Councillors Abdirazak Abdi, Chan, Perrin, Lloyd and Kennelly have called in the decision to place a contract for Stonebridge Annexe works occasioned by the need to decant Brent Start facilities when the controversial new build takes place on the 1 Morland Gardens site in which the landmark Italianate will be demolished.

The call-in will be heard by the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee on September 23rd. I understand that its new chair Cllr Roxanne Mashari will not be able to attend.

Decision: Authority to Award Contract for Appointment of Engie Regeneration UK & Ireland as Works Main Contractor under a JCT Intermediate Building Contract with Contractor's Design 2016 Edition for Stonebridge Annexe, Stonebridge, NW10  0ST Date of decision(or date of public notice for officer decisions): 26 August 2020

[Editor’s note: In correspondence Brent Council noted that the decision was actually signed off by Nick Ljustina (as Operational Director – Property & Assets) but this was on behalf of the Strategic Director, Regeneration & Environment, which they say is permitted under the Council’s Officer Scheme of Delegation.]

The group of councillors gave the following reasons for calling-in the decision.

1.The above decision relates to the placing of a Contract for the works of refurbishment to Stonebridge Annexe ("Enabling Works") enabling the decanting of the Brent Start facilities from 1 Morland Gardens, NW6, preparatory to the demolition of the existing buildings on that site, and the erection of new mixed use buildings under planning application number 20/0345 (the"1 Morland Gardens Application").

2.The tender for the Enabling Works was concluded on or around 9 July, and, according to the Report leading to the Decision, dates (described in the Report as "anticipated")are set out for a Letter of Intent (14 August), a Letter of Award of Contract to Engie Regeneration UK & Ireland (31 August), with a view to Contract Start on Site on 14 September.

3.Having today enquired of officers in Planning and Employment and Skill, I have been informed that this Contract for the Enabling Works would not be placed, if the development under the 1 Morland Gardens Application does not proceed.

4.Issues have come to light regarding the 1 Morland Gardens Planning Application:

·Consent to the 1 Morland Gardens Application is awaited from the GLA;

·Notwithstanding the clear recommendations in paragraph R1 of the Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment dated February 2019 by Middlemarch Environmental ("Middlemarch Report") - based on a survey made in December 2018 (and repeated in paragraph 206 of the Planning Report) that at least 3 emergence/re-entry surveys be carried out during the period May-September, no evidence has been supplied that any such surveys have been carried out.

There are no surveys amongst the planning papers. Enquiry of officers today has not so far revealed any surveys were undertaken.

Condition 13 of the draft Planning Consent for the 1 Morland Gardens Application includes a requirement for adherence to the recommendations of the Middlemarch Report; however, if no surveys have been carried out, works under the 1 Morland Gardens Application must be deferred until after those surveys have been undertaken, results available and appropriate response formulated and actioned to ensure no criminal offence is committed. This would appear potentially to be in autumn 2021.

Appendix 1 to the Middlemarch Report sets out the legislative background; Regulation 41 of the Habitats Regulations 2017 states that a person "commits an offence if they...deliberately disturb bats; or damage or destroy a bat roost (breeding site or resting place)." If the surveys have not been carried out - then the whole process must be delayed until autumn 2021 to avoid the Council's committing a criminal offence.

5.I understand the Enabling Works relating to this Decision do not need planning consent. However, the provisions of the 2017 Regulations would still apply if any part of those works had the potential to disturb, or damage or destroy bats and their habitat in the Stonebridge Annexe as referred to above.

The Stonebridge Annexe is a building constructed in or around the 1930s, with a substantial area of trees surrounding it, and with strong potential for bat roosts and potentially on a Bat Corridor to the Welsh Harp and with Green and Blue Corridors in the other direction.

Accordingly, the Enabling Works may have the potential to disturb bats, and/or damage or destroy their habitats, if any are present. However, no preliminary bat roost assessment was commissioned, which should be undertaken prior to the Contract. There is no evidence that such assessment forms part of the Enabling Works. Indeed, with the timetable referred to in the Report, the programme outlined gives no time for such assessment to be undertaken, let alone any time for any action which may be requisite to comply with statute, should evidence of bats/roosts be present.

6.We understand that it has been agreed by the Chief Executive that an investigation should be undertaken by the Strategic Director following the raising of what I am told are serious concerns by a member of the public about the Morland Gardens Application. This investigation is ongoing and could impact on the Planning Consent for the 1 Morland Gardens Application.

7.The award of the Enabling Works Contract is premature, as there is still no certainty that the scheme envisaged by the 1 Morland Gardens Application will go ahead. Nonetheless, having regard to the importance of the project, I have spoken to officers as to the requirement for an urgent placing of the Contract for the Enabling Works in context of the project. In context of those conversations, I do not understand the reason for the urgency. Unfortunately, the Decision gives an impression of pre-emptive action. It will commit the Council to expenditure which may be wasted. It is at least possible to anticipate that, if delays in the development under the 1 Morland Gardens Application were to arise as a result of one of the factors referred to above, alternative proposals may result.

8.There is no compelling urgency to place the Enabling Works Contract before the above matters are resolved. By contrast, unless the Decision is called in, the Contract will be placed, and the Council will have irrevocably incurred an expenditure of £1.2m, which may be wasted – hence the reason for this carefully considered action.

When a decision is called-in the councillors signing the call-in are required to put forward an alternative proposal. This is their statement.

The decision should be deferred until:

1.It is certain that the proposals for 1 Morland Gardens comprised in the 1 Morland Gardens Application have received all necessary consents, including GLA consent; and

2.The legislatively required minimum of three bat emergence/re-entry surveys between May and September in one year have been undertaken, consequent assessments undertaken, the results considered and appropriate response actioned; and

3.The potential requirement of bat surveys for the Stonebridge Annexe considered and (if necessary) dealt with as above.

Scrutiny Committee will agree to one of the following outcomes:

1. The Committee does not wish to refer the matter back to the decision maker or to Council, at which point the decision is deemed to be confirmed and takes effect immediately following the meeting; or

2. The Committee decides to ask the Strategic Director – Regeneration & Environment to reconsider their decision, in light of any observations of the Committee; or

3. Having had regard to the advice of the Director of Legal and HR Services or Chief Finance Officer, the Committee considers the decision is contrary to the Council’s Budget or Policy Framework, at which point it refers the matter to the next practicable meeting of the Council, subject to the provisions of Standing Orders

The investigation referred to in 6 above is that instigated by indefatigable Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant who has requested to speak to the Committee.

A further 4,322 coronavirus cases and 27 deaths have been reported in the UK, according to the government's daily figures.

This is the highest number of cases reported since 8 May, when there were 4,649 cases. The government is considering what measures should be taken nation-wide.

I understand there is local concern about the rising number of cases in Brent with figures said to be above 20 per 100,000. Government action occurs when figures reach 30-50 per 100,000 but there is discussion about whether Brent Council Public Health should pre-empt such action. 

Certainly, I was concerned when earlier this week I saw crowds of school students outside Ark Academy at dismissal time with little social distancing and few face coverings. They mixed with the general public at the Wembley Park Station bus stops.

Unfortunately, this concern coincides with the Brent Biennial which kicks off tomorrow as part of the ill-fated 2020 London Borough of Culture programme. I understand that the opening of local libraries for 4 hours on Saturday and Sundays until December had been planned.  Brent Council might be encouraging people to attend a number of events when they are at the same time considering possible restrictions.

 Following on from the previous two post this is a statement made by London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, today:

“The Prime Minister has said that we are now seeing the start of a second wave of COVID-19 across the UK. Londoners should also know that I am extremely concerned by the latest evidence I’ve seen today from public health experts about the accelerating speed at which COVID-19 is now spreading here in London. This is made worse by the uncertainty caused by the lack of testing capacity in the capital.

“This afternoon I held an emergency meeting with London council leaders, the Government and Public Health England to discuss the next steps. It is increasingly likely that, in London, additional measures will soon be required to slow the spread of the virus. We will be considering some of the measures which have already been imposed in other parts of the UK. I am of the firm view that we should not wait, as happened six months ago, for this virus to again spiral out of control before taking action. The best thing for both public health and the economy is new restrictions imposed early, rather than a full lockdown when it’s too late - but the government must urgently ensure there is a fully functioning testing system.

“I strongly urge all Londoners to be as cautious as possible over this weekend. Please think very carefully about your actions - strictly follow social distancing rules, regularly wash your hands and wear a face covering to help reduce the spread of the virus.”

A topical one-off “special” local history article by Philip Grant.

As part of Brent’s London Borough of Culture 2020, and “Brent Biennial”, a 9-metre high mural by the artist Dawn Mellor is due to be unveiled in Kingsbury Road on Saturday 19 September. It will celebrate the life of the singer George Michael, who lived and went to school in the area. Many people may not know much about his early life, and this seems a good time to share what I know about his Kingsbury connections. As George said himself, in a line from a song he wrote about growing up “Round Here”: ‘So come with me, let me show you where I've lived.’

 1. Three images of work in progress on the George Michael mural, and its location, 13 September 2020.

It was not just people from the Caribbean (“the Windrush Generation”) who came to live and work in this country following the British Nationality Act, 1948. Britain’s labour shortage in the post-war years meant that anyone with the newly created status of ‘citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies’ could do the same. In 1953, young Kyriacos Panayiotou and his cousin left their village in Cyprus, and came to London for a better life. He worked as a waiter in a restaurant, and through a shared love of dancing, married Lesley in 1957. Some people thought it was wrong for an English girl to marry a Greek Cypriot, but love is stronger than prejudice.

2. Holmstall Parade, Edgware Road, 2019.

Kyriacos and Lesley already had two daughters before their son, Georgios, was born at their flat in East Finchley in June 1963. Within a year they had moved to a larger home at 3a Holmstall Parade, above shops on the Edgware Road, close to Burnt Oak, in what was then still the Borough of Wembley. Kyriacos Panayiotou, commonly known as Jack Panos, worked in a Greek Restaurant in Edgware, becoming a partner in the business. Although Holmstall Parade looks similar now to what it did in the 1960s, the Asda superstore and Capitol Way just down the road were then a Frigidaire factory, on a site first used by the Aircraft Manufacturing Company, “Airco”, during World War One.

 3. The Redhill Drive street sign, at the corner with Holmstall Avenue.

By 1967, the Panayiotou family had their own semi-detached suburban home, nearby in Redhill Drive, then part of the recently formed London Borough of Brent. No.57 was where Georgios (or George as he would become known) lived for about ten years. He soon had friends to play with, and his best friend was David, who lived just up the road, and was a year older than him.

4. 57 Redhill Drive, Burnt Oak, in 2019.

When it was time for George to start school, he went to Roe Green Infants, then the Juniors, in Princes Avenue, the same as his sisters (and David), as that was the local state school. In those days, that was what most children did. They probably walked to school. 

Figure 5. Roe Green Infants and Junior Schools, Princes Avenue, Kingsbury, in 2019.

Years later, George wrote in a song: ‘And I remember my, my first day at school. And I remember trouble and thinkin' I was so cool.’ Whether this was about his very first day at school at Roe Green, or when he went on to secondary school, I’m not sure. You wouldn’t think this young Georgios would get into trouble, would you? Or perhaps you would.

6. Georgios Panayiotou, at primary school age. (Image from the internet)

Trouble or not, he must have been quite a bright student, although having encouragement from a good creative writing teacher at school (probably Ian Greenwood then) must have helped. Only just eleven years old, two of his poems were included in Roe Green Junior School’s end of year magazine in July 1974. How these came to light, shortly after George’s death in 2016, is a story in itself. A girl who knew him at the school had kept her school magazines. Years later, her older sister met a former classmate, Melanie, at an awards ceremony – and Melanie was with her brother, Georgios, better known by then as George Michael. The sisters had never guessed that the music star was the quiet boy they knew at Roe Green Juniors!

 7. The cover of the Roe Green Junior School magazine, July 1974. (Image from the internet)

The first of the poems, ‘The Story of a Horse’, appears above the name Georgios Panayiotou, 4S, but the second reveals his nickname. Whether this was one he invented for himself, or what his friends decided to call him (because he was brainy?), Professor Whatsisname (alias G. Panayiotou, 4S) was the author of this imaginative piece, ‘Sounds in the Night’.

8. "Sounds in the Night" by Professor Whatsisname, from "The Junior", July 1974. (Image from the internet)

From junior school, George moved on to the local secondary school in September 1974, again just as most eleven-year olds would have done then. Kingsbury High School had become a comprehensive in 1967, when the grammar school in Princes Avenue merged with the Tyler’s Croft Boys and Girls secondary modern schools in Bacon Lane. The lower years of the High School were housed in the Tyler’s Croft buildings, which had opened in 1952. Twenty-two years before George walked through that school’s gates, the first boys to start at the school when it opened had included a young Charlie Watts, from Fryent Junior School, who also went on to become a famous pop musician.

9. Kingsbury High School's Tyler's Croft buildings, beside Roe Green Park, 2019.

The photo above shows that Kingsbury High’s Lower School is next to Roe Green Park, and there’s no doubt that George spent some time there after school. In one verse of his song about growing up, he sings:

‘I hear my mama call in Kingsbury Park
Just me and David and a football that glowed in the dark
Waitin' patiently to make my mark, round here.’

10. Roe Green Park, towards the school, and a wild flower meadow that wasn't there in George's time!

Life sometimes takes an unexpected turn, and it was not in Kingsbury that George made his mark. His father’s restaurant business was doing well, so he decided to move upmarket. He found a house he liked in Radlett, and around 1976 the Panayiotou family moved out of Redhill Drive. As their new home was not quite ready, they lived above the restaurant in Edgware for several months, before George left Kingsbury High School, looking something like this.

11. Georgios Panayiotou in the mid-1970's. (Image from the internet)

The move to Radlett meant changing to a new school, Bushey Meads School, which took students from much of the western side of Hertsmere District, just north of London. One of his new classmates was Andrew Ridgeley, and they were soon friends. The two teenagers shared a love of pop music, and a desire to make a that their career. The result, in 1981, was Wham!

12. Andrew Ridgeley and George Michael as the duo, Wham!, mid-1980's. (Image from the internet)

From then on, Georgios Panayiotou would be known as George Michael, and you can read about his musical career, his generosity and his sometimes troubled private life, online, or by borrowing a copy of the biography “George”, by Sean Smith, from your local Brent Library (ref. no. 782.421 on the adult non-fiction shelves).

Although no longer living in Brent, George’s career brought him to Wembley on a number of occasions. Wham! played several concerts at the Arena in 1984, and their “Final” concert together at the Stadium in 1986, before the duo went their separate ways. George Michael was one of the stars who performed at the 1985 Live Aid concert at Wembley, and at the 70^th birthday concert for Nelson Mandela in 1988. George’s singing of “Somebody to Love” with Queen, at the Stadium’s Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert to raise money for AIDS research in 1992, was highly rated, and the live recording featured on a follow-up EP.

13. George Michael, with Brian May of Queen, at the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert. (Image from internet)

George Michael was a prolific songwriter, and in 2004 he recorded a song about his memories of growing up. Called “Round Here”, it wasn’t a big hit for him, but it came from his heart and tells his story before he became famous. There is an online video of him singing and recording the song, with brief clips of film included that show various scenes from Kingsbury, and London more generally. If you watch carefully, you’ll spot glimpses of 57 Redhill Drive (at 0:05), the flats at Holmstall Parade (0:25), Roe Green Park (1:17) and Roe Green Junior School (1:35) and Kingsbury High [Lower] School (1:41), plus other places you’ll recognise. 

                          14. The CD cover for "Round Here", 2004. (Image from the internet)

 

George Michael, who sadly died in 2016, aged just 53, is not the only famous person who has lived “Round Here”, in the north of Brent, but he is fondly remembered by many for his music and his humanity. That is why he was chosen as the subject for a mural in Kingsbury, which celebrates his life. I hope you’ve enjoyed finding out about his local connections.

 

15. Kingsbury Station signs, including for the London Borough of Culture 2020.

 

Next time you come out of Kingsbury Station, turn right, and after walking about 60 metres you will find the mural, on the end wall of a block of shops with flats above. You can’t miss it – it is 9 metres high!

Philip Grant.

 

From Brent Trades Council

 From Queens Park Area Residents' Association

The call-in of the Stonebridge Annexe contract resulted in officers agreeing to take forward the three actions recommended by the 5 councillors who signed the call-in.  These were that the implementation of the refurbishment contract be deferred until:

1.It is certain that the proposals for 1 Morland Gardens comprised in the 1 Morland Gardens Application have received all necessary consents, including GLA consent; and

2.The legislatively required minimum of three bat emergence/re-entry surveys between May and September in one year have been undertaken, consequent assessments undertaken, the results considered and appropriate response actioned; and

3.The potential requirement of bat surveys for the Stonebridge Annexe considered and (if necessary) dealt with as above

 Much discussion revolved around the lack of legally compliant bats surveys.  Two were added to the agenda but did not cover the period required by law and so there will be delays until compliant surveys are conduction at 1 Morland Gardens.  The Committee has asked that the legal advice given to the Council be published.

Cllr Perrin suggested that the Council were in grave danger of breaking the law on protected species, a criminal offence and Cllr Lloyd pointed out that obtaining a licence regarding development where there were bat roosts was a two stage process with the initial 3 stage process having to be completed before a licence application could be made.

There was concern that the initial Cabinet decision on 1 Morland Gardens had been made without councillors given sight of a report  on protected species. 

Councillors also considered that changes in the Council's constitution should be considered regarding delegated decision making by officers. It had been established that the officer who had made the recommendation that a contract for the Stonebridge Annexe be awarded was also the delegated officer who made the decision to award the contract. Alan Lunt, Strategic Director of Regeneration, said that he had been on leave but would have made the same decision himself. This did not satisfy Cllr Perrin who said it was important that there should be separation of powers in this regard.

 Lunt emphasisied that no contract had been awarded and that this would wait until all the planning processes for 1 Morland Gardens had been completed.

 A lone voice in the wilderness was Cllr Shafique Choudhary who in the wake of Covid19 held no brief for the protection of bats. 

The complaint made by local historian Philip Grant about the planning process for 1 Morland Gardens has still to be resolved.

I recommend you read the tweets by @MaryDuffinator for a blow by blow account of the meeting.

Coronavirus cases are rising among all age groups across the country. The prospect of a second wave of this deadly virus is now real, with infections spreading to people that are more vulnerable.

This week the UK’s Covid-19 alert level was raised from Level 3 to Level 4. To prevent the spread of the virus, new measures have been introduced.

These are:

1. Work from home, if you can. If you cannot work from home, you should continue to attend your place of work.
2. Pubs, bars and restaurants must close at 10pm. They must also operate table-service only, except for takeaways.
3. Wearing a face covering is now the law for staff and customers in shops and hospitality venues, unless you are eating or drinking or are exempt. All users of taxis and private hire vehicles must also wear a mask.
4. From Monday 28 September 2020, a maximum of 15 people can attend a wedding, and up to 30 for a funeral.
5. Stricter enforcement. The fine for failing to wear a face covering or breaking the Rule of Six has doubled to £200. People who fail to self-isolate will face a fine of up to £10,000. Businesses will also be fined if they breach their legal obligations.
6. Shielding. The guidance remains that you do not need to shield, unless you are in a local lockdown area.

Unlike the measures from March 2020, there is no general instruction to stay at home. Schools, colleges and universities will stay open.

You are safest when you follow this advice:

• Wash your hands, or use hand sanitiser, regularly and for at least 20 seconds
• Cover your face, when using public transport or in busy spaces like high streets or shops where it may be more difficult to keep your distance
• Make space, try to stay two metres away from people you don’t live with.

If you develop symptoms of the virus, please immediately self-isolate. You can book a free test online or by calling 119. Please only book a test if you have symptoms.

The fight against this terrible virus is not over. We must all take responsibility together, by following these new rules, to avoid further restrictions and keep Brent safe.

Dr Melanie Smith

Director of Public Health, Brent Council

With life thrown into chaos over lockdown, and the craze for banana bread baking, Londoners are throwing away more food than the rest of the nation, as well as binning more plastic, warns Caroline Russell AM.

WRAP, an anti-waste charity, found that Londoners were more likely to have higher levels of food waste, with 43 per cent of us admitting to binning food during lockdown, compared with the national average of 27 per cent. 

Even worse was the picture of plastics, the Everyday Plastic project found households were averaging 128 bits of plastic waste in a week, up from 99 bits before the pandemic. 

Showing the rise in online shopping and food waste 25 per cent more food packaging, as well as parcel bags and PPE items were thrown away.

Earlier this year Caroline Russell found that no London Borough was able to recycle a list of seven common household items. 

In January Caroline asked all councils if they could recycle:

• a broken plastic bucket
• crisp packet
• Tetra Pak container
• Aluminium foil
• black plastic food container
• Biro pen 
• and a bike tyre.
  

She found a lack of London-wide oversight means there is no consistency between boroughs, and residents are left confused as recycling rules vary from one borough to the next. 

Although most boroughs (29 out of 32) collect six dry recycling streams Caroline found that Havering was unable to recycle any item from the list and two London boroughs – Enfield and Kensington and Chelsea – were only able to recycle one of the items, Tetra Paks.

Caroline Russell says:

As this year’s theme for Recycle Week recognises, our key workers include the people who come to take away our waste and recycling every week under difficult circumstances and maintaining safe social distancing.

 

Londoners have not forgotten the impact of plastic waste but with the rise in plastic being binned it means that Government must take urgent action to address plastic pollution at its source.

 

My research from earlier this year found it’s just too hard to know what to do with your rubbish in London. You can recycle bike tyres in Bexley but not Brent, and Hackney recycles foil but Hammersmith doesn’t.

 

Londoners are deeply concerned about plastic pollution. The Mayor should be asking for the power to take control of London’s waste and sort out this rubbish postcode lottery.

From Brent Council

Brent Council is planning an extensive commissioning programme with a number of 2021/22 tender opportunities which will begin from October 2020

This includes:

•           Healthwatch  Service tender will  be issued in the w/c 5th  of October 2021

•           the Voluntary Sector Infrastructure Contract  (tbc)

•           Advice and Guidance Specialist and Generalist Contract  (tbc)

•           Independent NHS Complaints Advocacy Service  Contract (tbc)

•           Supported Living and New Accommodation for Independent Living Contracts (NAIL)

As a Council, we are particularly keen to support small, local providers respond to these opportunities and as such, we are planning a series of workshops to develop the skills of the sector and ensure that as many organisations are able to bid. All sessions will include a Q&A and attendees will be provided with handouts with key information. Please see below for details of Capacity Building Workshops to be held in October 2020.

 From London Councils

As London goes on the national Covid-19 watchlist, it is a stark reminder that now is time for all Londoners to pull together and take action to keep themselves, their families and their communities safe, and to ensure that London's economy is protected.

There are no additional measures at this stage but it is welcome that that the city’s testing capacity is boosted so that Londoners have timely access to Covid-19 tests and the government must ensure that this is sustained from now on. If Londoners have Covid-19 symptoms they should apply for a test at nhs/coronavirus or call 119.

London boroughs are working with their communities, business and the police to engage, educate, explain, and if necessary enforce the new restrictions and regulations and the government must ensure that it funds these so resources do not need to be drawn from other services.

We ask all Londoners to work together and abide by the national restrictions announced on Tuesday:

1. Office workers who can work from home are being asked to do so.

2. All pubs, bars and restaurants must operate table-service only, except for takeaways.

3. All hospitality venues must close at 10pm.

4. More people must wear face coverings - staff working in retail; all users of taxis and private hire vehicles; and staff and customers in indoor hospitality venues - except when seated at tables to eat or drink.

5. In retail, leisure, tourism and other sectors, government’s Covid-secure guidelines will become legal obligations.

6. From Monday, a maximum of 15 people will be able to attend wedding ceremonies and receptions.

7. The rule of six is being extended to all adult indoor team sports.

8. Business conferences, exhibitions and large sporting events will not be able to reopen from 1 October.

9. Stronger penalties for failing to adhere to government restrictions: a fine of up to £10,000 for businesses that break the rules and the penalty for failing to wear a mask or breaking the rule of six will now double to £200 for a first offence.

 By popular demand we are pleased to publish a new local history series about Kilburn by Irina Porter of Willesden Local History Society.

 1. A postcard of Kilburn, c. 1930s. (From the internet - www.images-of-London.co.uk)

Kilburn is an area in Brent, which grew around the intersection of the Roman road known as Watling Street (Edgware Road) and a local river of the same name. Kilburn lies south west of this stretch of the ancient thoroughfare, here called Kilburn High Road, between West End Lane and Queen’s Park. Kilburn has never been an administrative unit, and its boundaries are not defined. However, it has given us a rich and colourful history, which we will uncover here.

2. Kilburn, at the edge of a 1930s pictorial map of London and suburbs. (From the first AtoZ atlas and guide)

As with many a historic name, ‘Kilburn’ could have several origins. Some say it comes from a stream (Anglo-Saxon Kelebourne, which could have been ‘cold bourne’ (river), ‘cow’s bourne’ or ‘King’s bourne’). The stream used to run into the River Westbourne, which flows from Hampstead to the Serpentine in Hyde Park. Or it could be named after a Saxon called Cylla, used c. 1134 as Cuneburna). A variation of Kilnbourn could come from tile making industry in the area.

3. The course of the River Westbourne, marked on a modern street map. (Courtesy of John & Anne Hill)

The Kilburn Stream originated in Hampstead and went through what is now West Hampstead southwards. It ran parallel to the High Road along what is today’s Kingsgate Rd, then it passed under the Edgware Road at Kilburn Bridge. It joined the Westbourne near today’s Shirland Road, which flowed into the Serpentine and eventually into the Thames. In the 1860s the stream was culverted and became part of the sewage system.

4. The Kilburn area in 1790. (From an article by John & Anne Hill, in W.L.H.S. Journal No.49)

5. The bridge over the Kilbourne on West End Lane, as seen from the High Road, around 200 years ago.
    (From “Kilburn and West Hampstead Past” by Dick Weindling and Marianne Colloms)

Here is an interesting fact, uncovered by Willesden Local History Society members John and Anne Hill, from an article they wrote in Volume 49 of our Journal: “Springfield Walk (near Belsize Road) has a set of very old steps that give access to Kilburn Priory.  We climbed the steps and, whilst we were taking photos of the house, we noticed the sound of rushing water.  In the middle of Kilburn Priory Road there is a drain cover – and beneath this drain cover flows the River Westbourne, Kilburn’s ‘lost river’ making its way to the River Thames.” 

 6. The River Westbourne drain cover, and its Springfield Walk location. (Photos by John and Anne Hill)

The area of Kilburn grew around where the Kilburn Brook crossed the Watling Street (now Edgware Road), which was an important route to the north since the Roman Times. Even before them, this was an ancient trackway used by the Britons (although the route may have followed Willesden Lane, Neasden Lane and Honeypot Lane to avoid the marshy valley of the River Brent at what is now Staples Corner). Soon after the Romans landed in Kent in AD43, they paved and straightened this road as their major route to the north west, via St.Albans, which they called Verulamium. They needed a fast route to take their legions towards North Wales, where the local tribes were resisting Roman rule. Some flint blocks from the Roman road were found in Kilburn in 1923, at a depth of about six feet.

7. A map of Watling Street, overlaid on the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica map of Roman Britain.

As well as enabling quick movement of troops and resources within the Roman province of Britannia, Watling Street has also served as a boundary. In 878, King Alfred of Wessex signed a treaty with Danish invaders, under which Alfred kept the southern side, and the Danes established Danelaw to the north. In 1599 Watling Street is mentioned as London Way, and later the Edgware Road. Our stretch of it has become the traditional boundary between Willesden, now in Brent, and Hampstead, now in Camden.

8. The Priory, Kilburn, 1750, as shown in a book illustration from 1878. (Internet – British History Online)

A community of Augustinian canonesses, Kilburn Priory was set up where the Watling Road crossed the Kilburn brook in the 12^thcentury. Now Belsize Road meets Kilburn High Road here. Around 1130 a hermit called Godwyn set up a small cell (hermitage) near a holy well (medicinal spring) here. In 1134 he gave his place to Westminster Abbey. Three nuns – Emma, Gunhilda and Christina – established a Benedictine (later referred to as Augustinian) nunnery. They were probably former maids of honour to Queen Matilda of Scotland, the wife of Henry I of England, who became nuns after the Queen died.

Godwyn remained the warden until he died, and a Chaplain would be appointed to oversee the nuns. They worshipped in the church dedicated to St. John the Baptist and prayed for the soul of the brethren who once belonged to Westminster. The priory was endowed with lands in Kensington, Kent, Southwark, Tottenham and Hendon. It also owned ‘the manor of Wymbley’. 

9. The seal of Kilburn Priory in 1536, and Emma de Sancto Omero, Prioress of Kilburn c.1400.
    (Images from “Kilburn and West Hampstead Past” by Dick Weindling and Marianne Colloms)

The Priory was a stopping place for pilgrims on their way to the shrines at St. Albans, and later Willesden also. According to the customs of the time, it provided food and shelter to travellers, both rich and poor. Pilgrims had to travel through woods, which afforded hiding places for robbers, particularly at the foot of the nearby Shoot-up Hill, and a safe resting place was very helpful for pilgrims to form groups, so they could travel together for protection. This hospitality proved a burden on the Priory, and by the middle of 14^th century it was found in financial trouble by the Bishop of London and in 1352 was exempt from taxes. By the end of the century its buildings were in decay.

The Priory continued to support travellers for 400 years, so it never became wealthy. In 1536, Henry VIII dissolved the Priory, whose seal at the time, showing John the Baptist wearing a camel-hair garment, is seen above. The inventory details the rooms and furniture for the church, house, brewhouse and bakehouse, as well as some wall hangings, candesticks, two silver chalices and goblets. There was also ‘one horse of the coller of blacke’, valued at 5s.

Henry VIII gave Kilburn Priory to the Order of the Knights of St John of Jerusalem in exchange for a piece of land in Southwark. That Order was also dissolved, four years later, and the Kilburn estate reverted to the crown. It was given to the King’s courtier, the Earl of Warwick, then passed through the hands of various landowners. The Uptons, who owned the land in the 19^th century, built the Church of St. Mary on a site adjoining the ancient chapel. By then the main house and surrounding land was known as Abbey Farm, comprising about 45 acres. However, nothing remained of the original priory, except a ‘rising bank… and ruined walls’.

 10. The Remains of Kilburn Priory, from a book published in 1814. (Image from the internet)

Dick Weindling and Marianne Colloms write in their book ‘Kilburn and West Hampstead Past’: “When the railway was cut through in the autumn of 1852, some pottery, a few coins and a bronze vessel, all medieval, were found at the Priory site and these were put on display at the Archaeological Institute.” A sad epitaph for a historic local building!

I hope you will join me next week, as we explore why Kilburn became a visitor attraction.

Irina Porter,
Willesden Local History Society.

Note: 

Special thank you to local historian Dick Weindling, author of 'Kilburn and West Hampstead Past' and History of Kilburn and West Hampstead blog (http://kilburnwesthampstead.blogspot.com/).

Some of the produce will come from the Granville Community Garden

Some familiar issues are emerging in our neighbouring borough that we are already having to deal with in Brent. The Green Party's GLA candidate for Brent and Harrow is taking up the issue of loss of trees through developments.

Harrow Green Party is standing against the Kodak site developers planning application to Harrow Council, requesting the removal of 26 existing trees along Harrow View Road.  The 26 trees proposed for removal are mature, well established trees (some 80 years plus), from a wide range of different tree groups, including Flowering Cherry, Norway Maple Crimson King, Apple, Common Lime, Silver Birch & Cherry Laurel.   A number of these trees are also protected by Tree Protection Orders (TPOs), which should mean they are legally protected from cutting down, topping, lopping, uprooting, wilful damage or destruction.  In addition, the developers are requesting clearance of several areas of self-set trees & heavy pruning of a number of other well-established trees. 

On what is already a very busy, overdeveloped and congested road leading into Harrow, Harrow Council should be doing everything it can to preserve the remaining trees we have so we do not end up with an ever more polluted, concrete corridor.  These are mature trees with a rich and complex ecosystem, something that cannot just be replaced by planting new trees.  Trees bring huge environmental benefits to every urban area, including, improving air quality, helping support people's health and mental wellbeing and providing an important habitat for wildlife. 

Emma Wallace, Green Party candidate for Brent & Harrow GLA candidate says, 

Harrow Council declared a climate emergency in the summer of 2019 and has committed to protecting Harrow's environment and its trees in its Climate Change Strategy 2019-2024.  It would be a betrayal of these commitments and extremely short sighted of Harrow Council to remove these precious, mature trees.  Harrow Council must reject this application.

Since Harrow Green Party highlighted this planning application, there has been an overwhelming response, with over 300 objections now submitted.  You can read every one of the 300+ objections and the reasons people have given as to why these trees must not be removed, under 'Documents' on the Planning Application. 

Please add your objection to the application on the Harrow Council site, here.

Wembley Central resident Jaine Lunn has written to councillors, council officers and the Town Centre manager, drawing their attention to the problem of scooters using the pavement in Wembley High Road:

 

 This is a national scandal with many local residents suffering as a consequence.  I hope our local MPs and councillors will get behind the campaign.

As an ex-daily cyclist (I stopped after several mini-strokes but am thinking of resuming) and keen environmentalist I am in favour of trying to reduce traffic on our streets and make them safe for cyclists and pedestrians so welcomed the Brent Healthy Neighbourhoods scheme but the opposition to experimental arrangements has taken me aback.  As a major initiative in 'building back better' and responding to the declaration of a Climate Emergency it was imperative that the Council took residents with them - that does not appear to have happened although social media is unlikely to be the best guide.

Community Facebook sites in Brent have been full of criticism of specific schemes in terms of practicality but  the most frequent complaint is lack of consultation with residents. Brent Council explains LINK:

In normal circumstances we would not implement a traffic scheme like this without comprehensive engagement with the local community first.  Because of the urgency required in dealing with The COVID-19 pandemic, the Brent Healthy Neighbourhoods will be introduced as a temporary scheme using an experimental traffic order.

 

Residents in affected areas will be sent a letter outlining the changes, and informing them that they can visit www.brent.gov.uk/consultationto have their say.

 

Whilst the experimental traffic order can last up to 18 months, public comments can be made during the first 6 months. A review will be conducted after 6 months and taking all comments into account a decision will then be made to make schemes permanent with or without amendment, or to remove schemes.

One Facebook contributor described the Council's implementation of the policy as 'cack-handed' (look up the origin of the expression - fascinating, apologies to left-handed people) and it does seem to have got the worthwhile project off on the wrong foot.

The Labour Group had a briefing on Healthy Neighbourhoods yesterday and apparently councillors were not happy with the backlash they are experiencing from residents and the majority were critical of the lack consultation and sharing of information with themselves as much as residents.

Brent Cycling Campaign have put up a brave fight in advocating for the changes, better than the Council's own media strategy on the issue, but it is an uphill task.  One would expect opposition from the pro-car lobby and they have been backed by Conservatives in many areas but concern goes wider than that and is often expressed by those who are sympathetic in principle.

Wembley Central resident, Jaine Lunn, expressed it well in an email  about the Harrow Road cycle lane which runs from the North Circular to Wembley Triangle:

Whilst I appreciate the need, would somebody please inform me who thought it was a good idea to convert the westbound Bus Lane into a Cycle Lane, how much research was done? Instead of reducing the size of the pavement/Footpath to accommodate cyclists.  It kind of defeats the object, I was under the impression this was there to help Public Transport move quickly.  All this has done is increase traffic congestion it now adds another 20 minutes to the journey.  As a cyclist who used to regularly use this route, I had no problem sharing the bus lane with Buses, and on occasion was quite happy to cycle on the very wide footpath if necessary.  These footpaths are very wide and do not have a great amount of footfall!  I do hope the powers that be come to their senses and revert back. 

 

On the opposite side Eastbound,  I find myself in crossing the lights at Neeld Crescent, and immediately having to swerve the bollards swing out in to oncoming traffic to ensure I am in the lane which has been reduced to barely the width of a bus or large truck, as the signage is not good and there is no grading to the cycle lane.  Absolutely nuts, and not thought out very well.  In particular I can see this becoming a hot spot for accidents/near misses.

 

The only good thing I witnessed was the ability of numerous E-Scooters using these lanes at  fast speed which appeared to be above the legal limit of 15 mph.

Guest blog, by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-

Five weeks ago, I wrote about how Brent Council won its planning “victory” over 1 Morland Gardens, its redevelopment scheme for the Brent Start college in a locally listed Victorian villa in Stonebridge. I used that article as the basis for raising serious concerns over the conduct of Council officers with Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, and those concerns are still being investigated.

After the Planning Committee meeting on 12 August, and before I wrote that blog article, I submitted three Freedom of Information requests. It appeared to me that things had gone wrong with this scheme from the start, and I was looking for evidence of what had gone wrong, when and why. In the past two weeks I have received responses to those requests, and I will share the main points from them with you here, in the order in which the events happened.

As soon as Planning Committee had approved Brent’s application, by 5 votes to 2, the Council and its architects publicised in the construction and architectural press that the £43million scheme was going ahead (even though the application’s official status is still ‘awaiting decision’, and it has not yet gone back to the GLA for the Mayor’s Stage 2 consideration). One of the facts included in their press release was that Curl la Tourelle Head Architecture had been appointed for the scheme in September 2018, after winning a competition. One of my FoI’s was to discover more about that competition.

The cover of the winning entry by Curl la Tourelle Head Architecture.

The “competition” was actually an “invitation to quote” for the design of the Morland Gardens project, which Brent Property Services sent out to three firms in the summer of 2018. Among the details for the entries were:

'Part of the building is locally listed and will need to be factored into any design moving forward. The full site is in Brent council’s ownership as found in the site plan. It must be noted that some of the site is designated as public footpath which may require appropriation.' And;

‘The scheme is defined as being able to achieve anywhere between 50-70 residential units. It is expected that the development potential will be maximised.’

Site perspective drawing of CLTH’s proposals, from cover of their entry.

The first of my growing list of blogs on 1 Morland Gardens, back in February, asked ‘Housing or Heritage? Or both?’. As you may have spotted from the illustrations above, the original answer to that question by the winning architects was “both”! Their planning assessment said:

‘Piecemeal development has built up around an Italianate Villa and does not make best use of the land available. There is a clear potential to redevelop the site as a co-ordinated whole, to provide better facilities for the existing uses, new workspace, as well as new housing.

The locally listed villa is of architectural merit and there is potential to retain the villa as the focus of new development at the heart of the new project.’

CLTH’s two development options.

The original Curl la Tourelle Head proposals ‘recognise(d) the existing strengths of the site by retaining the locally listed villa, enhancing its setting at the heart of a new shared collegiate courtyard.’ They put forward two options. The first, which stayed within the 1 Morland Gardens site, would provide 66 new homes, and keep the existing open space between it and Brentfield Road, with improvements to the 1994 Harlesden City Challenge community garden there. 

The second option took in the public footpath and open space, retaining a smaller garden area, but providing 89 new homes, as well as retaining the villa. This scheme would have been carried out in phases, allowing the college to be retained on site, rather than decanted to temporary accommodation. Both schemes would have provided homes in blocks a maximum of seven storeys high. 

It was clear that these were outline schemes, where detailed designs would have to be developed through discussions with the client, but on the face of it they provided everything that had been asked for. One of the case studies that CLTH had put forward, to illustrate their competence for taking on the project, was a recent scheme they had carried out in Islington, which involved adding a modern extension to a listed Victorian residential building. Here they would design modern buildings around another Victorian heritage building. Why didn’t Brent allow them to do that? The response to my next FoI throws some light on this point.

In my 20 August article, and based on information provided in the planning application documents, I wrote: ‘Brent’s Property team and their architects had their first pre-application meeting with Brent’s planning team on 8 March 2019.’ My FoI asked for the documentation around that meeting. On 28 January 2019, the architects had submitted a detailed “amended report” on their designs, and this said:

'The proposal puts forward a new purpose built Adult Education centre, with associated café and affordable workspace arranged around a new courtyard. Residential development sits above the education facility, and has the potential to house around 90 new build homes. The locally listed villa on the site is not retained, as the development cannot be achieved around this building.'

CLTH’s January 2019 retained villa option page.

This new document was to be used in a meeting that the Property team had arranged with ‘Cabinet members’ in early February. They had also asked CLTH to provide supporting evidence, in the form of outline designs, for a ‘retained villa option’. This exercise produced the result that up to 89 housing units could be provided if the locally listed villa was demolished, while only up to 49 units would be possible if it were retained. It appears that the project team at Brent’s Property Service were keen to convince relevant Cabinet members (Regeneration, Education?) from the start that the Victorian villa had to go.

Given Brent Council’s heritage assets planning policy, and its public statements that it valued the borough’s heritage buildings, and would protect them, why did the Property team think this would be acceptable? The answer to that was tucked away at Para. 7.2, on page 37 of the amended report. This summarises the ‘planning comments’ from a meeting they had held with an unnamed Brent Planning Officer on 18 December 2018 (nearly three months before the first official pre-application meeting!). Those comments included:

‘Locally listed building – it would be good to retain, but this is likely to be difficult without significantly affecting development quantum and therefore viability. We’re not likely to refuse a scheme due to loss of this building, but there is some planning risk associated with its loss.’

Despite Brent’s adopted policy on heritage assets, here was a member of Brent’s Planning Service actively encouraging his Property Service colleagues to break that policy!

The start of the minutes of the Planning Pre-Application meeting on 8 March 2019.

The first official meeting between Brent Property Service, as applicant, and its architects, with Brent’s Planning Service to discuss the 1 Morland Gardens scheme was on 8 March 2019. In my FoI request I had asked for a copy of the minutes of that meeting, and these had been made by Tibbalds, the planning agent appointed by to handle Brent’s application. As you can see above, the identities of the meeting participants have been redacted in the copy supplied to me. 

The main contributions from the Brent planning side were made by one officer, whose identity I can probably guess from the initials used in the minutes. However, as I’ve made clear that the serious concerns I raised are not a complaint against any individual officer(s), I will not disclose that identity here. This is what the minutes record under “locally listed building”, with the initials replaced by job titles:

i.               Planning Agent: Previous discussions with the council confirmed that not retaining the villa was acceptable in planning terms and would result in more comprehensive development.

ii.             Planning Officer: Heritage officer would prefer to keep it and highlighted risk that a spot listing could be applied.

iii.           Planning Officer: The building has lost a lot of its heritage value on account of internal changes.

iv.            Planning Officer: Heritage officer would like to arrange a site visit.

v.              Action: Architect to arrange site visit.

I would have expected, at this “first” pre-application meeting, that at least one of the three planning officers present would have mentioned Brent’s heritage assets planning policy DMP7, its requirement that applicants must demonstrate a clear understanding of the historic and architectural significance of the heritage building, and seek to retain it as part of their proposals. Instead, they appear to have gone along with the view that not retaining it was “acceptable”, and apart from saying that ‘the Heritage Officer would prefer to keep it’, the spokesperson for Brent’s planners actually talks down its value.

Brent’s planning officers have clearly treated the Council’s adopted heritage assets planning policy as if it did not matter. The locally listed building was "sacrificed" by Brent's planning team, even before the Heritage officer has been able to take a proper look at it, and on a very superficial view held by one of them, without any clear knowledge or understanding of the building's historical and architectural value!

The Heritage Officer was present at the Planning team’s Major Cases Forum meeting on 18 April 2019, when the pre-application for the 1 Morland Gardens scheme was discussed. The record of that meeting observed, under “Principle of Development” that: ‘Loss of locally listed building required to enable efficient re-development of site – argument has been put forward that an alternative scheme retaining the building would only provide 39 units; however could other options be explored?’ (Note the “villa retained option” has “lost” another 10 homes!)

At the meeting, the Heritage Officer put forward some ideas on how he thought that the scheme could be redesigned to retain the Victorian villa, which he still felt should not be demolished. After follow-up emails, the architects did submit some 'design packages on an updated retention scheme for the Villa and options for moving the Villa's tower,' on 14 May, but the link to those documents was redacted in the copy I received. It seems likely that these were the were the “revised retention scheme” designs shown as an Appendix to the Design & Access Statement which formed part of the planning application.

Those last “retained villa” designs were so impractical, compared to the original ideas that won the architects this contract. I doubt that they were ever intended to be of any use, other than so that the applicant could say that they had tried to find a solution which would allow the locally listed villa to be retained, when their client, Brent's Property Service, had already decided, no later than January 2019, that they would demolish the building in order to achieve the maximum number of homes as part of the redevelopment scheme.

My third FoI request was for emails etc. within Brent Council over the Heritage Officer’s response to the Heritage Impact Assessment of June 2020, and his final comments on the “significance” of the locally listed villa, and the preparation of the Planning Officer’s Report(s) to, and presentation of their case at, the Planning Committee on 12 August. Exactly twenty working days after my request, I received the Council’s response from the Head of Planning. He formally refused my request under Regulation 14 of the Environmental Information Regulations, 2004 (the EIRs), on the grounds that ‘internal communications’ are exempt under Reg. 12(4)(e) of the EIRs.

When he first acknowledged my request, I had said that I was puzzled as to why he would treat my FoI request as if it were under the EIRs, but had said ‘as long as the information is provided, as it should be under a normal FoI request, I will not make an issue of that point.’ It is now an issue, as I have expressed dissatisfaction with his refusal, and asked for an internal review by a senior Council Officer not connected with Brent’s Planning Service!

There is no equivalent exemption for ‘internal communications’ in the Freedom of Information Act, so I can see now why it suited Brent to deal with my request as if it were under the EIRs. But I was not asking for “environmental information” – it was not requesting copies of bat surveys(!), or anything else within that definition. The exemptions in Reg. 12 are subject to a public interest test, under which ‘a public authority shall apply a presumption in favour of disclosure.' 

According to the Head of Planning, emails etc. ‘provide the authority with the necessary space to discuss matters and provide advice in private.’ He believes this outweighs the public benefit of ‘openness and transparency of the consideration of the planning application.’ I believe that, if Brent’s planning officers have nothing to hide, it would be in the Council’s interest, as well as in the public interest, to supply the evidence that shows it. 

And if they have got something to hide, the serious concerns I have raised may well be justified.

Philip Grant.