Just two weeks ago Philip Grant wrote about the 'dodgy deal' behind the covering over of the famous sporting and musical tile murals at Bobby Moore Bridge at the Olympic Way pedestrian route to Wembley Stadium,

Now Brent Council has published a press release advertising that the mural will be partially uncovered for just three weeks. It is good that Brent Council is now recognising that these are 'heritage' but that makes their covering up  action even more inexplicable.

The Press Release:

More heritage murals on display at Wembley Park’s Bobby Moore Bridge during March

Extra areas of the heritage tile murals outside Wembley Park station will be revealed from the 10th to 28th March, as part of an annual display.

The colourful ceramic tiles, which show scenes from famous sports and entertainment events at Wembley Stadium and the SSE Arena, Wembley, date back to 1993 when they were originally dedicated to the legendary England football captain and 1966 World Cup Winner Bobby Moore.

Mayor of Brent, Cllr Ernest Ezeajughi, said: "I'm delighted that residents living close to Wembley Park and our amazing keyworkers who are still travelling into work will be able to enjoy these wonderful murals during the month of March. We may not be London's Borough of Culture this year, but we remain the borough of cultures, including the major events we host in Wembley. It's great to showcase that and pay tribute to some of the icons of our recent past especially as we start to look forward to the Euro football finals coming to the stadium this summer."

Please maintain social distancing and consider wearing a face mask whilst viewing the tiled murals.

The first scene outside the subway shows American Football players.  Many people think that the sport at Wembley Stadium started with the first NFL game there in 1983, with matches played annually at the new stadium since 2007. However, its history goes back a further 40 years, to the Second World War when two U.S. Forces teams played.

The middle scene shows a tackle involving two rugby league players. The Rugby League Challenge Cup Final was first played at the Stadium in 1929. It proved very popular, as a great day out for supporters. The final was played annually at Wembley (apart from during the Second World War) until the old stadium closed in 2000, and it has been a fixture at the new stadium since 2007.

The Empire Pool (now Arena) was built in 1934, as a year-round venue, for swimming in the summer and ice hockey and public skating in winter. It got its name because the first event held there was the swimming competition for the 1934 British Empire Games. From the autumn of that year, it was home to two ice hockey teams, the "Wembley Lions" (who played there until 1968 and were national champions four times) and the "Wembley Monarchs".

Philip Grant has now received a reply to his email of January 28th to Cllr Southwood, Brent Council' s Lead Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, that expressed concern about Brent Council's response to the situation facing residents of Prospect House, on the North Circular Road.

Philip sent a reminder on February 16th pointing out that he had not yet received a reply:

Dear Councillor Southwood,

I wrote to you, in your role of Lead Member for Housing, on 28 January, with a copy to the Stonebridge Ward councillors in whose area Prospect House is situated. I have not heard back from you, or from any of the local Labour councillors.

A further blog article has been published about Prospect House, and the poor living conditions in this substandard accommodation, which Brent helped to fund when two floors of the building were converted from offices to flats, four to five years ago:

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/02/more-misery-for-prospect-house.html

I have added a comment to that blog, which I hope you will read, as it represents the sincere views of a long-time Brent resident:-

'To reinforce Alison's point about the 'deafening silence from Brent council and councillors':

On 28 January, I sent an email to the Cabinet Lead Member for Housing, Cllr. Southwood, with copy to the three Stonebridge Ward councillors, setting out a comment I had made on an earlier Prospect House blog article.

My email was headed "Tenants facing eviction from Prospect House", and I concluded by saying:

I hope you will take note of these views, and ensure that this matter is properly, and sympathetically, dealt with by Brent Council.'

I have not even received an acknowledgement, let alone a reply, from any of the recipients.

Brent Council appears to be ignoring the plight of the families they asked Shepherd's Bush H.A. to house in these substandard flats, as if it is nothing to do with them. 

I don't think that is an acceptable way to treat the borough's residents. Do you?' 

The longer that Brent Council tries to ignore the problems facing the Prospect House tenants, and their need for rehousing later this year, the worse it will look to the borough's residents.

I hope that you will take sympathetic action to resolve these issues. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

(Fryent Ward resident)

Dear Philip,

First, I’d like to reiterate my apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I was keen to understand the facts and to ensure that the council had taken appropriate action.

As you say, the families who moved into this previously empty office building were, at that time, homeless. The landlord leased the flats to SBHA to manage. The families who moved in did so under private rented sector offers, which ended their homelessness but with arrangements which were more secure than would have been the case in the private rented sector.

I have been assured that the conversion was done to a high standard. I’ve been extremely concerned to learn of the recent serious problems with the building. We’re working with SBHA now to understand the situation and how it will be remedied.

It’s clearly up to the landlord to decide what to do with his building and it seems he has decided not to renew the lease with SBHA, resulting in the families needing to find new homes. I appreciate that this is very stressful for them. I can’t comment on individual circumstances but I would urge any family who are concerned to contact us.

The families in Prospect House do not automatically have priority in terms of bidding for social housing but we’ll do all we can to help them find somewhere suitable. It’s no secret that Brent is a borough with relatively low wages and extremely high housing costs, which is incredibly challenging. There are 1,800 homeless households in Temporary Accommodation and a further 1031 in acute housing need.

Our total housing register is nearly 24,000. We’re working hard to improve supply – through our own ambitious building programme, working with landlords and through our own lettings company, I4B. But I appreciate that none of this makes it easier for families who are needing to move out of Prospect House.

Officers have written to everyone in Prospect House and if you’re in touch with any of the families, please do encourage them to contact us as soon as possible.

Best wishes,

Cllr Southwood

This is Cllr Southwood's email address: 

 cllr.eleanor.southwood@brent.gov.uk

Engineers Way (new Stadium steps just visible on the extreme right)

Residents in the new flats that circle Wembley Stadium have become frustrated by the length of the closure of Engineers Way on which Brent Council's Civic Centre is situated.

The closure was necessitated by the controversial removal of the Wembley Pedway and its replacement by steps.

In a series of emails addressing the issue  the Council officer concerned has set out the current situation that envisages closure until April 15th:

As with all big infrastructure projects, there may be times when work is not happening, but that doesn’t mean it’s feasible to lift any restrictions. The closure extension is required to enable Quintain to complete their work safely. 

 

They still need to install new kerb lines, complete the footway works as well as install Hostile Vehicle Mitigation measures at the foot of the new steps and on Perimeter Way East and Perimeter Way West. Brent are also implementing Hostile Vehicles Mitigation measures outside the Civic and Market Square. 

 

The closure enables us to coordinate work and implement the measures at the same time and is more efficient than implementing a number of phased closures that will inevitable extend the duration of work and disruption to the network. 

 

 

I apologise for the inconvenience but hope you can understand we are programming the work to be completed at the earliest opportunity.  

 

The current closure of Engineers Way is to be extended to facilitate the removal of the pedway. The original reopening date had been in place to account for the Carabao Cup that was due to be played on 28th February. The closure would have been reintroduced soon after this date to enable the works to continue unhindered and to also allow for Brent Highways to implement Hostile Vehicle Mitigation measures along Engineers Way in the vicinity of the Civic Centre. The closure will now remain in place until 15^th April 2021.

Parents with children at Michaela School have been asking how long the closure of North End Road will be in place. At present staff can enter Michaela via a steep temporary staircase  from Bridge Road but pupils have to take a long detour via Olympic Way. 

 
A request for information made to Brent Council has not yet been answered but a visit there earlier this week suggested it is going to be some time. At present the new section appears to be quite steep!

This is the first of a series of guest posts by Emma Wallance, Brent  & Harrow Green Party GLA candidate.

Harrow Council have announced that they are increasing the 2021/22 council tax by the maximum legal limit amount allowed to 4.99%.  This means that the council has increased Harrow’s council tax rates by their maximum amount year on year, for the last ten years.  In 2011/12 the average council tax rate in Harrow for band D (there are 8 bands, A-H) was £1186.55, in comparison to this year’s 2020/21 rate of £1522.72 for a band D property  LINK.  That is a £336.17 or +28.33% increase in ten years.  In comparison, neighbouring boroughs Ealing and Brent current council tax rates for 2020/21 band D properties are £1239.15 and £1312.74 respectively.  If we look London wide, Harrow residents are paying the third highest council tax out of the 32 London boroughs, with only Kingston and Richmond charging more.  In addition, Sadiq Khan has announced an increase to the Greater London Authority (GLA) council tax precept by 1.99%, or £363.66 for an average Band D property LINK .  This tax is collected by the 32 London councils on behalf of the GLA and consequently means that Harrow’s Council Tax will see a total overall increase of 5.9% next year.

This huge increase in council tax next year will come as a devastating blow to Harrow residents, many of whom are struggling with job losses and the increased pressures brought on by the Covid19 pandemic.  

Withdrawal of Central Government Funding

The increase in council tax must be seen in relation to the withdrawal of central government funding to local authorities that the Conservative government have presided over for the last ten years, reducing funding support in London by £4 billion  LINK  .  Evidence shows that a decade of imposed austerity from central government has resulted in core funding to local authorities being cut by 63% in real terms  LINK .Harrow Council was already one of the lowest funded councils in both London and nationally, with funding being reduced from £52.1 million to £1.6 million in the last ten years – a reduction of 97% LINK .

This decimation in central government funding has left the current Labour administration in Harrow council in an untenable situation, having to bridge next year’s funding gap by almost £31 million LINK .  This has resulted in ever increasing costs being pushed on to local residents, whilst the council provide fewer and fewer services.  As Councillor Adam Swersky, responsible for finance at Harrow Council has stated, council tax has effectively become a ‘national stealth tax’ “with the Government shifting responsibility to local authorities to compensate for a lack of financial support.” LINK      

Lost Local Public Services

We have seen savage cuts to our public services in Harrow over the last ten years, from housing, education, public health, as well as both environmental and community services.  Street cleaning has seen repeated cutbacks, with, for example £172 000 cut from its budget in 2014, reducing the frequency of our street cleaning  LINK.  The Council’s waste collection services have also diminished over the last ten years, seeing in 2015 the introduction of the very unpopular £75 garden waste charge, a service that used to be included in our council tax.  It has since been revealed as one of the highest garden waste charges in England LINK   This lack of investment in street cleaning and waste services has continued for many years, with the now infamous 2017 footage, capturing rats swarming around bin bags in a Harrow car park LINK . 

We have also seen the closure of four of our ten public libraries in 2015 (the Bob Lawrence, Hatch End, North Harrow and Rayners Lane libraries), cutting a local service that provided a lifeline to many who are isolated or in need of library services.  In 2018, our two local Harrow MPs debated the issue in Parliament, with Harrow West’s Labour MP Gareth Thomas highlighting the unrelenting cuts and calling for the council to be “better funded”.  Mr Thomas highlighted the rise in violent crime in the borough and how youth services had been cut by more than 75% since 2010.  Conservative Bob Blackman, MP for Harrow East, responded by accusing the council of not being business friendly enough and needing to work together to apply for additional grants. LINK

The Impact of Demographic Changes and Covid

The reduction in central government funding, can also be seen in relation to a demographic change in London over the last ten years, with Harrow’s population increasing by 7.6%  LINK . The increase in residents, coupled with an aging population, has resulted in ever greater pressures being placed on our local services.  This can be seen most acutely on our social care services, where demand has increased across all age groups.  Social care is an area which must be ring fenced by 3% in the councils’ budgets every year, with the council this year applying for an additional social care grant to help with the increased pressures on brought on by COVID-19.  Indeed, the unprecedented situation caused by the pandemic has placed a huge strain on council budgets, with increased demand on an array of services LINK  .  Whilst the Tory government assured councils’ that they should do ‘whatever it takes’ to support residents through the pandemic, promising ‘Emergency Funding’ to councils, this has not been fully realised and the amounts have not been enough to cover all costs incurred.  As a result, there is now an even bigger funding shortfall than there was before the pandemic started  LINK  .

Harrow Council consequently is in a situation of ongoing funding reduction from central government, changes in demographics and the resultant increased pressure on services, whilst also dealing with the impacts of Covid.  This is tragically resulting in an even bigger reduction in the services provided by the council at a time when we need them more than ever.  

The Green Party’s Vision for the Future

The pandemic has revealed how years of under investment have resulted in local communities being exposed and vulnerable to the health and social realities brought on by this crisis.   Whilst we have seen incredible local voluntary initiatives over the last year, with people coming together to help and support each other, it is not a long term sustainable solution.  Local government needs to be properly financed to ensure Harrow is a healthy and safe place for residents to live and thrive in.  The Green Party have progressive plans to invest in local communities and our vital local services, believing that Council Tax needs to be radically overhauled.  We would like to see council tax and business rates replaced with a Land Value Tax (LVT) or ‘developers’ duty’, which will capture the value of the land not the property.   The current council tax band system is out of date and unfair, based on property prices from when the tax first emerged in 1991.  It favours wealthy home owners and landlords, with costs often bypassing the owners of rented properties, passing instead to tenants.   As joint leader of the Green Party, Jonathan Bartley states, “Council tax is regressive and it’s the past”  LINK   .  The LVT will be a proportionate and locally controlled property tax – “a single tax (replacing the multiple taxes that currently exist) which will capture the real value of land, and the increased value arising from improvements to it.”  LINK    

Guest post by Philip Grant

As I am “staying at home”, and not out and about to notice what is going on, I usually have a quick look at the “Legal and Public Notices” in the online edition of the “Brent & Kilburn Times” each week. One entry in the planning notices last week caught my eye; an application (ref. 21/0379) for ‘Removal of condition 13’ from a planning application (ref. 17/4877) which was approved in February 2018.

Google aerial view, showing the site location, from a planning application document.

The location turned out to be the Boxpark building, at the junction of Olympic Way and Fulton Road. But what was the planning condition they wanted removed?

‘Condition 13: Moving images shall not be displayed on the Fulton Road façade and the northern section of the Olympic Way façade of the building (within the area marked as ‘Zone A’ on drawing no. A00_MIC_01 P2007903) at times when Fulton Road is open to vehicular traffic, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.’

The applicant, Open Outdoor Media Ltd, wants that condition removed, so that it can display ‘full-motion advertisements’ on the large LED screen mounted on the north-east corner of the Boxpark building all of the time. At the moment, the screen which they installed there in 2019 can only be used to display static advertisements, apart from 90 minutes before and after major Wembley Stadium events, when Fulton Road is closed to vehicular traffic. 

The LED advertising screen (‘I AM JD’) at the corner of the building, from an application document.

Why was that condition there in the first place? The answer is clear from the Report to the February 2018 Planning Committee meeting:

‘Highway safety: The Council’s Transportation Officers have expressed concern about the highway safety implications of displaying moving images readily visible to drivers using adjacent roads. In response to their concerns, a condition is recommended to ensure that moving images are not displayed on the Fulton Road façade and the northern section of the Olympic Way façade of the building at times when Fulton Road is open to vehicular traffic.’

So what is different now? Planning agents on behalf of the applicant have submitted a glossy report by the Manchester-based S-C-P Transport consultancy (‘Driven by the desire to help clients achieve their goals’). This looks at the highway safety aspects of the latest application, both at the Fulton Road crossing, and with case studies of other sites (mainly in the North and Midlands) where full-motion advertising screens have been installed near roads.

Their thorough review includes research, such as this:

‘In order to identify critical locations on the network with a poor accident record, the personal injury accident data has been obtained from the online resource CrashMap for the most recent 5-year period, ending December 2019.’

They found that, during that five-year period, only ‘one accident took place at the Fulton Road / Olympic Way crossing, which resulted in “serious” severity injuries.’ Their conclusion was:

‘Whilst all accidents are regrettable, the evidence … suggests that the area in the vicinity of the site does not have any recurring highway safety problems that could be affected by the development proposals.’

Their report does admit that the LED screen was only installed at the end of June 2019, and then was not displaying any moving adverts while vehicles were using Fulton Road during the six months to December 2019. However, as the serious accident on the crossing took place during the previous 4½ years, they claim it demonstrates that the LED screen advertisements ‘have not led to any material increase in accidents.’

The view along Fulton Road towards the Olympic way crossing, with the bright LED advertising screen (‘JD WE’RE BACK’) on the corner of the Boxpark building, from the S-C-P report.

The case studies (as you might expect) show that putting full-motion advertising screens near busy roads does not tend to increase the number of serious accidents or injuries. But although the amount of vehicle traffic along Fulton Road is not as great as a city centre road in Manchester, Liverpool or Nottingham, the number of pedestrians walking up and down Olympic Way, and crossing Fulton Road, is very large. It is also likely to increase even further as more and more Wembley Park developments are completed.

It would only take one driver of a bus or heavy lorry coming along Fulton Road, or one pedestrian walking up Olympic Way from the station, to be distracted by a moving advert on that screen at the wrong moment, for a serious accident to occur. In my opinion, even one such accident would be one too many. 

As advertising is involved, the screens also had to obtain advertisement consent, and the approval of that application (ref: 18/1796) contained an identical condition to “Condition 13” in the Boxpark planning approval. The agent’s covering letter with the latest application acknowledges the reasons given in the Planning Report for that:

‘Concerns were previously raised with regard to distraction of drivers from moving images along the Fulton Road frontage and the northern end of the Olympic Way frontage, with road safety studies undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory highlighting the significantly greater impairment to driving performance presented by moving images, as compared to static displays.’

Despite this, the letter goes on:

‘The applicant is however of the view that the provision of full motion images on the LED screens would be entirely acceptable in terms of public safety and highway safety and that Condition 13 of 17/4877 should be removed and an amended application for advertisement consent be issued.’

That view is unsurprising, because the application would not have been made unless Open Outdoor Media Ltd thought there was a chance that they might get that condition removed. And if it is removed, they will, of course, be able to generate more profits by selling full motion advertisements, rather than just static ones.

Surely, this latest application will be rejected, on the same public safety grounds that saw the condition imposed in the first place, won’t it? Having looked at Brent’s planning website, I do have some concerns, including that the expected decision level is “Delegated Team Manager”, rather than the borough’s Planning Committee which decided the original application.

A greater concern is the amount of consultation on application 21/0379. The list of those consulted on the application only contains two addresses. The first is Brent Civic Centre (the Council’s Transportation Unit has been asked to comment). The second is 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Puzzled? That is the registered office address of Quintain Ltd (joint owners, through BPQW Ltd, of Wembley’s Boxpark business).

On the original application, consultee comments on public safety matters had been submitted by the Metropolitan Police and by Brent’s Public Safety Manager. Why were they not consulted this time? And what about consulting Wembley Stadium, the residents’ associations for blocks of flats whose leaseholders use the crossing on a daily basis, or the owners of student accommodation buildings in the area? It’s almost as if Brent’s planners wish to avoid there being any objections to this application – but that can’t be right, can it?

In my opinion, the risk of death or serious injury at this location is too great for this application to be approved, so I have submitted an objection. If you agree with me, you can make your objection on the Council’s planning website for application 21/0379.

Philip Grant.

Guest post by Philip Grant ina personal capacity

Last week, Martin shared a Brent Council press release with you, which let people know that three tile mural scenes in Olympic Way would be on display between 10 and 28 March. 

This is not quite the full 21 days that the Council can request Quintain to uncover these murals during each calendar year, but it is probably the only opportunity for you to see them in 2021. If you live within walking distance of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway at Wembley Park, or have a valid reason to be there (for example, getting your Covid-19 vaccination at the centre in Fulton Road), I would encourage you to go and enjoy them while you can.

When I was told the dates (originally meant to be for three weeks from 1 March), I agreed with Brent Museum and Archives to help prepare a short video slideshow to promote the display. This has been shared with schools within a one-mile radius of Wembley Park Station. It lets teachers and students know that the murals will be on display, and tells the stories behind the sporting events at Wembley that the colourful murals celebrate. You can watch that video here:

In a guest post on 10 February, I wrote about a “dodgy deal” under which Brent Council had extended the advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge by an extra three years, until August 2024. I’m not in a position to comment further on that deal at the moment, but there have been some developments over the question of whether the England footballers (and twin towers stadium) mural scene in the subway can be covered with advertisements.

The footballers tile mural, with the lights of “light boxes” just visible at either side of it.

I wrote that I had contacted Brent’s Chief Executive, setting out why I believed that a clause in the lease, saying that Quintain’s Wembley Park company were entitled to cover that mural with adverts on many “Event Days” each year, was unlawful. Martin included a copy of my full “legal argument” document at the end of that article. I will ask him to do the same with the response I received from Brent’s Chief Legal Officer on 23 February, and my reply to her. I believe it is right that these are accessible to anyone who wishes to read them, and make up their own minds which view should prevail.

The position over the footballers mural has still not been agreed, but I hope it soon will be. I am now awaiting Brent’s reply to the following message, that I sent to Carolyn Downs on 25 February, headed “Resolving the issue over the Bobby Moore Bridge footballers tile mural”:

Dear Ms Downs,

When I wrote to the Mayor yesterday, to thank him for his warm comments about the heritage tile murals in a Brent Council press release, I mentioned that we need to resolve the point over whether there is consent to cover the footballers tile mural scene with advertisements. I believe that we can resolve that matter, today.

I have exchanged thousands of words with senior Council Officers on this issue, so far without agreement. However, there is a picture which answers all of the arguments, and shows what parts of the east wall of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway do, or do not, have advertisement consent:-

This drawing was an integral part of Advertisement Consent application 19/1474. It shows, in light blue, the fifteen 1.2 metre wide panels which are the 'light boxes to the east ... wall[s] of the underpass approved under planning consent 17/3840 for advertising purposes.'

That is the consent which Quintain applied for, and which was granted, in 2019, as far as the east wall of the subway was concerned.

Quintain's application, and its supporting documents and drawings, also made clear that 'a 9.4m long section of the original tiled mural referencing Olympic Way and the game of football located on the east wall is left uncovered.' 

That is the mural scene shown in the drawing, with 7 light boxes on one side of it and 8 on the other. Nowhere in the application was there any suggestion that this tile mural would be covered for part of the time, let alone any application for consent to cover that tile mural with advertisements.

I hope that Brent Council will now agree that Quintain / Wembley Park Ltd do not have advertisement consent to cover the footballers tile mural with any advertisements, at any time. The "entitlement" under clause 10.3 of the advertising lease does not exist without that consent.

I would ask you to ensure, please, that Quintain / Wembley Park Ltd are informed of those facts without delay, so that they do not make the mistake of entering into agreements with advertisers which would involve covering that tile mural illegally, either for the Euros football tournament in June / July this year or at any other time.

I would be grateful if you would let me know, please, with copy to the Mayor, that Brent Council's tenant in respect of advertising on the Bobby Moore Bridge has been informed of those facts. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

I will, of course, let “Wembley Matters” readers know the outcome of this dispute, although I think it is pretty clear, from the information and picture in my email message above, what the outcome should be!

Philip Grant

The emails - click bottom right for full page 

This was in the pond at the Kingsbury end of the park close to the Gaderbrook.  The ponds are pretty full at the moment, although past the peak when they were overflowing in the meadows and a contrast to the period last year when many (including this one) were completely dried up.

Toadspawn can also be found in the park and is laid in long 'necklaces' while newts attach their eggs singly on vegetation in the ponds.

 A new bidding window opened on Monday for groups and community organisations to bid for money from the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy for project to improve their area.  In previous years this money has been underspent.

The criteria have been reviewed and the theme for this round is 'Recovery' ..from the Pandemic.

Brent is divided into five ‘CIL Neighbourhoods’: Harlesden, Kilburn and Kensal, Kingsbury and Kenton, Wembley, and Willesden.  The total available is £2m with Wembley allocated £1m and the four other areas £250,000.  Already questions are being asked on social media as to why Wembley gets 4 times the amount allocated to other areas.  Previously the answer provided has been that the Wembley area's residents have been hit more by redevelopment.

Types of project

 

Help is offered for groups in preparing their bids and it is a good idea to contact your councillor to get backing for your project. APPLICATIONS CLOSE ON MAY 3rd.

 

 This is just a summary, full details and application forms are available on the Brent Council website  HERE 

 Below you can find a line of projects previously funded and completion details. Click bottom right corner for enlarged page.

 

We are delighted to announce we are reopening the club from 1^st April and our coaching providers from Tennis Icon UK have put together their summer course programme. We offer lessons from 4 years of age upward and for all levels. All of our courses are designed to be Fun, Educational & Inspirational helping to give you ‘The Winning Game’. We offer group courses, private lessons, competitive team tennis and social tennis too and pride ourselves on being a super sociable and friendly community club. You would be more than welcome to join us for a trial lesson before signing on as a member. To book a course visit https://www.tennisiconuk.com/coles-green-academy/ or contact our head coach, James Barry via email james.barry@tennisiconuk.com. We look forward to hopefully seeing you on court very soon!

Works taking place at present

A 2019 impression of the completed junction

In a statement to Wembley Matters, Brent Council has said that the restored junction of North End Road and Bridge Road, Wembley Park, is expected to open in late May:

We are working hard to complete the works as soon as possible. It is a complex project and there was an unforeseen delay due to discovery of an uncharted gas main and old pedestrian subway. However, we are working at pace to make up time and currently anticipate that there will be access from Bridge Road to North End Road from late May 2021.

 

In the meantime, the existing pedestrian diversion arrangements will remain in place, with access to Michaela School from North End Road near Victoria Halls.

 

We are in discussion with TfL about their signals programme. They are experiencing delays due to staff being furloughed, however, our current intention is to open the road up to local traffic late May.

Two vital motions were passed at Green Party Conference today with overwhelming majorities:

Winning Over Workers is Crucial to Fighting Climate Change

To win the fight against climate change the GPEW needs to link up with workers and trade unions to promote a Just Transition to a sustainable green economy. The GPEW needs to send the message that it supports workers. 

Motion 

The Green Party of England & Wales (GPEW) believes that winning over workers and Trade Unions is crucial if we are to have any chance to fight climate change and save the planet. In the UK, 6.35 million people (23.4% of employees) are members of the trade unions as well as millions who want to be in trade unions but are pressured not to. 

The GPEW need to win as many of these people to the idea of a Just Transition to a green economy. To not take this seriously would be a serious mistake in the struggle to save the planet. 

The position of Trade Union Liaison Officer was agreed by Conference a number of years ago and GPEW does have a good record of active support of workers struggles and supports the repeal of anti-Trade Union Laws. The development of Green New Deals and Just Transition in the trade union movement reflects this progress. So, it would be very concerning if the party is now seen to relegate workers. Removing the TULO position and/or not including the Green Party Trade Union group would suggest that workers are seen as not being important in our work. 

Action:

That the GPEW builds on the position of the Trade Union Liaison Officer (TULO) and the Green Party Trade Union group in any reorganisation mandated by its own democratic procedures. 

That the GPEW ensures that workers and a Just Transition are centre stage in policy formation in respect to our number one remit to save the planet and building the green economy. 

Emergency Motion on Pay Rise for NHS Health and Care Workers

The government proposed 1% pay rise for NHS staff is correctly being described as ‘a kick in the teeth’ and ‘an insult’ by workers and their unions (4/3/2021). NHS workers have often reached beyond their contractual duties to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, at great personal risk and sacrifice.

With NHS staff nearing the end of a 3-year pay deal, this conference resolves to support the Moving Forwards on NHS Pay campaign led by fourteen trade unions (including Unite, Unison, GMB, RCN) representing over 1.3 million members, to secure a fair pay rise for all health service workers. We believe if the government can award lucrative contracts to ministerial cronies, it can afford a decent pay award for health workers.

This conference also resolves to support the demands of the grassroots NHS Workers Say No to Public Sector Pay Inequality and Nurses United campaigns, including a restorative 15% pay rise across the board for all NHS workers on ‘Agenda for Change’ contracts and for outsourced services in the NHS to be brought back in house.

Conference urges Green Party spokespeople and councillors to support the fight for a fair pay rise for health service workers, and to make links with these campaigns locally, regionally and nationally. We urge Green Party members to engage actively with NHS workers’ independent trade unions in supporting these campaigns.

We instruct our MP, Peers and Leaders to write to the NHS Pay Review Body and make it clear that applause is not enough.

Brent Museum is hosting an online exhibition of images it has collected from the community during the Covid-19 pandemic. It celebrates the kindness and creativity of people across the borough during this most difficult time.

You can find the exhibition here, on the Brent Museum website.

Residents and workers in North Wembley are being asked to get tested following the discovery of a case of the South African Covid-19 variant in the area.

Everyone aged 16 and over who live or work in the enhanced testing area below are being asked to take a PCR Covid-19 test, even if they are not showing any symptoms.

This is to see if it has spread in the community and if so, to help contain it by asking all those affected and their recent contacts to self-isolate.

Those without symptoms are being asked to get tested at:

• Brent Civic Centre Testing Site (1^st floor), Engineers Way, Wembley Park, HA9 0FJ. Opening hours: 8am-8pm. To book: visit the online booking page.

Those with symptoms are being asked to get tested at either:

• Northwick Park Testing Site, Northwick Park Sports Pavilion, Capital Ring, HA1 3GX. Opening hours: 8am-12noon. To book: call 020 8937 4440 or book online at www.gov.uk/coronavirus.
• Wembley Testing Site. Large Car Park, London Road, Wembley, HA9 7EU. Opening hours: 8am-8pm. To book: call 020 8937 4440 or book online at www.gov.uk/coronavirus.

Home testing kits will be delivered to a small number of addresses and letters will be sent to these households letting them know.

Any positive cases will be examined to determine which strain of the virus the person has been infected with. This will help to see how far – if at all – the South African variant has spread in the community and to enable better understanding of this variant.

Those who test positive may be able to claim a £500 payment if they are on a lower income and cannot go to work because they are self-isolating.

Dr Melanie Smith, Director of Public Health at Brent Council, said:

A case of the new South African variant of COVID-19 has been found in North Wembley and cannot be traced back to international travel.

We’re encouraging all those living in the enhanced testing area to get tested so we can see how far – if at all – the virus has spread.

Not only will this enable us to find any more cases of the variant, but it may help us find more cases of Covid-19 in general, particularly from those not showing symptoms, and this will in turn help us reduce the spread of the virus in Brent.

It doesn’t matter whether you have symptoms or not, please do the right thing and get tested to protect your family, friends and community.

Professor Kevin Fenton, Regional Director at Public Health England London, said:

The UK has one of the best genomic systems in the world which has allowed us to detect the variant originating in South Africa here in North Wembley. I urge everyone offered a test to take it up to help us to monitor the virus in our communities and to help suppress and control the spread of this variant.

The most important thing is that people continue to follow the guidance that is in place – limit your number of contacts, wash your hands regularly and thoroughly, keep your distance and cover your face. If you test positive by any method, you must isolate to stop the spread of the virus.

For more information, visit www.brent.gov.uk/enhancedtesting

Brondesbury residents protested this morning as work was about to start on replacing paving with asphalt.  This is the latest of several protests over Brent Council policy which  the council claim is environmentally superior to replacing paving and safer for pedestrians.

 The counter-arguments to the policy were published HERE

Brent Council has published the Press Release below. I welcome the news as an ex-Harlesden (St John's Avenue) resident. The High Street, Craven Park and Station Road have a greater variety of shops than many high streets that are dominated (or perhaps 'were' after the impact of lockdown) by chain stores. Harlesden, when I was last there before Covid, had more wet fish shops than many a coastal town.  I remember an American friend visiting Harlesden fascinated by the architecture of the buildings above the shop frontages as much as the shops themselves. I hope that this project marks a positive change in Brent Council's attitude to our heritage.

Part of the High Street selected for  shopfront improvements

PRESS RELEASE

Harlesden is set to be transformed by a million-pound regeneration project after Brent successfully secured funds for a Harlesden Gateway High Streets Heritage Action Zone. Brent’s winning bid will create a scheme to improve the area and restore lost features on historic buildings in Harlesden town centre over the next two years.

The High Streets Heritage Action Zone is part of the £95 million government-funded programme delivered by Historic England to unlock the potential of 68 high streets across the country. The Harlesden scheme will help support Brent’s economic recovery and breathe new life into the area.

Historic England’s original funding award for the project was worth more than £437,600. Since then, they have offered a further £95,000 to support the programme.

Brent Council will match this with over £454,000 through a successful bid to the NCIL fund (Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy) which is funded by new developments in the borough, bringing the total investment to almost £1 million. 

The funding will help deliver:

• Shopfront improvements for a selected list of buildings on the stretch of Harlesden High Street within the designated conservation area (97-109 High Street). 
• External improvements to the former HSBC Bank building.
• A “how to” guide on shopfront improvements for local Harlesden businesses.
• Community engagement including a number of apprentices and workshops for young people.
• A local cultural consortium that will bid for revenue funding from Historic England to deliver a programme of cultural activity for the town centre during 2022 in celebration of its diverse heritage and communities. The internal renovation of the former HSBC bank building, which will provide a supportive space for young people run by the Refugee Support Network.
• The improvement of highways, two road crossings and pavements across six streets.

Cllr Shama Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning, said: 

We are really grateful for this £532,000 of funding from Historic England to deliver the High Streets Heritage Action Zone for Harlesden, and for the GLA’s funding in 2018 to undertake a detailed study of Harlesden through Hawkins Brown Architects, which helped to set the ambitions and vision for the town centre.

The funding is part of more than £5 million investment in Harlesden town centre, and the surrounding area, to provide community facilities, cultural events, workspace and general improvements from 2020 to 2022. This project will help create opportunities for the town centre, the local residents and businesses that are fundamental to its success.

Refugee Support Network has secured funding sources of over £1 million for the project. Catherine Gladwell, chief executive of Refugee Support Network, said: 

We are so grateful to have received such generous support from Historic England and from NCIL through Brent as we turn a disused bank into a refugee youth education centre and community hub. Thanks to Historic England, the exterior of the building will be able to be restored in line with its historic architecture and features, and, thanks to the NCIL fund at  Brent Council, the inside of the building will be transformed into a youth friendly space in the heart of Harlesden. We're delighted to be partnering with both organisations on this important community project.

Verena McCaig, Heritage at Risk projects officer for Historic England, said:

Every high street has a distinctive history that can be harnessed to help it thrive again. We’re excited to help deliver a High Streets Heritage Action Zone in Harlesden that will restore shop fronts and regenerate the former HSBC building - looking after and celebrating the places at the heart of our communities, and the buildings and public spaces which define their character.

View from Bridge Road - green marks proposed development

Changes in height proposed (click on image to try and enlarge)

Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday March 10th is at the earlier time of 4pm. This of course makes it hard for residents who wish to make representations about developments that affect them to attend. The main application submitted is for the North East Lands area which includes housing blocks, towers and a park. Watch the livestream of the meeting HERE.

Brent Council decided that the revision did not need to go out to formal consultation as it was already a consented application and the changes did not affect the overall scheme to a significant extent and so a Section 73 application was valid.

The revisions mean a reduction in height in some cases but as the diagram shows increases in others.

This objection summarises what many of the objectors had to say. Many were from existing residents of blocks in the area who have found themselves facing new developments which throw their building into shadow as the height and density increases.

I am a resident of Marathon House and I strongly object to Quintain's attempt to revise this planning application (no. 20/2844)

If accepted, the revision will permit the building opposite Marathon House (building NE03) to double in height from 60 feet to 120 feet, blocking any sunlight from coming in to Marathon House. Further, it will move the block 6.5m closer to Marathon House on what is already a narrow street.

I therefore object to the revision for the following reasons:

-The proposed change will significantly affect the quality of life and wellbeing of Marathon House residents whose access to sunlight will be blocked. A study commissioned by Quintain themselves even states that almost all windows in Marathon House will face a minor, moderate or major loss of sunlight from what has been originally planned under this application - this loss is in addition to the fact that Marathon House was already set to lose access to a certain amount of light under the original plans. From paragraph 4.3.50 of the Supplementary Environmental Statement, I can see that my property will experience a moderate/major loss of sunlight. 

- Further, the study does not take into account that Marathon House has balconies which extend out of the building. This means that the study commissioned by Quintain is not an accurate reflection of just how negatively the proposed change will impact residents - the real life impact will be worse. Moreover, given that Quintain are wanting to also move NE03 closer to Marathon House, residents will no longer be able to enjoy the privacy of their own balconies. 

- Clearly this is not a minor alteration - it is a material change and therefore warrants to be considered under a new application, not under a Section 73 application.

- There is absolutely no reason for Quintain to justifiably need this building to be so tall. It will not improve the area which has already undergone significant development. The changes evidently do not have the area's best interests in mind. 

- The Council should balance the negative impact on residents/the local area if the revision is permitted against the negative impact on Quintain if it is not. As already stated above, residents will lose sunlight, privacy and space, affecting their quality of life and wellbeing if this application is accepted. The area will suffer from being congested and aesthetically unpleasant. In contrast, if it is refused, the impact on Quintain is negligible, given in particular that they have already benefitted from the mass redevelopment of the area and will still be redeveloping the entire Yellow Car Park area. 

- The taller building will overshadow the much needed but limited green space in the area. We also understand that the size of the green space in the Yellow Car Park redevelopment is going to be significantly reduced, meaning the overcrowding in it has already been increased since the original plans were drawn up. There is no need to exacerbate this problem further. 

- The location of the tall building also makes no sense given its placement as against the new landmark Canada Gardens. Surely, the most logical place for such a tall building to be is on the same side as Canada Gardens on the outer edge of the yellow car park. It also detracts from the attraction of the stadium. 

- Typically, Quintain do consult with residents on developments in the local area with us and we have generally been quite supportive of their work. It is therefore extremely disappointing that we have not been consulted about this hugely material change - one wonders whether Quintain knew of the serious problem this would cause the residents and therefore tried to get the revision through quietly. 

- Quintain themselves have previously objected to the loss of light from the development of tall buildings on Watkin Road - it is therefore hypocritical of them to impose the same negative impact on others. 

- The Council should also consider that under paragraph 2.5 of the Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies, it is acknowledged that the development is required to create a high quality environment "addressing issues like space between buildings, privacy, outlook, daylighting, shadowing, microclimates and amenity space". Clearly, the revision proposed by Quintain will do the exact opposite. 


For the reasons stated above, I see no reasonable outcome other than to refuse this application.

The officers' report looks at the issue of 'protected views' of the stadium but as previously they find the impact tolerable. This is an example from the comparatively new Chalkhill Park (the green line represents the proposed development, the pink the comulative and yellow the emerging) As you can see one block rises up almost to the top of the stadium arch:

View from Chalkhill Park

The report does sometimes feel like gaslighting:

In Chalkhill Park  existing views towards the Stadium arch are partly obscured by trees and existing and consented tall buildings. At the position assessed in the 2018 ES, the tip of the tall building proposed on Plot NE02 would conceal part of the Stadium arch, however a new tree now obscures much of that view. Moving right of that position to avoid the tree, the Stadium arch is seen more clearly, though still partially obscured on either side by trees at the edge of the park. The proposed tall building on Plot NE03 would be set lower than NE02 and would allow the Stadium arch to be read fully above it. The taller element on NE02 would appear to the right of the arch and would be largely obscured by the trees at the edge of the park. The tall building outlined in green within the centre of the arch is the tallest part of NE05 (which is unchanged from the consented scheme in this application). The curved profile of the arch would remain clearly legible, and would dominate the view to the distance beyond the trees and tall buildings. It is considered that the visibility and distinctive character of the Stadium arch would be preserved.

A second cumulative scenario has been provided for the Chalkhill Park view  which includes two schemes which have a resolution to grant consent (Euro House planning application ref: 20/2033 and Watkin Road (Strawberry Star) planning application ref: 20/0587). The Euro House scheme would appear to the left of the arch. The Watkin Road (Strawberry Star) scheme towards the centre and right of the arch would almost fully obscure Plots NE02 and NE03. The part of NE02 not obscured by the Strawberry Star scheme would be set well to the right of the Stadium arch and would be almost entirely hidden by trees. The profile of the Stadium arch would still be legible on the skyline and the top of the arch would not be impacted by either the proposed scheme or the Strawberry Star scheme.

 Elsewhere the revised amount of sunlight in the proposed North Park is reduced from 99.6% of the area seeing at least 2 hours of sunlight to 91.5% - a reduction of 8.1% but still seen as 'adequate.'

Concern about loss of light to existing blocks is not seen as a serious issue in the wider context.  Here are some key points from the officers' report and the final conclusion:

Major regeneration projects will inevitably have an impact on surrounding developments and in many cases will lead to a degree of light loss. 

Notwithstanding this, proposed developments should be designed to keep any adverse impacts within reasonable limits. In terms of the design of the proposed development in relation to the surrounding developments, it is important to note the following: 

The proposed development would be set within an existing densely developed urban environment in which neighbouring developments are tall and built close to the edge of the footpath and the centre line of the adjacent road. This relationship manifestly reduces the amount of light these properties will receive when the surrounding area is developed. 

In December 2020, the applicant made a number of significant changes from the originally submitted plans (September 2020) which have had beneficial impacts on daylight and sunlight of neighbouring properties. These included moving buildings further away from neighbouring properties and reducing the height of some buildings. 

The buildings proposed along Rutherford Way would almost all be lower in height than those opposite. For example, Marathon House is 49.21m above ground level (82.5m AOD) whereas the proposed NE03 building directly opposite would be 33.72m above ground level (67.2m AOD). 

The buildings proposed along Rutherford Way be set back a greater distance from the centre point of the road than those on the opposite side of the road. For example, the main façade of Marathon House is around 10.9m from the road centreline, whereas the NE03 building directly opposite would be 14.6m from the road centreline. 

The building of NE01 would be set back a greater distance from the centre point of the Fulton Road than those on the opposite side of the road. 

‘Mirror massing’ is a recognised BRE assessment approach whereby the impact of a proposed scheme is compared to the impact that would be experienced if a ‘mirror image’ of the existing development were to be constructed. If the existing Rutherford Way buildings were replicated as a mirror image on the opposite side of the road, the impact on neighbouring daylight and sunlight would be worse than the impact of the proposed scheme. 

Whilst it is important to ensure that acceptable daylight and sunlight conditions are achieved for surrounding properties, full compliance with BRE guidelines is rarely achieved in dense urban locations such as this. Indeed, the BRE guidance itself notes that it should be taken as guidance rather than a rigid set of rules and the guidance was formulated to be most appropriately applied to lower density suburban environments rather than dense urban environments. The BRE guidance acknowledges (paragraph 1.6) that ‘In special circumstances, the developer or planning authority may wish to use different target values. For example, in a historic city centre, or in an area with modern high rise buildings, a higher degree of obstruction may be unavoidable if new developments are to match the height and proportions of existing buildings.’ 

CONCLUSION

The proposed amendments to the previously approved parameters plans would enable a revised scheme to be delivered which would provide a number of benefits over the previously approved outline plans. The proposed amended scheme is considered to be in keeping with the vision for how development in the Wembley regeneration area is to take place, and would introduce activity and vitality in this area whilst creating a pleasant environment along Rutherford Way and a welcoming link to the Northern Park. Based on the illustrative images, the building designs would deliver an attractive and contemporary scheme, the final quality of which would be secured through the submission of detailed plans at Reserved Matters stage and the approval of appropriate materials through condition.

An increase in the density of elements of the scheme through increased heights and moving building lines closer to existing residential properties would inevitably have some impacts in terms of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing levels for existing properties and the Northern Park. However, on balance, and taking into account the wider regenerative benefits of the scheme, it is considered that these impacts would be within reasonable limits and acceptable amenity levels would still be maintained.

Taken as a whole, the revised scheme accords with the relevant planning policies and guidance and it is therefore recommended that the proposed amendments set out within this Section 73 planning application are approved.

CHANGES IN THE NORTH PARK PROPOSAL

After this post was published commenters asked about the proposed North Park. The revised application makes the changes below:

 Initial Plan

Revised Plan

 Brent and Harrow Green Parties have launched a Crowdfunder to help Emma Wallace, our candidate in the GLA election, in her campaign. DONATE HERE

This election is held under a fair voting system so every vote counts, which makes it one of the most important election campaigns the Greens can fight.  

Greens have a great record of delivering on the London Assembly.  From getting the Mayor to declare a Climate Emergency to winning £45 million worth of funding for youth clubs.  Sian Berry and Caroline Russell, our two Green Party London Assembly members, get stuff done and we can get more Greens in the Assembly to do more!

We just need your support and hopefully your donations, because we are committed to using our platform in the Assembly to demand real change.  

We will fight for action on the climate emergency so we can create the greenest city in the world.

We have a clear plan to keep London moving. We’ll move past polluting cars and invest in the future of travel public transport, walking and cycling.

And we will bring fresh thinking to housing, aiming to make sure no one is struggling to put a roof over their head.  Every donation to this Crowdfunder is about reaching voters locally.    

In Brent and Harrow we need to reach and win over as many residents as possible.  Your donation will help us reach Londoners on social media, via the post and over the phone. 

We can’t rely on billionaires and corporate donors like the other parties.  We are a grassroots movement and your donations can help get our message through and win the support we need. 

Thank you so much,

Emma Wallace, GLA Brent & Harrow Candidate

CLICK ON THIS LINK TO DONATE

P.S. Because we're a political party

·       Please note all donations will go to Harrow Green Party to help our campaign to elect Emma Wallace to the London Assembly.

·       We're required to run permissibility checks on donations over £500. These will be completed as pledges are made. For the same reason, we cannot accept anonymous donations over £500.

·       If you make multiple donations to us, they may be aggregated for our reporting purposes.

·       Your details will appear in our election returns if valued over £500, and if you donate over £7,500 your identity will appear on the Electoral Commission website

Promoted by Martin Francis on behalf of Emma Wallace and Brent and Harrow Green Parties c/o 23 Saltcroft Close. Wembley, HA9 9JJ.

Despite the large number of residents' objections to Quintain's revisions to its consented plans for the North East Lands section of the huge Wembley Park development, there were no questions for a resident of Marathon House after he had spoken about its impact on the daylight and skylines of residents' flats. He claimed that the application demonstrated no benefits compared with the original consent. Furthermore, he suggested that by breaking down applications into small bite size chunks  developers masked the larger impact on the area.

The revisions increase the height and density of the development but move some boundary lines.

Having no questions the Committee moved on to the developer's agent who basically came out with rather a lot of what appeared to me to be greenwash.  He claimed that the loss of light to residents of Marathon House was neglible and their balconies already reduced light and gave the impression of a larger loss of light than was otherwise the case.

An officer said that the benefits of the scheme was more open space, a larger capacity park (they haven't increased the size but ditched the lake and replaced with a couple of ponds), an attractive public realm with trees along Rutherford Way and making it a car free development.

 Cross section of Rutherford Way

Officers argued that changes to the scheme would break up a potential 'canyon' on Rutherford Way between Marathon House (tower on right) and Unite Students on one side, and the lower Quintain development on the other.  The officers' report repeated the claim that loss of light did not matter in student accommodation as it was transitory. They argued that BRE guidelines allow for special situations in urban environments and did not have to be strictly applied. They spoke about 'mirror massing' when buildings on one side of the road mirror that of the other side. The implication was that this was avoided here.

Officers echoed the agent's view that the Marathon House balconies meant more loss of light than would be the case if they were not there. They said that the Quintain blocks were set back and thus further from the middle of the road than Marathon House.

Cllr Maurice pressed on the loss of light,   due to Covid more people would be working from home and there most of the time and loss of light could affect their mental health. An officer responded that the impact would be negligible on Marathon House and Unite Students.

Cllr Kennelly asked about the use of rooftop space and was told that although there was no detail yet it would be provided for amenity and bio-diversity to provide recreational and ecological benefit.  The officer recognised that that the area was 'somewhat of a concrete jungle' and has been so for almost 100 years since the British Empire Exhibition and it would be nice to reintroduce the biodiversity that had been there before the BEE (watch out for cows on the roof!)

Cllr Saqib Butt said that he could not see any additional benefit compared with the oriiginally consented scheme, there were no additional housing units and he could only see loss to  residents in the neighbouring blocks.  Officers again pointed to trees on Rutherford Way and more space in the park due to the reduction in the size of the lake.

Cllr Kennelly said that keyworkers needed housing and often needed a car for work.  Making this a car free development would exclude them. Lead officer David Glover said that there was a recent reduction in demand for parking and that people were unwilling to buy parking spaces. The development may not be suitable for such keyworkers and the Council recognised that there was a need for a range of different housing to cater for differing needs that would be open to keyworkers. Wembley Park was an ideal site for car free development being so close to Wembley Park station and other public transport with a very high PTAL rating. Kennelly expressed concern that increasingly key workers have to move out of the area and  travel in to work. They needed access to centrally located housing. An officer said that Quintain recognised the need to provide some central parking for those in car free developments such as Rutherford Way.

Lead officer David Glover, discussing the impact on Marathon House residents said that there could not be a 'who comes first has the final say.' system/  Merely because their development went up first occupants could not then decide what was built opposite them - such a polcy would tie the hands of developers and planners.  The revisions had an 'acceptable' impact on surrounding properties.

Leaseholders across the country have found themselves trapped in their homes as a result of the cladding and building crisis in the wake of the Grenfell fire.

In order to sell their homes leaseholders have to have an EWS1 certificate and this is not available if the building does not meet safety checks - they find that their home has no value.

While trapped in their homes they find themselves confronted with huge bills as the freeholder/management agency and the builders do not accept liability for the defect remediation. In addition they may also have to pay for additional meanwhile costs of a 'waking watch' fire marshalls engaged 24/7 to monitor the safety of the building.

The situation has left many leaseholders desperate and depressed but they have got themselves organised and are fighting back.

 Leaseholders in Brent and Camden have been in the forefront of the campaign to persuade the government to take urgent action on the situation. 

Join the meeting on Tuesday March 16th 6-7pm APPLICATION 

Information brentcladding@gmail.com

I was so glad that I ignored the wind and the rain and popped up Barn Hill this morning. I was rewarded with a mesmerising view of spawning in progress  on Barn Hill pond.  The pond was quite low last year but filled up over winter and there was more spawn than I have seen for a very long time.