Cllrs Shama Tatler and Krupa Sheth are to hold meetings with ward councillors this week to discuss the experimental  Healthy Neighbourhood schemes in their area following concern about lack of consultation and practicality voiced at a councillor briefing earlier this week.

The councillors are assured by Cllr Tatler that there was no intention to ignore residents or permanently impose changes but to fulfil an ambition, shared by all, to have 'healthier, cleaner and greener' neighbourhoods. The email circulated to councillors says that there is no disagreement on the principle but that there is a need to iron out some of the implementation and teething issues as well as communication.

Councillors are told that no scheme wil be operational until residents have been written to in order to clarify  proposals, inform them of how they can comment and engage in the trials, and, importantly, a date on which schemes will go live. Tatler states that if a scheme is not working it will be amended or removed.

There will be regular communications with councillors on the monitoring process and updates for councillors and residents during the 6 month trial to ensure that all comments and feedback are tracked.

Covid restrictions permitting there will also be walkabouts with offices,

Cllr Tatler points out that in many areas, there are significant numbers of people, who do not have a car and that Brent Council has a responsibility to attempt to make the neighbourhoods we live in pleasant and safe environments.

She concludes that change, especially of necessity done at high speed,  is not easy but the potential benefits are huge and long lasting.

The community meeting that launched the campaign to prevent Brent Council from selling off Bridge Park

The High Court verdict in the Brent Council versus Bridge Park case was delivered virtually today. Michael Green QC found in favour of Brent Council's claim on the land and granted an injuction against any further claims.  The redevelopment can now go ahead.

Although admiring the initial concept of a community centre addressing the needs of the community at the time of the riots and paying tribute to Leonard Johnson's  charismatic leadership qualities he decided the case strictly on its legal merits, but at the end of his long judgment (posted in previous article) called for co-operation between the parties in the case. He said:

I do not want to end this judgment on that note. While I have been somewhat critical of the Defendants’ strategy of opposition to Brent’s proposals in relation to Bridge Park, I am saddened that it has been necessary for this dispute to be determined by me in a long judgment that deals with the legal position in relation to the ownership of Bridge Park. The fact that I am delivering this judgment means that the mediation and settlement talks have failed to reach an outcome satisfactory to both parties. As I said at the beginning of this judgment, a trial of the issues before me is not the way to resolve the real issues between the parties. This dispute has come to a head in the context of understandably heightened tensions within the black community and the important focus on the Black Lives Matter movement. While the parties may be able to take such matters into account in seeking to resolve their differences out of court, I cannot do so. I had to decide the case on the facts surrounding the acquisition nearly 40 years ago and the law. 

I totally understand that Bridge Park was Mr Johnson’s conception and that the critical aspect of it, if it was to work and the riots were to be avoided, was that it would be run and managed by the local community for the local community without any direct involvement of Brent. Brent understood this, as did central government and the GLC, and they all shared Mr Johnson’s and HPCC’s philosophy. Everyone wanted it to succeed in that way as the stakes were so high. And, for a time, it did succeed. But the failure to set up a community co-operative or to agree the terms of a lease to the Steering Group Company, then the break-down of relations between HPCC and Brent leading to Brent’s repossession of Bridge Park and, for the last 25 years, HPCC being completely uninvolved in its management, all undermine HPCC’s claims to a beneficial interest. Those facts also confirm that the absence of any reference in any of the documentation to Brent holding the Property on trust whether for charitable purposes or HPCC or anyone was deliberate, reflecting the understanding of the parties that Brent did not hold the Property on trust. Instead the Property was held beneficially by Brent for its statutory purposes which are essentially to act in the best interests of the community, as I believe Brent is striving to do with its proposals for Bridge Park. Mr Gutch, the Defendants’ witness, admitted that “at the end of the day, the asset was Brent’s” even if it was acquired so as to be run by the community and even if the community aspired at some stage to own it. 

It is obvious that something needs to be done to Bridge Park. Brent cannot just allow it to languish and be of diminishing use to the community. Brent has to respond to the current needs of the community but says it can only provide a newly enhanced leisure and community facility if it sells off part of the Property. It is not right, in my view, for Mr Johnson and HPCC to claim a veto on anything that Brent may wish to do with the Property based on an inaccurate recollection of what was said at the time of the acquisition. All of Brent’s witnesses paid glowing tributes to Mr Johnson and the tremendous achievements of HPCC. I do too. But now that the legal issues have been resolved in my judgment, I would again urge the parties to move on and seek to achieve, by mutual co-operation and agreement, the best outcome for Bridge Park and the local community.

A very welcome and enterprising scheme is introducd by Brent Cycling Campaign:

Brent Cycling Campaign has launched a scheme  to pair experienced riders with people new or returning to cycling to help them navigate their new work commute, get around locally or enjoy a leisure pootle.

After lockdown there was a 200 percent increase in cycling.  Local bike shops are busy with people buying new bikes or repairing bikes which have not been used for a while. New cycle lanes and healthier, low traffic neighbourhoods are making it easier to get around by bike. 

Government and local authorities are actively encouraging people to cycle short journeys to keep public transport running at social distancing capacity and prevent more pollution and congestion building up on the roads. 

Brent  Cycling Campaign wants to help people keen to get on their wheels, to do so safely. They will pair up new with experienced riders so they can meet up and ride together - to work, to local shops or just to the park for a bit of practice.  Experienced riders will help plan routes on quiet streets, make use of existing cycling provision, give the new riders support and share their experiences of riding on city streets. 

Cycle Buddies has helped many new and returning riders across London already. 

If you are a new or returning to cycling - or if you are an experienced cyclist who would like to help others - sign up - it's free! to Brent Cycle Buddies at  https://www.brentcyclists.org.uk/2020/09/30/brent-cycle-buddies-scheme/

Carmen Solino, from Wandsworth, where the Cycle Buddies scheme was first launched, said: 

I hadn't been on a bike for 17 years. After a couple of rides with my bike buddy I found the confidence to take a ride all the way to work, near Westminster and found out about the Quietways, a safer, less stressful way to cycle in London!

Dr Bruce Lynn, who helped set up Cycle Buddies in Southwark commented:

I am delighted to be involved to pair up new cyclists and experienced riders to explore and enjoy London in a different way. They will see how quick and pleasant it is to ride around the city. 

Sylvia Gauthereau, coordinator of Brent Cycling Campaign:

We already have a good number of people interested to help out, including a mum who is keen to inspire other parents to cycle the school run. So please do not hesitate to get in touch so we can start finding you a cycle buddy.

The Schools Adjudicator, whose role is to ensure that school admission arrangement are fair and conform to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, has issue a determination in the case of objections to revised admission arrangements at the state-funded Islamian Primary School in Brent. The governing body at the school determines its own admission arrangements.

The case raises important issues regarding class (in the guise of professional status) and race (relating to the Somali population).

The objection by two individuals relates to the criteria applied when the 60 pupil intake school is over-subscribed. 

The adjudicator summarises the criteria as:

a.     Looked after Muslim children and previously looked after Muslim children.

b.     Children of staff.

c.     Muslim children of at least one parent who has reverted to Islam (not born in the Islamic faith). Up to a maximum of 25 per cent of the PAN (Planned Admission Number).

d.     Muslim children of parents who are former pupils of the school (alumni) since it became a Voluntary Aided school (1998). Up to a maximum of 15 per cent of the PAN.

e.     Muslim children who have a sibling at the school.

f.      Other Muslim children.

g.     Other looked after children or previously looked after children.

h.     Other children.

 The objectors argument is summarised:

1.              Taken together, the objectors argue that newly-introduced oversubscription criteria giving priority to Muslim children of at least one parent who has reverted to Islam and Muslim children of parents who are former pupils of the school (alumni) are in breach of paragraphs 1.9 e) and f) of the School Admissions Code (the Code), which prohibit the giving of priority to children, respectively, on the basis of any practical or financial support parents may give to the school and according to the educational status of parents applying.

2.              Both objectors point out that, as a result of the introduction of the new criteria, the priority for children with siblings at the school has become the fifth rather than the third oversubscription criterion. The objectors refer to the “disadvantage” and “hardship” this will create and describe the change as “unfair.” Paragraph 14 of the Code requires admission authorities to ensure that the practices and the criteria used to decide the allocation of school places are fair.

The objectors felt that the priority given to alumni was made on the basis of their  ability to give support to the school including financially through voluntary contributions. One objector said:

“During the [consultation]meeting the panel explained to the parents in attendance that they wished to encourage alumni to come back to the school as they tended to be professionally successful, therefore they could ‘share their skills to drive standards up, hold the school to account and give something back thanks to their professional status.’

The Adjudicator comments:

My task at this stage, though, is not to come to a conclusion about what the true reasons for the new criteria are, but to determine whether those criteria are in breach of the Code. In order to qualify under either of the criteria, parents are not required to make any financial contribution to the school or to give it practical support, or indeed to pledge to do. The governing board may hope that parents may do so, but it is not necessary to gain priority for a place. I therefore do not consider that they are in breach of paragraph 1.9 e). 

Similarly, with reference to paragraph 1.9 f), there is not a requirement that parents demonstrate that they are employed in a particular occupation. In order to be considered alumni of the school, parents must, of course, have attended it. I do not regard this as conferring an “educational status”, which I take to relate to educational achievement, including qualifications obtained at school and in further and higher education. I do not uphold the objection on the grounds that the criteria giving priority to the children of alumni and reverts breach paragraph 1.9 of the Code.

The Adjudicator adds on this and  the issue of 'reverts'  LINK (people who become Muslim as did the original founder of the school Cat Stevens/Yusif Islam):

Whilst it is clear that there is strong disagreement about the appropriateness of the reasons the admission authority has given for giving priority to children of alumni, those reasons could not be described as arbitrary or irrational. With respect to the priority of children of reverts, it is common practice for schools with a religious character to differentiate between adherents of the faith of the school in their admission arrangements, for example, on the basis of for how long or how often they attend a place of worship. It is not unreasonable to take account of when someone became a member of the faith (provided this can be established objectively) and to give their children priority for places at the school as they may need more support than children born into the faith. I therefore consider that these criteria meet the test of reasonableness.

There was a further argument made in correspondence that the Adjudicator termed 'very important':

In her initial objection, this objector argued that the proposed changes “will directly impact families from poorer socio-economic backgrounds.” She develops the argument in subsequent correspondence, explaining that there has been a change in the demographic profile of the school, due to a large number of Somali families being housed in what was previously the catchment area. She says, 

 

“This has translated into a net increase of Somali children and their siblings securing spaces at Islamia due to closeness to the school, being within the catchment area and having sibling priority.  l believe these changes are aimed at reducing that through decreased sibling priority.

Moreover, since there are close to no Somali alumni from 20 years ago and traditionally no reverts from Somali heritage these changes will effectively exclude a large portion of parents  and directly affect their ability to secure spaces for a second, third or fourth child. I believe these changes are discriminatory and aimed at curbing the access of poorer families from specific ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds usually in need of more spaces.”

 

 The Adjudicator found that the revised arrangements discriminate against siblings and adds a warning (my stress) regarding the above point:

I have found that the arrangements unfairly disadvantage siblings. Although the objector’s arguments appear to me to have some merit, it would be difficult to establish whether the effect of the proposed changes would be specifically to disadvantage the Somali racial group. Indeed, any finding in this matter would not add materially to my conclusion relating to unfairness. I therefore make no further comment, other than to stress the importance of the admission authority’s monitoring of the effect of the arrangements in future years to ensure that they do not run the risk of a successful challenge that they may cause indirect discrimination on the grounds of race. Indirect discrimination occurs when a practice or criterion, which applies to everyone in the same way, has the effect of disadvantaging a group of people who share a protected characteristic listed in the Equality Act 2010. It is a defence against indirect discrimination if the criterion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Summary of Findings

1.              The consultation conducted by the admission authority prior to the introduction of new criteria prioritising the children of alumni and reverts met requirements. The criteria do not contravene paragraphs 1.9 e) and f) of the Code as they do not give priority to children on the basis of practical or financial support parents may give or on parents’ occupational or educational status. I do not uphold these aspects of the objection.

 

2.              Children of alumni and reverts (up to 40 per cent of the total to be admitted) have a higher priority to siblings, some of whom might not obtain a place. The disadvantage to siblings and their families is not outweighed by the benefits the new criteria bring. The arrangements do not meet the requirements of fairness in paragraph 14 of the Code. In this respect, I uphold the objection.

Determination

3.              In accordance with section 88H(4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, I partially uphold the objection to the admission arrangements for September 2021 determined by the governing board for Islamia Primary School, Brent.  

 

4.              I have also considered the arrangements in accordance with section 88I(5) and find there are other matters which do not conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements in the ways set out in this determination. 

The Chair of Governors at the school has been contacted for a  comment but has not yet responded. 

The full report can be found HERE

Brent Council Press Release (unedited)

Some of the areas worst affected by the coronavirus pandemic in Brent will receive additional support, as part of the Keep Brent Safe initiative.

A team of council officers made up of staff from across a range of services, including enforcement officers, will be out and about to remind individuals of the social distancing rules, hand out free ‘Keep Brent Safe’ face coverings and ensure businesses and individuals are complying with restrictions.

The teams will be in Church End on Wednesday 7 October, Harlesden Town Centre on Thursday 8 October and Ealing Road on Friday 9 October.

Brent’s Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure Councillor Neil Nerva said:

I want to thank everyone in the borough for continuing to do their bit to keep Brent safe.  The vast majority of individuals and businesses have made big sacrifices to comply with the rules to protect themselves, and their loved ones. However, we know that some people still need more information and support – which will be provided by our teams across these days of action.

Where individuals and businesses continue to refuse to follow the rules, more serious enforcement could take place including escalating situations to the Police.

Businesses that are putting individuals at risk by not following the rules can be reported to the Citizens Advice Consumer Helpline on 0808 223 1133 or by emailing trading.standards@brent.gov.uk 

Large gatherings should be reported to Brent’s Community Safety team by calling 0208 937 1058 or emailing community.safety@brent.gov.uk

Residents are invited to share their own local initiatives, that are providing support to individuals during the pandemic, using #BrentTogether on social media.

Welcome back to this second instalment of Kilburn’s story. If you missed Part 1, please “click” on the link.

1. The location of several Kilburn pubs on a map from 1800. (From Google Maps World, on the internet)

Modern Kilburn is well known for its many public houses, but these only continue a long tradition. The position of Kilburn on a major route facilitated the establishment of several inns from the 15th century onwards. The “Red Lion” claims to have been established in 1444, and “The Cock” was probably around by the early 1500s. The “Black Lion” may date from 1666, but it is the story of “The Bell”, which existed by 1600, that we will look at here.

2. The Red Lion in 1789, and the frieze on the later building, with 1444 date. (Brent Archives image 2024)

A spring of water with medicinal properties (it was impregnated with iron) in Abbey Fields gave rise to Kilburn’s reputation as an 18^th century pleasure resort. It was in the grounds of The Bell. In 1714 the spring was enclosed in a brick reservoir. By 1733, The Bell’s proprietor promoted the water as a cure for stomach ailments, in imitation of the nearby Hampstead Wells.

3. The Bell Inn, 1750, an illustration from Walford’s 1878 book. (From the Kilburn & Willesden History blog)

Joseph Errington became the landlord of the pub, which came to be called “Kilburn Wells”, in the 1770s. He placed an advert in The Public Advertiser in July 1773 which lists its many attractions:

‘Kilburn Wells, near Paddington. The waters now are in the utmost perfection: the gardens enlarged and greatly improved; the house and offices re-painted and beautiful in the most elegant manner. The whole is now open for the reception of the public, the great room being particularly adapted to the use and amusement of the politest companies. 

 

Fit either for music, dancing or entertainments. This happy spot is equally celebrated for its rural situation, extensive prospects, and the acknowledged efficacy of its waters; it is most delightfully situated near the site of the once famous Abbey of Kilburn, on the Edgware Road, at an easy distance, being but a morning’s walk, from the metropolis, two miles from Oxford Street; the foot-way from the Mary-bone across the fields is still nearer. A plentiful larder is always provided, together with the best of wines and other liquors. Breakfasting and hot loaves.’

4. A late 18th century engraving of Kilbourn Wells. (Brent Archives online image 2026)

Despite seeking to welcome ‘the politest companies’, Kilburn Wells soon acquired a notorious reputation, as it attracted visitors from the nearby Belsize House, an immoral place of entertainment!  

In 1801 Dr John Bliss, a famous physician who specialised in treating gout, carried out a series of experiments and analysed the water from both Kilburn and Hampstead. He wrote about Kilburn – 

“The spring rises about 12 feet below the surface and is enclosed in a large brick reservoir, which bears the date of 1714 on the key stone of the arch over the door. The water collected in the well is usually of the depth of 5 or 6 feet but in a dry summer it is from 3-4, at which time its effect as a purgative is increased…. When taken fresh from the well a few inches under the surface it is tolerably clear, but not of a crystal transparency – at first it is insipid, but leaves and evident saline taste on the tongue. At rest, and even on alight agitation, no smell is produced but on stirring the water forcibly from the bottom of the reservoir, it becomes turbid from impurities which have been collected in it, and a considerable odour is emitted like that from the scouring of a foul gun barrel.” 

Bliss said that when between one and three pints were taken at very short intervals, the purgative operation was slow and gentle. He recommended it for indigestion and various other problems.  

Until 1819, when duelling was outlawed, Kilburn Wells was also a favourite spot for duels, being suitably secluded. A particularly infamous duel was fought here on 2 July 1792, between James Maitland, the 8th Earl of Lauderdale and General Benedict Arnold, ‘America’s first traitor.’ Arnold was an officer in the American Army, and when in command of the garrison at West Point, he secretly negotiated to be paid for surrendering his garrison to the British. He later defected and lived comfortably in Britain.

5. 8th Earl of Lauderdale, by Gainsborough, and a contemporary illustration of a duel. (From the internet)

During a speech in the House of Lords, Lauderdale had insulted Arnold, who challenged him to a duel at Kilburn Wells. Thankfully, unlike in the illustration above, neither participant was hurt. In fact, only days before, Lauderdale had ‘duelled’ on the same spot with the Duke of Richmond, but their argument was settled with a shake of hands!

The Bell was also the scene for dog fighting and pugilism - bare-knuckle fighting, the original form of boxing. Bare-knuckle fighting was very popular in the 18^th and 19^thcenturies and attracted big crowds. In 1783, one of its most celebrated figures, Daniel Mendoza, beat John Matthews here in a fight that lasted 2 hours. 

6. Two engravings, by Gillray (1790s) and Kinsbury (1789), of the boxer Daniel Mendoza. (From the internet)

Mendoza, from Whitechapel, was the first Jewish champion fighter, and was Heavyweight Champion of England from 1792 to 1795. He developed his own concept of fighting. His popularity, and acceptance by British royalty (his patron was the Prince of Wales, and he was the first Jew ever to speak to King George III) helped elevate the reputation of Jews in English society, which was deeply anti-Semitic at the time. 

Despite the fact that at the height of its popularity Kilburn Wells could rival the nearby Hampstead Wells, some of its owners went bankrupt. In 1837, the line of Robert Stephenson’s London & Birmingham Railway (later the London & North Western) went through Abbey Farm fields, cutting the Kilburn Wells gardens in two. The part next to the pub became a tea garden, and that on the other side of the railway, which contained the well, became a kitchen garden.

7. The Old Bell (left) and new railway line, c. 1840. (Image from Allan Russel, on Twitter)

The wells were in decline, but under its original name, The Bell remained popular as a tea garden and a tavern. The Old Bell pub was demolished and rebuilt in 1863. The well disappeared in the Victorian building boom.

8. "The Old Bell", in its Victorian building on Kilburn High Road, 2010. (From the internet – pubwiki)

The memory of Kilburn Wells lives on in the name of the Wells Spa House (1a West End Lane), and a stone plaque on No.42 Kilburn High Road at the junction with Belsize Road, which says that this was the site of Kilburn Wells. There is also a black stone square on the ground in front of the building.

9. The plaque marking the site of the Kilburn Wells, 2007. (Brent Archives online image 5867)

Eventually, Kilburn developed to be more than just a place of pubs and farms, and we will explore that side of its history next week. I look forward to sharing that with you.

Irina Porter, Willesden Local History Society.

Brentfield School Nursery entrance - the main school entrance is the other side of the barrier

The Mandir on the left - Meadow Garth section that could be renamed ahead

The Cabinet next week will decided whether to agree to rename a section of Meadow Garth in Neasden after the founder of the Neasden Temple (BAPs Swaminarayan Mandir) Pramukh Swami, the spiritual leader of the Swaminarayan sect until his death in 2016.

He inaugurated the Mandir in 1995 and the 20th anniversary was celebrated in 2015.

The proposal is to rename the section of Meadow Garth from Brentfield Road to the barrier (see first photograph) 'Pramukh Swami Road.'

Brentfield Primary School objects because the proposal splits the site with the nursery entrance in Pramukh Swami Road and the main entrance in the retained section of Meadow Garth. They point out that the school has recently rebranded with the Meadow Garth address and in addition say that  the change does not reflect 'our community or th school community.'

The change is strongly supported by several residents in the affected section of Meadow Garth but other residents object on ground of the inconvenience, stress and expense that will be caused.

The London Fire Emergency and Planning Authority (LFEPA) object:

The proposed name is not the easiest to pronounce and could be received wrongly during call handling. It is always better to act on the side of precaution when choosing street or building names to minimise the risk of delay when attending an incident. We do object to the renaming of part of 'Meadow Garth Road' as it currently doesn't present any issues for us in terms of locating this address. The guideline states that renaming/renumbering existing streets and buildings is normally only considered when changes occur which give rise to problems for the occupiers, post office, emergency services etc.

This was later qualified by the LFEPA Borough Commander who said that this was advice from the national guidelines, 'but you are free to make any decision you wish.'

The officers say the Cabinet should take the objection seriously as delays of a few minutes in response times can have serious life consequences for firefighters and residents.

On the cultural and visitor attraction aspects the report states:

The Temple is an important asset to Brent, both for residents and as a visitor attraction; it provides valued facilities to many residents and visitors. Although the rationale for applying for the name change has not been clearly set out in the application, it is important to recognise the desire of the Temple to have a street presence which reflects its culture and that of its thousands of attendees and visitors.

 The report leaves the Cabinet to make a 'finely balance' decision:

Clearly the statutory responders and the school are not in favour of the name change along with some residents of Meadow Garth. On balance this would often lead to a rejection of the name change. However, given the need to reflect diversity in the borough and the significance of the Temple to the life of the Borough, Cabinet may well decide that this is a change which they would wish to support.

From Brent Friends of the Earth

Brent FoE Green and Fair Recovery action

This is the week of action - we want to hear your views in our campaign for a green and fair recovery from COVID-19.

What could this look like in Brent? Please comment with your ideas

Also, join our online discussion on Sunday 11th October 10:30-12, around how to achieve a green and fair recovery, and influence government ahead of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

To join the Zoom Meeting, email info@brentfoe.com for the link, or join our mailing list via www.brentfoe.com.

We will also be hosting a virtual lobby with Brent MPs Tulip Siddiq and Dawn Butler. Details to be confirmed soon!

Beware of the tendency to cut off height in development illustrations

 

An idea of the footprint

'Ghost' blocks

I am grateful to North West TWO Residents' Association for permission to repost this very useful article from their website LINK

I understand that a special Full Council meeting will be held on Friday October 16th to discuss the Healthy Neighbourhood Scheme. The meeting follows a request from members and currently is due to be held at the not very convenient time, for those with children requiring pick-up from school and working councillors, of 3.30pm. The motion on the agenda will request further clarification from the Lead Member for Regeneration. Cllr Shama Tatler, about the scheme.  

This follows concern expressed at the recent Labour Group meeting LINK over issues such as consultation with residents, the decision making progress, and the criteria for judging the success or otherwise of the schemes that are already in place. Sources suggest the meeting with be short, perhaps only 30 minutes.  As with all Full Council meetings, except the AGM, residents should be able to make requests to speak.

The meeting has not yet been advertised on the Council website but normally 5 full working day's notice is required to speak at a meeting or present petitions  so any applications should be made as soon as possible.

I hope to confirm details of the meeting as soon as they are published.

 The Friends of the Earth victory in the battle against a third runway at Heathrow Airport will be defended in the Supreme Courttoday.

Following the environmental campaigners’ triumph in the Court of Appeal earlier this year, Heathrow Airport Limited has appealed to the Supreme Court in a last-ditch bid to rescue its plan for the runway.

Lawyers for Friends of the Earth will argue that Court of Appeal judges were right to rule that the Government’s decision to give the runway the go-ahead in the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) was unlawful. 

They ruled that the Government could not ignore its international climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement, which requires the UK to sharply and quickly reduce its investment in fossil fuel infrastructure.

Judges said the Secretary of State for Transport (then Chris Grayling) had breached s10 of the Planning Act 2008, and acted irrationally by disregarding the Paris Agreement, the non-CO2 warming impacts of aviation, and the effects of climate change beyond 2050. He also breached his duty to undertake a lawful strategic environmental assessment in accordance with the requirements of the SEA Directive and the SEA Regulations.

Following the judgment, the Government and Arora Holdings decided not to pursue their legal case any further, but Heathrow Airport Limited pressed on and was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Friends of the Earth is represented by Leigh Day solicitors and barristers David Wolfe QC of Matrix Chambers, Peter Lockley of 11 Kings Bench Walk Chambers and Andrew Parkinson of Landmark Chambers.

Will Rundle, head of legal at Friends of the Earth, said:

“Without the government in the picture, this case has become one about business interests versus the wellbeing of people everywhere facing the impact of the climate crisis.

“The Court of Appeal rightly ruled against the expansion of Heathrow, and we’re now here to defend our historic win for the planet. The government accepted illegal advice to ignore the Paris Climate Agreement when making the initial decision to approve the third runway. Heathrow is now trying to completely ignore this fact with its appeal.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court will now make an authoritative ruling and remain confident the court will re-affirm that the Paris Agreement cannot be ignored, and all the damaging climate impacts of Heathrow expansion must be fully considered in any decision over expansion.”

Jenny Bates, climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said:

“As we plan for a future in the wake of the dreadful Covid-19 pandemic, it’s key that the UK invests in low-carbon, resilient infrastructure and creates green jobs in sectors such as clean transport, renewable energy and home insulation. A new runway at Heathrow is the opposite of what we need to be building. It would lead to a huge increase in emissions and undermine the UK’s duty to fight the climate crisis.

“Heathrow has talked up easy fixes to get the Third Runway pushed through, but these fixes rely on undeveloped technology, and ineffective carbon offsetting to make their plans appear more climate friendly.”

Rowan Smith, solicitor in the environmental law team at Leigh Day, said:

“We trust that the Supreme Court will agree with the Court of Appeal when it concluded that there was absolutely no legal means by which the Government could ignore its international climate change commitments under the Paris Agreement.

“They made it clear that such an omission fatally undermined the lawfulness of the policy to allow a third runway at Heathrow Airport. 

“The Lord Justices simply followed the legal framework set by Parliament and found that the Secretary of State was legally bound to consider the Paris Agreement which was so obviously material to a decision on Heathrow Airport expansion.”

In response to queries from readers I asked Brent Council for the procedure for anyone with a view on the Healthy Neighbourhood to speak at the Extraordinary Council Meeting on November 15th.  This is the answer from the officer concerned:

We've had a number of enquiries relating to this meeting so happy to respond, with an outline of the process and timescales.

In terms of the date for this meeting, I can confirm that it will be taking place next Friday 16 October 2020 at 3:30pm.  As you'll be aware this has been arranged, following the submission of a request earlier this week, as an Extraordinary meeting of the Council for the purpose of considering a motion submitted on the Healthy Neighbourhood proposals.  An agenda for the meeting is due to be published later today, which will include details on the motion to be considered and this will be available to view and download via the following section of the Council's website:

http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=180

I should point out that next week's meeting (as is current practice given the restrictions in place relating to corornavirus) is being held virtually via zoom but will also be webcast live, for those wishing to follow proceedings without contributing.  The live webcast will be available to view via the following link: 

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/democracy-in-brent/local-democracy/live-streaming/

For anyone wishing to speak, as this is an Extraordinary Council meeting they would need to request a deputation with the deadline for doing so close of play today.  Under the deputation procedure they would then have up to 5 minutes to speak at the meeting, but any request would need to be submitted in writing to  katie.smith@brent.gov.uk (email would be fine) and cc to me james.kinsella@brent.gov.uk  and will need to specify what the deputation relates to and also who will be speaking and who they be representing.  We will also need a contact email address and phone number.  

We do have a limit of three deputations per Council meeting, so if we should receive more than three request to speak within this timescale the usual process would be to select which deputations go forward by way of a ballot.

In terms of petitions, unfortunately the same deadline will apply.  There is the ability for the lead petitioner to request a debate at Council on petitions which contain over 200 valid signatures.  A valid signature is taken as being from someone who either lives, works or studies in the borough so the signatures provided would need be to be checked beforehand with the petition either provided in hard or scanned copy or via the Council's e-petition facility. 

I realise these timescales are now very tight, given the date for the meeting, but am sure you'll appreciate this has been called as an Extraordinary meeting of the Council and hope this helps to clarify the position.

The motion for the Extraordinary Meeting has been published.  I am not sure when as I have been on a zoom call.  If it was after 5pm as appears likely (my meeting started then) it gave no time for residents to study the motion  before the deadline for making an application to speak passed.

I hope officers will recognise this and make allowances for requests received after 'close of play'.

Harrow Green Party are very pleased to announce that Barratts, developers of the Kodak site in Harrow, have officially withdrawn their planning application (P/2661/20) to remove 26 trees along Harrow View Road.  After leading a campaign against the removal of these mature trees, with over 350 people submitting objections against the application, Harrow Greens are delighted that the developers have recognised the importance of these trees and acted accordingly.  

Emma Wallace, GLA Green Party candidate for Brent and Harrow  said:

This is fantastic news for Harrow, ensuring that the trees continue to provide a green welcome to people travelling along this busy thoroughfare, continue to support the local ecosystem and wildlife, and help limit air pollution, both now and into the future.  

 

This campaign proves that community action can work when acting together, standing up for our local area and the vital wildlife and green spaces we still have in Harrow.  I hope that Barratts will now ensure that they look after these trees and that any maintenance carried out is completed carefully and sympathetically, ensuring the overall health of these trees is preserved.

 The current Kilburn Times has a letter and an article by a Tory councillor critical of the schemes

As there is a limit of three speaking slots for the public at Brent Council meetings a ballot had to be held to select three of the applicants to put their views to the Extraordinary Council Meeting on Healthy Neighbourhoods to be held on Friday 16th October at 3.30pm.

The ballot resulted in Brondesbury Park Residents' Association,  Brent Clean Air and Brent Cyclists gaining a slot.

Given the short-notice of the meeting and the deadline for applications closing before the agenda was published, it is pretty amazing that any applications went in at all.

Local opinion is divided with many supporting the low traffic neighbourhood schemes as a way of reducing air pollution and reclaiming the streets from cars while others have mobilised against the scheme (see the current Kilburn Times). A petition 'Stop Road Closures in Kensal, Brondesbury and Queens Park' has mustered 2,262 signatories at the time of publication. I do not know whether the organisers have fulfilled the fairly stringent requirements that would enable the petition to be presented at the meeting.

The seven councillors who called the Extraordinary Meeting are not asking for the scheme to be dropped but calling for evidence about the rationale behind the specific schemes and information on how it will be evaluated. 

They call the meeting...

To instruct the Lead Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning to provide a comprehensive rationale for the introduction of the temporary Healthy Neighbourhoods in the various areas.

This to provide details about how these areas have been chosen; how it impact targets; mitigations, if any; viability of the monitoring of the scheme; what prior public and stakeholder engagement has taken place; the equity of the trade-off between loser  residential streets and gainers; the risk of increased congestion on certain residential roads and implications on emissions; the methodology to be used to evaluate the outcome, notably the goal of lower overall traffic volumes; and the measurements in place to secure adequate baseline data for ALL streets affected (including the connector roads).

If you are not at work, shopping or collecting the kids from school (which covers an awful lot of people) you can watch the meeting live on the Council webcastHERE

In Part 2 (“click” on the link if you missed it) of our look at Kilburn’s past, we had reached the early years of the 19^thcentury. This week, we’ll venture further into that century.

Before 1800 Kilburn was mostly rural, with some houses and cottages, as well as a number of inns catering for travellers and stage coach services, along the main road. Although several houses (mainly on the Hampstead side) had been built in the area in the 17th century, the road conditions were bad, and highway robbers were at large. Money from trusts set up by benevolent gentlemen like William Kempe, Edward Harvist and John Lyon were not enough to improve the roads. 

1. The Kilburn tollgate in 1860, and 1819 list of toll charges. (Brent Archives online images 2519 & 2023)

A new source of funds was needed to maintain the highway, and in 1710 a turnpike (an old form of toll road) was created, with a toll gate at Kilburn Bridge to charge road users at the entrance to Willesden parish. This place is now near the Queen's Arms at Maida Vale. Later it was moved to Shoot Up Hill, and the turnpike was abolished in 1872.

#

2. Kilburn Park Farm, 1865. (Image from the internet)

Kilburn Park Farm, shown above in 1865, lay "nearly opposite the ’Old Red Lion’ Edgware Road, Paddington, and immediately adjoining Verey Brewery." The path seen in front of the barn carried on to Willesden. The part of Kilburn on the Willesden side belonged to the manors of Bounds, Brondesbury and Mapesbury. These manors were all the property of St. Paul's Cathedral. Mapesbury (named after Walter Map, an early medieval writer, courtier and priest) and Brondesbury ('Brand's manor') were respectively situated north and south of Mapes (later Willesden) Lane. Local estates in the south of the area included Abbey Farm, which covered the former Kilburn Priory.

3. St Paul's Church, Kilburn Square, from the High Road. (From the internet: www.images-of-london.co.uk )

Some houses were built on the Kilburn Priory estate and at Kilburn Square, around St. Paul’s Chapel (built in 1835, demolished in 1934, St. Paul’s was the only church along the front of Edgware Road from Marble Arch to Edgware). The rural tranquillity of the early 19^th century Kilburn attracted middle class professionals who liked to live in ‘beautiful villas’, scattered along the Edgware Road. We are going to look at some houses of note and their occupants. (If you would like to see maps showing estate boundaries and the locations of the major houses, please refer to ‘Kilburn and West Hampstead Past’ by Dick Weindling and Marianne Colloms, which you can borrow from Brent Libraries, ref. 942.142)

The first large house to be seen on entering Kilburn from the south was the Willesden Manor House, on a site between today’s Oxford and Cambridge Roads. There was a 16^th century estate of 160 acres, with a farmhouse in this area. In 1649 it was recorded as a house of six rooms. By 1788, it was owned by Lady Sarah Salusbury, the widow of Sir Thomas Salusbury, a judge of the High Court of Admiralty. 

She settled the estate in trust for her husband’s nephew, the Rev. Lynch Salusbury, and when he died in 1837, it passed to his daughter Lady Elizabeth May Salusbury, who had married her cousin Sir Thomas Robert Salusbury (there were other occupants there later). Lady Salusbury sold her properties to the Church Commissioners in 1856, and we will look at what happened to them in the next part of Kilburn’s story (although the Salusbury name may give you a clue).

From around the middle of the 18^thcentury, a house called The Elms, or Elm Lodge, stood on the site of the present day Gaumont State Cinema, at the junction of Kilburn High Road and Willesden Lane. Following a number of owners and occupiers (one of whom was Lady Salusbury in 1799), Mrs. Pickersgill was rated for the house from 1829 until 1832. She was probably the wife of Henry William Pickersgill R.A., an eminent portrait painter, who among his many works painted the writer W.H. Ainsworth, who later lived in the house. She was running a school for ‘female education’. 

4. The Elms, Kilburn, with decorators at work in late Victorian times. (Brent Archives online image 2046)

In 1832 John Ebers, a widower with two daughters moved into The Elms. He was a theatre manager and had a publishing business in Old Bond Street. In 1826 he had met a young man called William Harrison Ainsworth, who was to become his son-in-law, marrying his youngest daughter Fanny (both aged 21). Ainsworth came to London to study law, but soon gave it up and became a writer. Ebers introduced him into theatrical and literary circles, as well as publishing one of his early novels. 

5. William Harrison Ainsworth, by Daniel Maclise, and an illiustration from "Rookwood". (From the internet)

Ainsworth and his wife first lived near Regent’s Park, but later moved to Kilburn. It was here that he began writing his first famous novel “Rookwood”, about the notorious highwayman Dick Turpin. Although the inn where Dick met his accomplices is based on The Cock in Kilburn, the story is fiction and there’s no historical evidence to link Dick Turpin to Kilburn. As we saw in an article about Church End, Ainsworth often used Willesden locations in his stories! It is from “Rookwood” that the widely held legend originates, of Turpin riding his horse, Black Bess, all the away from London to York (again, a fiction).

Ainsworth’s marriage was not successful, and in 1835 he separated from his wife and moved with his three young daughters to Kensal Lodge. His next home, Kensal Manor House, offered hospitality to famous literary figures of the day, including Dickens and Thackeray. Ainsworth published 39 novels, which enjoyed great success in Victorian England. He is buried at Kensal Green cemetery. 

Another grand house with a famous Victorian resident, Kilburn House, was situated north of today’s Kilburn Square near Priory Park Road. At the beginning of 19^th century, Kilburn House was a pleasant suburban villa with extensive grounds. For most of its previous history it was leased to wealthy tenants, who usually stayed only a few years. Between 1839 and 1856 the newsagent and future politician W.H. Smith lived here with his father, when they moved the family home from their offices in Strand.

William Henry Smith senior was a newspaper proprietor, who also ran a successful newspaper distribution business. He worked so hard that he became ill, and the family moved to Kilburn for a more restful residence. However, every weekday he, together with this son, also William Henry, got up at 4 am for the one hour journey of 5 miles to his Strand office! In 1846 the son became a partner, and W.H. Smith & Son was born. 

6. W.H. Smith, M.P., as First Lord of the Admiralty in a "Punch" cartoon from 1877, and an 1878 parody.
    (Main image from “Kilburn and West Hampstead Past”, with others from the internet)

William Henry the younger took the business to a new level, when, capitalising on the railway boom, he negotiated with various railway companies the running of book stalls at stations. Later he became an M.P. and served in senior government and ministerial posts, including his appointment, by Benjamin Disraeli in 1877, as the First Lord of the Admiralty, despite him having no naval experience. He was parodied as the character Sir Joseph Porter, in Gilbert and Sullivan’s 1878 light opera “H.M.S. Pinafore”, with a famous song in which he tells how he became ‘the Ruler of the Queen’s Navy’ by never going to sea, and because:

‘I always voted at my party’s call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.’

The start of building development in the area annoyed the Smiths, and in 1856 the family moved from Kilburn to Hertfordshire.

7. The Grange, Kilburn. (From “Kilburn and West Hampstead Past” by Dick Weindling and Marianne Colloms)

Among other notable grand houses were The Grange, on the Camden side, a ‘Gothic-style House’, occupied by the Peters family. Thomas Peters was a coach builder who made coaches for Queen Victoria, and his widow Ada run a literary saloon at the house. Hampstead Council bought the estate in 1911 to turn it into a park, but the grand house did not survive. The Grange Cinema opened on the site in 1914 (more about the cinema later).

8. Before and after views of the grounds at Brondesbury by Humphry Repton. (Images from the internet)

Brondesbury Manor House was on the southern side of Willesden Lane, at the western edge of Kilburn. The estate was first mentioned in the 13^thcentury, and the moated manor house was rebuilt in the 18^th century as a three-storeyed villa, becoming the main home of Lady Sarah Salusbury. In 1789, she had the grounds landscaped by Humphry Repton (who also designed Wembley Park), and following his wishes it became known as Brondesbury Park.

Repton’s “red book” for Brandsbury still exists, and he reproduced his before and after views (replacing the fence with a “ha-ha”) in his 1794 book “Sketches and Hints on Landscape Gardening”. Among the house’s other famous later occupiers were the bankers Sir Coutts Trotter and Charles Hambro, and Lady Elizabeth Salusbury.

Mapesbury House was part of the 300-acre estate on the northern side of Willesden Lane. A 17^th century two-storeyed house was leased in 1828 to a horse dealer named William Anderson, who set up a horse training centre there. That continued as its main use until the house was demolished in 1925.

Mon Abri, No. 27 Shoot Up Hill, was the home of Senor Manuel Garcia, a renowned Victorian singing teacher and the inventor of laryngoscope, born in Madrid in 1805. Among his pupils was the famous Jenny Lind. 

Having looked at some of the grander Kilburn homes, next week will bring us to the growth of the local area and its community from Victorian times into the early 20^th century. I hope you will join me again then.

Irina Porter, Willesden Local History Society.

A special thank you to local historian Dick Weindling, co-author of 'Kilburn and West Hampstead Past' and History of Kilburn and West Hampstead blog .

 Guest blog by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-

One of the “spin-offs” from Martin publishing my guest blogs over 1 Morland Gardens is that he received, and passed on to me, a query over a time capsule that was buried there in 1994. Did the people at Brent Council know about it, and if so, would they save and rebury it as part of their planned redevelopment?

I asked, and got the answer that they did, and they would. Through my sharing the answer with the person who had first raised the query, I also discovered how Brent Council came to own the Victorian villa that they now propose to demolish, and how it came to be restored, to improve the environment and quality of life for the local community, with most of the finance coming from the Harlesden City Challenge project in the 1990s.

I am setting out below the full text, and illustrations, of an open letter which I sent to Brent’s Chief Executive over the weekend. I’m sure that many readers will remember BACES, and my letter gives the details about Brent Adult & Community Education Service and Harlesden City Challenge being at the heart of the Council’s ownership of 1 Morland Gardens. This information was never made available to the councillors who have made decisions about Brent’s current proposals for the property, and needs to be more widely known before any final decision is made on whether the plans to demolish this beautiful building go ahead.

My letter begins with my initial response to Brent’s answer to the serious concerns I raised in August about the planning application, and the further information on this that I had obtained under FoI. When Brent’s new Strategic Director, Regeneration, sent me a copy of his report into the concerns I had raised about how Council officers had dealt with the 1 Morland Gardens proposals, I asked if he would have any objection to it being published, in the interests of openness and transparency. He did not want his full report published, but sent me an edited version that could be made public, and I will ask Martin to include that document at the end of this post.

Here is my open letter:-

To: Carolyn Downs                                                                      From: Philip Grant
Chief Executive, Brent Council.                                                  

                                                                                                                         10 October 2020

THIS IS AN OPEN LETTER

Dear Ms Downs,

1 Morland Gardens, its heritage significance and Harlesden City Challenge

Thank you for your letter of 7 October, which was your response to the serious concerns I had raised over the actions of Brent Council officers in connection with the redevelopment proposals for 1 Morland Gardens. Your response was based on the report into those concerns by the Strategic Director, Regeneration, who also sent me a summary version of his report on the same day.

I have not yet provided my response to Mr Lunt’s report, because I am still awaiting some information, the request for which was wrongly refused on 18 September, and is currently the subject of an internal review. It would also help to resolve matters if the Council would provide me with a copy of the advice that Mr Lunt received from Legal Counsel over the planning policy point at issue. I know that this is said to be covered by “privilege”, but as there is no ongoing legal action over this matter, and I have undertaken not to initiate any such action, I cannot see the harm in this being made available to me on an “in confidence” basis.

What both your letter and Mr Lunt’s report have failed to grasp is that the heritage “significance” of the locally listed Victorian villa is at the heart of where Council officers went wrong over 1 Morland Gardens. Both the National Planning Policy Framework and Brent’s own policy DMP7 set out clearly that the starting point for any proposals affecting a heritage asset must be a clear understanding of the architectural and historic significance of that asset.

Brent’s Property Services team failed to seek or obtain any clear understanding of that significance, before embarking on proposals which demanded such a high number of homes, as well as an improved education college and affordable workspace, should be delivered by the scheme.

In giving advice to the Property Services team, in both unofficial (December 2018) and official (from March 2019) pre-application discussions, Brent’s Planning Officers failed to ensure that the applicant had a clear understanding of the significance of the heritage asset. Planning Officers also failed to find out, or show, any proper understanding of the architectural and historic significance of the building themselves. That ignorance was displayed, and had a critical influence on the development of the proposals, when one officer advised that ‘we’re not likely to refuse a scheme due to the loss of this building’ as early as December 2018.

That negligent action, in clear breach of Brent’s stated policies of valuing and protecting the borough’s heritage assets, is in stark contrast to the Council’s original involvement with and redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens, when it was first acquired in the 1990’s. 

I recently passed on an enquiry that had been forwarded to me about a time capsule, which was buried at the site during that redevelopment in 1994. Sharing the information which Mr Lunt provided on this has brought to light some important information about the recent heritage of the Victorian villa.That is the main reason for this letter, which I am making an open letter, because the information deserves to be in the public domain.

It has now emerged that the Council’s acquisition of 1 Morland Gardens, the restoration of the Victorian villa and its redevelopment into an adult education college came about through the Harlesden City Challenge initiative of the 1990s. No reference to this was made in the then Strategic Director of Regeneration’s Report to Brent’s Cabinet on 14 January 2020, which simply said (at para 3.1): ‘The council fully owns 1 Morland Gardens, which presents an opportunity to deliver an innovative and high quality mixed use development in the heart of Stonebridge ….’

The then Government’s City Challenge programme ran from 1992 to 1998, ‘with the aim of transforming specific rundown inner city areas and improving significantly the quality of life of local residents.’ Harlesden in Brent was one of the areas whose bid for major funding, through a specially formed company Harlesden City Challenge Ltd (“HCC”), was successful. The basis of the finance for City Challenge was that capital projects under the scheme would have 75% funding from the Government, with the other 25% being raised from Local Authorities, local businesses or other sources such as charities.

The initiative for the 1 Morland Gardens scheme appears to have come from Brent Adult & Community Education Service (“BACES”), which wished to expand the range of courses it was able to offer. It had identified the disused Services Rendered Club at 1 Morland Gardens (which had originally been the private residence, “Altamira”, Stonebridge Park) as a possible location, in the heart of the area where it felt the greatest need for its services was.

BACES, together with Brent Victim Support, who also wished to provide a service in the area, approached HCC with their proposal, and were offered £700k of City Challenge funding, if they could obtain the balance required. BACES then got a commitment from George Benham (who was probably Brent’s Director of Education at the time, but later became its Chief Executive) that the Council would back the scheme and make sure it came to fruition, which would involve a minimum of £200k Council funding. 

It was on that basis that 1 Morland Gardens was purchased in the name of Brent Council (but with majority funding from HCC). Chassay Architects were commissioned to design a sympathetic restoration of the Victorian part of the building, with partial demolition of some of the later additions by the Services Rendered Club, and a new extension subordinate in design to the heritage building. This would provide an adult education college for BACES, and premises for Brent Victim Support. Planning permission was given for this in January 1994.

Restoration work in progress on the front of the Victorian villa, May 1994. (Still photograph from a video)

During the building work, on 9 May 1994, a ceremony was held to bury a time capsule, containing 25 items chosen by various people involved in the project, including BACES students and members of the local community. A plaque was unveiled, saying that the time capsule ‘was buried to celebrate the creation of a new adult education community college using funds from Harlesden City Challenge and Brent Council’, and that it would be ‘opened in 50 years on 9 May 2044’. 

In a short speech at this ceremony HCC’s Chief Executive, Gerry Davis, said HCC was not about physical regeneration, but to make better things that are derelict, to make an environment that looked good, so that the lives of local people would be improved. He may also have been speaking about the HCC Community Garden outside, on the paved area of the former Stonebridge Park, closed off from Hillside when the street was renamed Morland Gardens as part of the 1960s/70s Stonebridge regeneration.

The first BACES courses at 1 Morland Gardens were offered from September 1994, with the new college fully operational from January 1995. As shown by the cover of the supplement (above), giving details of those first courses, HCC was included in the name of the college. A plaque inside its front door carried the message: ‘City Challenge Brent Adult College supported by Harlesden City Challenge Ltd with funds from the Government Office for London.’ The new college, in the restored Victorian building, featured on the front cover of the 1995/96 BACES courses guide.

It is clear from this new information, obtained from the first Head of the City Challenge Brent Adult College (who recently donated material including the items pictured above, and the video mentioned, to Brent Archives), that a key reason behind the purchase and renovation of the Victorian villa was to preserve a beautiful historic building. 

It would be used for the benefit of the local community, in providing a range of vocational and recreational courses. As well as providing a beautiful and inspiring college for its students, it would, together with the HCC Community Garden in front of it, improve the environment in a run-down area, and the quality of life for everyone living there. And as the burying of the time capsule shows, it was intended and expected that the renovated Victorian building would provide those benefits for at least fifty years

Now Brent Council, without a proper understanding or consideration of the heritage value of the building, plans to demolish it. It’s plans also include (as part of claimed ‘public realm improvements’) building over much of the Harlesden City Challenge Community Garden, and replacing it with a much smaller garden area that will be part of the proposed new college, not a space for public enjoyment.

These Harlesden City Challenge disclosures raise questions that need to be answered, and the answers made publicly available, before the Council goes any further with its ill thought out scheme. 

·      Was the preservation of this heritage building part of the basis on which City Challenge funding was obtained for the new adult college in the 1990s?

·      What were the terms of the letter from senior Brent Council Officer, George Benham, in respect of committing the Council to the purchase and renovation of 1 Morland Gardens, as far as relate to the future of the heritage building?

·      Were there any covenants or provisions in the purchase contract for 1 Morland Gardens over the preservation of the Victorian villa on that property?

·      What commitments were given over the future of the Victorian villa in return for the £700k received from HCC?

·      Was the £700k grant for the purchase and restoration of 1 Morland Gardens repayable if the building was either demolished, or ceased to be used as an adult education college?

·      If so, is that condition over the repayment of the grant, or any part of it, still in force?

I realise that the answers to these questions lie back in the 1990s, but I am aware from its catalogue that Brent Archives holds a Local History Collection boxfile, reference LHC/1/PLA/4, which contains a large number of documents relating to Harlesden City Challenge, 1993-1998, which may help with at least some information.

I hope I have shown that it is not just Brent’s Victorian heritage, but also its modern Harlesden City Challenge heritage, that is of significant historic and architectural value here. I make no apology for persisting in my efforts to persuade the Council that the proposals by Brent’s Property Service, aided and abetted by Brent’s Planning Service, have “got it wrong”.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

 Cllr Kennelly made a presentation to the Cabinet yesterday regarding the Healthy Neighbourhoods scheme.

He said that the Council needed to make sure that the local community was fully engaged but it sas clear from residents and fellow councillors that they felt totally cut out of the process.  Had they been consulted they would have been able to identify the issues and would have sought to address then with Cabinet and project leads.

Kennelly asked a series of questions: (verbatim as far as possible)

1) Can you provide written consultaion responses from the emergency servies, particularly the ambulance service?

2) When will a clear outline be published to demonstrate the success that will be needed for the schemes to be made permanent?

3) How did you accurately measure the width of the road turning points and closures? What risk assessment was done and will these be made public?

4) What consideration was given to suggestions made in the inter-active consultation on active travel and by communities which I do not recall having road closures on these and other schemes? 

5) Why has the signage and implementaton of the scheme, let's be fair, not been up to scratch? It hasn't been done the way we would have wanted and why has it taken as long as it has to get the community engagement involved?

6) Will you publish the documentation surrounding both previous and current funding bids as these plans are submitted ahead of time?

Cllr Butt in response said that they had to ensure funding bids were submitted in a timely manner under Emergency Powers Act. He said that it was a UK issue, not just a Brent one and everyone had the right to walk uo and down the  streets without hindrance. 

Cllr Tatler said that she was willing to look at any recommendations in her portfolio area on active travel and the econony, the latter also involved Cllr Stephens. Any decisions relating to the budget must be done within the wider context.

Turning to Cllr Kennelly's presentation she said that she wanted to push back on the claim that councillors had been cut out of the process. She and Cllr Krupa Sheth had engaged with councillors throughout the summer including pre-implementation of any of the schemes; 'Councillors have been involved in shaping some of the, all of the, schemes.'

She said that the Council was committed to making sure residents are involved throughout the trials. These are not a fait accompli in any way, shape or form.  These are trials and by their nature, as traffic orders the Council has to consult during the process.  She said that she could confirm that during the process the Council will be making sure that residents are asked for feedback at the 2, 4 and 6 month intervals of the scheme: 'If anything needs to change we can come out and meet residents and so on'

She went on to claim that to say that councillors had been cut out of the process was probably an inaccurate picture. Councillors had been involved in shaping of schemes in their particular wards.

She concluded:

We are completely committed to the air quality agenda and the climate emergency agenda. It is vital that we work towards trial schemes that could help better quality of air, quality of life and ensure that our children, going forward, can breath cleaner air in our borough.

Cllr Krupa Sheth (Environment Lead) made a very short contribution referencing the climate emergency and the need to spend Covid19 monies wisely.

Cllr Butt said that there was a need to appreciate that these were difficult decision and not everyone would be on board.

Brent Council's Cabinet yesterday agreed to the renaming of a section of Meadow Garth next to the Neasden Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Parmukh Swami Road after the founder of the Mandir. 

They agreed to delegate authority to the Strategic Director, Regeneration & Environment to enter into a legal agreement to ensure that the applicant covered the reasonable costs that were incurred by the Council and occupiers affected as a result of the change to the street name at the eastern section of Meadow Garth, plus to the occupiers of the properties, an inconvenience fee.