the main junction for more than a century. 

They are the only buildings with this belvedere tower design left in Brent, and together they add so much to Stonebridge’s townscape. 

Brent’s Heritage Officer said in April that Altamira: ‘should be considered an important local heritage asset of high significance.’ He was right.

Brent’s planning guidance says: ‘Brent’s heritage assets make a substantial contribution to the borough’s local character and distinctiveness. They are a unique and irreplaceable resource which justifies protection, conservation and enhancement.’ 

Brent’s new Historic Environment Strategy says: ‘Once a heritage asset is demolished it cannot be replaced. Its historic value is lost forever to the community and future generations and it cannot be used for regeneration and place-making purposes.’ 

This application wants to demolish Altamira, an irreplaceable building that’s part of Stonebridge’s character, and should be kept, for the long-term benefit of the community.
366 local residents have signed a petition asking the Council not to demolish it. 

The applicants claim that 1 Morland Gardens is of ‘low significance ... and of local interest only.’ That’s wrong - and there’s plenty of evidence to prove it. 

It’s shown to be wrong by the Council’s own Local List score of 8 out of 12, which the Heritage Officer has confirmed, and by objections from nearly 50 people who understand the history of the area and the value of this building. 

And it’s shown to be wrong by objections from The Victorian Society, and from a Professor of Architecture, and expert on H.E. Kendall, who wrote: 


‘1 Morland Gardens is not just any nineteenth-century villa, but a characteristic work by an architect of genuine and lasting significance. Its destruction would be a terrible loss, not only to the local environment, but also to the architectural heritage of Victorian Britain.' 

I strongly urge you to reject this application.

In his submission, local historian Philip Grant who contributes regularly to Wembley Matters said:


Brent’s policy DMP7 says: ‘Proposals for...heritage assets should...retain buildings, ...where their loss would cause harm.’ 

These proposals went wrong over that policy from the start – they didn’t show: ‘an understanding of the architectural or historic significance’ of this heritage building ...
... and instead of considering what viable use could be made of it, they started with a “wish-list” that made it impossible to retain. 

The applicants’ “headline” public benefits sound good – but their plans have major faults, including on air quality, and on accessibility, which the Supplementary Report side-steps – I’d welcome your questions on those.

They tried to justify demolition by saying the villa has “low significance”, a false assessment, by a firm who knew that “low” was the result their client needed to support its application.
The Heritage Impact Assessment didn’t use the criteria for locally listed buildings approved by this Committee in July 2015 – please see the copy at page 4. 

On your criteria, I believe this building scores 2 for authenticity, 3 for architecture, at least 2 for historic, and 3 for townscape – a total of 10 out of 12 - a “high significance”. 

I’d be happy to justify those scores in answer to questions – please ask Brent’s Heritage Officer for his views as well. 

Please look at page 3. The para. 4.29 guidance on policy DMP7 says: ‘The Council will resist significant harm to or loss of heritage assets.’ 

It also states that ‘a balanced judgement’ is required: ‘where the harm would be less than substantial’. 

Brent’s Heritage Officer has said: ‘The demolition of the building, by its very nature, must be seen as substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset.’ 

The DMP7 guidance gives a strong presumption that the substantial harm to this heritage asset over-rides any public benefits. 

Even with a “balanced judgement”, those claimed benefits, with their unresolved flaws, do not outweigh the harm. This application should be rejected.

If you approve this application, contrary to Brent’s planning policies, you’ll not only condemn this valuable building, but set a precedent that undermines Brent’s entire historic environment strategy, and puts every heritage asset in the borough “at risk”.

Stella Rodriguez came next,  she introduced herself as a foreigner ('you can tell by my accent'), who had recently settled in the area and could not understand why anyone would want to demolish such a beautiful building.

Errol Donald then spoke in favour of the development, a charity worker in Harlesden for the last 3 years and with family still in the area, he said that the development was essential to reinvigorate the area.  He did not mention the Bridge Park controversy by name but talked about the local and national political context . He said the scheme was not a direct response to that context but did contribute. It would provide real hope and training (in the form of the new college building) for a resilient comunity that deserved a chance to have the same chance to grow and thrive as other areas in Brent.

He said that working with young people informed his views - history and heritage are ongoing and cannot be seen in isolation.  He'd had conversation about architecture but it was their personal history that was important to people.

Ala Uddin from the College quoted Malcolm X's views on the importance of education. He said the current building was dysfunctional and that the new building would provide fantastic learning spaces with high tech faciliites, It would be an aspirationl abuilding that would provide high quality education and motivation to learn.  Cllr Denselow asked if the collge could do outstanding work in a dysfunctional building despite the problems. Uddin said ye, but it would be even better in a new building.

Answering a further question he said that 92% of their students came from Brent with the majoroty from Harlesden, Stonebridge and Willesden Green.



↧

Neighbourhood CIL needs more representative community involvement on priorities and projects

August 14, 2020, 3:12 am
$
0
0
Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy  (NCIL) is one of the main ways residents can make positive changes in their neighbourhoods - although if the government gets its way it may soon be ended.  In Brent it has often been underspent with insufficient numbers of projects coming forward for funding.

The Cabinet will consider reports at Monday's meeting on how it has been spent and the outcome of the consultation about priorities for the scheme.

The latter, worryingly, shows a very low response from young people, the very people most impacted by the closure of youth centres and the impending economic crisis - only 8% of responses were from those under 25 years old.   The number of responses from ethnic minorities did not reflect their numbres in the population with for example only 3%  of respondents self-defined as black in Willesden.

With 'Crime and Anti-social behaviour'  and 'Education and Employment' scoring high in most areas there is clearly an urgent need to involve young people.  Overall engaging with harder to reach groups has to be a priority if NCIL monies are to be spent to benefit the whole population.

It is worth considering any mismatch between 'Top Priorities' and 'Project Themes'.


The proportions varied between NCIL areas (wider than wards):




This document shows how the money has been spent across the borough and in each area:


↧
↧

Ask local Police Commander Roy Smith questions & make suggestions on-line next week

August 14, 2020, 3:32 am
$
0
0
With concerns being voiced in the Kilburn Times over the impact of Section 60 orders on the black community in Brent it may be a good time to ask questions of the local police.

This event is scheduled for next week:

Ask police commander Roy Smith questions online

Do you have any questions about policing or crime in Brent? 
Do you have any suggestions about how we can have a safer Brent?

At Brent Safer Neighbourhood Board online public meeting from 5pm to 6pm on Wednesday 19 August, police commander Roy Smith will answer questions. Anyone can join online atJoin Microsoft Teams Meeting or telephone 020 8142 4393 and use ID: 629 035 521#. No need to pre-register.

Send your questions or suggestions before 12 noon Monday 17 August to NWMailbox.BCUCommander@met.police.uk

↧

Investigators' update on allegations of police officers' inappropriate photographing of bodies in Fryent murder case

August 14, 2020, 12:13 pm
$
0
0





 
An update on what we have been doing 

It is important to us that the local community know what work we have been doing and how we can help you. Please share this update via email or in newsletters with anyone interested in our work and what we have been doing. 

Update on Wembley investigations 

The Independent Office for Police Conduct is continuing to make good progress in its criminal investigation into allegations that inappropriate photographs were taken at a homicide crime scene in Wembley in June.

Two Metropolitan Police constables were arrested by IOPC investigators on Monday 22 June and have been released under investigation to a later date pending further enquiries.

Separately, the IOPC is also making good progress with its investigation into the police response to a number of calls made to them by the family and friends of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry.
Both investigations are also examining whether the officers’ actions were motivated or influenced by race discrimination.

IOPC Director for London Sal Naseem said:
I want to reassure the community that we are doing everything we can to progress this investigation. Our team is working hard to deliver a thorough and robust investigation of these deeply upsetting allegations.

Our thoughts remain with Nicole and Bibaa’s family and friends, and anyone else who may have been affected by their tragic deaths in such horrific circumstances. We continue to keep their family updated as our investigation progresses.

As this is an ongoing criminal investigation, linked to an ongoing police homicide investigation, we cannot provide further information at this time. However, we will publish further updates as soon as we can. 
Frequently asked questions 

What progress have you made with the investigation?
Both investigations are progressing well, and we are assessing a great deal of evidence. However , as it is a sensitive investigation, we cannot give further details.

How long do you think the investigation will take?
Our priority is to ensure this is a thorough, robust and independent investigation. It is not possible to put a timeframe on this.

How did the IOPC become aware of the photos?
We initially received a referral from the Metropolitan Police Service.

What type of evidence will you look at?
Unfortunately, we cannot comment on what evidence is being looked at. However, our investigations will look at lines of enquiry including police records, witness statements, evidence from the scene and other available evidence which may help.

Can you confirm there were selfies taken by the officers? Do you know who the officers sent the photos to?
Due to the ongoing investigation we cannot comment or provide any details as to the nature of the photos.

What has happened to the police officers concerned?
Two Metropolitan Police constables were arrested by IOPC investigators on Monday 22 June and have been released under investigation to a later date pending further enquiries. The MPS have suspended them from their positions.

Are the officers suspended on full pay? Can the IOPC sack a police officer?
These are both matters for the MPS as the employers of the police officers involved.

Will the officers be charged?
When the IOPC have concluded the investigation, we will decide whether to refer the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS will then decide whether to bring charges against the officers.

How are you keeping communities informed?
We have held three update meetings with key stakeholders from Brent and expect to meet with them again soon. These key stakeholders will be requested to share this information with relevant contacts and networks.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Together with other community and council members, Gill Close Chair of Brent Safer Neighbourhood Board has been attending online meetings with the IOPC Director for London and the IOPC lead officer for the investigations where we have been able to hear updates on IOPC activities, convey community concerns and ask questions.

Councillor Tom Miller, the cabinet lead for community safety, has also attended these meetings. Two other safer neighbourhood board members, Roy Croasdaile and Khalid Afrah, also attended the first meeting

↧

The Preston Story – Part 4

August 15, 2020, 7:35 am
$
0
0

We left Part 3 of the Preston Story in the early 60s – just before two major political changes in the area. Firstly, Preston, along with the rest of Wembley, merged with Willesden in 1965 to form the new London Borough of Brent; followed in 1974 with the creation of a new Brent North constituency which has had just two MPs since its creation in 1974: the Conservative Rhodes Boyson until his defeat in the 1997 landslide by Labour’s Barry Gardiner.


1. Preston Road, from the Carlton Avenue East junction, early 1960s. (Brent Archives online image 8620)
Preston’s population in 2001 was 12,844 – scarcely changing from the 1951 figure of 12,408 – but by 2011 it had risen by 20.48% to 15,474. The growth mainly came with the building of the Hirst Crescent estate on a brownfield site (the former GEC Research Centre) on East Lane, plus the new flats around Strathcona Road, bringing much-needed housing into the area. The Council’s analysis of changes between the two censuses can be found here.  There is continuing pressure on housing and consequent concerns over the possible exploitation of tenants in houses of multiple occupation.


2. Hirst Crescent, from East Lane. (Image from Google Maps street view)

To help me look back at the last 50 years and to bring Preston’s history up to date, I decide to canvass my neighbours and ask them what positive things had happened locally and what they saw as the changes to the look or feel of the area since they arrived.
One of the things that everyone mentioned was the increased diversity of the local population - though as we have seen, people have been moving into Preston looking for work since the early 19th century and in the 20th to find new homes in pleasant suburban surroundings. Brent Council’s 2014 Diversity Profile for Preston is slightly dated  but shows in 2011 that Preston had a 70.1% black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) population. Each of these communities needs a history of its own experience and, as only an outline can be shown here, I hope someone will come forward to do that.


3. A Preston Park Primary School class c.1992, showing the diversity of families in the area.

Many people arriving in Preston from 1970 were of Asian heritage, expelled from East Africa, first Kenya and, after the 1971 Amin coup, from Uganda. Many were middle class families – engineers, officials and shop-owners – starting new lives and businesses, and establishing religious, social and cultural communities in the most difficult of circumstances.
In the late 1980s, Preston had a substantial Japanese population, large enough to warrant a Japanese estate agent on Preston Road. Many worked for Japanese companies in the City. During the 1990s Japanese recession, most were recalled and disappeared quickly over the school holidays, leaving children wondering where their school friends had gone. In more recent years EU citizens, particularly from Poland and Romania, have moved into the area, mainly to find work.


4. Wembley United Synagogue (rebuilt 1956), Forty Lane.  (Image from Brent Council’s heritage Local List)
The Jewish Community was perhaps the first to settle as a distinct group in the 1920s, moving from poor housing in East London to modern homes and green surroundings. A United Synagogue was established in Forty Avenue in the 1930s, followed by the Harrow and Wembley Progressive Synagogue [1948] at 326 Preston Road, on the site of what was then the Preston Lawn Tennis Club. In recent years they moved to Harrow and the site is now Blackberry Court and a Pentecostal Church. A second United Synagogue was opened in Shaftesbury Avenue in 1958. 
In the 1950s, political change in the Middle East decided many Jews in Arab countries to move to the UK. Members of this Sephardi tradition moved to Edinburgh House on Forty Avenue in 1970, while another Sephardi group, the Neveh Shalom Community with members from North Africa, India and the Middle East, moved to 27 Windermere Avenue in 1970 and then to 352 -354 Preston Road in 1983. There is still a strong Jewish presence in Preston today, though the number of active synagogue members is in decline. The Jewish Free School [est. 1732] one of Europe’s largest Jewish secondary schools, moved to new premises in The Mall in 2002.
5. The Grade II listed Church of the Ascension, The Avenue, c.1960. (Brent Archives online image 8641)

Other places of worship in Preston include the Catholic parish hall, built in Carlton Avenue East on land originally belonging to South Forty Farm in 1932. The present church dedicated to St Erconwald, a 7th century Bishop of London, opened in 1970.  There are also three Anglican churches. St Augustine in Forty Avenue was built as a wooden church in 1913 but suffered damage during the Second World War and was re-built 1953. The 1957 Church of the Ascension [see Part 3] in The Avenue is notable for its stained glass by Carter Shapland. The Church of the Annunciation in Windermere Ave was built in 1938. There are also three more recent Christian Fellowship or Pentecostal Churches.
One of the more dynamic projects to come out of Preston was the Strathcona Theatre Company. Strathcona was set up in the late 1970s as a social education centre for young adults with learning difficulties, with an ethos radically different from the old adult training centres which focussed on preparing people for unskilled industrial work. The young, enthusiastic staff offered courses in drama, art, music, pottery, sports and training for independent living - uncovering talents and discovering skills in a different way.


6. Poster for Strathcona Theatre Company's 1999 production, "Hood".

Its Theatre Company, formed in 1982 and running for over 20 years, staged productions at the Tricycle Theatre in Kilburn, at many other venues in the UK and at international festivals in Europe. In 1983, the Guardian described it as “The UK’s leading disabled theatre company”. The poster above was for their retelling of the Robin Hood legend, where a disparate group of eco-warriors band together to fight for their right to live in a better world. The play was devised and scripted by Ann Cleary and Ian McCurrach (Artistic Directors).

The Strathcona Centre was closed around 2012, and the adults who attended were sent to other services. The building re-opened in 2014 as Roe Green Strathcona School, an offshoot of an existing Junior school in Kingsbury. Despite protests, in October 2019 Brent Council voted to close Strathcona School in 2022 – the future of the building is unknown.


7. Original 1930s decorative tilework, still visible beside a shop between the railway and Elmstead Avenue.
A negative change noticed by my Preston ‘focus group’ was a perceived growing lack of variety in shops on Preston Road since the 1960s – and the untidy frontages, almost destroying the 1930s faience work between each shop. They had nostalgic memories of a specialist cheese shop, Buttons & Bows haberdashers, a drapers’, a [vinyl] record store – and the exciting new technology of Variety Videos which allowed films to be watched in your own home! A few older shops remain: All Seasons greengrocers, Gledhill hardware – and Parkway bakery, the lone survivor of a parade of Jewish shops. The introduction of the 223 bus route has eased access to both Preston and Harrow shops.


8. A parade of shops on Preston Road (east side), between Elmstead Avenue and Carlton Avenue East.
Everybody regretted the loss of the Woolworth store not just as a source of “bits and pieces”, but as a social centre where people bumped into each other. “Woolworths made it a real shopping centre”. But many welcome the new availability of Mediterranean, Indian and Middle Eastern foods in “shops that smelt like holidays” and “cafes with pavement seating - who would have thought!” In a spirit of investigative journalism, I walked the ‘mean street’ that is Preston Road and my main conclusions were that we locals must be very vain – I counted 16 hair / grooming salons [9 specifically for men] AND there must still be a healthy demand to live in Preston as there are nine estate agents. 
9. The Century Tavern, Forty Avenue, demolished for Century House. (From the Closed Pubs website)
Other losses noted were the Century Tavern [1928] named after the Century Sports Ground and built on the site of South Forty Farmhouse on Forty Avenue - and the Wembley Observer, the last really local newspaper. However, there have been some ‘cultural’ gains – The Windermere, The Fleadh and the Music Room offer live music, and the Preston Community Library has author events, a weekly film club and occasional special film seasons.

10. Preston Community Library, 2020.
The campaign to save Preston’s Library was a remarkable display of community solidarity. The area had been served by a fondly remembered mobile library until 1964, when the current library opened in Carlton Avenue East. After the Council’s decision in 2011 to close 6 of its 12 libraries, campaigners in each of the affected areas came together under the banner of Brent S.O.S. [Save our Six] Libraries to fight to save the service.  Public meetings were held, councillors, MPs and the Department of Culture Media & Sport lobbied – over 6,000 people in Preston alone signed a petition opposing the closure. 

11. Poster for the Brent S.O.S. Libraries campaign, 2011.
Brent SOS Libraries took the country’s first legal action to challenge library closures in July 2011. The High Court verdict in October 2011 went against us and the libraries were immediately boarded up. An Appeal against the decision was also rejected in December and the application to take the case to the Supreme Court was denied. A full account of the judicial review and the Appeal can be found here. The boarding around Preston Library became known as the “Wall of Shame” which, with its popular support from local artists and schoolchildren, become a major embarrassment to the Council over the next few weeks, and in January 2012 contractors pulled it down.


12. Two scenes of the Wall of Shame at Preston Library, late 2011.
The building was then restructured internally and used for 4 years as additional classrooms for local schools, who allowed some access for library activities. In 2015, the Council formalised this access with a licence and in 2016 the building was opened fully as a volunteer-run community library. The Library is the only local non-commercial and secular space that is open to all, and it now offers a wide range of classes, events and activities as well as core library services. It was “Highly Commended” in The Bookseller‘s 2019 Library of the Year shortlist. The Library is currently closed due to the pandemic – but will hopefully re-open in the autumn. The Council has plans to re-develop the site, but space for a new library is included.

13. Geraldine Cooke introduces Kamila Shamsie (seated right) at Preston Community Library, June 2018.

In June 2018, at the first public event since she won the prestigious Women’s Prize for Fiction, author Kamila Shamsie visited Preston Community Library to discuss her new book Home Fire. The event was a full house, and the windows were wide open so people could stand outside and hear her. The novel is set in Preston, and features the library campaign. Ms Shamsie told the Kilburn Times“It feels right to do it here. I want the people of the neighbourhood to feel I’ve done right by them”. 

14. A scene from the 1959 film Too Many Crooks. (Image from the internet)

Allegedly, the Preston area has been used many times for film and TV locations. I have found evidence for Preston being shown in the 1959 film Too Many Crooks– in which incompetent villains use a hearse in a kidnapping. It was filmed in Carlton Avenue East, Forty Avenue and various places on Barn Hill. The photo above shows the junction of Carlton Avenue East and Preston Road. The film starred Terry-Thomas, George Cole, Sid James and Bernard Bresslaw.  

Preston also ‘stars’ in Gourmet Nights, an episode of Fawlty Towers where Basil collects a takeaway meal from ‘André’s Restaurant’, actually the Wings Restaurant on Preston Road, and then (famously) attacks his car when it breaks down [Mentmore Gardens]. Readers may know of other films? We have had at least one celebrity - the British, Commonwealth and European heavyweight boxing champion Sir Henry Cooperlived in Ledway Drive, and had a greengrocer’s shop in Ealing Road, Wembley, in the 1960s.


15. Wrigleys chewing gum factory, now Wembley Commercial Centre, East Lane. (From Brent’s Local List)

Only a few architecturally important buildings have survived in Preston Ward and I have covered them all in these articles. Three buildings have national Grade 2 listing: The Windermere, the Church of the Ascension and the Wembley Park Lodge on Wembley Hill Road, which was severely damaged by fire some years ago. In addition, there are three on Brent’s local list: the Edwardian style houses at 299-313 Preston Road, the 1926 Wrigleys factory and the 1956 Wembley United Synagogue. For some reason, the Victorian villas, now 356-358 Preston Road– the oldest surviving houses in Preston - have not been listed. 

16. ‘The Pearl of Metroland', Forty Avenue, in 2018.

We also have one popular Open House property, the ‘Pearl of Metroland’, a 1924 house in Forty Avenue decorated in the original style, but with a ‘Mondrian’ kitchen in 3 colours. And we have great open spaces – Barn Hill, Preston Park and Tenterden playing fields – secured for public use by Wembley Council and Middlesex County Council.
Go look at all these places – and be ready to protect them if necessary. Even local listing does not ensure survival, as we have seen in the recent decision on 1 Morland Gardens. Not everything can or should be protected – and housing needs, in particular, are pressing - but some buildings do add beauty to our environment, and help to tell the story of where we live.
I hope this series of articles has encouraged people to look about them, at the shops and streets they see every day in this very ordinary suburb, and think about the 1000s of people who were here before them – how they lived and worked and where they came from.
My thanks go to Philip Grant of Wembley History Society, who helped with sourcing images for these articles and making the articles ‘online ready’, to Brent Archives for help with images, and to the PCL volunteers who gave me ideas on what should go into this final Part.
Chris Coates, Preston Community Library

This is the end of one local history series, but there will be another beginning next weekend. Will it be about an area in the north of the borough or in the south, or perhaps somewhere in the middle?








↧
Viewing all 7136 articles
Browse latest View live
Search