The section of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee devoted to discussion on the Brent Housing programme has just finished. Given the importance of the subject it was disappointing.

 Most discussion centred on the infill housing programme which is additional housing built on existing estates on spare land or land freed by demolition of garages that have been allowed to run down.  There were attempts to clarify what was meant by 'affordable' (see my earlier post) that were not very successful.

There were no questions on the large amount of shared ownership housing planned across Brent.

The zoom sound  quality was not very good but recommendations adopted by the Committee included :

1. A request in any ward where infill housing is proposed housing should write to members (councillors) and draw their attention to the proposal.

2. Information on the different types of 'affordable' housing and the different levels of rent should be supplied to the Committee.

3. In future plans for any new-build site should include a community centre to develop greater community inclusion plus proposals on how they would be financed. If not on the site itself in the immediate neighbourhood.

4. A report on government plans to end Section 106 that has been used for housing and  the implications of its possible replacement by a new scheme.

During the discussion an officer commented that even social rent levels were not affordable for some people.  The council building itself ,rather than through developers, meant it could match provision more closely to local need. More older and single people had come forward for housing during the Covid period. Parking continued to be a problem on estates.

I think a more in-depth discussion is required in future on the issue - or perhaps a task group would do a more thorough job.

 Rate of infection school staff

From the National Education Union 

The Department for Education has finally released data on the impact of coronavirus on the school workforce in “Attendance in education and early years settings during the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak.” 

The dataset includes the number of teachers and school leaders, teaching assistants and other staff absent with a confirmed case of coronavirus.

Using this data we have been able to calculate an estimate for the rate of coronavirus infection amongst school staff.

The data shows that there are much higher COVID rates of infection amongst teachers and other school staff than for the general population. This finding is in contradiction to the reassurances regularly given by the Department and by Public Health England, including by Dr Jenny Harries giving evidence to the Education Select Committee this morning.

• On average the rate of COVID infection is 1.9 times higher amongst primary and secondary teachers than the general population. It is 2 times higher for special school teachers.
• For teaching assistants and other staff, the rate of COVID infection is three times higher in primary schools and almost seven times higher in special schools.

The Government has been collecting this information since early October.

Dr Mary Bousted, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, said: 

“These shocking figures raise further very serious questions about the handling of coronavirus in schools.

“What investigations have the Department for Education made into these figures?

“Why have the ministers repeatedly told school staff and the public that there was no reason for concern when these figures indicate that there should have been real concern about the much higher COVID infection rates of teachers and other school staff?

“Why did ministers deny clinically extremely vulnerable staff the right to work from home?

“Why has it taken ministers so long to release this data?”

"What mitigating measures will ministers now propose?"

1. Attendance in education and early years settings during the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak
2. Teachers and school leaders chart 
3. Teaching assistants and other staff chart 
4. Spreadsheet 

 Last month, I wrote about the public artworks installed in Harlesdenas part of the City Challenge project in the 1990s. There was one I definitely knew about, the Sundisc in the community garden outside the beautiful and historic Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens (which Brent Council plans to demolish!). 

The Sundisc sculpture, in the City Challenge community garden outside 1 Morland Gardens.
(Photo by Irina Porter)

I asked for your help, with any information and photos that you could provide about other public art dating from this time (1993 to 1998) in the Harlesden and Stonebridge areas. Our intention is to put together an illustrated record of all those artworks, which could be made available online for anyone to view, read and enjoy. We have received some responses, which I will share with you here, but I still need your help, please, to fill in some gaps!

I have been sent copies of some photos of two Harlesden artworks that I wasn’t aware of before. These were taken more than a decade ago by Robert Russell, and had been posted on the Willesden Local History Society Facebook pages. Many thanks for these! Because of “lockdown” and staying at home, I have not been out to see these myself yet, but I look forward to when I can.

The first two pairs of photographs show a variety of views of two remarkable mosaic columns, situated by the corner of Mordaunt Road and Winchelsea Road, not far from Harlesden Station in Acton Lane. The collage of mosaic pictures really captures the vibrancy of Harlesden life. Can anyone tell me please (via the “comments” box below), what this artwork is called and who was the artist who created it?

Views of the Mordaunt Road mosaic columns. (Photos by Robert Russell, 2007)

The second artwork appears to be a mosaic mural, along a wall beside Church Path, just behind the Brent Samaritans building in Leopold Road. It depicts a street scene showing a range of adults and children from Harlesden’s diverse community, going about a variety of everyday activities. Again, I have not seen this vibrant piece of public art before – have you? I hope it is still there, brightening the lives of anyone who walks past it. 

I would be grateful if anyone reading this, and seeing the photograph below, can tell me and other readers more about this mural, including what it is called and who designed and made it. Thank you!

The Church Path mural, near Leopold Road. (Photo by Robert Russell, 2010)

After my first article, someone suggested that I try to contact Gerry Davis, who was the Chief Executive of Harlesden City Challenge, to see whether he could help with any information about the artworks. Luckily, a friend was able to let me have his address. I sent Gerry a paper copy of last month’s article, and he kindly supplied the following reply:

‘The provision of Art was done under the City Challenge "Art in the City" project at a cost of just over £150k in the early 1990's. 

I regret that I no longer have details of all the Art Works funded by HCC, but I am happy to let you know what I remember.

There should be a plaque at each HCC art site, like the one next to the Sundisc. Other Art Works were:

·  THE HEAD - outside TESCO in the car park.

·  Sculptures in front and alongside the building which was called "The Design Works " on the corner of Rucklidge Avenue and Park Parade.

·  Raised Bed Garden and Pavement art, at the roundabout at Craven Park / Craven Park Road

·  There were Giraffes at the corner of Scrubs Lane and Harrow Road, but I think that they were removed during the new development

·  The murals on the bridge (at Acton Lane, see photo in previous blog) may be HCC art works, but I do not remember.

There must be more but I regret that I do not remember them. However, the area was devoid of artworks when HCC started, so any works which are there now are most likely from HCC.’

I have managed to “find” one large sculpture outside “The Design Works” building in Rucklidge Avenue by looking on Google street view. Again, it’s an interesting piece, and my guess at its name would be “Men at Work”. Here is an image of it, and any information on it that you can provide would be appreciated, thank you. 

The sculpture outside “The Design Works”, at the corner of Rucklidge Avenue.
(From Google street view)

“The Head” in the car park outside Tesco in the centre of Harlesden was apparently stolen! I understand that this was during a time when thieves removed a number of metal sculptures around the country, to melt down for their scrap value. Can anyone tell me more about this artwork, or send a digital photograph of it (c/o Martin Francis at: martinrfrancis@virginmedia.com), please? The same request goes for the pavement art on the roundabout at Craven Park / Craven Park Road. 

Gerry suggested that one of the artworks, at the corner of Scrubs Lane and Harrow Road, may have been lost during redevelopment. I have now read that the giraffe heads were a sculpture by Rebecca Nassauer, and that they were removed (or stolen?) during the construction of a new church building around 2009. Surely a piece of public art showing giraffe heads, and 5.5 metres tall, must have caught the attention of passers-by? Has anyone got a photograph of these missing giraffes, please (even a pre-digital one, which could be scanned)? 

All of the artworks I’ve mentioned are part of Harlesden’s Public Art heritage, and it deserves to be preserved and recorded so that future generations can enjoy it too. Let’s take this opportunity to celebrate the efforts made in the 1990s to brighten up Harlesden with public art that enriches the lives of residents and visitors. Thanks in advance for the photos and details that we look forward to YOU sharing with us!

Philip Grant.

Spot the Leader of the Opposition
 

Brent Central  Constituency Labour Party last night passed a motion condemning Keir Starmer's position of pressing for schools to stay open as cases rose during the pandemic. Secen members of the CLP voted against the motion on the grounds that the leader of the party should not be publicly attacked. They agreed with the demands of the of the motion. Starmer's failure to hold the government to account was contrasted with the robust efforts of Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid on Good Morning Britain.

The motion:

Brent Central CLP congratulates Dawn Butler and others in supporting the coalition of trade unions – particularly the NEU and UNISON – and other organisations which called for learning to be shifted to remote teaching and learning, and for schools to be physically closed except to key worker children and those deemed vulnerable.

We condemn Keir Starmer's failure to oppose the government stance of keeping all [schools] physically opened, contrary to the scientific evidence that supported closure. This led to millions of primary children attending school on 4 January 2020 before the government was compelled by the weight of scientific evidence, the unions, Labour councils, MPs and wider public pressure to close them. This one day of mixing is likely to have risked teachers, support staff, parents, grandparents and other members of the community to coronavirus.

Currently early years and nursery schools continue to be pressured by the government to stay physically open or lose funding. Brent Central CLP urges Keir Starmer and the Labour Party to now oppose this with utmost urgency, and to demand that the government does not tie funding for early years and nursery schools – Dedicated School Grant (DSG) – to the headcounts of attending students. Staff are being unnecessarily exposed to danger, and parents are already rightly keeping their children away from early years and nursery schools. These settings deserve state support, not threats of punishment.

 Still from Virtual Tour (see links below)

I've long been an advocate of key worker housing provision in the borough having seen young teachers forced to move out of Brent as soon as they start a family because they can't afford high local rents. I am sure the same applies to health workers police etc and the result is a loss of valuable staff and recruitment problems.

Developments in the borough did not include key worker housing and in the infamous Willesden Green Library case were marketed by agents (in Singapore!) with the selling point that buyers  DID NOT have to share with affordable or key worker tenants. LINK

I welcomed the news that Brent Council had purchased a block in the Wembley Park development from  Quintain for key worker housing despite a deal in which details were not readily available.  That housing is now open to applications.

However doubts have been expressed in emails to Wembley Matters about the affordability of the units to key workers as well as questions over inclusions and exclusions in the list of eligible workers. Why for example are some of the workers now seen as key in the face of the pandemic not included - refuse workers, delivery workers and those working in essential retail?

One correspondent pointed out a current Brent advertisement for Home Care Assistants well outside the income level needed. LINK

In order to assess the offer here are two tables for background:

London Mayor's definitions of affordable housing

The monthly rent for one bedroomed keyworker housing is £992 (including service charge) and the equivalent average council rent is £450. For two bedroomed keyworker housing the comparison is £1,122 and £519.30.

The London Housing Allowance (To calculate Housing benefit and the gap between that and local rents can be accessed here - just type in you post code) LINK

The Key Worker offer from Brent Council website LINK

Brent Council’s wholly owned housing company, i4B, has negotiated the purchase of a brand new apartment block in Wembley Park which will provide much-needed affordable accommodation for key workers across the borough and beyond. 

The building is due to open in January, and applications are now open for our 1- and 2-bed apartments for those that are eligible. 

Virtual tours

Please see the links below to go on a virtual tour of the apartments. These are best opened in Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge. Please note that not all apartments are the same layout or size.

• Take a tour of the one-bedroom apartment
• Take a tour of the two-bedroom apartment

Rent levels 

Monthly rent levels will be £992 for a 1-bed apartment and £1,122 for a 2-bed apartment. This includes service charge, but does not include bills such as electricity, broadband or water usage.

Eligibility criteria 

As part of the process, supporting information will need to be submitted to confirm the eligibly of tenants on the below areas. We will be carrying out independent verification and referencing checks to confirm the information provided. 

Key Worker Status 

At least one member of a household must be in a key worker post, and at least one eligible key worker must remain on the tenancy at all times.

The nomination policy, agreed by the Council and the i4B board, identifies two tiers of key worker roles. Tier 1 roles are the key worker roles that are most in demand for recruitment and retention. Tier two roles are key worker roles that are still in demand, but not to the same degree as tier one roles.

Applications from people in Tier 1 roles will be prioritised. However, if you are in a Tier 2 role you should still apply. 

Details of eligible key worker roles are below, the roles are listed in no particular order. 

 Tier 1

• Qualified Social Worker (excluding ASYE)
• Occupational Therapist
• Educational Psychologist
• Planner
• Commissioning Employee (Adult Social Care)
• Surveyor
• IT Architect
• Public Health Specialist
• Specialist IT Engineer
• Health Visitor
• Nurses – Bands 5 and 6
• Midwives at Band 6
• Physiotherapist
• Occupational Therapist
• Speech and Language Therapist
• Doctors in the following specialties:
• Acute Medicine
• Haematology
• Pathology
• Anaesthetics / Critical Care
• Dermatology
• Cardiology
• Care of Elderly
• Respiratory
• Medicine

Tier 2

• Armed Forces
• Council/Government Staff
• Fire Officers and Retained Fire Fighters
• NHS Staff
• Police Officers
• Prison Service and Probation Service Staff
• Social Worker
• Teachers in schools, further education or sixth form colleges
• Any other worker agreed in writing by the Council (this will be reviewed yearly to reflect the needs of the Council and the list will be published online) 

Contract Status

The key worker in the household must be employed on a permanent contract or be employed on a fixed term contract where:

• They are due to remain in employment for a further 6 months from the date the tenancy is due to commence and;
• The initial term of their contract was at least 12 months. 

Household Income 

The Key Worker Housing scheme is designed to provide accommodation to households who may otherwise have difficulties affording to rent in London. Therefore, household income limits have been set. Please note that this is based on household income i.e. the total annual income of all household members over 18, not the key workers annual income. 

• To be eligible for a one bedroom property household income must not exceed £65k a year.
• To be eligible for a two bedroom property household income must not exceed £90k a year.
• Household income must also be a minimum of £31k. 

Citizenship 

All household members must be either a British or EU/EEA citizen with a Settled Status by December 2020 or have indefinite leave to remain in the UK. 

Property Ownership

No household member can own or part own a property.

One eligible key worker must remain on the tenancy at all times

• View the nominations policy for further information 

Before applying 

Make sure you have the below documents to hand as you will not be able to complete an application without them. 

You will also need to collect all of the below information for any household members who are over the age of 18:

• Passport or documents proving an indefinite right to remain in the UK
• You last 3 months payslip
• Contract of Employment
• Contact details for current landlord (if applicable)
• Birth certificates for children under 18 

Please read the above information carefully on the eligibility criteria for the scheme and have the supporting documentation ready before starting your application.  

 

 

Aware of wariness about the Covid vaccinations from some residents and particularly concern over low take-up in the BAME community, Brent Council is putting on a special Webinar tonight.

This is the announcement from the Brent Council website:

Residents who want to know more about the COVID-19 vaccine are being invited to a free webinar to get answers to their questions.

Taking place on Monday, January 25, between 6pm and 7.30pm, the free session will enable participants to separate the facts from the fiction and gain a better understanding when it comes to being vaccinated against COVID-19.

The session will include a panel of community representatives and a local Doctor and will be hosted by Cllr Promise Knight, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Engagement.

”Thousands of people in Brent, and more than 3.5million across the country, have already chosen to take up the vaccination against COVID 19, but we know some people are wary of it,” said Cllr Knight. “Others have adopted a wait and see approach, and obviously this is about personal choice.

“But be under no illusions that the number of COVID infections, hospitalisations and deaths remains worryingly high and residents need all the facts so they can make their own informed choice when the vaccine is offered to them.”

Dr John Licorish, Deputy Director of Public Health Brent, will give a presentation about the COVID 19 vaccine at the webinar that will also include a panel of community representatives.

These will include Alton P Bell, Senior Pastor at Wembley Family Church, who grew up and attended schools in Brent and is a qualified Industrial Chemist, IT specialist, theologian, church leader, writer, mentor and community activist.

Dr Musharraf Hussain al-Azhari, will also be on the panel. Chief Executive of the Karimia institute, he has a Ph.D. in biomedical sciences. After twelve years as a scientist he decided to dedicate himself to developing Muslim communities in the UK, studying, teaching and writing twenty books and more than three hundred essays.

Atara Fridler will also be a panel member. She has been the Director at Crisis Brent Skylight since April 2016, overseeing the delivery of services to over 500 people who are either homeless or faced with homelessness.

Residents can sign-up to attend the webinar online by clicking here.

More information about the rollout of the NHS COVID-19 vaccination programme in the borough, is available on our website.

Guest post by Emma Wallace, Green Party Candidate for the Brent and Harrow GLA Constituency

Emma Wallace at the scene

Residents living next to the Metropolitan and Chiltern lines straddling the boroughs of Harrow and Hillingdon, have witnessed a series of distressing environmental actions carried out by TFL this new year.   Over the last two weeks, TFL contractors have been arriving daily with chainsaws, strimmer’s and tree chippers and removing huge stretches of trees and vegetation running along the Metropolitan line between Pinner towards Northwood Hills.  This act of environmental vandalism has meant a biodiverse, green corridor has now been severely reduced, impacting nearby residents’ health and mental well-being, as well as removing habitat for local wildlife. 

 Post-destruction

Destruction of habitat and wildlife by TFL Contractors

Simon Joshua, founder of Harrow Biodiversity and Environment, has visited and reported about the destruction near the Hazeldene Estate, Pinner, located just metres from the Metropolitan and Chiltern lines.  He writes:

 “Green corridors are vital, protected habitats for many wildlife species.  They enable them to forage, travel to find new populations and areas to reproduce in.  Isolated pockets of green are infinitely less beneficial.  Motorways, roads and railways provide ideal, protected green corridors and provide a haven for many species that would otherwise not be able to survive in today’s urban areas.  Most of these areas remain inaccessible to people and therefore are relatively undisturbed.”

The green corridors running along the Met line are a rich habitat for a diverse range of wildlife, from owls, kites, woodpeckers, jackdaws, robins, parakeets and numerous other birds, to badgers, hedgehogs, foxes and other mammals.

 These species, many protected by law, are increasingly forced into these small green spaces, as a result of the loss of suitable habitat through increasing development in London.  Now that mature trees of 20+ years have been felled along this Met line embankment, squirrels lack a place to forage, birds have lost their nest sites, woodpeckers have lost trees for feeding and nesting and the perch for the local owl has gone.  And as Simon Joshua states, “TFL claims that the removal of trees is vital for safety.  Apparently, it is not about leaves.  The trees being removed are not old, not diseased and not in danger of falling down.  How many incidents have there been in the past ten years along this stretch of the railway?”  Listen to Simon talk about the damage that has occurred along this stretch of track in Pinner, HERE. 

 Karen Pillai

Local resident Karen Pillai, who lives on the Hazeldene Estate, had set up ‘Pinner Green Junior Wildlife Group’  for local children to learn about the wildlife in their neighbourhood and help preserve the environment they live in.  They had also started a biodiversity project with the support of local MP for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, David Simmonds and local councillors.  The children are absolutely devastated that the wildlife now has nowhere to live and their green environment has disappeared. 

Witnessing the destruction over the last two weeks, Karen Pillai asked the contractors whether an ecological survey of the area they were clearing had been completed or if they were aware that the trees they were felling contained birds’ nests.  Their response was to laugh at her.  The contractors who carry out TFL’s Trackside Vegetation Management, ‘Cleshar Contract Services’, were awarded a £10-25 million pound contract until March 2022 LINK.    It appears that these contractors have little awareness of the environmental value of these track-side spaces they have been given to manage, the importance of trees or the legal obligation to protect many species that live here.  

Impact on residents’ health and well-being

Whilst the loss of wildlife is tragic in itself, it is also the impact to resident’s health and well-being that is of huge concern.  The local community were not informed by TFL that these works were going to be carried out, consequently have not had an opportunity to raise concerns or ask for a consultation of the works to be carried out.  They are now left without trees to protect them from the pollution, light and noise from frequent trains passing, both on the Met line and the Chiltern Railway. 

Karen Pillai writes:

  “These trees protect us from pollution as we are bordered by the tube line which produces emissions and the busy main road on the other side.  Systematic removal of our protection from air pollution puts those who live on our estate at a higher risk of lung disease and also more susceptible to illness. Deforestation also has links to pandemics, because nature acts as a buffer protecting us from many illnesses including Covid.  This is why parks and green spaces were deemed safe last year, during the pandemic.  We live in a high pollution area and there is a high incidence of asthma and lung disease in children because of traffic pollution.  Some of the work was carried out last year and we thought that was the end of it; but now they are removing more trees and green cover which will make it worse.

The trees also provide a barrier from the noise of the constant tube trains and dampen the continuous roar. Trees provide us with shade and help offset flooding and land slippage. Our flats already suffer from severe damp, without removing the bordering trees that help to drain it. The trees also support each other and removing the undergrowth increases the risk of larger trees falling.”

On the right lines? Report

In January 2012 The London Assembly Environment Committee published a report entitled ‘On the right lines? Vegetation Management on London’s Railway Embankments’   LINK.   This report highlights how London Underground trackside land totals 10% of all green space in the city and has huge environmental importance.  Darren Johnson, then Green Party Assembly Member and Deputy Chair of the Environment Committee, wrote about the embankment vegetation: 

“Not only can it provide privacy and enhance the attractiveness of neighbourhoods, it also shields residents from disturbance and dust generated by passing trains.  Moreover, London’s biodiversity benefit from the habitats and wildlife corridors that line-side vegetation provides across the length and breadth of the capital. It is a vital green asset for Londoners.”  

The report goes on to point out that there has been much public concern about TFLs line-side maintenance over the years, including the excessive removal of vegetation, the disturbance to wildlife and the lack of correspondence with residents.  The report makes three key recommendations, including “that local residents are accurately informed as to the nature of the works, how long they will take and how the wildlife is going to be effectively protected.  Many residents living alongside railway lines are passionate about the trees and wildlife at the bottom of their gardens and I would like to see line-side managers make common cause with residents to treat these green spaces more as assets and not as a maintenance liability.”

A problem across the whole of the TFL Underground Network

Reading the On the right lines report more than nine years on, it appears that little has changed and the recommendations have unfortunately not been implemented by TFL.  Along with the recent events along Pinner’s Met line, there have been frequent reports of unnecessary tree felling and excessive removal of undergrowth by TFL across the more than 55% of tube network that is above ground.  

In 2019, there was an online 38 Degrees petition started by Chris Sullivan, calling on Sadiq Khan and Transport for London to ‘Stop Destroying the Trees on the Piccadilly and Metropolitan Line’, focusing specifically on the Piccadilly line stretch between Rayners Lane and Ealing Common:  LINK    

In February 2019, residents living near Chigwell to Grange Hill stations on the Central Line complained about the lack of consultation and the unnecessary felling of trees to be carried out by TFL over an 18 month period.  This report states that 60,000 tonnes of vegetation were to be removed:   LINK   LINK 

In May 2020, residents near Wimbledon Park on the District Line reported “very aggressive men with chainsaws” causing major environmental damage, reducing privacy to their homes and affecting their mental well-being during a pandemic.  They were also not consulted about the trackside work  LINK.  

The London Mayor’s Green Promises

In 2018, Sadiq Khan set out a bold vision in his ‘London Environment Strategy’ to protect, increase and improve London’s green infrastructure and make London the world’s first National Park City  LINK.      The mayor has since launched many Green initiatives to encourage people to get involved in London’s green spaces and help address the climate and ecological emergency.  

 In November 2020, he announced he was investing more than £10 million in green projects, including £700 000 to the ‘Mayor's Grow Back Greener Fund’, awarded to a range of community projects to create and improve green spaces  LINK. Khan has also invested almost £5 million pounds in tree planting projects in London since 2017.  Whilst these initiatives are admirable in their efforts to make London a greener city, wouldn’t it be more logical to try and preserve the already biodiverse, green urban spaces we have running alongside our tube network?  This would save money and ensure that wildlife and vegetation that already exists has a home for years to come.  The money saved could also be invested to proper training for TFL contractors on vegetation management and trackside biodiversity and habitat protection?

In June 2020, Lib Dem Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon asked the Mayor to set out the “overall policies that TfL adopts towards tree cutting and felling alongside London Underground lines.”   LINK Sadiq Khan listed a number of reasons why tree felling track-side may occur, stating that “TfL is also committed to enhancing biodiversity where possible."  He also stated that “Sites are assessed prior to and during works, and if a nest is found the work is stopped and a buffer zone of vegetation is left in place.”  Both these statements have been contravened by the actions carried out by TFL along the Metropolitan line this January.

Future actions for TFL?

With this excessive removal of vegetation along the Met Line, we have lost another rich, green space in London that would help mitigate the effects of climate change, air pollution and provide a place for wildlife to live.  The environmental vandalism carried out by TFL and their contractors reveals a disregard for our climate, population and wildlife, of which we share the planet.  I call on the London Mayor and TFL to immediately stop the excessive removal of habitat from trackside embankments and ensure that biodiversity surveys are carried out before work begins, that local residents are informed and given time to feedback concerns, and that the contractors are trained on effective vegetation management. 

Simon Joshua also suggests that “there may be an opportunity to correct the ecological disaster that we have witnessed.  The council has already given permission to plant along their side of the fence line.  It may take a decade to come close to what has been exterminated this month, but we could plant an area that would benefit residents of the estate and homes but also encourage wildlife to return.  In order to do this, we require financial compensation to provide trees and plants to replace what TFL has destroyed.”

Please contact the below TFL representatives and make your thoughts know about the recent actions:

TFLs Chief Safety, Health and Environmental Officer, Lilli Matson 

LilliMatson@tfl.gov.uk

TFLs Head of Track for London Underground, Duncan Weir

Duncan.Weir@tube.tfl.gov.uk

I missed out on a consultation about Wembley Stadium's bid to host more full capacity events at Wembley Stadium because leaflets were not circulated in our area despite the estate being affected greatly by such events, including the curtailing of the 206 bus on event days. The leaflets appear to have been delivered on Christmas Eve.

The consultation closes tomorrow. Follow this LINK to comment.

So far there have been only 18 comments on the Brent Council Planning Portal. Most are against citing the impact of traffic congestion, lack of infrastructure, residents effectively imprisoned at home on event days, almost one major event a week and behaviour of fans. There are also references to the lessons of the Pandemic regarding contagion amongst large, densely packed crowds.

The applicant states LINK :

The amendment to Condition 1 of planning permission LPA ref: 18/4307 would allow the use the Stadium, on a permanent basis, for up to 9 additional non-sporting events. These would be in addition to the 22 full capacity sporting events and 15 non-sporting events currently allowed per calendar year.

The major sporting events would be at full capacity. For non-sporting events, it is expected that capacity would be circa. 77,000 spectators for 15 major non-sporting events and circa. 100,000 spectators for 9 major non-sporting events. These estimates reflect the different capacities which can be achieved within the stadium with different configurations and the expected variation in demand generated by different artists.

Condition 1 also allows up to three additional sporting events in any calendar year provided that for each additional sporting event there is a reduction of two non-sporting events in the same year. The effect of this ‘swap provision’ is that 25 major sporting events could take place at the stadium within the scope of the current planning permission, provided the number of major non-sporting major events reduced to 9. It is proposed that this swap provision would remain to allow up to 25 major sporting events if the number of major non-sporting events decreased to 18 with the ‘one-for-two’ mechanism set out.

Given Wembley Stadium is unrestricted in terms of the number of events for up to circa 51,000 spectators, the effect of the proposal is, in practice, to allow up to an additional 49,000 for the 9 additional non-sporting events (concerts). Not all events would be expected to be fully attended to these levels, but to ensure a robust assessment the planning analysis and environmental impact assessment (EIA) assume full attendance at all additional events.

The applicants make it clear that the main reasons for the proposed increase are economic based on market competition:

As is the case for a number of businesses across the country, WNSL and the FA have been heavily impacted both operationally and commercially by the COVID pandemic. The Stadium was scheduled to host 30 events (including the Euro 2020 finals) in 2020, with an estimated attendance of over 2 million spectators. Only 1 of these events was actually held with spectators in attendance with a further 15 events held behind closed doors. The impact of these forced cancellations manifested itself immediately in the form of an estimated loss of circa. £300m and 124 redundancies.

  It is hoped that by the Spring/Summer of 2021 the Stadium will be able to return to hosting events with a proportion of visitors being in attendance. However, WNSL are working on the basis that a full calendar of “normal” events will most likely only be possible from 2022 onwards and as such want to ensure the Stadium can host the right number and mix of events to support a commercial recovery from the impacts of COVID by both the Stadium and the wider Brent community.

The focus of this future recovery programme is ensuring that the Stadium remains an iconic multi-use venue in London, the United Kingdom and across the world and continues to showcase Brent to this audience. The emergence of Twickenham, the Olympic Stadium and Tottenham Hotspur Stadium as large outdoor venues with the ability to host a range of events has created a more crowded marketplace in which Wembley must compete. In order to do so the Stadium needs the flexibility to respond to the changing commercial booking process for music events. This sees artists looking to book “runs” of events in a block to provide flexibility for (additional) events dates in order to fit into large tour schedules.

The current restriction on music events at the Stadium makes it difficult to provide this level of flexibility and limits the ability of the Stadium to compete against other venues that operate with fewer restrictions and have much greater freedom. It is within this context that the proposed change to the event cap detailed below are being sought. 

Meanwhile I have been sent this news which seems rather optimistic:

This season’s Carabao Cup Final between Spurs and Manchester City has been rescheduled and will now take place on Sunday 25 April 2021, with a 4pm kick-off. 
 
It is the objective of the League to stage the Final with as many supporters in attendance as possible and the decision has therefore been taken to move the Final from its original date of Sunday 28 February 2021 to later in the year.
 
The number of fans permitted will be dependent on Government guidance in place at the time and it is hoped that moving the date to later in the year will give Clubs and their fans the best opportunity to attend in person. 

Help a Child to Learn campaign

The National Education Union (NEU) is today launching a campaign to Help a Child to Learn at home during the pandemic. 

With our partners, the Daily Mirror and Viking, we are pledging a million pounds to help schools provide the pens, pencils, and paper some children need to help them learn at home and are encouraging others to donate.

Click here to donate to our Help a Child to Learn appeal.

Throughout the pandemic, the NEU has fought to ensure the safety of our members. We have also launched an online resource hub to help members teach remotely. And later this week, we will be publishing our education recovery plan to outline what we need to reopen our schools safely and well.

However, in a survey last week, you told us the lack of resources means a great many children are struggling to learn at home – not just in terms of access to laptops or broadband, but also pens, pencils, paper, and art materials.

We want to do all we can to support these children so that they can learn from home.

So, the NEU is pledging £1 million to be distributed to selected schools to help buy the stationery needed for pupils to work at home.

Contributions will range between £500 and £1,500 depending on school size.

The Daily Mirror will help publicise our campaign and raise awareness of the needs of children and families by talking to our members about the challenges they face every day.

We know that far more than £1 million pounds is needed so we are also asking members to sign this petition calling on Government to provide the funding our children need. Click here to sign the petition.

From Brent Council

ITN REPORT CLICK HERE

ITV London News yesterday reported on the 'plague of litter' at the Welsh Harp Reservoir after local residents had despaired at the huge amount of litter and dumping revealed when the reservoir depth was lowered by one metre for maintenance.

 After the link to the report was widely distributed on social media many residents expressed shock at the state of the local beauty spot and Site of Special Scientific Interest and the threat the littering posed to animals and birds and their habitats.

Cllr Anton Georgiou wrote expressing his concern to Brent Council and received the following response.

We have been discussing the images that we have seen at Welsh Harp with Councillor Krupa Sheth as Lead Member.

 

As you may be aware, the Canal and Rivers Trust (CRT) have purposely reduced the water level by one metre for maintenance purposes. Inevitably (and sadly) this has revealed a significant amount of detritus at watermark level that has built up over many years and demonstrates how some people act so irresponsibly in relation to such a significant asset within an urban area.

 

The Council has well defined responsibilities for the greenspace in Welsh Harp and we take those responsibilities seriously. We will add more bins, improve signage, ensure Veolia prioritise litter removal so our area is kept better and commit to supporting any longer term proposals for the whole site. Our remit does not stretch to the reservoir itself which is a CRT responsibility and one that the Environment Agency would also have some responsibility for as a water course.

 

Officers are therefore discussing with CRT and the EA their proposals to clean up the reservoir. We understand there are immediate plans to clear the more accessible rubbish from traps at either end of the reservoir, and that local volunteers assisted with a clean-up last weekend. Removing the more problematic detritus in the silted areas will be a longer term consideration given the likely cost and the operational difficulties.

 

You are correct that this goes beyond what volunteers could and should undertake. The silt is very dangerous and the clean-up will need to be undertaken professionally.

 

When CRT / EA have responded as to how they intend to approach this problem, I will liaise with Councillor Sheth and contact you again in order to update you.

 

Extracts from the survey

 Brent Council has written to Brent residents' associations notifying them of a 2 week survey being carried out 'around' the relaunch of the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) expected to be in late February.

They want to gather information from the survey and the application process focus groups that were held following th Black Community Action Plan and the NCIL report agreed at Cabinet on September 20th.

There are details (sparse) of the expected housing developments in each area (see  the survey LINKS as illustrated above in  2.)

They say:

We would like grass roots comments on the impacts of anticipated developments in each neighbourhood and only require the relevant neighbourhood completed. We have included a  brief summary of anticipated development in each area as the brief indicates at the beginning. We would be grateful if you could complete yourselves and also pass on to any interested parties.

 

We are also emailing the neighbourhood and town centre managers, Brent Connects members and  ward Cllrs. 

 

Ideally, we would like you to do online by clicking on this link 

 

NCIL Impact of Development Survey

 

If this is not possible, please complete the relevant neighbourhood on the attached form and email back to  ncil@brent.gov.uk  by Sunday 7^thFebruary 2021 to ncil@brent.gov.uk.

 

Please feel free to circulate to your members.

 

This is very short-notice for a very short consultation period but I am sure that many residents who are not members of a residents' association would count themselves as  'interested parties' and I urge you to take part.

Simon Erskine campaigning outside City Hall

Divest Brent, the campaign calling on the Council to sell their holdings in fossil fuel companies like Shell, BP and ExxonMobil, received a boost after submitting a Freedom of Information request to the Council. In responding to this request the Council admitted that over the last year the Pension Fund was worth £8 million less as a result of not having divested the Fund from fossil fuel investments before the Covid pandemic. The Council is actually doing significantly better than many authorities – over the last 4 years local authority pension funds have lost £2 billion of value in fossil fuel stocks. 

Up until now the leading argument against divestment had been the consistently high returns from these investments. Divest Brent Co-ordinator, Simon Erskine, said that historically it was true that fossil fuel companies had been a key part of any pension fund – and indeed any investment portfolio – due to the high level of returns:

The world has moved on and now not only do many people think that it is inappropriate to lend support, through investment, to fossil fuel companies but the entire economic situation has changed, with plunging share values. If we are to meet the net zero by 2050 target (i.e. reduce carbon emissions by 2050 so that they are no more than the amount absorbed by planting trees and other means) we have to make dramatic reductions in the amount of fossil fuels that we burn – and ultimately stop burning them altogether. 

 

If governments fail in their duty to bring about those cuts through legislation then fossil fuel companies are also facing a world where electric vehicles are rapidly catching up with, and set to overtake, petrol and diesel vehicles; and where renewable and nuclear energy are rapidly taking over from fossil fuels as the main generators of electricity.

In the meantime Divest Brent has been increasing its support base through its petition, which now boasts nearly 1,400 signatories – including well over 1,100 Brent residents. 

Simon Erskine praised the action taken by the Council to date:

Not only has the Council changed its investment policy by recognising the risks of fossil fuel investments but it has also made a specifically low carbon investment as part of its Stock Market holdings – as well as making investments in renewable energy as part of its loan-stock holdings. We warmly welcome these developments – but the low carbon investment represents only 3% of the Pension Fund’s total investments. 

 

The Council has suggested that more money could be invested in the low carbon fund but there is no commitment to do so, despite it having committed to divest as part of its resolution last year to declare a climate and ecological emergency. It is not only Divest Brent that is looking for the Council to divest – more than half of the Councillors want the same thing.

Divest Brent is working with sympathetic councillors and is hopeful that, with the Council currently consulting on its ambitious Climate Emergency Strategy, divestment will be seen as a key part of that strategy.

Brent Council are running another webinar about the COVID vaccine this coming Monday (1st February) at the same time (between 6pm and 7.30pm).

Go to:https://vaccinewebinar2.eventbrite.co.uk to register for the webinar, which is titled ‘Are you hesitant to take the COVID vaccine?’

The webinar will aim to build trust amongst those in the community who are showing signs of hesitancy when it comes to having the vaccine. This will be achieved by outlining the facts, addressing all the pertinent issues and explaining the science.

The webinar will include presentations to help explain how the virus affects people’s immune system, the science behind the vaccine, and the issues of trust and doubt that local people might have in relation to the vaccine.

 A guest Post by Philip Grant

I was delighted to see, earlier this month, that the York House car park site could be used for a new youth centre, rather than a primary school. When I read the report to Brent’s Cabinet meeting, alarm bells started ringing. The Department for Education may have cancelled the ill-conceived Ark Somerville Primary Free School project, but the Wembley Park redevelopment area will still need a new primary school, by 2028 on the latest projections. Where would that be built?

NOT the Wembley Park Primary School, but hopefully something like it! (Image from the internet)

It has been known since the early 2000s that the large number of homes Quintain planned to build at Wembley Park meant that a new primary school would be required to serve the area. Brent agreed that the early stages of the development, around the Arena, should be mainly smaller homes, with the majority of the family-sized accommodation provided to the east of Olympic Way in the later phases.

Brent’s land use policy for the North East Lands. (Wembley Masterplan, 2009)

When the Council adopted its Wembley Masterplan in 2009, the “North East Lands” area (ringed in red on the map above) was identified as a primary school location (or one of them, if two smaller primary schools were to be built to meet growing demand for places during the course of the next 20 years, to 2030). This would put the school close to the main residential area, and next to a new park which was to be provided as part of the development.

That choice of location was carried forward into the Wembley Area Action Plan (“WAAP” – yes, that again!), adopted by the Council in 2015, which is still the current planning policy document for this area. The WAAP’s policy on school places emphasised the importance of securing sites for new schools, where large developments meant an increase in population. It also said that primary schools ‘need to be located directly within the area of population growth’, and that ‘nursery facilities … could be combined with other new … primary school facilities.’ 

The WAAP policy WEM 29, on Community Facilities, stated that ‘the council will … secure at least four forms of entry at primary level, to be secured on development sites within the Wembley area’. It also noted the ‘provision of one site in site proposal W 18.’ This site proposal covered the 4.9 hectare Wembley Retail Park, also known as the North East Lands, and said that ‘a new primary school will be provided’ on that site.

All very good - so what changed? At the end of 2015, Quintain submitted a huge “hybrid” planning application. It included detailed plans for a multi-storey car and coach park to the east of Wembley Stadium, and outline proposals for most of the rest of the land at Wembley Park which it had still to develop. Application 15/5550 has been called the Wembley Park Masterplan, but it was Quintain’s masterplan, not Brent’s.

The application (over 300 documents and plans) was one of a number considered at a Planning Committee meeting on 11 May 2016, just two days after the previous meeting. Most of the objections and discussions were about the car and coach park. The meeting went on for over four hours, and two of the committee members had gone home before it was approved by 4 votes to 1, with one abstention! 

Among the outline proposals approved (with little or no discussion) was that the primary school site should be moved to the York House car park. Two sentences from the report by Planning Officers to the committee sum up how this was allowed to happen, despite it going against Brent’s adopted policy for the school’s location:

‘This plot has been identified by the applicant as an appropriate location for a 3 form of entry primary school and nursery.’

‘The proposal delivers the same strategic objective (the provision of nursery and primary school places) and is considered to be acceptable in principle.’

A cynic might suggest that the applicant, Quintain, had identified the York House car park site for commercial reasons, not valid planning reasons, so that it could build tall blocks of flats on the North East plot(s) which would otherwise be used for a primary school site.

But it was only an outline planning consent for the York House site, wasn’t it? When the detailed planning application for the school went before the Committee on 6 June 2018, members were given strict instructions by a Planning Officer. They were not allowed to consider whether the new school to serve the Wembley Park redevelopment should be sited elsewhere, the Officer Report saying:

‘the parameters material submitted with the application [15/5550] specifically identified the subject site (known as Development Zone YH1) for a 3FE Primary School and associated Nursery.’   and:

‘This reserved matters application is considered to be in material compliance with the parameters and principles established under the outline consent.’

Only one committee member voted against the application (here’s a reminder, if you don’t remember what happened to him!). Air pollution had been raised as a major problem with this site for a primary school, with dangerously high NO2 levels along Wembley Hill Road admitted in the application’s Air Quality Assessment. No account was taken of the effect on young children who would be walking to the school. In respect of the school building itself, Officers said that mitigation measures would be included in the conditions for the planning consent. These were having no opening windows on that side of the school below a height of 4.5 metres, and that the air intakes for artificial air circulation must be situated above that height.

Following that decision, the York House car park site was bought from Quintain by the DfE’s Education Funding Agency, for provision of the Ark primary school. Because of the number of increased primary places provided by Brent at other existing schools, and a slight (temporary?) fall in demand for places, the DfE have now dropped the York House school project. Which brings me back to my opening question – where will the Wembley Park primary school that Brent willneed, within the next 5 to 10 years, be built?

After the 2016 “Wembley Park Masterplan” decision, Brent’s planning policy, in its emerging Local Plan, has depended on the York House school site. The North East Lands are currently the subject of Quintain’s detailed planning application, 20/2844, which would see tall blocks of flats built around three sides of the northern section of the new park.

Something had to be done, so I have started the ball rolling! I researched the labyrinth of planning application details and planning policy documents involved, and have submitted detailed objection comments on application 20/2844. These set out why the application, which is listed as a variation of conditions under the 15/5550 application, can and should be amended to provide a reserved site for a 3-form entry primary school, and nursery (and should be refused if it does not make that change). I am hoping that Martin can add a copy of my comments document at the end of this article, so that anyone who is interested can read them.

As well as sending my document to Brent’s Planning Officers, I have also sent it with covering emails to the Lead Members and Strategic Directors for Regeneration and for Schools, and to the councillors for Tokyngton Ward, to ensure that Brent is fully aware of its risk of having no site for the new primary school it has a duty to provide by 2028. And as this is a matter which would best be settled by agreement between Brent Council and Quintain, I have also sent a copy to the developer’s Head of Masterplanning and Design, and Head of Planning.

I have done what I can, but this is a matter of concern which present and potential future residents of Brent, and Wembley Park in particular, and those with an interest in education in the borough, need to be aware of. Action needs to be taken on this issue now, but I am just one “voice” (or laptop keyboard, during lockdown). If you agree with me, please make your views known by objecting to planning application 20/2844, or contacting an appropriate councillor or Council Officer. Thank you.

Philip Grant.

Philip's comments - click bottow right corner for full page version

The site (outlined in red) in context

The plans

The latest planning application for the redevelopment of the Woodfield Nursery site in Cool Oak Lane, near the Welsh Harp, fronted by Taylor Wimpey has been turned down by Barnet Council.  LINK There have been other applications for this site which at present is occupied by greenhouses and polytunnels in poor condition and some brickbuilt offices, alongside a landscaping business.  It is close to the Brent border and not far from the huge controversial private development, formerly West Hendon social housing,  on the other bank across Cool Oak Bridge.

Some years ago there were applications by the owner of this site and the then Greenhouse Garden Centre in Birchen Grove for housing estates at both locations.  Brent Council turned down the application. LINK  It is now Birchen Grove Garden Centre under new management - I do not have details of the freehold ownership.

Barnet Council found that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on Metropolitan Open Land and rejected the developer's claim that the greenhouses and polytunnels were permanent structures allowing development. The planners ruled that it did not meet the exemptions test for such developments.

In addition officers said that the proposal did not secure the affordable housing, delivery of employment skills and enterprise, or carbon off-setting required. It was a long way from public transport which would increase car ownership.

There were 139 comments on the Barnet planning portal of which 137 were against, one in support and one a general comment. Preservation of the Metropolitan Open Land and the Site of Special Scientific Interest, the importance of a 'green lung' in an over-crowded city, and defence of nature were all prominent. Among the objectors were Hendon Rifle Club, Silver Jubilee Residents Association, the RSPB and Brent Parks Forum. Brent Council also made a submission but it was not available on the portal.

It is unlikely that this is the end of the story!

Prospect House

The front entrance

Guest post by Selina, a resident of Prospect House about the issue that has galvanised social media in the past few days. See Kilburn Times coverage HERE.  The families are faced with eviction with no apparent help from Brent Council or Shepherds Bush Housing Group. See former councillor Alison Hopkins' post on the scandolous background to this issue HERE.

Selina writes:

The squalor office conversion flat BrenCouncil  dumped 17 families into meant, from the day myself and my son moved, in it has been one nightmare after another living here. 

The area is infested with rats, half the time and even up until now we have no hot water or heating.  We are constantly having to chase up Shepherd’s Bush Housing Group who are working for the private landlord of the property. 

Sometimes we have no running water from any of the taps for more than one day at a time. We shouldn’t have to face this in the U.K.

The property is located on the busy North Circular Road we are constantly faced with noise pollution and air pollution. 

The entrance gate is constantly broken so anyone from the streets walks into our car park and sometimes are flats' communal area. The other day a tenant was faced with a group of youths loitering around our flat communal stairway.  We should be able to feel safe. 

We are all being faced with eviction and  quite frankly I am happy to say good riddance to this building but my main concern and stress is where are all 17 families being rehoused?  Brent Council seems to be offering tenants little help and no options. Private letting landlords do not want DSS tenants or ask for high income guarantors which tenants cannot provide. so what are we left with little option and no response from Brent . 

Our eviction notice is up on May 23rd 2021 where are all 17 families going by that date, which will be fast approaching?

Some of the story on Twitter:

 

 

Barnet Council today premiered a video about the history of the Welsh Harp made be their Local Studies Department:

The Golden Age of the Welsh Harp – continues the series of descriptions of the 1st edition 25 inch to mile ordnance surveys from the London Borough of Barnet’s library service local history collection by examining sheet 11/10. At first it looks as if there is very little on the map, but film explores the rich history of the Brent Reservoir (universally known as the Welsh Harp), during it’s golden age in the mid 19th century from the building of the lake, to the building of the railways and the coming of the suburbs. Stories include, monks, floods, drownings, pumps and propellers. Most interesting of all is the story of William Perkins Warner, and his endeavour to create London’s foremost holiday and visitor attraction.

Harlesden Town Garden have linked up with Mutual Aid to grow food for people who need it in the community. The food growing project is Brent-wide and organisers are currently looking for growing spaces and schools and community groups who would like to be involved.

Mutual Aid currently has a small plot in the Harlesden Town Garden and are also maintaining an allotment at the Longstone Avenue site where the plot holder is unable to maintain the plot during the pandemic.  They are currently looking for secure sites on which to grow food.

Contact details: info@harlesdentowngarden.co.uk 

Kensal Green Mutual Aid: LINK

@KGMutualAid  

Friends of Harlesden Town Garden are holding their Annual General Meeting on February 13th via zoom. They are looking for new committee members. If you wish to attend the AGM please email using the address above and you will be sent the link.